RULING IMAGES: GENESIS OF THE IMPERIAL FORA IN ROME
A THESIS SUBMITTED TO
PLAGIARISM
I hereby declare that all information in this document has been obtained and presented in accordance with academic rules and ethical conduct. I also declare that, as required by these rules and conduct, I have fully cited and referenced all material and results that are not original to this work.
December 2022, 141 pages
Both Forum Romanum and the Imperial Fora witnessed the early stages and development of ancient Rome. The integrated complexes are analyzed in multiple layers which gradually overlapped over the course of time, carrying the marks of various changes and overwhelming events. Enriching the relationship between architectural history and other fields, a correlation in different scales of architecture concerning social life, political life and power is also scrutinized here. Underlining the significance of the “public” idea and how the Imperial Fora came to stand in the core, firstly an insight into the significance of the public, and its difference from modern-day perceptions is traced. The Forum Romanum as the former body is studied regarding bonds to power. Then, treating the forums as accumulations of layers over time, their meaning is examined together with their respective complementary artworks by highlighting the Forum of Augustus. Thus, the chronology and meaning of the trajectory from Forum Romanum to Imperial Fora are assessed.
Keywords: Ancient Rome, Republic, Imperial Fora, Images, Power
v
ÖZ
Hem Forum Romanum hem de Emperyal Forumlar Antik Roma’nın doğumuna ve gelişimine tanıklık eden önemli kamusal alanlardandır. Bu bütünleşik kompleksler, zaman içerisinde gerçekleşen değişimlerin ve iz bırakan olayların bir sonucu olarak kademeli bir şekilde değişime uğrayıp, tanıklık ettikleri olayların izlerini bünyelerinde biriktirmişlerdir. Tez çok katmanlı bu yapıların doğuşunu, fiziksel oluşumunu ve anlamını incelemeyi amaçlarken, mimarlık tarihi ve diğer alanlar arasındaki ilişkiyi zenginleştirerek, mimarlığın farklı ölçeklerinde sosyal yaşam, politik yaşam ve güç ilişkilerini irdelenmektedir. Kamusal alan fikrinin ve Emperyal Forumların merkezde olması vurgulanarak, kamunun önemine dair bir kavrayış ve bunun günümüz kamu algısında farkının izi sürülmektedir. Forum Romanum, Emperyal Forumlardan önceki kamusal alan olması nedeniyle, bünyesinde barındırdığı güç ilişkileri açısından incelenmektedir. Daha sonrasında, forumlar üst üste birikmiş katmanlar olarak ele alınarak özellikle Augustus’un Forumu üzerinden birbirini tamamlayan sanatsal objelerle birlikte analiz edilmiştir. Böylece, Forum Romanum’dan Emperyal Forumlara uzanan gelişim ve değişim çok katmanlı bir yapı olarak incelenmiştir.
v i
Anahtar Kelimeler: Antik Roma, Cumhuriyet, İmparatorluk, İmgeler, Güç
v ii
To my mother and father who are always there for me
vi ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
First and foremost, I would like to thank my advisor, Prof. Dr. Suna Güven, for her leadership, unwavering patience, and inspiring criticism during the development of this work. It would not have been possible to complete my thesis without her encouragement and support at each and every step of the journey.
I am particularly thankful to the examining committee members, Assist. Prof. Dr. Pelin Yoncacı Arslan and Assist. Prof. Dr. Aygün Kalınbayrak Ercan, for their significant suggestions, evaluations, and exceptional contributions to this work.
I will never be able to thank my mother and father, Mesude Öztürk and Ferhat Öztürk, sufficiently for their contributions to my thesis. During the most challenging periods and in every part of my life, they always supplied me with emotional motivation and unwavering support.
I also would like to thank my history of architecture lecturer, Bilge İmamoğlu, who has been an influential figure for me to develop an interest in history of architecture which helped me to start my journey with his inspirational lectures which, in the end, led me to have this thesis.
I'd want to express my special gratitude to my dear sisters Gökşen and Pınar, who were always there for me in times of need. They are my confidants and partners in crime.
Moreover, I will always be grateful to my friends Aysu Gürman, Kübra Öztürk and Burak Kök who have always been there for me with their emotional support and good wishes, which mean everything to me.
ix
I would like to extend my gratitude Gizem Güner who helped me during the most critical times. During my studies, she offered me her friendship and kindness which eased my worries greatly.
Last but not least, I would like to thank Yeşim Kutkan Öztürk for her unending help, guidance, and encouragement during the study's preparation and beyond. She was my lifesaver.
x
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PLAGIARISM ............................................................................................................ iii
ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................ iv
ÖZ ................................................................................................................................. v
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ......................................................................................... viii
TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................. x
LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................................... xii
CHAPTERS
1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 1
2. ETYMOLOGY OF PUBLIC SPACE AND SOCIAL APPROACH ...................... 8
2.1. Architectural Reflections of Social Life in Ancient Rome ............................... 8
2.1.1. Roots of Roman Culture ......................................................................... 9
2.1.2. Art and Architecture ............................................................................. 12
2.1.3. City ....................................................................................................... 15
2.1.4. Public Architecture / Monuments ........................................................ 20
2.1.5. Memory ................................................................................................ 21
2.2 City Planning and the Forum ....................................................................... 23
2.2.1 Roman City Planning ........................................................................... 28
2.2.2 Approaching Rome as a City ............................................................... 36
3. RE-DEFINING PUBLIC SPACE: FORUM ROMANUM ................................... 39
3.1. Genesis of the Forum Romanum ................................................................. 40
3.2. Re-defining the forum with architecture: Republican Political Power Display ................................................................................................................... 45
3.3. Spaces of Domination in Public and Self Representation ........................... 71
4. TRANSFERING IMAGES: FROM FORUM ROMANUM TO FORUM IULIUM ..................................................................................................................... 73
4.1. Perception of Space in the Late Republic .................................................... 73
4.2. Construction of Forum Iulium ..................................................................... 77
5. TAKING INDIVIDUAL CONTROL: FORUM OF AUGUSTUS ....................... 88
5.1. Forum Romanum in the Augustan Age ....................................................... 90
5.2. The embodiment of new ideology: Forum of Augustus .............................. 92
5.2.1 Movement in Forum of Augustus ........................................................ 99
x i
6. CONCLUSION .................................................................................................... 111
REFERENCES ......................................................................................................... 116
APPENDICES
A. TURKISH SUMMARY / TÜRKÇE ÖZET ....................................................... 130
B. THESIS PERMISSION FORM / TEZ İZİN FORMU ........................................ 141
xi i
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Plan of Imperial Fora ..................................................................................... 4
Figure 2 Topographic map of early Italy rendered by Diane Favro ............................. 9
Figure 3 Roman camp map according to Polybius ................................................... 23
Figure 4 Ostia map displaying two main roads and the forum area (adapted by the author) ........................................................................................................................ 30
Figure 5 Plan of Paestum rendered by Diane Favro ................................................... 31
Figure 6 Reconstruction of Republican Forum at Paestum........................................ 32
Figure 7 Plan of Pompeii ............................................................................................ 34
Figure 8 Study of the relation between the old public centre and roads (adapted by the author) .................................................................................................................. 35
Figure 9 Study of possible public spaces in Pompeii according to Roman city planning (adapted by the author) ................................................................................ 35
Figure 10 Topography around Forum Romanum (adapted by the author) ................ 40
Figure 11 Diagrammatic map displaying Cloaca Maxima and its relation in Forum Romanum during the 6th Century BCE (adapted by the author) ............................... 41
Figure 12: Sixth Century BCE Rome: Houses and temples along Via Sacra ............ 44
Figure 13 Plan of House A ......................................................................................... 44
Figure 14 Plan of buildings in Forum Romanum 450 BCE ....................................... 46
Figure 15: Forum Romanum topographical overview 200 BCE (The lettering of the buildings and the North sign were arranged by the author) ....................................... 48
Figure 16 Plan of the archaic Comitium, adapted by the author ................................ 51
Figure 17 Map showing the relation between Curia Hostilia and Comitium (adapted by the author) ............................................................................................................. 51
Figure 18 Curia Hostilia - 100 BCE ........................................................................... 53
Figure 19 Curia Cornelia (expansion by Sulla), 70 BCE ........................................... 53
Figure 20 Curia Julia, 44 BCE ................................................................................... 54
Figure 21 Curia Julia, plan (adapted by the author) ................................................... 55
xi ii
Figure 22 Overlapped diagram of Curia and Comitium relations in the Forum Romanum (adapted by the author) ............................................................................. 55
Figure 23 Regia in the Forum Romanum ................................................................... 57
Figure 24 Reconstruction of Regia, 36 BCE .............................................................. 57
Figure 25 Initial tabernae form .................................................................................. 59
Figure 26 Tabernea as a part of Forum Romanum .................................................... 59
Figure 27 Tabernae and Basilica Fulvia..................................................................... 59
Figure 28 Tabernae with changed contextual relations.............................................. 60
Figure 29 Temple of Concordia, 200 BCE ................................................................ 63
Figure 30 Temple of Concordia, 100 BCE ................................................................ 63
Figure 31 Temple of Concordia, 14 BCE .................................................................. 64
Figure 32 Temple of Saturn in Forum Romanum during early Republican ages ...... 65
Figure 33 Temple of Dioscuri, Early Republic .......................................................... 67
Figure 34 Early Republican Temple of Dioscuri in Forum Romanum ...................... 67
Figure 35 Ground-up reconstruction of Temple of Dioscuri, Late Republic ............. 68
Figure 36 Reconstruction of Temple of Dioscuri in its context ................................. 68
Figure 37 Temple of Vesta from the Regal Period .................................................... 70
Figure 38 Temple of Vesta in the Republican Period ................................................ 70
Figure 39 Portraits of Julius Caesar (44 BCE) and Pompeius Magnus (50 BCE) ..... 77
Figure 40 Theater of Pompey, 3D Reconstruction..................................................... 78
Figure 41 Plan of the Forum Romanum and Forum Iulium....................................... 80
Figure 42 Forum Iulium with the Temple of Venus Genetrix by Olindo Grossi ....... 81
Figure 43 Plan of Forum Iulium, rendered by Diane Favro after Senseney .............. 85
Figure 44 Forum of Augustus showing respective spaces representing individuals of power connected to Rome’s “fictionalized” history .................................................. 94
Figure 45 Plan with possible paths in different scenarios with destinations............ 100
Figure 46 Imperial Fora plan, highlighting the entrance of Forum of Augustus ..... 101
Figure 47 A glimpse to the interior of Forum of Augustus from the entrance, 3D model reconstruction ................................................................................................ 102
Figure 48 Diagramatic representation of spaces in Forum of Augustus (rendered by the author) ................................................................................................................ 103
Figure 49 Line of sight upon entering the forum space (rendered by the author) ... 104
xi v
Figure 50 A diagram of line of sight standing before Augustus's statue (rendered by the author) ................................................................................................................ 106
Figure 51 Reconstruction of the display of summi viri ............................................ 107
Figure 52 View of the exedrae ................................................................................. 108
1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
The thesis focuses on the representation of power through the Forum Romanum and the early Imperial Fora which can be described as the heart of public space in ancient Rome. The imperial fora played a crucial role in shaping politics and the minds of the civic people throughout the empire. Politicians enhanced their political power and their position in the minds of the people via images in public spaces such as the fora.
Images of individuals certainly defined their status in politics becoming their visual representations in public space. Through their representations in public, political figures of the Senate visualized their power via artworks and architecture. These representations were not only visualizing power, but they also constituted the memory of the space through centuries. Placing images in public spaces was not a new concept in ancient Rome. However, in the late Republic, the variety in the visual representation of political figures was at its peak which transformed into a new style during the early Imperial period. From the endless wars for power, there came the time when all power was in the hands of one person: Augustus. And the change in power was not only visible but also highly conspicuous both in the artworks and architecture.
Chronologically, the thesis concentrates on the Late Republic and early Imperial periods to trace the transformation of representations in public spaces specifically in Forum Romanum and the early Imperial Fora via architecture and artworks on different scales which work as complementary components to create a wholistic image and identity for the structures.
Imagery and image are among the more complicated and surely frequently used devices of communication in ancient Rome. Imagery can be defined as a language that
2
produces pictures in the minds of people reading or listening.1 Among the variety of tools, image can be considered as a part of this language which brings life to memories and creates meanings. It provides a bridge between the past and present, also constituting a means for representing power. For the living, it may bring out the memories or values of the people, but it may also be used for the commemoration of important individuals or events in the past which in this case serve to inscribe their memories in targeted minds. In this regard, image gains a crucial importance in contexts full of memories such as Forum Romanum and the Imperial Fora. In these two public spaces, there are two different approaches to memory because of the particular historical development of the spaces. Forum Romanum started to develop from 7th-6th centuries as the first public site.2 Thus, it had a layered and organic structure with overlapped images which makes the study of the image in Forum Romanum complex but also crucial for tracing changes that occurred in public space. On the other hand, Imperial Fora were conceived as a continuation of the Forum Romanum and built on vacant space in terms of image. Therefore, a discussion of the pre-existing image of public space for the Imperial Fora is not possible. Rather than a pre-existing image and related memory, a transfer of the image and memory between Forum Romanum and the Imperial Fora is studied in the thesis. During the investigation of images in public space, art and architectural components in different scales such as statues, reliefs, and ornamentations on the buildings are taken into consideration. Since all of these components carried an image or possessed material aspects that gave them meaning, a symbol, a statue, an ornamentation or the façade of a building may be referred as an image. Furthermore, image as a part of political and public space is examined in accordance with its relations to the power. Broadly speaking, images may be considered as visual representations. As a resulf of this study, an investigation to trace the changes in images during the transformation from Republic to Imperial Period is intended.
My examination of images of power focuses solely on the capital city, Rome. This is because all major official business, war and peace were decided in the power seat of
1 OxfordLearnersDictionaries (n.d.)
2 Mackendrick 1983, 63
3
Rome. The Senate which became the governmental body held meetings in the forum area in Rome. Furthermore, the temples and social life were also centred around the forum area. This multi-functionality of public space allowed citizens to intermingle and follow the developments occurring not only in Rome but also beyond. Thus, because of their role at the center of the Empire, art and architecture were used as tools for representations, bearing the marks of power. Hence, this study aims to make an assessment of the change in the imagery of power and architecture which gradually overlapped over the course of time in the Forum Romanum and the expanded public space of the early Imperial Fora.
Imperial Fora (Fig.1) may be defined as the assemblage of the five impressive forums built at the very center of the public life over the span of more than a hundred and fifty years by different emperors. These forums as a whole create an architectural unit, but individually there are five of them; Forum Iulium (also known as Forum of Caesar) was planned around 54 BCE but because of the events taking place during the construction and changes in the project, the complex was dedicated in 46 BCE3. The second component of the Imperial fora is Forum of Augustus which was built by Augustus in 2 BCE.4 The third one, Temple of Peace (also known as Forum of Vespasian) was dedicated by Vespasian in 75 CE as a symbol of his claim to brought peace to the empire.5 The fourth one, Forum Transitorium was built by Domitian and later dedicated by Nerva at the beginning of 97 CE.6 It used the space and old street area between Forum of Augustus and Forum of Vespasian. Being a long transitional space in between flanking spaces, the forum has come to be known as the Forum Transitorium. However, all efforts of designing a forum were completely overshadowed by Trajan's spectacular Forum which was dedicated in 112 CE by Trajan. The forum extended from Forum of Augustus, between the Capitoline and
3 Anderson 1984, 41.
4 Cass. Dio, Rom. Hist. 55.10.1-8; Anderson 1984, 66.
5 Anderson 1984, 101.
6 Richardson 1992, 167.
4
Quirinal hills, practically to the great works of Caesar and Agrippa on the Campus Martius which made the project “the crowning glory of the Imperial magnificence,”7
Figure 1 Plan of Imperial Fora
(Source: Yegül, F., & Favro, D. 2019. “Roman Architecture and Urbanism: From the Origins to Late Antiquity.” Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Fig 6.37)
In an overview of the whole complex, Imperial fora as a unit may be considered as the accumulation of the forums in different periods such as a growing organism shaped by the changes of periodic circumstances. Each individual complex has its own story to tell in this huge network of relations over a century. However, since the study addresses images and their transformation from the Late Republican to the early Imperial Period, among the five fora, only Forum Iulium and Forum of Augustus are examined here. Furthermore, in order to determine how the images were transferred to the later public space, Forum Romanum is studied in detail as the initial template in which images were born and evaluated.
Since the study of Forum Romanum includes a wide area overloaded with images, the examination of the public space needs a visual documentation displaying the changes over centuries. Although there is fragmented visual data in books, reports and some
7 Bunbury 2012, 117.
5
websites, these are scanty without sufficient consistency for the spatial interpretation of the entire forum space in a long-time span. Therefore, to facilitate such an examination, the Digitales Forum Romanum prepared by Humbolt University is used as a main visual source.
The thesis comprises five chapters. In Chapter 1, there is a brief introduction of the main actors: image, imagery and Imperial Fora as the site of the study.
Chapter 2 is examined in two parts describing fundamental Roman characteristics regarding public life of Rome. While the first deals with links between etymological roots and their architectural and cultural reflections in the society, the second correlates the previously introduced notions concerning the city. By addressing the Roman manner of city foundation, the latter aims to expose Rome as an overlapped city carrying the marks of former civilizations.
Chapter 3 is about the development of the first public space in Rome: Forum Romanum. The forum space includes both the religious and political spaces of Rome. Thus, a brief history of the spatial development of the religious and political spheres are presented by focusing on the sacred sites that were instrumental in shaping the forum space. Their relations to the political and social changes are signified. By doing so, the traces of power transformation via spaces are also highlighted. This part paves the way to understand the roots of power in space and their progressive transformation through architecture.
In Chapter 4, the change in the perception of space is highlighted in a detailed manner by constructing the links between Hellenism, architecture, and images. Here, the effects of Hellenism in the society are described in different scales. Architecture seen as the language of politics also changed its outward expression to adapt a competitive environment. For example, the act of building Forum Iulium was initially expressed as an extension of the existing forum area in line with the mentality of Hellenism. But because of the change in the political sphere during the construction process, the additions to the Forum Iulium transformed the complex into a declaration of his divine status as in Hellenistic culture. Hence, the endeavor may still be evaluated within a
6
Hellenistic mindset. However, conveying Caesar’s divine status also paves the way for Augustus’s ideology. In this regard, the link between Forum Iulium and Forum of Augustus is elaborated upon.
Chapter 5 concentrates on the ideology of Augustus and its ideological and spatial reflections seen in the forum complex. The imagery of Augustan production is examined in two parts. His first image is the basis of the Augustan ideology and imagery which connected him to Caesar as the “filial son of divi Julius”. However, after Augustus’s gain of sole power, he adopted a new identity and ideology different from Caesar. Now, he was not only son but the head of the Senate and the redeemer of the Republic. Thus, in this chapter the change in the imagery is traced along with his new appellation “Augustus” and his image as “Apollo”.
From the beginning, the Imperial Fora and Forum Romanum were related to each other as an initial stage of power. Later, however, Forum Romanum was not discarded or less important. It was still a public space in use. Therefore, the changes that occurred in politics and power left their marks on the forum space, as well. As a result of the sole power controlling the overall public space, previously unregular axes were re-defined by Augustus which changed the highlighted connections to power. The re- defined axes and their relations to the Julian dynasty are distinguished by new regular axes. The new experience in the forum space may said to be like a museum display putting the Julian dynasty in the forefront while other structures filled in the background. In this regard, the treatment of Forum Romanum may be said to be a part of the memorial chain continuing in the Forum of Augustus.
The Forum of Augustus is commonly noted as the center piece of Augustan ideology. Thus, the examination of the complex reveals the special emphasis given to images of power in each component of the overall complex by detailed analysis of built environments with their complementary artworks. In this chapter, special attention is given to each component of the complex by separate analyses of the structures. The summi viri as one of the most significant parts of the complex is further examined by providing the link between significant figures and the memory of Rome. It is shown
7
how in the bigger picture, a combination of multiple meanings and images brought together in one complex was presented by Augustus.
Lastly, Chapter 5 brings together the images, politics, religious and social layers in the embodiment of public space in which architecture played a key role creating the memory of public space. These memories were most evident in Forum Iulium and Forum of Augustus which paved the way for the Imperial Fora.
As a conclusion, the study shows how the images, representation, politics, religion and social life merged as one body in the Imperial Fora as a prominent public space.
8
CHAPTER 2
ETYMOLOGY OF PUBLIC SPACE AND SOCIAL APPROACH
2.1. Architectural Reflections of Social Life in Ancient Rome
In treating a subject in architectural history, especially one involving ancient chronologies, one of the most challenging issues is to understand the mentality of the period studied. When looked at from today’s perspectives and lenses, what kind of responses come forth to survive or what the people of a bygone age would be thinking as the result of an action in a society may be estimated or at best imagined. But in civilizations as old as ancient Rome, lifestyles, the way of thinking, or the consequences of an action in public may end in an outcome that is unimaginable in today’s mentality. Therefore, before embarking upon the examination of architectural spaces in the past, the mentality which brought them to life and made them the very center of the enormous acts shaping the history of ancient Rome is treated in this chapter. To understand the Roman way of thinking, it is helpful to study their culture along with other cultures affecting Roman culture from the origins, and the etymology of public architectural spaces and development through time. In this light, the crucial mission art and architecture undertake as a reflection of authority and glory will be better understood.
In order to obtain a clear vision, the investigation is conducted by weaving the information from different fields of study in addition to the backbone network of etymological and social data concerning social life and its effects. This part of the investigation first examines the roots of Roman culture, how and why Romans became who they were and then the topic moves on to the city. By narrowing the city down to the public areas, the Roman way of life is exposed further by highlighting specific concepts such as public/private and family perceptions.
9
2.1.1. Roots of Roman Culture
In ancient studies, the historiography of the Roman period constitutes a monumental corpus of academic scholarship along with that of the Greeks. Sometimes, popular thinking sets the Roman period as a definite starting point coming right after the Greeks. However, when looked at closer, the traditions and architectural roots of Roman civilization seen in Etruscan culture are traced back even way before. Due to the fact that there are still numerous less identified cultural influences and unanswered questions, in tracing the nature of connections, only more prominently known cultures like the Etruscan and Greek cultures are mentioned here. These come forth more frequently because of their material existence in the area (Fig.2) and their influence on the Roman culture. A short description of key aspects of their history and culture follows.
Figure 2 Topographic map of early Italy rendered by Diane Favro
(Source: Yegül, F., & Favro, D. 2019. “Roman Architecture and Urbanism: From the Origins to Late Antiquity.” Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Fig 1.3.)
1 0
To start with, Etruscans controlled the whole Italian peninsula which is now known as Italy during much of the first millennium B.C.E. They were named differently depending on who wrote about them. While they called themselves Rasenna, Greeks called them “Tyrrhenoi”8 Romans knew them as “Etrusci”. Their Roman name is the origin of the terms "Toscana", which refers to their heartland, and "Etruria", which refers to their wider region.9 Following the Roman way of addressing them, here, we call them Etruscans. In his lectures, David Soren states that although there are still unanswered questions regarding the origins of the Etruscans, there are similarities in tomb construction between Villanovans and Etruscans which may be traced back until the Iron age10. There is also material evidence suggesting that they were working with iron.11 Due to ironwork, they traded with neighboring and other civilizations and were in turn influenced by them. Greek pottery found in Etruscan tombs and literary evidence also reveal that they were familiar with the Greeks. Looking at their governmental system, there was no centralized power but similar to Greeks, they were organized in city-states ruled by aristocrats and kings.12 They reached the peak of their power around 750 BCE. They also ruled in Rome between 500-609 BCE.13 The most obvious influences of Etruscans in Roman culture may be seen in architecture and town planning as will be brought up later.14
8 Lewis and Short; Boethious. and Ward-Perkins 1970, 23.
9 Weiss (n.d.).
10 Soren (n.d.a). For more information see Ridgeway as cited in Cornell 1995, 46; Moser 1996, 30.
Although Mackendrick points to the similarities between artifacts found in the Etruria (p.23) he states that the difference in language and burial customs may be signifying their indigenous roots. For more information on prehistoric tribes in Italy and Etruscans, see Mackendrick 1983, 1-61 On the other hand, Boethius states that since the types of dwellings show great variety, referring to this phase as “Early Iron Age” in a generalized manner may be better. He mostly focuses on the development of cultural settlements and points out similarities and differences with Villanovans during his analysis but avoids specificity. See Boëthius & Ward-Perkins 1970, 13.
11 Staddort 2013, 3-12.
12 Pallottino 1956, 130-131.
13 Gates and Yılmaz 2011, 309-27.
14 For the influences of Etruscans on Roman Architecture and Town planning see Chapter 2.1. City Planning and Forum.
1 1
The Greeks, on the other hand, had a long history of ups and downs such as the downfall of the Myceneans and the re-emergence of Greece in the 8th century BCE as city-states. Greek history is usually treated in four periods divided according to the dramatic changes in cultural, social and political life which in return affected art and architecture: The Dark Age, Archaic, Classical and Hellenistic periods.
The period after the fall of Mycenean civilization was known as the Dark Age and it passed in poverty, migrations and disarray. Also according to the evidence, there was “..a pattern of small-scale, gradual migration from the Greek mainland across the Aegean to central and south coastal Anatolia during the Dark Age.”15 This migration also paved the way for cultural changes. The Dorians in Greece and the Ionians along the Anatolian coast blended their cultural practices with some characteristics of Minoan and Mycenean cultures which may give a reason as to why some of their development differed from Etruscans.16 Scranton states that by the end of the 8th century BCE, powerful economic, social, and political forces had begun to have far-reaching effects in shaping Greek culture. He also emphasizes some of the most significant changes such as the expansion of trade throughout the Mediterranean, particularly with Egypt and Asia; the development of the typical Greek political institution, the city-state; and a social revolution from aristocracy to commercial and proletarian oligarchy and tyranny to more sophisticated forms of Athenian democracy.17 In the Classical Age during the 5th century BCE, Athens reached its peak, with exceptional achievements in literature, architecture, and visual arts matched by political power and riches. One of the most well-known temples, the Parthenon was also built in the 5th century BCE. Thus, the term “classical” also appropriately reflected the highest standards in art which cover the 5th and 4th century BCE.18 Following the Classical Period comes the Hellenistic Period. Gates defines the Hellenistic period as the centuries of Greek domination in eastern Mediterranean and the Near East, even when Macedonian kingdoms quickly lost their way to non-Greek local control (as in
15 Rauh and Kaus 2017, 149.
16 Ching 2017, 101.
17 Scranton 1977, 23.
18 Ramage and Ramage 2005, 25.
1 2
Mesopotamia and further east)19. In terms of art and architecture, the period may be considered from the dominance of Alexander the Great to the time Roman power overcame the Greeks.20 Greece came under Roman rule in 146 BCE after the battle of Corinth. However, throughout time they were subject of Roman rule and later, their culture influenced Roman civilization heavily, especially in art and architecture.21
2.1.2. Art and Architecture
Since one of the major premises of this study involves a focus on the people’s way of living which took place inside and among artistic and architectural contexts crafted in Rome, it is appropriate to understand the concepts of art, architecture, and their respective meanings in ancient daily life. Although this section provides only a cursory glimpse into the role of art and architecture in ancient Roman life, the inclusion of the subject creates a base for the discussion that will follow. Doing this not only provides a perspective on function but also a vein full of multiple meanings and symbols gained from the interpretation of ancient lives.
In today’s perception, art and architecture are more compartmentalized when compared to what may meant for the ancients. In our modern times, terms related to art and architecture usually refer to more specific fields and objects resulting from current understandings. Although connections between art and architecture may be debated, the European system of classification of artistic production considers architecture as an art established beside painting and sculpture.22 However, when the
19 Gates 2011, 286.
20 Ramage and Ramage 2005, 25.
21 Boëthius and Ward-Perkins 1970, 115-116. Boethius states that “Consuetudo Italica” is a term used by Vitruvius in his fifth and sixth books to describe a new style of Hellenistic architecture which mixes Roman and Greek features of architecture with Hellenistic taste and creates something hybrid from their fusion. The appearance of a new architectural language with the unification of two different architectural styles points to how deeply Greek architecture affected Roman culture. However, he also signifies the Italic features in architectural language. Therefore, when the use of Italic characters is considered, this architectural style may still be regarded closer to the Etruscan roots. On the other hand, Zanker also points to the new architectural style created by the fusion of these two architectural styles. He specifically refers to the temple architecture of Augustan Rome as a “mixtum compositum” that is benefiting from both architectural styles yet surpasses them. See Zanker 1990, 254-263.
22 Marconi 2014, 9-10.
1 3
origins of both art and architecture are considered, it may be seen that compared to architecture, art is a relatively new field. In an etymological sense, the first use of the word “art” is recorded in the 13th century; Middle English, from Old French, accusative of ars, from Latin ars (nominative), artem (accusative) meaning “skill, craft, craftsmanship”23. But, as far as art (as workmanship or a field) is concerned, it may be traced back to ancient times. Yet it was only after the 18th century, during the Enlightenment, that art became an autonomous entity that was seen under a new light. Steiner also emphasizes the same problem stating that there was no equivalent of art even in Ancient Greece that could correlate with modern definition of art.24 Since art existed in ancient periods, then this signifies a necessity of different perspective and understanding to inspect art in antiquity. According to Steiner’s theory of art, there may be two main points regarding the nature and use of artworks. First, classical debates of art are centered on the viewer's interaction with the work, and no aesthetic item exists apart from its spectators and environment.25 This means that the context served as a background gains a crucial meaning in understanding the message the artworks convey. Second, these artifacts are socially embedded; viewing them is never autonomous, an end on its own, but becomes inseparable from other activities, frequently religiously oriented, but usually with a political aspect when a civic space or occasion frames the image or building that accompanies the encounter.26 The second point presented by Steiner puts architecture in a more fundamental role since the frame presenting the image plays a crucial role in the understanding of art. On the other hand, when architecture is examined specifically, as stated by Parcell, the roots of architecture can be traced back to the Greek word arkhitekton which was made up of two distinct units: arkhi- "chief" + tekton” builder. He also traces the equivalent word in latin “architectus” which has two distinct meanings: master builder and inventor.27
23 Harper (n.d.).
24 Steiner 2014, 22-23.
25 Steiner 2014, 23.
26 Steiner 2014, 23. In his discussion of theories of art Steiner highlights the importance of the context in which an artwork is displayed. This might be interpreted as the interchangeability of the meanings in artworks according to the context.
27 Parcell 2007, 32. For a detailed discussion of the evaluation of “architect”, see Holst 2017.
1 4
However in this case, master builder is a closer word to the definition of architect. When the definition of architecture is more closely examined, it may be seen that there were both artistic and technical sides to architecture, harmonizing with design and structure. There may not be a theory of architecture clearly expressing its perception in ancient societies because of its multi-layered features28 and deep-rooted history in ancient periods but to understand architecture, there are numerous ancient sources that might be consulted such as Vitruvius. His texts frequently give reference to Greek sources which shows common origins.29 But it is also important to note that although Roman architecture initially depended on the use some Greek features, they developed their architecture much further with the invention of new architectural elements such as arches and vaults. Vitruvius states three fundamental conditions and six rules for architecture.30 Especially in his explanation of “propriety” as one of the six rules, he gives references to the relation between architecture and environment, how the structure (in this case a temple) reflects its relation to the gods or what motives should be used. In the seventh book, Vitruvius also mentions the relation between image and architecture, and how the appropriate images should be used for the proper setting in the building.31 In this regard, it is also possible to say that architectural design was conceptualized and understood as an image in antiquity.32
On the other hand, when architecture is considered as an image representing certain individuals in public, this also provides a bridge between their existence and their patrons which defines architecture as a tool through which political authority of patrons were challenged. Thus, in the late republican period, violence against architecture were ideologically driven and they were the reflections of political reactions. These acts of violence were a type of cultural production, or antiproduction,
28 Architecture is presented as a multi-layered subject because of its close relation to both technical and social aspects such as the spiritual expression embedded in its body and political symbolism. For different perspectives on architecture in antiquity, See Russell 2015; Hersey 1989,11-45; Jones 2014 159-175.
29 Jones 2014, 43-44
30 Vitruvius 1.2 and 1.3
31 Vitruvius 7.5
32 Jones 2014, 353.
1 5
because they made up a counter language within the architectural discourse that, via the destruction of the built environment, subverted and avoided the language of power created by the privileged class.33 In other words, the dominated destroyed what the dominant constructed34 from which a display of political power could be observed via architecture.
Therefore, when the terminological genesis of art and architecture is considered, it may be stated that “art” as we know it today, is a relatively recent notion that cannot be considered in the frame of the ancient mind. As stated above, since they are both sharing common concepts such as the perception as an image and environmental relations to surroundings, it might be stated that both art and architecture came into being in a context to gain meaning or reflect an image to the spectators in the ancient period. Thus, in this thesis, “art” and “architecture” generally refer to the vast scope of crafts, images and buildings in a variety of scales created in the context of Greek and Romans cultures. In this study, selected examples are chosen and examined according to their importance in the context of the social political environment of ancient Rome.
2.1.3. City
As a basic living unit, the city provides a convenient stand to broaden our understanding of the ancient Roman lifestyle. An ancient city constituted a group of people, a society, sharing a religion, a cultural identity and living in a society distinguished not only by individual residences but also by public spaces and buildings for politics, religion, and trade.35 In other words, the city was a basic and necessary constituent to sustain life. So, a city, so-called “urbs” in Roman culture was one of the
33 Davies, 2019, 6.
34 Davies, 2019, 6. Davies also gives information and exemplifies the acts of violence in architecture such as demolishing the house of Cicero upon his exile which provides a clear understanding of the subject. She identifies these acts as ideological vandalism. These political and ideological reflections on architecture are crucial to understand the relation between patrons and architectural spaces. In terms of these reflections, Pompey’s theatre studied in Chapter 4 in relation to the Forum Iulium gains even more crucial importance because of how a political figure “permanently” left its mark by constructing the first permanent theatre in Rome.
35 Steingräber 2001, 8.
1 6
most basic organisms that made up ancient Rome36 while “agri” represented the life beyond the walls.37 Cities were the centers of life, trade, and the power source both for politics and the military. They were separated and protected from the outer world by the city walls which were one of the most monumental and visible architectural manifestations of the distinction between protected civilization and the wilderness. They were what hierarchically separated an ordered existence from the chaos outside. Therefore, as mentioned by Koortbojian (2011) the walls provided the two domains of influence in which legitimate authority and public auspices were held to obtain “at home” and “in the field” domi and militae, the specific territory of war and law.38 Laws written for military and civic spaces were arranged like two different spheres and as an architectural representation of these domains, walls separated them. Later as the result of the growing population, borders had to be changed. Walls had to be built to cover larger areas. In the earlier cases while walls were the borders of pomerium, later they become more like a symbolic separator or a reminder of civic life. So, the pomerium was the limit separating scopes of authority from each other such as the farthest point a general holding military power could reach, but it was also much more.39 Although pomerium was not a physically separated area in the later period, it was protected by augural law.40 It was the space blessed by the gods offering protection. Therefore, breaching this area meant breaking the laws of the gods. In this light, pomerium was a concept related to the beliefs of the civilization but also a governmental-related issue in the city, thus affecting architecture. Especially in the case of Rome, because of its gradual development in time, the border of pomerium in the city near the Campus Martius may have influenced the architecture developed in
36 Schulz 1975, 88. He also defines the relationship between city and landscape as a concretized cosmic vision and the town as a microcosm. The names orbis (the world) and urbs (the town), which have a close affinity (the city), show the same relationship.
37 Koortbojian 2011, 247.
38 Koortbojian 2011, 247.
39 Koortbojian 2011, 247–248.
40 Richarson 1991, 3.
1 7
that area but this issue will be examined in another chapter in terms of its effects concerning the development of the Forum area.41
Another distinctive feature of a city was the road which was acting like the arteries bringing life to the city and was also a regulator arranging how life was supposed to flow within the city. In Roman culture, politics, the military, trade, and religion were prominent components, all affected by roads. There were two fundamental roads used in Roman cities. Although a more detailed explanation of roads is provided in another chapter42, the names attest to their importance; Cardo Maximus and Decumanus Maximus. When the roots of the words are studied, it is seen that the words come from Greek culture which was also one of the most influential cultures on Roman art and architecture. Cardo Maximus was derived from καρδίᾱ, kardia meaning heart.43 This was the main road and located in the north-south axis on the city where shops were generally aligned. Thus, it was the economic center of the city bringing tradesmen, local shops, and civic life together, mingling them all to flourish life in the city. On the other hand, Decumanus Maximus was the east-west oriented road leading to the military camps. The name Decumanus or Decumani was a word of Latin origin for the “tenth” referring to the tenth cohort —used especially of the chief gate of a Roman camp.44 Therefore, the city was formed by the combination of two important features of Roman culture. At the same time, these roads divided the city into four sub-territories. These territories consisted of public and private components. What made these structures public/private? What was the perception of public and private in social life?
Hence, a look at the notions of “public” and “private” in ancient Rome would be useful here. But considering the difference and experience of life as an addition to the fact that language is alive and evolving in time with the civilizations, the English or even
41 For more information about the pomerium and Rome see Chapter 2.2.2 Approaching Rome as a City.
42 See Chapter 2.2.1 Roman City Planning
43 Merriam-Webster. (n.d.)
44 Merriam-Webster. (n.d.)
1 8
Latin meaning of the words may not cover the exact meaning of the terms “public” and “private”. Also, these words possess more than one meaning concerning the context in which they are used. But in an attempt to understand the notion of public and private in ancient Rome, etymologically, Latin words might provide a closer understanding: privatus (private) in Latin originates from prīvō meaning "I bereave, deprive; I free, release" and, as an adjective, it means freed, relieved or to be released something from.45 On the other hand, publicus as a contrasting word is contracted from populicus “the people” and in the adjective form, its meaning is “belonging to the people, to the State, or a community”.46 When these two contrasting words and their origins are compared, they may suggest being in the presence of community. However, as discussed by Amy Russell in her dissertation; the definition of “public” and “private” is not indicative of totally separate notions such as black and white. There are areas where they overlap and juxtapose. In literary evidence, the meaning of the words may change according to the context argued. Thus, providing an absolute definition for private and public may not be possible in terms of social life.47 Similarly, it may be difficult to approach the architectural aspects of Roman life with specificity. In order to examine private and public use of domestic space, Rigsby conducted an investigation on the notion of public/private in Roman culture and focused on the cubiculum – a private room in a domus - as a case for his investigation.48 Based on his investigation in literary texts, he notes that a cubiculum is not a strongly gendered space but it also does not equate a certain function. According to the research, although use of the spaces in the Roman house may also be related to the size of the space, there are also questions regarding the sleeping arrangements of slaves and the room for children, as well. So basically, Riggsby concludes that even though the cubiculum gives a sense of privacy, the notion of public and private can be related to the system of Roman political culture, a culture engrossed in amplifying social order and keeping it inside noble houses.49 Therefore, there was not a certain explanation solely
45 WordSense Online Dictionary (n.d.a)
46 WordSense Online Dictionary (n.d.b)
47 Russell 2011, 4-9.
48 Riggsby 1998, 37-56.
49 Riggsby 1998, 37-56.
1 9
depending on public/private concerns. In Greek architecture, cities give some ideas about how to approach private and public spaces in Greek culture. In a polis, there were some typologically characterized structures such as stoa, sanctuary, temple, the bouleuterion which were all located in public space50. There may also be a line drawn for public and private affairs regarding Greek houses. Although there are different views in scholarship, apparent distinctions may be determined between household members and visitors.51 But in Roman architecture, even when the scale of investigation is scaled down, there are miscellaneous instances of overlapping implications. Therefore, the term “public” is used here in a more neutral aspect and simply defined as an “accessible area”.
Going back to the formation of Roman life, the city was divided into residential and non-residential sub-regions. Among these regions, a central area including a forum -just like a heart - appeared at the intersection of the two life-giving roads passing through the city: Decumanus Maximus and Cardo Maximus.
At the intersection of these two roads was the most public area of a city where various buildings and outdoor activities were located. Comparing all spaces in the public area, the most visited area in a typical Roman city was most probably the forum. But the function of the forum may not be defined by only one function or one building. People could go there for miscellaneous reasons such as business, could be visiting for entertainment or mingle with the other people to socialize. Resulting from such multi-functionality, the space may be considered as one of the most public areas composed of both built and open spaces.
Beyond multi-functionality and having a variety of spaces in one structure, the forum area was of utmost importance in providing not only for fundamental needs but also entertainment which was just as crucial. According to Juvenal, people living in the city were only interested in “bread and circuses”.52 Furthermore, these events were also a
50 Lawrence 1967, 250.
51 Trümper 2007, 323.
52 Adkins and Adkins 2004, 385.
2 0
way to bring people together, giving them a sense of togetherness and display their power.53 Considering the time spent in these spaces, the area gained additional meaning as a platform providing communication between the Senate and the citizens. In time, the forum area was filled with large-scale buildings, or monuments which were the bearers of the messages conveyed by important figures.
2.1.4. Public Architecture / Monuments
To focus on the central public space of a Roman city, forums, monuments, and temples may be mentioned as fundamental structures. These were strategically located to make connections to the prominent persons and spaces. Moreover, they also served to immortalize the patron of the monument, giving the individual a voice among others. Considering that only very powerful politicians and victors of the wars were allowed to build, even being able to build a monument was a significant performance.54 But one of the most important questions about monuments is “What was their function besides their apparent presence in the space?” What was the origin of such a tradition? In defining what a monument is, it appears as a rather common term used by Romans for grand buildings.55 As such, temples, the domus, and so on, may also be considered “monuments”. Their mission served to maintain the memory of an individual who constructed them. As a function, the preservation of memory was a very common practice in Roman civilization. People kept portraits and trophies of deceased family members, commemorating significant achievements of their lineage in the most visible
53 Zanker explains the mechanism between entertainment, space and politics as a coherent system of spaces and rituals for the citizens through which some components of what we would term "free time" and "entertainment" for a wide range of social groups were culturally charged and elevated. He then relates the origins of this tradition to the republican period of triumphs and points out that people were able to claim gifts from powerful. This may be interpreted as people’s unification in sharing the power with the power holders through rituals in space. For more detail, see Zanker 2015, 45-87.
54 Building was a crucial means to promote Roman citizenship and a way of life. Therefore, building created an opportunity to do so. However, building for the public was strictly regulated by the senate and subject to special permissions. First, only elected officials commissioned public buildings. In this light, for people building in the public space, it can be stated that they must have a huge influence on the senate to get permission. See Davies 2017, 1-3
55 Onians 1999, 181.
2 1
spaces of their domus.56 A prominent example for preserving memory may be Augustus’s house. “Its entrance was decorated with wreaths of laurel and oak and a golden shield, all symbolizing different achievements.” 57 As a whole, the decoration and memorials in the house may be interpreted as a monument of Augustus, displaying his memories.
Besides memory, another interpretation of the monument (monumentum in Latin) may be derived from the origins of the word. When the root of the term is analyzed, mon- originates from the root sign-, ‘mark’, ‘sign’.58 Deriving from the meaning of the origin, monuments may be interpreted as the enduring marks of individuals who were to be remembered even after death. For those with minor achievements, memories were created in their homes for visitors to see, but for powerful politicians, the heart of the state became the receptacle of their memorial marks to show all. As a grand declaration, monuments thus immortalized and kept politician’s memories for all to see and perpetuate. The forum area was the key position for the declaration of such a power in the political arena of the state. With the people spending their days for all purposes in daily life, the forum area provided the ideal venue for remembrance while architecture became the instrument for inscribing individuals into the memory of the Roman state permanently
2.1.5. Memory
The relationship between Romans and memory as a connection to their identity signifies that not remembering the past may be the cause of loss of identity or even destruction of society. Deriving from this crucial mission, Gowing also defines memory as a dangerous feature for Romans and states that because of its danger, the ability to manage memory was a crucial part of political power.59 On the other hand,
56 Dooman 1999, 73. The author also relates the representation and memory of the ancestors as a value of Roman culture. The ancestors were not only remembered for their glory, but their memory also reminded people their values, creating an exemplary model.
57 Onians 1999, 181.
58 Onians 199, 181.
59 Gowing 2005, 2.
2 2
Galinsky opens Memoria Romana with the very powerful statement "Memory defined Romans" and then explains how memory was connected to history in different forms through practices by different prominent figures of history, such as Vergil’s Aeneid..60 His definition of memory and history in different forms definitely shows how Romans used available tools in their hands to perpetuate their memories in history.
Memory was passed on to the next generations in a number of ways including literacy or rhetorical practice. Because not many people were able to reach written sources, rhetoric may be named as one of the effective ways to keep “cultural memory” alive.61 But while rhetoric was important, it could change over time. On the other hand, architecture was a more efficient tool, because of its lasting presence in space. And architecture had typological variety in preserving the memory. These memories in return also shaped the memory in spaces which also affected the cultural or “collective” memory and identity of Rome. Statues, victory columns, and temples may be given as examples of some structures for memory commonly seen in the public space.
One of the most significant and efficient uses of memory may also be observed in the organization of the military camps and their system of markings. An army camp had to be efficient in order to solve any internal issue with proper management. Onians states that Romans maintained such management via markers and explains that an outline of the camp was created with a row of markers which drew the fundamental outline of the camp; white markers for the consul’s tent, red ones for the other principal segments which that soldiers were able to read signs and understand the placement of the camp and their tent’s location within the camp 62
60 Galinsky 2014, 1.
61 Galinsky 2014, 2,
62 Onians, 1999, 166-167.
2 3
Figure 3 Roman camp map according to Polybius
(Source: Onians, J. 1999. Classical Art and the Culture of Greece and Rome. New Haven and London: Yale University Press. Fig 128)
2.2 City Planning and the Forum
Order was significant in Roman civilization. Effective instruments for order were messages conveyed by images. People who were part of the civic life in Rome were able to read symbols or messages conveyed by architecture or other kinds of tools produced by the authorities.63 This orderly approach was applied in every aspect of life including city planning. Roman identity cannot be explained only by depending on explanations of symbols or structures they used for expressing who they were. Identity through memory was deeply engraved in Roman life deeply. Hence, it has to be studied in conjunction with other aspects of daily life in order to be able to have an insightful investigation. Also, as an approach towards studying complex structures
63 Neudecker 2014, 354.
2 4
such as the imperial fora and Forum Romanum, looking at the development of the city provides the advance to take a glimpse from an upper scale and will give a clearer picture on some aspects of this investigation.
Firstly, when the general frame of city planning in ancient Rome is considered, it must be mentioned that the planning of cities played a crucial role even in the Roman strategy in the art of war. Romans were known to be proud of their cities, their well-built roads and their connection to the world.64 The consequent expansion of the Empire following the organization of an urban center for further victory, defense and authority and these aspects of the cities came together in helping Rome to spread their civilization further.65 Therefore the planning of cities functioned as a feedback system where Romans were enabled to further mobilize soldiers and food to help in the condition of war. However, it is not only rational decisions that define city planning in ancient Rome. There are also myths, stories and rituals justifying the location where the city was built. Therefore, to be able to explain general aspects of city planning, this study starts with the traditional city planning of previous civilizations occupying the land and after explaining how Romans used this beginning to plan their cities, it moves to other city planning cases conducted under Roman rule. In this light, we are enabled to see the general frames of the usual process for city planning in ancient Rome. Hence, Rome will be studied in terms of its historical development in several aspects because it is a city where the process of planning was more complex due to its long history.
When the long-standing history of ancient Rome is examined, it is seen that there had been other civilizations long before Romans on the landscape of the city itself and its neighboring territory. To understand the basics of Roman town planning and features adopted by Romans, it would be better to mention the approaches in Greek and Etruscan civilization first since they were the predecessors living in the area and cultivated a certain culture which was passed on to the Roman people. When the history of the Italian peninsula is considered, it may be seen that by the 7th century
64 Thomas 2007, 127.
65 Sewell 2010, 9.
2 5
BCE, the land where Rome rose upon already carried the signs of rather complex city formations.
In Etruria, central Italy, the southern parts of the peninsula and Sicily, Greek communities were so widespread that the land was known as Magna Grecia, in other words, Greater Greece.66 Greek communities in the area were connected to the homeland in Greece and acted like stations to acquire necessary materials via trade.67 Greek cities stood out with their strong walls following geographical and topographical features to ensure the safety of citizens and established communal components such as temples and public spaces. Inside the walls, cities were laid out in an orthogonal grid dividing the land in an egalitarian manner. This approach to city planning comes from both theoretical and practical considerations, including those necessitating the division of the city zones for practical use or giving every citizen an equal visibility in the city. Cities such as Metapontum (c. 690 BCE), Posedonia (Paestum, c. 600 BCE), and Selinus (c. 628 BCE) may be given as examples of cities carrying characteristics of Greek city planning in Italy. Although in most of the cases, Greek city planning is explained in relation to rationality and functionalism, Alan Waterhouse explains the Greek understanding of the land in relation to God and Nature.68 He states that interpreting an ancient city solely through rationality and function will only get people halfway there, and he relates the trouble in the interpretation of old cities to overlooking spirituality which was a fundamental concern in the ancient lifestyle.69 Waterhouse also emphasizes the fact that according to the Hellenistic mind, the concern with the actual use of objects was never associated with purely technical reasons. As a result, it may be said that Greeks did not want to disturb nature and followed a sacred approach to the land by using order during the construction of their cities. According to this approach, they divided the city into
66 Yegül and Favro 2019, 13.
67 Yegül and Favro 2019, 13
68 Waterhouse 1993, 95-123.
69 Waterhouse 1993, 95-123. Although Greeks are known for their obsession with math, geometry, and science, it also should not be forgotten that their obsession was caused by their search for the perfect which was divine perfection. George Hersey also discusses how the savagery of ancient life contributes to the creation of expressions in architecture during the Archaic Period. See Hersey 1989,11-45.
2 6
regions which also supported an equalitarian perspective in governing, but it also has to be noted that there is no one certain conclusion regarding under what kind of an influence the cities were built.70
On the other hand, Etruscan civilization is still imperfectly understood, and their cities are not fully preserved. Some of the cities were already inhabited and altered by the occupants, while some others were buried under new ones. Thus, the information about Etruscans derived from these remains and the marks left by the Romans after them is limited. In line with Alan Waterhouse, Fikret Yegül and Diane Favro also state that the creation of cities in antiquity was not only a militaristic and pragmatic act but also a religious one.71 Etruscans were held in high esteem due to their skill in defining ritual spaces for divination and purification. They counted on disciplina etrusca which explains the proper handling for establishing cities, calculating time and other tasks.72 It is generally known that Etruscans divided the sky into four parts with two orthogonally intersecting lines. They were known for their orthogonal town plan which mainly consists of two main streets crossing each other at right angles in the center of the city. Also, according to the sacred texts preserved into Roman times, a conventional Etruscan city should have a defined plan with three gates, three temples and three main streets.73 However, not all the features carried similar traits. Among those three streets, one of them acted as the core and dominated the others. Also, the three temples were said to be built for three divinities: Jupiter, Juno and Minerva. It may be seen that during a ritual, all these features were adhered to by the acts of the people establishing the city. Accordingly, the person performing the ritual subdued a bull and a cow to the plough and then dug the boundary of the city. At the points where the gates were to be, the plough was stuck up from the land so that there were openings in the sacred land where people and their possessions could enter the city. According
70 Alan Waterhouse explains the relation between construction of Greek cities and landscape. He then gives examples from different ancient cities such as Miletus and Pergamum, see Waterhouse 1993, 95-123.
71 Yegül and Favro, 2019, 14.
72 Yegül and Favro, 2019, 14.
73 Yegül and Favro, 2019, 14.
2 7
to Gates and Yılmaz, no Etruscan city has yet displayed all these features, but they can be seen at Cosa which is a Roman colony in Etruria in 273 BC.74
When the planning of a Roman city is considered, it may also be suggested that Romans adopted Etruscan city planning rituals at an early date which is also signified by the connection of augury and mapping in Roman city planning. Although Vitruvius does not provide detailed information about the relation between the establishment of cities and foundation rituals, he clearly notes how extracted livers were studied before the inauguration of settlements or camps.75 There is no doubt that the function of such examinations is similar to that of augury which involves the interpretation of the movements of birds for good or bad premonitions. According to ancient evidence, it can also be said that the scheme at the centre of the rite of augury affected the organization of city, camp and temples. According to Onians, the augur’s templum minus or auguraculum was marked out as an enclosure divided by two lines crossing at right angles. While temples took over both the name templum and the rectangular enclosure cities, camps were typically laid out around the cross pattern of cardo and decumanus.76 These two roads provided the indispensable connection to the features that a Roman city’s survival depended on: trade and the military. While trade kept the city alive, the military connection provided a feedback system allowing a constant connection to the camps, thus it acted as a back-up whenever needed. Furthermore, there was also a public space defined at the intersection point. These spaces also allowed citizens to intermingle with each other and other traders in the region. Therefore, it may be speculated that there was a divided, but also a multi-layered approach in Roman city planning. However, because sacred aspects were also included, the inhabitants regarded their city as more secure, stronger, and hallowed. Also, it has to be stated that a similar approach was adopted not only for cities but also for temples and military camps.
74 Gates and Yılmaz 2011, 319.
75 For the information regarding the inauguration of settlements see Vitruvius 1,4,9 and 10.
76 Onians 1999, 173. Schulz also talks about augury as a ritual for establishing a Roman city. He then refers to the similarity between the two main axes determined during the ritual and two main roads intersecting in city centers through which conquest of the landscape occurred as a result of a predetermined cosmic order, "in accordance with the gods". Schulz 1975, 84-88.
2 8
When the manner of planning cities, camps or temples is compared between Romans, Greeks or Etruscans, it may be said that there are distinctive features of each peculiar to their own culture. For Romans, it may be seen that in their city planning there are some similarities to both Greek and Etruscan cultures. While it is known that in their early years, Romans borrowed Etruscan city planning rituals, the use of two main intersecting roads at the center is a common feature shared by both cultures. Romans defined a public space at the intersection of the two roads and exhibited a more layered approach to the city by dividing it into sub-regions and public spaces. Thus, it may be speculated that this more layered and regionalist approach brings Greek city planning to mind. Because of the scarcity of material evidence, Etruscan city planning will not be mentioned further here but from the information presented above, it may be concluded that there are common elements in the city planning of all three cultures which shows that Romans adopted elements of planning from the other two. On the other hand, Nancy and Andrew Ramage state that Etruscan and Roman art may have originated from similar roots since both cultures originated and developed in the early Italic culture and were influenced by the cultures such as Greek colonies in the area and from the near east.77
2.2.1 Roman City Planning
As Romans developed and further expanded their borders, the identity of the cities under Roman rule differed greatly. Some existed already before Romans took over. So, Romans had to adapt to the conquered territories with modified cultural characteristics. On the other hand, following the natural growth of the Roman population and developing trade, some cities were directly founded by the Romans. Therefore, it must be stated that cities under Romans often carried the transformed characteristics concerning Roman identity. This section aims to highlight the similarities and differences between the cities under Roman civilization and Rome as the capital of the Roman Empire. Therefore, three cities under Roman rule coming from different backgrounds are analyzed to understand how Romans integrated their identities into an already existing town.; Ostia, Paestum and Pompeii. Ostia represents
77 Ramage and Ramage 2005, 57.
2 9
an industrial city which started as a castrum and later turned into a town. While Paestum, Greek originated city, and Pompeii, a Samnite city, are two cases displaying different characteristics but ended up as adapted cities under Romans.
To start with, a city that was founded under Romans, Ostia was a town located on the seaside. It was an early gridded castrum close to Rome and its foundation was intended to protect the entrance of the Tiber River from the sea raiders78. Since it was on a land on the banks of the river, only 25 km from Rome, it was accessible by large boats and a highway79. Considering its importance for defense and trade, the city became crucial for Rome and thrived. Looking at the city’s history, after the sack of the Gauls and coastal sorties by pirates, approximately three hundred citizen colonies settled in Ostia’s previously founded castrum. In the plan of the city, two main streets were located between the gates which divided the city into four sub-regions. As the characteristic of a Roman town, a public space developed at the intersection of these two roads along with temples for the three supreme gods: Jupiter, Juno and Minerva. The city developed around these primarily Roman features. However, the two main roads; decumanus and cardo were not as regular as in a properly planned city since Ostia was constructed around the old castrum and numerous streets followed the alignment of old roads.80 In the mid-2nd century BCE, the city already outgrew its previous borders. When the walls of the city were re-built after a series of attacks, new walls were almost thirty times larger than the previous one which shows how much the city had developed later.81 The outline of the old city walls surrounding the old castrum can be seen around the public space highlighted with gray in the Figure 4. But in the overall planning of the city, all Roman characteristics were visible.
78 Aldrate 2004, 203.
79 Sear 2021, 122.
80 Sear 2021, 122.
81 Yegül and Favro 2019, 36-37.
3 0
Figure 4 Ostia map displaying two main roads and the forum area (adapted by the author)
(Source: Sear, F. 2021. Roman Architecture. London and New York: Routledge. Fig. 6.15)
Moving on to Paestum, it was not a city built by the Romans but re-named by Romans after taking over the city. It was originally a Greek foundation named Poseidonia. Founded by migrants from the south Italian Greek colony of Sybaris in 600 BCE82, it was later conquered by Lucanians. According to Yegül and Favro, Lucanians who were Roman colonists, discovered an already organized settlement with urban elements such as a regular grid layout and three huge Doric temples. Therefore, rather than destroying and rebuilding the city, they incorporated Roman features into the existing city while repairing city walls.83 They also added customary Roman features such as the atrium seen in the houses. As seen in Figures 5 and 6, Romans built their own temples in the civic center and next to it was the Comitium. According to Yegül and Favro, the characteristics of the Forum Area recall Greek affinities. One of the most outstanding characteristics of Roman culture is a very definitive relation between the Comitium and Senate house in the fora. In Paestum, unlike northern Republican Roman cities, the round assembly space was located in front of a lengthy structure
82 Gates and Yılmaz 2011, 311.
83 Yegül and Favro 2019, 43.
3 1
with numerous rooms, rather than a more visible senate house in the middle.84 Therefore, the city center in Paestum may not be identified as typically Roman in design but rather an adaptation of a Greek city into Roman culture.
Figure 5 Plan of Paestum rendered by Diane Favro
A. Temple of Athena,
B. Amphitheater
C. Piscina/Gymnasium
D. Temple of Poseidon
E. Temple of Hera (Basilica)
(Source: Yegül, F., & Favro, D. 2019. “Roman Architecture and Urbanism: From the Origins to Late Antiquity.” Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Fig.1.29)
84 Yegül and Favro 2019, 43.
3 2
Figure 6 Reconstruction of Republican Forum at Paestum
A.Shops
B.Carcer
C.Comitium
D.Italic Temple
E.Piscina of gymnasium
F.Market
(Source: Yegül, F., & Favro, D. 2019. “Roman Architecture and Urbanism: From the Origins to Late Antiquity.” Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Fig.1.30)
Pompeii is the last town examined in this section. It was located at the mouth of the Sarno River which facilitated connection with other cities. This also explains the city’s favorable position in trade as a center.
Another widespread feature of life in Pompeii was farming which can be explained by the sizeable fertile soil as the result of volcanic lava from Mount Vesuvius. But this feature of the city was present even before Romans during the Samnite period dating from the 4th century BCE until the 80 BCE when Romans took over. As explained by Carafa, archaic Pompeii was “a settlement with wide open, undeveloped spaces with occasional wooden structures and some soft lava masonry buildings.”85 There were two exceptional structures in contrast to the rest of the context in archaic Pompeii: the
85 Carafa 1997, 13–31.
3 3
temple of Apollo and the Doric temple which was later called Triangular Forum (Fig. 7).86 According to Anderson, on the east side of the city, grids shift, as an attempt to adjust city grids into the existing Greek agora and town planning.87 Hence, changes in the city plan appear to follow and adjust to the growth of the city over time. However, it is interesting that in the city plan of Pompeii, the first orderly grid plan and the first construction of the forum date to the Samnite period which was the part indicated as the original city. Findings from the excavations of the forum area by Larry F. Ball and John J. Dobbins caution against Anderson’s argument and reveal that the grid system in the streets around the forum area was relatively slight and there may not have been an architectural built-up space in forum area in the second century BCE.88 Yet, it appears that this forum had an immature design with more irregular lines. However as much as it may be said “Samnite architecture was laid out using the Oscan foot”.89 The following phase of the city is defined as the Sullan period in which Romanization is more evident. This included regularization of the forum area, construction of the Comitium and the Basilica. Construction of the Temple of Jupiter or the Capitolium in the Forum of Pompeii began as early as 150 BCE but its triple cella for Jupiter, Juno and Minerva was built after Romans colonized Pompeii.90 Other distinctive Roman city features such as including the construction of an amphitheater and updated bath facilities was also constructed in this period which strengthen the Roman’s identity in the city.91
86 Yegül and Favro 2019, 56.
87 Anderson 1997, 195.
88 Ball and Dobbins 2013, 464.
89 Ball and Dobbins 2013, 464.
90 Kleiner, (n.d.)
91 Aldrate 2014, 221.
3 4
Figure 7 Plan of Pompeii
(Source: Sear, F. 2021. Roman Architecture. London and New York: Routledge. Fig. 6.1)
To understand the differences in Pompeii, a brief review of planning may be in order.
As seen in Figure 7, there is an already defined core in the city representing the old
town. To understand how the city might have been adapted as a Roman city, the
intersection of the two roads in the map may be used as a reference point. As seen in
Figure 8, although the public space of the Pompeii is at the intersection point, the old
town is not entirely adapted because the city gates are not aligned with the main roads.
From another point of view, if the public space should be defined at the intersections
of roads, they should be in the red marked area as seen in Figure 9. However, there
was no clearly defined public space in those areas, either. Therefore, in addition to the
information above, examining the relation between public space and the roads
indicates that there are different layers of the city superimposed over time by
renovations which caused the irregularities in town planning. Therefore, it must be
highlighted that Romans did not erase the marks of the previous builders of the city.
1. Triangular Forum 2. House of Surgeon 3.House of Faun
4.Villa of Myteries 5.Temple of Apollo 6.Temple of Jupiter
7.Macellum 8.Basilica 9.Large theatre
10.Quadriporticus 11.Staian Baths 12.Forum Baths
13.Small Theatre 14.Amphitheatre 15.Castellum Aquae
16.Civic Offices 17.Building of Eumachia 18.Temple of Fortuna Augusta
19.House of the Menander 20.House of Vettii 21.House of Octavia Quartio
22.Central Baths
3 5
They renovated and added their marks such as the amphitheater and bath facilities. Thus, it was still possible to see the marks of the others when the city was destroyed by the volcano.
Figure 8 Study of the relation between the old public centre and roads (adapted by the author)
(Source: Sear, F. 2021. Roman Architecture. London and New York: Routledge. Fig. 6.1)
Figure 9 Study of possible public spaces in Pompeii according to Roman city planning (adapted by the author)
(Source: Sear, F. 2021. Roman Architecture. London and New York: Routledge. Fig. 6.1)
3 6
2.2.2 Approaching Rome as a City
As seen from the discussion above, the Roman approach to planning cities differs according to the background of the city. When Rome’s history is analyzed, it may be said that Rome was also not a new foundation and cannot be considered as a city having a “pure” Roman cultural characteristic. Compared to cities like Ostia, Paestum and Pompeii mentioned above, it must be stated that Rome’s cultural background is layered and more complex. Looking at Rome from a very general frame in terms of cultural history, it is evident that the roots go way back to the Iron Age and earlier both in terms of myths and archeological foundations.92
Early archeological evidence about Rome points to 1000-675 BCE when Rome was a small village with a small community of huts.93 At that time, the forum area was only used for burials and there was no temple. Trade activities and contact with the outside of the village appears to have been limited and Greek colonies were founded in the south.94 The later period is known as the Orientalizing period in which contact with Greeks and the outside world increased. The Orientalizing period covers the 7th to 6th centuries BCE in which class appeared and Etruscan civilization developed from the early Villanovan culture.95 Following this, it is known that Rome was ruled by the Etruscans. Etruscan rule ended in 509 BCE. 96 The later history of the city may be treated in two main parts. The first part in which the Roman Republic was formed and developed as a Republic lasted from 509 BCE to 27 BCE.97 In this phase, the Roman Republic suffers from decades of civil war which brought unrest among civilians in an addition to the Hellenistic influences effecting development and character of the city. The next phase of the city’s history is the Imperial Period starting with Augustus’s rule and lasting until the end of the Empire.
92 Soren (n.d.b)
93 MacKendrick 1983, 63.
94 Soren (n.d.c)
95 Soren (n.d.c)
96 Soren (n.d.c)
97 Gates and Yılmaz 2011, 328.
3 7
From another point of view, beyond scientific evidence, the history of the city may also be analyzed from a cultural or mythological point of view which derives from the beliefs of the citizens at that time revealing their perspective of life. One version of the foundation myth of Rome is as follows:
Amulius takes the throne from Numinator. He fears a grandson who could claim the throne. So, he forces his niece Rhea Silvia to become a Vestal Virgin. When Rhea is raped by Mars, Amulius imprisons her and exposes her twins. The twins were rescued and raised by foster parents until they learn their true identity. Later, they help Numinator take back the throne of Alba Longa. When they decide to find a new city, they argue over the city’s name and resort to augury to decide. From this point on, there are different versions of this myth, but Remus dies, and the city’s name is given by Romulus now known as Rome. Although there are elements similar to Greek mythology here, this myth nevertheless has a close relation with the foundation of Rome and there is also message relayed to trespassers. "Such be the fate of anyone else who will leap over my walls," (Livy 1.7.3).98 This warning can also be closely related to the pomerium briefly addressed earlier in this chapter.99The pomerium was crucial in the development of the city, and it was said to be sacred. Therefore, city walls protected the pomerium in the early foundation stages of Rome.100 But later, as the city kept growing, rather than defining the whole area, the pomerium became a part of the bigger city.101
Therefore, when the layers of the foundation of Rome are juxtaposed, it may be seen that Rome always had a multiple identity with multiple meanings. These multiple factors affected the development of the city fundamentally. One space carried the characteristics of both cultural, social and religious marks. However, both historical
98 De Luce 2005, 203.
99 See Chapter 2.1.3 City.
100 Carafa (n.d.a)
101 Koortbojian 2011, 248.
3 8
facts and myths signalled the Palatine hill, its surrounding area and the forum as the center of the city in which major events took place.102
102 Schulz 1975,84-88 states that Rome was at the center of a centralized organization of roads. This organizational scheme could also identify Rome as part of a cosmos. The materialization of this cosmic scheme was the pint called mundus. As asserted by Schulz, a new mundus was also determined in Forum Romanum. The determination of a new mundus in the Forum Romanum could also symbolize the fundamental status of the Forum in the city by attributing a cosmological meaning to the forum in support of its religious and political significance.
3 9
CHAPTER 3
RE-DEFINING PUBLIC SPACE: FORUM ROMANUM
This chapter focuses solely on the Forum Romanum in the very center of the city. As indicated before, Forum Romanum was a space contested since the foundation of Rome. Before the building of the Imperial Fora, all public life was centered around Forum Romanum. Therefore, as the space that carried plenty of marks pertaining to all of Rome’s history until the Imperial Fora, Forum Romanum became a part of the investigation in the journey of tracking images of power and their transformation during the transition from the Republic to the Imperial period. Since it is one of the core spaces of this study in which images of power and symbols of Rome were born and developed until the construction of Imperial Fora, a historical evalution of the forum space and development of fundamental buildings and their relation to significant events in the Forum Romanum will be scrutinized.
Although the concepts of public and private have been shown to be ambiguous, this study will address the area of the forum as a public space in which the individual existence of the power figures was displayed. Art and architecture are also examined here as instruments of political control as well as an architectural representation of the individual in the public sphere. To emphasize the reason for the significance of Forum Romanum and its being a contested space, a multi-faceted investigation follows.
While the idea of analyzing the Forum Romanum in different aspects is very intriguing, it is also very challenging considering the amount and range of information that need to be connected. Therefore, in order to give a more accurate picture of its contribution to the later development of the Imperial Fora, this chapter focuses on political and public symbols in the space. Then, art and architecture are analyzed in terms of fluidity and the improvised transformation of images between the Forum
4 0
Romanum and the Imperial Fora to trace the continuation in the process of transferring representations of power.
Below, the Forum’s connection to the foundation of Rome is highlighted first and then the section moves on to the changes seen in the forum in parallel with the identity of changing images.
3.1. Genesis of the Forum Romanum
In the evaluation of the site from a topographical point of view, it may be seen that the forum area is surrounded by significant places. As seen in Figure 10, Forum Romanum is situated between the Capitoline Hill and Palatine Hill which shelter the political and religious monuments that gave them the identity of the memorial keystones Rome was built upon. Therefore, Forum Romanum which was like a void that can absorb any potential itself liberally was acting like a navel connecting crucial elements of Rome even before the Republican Period.
Figure 10 Topography around Forum Romanum (adapted by the author)
(Source: Russell, A. 2015. The Politics of Public Space in Republican Rome. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Map. 1)
4 1
To start with the very beginning of its existence, the first signs of a forum can be traced back to the 5th century BCE.103 Christopher Smith states that there was a sustained attempt to fill the forum area up to one or two meters to avoid serious floodings in the area during the 7th and 6th centuries.104 Since there had already been flooding, the site required a drainage system to prevent the landfill from eroding as a result of the flood. Hopkins points out that architects of the project might have realized the problem and at some point of the project, built a canal which was most likely the Cloaca Maxima (Fig.11). He points out that although Cloaca Maxima was a sewer it may initially have been built as a technique of containing these streams.105
Figure 11 Diagrammatic map displaying Cloaca Maxima and its relation in Forum Romanum during the 6th Century BCE (adapted by the author)
(Source: Hopkins, J. N. 2007. The Cloaca Maxima and the Monumental Manipulation of Water in Archaic Rome. The Waters of Rome 4, Fig.4.)
103 MacKendrick 1983, 63.
104 Smith 2000, 24.
105 Hopkins 2016, 32-33. For detailed analysis of development of “Cloaca Maxima” See Hopkins 2007, 1-15.
4 2
Following this attempt,” …there were pavements over the landfill and the political space began to be marked out; there is a votive deposit at the Lapis Niger site and a stone building underneath the Curia. The first Regia follows not long afterward, and several votive deposits can be traced to roughly this period.”106 According to the same research, it is stated that huts were discovered with more elaborate designs in other sites of Latium which indicates that the architecture was advancing towards first stone residences.107 Since there was a development in the building of dwellings, it may be inferred that communal life was starting to develop. The Regia was the first public building so far known, a strange edifice at the eastern end of the Forum that was a temple to Mars and Ops Consiva, in Republican times but under the monarchy was possibly part of a larger complex in which the king dwelt.108 Around the same date, there is a sophisticated phase of a circular vestal shrine that encircles the sacred flame, the emblem of the city's continuation.109 Furthermore, it must be highlighted that the existence of the Regia and Temple of Vesta marked the forum area as a religious and political core even in the early stages of Rome.
On the other side of the Forum area, there was a sacred blaze for a fire god, Vulcan. Near this, a Comitium was built. That place was believed to be the meeting place for the Roman Senate (council of the king). The relation between the Comitium and the sacred place for the fire god was a conscious act which implied that the meeting was conducted under the protection of Vulcan.110 But he most significant question about the definition of the new sacred areas was why it was decided to move to a new place while meetings could still be held inside the pomerium borders in the Palatine hill which was also a sacred place. Carafe interprets this newly defined area as a sign of
106 Claridge 1998, as cited in Smith 2000, 24-25.
107 Cornell 2000, 24-25.
108 Cornell 1995, 94.
109 Mackendrick 1983, 73.
110 Hopkins also argues that the space for the fire god may not be related to the Comitium. Accordingly, some textual evidence suggests that the Volcanal was above the Comitium so it was not inside the Comitium border thus they may not be related. However, more specific conclusions cannot be drawn because of ambiguous relation between texts and archeology. Thus, the general acceptance is followed in the thesis. See Hopkins 2016, 51
4 3
avoidance of the noble’s power inside the settlement area.111 The Forum area was used for the meeting of the people and the Senate which was now away from the present power. Thus, Forum Romanum became the new power seat for the people in terms of politics.112 Material evidence suggests that settlements stood alongside the king’ house and the temples were on the Palatine hill during the kingdom period. Expanding city walls that surround the hills are also present in this period, which provide hints towards the existence of a developing community. 113
At the end of this period, the structure of the house type changes. A series of large private mansions with entrances along the Sacra Via were built (Fig.12). According to the outcomes of the excavations conducted in the area, the houses were big atrium-style mansions of the kind that became customary at Pompeii. As seen in Figure 13, the house was divided into rooms around a huge cross - shaped central chamber illuminated by a central opening (compluvium), with a basin beneath to capture rainwater (impluvium).114 But all development came to a halt when the Roman kingdom ended, and Rome become a Republic governed by the Senate and two consuls. This is also where the power struggle increased among the individuals because no king was dominating the political life.
Lastly, Via Sacra was already formed as one of the crucial streets in Rome at the early phase of the city. The street was passed through the Forum Romanum which was the busiest public space in Rome. Furthermore, it was the route used by the triumphant parade of victorious generals as they climbed the Capitoline Hill, which according to Versnel was identified as an Etruscan festival.115 Therefore, the triumph, which would be celebrated for generations as a grandiose act of power, and its continuation the Via Sacra in Roman culture may be linked to the Etruscan origins of the city.
111 Carafa (n.d.b)
112 Carafa (n.d.b)
113 Carafa (n.d.c)
114 Cornell 1995, 97.
115 Versnel 1970 as cited in Smith 2000, 29.
4 4
Figure 12: Sixth Century BCE Rome: Houses and temples along Via Sacra
(Source: Cornell, T. J. 1995. The Beginnings of Rome: Italy and Rome from the Bronze Age to the Punic Wars (c.1000-264 BC) London and New York: Routledge. 98, Fig.10)
Figure 13 Plan of House A
(Source: Cornell, T. J. (1995). The Beginnings of Rome: Italy and Rome from the Bronze Age to the Punic Wars (c.1000-264 BC) London and New York: Routledge. 98, Fig.10b)
4 5
When looking at the overall process of construction in the monarchy period of Rome, it could be said that there was an intense construction activity in terms of the city’s development under the kings’ rule. Some of the biggest projects of Rome were constructed in this period. The kings are credited with major religious constructions, such as Numa Pompilius for the Temple of Vesta,116 while the two Tarquins, Tarquinius Priscus and Tarquinius Superbus, patronized the most ambitious religious and civic projects related to Rome's urban infrastructure of the 6th century BCE, such as the Temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus Capitolinus.117 Therefore, it could be said that Rome was inhabited by a significant urban settlement that served as the center of a powerful city-state by 500 BCE118. However, with the fall of the kings and establishment of the Republic, the ownership and right to the projects were also to change dramatically. The rules brought by the senate would also change the view of the city.
3.2. Re-defining the forum with architecture: Republican Political Power Display
Establishment of the Republic took the power from the hands of the kings and gave it to the elites. Thus, the emphasis of power shifted from the king to the elite group as well. Since public architecture was deeply rooted in politics, prominent individuals vied for power and reputation through their patronage of architectural schemes. In this period, the Forum area became a place where only noble families could build new buildings such as temples119. This state of the forum may be interpreted as similar to how the forum was going to be used in the later periods. Because, in the war for power, the nobles were using the forum area to further their existence in the political sphere, showing that plebs (lower class) still did not have the power in politics. However, there
116 Plutarch, Num. 2 and Scott 1999 as cited in Varner 2014, 160.
117 Varner 2014, 160. For more information see Tagliamonte 1996, 144-146; Bauer 1993; Hopkins 2007.
118 Cornell 2000, 42.
4 6
would also be a change in the attitude to politics and architecture in the 2nd century BCE which is also examined later in this chapter.
In short, what is present right before the transition from kingdom to Republic and maybe in the very early periods of the Republic is Forum Romanum, which was still an area used for multiple purposes for the public and a political space for power. From an architectural point of view, the Forum during that period still had little built space compared to the late Republican period (Fig.14). The existing buildings built in the monarchy and early Republican period can be summarized as; Comitium, Curia, Regia, the area of the Vesta, Temple of Dioscuri and Temple of Saturn. While the constructed area was paved, the rest of the forum area remained under-developed and can thus be perceived as an undefined void.
Figure 14 Plan of buildings in Forum Romanum 450 BCE
(Source: Hopkins, J. N. (2016). The Genesis of Roman Architecture. New Haven and London: Yale University Press. 154, Fig.119)
As is widely known in Rome’s history, the first century of the Republican Period was a period of decline for Rome as was the case with the other locations such as Etruria, Latium, Campania, etc.120 This recession’s reflections were also seen in the area of the forum. According to literary sources, this age was a period of military reverses and political chaos due to poverty and social discontent in Rome.121 Following the recession period, There was a sack by Gauls in Rome in 390 BCE and Livy suggests
120 Colonna 1990; Cornell 1995, 225; Gjerstad 1966, 514-518
121 To see more detailed information about the Rome in 5th century BCE see Cornell 1995, 265-271, 304-309
4 7
that the city was so devastated that it had to be rebuilt again.122 But Cornell argues that in contrast to Livy’s statement, rebuilding the city was not the cause of Gaul’s sack but it was the gradual development of the city starting from a very distant past.123 As stated above, the forum area was first defined as an area only built by the noble families in the Republican Period. However, a resolution regarding Plebians also took place in the political area. They were admitted to the chief magistrate in 367 BCE which gave them power in politics.124 According to the traditional records, the agreement and their existence in politics was solidified in the forum area by the dedication of the temple to Concordia. Although there are still debates among scholars some archaeological findings may support the dedication date of the temple according to this argument.125
The most visible changes in the forum area are observed between the 2nd and 3rd centuries BCE. In earlier times, the forum was still shaped organically, and it may be inferred to have had a more eclectic structure. Since there were already sacred areas defining certain unchangeable borders in the forum space, the rest of the structures were being added to the existing structure of the space and making it more definable. This eclectic development was a natural result of the people’s demands. However, after the 2nd century BCE, with the development of the Republic, challenging politics, and growing society, signs of change become more visible in the architectural language. The concept of power begins to be reflected in the form of size, location, and aesthetics. Buildings determine borders visually and architecturally in the public space, becoming tools to bring order to the previously organic development of the forum space. In these ordered borders, each space carries the characteristics and approaches of the authority represented. In short, an undetermined space was being subdued by architectural elements.
122 Livy 5.42-43.1 and 5.55
123 For a more detailed argument of the Cornell’s discussion see Cornell 2003, 43-47.
124 Livy 6.35-42, for further discussions regarding plebians participating in politics. See Brunt 1971, 55-56
125 Smith 1996, 159-160.
4 8
Looking over the site regarding changes (Fig. 15), it is seen that the main area is shaped in accordance with complementary functional spaces in the mid and Late Republican Period when the forum square was organized for both religious and political activities. Although it still looks very organic, the fundamental buildings such as temples and political structures were present and divided. Previous religious and political cores were still present with the addition of some new structures. But in contrast to the kingdom period, the closeness to the cores indicates a relation of the individuals to the divine and political power.
Figure 15: Forum Romanum topographical overview 200 BCE (The lettering of the buildings and the North sign were arranged by the author)
A.Tabernae
B.Regia
C.Temple of Vesta
D.Temple of Castor
E.Temple of Saturn
F.Temple of Concord
G.Comitium
H.Curia
I.Rostra
J.Lacur Curtius
K.Cloaca Maxima
(Source: Humboldt University (n.d.).Digitales Forum Romanum. www.digitales-forum-romanum.de/gebaeudeliste/?lang=en)
A closer look at the Forum area for each significant structure and changes over time concerning related individuals during the late Republican Period should be studied in detail. However, because of the high number of structures in Forum Romanum, it
4 9
would be impossible to examine all of them here. Thus, the emphasis of the study here is on the temple architecture which was considered as a way to materialize memoria and bonds to the sacred.126 Other examined structures are also chosen for their significant effect on the site or their bonds to the power and politics. Thus, an examination of these structures is given below.
Cloaca Maxima was present in the Forum in 6th century BCE, and it had a physical existence in the forum. As seen in Figure 16, it was a separator of the two cores: religious and political centers of the forum area. But for the Cloaca Maxima, it may not be an intended separation but rather it was because of the conditions of the time. According to Hopkins, the Cloaca started out as a massive open-air fresh-water canal.127 Thus, it may be considered as an organic but controlled natural element in the forum area. But as stated above, during the 2nd century BCE, fundamental changes occurred in the forum and one of the biggest physical changes in the forum may be the disappearance of the Cloaca Maxima from the surface and its being taken underground.128 In the later period, Cloaca Maxima may have disappeared under other requirements according to the archaeological evidence but the biggest concern in this study is its effect on the space.129 So, with its disappearance from the space, the forum became a more unified area, free from one of the fundamental elements of organic structure which brought new spatial opportunities.
Comitium was another significant place for the citizens of Rome. The earliest pavement for the Comitium was determined in the 7th century BCE (Fig.16).130 The
126 Neudecker 2014, 355.
127 Hopkins 2007,1.
128 Muth, S. (n.d.a). Muth, in Digitales Forum Romanum, indicates that there are debates regarding the certain date for the taking of Cloaca Maxima underground in the forum. But she also explains that although the initial belief for the construction was around the 5th century BCE, recent studies suggest a later date in early 2nd century B.C.E. Since the date is also in line with the other major changes in Forum Romanum’s physical changes, the 2nd century BCE is accepted as the date for Cloaca maxima to be taken underground.
129 For a detailed discussion of the Cloaca Maxima, the sources below may be consulted. Muth, S. (n.d.a); Bauer 1993, 288-290; Hopkins 2007, 1-15; Bauer 1989, 43-54
130 Claridge 2010, 76.
5 0
Comitium stood in an open space in front of the Curia Hostilia on the Forum's north side and Romans gathered by tribes to make laws here, on a newly inaugurated tract of land.131 With the establishment of the Republic, the Comitium was one of the most affected architectural spaces because of its entangled roots in the political system of Rome. As seen in Figure 17, the addition of the speaker’s platform may be said to be an architectural reflection of this change in the governmental system. By the beginning of the 3rd century BCE, a circular amphitheater of steps rising on all sides was added to the Comitium for people’s use during gatherings.132 Until the second century, it is seen that the Comitium was still in use for gathering and passing laws but before the end of the Republic,133 it was noted in literary evidence that C. Licinius Crassus, as tribunus plebis in 145 BCE., was the first to lead the people from the Comitium to the Forum for the hearing of laws (Varro, Rust. 1.2.9).134 It is also known that in the 2nd century BCE, orators on the Rostrum (speaker's platform) no longer looked northwards toward the middle of the Comitium, but southwards facing the open Forum, where more people could gather. When Julius Caesar paved this area or maybe at an earlier date such as the time Sulla rebuilt the Curia Cornelia, the Comitium was losing blood as an architectural gathering space due to its insufficient size for crowds.135 In time, the use of the speaker’s platform and its environment changed its visual character completely and became a stage for the political powers. The area started to be used for honorific columns which would symbolize the domination of the individual power.
131 Ammerman 1996, 1. For further descriptions and discussions see; Claridge 2010, 75-77; Coarelli 1993, 309-314; Richardson 1992, 97-98.
132 Richarson 1992, 97.
133 Ammerman 1996, 1.
134 Richarson 1992, 97.
135 Richardson 1992, 97-98.
5 1
Figure 16 Plan of the archaic Comitium, adapted by the author
(Source: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Le-mundus-et-le-Comitium-dapres-la-restitution-proposee-par-F-Coarelli-F-Coarelli_fig1_250301829)
Figure 17 Map showing the relation between Curia Hostilia and Comitium (adapted by the author)
(Source: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Le-mundus-et-le-Comitium-dapres-la-restitution-proposee-par-F-Coarelli-F-Coarelli_fig1_250301829)
5 2
Furthermore, the attitude of public speakers should also be highlighted. According to Boethius, all previous public speakers such as renowned Cicero and Plutarch assert that when speaking, they inclined their heads towards the Curia of the Senate and the usual venue of public assembly, the Comitium. However, it appears that in 145 BCE, a politician set a precedent by turning towards the forum while he harangued the populace. Boethius points out that through diversion and a shift in mentality, the speaker was able to shift the constitution from an aristocratic to a democratic form; for his implication was that speakers should express themselves to the people behind the Rostra, rather than the Senate.136
Curia was the political center specifically for the Senate and thus was one of the two core political centers in Forum Romanum. All decisions regarding Rome’s future were shaped by the discussions taking place in the Curia. Going back to the foundation years of the monarchy, a curia was mentioned but after the Republic, the significance of the Curia heightened both in terms of architectural space and politics as well. In the Republic, when Rome kept expanding, the number of senators in the building also increased. In the Republican period, 300 senators regularly met in the Curia (Fig.18), but it is also known that there were individual meetings held in temples. However, one of the most significant changes in the Curia may be observed during the time of Sulla and Caesar. Between 82-80 BCE, the number of senators in the building reached 600. 137 Therefore, Sulla had regularized the Forum and rebuilt the Curia Hostilia in the first quarter of the first century (Fig.19).138 According to ancient sources, the Curia Hostilia (after renovation it was called Curia Cornelia), whose construction had been enlarged by Sulla, protruded into the region of the Comitium, requiring the removal of sculptures positioned on the Comitium's borders.139 But it was not enough to meet the growing needs of the Republic which was still growing day by day and called for further interference in space.
136 Boethius 1978, 149.
137 Muth (n.d.b). For more information see http://www.digitales-forum romanum.de/gebaeude/curia/?lang=en
138 Pliny, Natural History 34.12.
139 Pliny, Natural History 34.12.
5 3
Figure 18 Curia Hostilia - 100 BCE
(Source: Humboldt University (n.d.).Digitales Forum Romanum. http://www.digitales-forum-romanum.de/gebaeude/curia/?lang=en)
Figure 19 Curia Cornelia (expansion by Sulla), 70 BCE
(Source: Humboldt University (n.d.).Digitales Forum Romanum. http://www.digitales-forum-romanum.de/gebaeude/curia/?lang=en)
5 4
Another construction phase of the Curia belonged to Julius Caesar in 44 BCE.140 This phase is one of the most significant examples of how architecture relates to the power in public space. Although the lack of space for the meeting of the Senate was a convenient reason to rebuild a political space, its construction on this scale required huge power and considerable finances which means that only the most powerful individuals in Republic had the capacity to make these changes which takes the subject to the next big-scale changes in the planning of forum area in the Late Republic achieved by Caesar (Fig. 20 and Fig. 21).In contrast to the previous changes that occurred in the Curia, Caesar completely defined a new relationship with the forum area.141 Previously, the temples and political spaces were renovated but they were in dialogue with each other in the forum space. As seen in Figure 22, while previous constructions resemble each other in approximately similar spaces, Curia Julia distances itself from its previous space and unites with the Forum Iulium which was also constructed by Caesar. The behaviour of the Curia may signify the increasing domination of Caesar over the Senate and Roman Republic.
Figure 20 Curia Julia, 44 BCE
(Source: Humboldt University (n.d.).Digitales Forum Romanum. http://www.digitales-forum-romanum.de/gebaeude/curia/?lang=en)
140 Muth (n.d.b)
141 Muth (n.d.b)
5 5
Figure 21 Curia Julia, plan (adapted by the author)
(Source: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Le-mundus-et-le-Comitium-dapres-la-restitution-proposee-par-F-Coarelli-F-Coarelli_fig1_250301829)
Figure 22 Overlapped diagram of Curia and Comitium relations in the Forum Romanum (adapted by the author)
(Source: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Le-mundus-et-le-Comitium-dapres-la-restitution-proposee-par-F-Coarelli-F-Coarelli_fig1_250301829)
5 6
Regia may be described as a small structure placed between the Via Sacra and the Temple of Vesta (Fig.23). In terms of its history, Regia was already a very significant structure because of its deep roots in Rome’s history. Also, in the structure’s past, no one could have lived in the Regia. Because it was a consecrated templum containing sacraria142 which defines the structure as a powerful image itself. “In the Regia was a Sacrarium Martis containing an image of the god, where the ancilia and the hasta Martis were kept.143 There was also a Sacrarium Opis Consivae, into which none but the Vestal Virgins and public priests might enter.144 Certain sacrifices were regularly performed there.145 Research also shows that, it had been destroyed on multiple occasions through fire which caused further modification and rebuilding of the Regia. But although there were inevitable changes to the structure, certain characteristics were protected in those phases such as a large, irregular pentagonal courtyard with a colonnade along one side behind which opened to a group of enclosed spaces (Fig.24).146 These protected characteristics may be a result of the protective practice of ancient Rome in the architectural field but since these characteristics endured throughout the centuries, the structure may be evaluated as one of the divine power symbols in the Forum Romanum.
142 Festus 346—48L; cf. 439L, as cited in Richardson 1992, 328.
143 Servius ad Aen. 7.603; A. Gellius 4.6 .1-2; Cass. Dio 44 .17.2 as cited in Richardson 1992, 328.
144 Varro, Ling. 6.21; Festus 202L, 292L; Act. Arv. VIII Kal. Sept. = CIL 6 .3 24 82; Degrassi 502-503, as cited in Richardson 1992, 328.
145 Varro, Ling. 6.12; Festus 439L; Macrobius, Sat. 1.15.19 and 16.30, as cited in Richardson 1992, 328. Richardson gives more detailed information about the unchanged characteristics of the Regia. For more information see, Richardson 1992, 328-329; Claridge 2010, 109-111.
5 7
Figure 23 Regia in the Forum Romanum
(Source: Humboldt University (n.d.). Digitales Forum Romanum. http://www.digitales-forum-romanum.de/gebaeude/regia/?lang=en)
Figure 24 Reconstruction of Regia, 36 BCE
(Source: Humboldt University (n.d.). Digitales Forum Romanum. http://www.digitales-forum-romanum.de/gebaeude/regia/?lang=en)
5 8
Tabernae may be defined as the corridors connecting the two different cores in the Forum Romanum since the early periods. As seen in the Figures 25 and 26, its corridor-like form on the sides of the forum draw the borders in the public space with other early structures (buildings defining the borders such as Curia, Comitium, the Temple of Vesta, etc.). The initial building aim was to bring the marketplace inside the structures. Before building of the Tabernae which may have been constructed by king Tarquinius Priscus in the early 6th BCE, the marketplace was probably a more free space between two core spaces (political and religious) as stated before and the area left between them may be understood as the market which may be imagined area with random trade areas and freely walking people around. But moving the marketplace inside the line of Tabernae may also be interpreted as claiming the space for the government and bringing rules and regulations on how they should be used which may further be a sign of trade going under the control of the state as well. Another significant intervention to the use of the space inside may be traced back to the late 4th BCE, affecting the functioning of the entire Forum Romanum. The censor C. Maenius also displayed naval rams after his victory in the Rostra as a powerful representation of his success in 338 BCE. The display was as always in the forum area but this time, he was intervening in the forum space. The tabernae were modified to become a platform as a viewing spot in the Roman Forum (Fig 27, 28). But contrary to expectations from a Republican space, these viewing spots were paid for. Later these were named “Maeniana”. 147 Although this examination of the tabernae signifies a transformation of an already existing structure to another type of structure in the forum, Karl Lehmann-Hartleben highlights that the original Maeniana were discussed as a projection of upper balconies and there is no mention of the tabernae for this early structure type.148
147 Muth (n.d.c). For further information see http://www.digitales-forum romanum.de/gebaeude/tabernae/?lang=en
148 Lehmann-Hartleben 1938, 283.
5 9
Figure 25 Initial tabernae form
(Source: Humboldt University (n.d.).Digitales Forum Romanum. http://www.digitales-forum-romanum.de/gebaeude/tabernae/?lang=en)
Figure 26 Tabernea as a part of Forum Romanum
(Source: Humboldt University (n.d.).Digitales Forum Romanum. http://www.digitales-forum-romanum.de/gebaeude/tabernae/?lang=en)
Figure 27 Tabernae and Basilica Fulvia
(Source: Humboldt University (n.d.).Digitales Forum Romanum. http://www.digitales-forum-romanum.de/gebaeude/tabernae/?lang=en)
6 0
Figure 28 Tabernae with changed contextual relations
(Source: Humboldt University (n.d.). Digitales Forum Romanum. http://www.digitales-forum-romanum.de/gebaeude/tabernae/?lang=en)
Transformation of the space from a public area to a stage for power may point to the already started change in the space representation of the forum even in 4th century BCE. With the changes in the architectural spaces of Tabernae and new jobs and people profiles in the forum, Varro notes that the arrival of the argentarii boosted the Forum’s dignity149
The standing of Tabernae was kept in the forum until 1st century BCE with the construction of the big basilicas. No archeological evidence exists regarding Tabernae during the Republican Period.150 Therefore, the visuals used here are illustrations of hypothetical structures. Thus, a visual analysis may not be appropriate for the evaluation of the structure. However, it may be said that their use, thus their existence in the forum was crucial during the times they were used and they evolved and became larger during their life span.
When each complex and encircled spaces in the later Imperial Fora are considered, it is seen that the tabernea in the forum might be acting in a similar manner as porticoes
149Muth (n.d.c). For further information see http://www.digitales-forum-romanum.de/gebaeude/tabernae/?lang=en
150 Muth (n.d.c). For further information see http://www.digitales-forum-romanum.de/gebaeude/tabernae/?lang=en
6 1
of the Imperial Fora when controlling the axes and directing the movements in the forum at the borders. Thus, a controlled fluidity is provided between religious and political cores. But since the Republican period was a period without centralized power based on one individual, it may also be reflecting the change in the politics and be interpreted as a more fluid transition.
Temple of Concordia was pledged by L. Furius Camillus amid the upheavals caused by the introduction of the Licinian laws in 367 BCE.151 Thus, it was supposed to symbolize harmony in politics after the end of the conflicts between the aristocracy and plebs.152 Furthermore, it was significantly located in the western part of the forum right next to the Senate-house close to the political structures of the forum such as Comitium, Curia and Rostra. According to conclusive archeological evidence, the structure was rebuilt by L. Opimius in 121 BCE, under the permission of the Senate for restoration. Along with the Temple of the Dioscuri, which was rebuilt in 117 BCE, these two temples were the first structures to represent Hellenistic influences such as the Ionic columns in the Forum Romanum.153
While the first temple was the symbol of harmony, the second construction of the structure changed its position, and it became a more domineering structure symbolizing more “aggressive” harmony in politics. When the temple was restored by L. Opimius in 121 BCE, it become a symbol of his victory over his enemies in the Senate which was far from the symbolization of harmony.154 The later restorations or so-called changes in the temple were made in the Augustan era.155 The structure now
151 Thayer, B. (n.d.) But Richardson states that this temple was not built. So, there is ambiguous information regarding the origins of the temple. See Richardson 1992, 99. For a detailed discussion on the origins of the temple of Concordia, See Momigliano 1942, 111-120 (115-117)
152 Muth(n.d.d)
153 Stamper 2005, 56.
154 Zanker 1990, 21. Claridge defined the construction of the temple as the commemoration of the victory of the aristocracy over democracy. Richardson also states that following the construction of the temple, it was regularly utilized for senate meetings, particularly when there was a matter of municipal discontent or disturbance to be considered. This act makes their statement even bolder because the senate made their decisions on “disturbances” in a space that was built over the” victory of the aristocracy over democracy.” This is a visualized statement in public space symbolizing the power of the aristocracy. See Claridge 2010,80; Richardson 1992,99.
155 Claridge 2010, 80.
6 2
symbolized harmony and the overcoming all conflicts in the Republican period under Augustus’s leadership. So, architectural and historical changes traced in the structure reflect fluctuations in the political sphere of Rome throughout the Republican Era.
In terms of architectural styles, the mid-Republican temple of Concordia may have shown the characteristics of Etruscan temples which are the first seen style in Roman architecture built in the same period (Fig. 29)156. Therefore, the visualization of the temple was created accordingly. In the continuing treatments of the same temple, it is highly visible that Hellenistic features such as Corinthian orders in the capitals of the columns were emerging. Except for the back, the temple was encircled by pillars, and the front was adorned with eight columns.157 In the Augustan reconstruction of the temple, there are crucial changes to the structure. The cella of the Augustan temple was 45 metres wide and only 24 metres deep, but the pronaos was only 34 metres wide and 14 metres deep, and hence did not extend across the entire front of the cella.158 The smaller porch was at the top of a lofty flight of stairs, on either side of which stood sculptures of Hercules and Mercury, signifying the Augustan regime's stability and wealth.159 Thus, with each construction, it may be understood that the meaning given to the temple was re-shaped in accordance to the circumstances of the period. Besides new architectural orders, exhibiting the developing glory of Rome each time, it may also be assumed that the scale of the structures increased, and they visually became more dominating in the forum space (Figs. 30 and 31).
156 Muth (n.d.d)
157 Muth (n.d.d)
158 Thayer (n.d.)
159 Claridge 2010, 80. The author mentions that L. Opimius’s construction may be similar in size to the Augustan temple. He also gives details about the other statues and their symbolic meaning in the temple. See Claridge 2010, 80-81.
6 3
Figure 29 Temple of Concordia, 200 BCE
(Source: Humboldt University (n.d.).Digitales Forum Romanum. http://www.digitales-forum-romanum.de/gebaeude/concordiatempel/?lang=en)
Figure 30 Temple of Concordia, 100 BCE
(Source: Humboldt University (n.d.). Digitales Forum Romanum. http://www.digitales-forum-romanum.de/gebaeude/concordiatempel/?lang=en)
6 4
Figure 31 Temple of Concordia, 14 BCE
(Source: Humboldt University (n.d.). Digitales Forum Romanum. http://www.digitales-forum-romanum.de/gebaeude/concordiatempel/?lang=en)
Temple of Saturn was located in the southwest side of the forum near the road to the Capitoline hill thus dominating the visual sight of the forum. Although it is considered to be the oldest sacrificial area in the forum its building date is still not certain. The testimony of ancient sources is varied. However, it is estimated that there was probably an altar first, followed by the building of the temple. Yet, it must be noted that the altar and the temple are separate entities rather than replacing each other in the forum.160 Since there is no clear evidence about the structure, no visual evaluation of the development throughout the changes in the structure is available. A visualization only according to the similarly dated temple constructions was created based on their appearance which is an Etruscan style temple with pillars and long halls (Fig. 32). The next phase reveals the 1st century BCE during the Augustan age which signifies a
160 Richardson discusses the possibility of the date the temple might be dedicated and tries to find a connection between ancient sources and possible scenarios regarding the temple’s historical background. For further discussion see Richardson 1980, 51–62.
6 5
visual language supporting new Augustan policies that will be mentioned later.161 But briefly, in contrast to the temples built under the effect of Hellenistic culture and representation of the individual glory with ornamentations, the temple of Saturn may be one of the most distinguishable structures revealing contradictions in the visual language by barely showing itself there.
Figure 32 Temple of Saturn in Forum Romanum during early Republican ages
(Source: Humboldt University (n.d.). Digitales Forum Romanum. http://www.digitales-forum-romanum.de/gebaeude/saturntempel/?lang=en)
Temple of Dioscuri, also known as the temple of Castor and Pollux, had a significant meaning because it symbolized the new political system of Rome. It was situated in the southeast corner of the Forum Romanum and bordered by Vicus Tuscus and the Fountain of Juturna. The temple was believed to have been dedicated to Castor and Pollux who helped the Roman defeat of Tarquinius Superbus, the former tyrant of Rome by dictator Aulus Postumius and inaugurated in 484 BCE. 162 As the result of the defeat of the enemy and strengthening of the young Republic, this temple had strong ideological roots to the Republic. Considering the fact that the temple dates back to the 5th century BCE, it may be among the oldest temples in Forum Romanum.
161 The information regarding the Temple of Saturn was taken from the Humbolt University, Digitales Forum Romanum project webpage which also gathered information from various sources in Italian and German. See http://www.digitales-forum-romanum.de/gebaeude/saturntempel/?lang=en
162 Nielsen, 1990, 89; Ogilvie 1976, 47; Muth (n.d.e)
6 6
As visible in Figures 33, and 34, the first structure may be identified as an Etruscan-style temple similar to other early temple constructions. It had three cellae, a deep pronaos, and three rows of four columns, or maybe antae.163 Based on the archeological evidence, the first modification date for the temple is estimated around 3rd to the 2nd Century BCE164 which coincides with the large-scale alterations carried out in Forum Romanum in response to the increased need for space. Nielsen notes that apart from a need of the renewal of the old structures in the forum, the structure may have been renovated to provide more space on the eastern part of the forum. During these renovations, the cella of the temple was known to have been used for meetings of the Senate which further supports the idea of a renovation in favor of more space for the meetings in the forum, meanwhile increasing its political significance.165 In the 2nd BCE, the temple was completely reconstructed in an imposing manner that matched the developing forum by L. Caecilius Metellus Delmaticus (Figs. 35, 36)166. In the late Republic, the temple was used for both political and religious purposes, and it had a stage from which magistrates frequently addressed legislative sessions. 167. As a result of the dense political activity in the temple, it grew into one of the key places of the Forum where riots occurred in the 1st century B.C. Liberated from its original aristocratic overtones, the temple started to function as a venue for politicians to gather popular support, in contrast to the Curia and Comitium, which were controlled by the Senate (plebs).168 Later, the forum cult was imperialized by Augustus, who took advantage of the reconstruction required following the fire of 14 or 9 BCE; a new festival was established when the twins (Castor and Pollux) were linked to Gaius and Lucius Caesar, the imperial heirs-apparent.169 Thus, the cult building became a space
163 Nielsen 1990,90; Muth (n.d.e) Although Nielsen and Muth both identify the temple as an Etruscan style, Nielsen describes the podium of the temple as a high podium made of capellaccio tufa, while Muth describes the temple as a low podium. See Muth (n.d.e) Digitales Forum Romanum, Temple of Dioscuri, Phase 1.
164 Muth (n.d.e) Muth states that there is no literary evidence signifying the alterations made in the temple. Thus, these changes were only possible to detect because of material changes.
165 Nielsen, 1990, 90.
166 Sear 2021, 66.
167 Frank 1925,79-80
168 Muth (n.d.e)
169 Claridge 2010, 95.
6 7
of imperial representation, strengthening the imperial family’s bonds to the gods as part of their ideological claim as the rulers.
Figure 33 Temple of Dioscuri, Early Republic
(Source: Humboldt University (n.d.).Digitales Forum Romanum. http://www.digitales-forum-romanum.de/gebaeude/dioskurentempel/?lang=en)
Figure 34 Early Republican Temple of Dioscuri in Forum Romanum
(Source: Humboldt University (n.d.).Digitales Forum Romanum. http://www.digitales-forum-romanum.de/gebaeude/dioskurentempel/?lang=en)
6 8
Figure 35 Ground-up reconstruction of Temple of Dioscuri, Late Republic
(Source: Humboldt University (n.d.).Digitales Forum Romanum. http://www.digitales-forum-romanum.de/gebaeude/dioskurentempel/?lang=en)
Figure 36 Reconstruction of Temple of Dioscuri in its context
(Source: Humboldt University (n.d.). Digitales Forum Romanum. http://www.digitales-forum-romanum.de/gebaeude/dioskurentempel/?lang=en)
6 9
Temple of Vesta was one of the oldest temples in the forum. It was dedicated to the Goddess Vesta who was one of the most essential and sacred divinities in Roman culture. She was the symbol of the hearth and home. There was a web of connection between Vesta, the hearth of the city and the hearths of every house in the city.170 The Vestal virgins maintained the fire in the hearth and according to Roman beliefs as long as the eternal fire kept burning, Rome would be safe. Although there is no concrete evidence that can precisely specify early changes and chronological layers, the origins and form of the early temple have been widely discussed among scholars. Although it is not possible to determine the original form of the temple from the literary sources or archeological remains, the Augustan poet Ovid states that the form of the temple may have imitated simple huts constructed during the Regal Period (Fig. 37).171 But it has also been discussed that the circular form of the temple may be a result of Hellenistic influences from Greeks during the 2nd BCE reconstructions in the Forum Romanum (Fig. 38). 172 But these discussions are not conclusive. So, these possibilities only bring questions to the mind whether what was seen is already a layer defined in the later periods or is it the original form of the structure in which only limited changes had been made because of the various damages occurred during its life span.
170 Ov. Fast 6.247-303; Beard, North and Price 1999, 52.
171 Ov. Fast 6.247-303
172 Cody 1973, 43–50.
7 0
Figure 37 Temple of Vesta from the Regal Period
(Source: Humboldt University (n.d.).Digitales Forum Romanum. http://www.digitales-forum-romanum.de/gebaeude/vestatempel/?lang=en)
Figure 38 Temple of Vesta in the Republican Period
(Source: Humboldt University (n.d.). Digitales Forum Romanum. http://www.digitales-forum-romanum.de/gebaeude/vestatempel/?lang=en)
7 1
3.3. Spaces of Domination in Public and Self Representation
Looking at the general picture through the end of the late Republic in Forum Romanum, it may be seen that significant names inscribed their memory there via their projects. During the Republican Period, the building and representation of the individuals in public became so crucial and widespread that people were trying to outdo each other on the public stage. As the result of such competition, the most variable forms and designs in every imaginable way appeared in the public arena. Via these images, individuals were trying to create and shape their own identities in public. These images were not merely restricted with buildings but also other communication tools such as paintings and statues.
It was an old tradition of Roman aristocracy to links with Greek gods and justify their position in the society with their ancestral bonds to the divine. Although it may be a sophisticated competition in the beginning, the late Republican Period witnessed a fierce and widespread competition of self-representation. Pompey’s comparison to Dionysus or Heracles could be interpreted as a symbol of his glorious military success in the East through which his elevated status was implied.173 On the other hand, Julius Caesar was even bolder, when he declared himself as a demigod.174 In his forum, he not only built a temple for his claimed ancestor Venus Genetrix, but also sat in the entrance of this temple to receive Senators which could be related to the imposing manner of the gods in the cella.175
Overall, in a comparison of the late Republican forum to the initial forum that was first formed as a market area, it is observed that the formation of the former space is more organic and spaces are definitely flowing without strict boundaries. But through time, especially from 2nd century BCE onwards, there is a new schematic organization taking the cores as the center and then further developing the forum into more fragmented segments of a whole. In these segments were the individually built public spaces which may be defined as the architectural representation of the individualistic
173 Zanker 1990, 44.
174 Zanker 1990, 44.
175 Suet., Caesar 78.1
7 2
power in the Republican Period. Through the end of the Republic, this bold segmentation and the individualistic power rise in the governmental body can also be observed horizontally in the changing height of the forum area with the construction of higher buildings. The organic forum created from a void, at the end of the late Republican Period thus became a more regulated, densely built area. Just like how the temples and sacred areas as the cores were more highlighted via temples or protected via walls in the very beginning, a similar architectural interpretation may also be applied to the forum. But in this case, the forum itself becomes the core, loaded with lots of structures, statues, and columns as images that were advertising themselves as a component of this sacred body. As a result of such a loaded body, there was no more available space in the Forum Romanum which led to the subject of the first component of the Imperial fora: Forum Iulium.
7 3
CHAPTER 4
TRANSFERING IMAGES: FROM FORUM ROMANUM TO FORUM IULIUM
As stated in the earlier chapter, Forum Romanum was actively changing because of a need for space. It may be stated that this change was in favour of individualistic representation of the power in the forum area until Augustus who re-organized Republican Rome and thus all representations, symbols in public area. In the late Republican Period, Caesar and Pompey may be considered as two of the most crucial names of individual competition. Thus, they contributed to the building of public spaces in Rome.
4.1. Perception of Space in the Late Republic
The Late Republican Period was one of the crucial turning points of ancient Roman history. Because rather than an objective approach based on historical evidence, Romans re-created their history based on their ideal moral values. In the Late Republican Period, Rome’s borders had become too large to handle. As an addition to already existing governmental issues, Rome was going through an identity crisis caused by the emergence of new cultures. The dramatic process of adjustment of the Roman culture might be said to have begun in the 2nd century after the conquest of ancient Greece into the Roman borders. With the emerging Hellenistic culture, there was a striking contrast between the old way of life and the new one. While old Roman lifestyle was humbler, the Hellenistic lifestyle brought a more luxurious high culture into the humble Roman way of life. As mentioned earlier, this contrast may be most strikingly observed in the Forum Romanum which led to the large-scale renovations after the 2nd century BCE.
7 4
Therefore, an action to revive their values came into effect. Along this line, Romans created the “idea” of a magnificent history and spaces, which defined Rome as the “master” of the Mediterranean Sea.176 But the problem was that because of the individualistic nature of the construction in the public space, monuments built by powerful individuals embellished the whole city, but all these independent constructions were the result of rivalry in power. Individualistic nature of the constructions was not contributing to the creation of a unified city.177 So, there were only huge buildings, porticoes and walls around the spaces. In an attempt to reading public space, it was to appear to the human eye as a collection of huge separate forms separated by voids. But there was no urban relation to each other as a unit. So, the experience of a spectator walking in the public space would be the gathering of various individual spaces offering their own experiences without common language or regular features. 178 But why all of the important figures of Rome were trying to squeeze in the Forum Romanum rather than finding a more spacious place for themselves?
One of the core spaces of the constructions was Forum Romanum because of the deeply engraved memories it accumulated in its body throughout the centuries. According to the beliefs of Romans, every existing place had a specific genious loci ganing power from the accumulated historical memory and human interaction.179 Since Forum Romanum embodied the long history of ancient Rome throughout the centuries, it was like a vein that could feed the accumulated power in the space to the individuals. The people who could control the forum space could also control the memory of Rome.180 Political speeches were given in Forum Romanum. Thus, control over access to the political spaces entailed control over access to power, which individuals with political authority may show by regulating people's behavior at
176 Rocca, 2015, 89. For the themes discussed here, see Favro, 1996, 17-32.
177 Favro (supra n.1) 44 f. as cited in Rocca 2015, 91.
.
178 Rocca 2015, 94-95
179 Favro 1988, 1.
180 Russell 2015, 44.
7 5
meetings or voting.181 Thus, building enabled individuals to increase their permanent existence in public space and helped them to control in Forum Romanum. If the individuals were not able to construct in the forum space, another way for them to “exist” in public space could be through representations which was implemented in various ways.
The city was also transformed by sophisticated wooden structures.182 Temporary wooden constructions converted Rome's streets and plazas into viewing areas183.Among such structures, the building of temporary but magnificent theatres was important for individuals who were interested in reaching the highest public offices later in their careers. They sponsored the construction of temporary wooden theaters for sacred games, whose most impressive features were the facades of the stage buildings, or scaenae frontes.184 A large number of artworks and statues were displayed on them, allegedly hundreds, and were framed by columns made of colorful marble or priceless metal.185 Thus, if citizens visited the theatre and gazed upon these statues and artworks before and after the performances they would be exposed to the images and statues embedded by the patrons. Even people would realize the magnificent setting for a short time, being exposed to prolific impressive images and statues would become an expression of power reflected by patrons in public space.
Individualistic representation and their contrasting language could also be found in statues showcased in public space. Because of the increasing power of Rome in Mediterranean Sea, monuments commemorating Roman proconsuls and their family grew more widespread.186 It may be said that the increased challenge of self-
181 Russell 2015, 44. Russel notes that there were two types of attempts to control public space. While some individuals tried to create neutral political spaces in which citizens could freely make decisions, others wanted to build spaces to influence people’s decisions.
182 Favro and Yegül 2019, 27.
183 Favro and Yegül 2019, 27.
184 Gros 1987, 319 – 346 as cited in Neudecker, 2014, 362.
185 Neudecker, 2014, 362.
186 Rose 1997, 7.
7 6
representation in public found another voice with Hellenism. The Roman proconsuls received the honorific formulas that had been used for Hellenistic monarchs, and in at least twelve instances, the magistrates were represented by members of their families.187 As seen in the Figure 39, the statues reflected the personalities of the subject in a veristic manner such as the irony and detachment in the portrait of Caesar and the warm expression of Pompey. But because of the fact that there were no regular guidelines to the depictions, the representations were produced only by concern for claiming power and superiority. This caused the contradictions in visual language. Locks of hair rising in the middle of Pompey’s forehead might be trying to capture a similarity to the depictions of Alexander the Great! The hairstyle was used as a tool to transfer Alexander’s honorary title to Pompey.188 Zanker clarifies the situation as the contradictions in the form and intent of the display.189 Portrait sculptures of elite Romans began to mix lifelike, middle-aged faces with naked or semi-nude young, heroic bodies for the first time during the late Republican Period.190 When the portraits and statues are compared, it could be concluded that while some figures used the traditional way with their togas giving themselves a Roman identity, some others used nude statues and Hellenistic hairstyles of Greek gods to create an image of themselves in public.191 But the problem in that case was that while some powerful individuals still insisted on Roman representations, others were already displaying glorious Greek divine images of themselves in the public arena which ended up as contradiction in visual imagery. Although it may also seem like a contradiction in representation which is confusing for Romans, the Late Republic may also be one of the richest periods in terms of variety of visual languages appeared throughout their history.
187 Rose 1997, 7.
188 Welch 2010, 534.
189 Zanker 1990, 10-11.
190 Welch 2010, 535. Although the general view accepts the realistic statues as a traditional Roman feature, Rosenstein also states that there are also other views arguing that the origin of the realistic-looking statues is ancient Greek. For more information see Welch 2010, 517-542; Kleiner 2007, 202-207.
191 Zanker 1990, 8-11
7 7
Figure 39 Portraits of Julius Caesar (44 BCE) and Pompeius Magnus (50 BCE)
(Source: Galinsky,K. (2007). The Cambridge Companion to the Age of Augustus. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Fig. 15-16)
4.2. Construction of Forum Iulium
The idea of constructing a forum in the name of Caesar was first stated while Caesar was still alive. The competition between Caesar and Pompey was fierce to say the least. They were the only prominent figures of Rome with resources and192who could individually dominate political scene of Rome.
Upon his victorious return from Jerusalem, Pompey had power over both land and sea along with the vast wealth he acquired during his exploits.193 Great celebrations to commemorate his conquests were essential opportunities to exercise an authoritative image on the public. Through ritual and ceremonies, power was exercised to justify and also impress while increasing the visibility of individuals in memories.194 Thus,
192 Stamper 2005, 84. Stamper notes that Pompey battled almost every part of Rome to control its influence over the land. These military achievements brought him power that could only be rivaled by Julius Caesar. However, it is also important to note that they were not always rivals.
193 Cass. Dio 37.20.
194 Stamper 2005, 85. Stamper states that the group of projects started by Pompey were known as the opera Pompeiana and the aim of projects was to provide a stage for ceremonies.
7 8
Pompey as a part of a huge building project,195 built the theatre in the Campus Martius in 55 BCE accompanied by a lavish opening event.196 In contrast to the earlier structures which were typically constructed of perishable materials and sometimes in conjunction with masonry or costly ornamental components, the theatre of Pompey was the first permanent theatre of Rome.197 It included a landscaped portico exhibiting war spoils from Pompey’s victories, a curia with a statue of Pompey that was used as a meeting space for the senate and basilicas. Pompey also constructed a house and gardens adjacent to the theatre as seen in Figure 40.198 At the top of the whole structure stood a temple to Venus Victrix watching over.199
Figure 40 Theater of Pompey, 3D Reconstruction
(Source: Lasha Tskhondia - L.VII. C.(n.d.) Theater of Pompey. Retrieved from: https://3dwarehouse.sketchup.com/model/424ddd660ac85fc86c4e174b0cf70299/Theatre-of-Pompey
195 Stamper 2005, 85
196 Stamper 2005, 85
197 Donati 2014, 282.
198 Erasmo 2020, 44-45.
199 Favro and Yegül 2019, 27.
7 9
Caesar would have been enraged thinking that the senate would be gathering in a hall displaying a statue of Pompey and dedicated to a divinity associated with Julian ancestry.200 But, he was also in power; so along with Saepta Julia, the voting space, constructing Forum Iulium was his answer to Pompey. This act of competition in politics may be considered as the first perspective to the construction of the temple of Venus Genetrix. The dedication of the temple to Venus Genetrix could also be interpreted as an declaration of political war between Julius Caesar and Pompey because they both dedicated the temples to the same goddess while Pompey preferred to the Venus Victrix(Victor) and Caesar chose Venus Genetrix which was clamied as the mythical ancestress of the Julian family.201 Thus, while Pompey’s theater displayed a glorification of his political power on a scale that was not witnessed before in Rome, Julius Caesar surpassed him by not only celebrating his victories but also with his divine ancestry.202 Secondly, this is also the first complex in the overall Imperial Fora. Historical evolution of the construction and ideological reasons also resulted in the Forum Iulium becoming a part of the Imperial Fora. Among others, Caesar’s forum was the pioneer in creating another core for individual representation in public space which was later to become another ruling body itself at the end of its evolution.
Both perspectives are considered valid in the thesis. Hence, the study of the forum here takes the view that it was both the first component of the Imperial Fora starting representational transformation and an extended space for Forum Romanum (Fig.41).
200 Statue of Pompey: Aug. 31; Plut. Vit. Brut. 14. It is ironic that this was the place of Caesar's assassination (Suet. Jul. 81-82; Dio Cass. 44.19).
201 Grossi 1936, 216-217.
202 Zanker 1990, 24.
8 0
a) Republican Rostra
b) Republican Comitium
c)Curia
d)Basilica Porcia
e) Temple of Concord
f) Temple of Saturn
g) Imperial Rostra
h) Basilica Julia
i) Vicus Tuscus
j) Temple of Castor
k) Temple of Divus Julius
m)location of later rostra
n) Regia
o) Basilica Aemilia
p) Curia Julia
q) Forum Iulium
r) Appiades fountain
s) Temple of Venus Genetrix
Figure 41 Plan of the Forum Romanum and Forum Iulium
(Source : Ulrich, R. (1993). “Julius Caesar and the Creation of the Forum Iulium.” American Journal of Archaelogy 97(1), 52. Fig.1)
To start with the ideological roots, the link between the entire complex and the Forum of Caesar as its component may be best explained with dynastic values associated with the temple. “The temple was dedicated to the ancestress of gens Iulia and the famous statue of Caesar, with the ominous sidus Iulium and reminiscent of a cult statue, was dedicated alongside the cult image of Venus by Octavian after the dictator’s death.”203
203 Dio 45.7.1-3
8 1
In 44 BCE, “Caesar received the Senate sitting between the front columns of the temple like a god, a posture which was interpreted as an explicit affront to the senate.”204 Caesar’s complex also had previous examples, but Caesar may be said to take this a step further compared to others. One of the differences may be found in the typology of the Forum because it was neither a dedicated sanctuary, nor a temple to a particular divinity nor a grand theatre with a temple vowed to a goddess. Differentiation offered by Caesar was remarkable. He built a forum under the name of his divine ancestor, the aegis of Venus. He could have legitimized the complex as the sacred area of the goddess but what he did instead was to build a whole new forum directly alongside the old one.205 Whereas in the old forum, the venerable memories of the Romans were preserved and dominated the visual landscape, in the new one it was the figure of Caesar himself, in the form of a cuirassed statue that he had dedicated as well as a statue of himself astride a horse, that was the focus of attention (Fig.42).206
Figure 42 Forum Iulium with the Temple of Venus Genetrix by Olindo Grossi
(Source: Homer F. Rebert and Henri Marceau. (1925.) “The temple of Concord in the Forum Romanum.” American Academy in Rome, I3225.F.)
204 Westall 1996 as cited in Maiuro 2010, 191.
205 Maiuro 2010, 191.
206 Maiuro 2010, 190-191. For the change of vow, please see Ulrich 1993.
8 2
Both from political and ideological point of view, the choice of building location is significant because according to the Roman traditions, a victor was responsible for the purchase of land for the construction. Considering that the Forum Iulium was located next to the Forum Romanum, which was the most sought-after land in the whole of ancient Rome, even purchasing the land must have required a huge financial resource. As we learn from Cicero’s letter, within the same year of the dedication of the Theater of Pompey, agreements for acquiring the land were concluded.207 From another perspective, although Caesar’s initial aim might not be so (because it may only be an enlargement project in his mind at first), creating a monument for himself in the same context as the Forum Romanum was a huge step toward the glorification of his own person. As stated before, the Forum Romanum was full of memories and images surrounded by sacred spaces which connected individuals to the historical roots of ancient Rome since its foundation. But all actions until then were intended to get a place for themselves in that space. Thus, what Caesar did was quite unique since he did not join an already existing power core, but he defined a brand-new space devoid of previous images thus creating a neutral space for him alone in which he could represent himself right next to the Forum Romanum.
To take a general look at the construction process between 54-44 BCE, the political scene was rapidly changing. The archaeological and literary evidence also reveal that the integrated complex of buildings recognized as the Forum Iulium was not anticipated when the land was first bought. Because of the event that occurred during the construction such as the burning of the Curia Hostilia and the Basilica Porcia in 52 BCE, the form of the building must have changed.208 Considering an opposite scenario in the case that the fire did not happen, the forum would have looked very different from what it became in the end. 209 So, the forum may not be considered as one wholistic project planned and completed in one step but rather an eclectic and additive one which was conceived after a series of adjusted interventions to the topographical changes resulting from political measures during the construction phase.
207 In accordance with the translation of E. Winstedt (Loeb ed.), Cic. Att. 4.17.
208 Ulrich 1993, 49.
209 Ulrich 1993, 49.
8 3
Unfortunately, a very little part of the structure from the original construction of Caesar and Augustus survives today. But according to historical evidence, in contrast to some current academic assumptions, the two fundamental elements of the forum, neither the Curia nor Temple of Venus appear to have been planned as part of the project which could later be added following changes in the political sphere.
Another remarkable notion regarding the forum is its relation with the surrounding structures. The site was located around the political site of the Forum Romanum. The territory belonged to private landowners and was populated by the upper levels of Roman society, as indicated by the discovery of archaeological remnants of costly home artifacts dating from the mid and late Republican periods.210 Literary sources indicate Marcus Tullius Cicero's home in the Argiletum211 and Sextus Pompey's home near Augustus' forum212.Due to this location, the forum Iulium could also interact with the Curia Hostilia, the Comitium, The Basilica Porcia and Atrium Libertatis. In the re-formation of the public space, it is known that because of the Forum Iulium, the Curia was re-located and the Republican Comitium ended up destroyed. After the completion of the project, “the Forum Iulium took over the major administrative functions of the venerable Forum Romanum, offering its tabernae for governmental offices, its Curia Iulia for senatorial meetings, and a new open space for public assemblies in front of rostrate Temple of Venus Genetrix.”213 Therefore, although the Forum Iulium did not basically exist near the Forum Romanum, it was in a constant communication with the old Forum. Forum Iulium also took over some functions to itself like transferring some components of it in his own body.
Along with the enlargement of space, the other objective of Caesar may have been the creation of a connecting road to channel the movement between the Campus Martius and Forum.214 But the intention also signifies a re-structuring of the related area along
210 Sauer 2021, 215
211 Cic., Att. xii.32.3. as cited in Sauer 2021, 215.
212 Ov., Pont. iv.5.9–10; iv.15–20. as cited in Sauer 2021, 216.
213 Senseney 2011, 423.
214 Castagnoli (supra n. 41) 284; 5; Morselli and Tortorici (supra n. 5) 41, fig. 29. as cited in Ulrich 1993, 57. According to Ulrich 1993, 57, Platner-Ashby 238 references Cicero's letter to Atticus 4.17 to
8 4
with the construction of major buildings. Even if Caesar had planned to link the Campus Martius, the project failed. Ulrich mentions that after the construction of the Temple of Venus, which signifies Caesar’s victory over Pompey, the Forum actually turned its back to the Campus Martius leaving no access in between two areas. 215 Although it is a very interesting coincidence that in the same period Caesar defeated his biggest rival which gave him more power and control, the connection to the outside public areas were obstructed and his own space became a more strictly defined and controlled space. But this may also have been due to inadequate space for planning in the field.
The design of the building may also have been affected by the design of the Temple of the Dioscuri reconstructed in 117 BCE which was one of the first temples carrying Hellenistic characteristics. The amplification of the specific details and grandeur may be stated as common features applied to temple construction. As an addition, marble was used as a new material. But because the complex was rebuilt by Trajan, most of the extant remains are not from the originally constructed temple. Yet the estimation of the temple would be Corinthian in style.216
Form-wise, it may be said that the forum space was long and narrow as the result of the topography and the dimensions of land available for purchase (Fig. 43). Thus, the vertical shape of the forum space generated a highlighted temple façade framed by colonnades.217 This feature would later also become a common characteristic in the temples of the Imperial Fora: the Forum of Augustus and Forum Transitorium. Two sided colonnades in the long axis of the structure were divided by two rows of marble Corinthian columns positioned on an elevated platform from which the forum pavement could be reached with three descending steps. In the early forum, a wall functioned as the separator of the forum in two long axes from the outside which would
describe Caesar's "intention of building a link between Forum Romanum and the Campus Martius." The text is important, yet it may have several interpretations, making it difficult to reach a specific conclusion.
215 Ulrich 1993, 57.
216 Stamper 2005, 94-95.
217 Vitr. 5.1.1-2
8 5
architecturally control the circulation of the spectators and force them to experience the space in a designated way. But later, Octavian made changes to the southwest side of the wall by redesigning the area by building a series of tabernae to link the forum space to the Via Argentarius.218 The main axis of the forum space was highlighted by an altar, two fountains (or water basins), and an equestrian statue of Caesar.219 Historical records indicate the existence of a number of supplementary statues along with paintings which would have enriched the experience of a spectator walking in the forum space. At the end of the axis was the temple of Venus Genetrix and inside it, was a giant statue of the goddess Venus Genetrix placed in the apse.220
A. Curia
B.Statue Base
C.Temple of Venus Genetrix
D.Offives/Shops
Figure 43 Plan of Forum Iulium, rendered by Diane Favro after Senseney
(Source: Yegül, F., & Favro, D. (2019). “Roman Architecture and Urbanism: From the Origins to Late Antiquity.” Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Fig 4.4)
218 Morselli 1995, 301; Morselli and Tortorici 1989, 253.
219 Ulrich,1986, 405-23.
220 Weinstock 1971, 85-6; Richarson, 1992, 166; Plin., Nat. Hist. 35.45
8 6
The construction of the temple within the project was initiated in 48 BCE. At the battle of Pharsalus against Pompey, Caesar had vowed to build a temple for Venus if he defeated his enemy which may be related to the construction of the temple in the forum.221 So the construction of the temple is estimated to have been added to the originally planned complex later. The temple stood on high ground measuring 23 x 33 meters in width and length.222After Caesar’s death, Augustus also added a speaker’s platform and expanded the space further.223
There is mention of Caesar’s cuirassed statue in his forum. As mentioned earlier, statues were built in two styles. As Pliny the Elder stated in his catalogue of statues, Roman statues depicted the subjects as heroes with military cuirass and the Greek statues displayed the subject as naked.224 In the Forum Iulium, Caesar permitted a cuirassed state of himself to be erected which may have also been giving reference to his military achievements. There is also the mention of another cuirassed statue recognized as a equestrian group of Caesar riding a horse which probably stood before the temple. Thus, it is likely that there are two cuirassed statues of Caesar in the complex.225 The other known statue of Caesar may have been placed inside the temple along with the statue of Venus Genetrix. On one side, the statue was bordered by the statue of Caesar while on the other side, was the statue of Cleopatra.226 The representation of Venus along with the Caesar and Cleopatra was not customary in Roman culture but it was seen in the Eastern culture representing the power and prestige of Hellenistic Kings which was contradicted the egalitarian statues of Rome. The superhuman features were only used for gods which had never been given to any Republican ruler up until that date.227
221 Ulrich 1993, 51.
222 Stamper 2005, 94.
223 Amici 1991, 35, 51; Grossi 1936, 217.
224 Plin., Nat. 34.10.
225 Weinstock 1971, 86-87.
226 Richarson, 1992, 167; Cass. Dio. 51.22.3; Meier 1982, 446.
227 For a more detailed discussion of imagery in Late Republic, see Zanker, 1990, 5-31.
8 7
To take a look at the overall picture regarding Forum Iulium, architectural components inside of the Forum such as tabernae for politics or the Temple of Venus Genetrix indicate a new avenue of so-called public space. But this also gave Julius Caesar a personal space separate from that of the Senate like an individual atrium in the city of Rome where he voiced his own politics. While moving politics into his forum shows great support for politics, at the same time the existence of the Temple of Venus Genetrix, also highlights the significant political move. Because according to Caesar, his lineage came from the line of the goddess! Building the Temple as the centerpiece of the forum meant that he was privileged above others, and he had the support of the goddess which strengthened his claim. With the addition of the equestrian statue connecting him to Alexander the Great as well as a goddess, he became the first Roman ruler who publicly connected himself with divine status. This was an act for increasing his political support. From this point of view, Forum Ilium can be regarded as a political power representation and reflection of Julius Caesar’s ideology on its own which paved the way to for the Julio- Claudian dynasty’s future strategies in claiming their right to rule that would ensure the legacy of Julio-Claudians as a God-given right.
8 8
CHAPTER 5
TAKING INDIVIDUAL CONTROL: FORUM OF AUGUSTUS
The assassination of Julius Caesar was tragic indeed, especially considering the fact that his murder took place in the Curia of Pompey who was his biggest rival. But it also created a perfect chance for Augustus to use this for personal gain in power politics. Then, by the end of the 1st century (30-27 B.C) Augustus starts his constructions and propaganda with the Temple of Divus Julius which can be regarded as one of the early strong power expressions. The temple gave Caesar a godly status with an eight-pointed star, also the symbol of deification.228 Therefore, via stars, and the sky implying heaven, Caesar was designated as a deity to be worshipped and Augustus was his son. The power was passed on from father to son. The same images appeared also on the coinage minted during the Augustan Period, but this was only the beginning of how Augustus came to power. From the time he entered the political scene in Rome in 44 BCE, Augustus had himself called C. Caesar ignoring his name “Octavian”. This was also used against him by Marc Anthony who called him a “youth who owed everything to his name.”229
After his succession to power, Octavian claimed another identity by accepting the honorific title “Augustus” after he saved Rome and restored the Republic. Thus, by his name change, expanded identities provided to re-create his image. It should be noted that the images produced for Octavian as C. Caesar and Augustus were also fundamentally different from each other. As Caesar, he was promoted within the boundaries of late Republican symbols and images. Since he was not the victor yet, every image was used to win the competition of power in the Senate. His first act was to keep the memory of J. Caesar alive. So, the games that were previously dedicated
228 Zanker 1990, 35.
229 Cicero Phil. 13.11.24.
8 9
to Venus by Julius Caesar, were performed by Octavian in 44 BCE. During celebrations, a comet showed up in the sky and stayed visible for seven days. This act of the sky was interpreted as the deification of Caesar. After this event, a star was put on the head of the Caesar statue dedicated soon after in the forum. Later, sidus Iulium was put upon all statues of Caesar and later the same star appeared on his own armor. After the acceptance of Deified Julius Caesar as a part of a state cult in 42 BCE, Octavian was named Divi Filius, son of the deified Caesar.230 The star as the image of Caesar appeared on numerous visual communication tools such as coins which would circulate across the Roman Republic.
In 43 BCE, Octavian came to an agreement with Marc Anthony and Marcus Lepidus who were also Caesar’s closest deputies to form a second triumvirate, which meant that they would divide the power into three each one having a place to rule according to which Augustus would take the control West of Rome.231 In 42 BCE, the triumvirs pursued the murderers of Caesar, Brutus and Cassius, and won the victory against them in a battle at Philippi in Macedonia.232
In 30 BCE, Octavian made them give up their power and he became the sole ruler of Rome because of increasing displeasure in the group. During the period of power struggle between the three, after successfully eliminating Lepidus in 36 BCE233, Octavian also had to fight against Marc Anthony. The images of these two rivals were also an essential part of their fight for power. In the images, Anthony was the Dionysus, close to his personality. He was shown to live his life to the fullest like Dionysus by enjoying wine and women. Even when he knew that he had lost against Octavian, he kept thinking of life as a celebration234. As a second figure, Apollo’s image and his symbols may be traced back to the time of Sulla. In 36 BCE, after his victory over Sextus Pompey, Octavian vowed a temple for Apollo. It was constructed
230 Zanker 1990, 33-35.
231 Suet. Aug. 13; Galinsky 1996, 11; Southern 1998, 45-55; Stockton 1986, 532.
232 Cass. Dio 47.1-18; Southern 1988, 61-3.
233 Southern 1998, 83-4; Favro 1996, 105; Suet. Aug. 16.
234 Zanker 1990, 47.
9 0
next to his house which was also close to the residence of Romulus. The location of the temple was determined after a thunderbolt hit a spot which was interpreted as a sign of god’s will so the temple was built on the site. 235 Although Octavian’s house was nowhere extravagant like a Hellenistic King, it was next to a temple.236 Therefore, with the victory won over his rivals, Octavian was thought to be the one bringing the long waited bright future for Rome.237 Therefore, after the battle of Actium, Augustus’s image was closely related to Apollo in imagery.
After his victorious return to Rome, Augustus received honors from the Senate. But the most important reason for the celebration and honors given to him was the fact that he brought peace to the citizens tired of endless wars in the last century.238
Octavian received an additional honorific title “Augustus” from the Senate in exchange for recovering the government of Rome for the Senate and citizens of Rome in 27 BCE. The date marks an important date in the history of Rome. The change of his name also signified change in his position, re-defining him as the leader of the state which had now become an empire.239
5.1. Forum Romanum in the Augustan Age
After Augustus rose to power, all power for the first time was in the hands of one person. The investment of power on one person also meant that the government and the ruler were one. Since the Forum Romanum was one of the spaces whose identity was closely linked to the social and political image of Rome, its image was re-organized from time to time but an influential re-organization of the open space which was long-needed and only materialized after Augustus took the control of power. Because of its organic growth and eclectic nature that had developed over time, the open space’s unclear trapezoidal forum with variable sides, split into two parts in different directions and framed by crucial roads, it was now re-constructed with more
235 Walker, 2000, 61-62.
236 Hekster and Rich 2006, 149–168.
237 Zanker 1990, 46-50.
238 Baker 1937, 259.
239 Shipley 1931, 49.
9 1
regularized and consistent features. “The re-constructed piazza ended at the temple of the Divine Julius with its new rostra on one side and on the opposite of the old rostra. The Curia Julia became the hinge connecting the old and new fora, thanks to the artful expansion of the Forum of Caesar, willed by Augustus himself, and to the orientation of the Forum of Augustus along the same axis.”240 Considering the fact that the experience of the forum space along the axes was so significant, the distinguished people of Rome performed even their funerals in a memorable way in the Forum Romanum241 which may be interpreted as an effort to create a visual and symbolic relationship between the deceased and the symbolic values of the spaces passed though. 242 Thus, when Augustus re-defined the axes through the forum, he also changed the experience of the Forum area. Placing the structures linked to Augustus along the axes may be interpreted as the visualized symbolization of his status in the social hierarchy. As implied above by Rocca, Curia Julia was the connection point between old and new while defining a turning point that was dominated by Caesar and Augustus.
Another change carried out in the forum may also reflect the ideological operations. The prows of seized ships from the Actium war were also exhibited on the newly erected speakers platform. The location of the new platform was in front of the old one representing the victory gained during the civil wars in 4th century BCE. The visual connection provided brought together two distinct memories of Rome as one; the recent civil war and an earlier victory of the old Republic.243 In both cases, the Republic was once more saved but this time, it was Octavian who achieved it.
240 Rocca, 2015, 96.
241 For the emperor’s funeral studies, see, Arce, 1990; Zanker, 2004; Price, 1987, 56–105.
Although funerals and the spaces where they were held may be an indication of a significant relation between them, this information remains imprecise.
242 Favro and Johanson 2010, 32. The author gives reference to the funerals of the emperors. Even in the mid Republican Period aristocratic Pompa Funebris are described. Although the aim of the processions is not clear, since similar processions were held in the Imperial Period, the relation between the deceased and the forum space may be speculated in terms of visibility and symbols because Roman traditions were still applied in the Imperial Period.
243 Zanker 1990, 80-81.
9 2
5.2. The embodiment of new ideology: Forum of Augustus
One of the crucial problems in the dying Republic was the collapse of moral values. Rather than the consideration of state and citizens, people were acting on greed and ambitions. Citizens lost their belief in the system and old rules. In this vein, Zanker explains Augustus’s political strategy after becoming the sole ruler as the construction of a cultural and moral program requiring a new visual language.244 This novel approach to the image also defined a distinction between Caesar and Augustus. In the late Republican Period, Caesar and Pompey were important figures of the aristocracy who imitated the Hellenistic forms in an eclectic manner. But they were still far from being able to change the dire straits the society was in. What actually distinguished Augustus was that rather than an imitation, he was actually designing a new memory for society starting with the adoption of the name “Augustus”. From the roots of the word, it provided a direct link to the memory of Romulus founding Rome augusto augurio.245 Thus, apart from being the deceased divine Caesar’s son, Divi Filius, Augustus constructed a new identity and role with the name bestowed upon him by the Senate via novel representation.
The Forum of Augustus was the centerpiece of cultural and moral revival, featuring Augustan ideology. The forum was known as one of the most magnificent among its peers. According to Pliny "Should we not mention among our truly noble buildings...the Forum of Augustus...buildings the most beautiful the world has ever seen?"246 the complex was located north-east side of the Forum Iulium. It was vowed in 42 BCE after in battle at Philippi.247 The construction of the complex began only in 20 BCE248 while it was dedicated in 2 BCE.249 Thus, the completion of the construction project spanned 40 years during which drastic changes in power structure occurred.
244 Zanker 1990, 9-10
245 Onians 1999, 176.
246 Pliny, Natural History 36.24
247 Suet. Aug.29.2
248 Stamper 2005, 132.
249 Richarson 1992, 160.
9 3
Although it is said that the construction was accomplished for public purposes, from the date it was vowed, the complex embodied the memory of avenging Caesar and later its role would turn into an even grander one by means of the collective memory of Rome’s re-written history and the symbol of Augustus’s power. While symbolic values may have been the primary concern highlighting the elements in the complex, the forum was also a public space which was used by law courts. The verdicts of the jury members and convictions were decided here. 250 In addition, the forum was linked to the foreign policies of the state and war. After their successful return from battle, commanders were expected to make dedications to Mars Ultor. Officials leaving their posts for military duties in their provinces would depart publicly from the forum and Senate convened in the Forum Augustus for meetings regarding the state of war.251 Hence, the forum was not only a symbol of Augustus. It was a daily setting people used constantly.
In a formal analysis of the complex from an architectural point of view, the most prominent components of the complex may be specified as the Forum, temple of Mars Ultor, and exedras in which ideological representations were located (Fig. 44).
250 Suet. Aug. 29.1-10; Anderson 1984, 65-6. Dio 55.10.1-6 provides detailed information about the functions of the forum. However, there is no mention of law courts in Dio’s descriptions which is an intriguing difference between two sources.
251 Galinsky 1996, 199
9 4
Figure 44 Forum of Augustus showing respective spaces representing individuals of power connected to Rome’s “fictionalized” history
(Source: Pandey, N. B. (2020). The poetics of power in Augustan Rome: Latin poetic responses to early imperial iconography. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. Fig.4.2)
The Forum of Augustus, in terms of its design, may be related to the Forum Iulium due to similar characteristics in both. These similarities may also provide a link between the forums of Caesar and Augustus because of their similar experience of space. In both forums, the structures were designed vertically and at the end of the long axes, is a temple. In the case of the Forum of Augustus, rather than Venus Genetrix, the temple was dedicated to Mars Ultor.
In trying to understand the exact location of the temple, it must be said that there are conflicting discussions. According to Suetonius, Augustus had to build his forum narrower than he intended because he was hesitant to displace the owners of the
9 5
dwellings on the land, he was unable to acquire.252 However, Anderson states that although the land was in a busy part of the city, the narrow design was likely caused by the Vicus Longus' path as it approaches the Argiletum. Anderson did not relate the physical remains with Suetonius’s comments.253 Furthermore, Richardson also claims that later builders did not run across any of these issues thus, these remarks may signify an invented story to explain irregularities in the project.254
As the largest component, the Forum space was designed as a rectangular space framing the temple. The entire space was surrounded by a huge wall. The wall seals off any relation to the outside which prevents any glimpse from the inside to the outside or vice versa. Thus, in contrast to the Forum Romanum which may be defined as a more permeable, open-air space, the Forum Augustus forces spectators to focus inside the space without the disturbance of the outside world. As evident in the plan, it was a symmetrical structure. However, on the northeast side of the complex, there is an irregularity and distortion caused by the street was concealed by the walls surrounding the temple. 255 Therefore, this problem was not visible in the eyes of the spectators. The entrance to the forum was provided from the short façade.256 Because of its axial design, the spectators would have to experience the forum as designed by the architects while slowly walking through their destination accompanied by images of their ancestors. Inside the forum, the placement of the statues was arranged as sub-spaces for each representational group in the forum. The formal description of the forum in accordance with size of each architectural component is as follows.
To start with the enclosure of the forum, there was more space on the northwest side because of the irregularity caused by the street. Thus, the architect designed the Hall
252 Suet. Aug. 56.2
253 Anderson 1984, 66.
254 Richardson 1992, 160.
255 Blanckenhagen 1954, 22.
256 Anderson 1992, 160-161. Anderson also mentions the possibility of an entrance from a street but considering the axial design, the possibility of having the main entrance from Forum Iulium is a more likely possibility.
9 6
of Collosus, as a stage exhibiting the enormous statue of Augustus depicted either as Mars or as the genius Augusti on the northeast part of the forum.257 In front of this space, as well as directly opposite were the colonnades and hemicycles. The colonnades were arranged on a low podium. 258 The columns framing the porticos were adorned with Corinthian capitals. According to recent scholarship, the barrel vaults under the roof of the porticos were hidden from sight via an entablature and the attic that was articulated with the Caryatids and high reliefs depicting the heads of gods.259 The Caryatids were depicted in similar clothing and hair features as in the Greek versions in the Erechtheum in Athens. The hemicycles located behind the colonnades were half-columns bordering niches, and colossal statues were placed in the central recesses260 on both sides of the forum. The primary function of these hemicycles might have been to suggest spacious expansions of the square opening out beyond it to either side as well as to bring abundant light down behind the colonnades to illuminate and enhance the temple's flanks, which would otherwise lie in a deeply shaded canyon.261 Considering the marble and miscellaneous materials adorning the complex, the overall internal design of the forum space must have been spectacular which provides the setting for other fundamental elements in the complex.
The temple was dedicated to Mars Ultor, also known as the Avenger. The temple was octastyle, peripheral sine postico, elevated on a high platform, and backed up against the precinct wall.262 It was designed by synthesizing different characteristics into one body such as elements of the Corinthian order - the carvings of the capitals, employment of moldings, and modillions - constitutes a new visual language of Roman classicism that differentiates itself from its roots. The Corinthian order made to collaborate with the new orthodoxy in terms of its proportions, dimensions and
257 Ungaro, 1997, 55-7.
258 Packer 1997, 310.
259 Bauer 1988, 184-98.
260 Packer 1997, 310.
261 Ricardson 1992, 161.
262 Richardson 1992, 161.
9 7
motifs.263 The pediment of the temple displayed Mars in the middle, flanked by Venus and Fortuna, followed by the sitting figures Romulus and Roma and the reclining divinities Palatinus Mons and Tiberinus Pater in the corners of the gable.264 Inside the cella of the temple, Augustus was depicted along with the Mars Ultor, Venus Genetrix and the deified Julius Caesar.265
The summi viri constitute an important part of the monument because of their key role in turning statues into a part of collective public memory. In this way, the past was preserved by concretizing particular historical interpretations at the expense of other stories. These interpretations together with the moral values and lessons belonging to them were thus cast into material forms, which, by virtue of their durability, would serve to prolong and preserve them.266 Therefore the summi viri located at the back wall of the porticoes and niches created a unified ensemble that took place in the history of Rome. In total, more than a hundred figures are supposed have been placed in the forum including fourteen Alban kings and the founders of Rome; Romulus and Aeneas.267 Below the images, the inscriptions mentioned the importance and successes with the names of the subjects. An interesting feature of the inscriptions was that the size of the letters in a name and their memories were different and considering the number of figures it was like a room of history. In other words, it was the totality of Rome from the eyes of Augustus. The summi viri was highly organized. In the case of people who did not know how to read, the statues were aligned according to the timeline. So, even though all citizens could not read, they would have an idea about the identities of the people exhibited.
As another focal point, right opposite the summi viri was the Julio- Claudian family line. It was placed at the right side of the forum as the rulers together with the “Aeneas, allegorical figures, Vestal Virgins, senators and symbols of plenty gained through
263 Jones 1989, 57.
264 Anderson 1992, 161.
265 Macdonald 2002,82
266 Forty and Küchler 1999,2.
267 Shaya 2013, 83-89
9 8
Augustan rule appear together with figures of the emperor, his family and advisors.”268 Therefore, in the end, while the summi viri worked as a part of Augustus’s cultural revival program, they also connected and justified Augustus’s right to rule. This monument throughout the Imperial Period became a symbol of the Imperial cult.
Among these powerful images of himself and various spoils of war brought from all around the world displaying a power dominating the world, stood Augustus’s own status as pater patrie. The title was given to Augustus by the Senate.269
According to Suetonius, the title was also seen on the porch of Augustus’s house and the Senate building. Favro also discusses the emergence of the title “pater patrie” in relation to his role in the society.270 In Roman culture, the eldest male of the family was the “pater familias” who had the supreme power over the management of household. However, the requirements for being pater familias were not only about being the eldest of the family but also about lineage, achievements and also through wealth of the house.271 Thus, considering the forum as his house, Augustus, together with the family members, statues standing in the niches, created a glorious house for himself in which he was the pater patrie for all Romans.
To conclude, the Forum of Augustus embodied the visualization of the ideology designed by Augustus. In the words of Macdonald, “Augustus managed to combine in one grand public monument everything of peace and war, of politics, and traditional society, of religion and patriotism and link them directly with his name and deeds and with those of his family: he had avenged Julius’ death, and he had brought his peace to war-weary nations.”272
268 Macdonald 2002, 84
269 Res Gestae 35.1
270 Favro 1992, 61-84.
271 Favro 1992, 72.
272 Macdonald 2002, 82
9 9
5.2.1 Movement in Forum of Augustus
As mentioned earlier, the initial explanation for the construction of the new forum was the necessity of constructing the forum as an expansion of public space. The Forum was a multi-functional space. This signifies a daily use of the space besides other specific functions and events taking place in the forum. We may never know how many times a Roman citizen walked around the Forum of Augustus whether for work or leisure. If citizens and others had to go there every time for an event, work or celebration, that surely meant countless visits to the forum (Fig. 45). A person perambulating there frequently would have consciously and unconsciously memorize every little detail and every stone in the forum. Or was it really not that concrete but rather an ever changing and adaptable experience for the people who went there with numerous concerns in their minds? From my point of view, people always perceive their environment according to their needs and their mind frame at the moment. So, in many ways, this would have been an ever-changing experience for the citizens. Furthermore, because the forum is also like an organism responding to the situations of life, its experience must be spectacular. As mentioned in the etymology chapter, architecture is also a way to concretize memories. This means that although some features such as art works may change and symbolize different things at different times, there was a memorial skeleton that was inscribed in the forum which revived every time people visited. What they might have felt or thought when they were in the presence of their ancestors or in such grand space also depended on the choices of path while moving within the forum.
10 0
Figure 45 Plan with possible paths in different scenarios with destinations
(Source: Pandey, N. B. (2020). The poetics of power in Augustan Rome: Latin poetic responses to early imperial iconography. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. Fig.4.2)
To begin with reaching the entrance of the forum is archeologically ambiguous.273 According to the juxtaposition of the plan with the Imperial fora, the entrance would be reached by passing through the porticoes of Forum Iulium. However, there might also be some entrances from the long facades. There were three visible entrances visitors could use on the short façade: the main entrance opening to the forum space
273 In different maps of the Imperial fora, it is seen that the maps are mostly schematic in which formal relations forums are shown. The entrance to The Forum of Augustus is not clearly explained. From the architectural analysis and planning of the forum in published data, it appears that the entrance should be from the short façade facing the temple. From the examination maps, it might also be considered that there may be an entrance from the Forum Transitorium. However, the main entrance to the forum seems to have been connected to the porticoes of Forum Iulium or it may also be from the street that divides it from Forum Iulium. See Richardson 1992, 160-161.
10 1
and two other entrances on either side (Fig.46). Apart from the openings for the entrance, the whole structure was surrounded by high walls. This prevented an outsider to see the inside of the complex, but it also forced visitors inside to concentrate on what was happening there without disruption. Thus, it was only when standing at the entrance that the visitor would have the chance of a glimpse at the inside which would overwhelm him/her because of the breathtakingly decorated enclosure of the forum (Fig.47)274. The open plaza of the forum, with Augustus' quadriga in the center, was covered with white marble, which contrasted sharply with the yellow and reddish colonnades on the right and left.275 It was an edifice of grandeur designed to impress with its monumentality, captivate with its luxury, and educate with its substance, presenting its message of dynastic legitimacy in a polished, eclectic language of art that blended Italic sensibilities with those of classical Greece.276
Figure 46 Imperial Fora plan, highlighting the entrance of Forum of Augustus
(Source: Yegül, F., & Favro, D. 2019. “Roman Architecture and Urbanism: From the Origins to Late Antiquity.” Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Fig 6.37)
274 The moment a visitor stands at the gate and takes a glimpse inside the forum may also be related to the static mode of experience which requires standing in a spot to get a specific view. In this case, standing at the entrance would give the visitor a superimposed picture of a grand statue with an impressive temple at the background.
275 Galinsky 1996, 202.
276 Yegül and Favro 2019, 204.
10 2
Figure 47 A glimpse to the interior of Forum of Augustus from the entrance, 3D model reconstruction
(Source: Lasha Tskhondia L.VII.C(n.d.). Retrieved from: https://3dwarehouse.sketchup.com/model/7d40d6c8f173f516626df250d84698/Forum-of Augustus
Walking inside through the doorway, visitors would find themselves surrounded in a highly organized space (Fig. 48).277 Stepping forward from Forum Iulium to Forum of Augustus helped visitors find the similar spatial organization of the two fora: at the top, a religious core as the most important feature of the whole ensemble and porticoes on both sides. In Forum of Augustus these porticoes housed two equally important groups of statues containing the members of the gens Julia, Aeneas, Alban kings, and the Summi Viri. During this transition between spaces, the image of a quadriga carrying Augustus278 at the center of the forum as the current leader dominated the visitor’s field of vision as seen in Figure 49. At the background of the statue, the front façade of the temple would have been visible. However, the visitor might only be able to see a part of the temple because of the statue’s obstruction of the background
277 In this scenario, the visitors are considered to enter the forum space from the main entrance.
278 Geiger 2008,73; Stamper 2005, 138.
10 3
view.279 The detail of the temple would be very far to see. However, two figures visitors were exposed at that particular moment would be the image of the temple, a reminder of divine presence with Augustus. Visitors might also be able to take a glimpse at the portico on both sides, but it would be a very limited vision to understand details. Some visitors may have used the side entrance and directly walk into one of the porticoes, wander among the statues and to come to the main forum space to become part of the general crowd.
Figure 48 Diagramatic representation of spaces in Forum of Augustus (rendered by the author)
(Source: Pandey, N. B. (2020). The Poetics of Power in Augustan Rome: Latin Poetic Responses to Early Imperial Iconography. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. Fig.4.2)
279 Diane Favro rendered another map for the forum of Augustus in which a portico is also shown at the entrance of the forum. In her case, upon entering the forum, the view of the visitors would be restricted until they walked into the enclosure of the forum space. See Yegül and Favro 2019, fig 4.17
10 4
Figure 49 Line of sight upon entering the forum space (rendered by the author)
Having completed the entrance sequence from the outside, visitors would have moved inside the space through the main door. The soaring and extending view of the porticoes would then fill the vision of the visitors along with the rest of the space as visible in Figure 50. At this moment, the visitor was exposed to the juxtaposed forms of architectural components. In the first few meters, the visitors would keep walking along the main axis of the forum which would get them closer to the statue of Augustus.280 The inscription of pater patrie would become readable and remind people of his role in saving Rome. In the main axis, the view of the statues in porticoes would
280 The exact location of the statue is not documented. Thus, movement in the space in this part is approximately described without giving measurement. But it might be closer to the entrance rather than the temple.
10 5
remain as a background because of the distance. Before reaching the statue, the visitors would have to walk around it. This movement would lead them to walk towards the porticoes. The attic storeys of these porticoes were decorated with Caryatids modelled after those in the Erectheium on the Acropolis in Athens.281 The Caryatids are not very far, approximately 50 steps away from the main axis. Upon seeing the Caryatids, one would be reminded of the Greeks! Thus, the Caryatids near the entrance might be visible to the eyes of the visitors making them think about the splendid architecture while the rest of them decorating the attic would contribute to the continuous perspective in the forum space, drawing the visitor’s eyes to the end of the portico. The portico was approximately 10 m high and elevated from the forum ground.282 The columns of the portico acted like permeable walls and enabled glimpses into it. However, they also prevented people to immerse themselves in what was happening in these sub-spaces. Therefore, visitors were not immediately experiencing the space in the porticoes from the piazza. They were still outsiders until they took the steps into the porticoes holding the statues. Once within, the statues close to them would be visible now. The first clear view of the statues would have had an impact on the visitors, upon remembering the important historical figures of their history and their own duties for Rome.
281 Favro and Yegül 2019, 203.
282 Stamper 2005, 136.
10 6
Figure 50 A diagram of line of sight standing before Augustus's statue (rendered by the author)
Every statue in the porticoes sits on a base and inscriptions that gave information about the figure and selective history (Fig. 51). At this point, the inscriptions would still be far away to read but visitor would be able to identify the statues close to them. However, Corinthian capitals of the columns would be clearly visible to the eye. Visitors would be able to see decorations on the columns. Those who had official business would have gone inside the porticoes and would have read inscriptions while walking among them, being led to reminisce about the glorious past. Within both sides of the porticoes, there were different groups of statues. Therefore, if the visitors went through the right side, they would be seeing the summi viri, the statues of Republican heroes inside and if the movement was through left, then they would be confronting and remembering the gens Julia. Among them would be the father of Julius Caesar,
10 7
Drusus, statue of his wife’s son, and Agrippa who was the right-hand man of Augustus.283 This alignment of the family tree would aim to make the visitors think about the achievements of the successful men in the gens Julia and their fundamental role in the Republic. In the hemicycle of the same side were Aeneas and Alban kings. Thus, visual connection was made with the imperial family tree and Aeneas which according to the legend was their mythical ancestor. Thus, the Julian dynasty would be remembered as a descendant of Aeneas, the son of the divinity and embodiment of Roman virtues. Overall, it could be said that the sculptural program offered a new historiography connecting successful figures of Rome. The original locations of the statues are not determined. Therefore, it is not clear how visitors walking along the porticoes would have seen them. However, it must also be noted that the statue of Augustus was standing at the center of the sculptural program, visually surrounded by the heroes, kings and divinities. Without question, these highlighted his right to rule and signified his extraordinary status.
Figure 51 Reconstruction of the display of summi viri
283 Geiger 2008, 118-119.
10 8
(Source: Galinsky, 2005. The Cambridge Companion to the Age of Augustus. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press. Fig.42)
After walking along the porticoes, visitors might have headed into the exedrae. Along with the porticoes, the exedrae could be considered as another sub-space (Fig. 52) in the forum which was separated from the porticoes with another layer of columns. Each exedrae was two storeys high and more prominent figures were placed in them. In contrast to the initial belief that Forum of Augustus had two hemicycles, recent excavations have revealed four semicircular exedrae.284 However, when their closeness to the temple is considered, it may be assumed that the hemicycles close to the temple may have displayed more significant figures. The center niche on either side was wider and taller than the rest, and it is widely assumed that it housed sculptures of Aeneas carrying Anchises and clutching Ascanius' hand, and Romulus bearing the spolia opima. The scions of the Julian House supported Aeneas, while the summi viri of Rome supported Romulus.285 These impressive spaces holding the most prominent figures were also used for official meetings and trials. Thus, some people would have spent time in the exedrae while others could decide to go into the forum enclosure.
Figure 52 View of the exedrae
(Source: Recontructive view of the northern exedra in the Forum of Augustus, with a trial scene. (n.d.). Retrieved from: fori-imperiali.info. http://fori-imperiali.info/en/002-2/)
284 Shaya 2013, 85.
285 Geiger 2008, 99.
10 9
Visitors who did not enter the porticoes but walked along it could then turn towards the forum square. After passing by the statue of Augustus, they would get their first uninterrupted view of the temple. This facade view dominated the whole forum space with its enormous height. Thus, the forum space would also become its courtyard. After walking 50 steps through the temple, the visitors would be standing in the space between the temple and Augustus’s statue. Their gaze would be toward the temple.
The temple was dedicated to Mars, the patron of war and the father of Romulus and Remus. He was believed to protect the state in times of war, elevating his status as one of the most important gods in Roman culture.286 The temple gained another meaning after Augustus’s defeat of Parthians. The standards that were stolen were retrieved and moved inside the temple along with Caesar’s sword.287 In this regard, the forum complex became the combination of symbols for peace and war, politics, religion and patriotism.288 The temple was standing on a high podium which also served as display spaces and speakers’ platforms. It rose 17 meters from the podium with an octastyle Corinthian facade with columns extending along both flanks.289 The visitors standing now in the forum space would have seen the reliefs in the pediment of the temple.
In the center of the tympanum (the area within the pediment) is Mars himself holding a lance, to whom Augustus had vowed the temple for the god's help in avenging Caesar's death. The father of Romulus, he is flanked on his right by Venus, the mother of Aeneas and founder of the Julian line, who is holding a scepter. Seated next to her is Romulus, founder of Rome, and, reclining in the corner, the personification of the Palatine Hill, where the city began and the imperial palace was situated. To the left of Mars is Fortuna, with her cornucopia and steering oar, who had ensured Augustus' success.290
The composition of this new pediment displays the official dignity in Augustan art. The use of mythical and historical figures together created an abstract set of meanings
286 Stambaugh 1989, 55; Ogilvie 1976, 115 as cited in Stamper 2005, 140.
287 Anderson 1984, 67-68.
288 Macdonald 1976, 82.
289 Galinsky 2005, 250.
290 Grout (n.d.)
11 0
symbolizing the glory of Rome and gens Julia. Thus, when the visitors gazed upon the pediment they would immediately be reminded of the significance of the temple. Therefore, visitors might have gathered in the enclosure of the forum, may have sat on the steps of the temple, viewed the temple and forum space while avoiding the sun in the porticoes. But all the while, they would be surrounded by the mythical and historical images of their history living in the same space.
11 1
CHAPTER 6
CONCLUSION
The Imperial Fora were definitely a crucial part of ancient Rome. This study reveals the role of the Imperial Fora via art and architectural works during the Republican and early Imperial Periods. Forum Romanum was the initial public space witnessing the birth of Rome. Therefore, Forum Romanum may be considered as the place lighting a spark that later becomes the fire in the Imperial Fora. It is discussed and shown that the Forum Romanum and Imperial Fora in Rome transformed from a void to a heart that people could feel the pulse of the whole body in the public space through images of power embedded in architecture and art. In this regard, the architecture and art in public space generated the materialization of memory. The individuals in power intermingled with power, religion, politics, and images in the heart of Rome that ruled the world. For example, in the Late Republic, the individual building projects became their act of inscribing their memory in the public space which would make them visible in public.
Memory was a crucial part of the Roman way of life. There was a deep consciousness of memory in Roman society that was present even in the names of the objects. These memories and names provided the bridge in the understanding of everything in their environment. For instance, the word “domi” and “militae” respectively meant “at home” and “in the field” which provides a clear distinction between civil and military spheres in Rome291. The same name also distinguished the rules applied in these two different spheres. On the other hand, these distinctions shaped the behaviors in celebrations of victories by drawing borders for the movement of armies and citizens which displayed the intermingled relations between memories and spaces. Since the city was previously the house of other civilizations, the memory of spaces did not only
291 Koortbojian 2011, 247–274.
11 2
belong to the Roman people but to other civilizations as well. The name of the roads of the city as one of the most significant characteristics had the Greek root which further proves that Rome was a live organism developing through time while keeping its memories.
It is important to note that using images along with memory was not a new phenomenon for Roman citizens. People were culturally accustomed to reading the images and architectural representations. However, because of Hellenism, the approach to the images and their understanding were changed by new expressions. According to the old traditions, while gods were sacred, with Hellenism and new expressions, politicians were personified with divine features which changed the perception of the individuals in a higher status. This provided a powerful statement for the people in the Senate, but it also changed their perspective to the public space. For example, when a victory was won, the victorious generals built for the public. However, after encountering Hellenism, they built for their own glory which distorted the order in the society.
In the Late Republic, Forum Romanum was the oldest witness of the changes that occurred in the public space of Rome. In addition to being “public”, Forum Romanum was also the space containing sacred codes in its body. The sacred areas along with the structures built for power display were in the Forum Romanum. Therefore, in this study, it was revealing to examine how the structures were initially constructed and where the first representations for power were used. Along with the first constructions, it was possible to see the effect of Hellenism in public space to better understand the transformation the forum went through. Since it was impossible to examine all constructions in the Forum Romanum, the general selection of the buildings in the thesis focused on the temples because of their connections to the sacred. While the first formation of the forum was studied in detail to provide the link between sacred areas and myths, later constructions were analyzed in terms of layered changes over time and their relation to public space.
The Forum Iulium clearly presents the transformation of images, memory, and architectural features from Forum Romanum. Memory, as a fundamental aspect of
11 3
Forum Romanum was absent in Forum Iulium which provided a perfect opportunity for designing a memory for Julius Caesar. However, as an extension of the Forum Romanum, the memory of space was used in similar characteristics of Hellenism and Eastern culture. His representation along with Venus Genetrix was used in Eastern culture displaying the power and standing of Hellenistic Kings which was never seen in Rome.292 In addition to divine features in the Forum Iulium, there were tabernae as a political space. The equestrian statue connecting Caesar to Alexander the Great and a cuirassed state of himself served to bring in the different layers of representations in various styles. However, when all previously separate entities came together in one space, the impact emerged as more than human. In addition, the formal relation of the forum provided a characteristic of the later forums as a part of Imperial Fora.
As clearly indicated in the study, what Octavian did after Caesar’s death was to continue what Caesar started by himself. To illustrate the imagery of the Divus Iulius, Octavian used sidus Iulium as a communication tool. He displayed Caesar’s star on coins, temple facades and on his helmets to convey the message that he was the son of Divus Iulius and protected by him through his journey for power.293 However, after his successes, he changed his image which gave him a new identity as “Augustus” as well as his image with a new god “Apollo”. In order to get rid of his old images, Augustus removed all his silver statues in the city and used the money for golden offerings in the Temple of Apollo.294 This act gave him the opportunity to eliminate his old images created during late Republic.295 The choice of Apollo as his image is also in line with the intended impact he wanted to give to the public. Apollo was a familiar god seen as the saviour of the state promising a hopeful future for Rome. Therefore, along with his identity as the son of Divus Iulius, Apollo was also presented as a supporter. Thus, he was emphasizing that he was fulfilling Apollo’s promise to Rome instead of his own ambitions.
292 Zanker 1990, 5-31
293 Zanker 1990, 35.
294 Res Gestae 24
295 Zanker 1990, 86
11 4
Last but not least, Although Augustan representations of ideology were achieved in various forms, the thesis presents the Forum of Augustus as the most developed and conspicuous example of this construction of a cultural and moral program heralding a new visual language. The new language included Greek architectural characteristics, old Roman features and new ones, synthesizing them all. Augustus was to create a binding language that emanated from a grand urban project. People were tired of chaos, turmoil and the loss of old traditions. Thus, his intention was to create something that would be equal to the classical culture of the Greeks which would create a new language harmonizing the best features of visual transmission. These features were visible in each component of the Forum of Augustus as discussed in the study.
Special attention should be shown to the collection of statues in the Forum of Augustus because of their significant role in rewriting the history of Rome as a part of the Augustan ideology. The placement of the summi viri right across the members of gens Julia was a striking confrontation. The visual connections provided in this scene may also be found similar to the placement of the two rostra in the Forum Romanum and interpreted as a visual and symbolic connection provided between the two. The connection between gens Julia and the legendary figures of ancient Rome was linked the Julio- Claudian family line to legends. Thus, this connection justified the right to rule the empire and later became a symbol of the Imperial cult. Among all images, the statue of Augustus as Pater Patriae standing in the center of the Forum may be seen as one of the boldest actions in the forum. Because of family traditions explained in the thesis, the pater familias was the most powerful figure in the whole domus managing the house.296 Thus, the statue declared the ruler’s position as the father of the country which openly makes him the person as the head of the country which became a prominent tool for propaganda.297
Rome’s identity as the heart of the whole Empire was enduring because of deep roots in the city’s foundation story that were intermingled with myths and legends. These
296 Favro 1992, 72.
297 Karababa 2017, 46-47.
11 5
collectively provided a living environment in public space as the memory upon which emperors built their empire. Legends and myths accomplished their polished mission, presenting a glorious past with the promise of a bright future through images of power starting with the Forum Romanum and then consolidating in the Forum of Augustus providing an enduring template for the Imperial Fora.
11 6
REFERENCES
Ancient Sources
Dio Cassius. Roman History, Volume I: Books 1-11. Translated by Cary, E. Foster, H. B. Loeb Classical Library 32. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1914.
Dio Cassius. Roman History, Volume III: Books 36-40. Translated by Cary, E. Foster, H. B. Loeb Classical Library 53. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1914.
Dio Cassius. Roman History, Volume IV: Books 41-45. Translated by Cary, E. Foster, H. B. Loeb Classical Library 66. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1916.
Dio Cassius. Roman History, Volume V: Books 46-50. Translated by Cary, E. Foster, H. B. Loeb Classical Library 82. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1917.
Dio Cassius. Roman History, Volume VI: Books 51-55. Translated by Cary, E. Foster, H. B. Loeb Classical Library 83. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1917.
Cicero. Letters to Atticus, Volume II. Edited and translated by D. R. Shackleton Bailey. Loeb Classical Library 8. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999.
M. Tullius Cicero. The Orations of Marcus Tullius Cicero, literally translated by C. D. Yonge. London. George Bell & Sons. 1903.
Livy. Books V. Cambridge. Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press; London, William Heinemann, Ltd. 1924.
Livy. Books VI. Cambridge. Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press; London, William Heinemann, Ltd. 1924.
11 7
Naso, P. O. Ovid's fasti, translated by J. G. Frazer. Loeb Classical Library Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1959.
Vitruvius. Vitruvius: The Ten Books on Architecture. Morris Hicky Morgan. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. 1914.
Polybius. Histories. Evelyn S. Shuckburgh. translator. London, New York. Macmillan. 1889. Reprint Bloomington 1962.
Pliny the Elder. The Natural History. John Bostock, M.D., F.R.S. H.T. Riley, Esq., B.A. London. Taylor and Francis, Red Lion Court, Fleet Street. 1855
Suetonius. Lives of the Caesars, Volume I: Julius. Augustus. Tiberius. Gaius. Caligula. Translated by Rolfe, J. C. Introduction by Bradley, K. R. Loeb Classical Library 31. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1914
References
Adkins, L., & Adkins, R. (2005). Handbook to Life in Ancient Rome. New York: Facts on File.
Aldrete, G. S. (2004). In Daily life in the Roman city: Rome, Pompeii and Ostia. Wesport,Connecticut and London: Greenwood Press.
Amici, C.M. (1991). Il Foro di Cesare. Florence: Leo S. Olschki Editore.
Ammerman, A. J. (1996). “The Comitium in Rome from the Beginning.” American Journal of Archaeology, 100 (1), 121–136. https://doi.org/10.2307/506300
Anderson, J. C. Jr., (1984). The Topography of Imperial Fora. Brussels: Latomus.
Anderson, J. C. (2002). “Planning and Layout of Cities and Towns.” In Roman architecture and Society. 183-240. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
11 8
Arce, J. (1990). Funus Imperatorum: Los funerales de los emperadores romanos. Madrid: Alianza
Baker, G. P. (1937). Augustus: The Golden Age of Rome. London: Grayson and Grayson.
Ball, L.F. & Dobbins, J.J. (2013). “Pompeii Forum Project: Current Thinking on the Pompeii Forum.” American Journal of Archaeology, 117 (3): 461-492. https://doi.org/10.3764/aja.117.3.0461
Bauer, H. (1989). “Die Cloaca Maxima, Mitteilungen.” Leichtweiss-Institut für Wasserbau der Technischen Universität Braunschweig 103: 43-54
Bauer, H. (1993). “Cloaca maxima” in: E.M. Steinby (ed.), Lexicon Topographicum Urbis Romae I. 288-290.
Bauer, H. (1988) “Augustus forum, Halen und Exedren.” In Kaiser Augustus und die verlorene Republik Edited by Heilmeyer, Wolf-Dieter, Rocca, E.L. and Martin H.G. Berlin: Kulturstadt Europas.
Boëthius A. & Ward-Perkins, J. B. (1970). Etruscan and Roman Architecture. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.
Boëthius, A. (1978). “Hellenized Rome "Consuetudo Italica””. In Etruscan and Early Roman Architecture. 136-213. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books
Bunbury, E. (2012). “On the Topography of Rome. 3rd Article. The Fora of the Emperors.” In L. Schmitz (Ed.), The Classical Museum: A Journal of Philology, and of Ancient History and Literature (Cambridge Library Collection – Classics. 117-135). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139565707.012
Brunt, P.A. (1988). The Fall of the Roman Republic and Related Essays. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Cannadine, D. and Price, S. (1987). Rituals of Royalty: Power and Ceremonial in Traditional Societies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
11 9
Carafa, P. (n.d.a). Week 3 Episode 3: Palatine during the reigns of earlier kings 1. [MOOC]. Coursera. https://www.coursera.org/learn/palatine-hill-archaeology-history/lecture/K6wDE/3-3-palatine-during-the-reigns-of-earlier-kings-1
Carafa,P. (n.d.b) Week 3 Episode 2 : The Foundation of Rome: archaeology. [MOOC]. Coursera. https://www.coursera.org/learn/palatine-hill-archaeology-history/lecture/ih91l/3-2-the-foundation-of-rome-archaeology
Carafa, P. (n.d.c) Week 4 Episode 2: Palatine during the reigns of later kings: noble residences and cult places. [MOOC]. Coursera. https://www.coursera.org/learn/palatine-hill-archaeology history/lecture/F7E0G/4-2-palatine-during-the-reigns-of-later-kings-noble-residences-and-cult-places
Carafa, P. (1997). “What Was Pompeii before 200 BC? Excavations in the House of Joseph II, in the Forum and the House of the Wedding of Hercules.” In Sequence Space in Pompeii, edited by Bon, S.E. and Jones, R. 13-31. Oxford: Oxbow Monograph 77.
Cody, J. M. (1973) “New Evidence for the Republican Aedes Vestae,” American Journal of Archaeology 77: 43–50
Colonna, G. (1985) “Etruria e Laizo nell’eta dei Tarquini”. In Etruria e Lazio arcaico, Edited by Cristofani, M. 64-6. Rome: Atti Incontro di Studio Roma. Milan: Electa.
Cornell, T. J. (2000). “The City of Rome in the Middle Republic ( c .400-100BC ).” In Ancient Rome: The Archaeology of the Eternal City. Editors J. C. Coulston & H. Dodge. 43-60. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Davies, P. (2017). Architecture and Politics in Republican Rome. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Davies, P. (2019). “Vandalism and Resistance in Republican Rome.” Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, 78(1), 6–24.
De Luce, J. (2005). “Roman Myth.” The Classical World, 98 (2): 202-205. https://doi.org/10.2307/4352931
12 0
Donati, J. C. (2014). “The City in the Greek and Roman World.” In Oxford Handbook of Greek and Roman Art and Architecture. C. Marconi (Ed.), Oxford University Press.
Dooman, O. (1999) “Family Values: Ancestral Representation and Social Reproduction in Roman House.” In Interpretatio Rerum, Archaeologia Transatlantica XVII, Archaeological Essays on Object and Meaning by Students of R. Ross Holloway. edited by S. S. Lukesh. 73-84. Providence: Brown University.
Erasmo, M. (2020). “The Theatre of Pompey: Staging the Self through Roman Architecture.” Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome 65: 43-69.
Favro, D. (1988). “The Roman Forum and Roman Memory.” Places, 5(1). 1-9.
Favro, D. (1996). The Urban Image of Augustan Rome. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Favro, D. (1992). “Pater urbis Augustus as City Father of Rome.” Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, 51(1): 61-84. doi:10.2307/990641
Favro, D., & Johanson, C. (2010). “Death in Motion: Funeral Processions in the Roman Forum.” Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians 69 (1), 12–37.
Forty A., & S.Küchler, eds. (1999). The Art of Forgetting. Oxford: Berg.
Galinsky, K. (1996). Augustan Culture: An Interpretive Introduction. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Galinsky, K. (2014). “Memoria Romana: Memory in Rome and Rome in Memory.” Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome. Supplementary Volume 10: iii–193.
Gates, C., & Yılmaz, N. (2011). Greek and Etruscan Cities in Italy Ancient Cities: The Archaeology of Urban Life in the Ancient Near East and Egypt, Greece, and Rome (2nd ed.). Routledge.
12 1
Gjerstad, E. (1966) Early Rome Synthesis of Archeological Evidence, Vol. 4. Lund: C.W.K Gleerup.
Gorski, G. J. & Packer, J. E. (2015). The Roman Forum: A Reconstruction and Architectural Guide. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Gowing, A. M. (2005). “Historia/Memoria.” In Empire and Memory: the Representation of the Roman Republic in Imperial Culture. 1-27. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Grossi, O. (1936). “The Forum of Julius Caesar and the Temple of Venus Genetrix.” Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome 13: 215-220.
Grout, J. (n.d.). Pediment of the Temple of Mars Ultor. Retrieved from https://penelope.uchicago.edu/~grout/encyclopaedia_romana/imperialfora/augustus/pediment.html
Harper, D. (n.d.). Etymology of art. Online Etymology Dictionary. Retrieved June 5, 2022, from https://www.etymonline.com/word/art
Hekster, O., & Rich, J. (2006). “Octavian and the Thunderbolt: The Temple of Apollo Palatinus and Roman Traditions of Temple Building.” The Classical Quarterly, 56(1): 149–168.
Hersey G. (1989) “Architecture and Sacrifice”. In The Lost Meaning in Classical Architecture: Speculations on Ornament from Vitruvius to Venturi. 11-45. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Holst, J., (2017). “The Fall of the Tektōn and The Rise of the Architect: On the Greek Origins of Architectural Craftsmanship.” Architectural Histories, 5(1): 1-12. DOI: http://doi.org/10.5334/ah.239
Hopkins, J. N. (2007) “The Cloaca Maxima and the Monumental Manipulation of Water in Archaic Rome.” The Waters of Rome 4: 1-15.
Hopkins, J. N. (2016). The Genesis of Roman Architecture. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.
12 2
Humbolt University (n.d.) Late Republic. Digitales Forum Romanum. http://www.digitales-forum romanum.de/gebaeudeliste/?lang=en#spaete-republik-i
Jones, M. W. (1989). “Designing the Roman Corinthian Order.” Journal of Roman Archaeology 2: 35-69. doi:10.1017/s1047759400010291
Jones, M. W. (2014). “Greek and Roman Architectural Theory.” In C. Marconi (Author), Oxford Handbook of Greek and Roman Art and Architecture. New York: Oxford University Press.
Karababa, İ.Ü. (2017). “Setting The Stage for The Authority of The Roman Emperor: The Family Metaphor in the Aedicular Facades of Asia Minor.” METU Journal of The Faculty of Architecture 34: 43-62.
Kleiner, D.E.E (n.d.) The Capitolium and Basilica of Pompeii. [MOOC]. Coursera. Retrived from https://www.coursera.org/learn/roman-architecture/lecture/MZBom/4-3-the-capitolium-and-basilica-of-pompeii
Kleiner, D.E.E. (2007). “Semblance and Storytelling in Augustan Rome.” In The Cambridge Companion to the Age of Augustus. 197-233. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Koortbojian M. (2011). “Crossing the Pomerium: the armed ruler at Rome.” In The Emperor and Rome: Space, Representation and Ritual, edited by Ewald, C.B. & Norena, C.F. 247–274. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lawrence, A. W. (1967). Greek Architecture (second edition). Penguin Books.
Lehmann-Hartleben, K. (1938). “Maenianum and Basilica.” The American Journal of Philology, 59(3): 283. https://doi.org/10.2307/291579
Lewis, C. T. and Short, C. (n.d.) A Latin Dictionary. Retrieved from: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=Tyrrheni
MacDonald, W. L. (2002). The Pantheon: Design, Meaning, and Progeny. Harvard University Press, 2nd edition.
12 3
MacKendrick, P. (1983). The Mute Stones Speak: the Story of Archaeology in Italy. New York: W.W. Norton
Maiuro, M. (2010). “What was the Forum Iulium Used For? The Fiscus and Its Jurisdiction in First Century CE Rome.” In Spaces of justice in the Roman World. Angelis, D. F. (Ed.), Leiden: Brill.
Marconi, C. (2015). “Introduction.” In Oxford Handbook of Greek and Roman Art and Architecture. 1-21. New York: Oxford University Press.
Momigliano, A. (1942). “Camillus and Concord.” The Classical Quarterly, 36(3/4): 111–120.
Moser, M. E. (1996). "The origins of the Etruscans: New Evidence for an Old Question". In Etruscan Italy: Etruscan Influences on the Civilizations of Italy from Antiquity to the Modern Era, edited by Hall, J. F. 29- 43. Provo, Utah: Museum of Art, Brigham Young University.
Meier, C. (1982). Caesar: A Biography. translated by David McLintock. New York: Basic Books.
Merriam-Webster. (n.d.). Cardia. In Merriam-Webster.com dictionary. Retrieved May 15, 2022, from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cardia
Merriam-Webster. (n.d.). Decuman. In Merriam-Webster.com dictionary. Retrieved May 15, 2022, from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/decuman
Morselli, C. (1995) Forum Iulium. In Lexicon Topographicum Urbis Roma Vol 2, edited by Steinby, E.M. 299-306. Rome: Edizioni Quasar.
Morselli C. & Tortorici E. B. (1989) “Sintesi storico-topografica.” In Curia, Forum Iulium, Forum Transitorium. edited by Morselli, C. & Edorardo E. Rome: De Luca Edizioni D’Arte
Muth, S. (n.d.a). Cloaca Maxima. Cloaca Maxima- Digitales Forum Romanum. Retrieved June 5, 2022, from http://www.digitales-forum-romanum.de/gebaeude/cloaca-maxima/?lang=en
12 4
Muth, S. (n.d.b). Curia. Curia- Digitales Forum Romanum. Retrieved June 5, 2022, from http://www.digitales-forum-romanum.de/gebaeude/curia/?lang=en
Muth, S. (n.d.c). Tabernae. Tabernae- Digitales Forum Romanum. Retrieved June 7, 2022, from http://www.digitales-forum-romanum.de/gebaeude/tabernae/?lang=en
Muth, S. (n.d.d). Temple of Concordia. Temple of Concordia- Digitales Forum Romanum. Retrieved June 7, 2022, from http://www.digitales-forum-romanum.de/gebaeude/concordiatempel/?lang=en
Muth, S. (n.d.e). Temple of Dioscuri. Temple of Dioscuri- Digitales Forum Romanum. Retrieved June 7, 2022, from http://www.digitales-forum-romanum.de/gebaeude/dioskurentempel/?lang=en
Neudecker, R. (2014). “Buildings, Images, and Rituals in the Roman World.” In Oxford Handbook of Greek and Roman Art and Architecture. 352-374. New York: Oxford University Press.
Nielsen, I. (1990). “The Forum Paving and the Temple of Castor and Pollux.” In Analecta Romana 19: 89-104.
Onians, J. (1999). Classical Art and the Culture of Greece and Rome. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.
OxfordLearnersDictionaries.com. (n.d.). Imagery. Retrieved October 1, 2022, from https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/american_english/imagery
Ulrich, R. (1993). “Julius Caesar and the Creation of the Forum Iulium.” American Journal of Archaeology 97(1): 49-80.
Ulrich, B. (1986) “The Appiades Fountain of the Forum Iulium,” Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archaologiscen Instituts, Römische Abteilung 93. 405-23
Ungaro, L. (1997) Il Foro di Augusto. Rome: Fratelli Palombi Editori.
12 5
Packer, J. E. (1997). “Report from Rome: The Imperial Fora, a Retrospective.” American Journal of Archaeology, 101(2): 307-330.
Pandey, N. (2018). The Poetics of Power in Augustan Rome: Latin Poetic Responses to Early Imperial Iconography. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/9781108525152.004
Parcell, S. (2007). Four Historical Definitions of Architecture. Phd Dissertation. McGill University.
Pallottino, M. (1956). The Etruscans. Indiana University Press.
Price, S.R.F (1980) “Between Man and God: Sacrifice in the Roman Imperial Cult.” Journal of Roman Studies 70: 28-43.
Ramage, N. H., & Ramage, A. (2005). Roman Art. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Rauh, N. K., & Kraus, H. E. (2017). A Short History of the Ancient World. University of Toronto Press, Higher Education Division.
Richardson, J. S. (1991). “Imperium Romanum: Empire and the Language of Power.” The Journal of Roman Studies, 81, 1–9.
Richardson, L. (1992). A New Topographical Dictionary of Ancient Rome. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Riggsby, A. M. (1998) “Public and Private in Roman Culture: the Case of the Cubiculum.” Journal of Roman Archaeology 10: 37-56.
Rocca, E. L. (2015). “The Perception of Space in Ancient Rome.” In Paradigm and Progeny: Roman Imperial Architecture and Its Legacy. edited by Favro, D., Yegül, F., Pinto, J. and Metraux,G. 89-105. Portsmouth, Rhode Island: Journal of Roman Archeology.
Rose C. B. (1997). Dynastic Commemoration and Imperial Portraiture in the Julio-Claudian Period. GB: Cambridge University Press.
12 6
Russell, A. (2011). The Definition of Public Space in Republican Rome. PhD Dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.
Sauer, N. (2021). “The Forum of Caesar: A Historiographical Review.” In Caesar’s Past and Posterity’s Caesar. Edited by Hass, T.A. & Raja,R. 213-241. Turnhout: Brepols.
Scott, R. T. (1999). “Vesta, Aedes.” In Lexicon Topographicum Urbis Romae 4, edited by M.T. Steinby, 125–128. Rome: Quasar.
Scranton, R. (1977). Greek Architecture. New York: George Braziller.
Sear, F. (2021). Roman Architecture. New York: Routledge.
Senseney, J. (2011). “Adrift toward Empire: The Lost Porticus Octavia in Rome and the Origins of the Imperial Fora.” Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians 70(4): 421-441.
Sewell, J. (2010). The Formation of Roman Urbanism, 338-200 B.C.: Between Contemporary Foreign Influence and Roman Tradition. Portsmouth, Rhode Island: Journal of Roman Archaeology Suplement 79.
Shaya, J. (2013). “The Public Life of Monuments: The Summi Viri of the Forum of Augustus.” American Journal of Archeology 117(1), 83-110.
Shipley, F. W. (1931). “Chronology of the Building Operations in Rome from the Death of Caesar to the Death of Augustus.” Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome 9: 7-60.
Smith, C. (2000). “Early and Archaic Rome.” In Ancient Rome: The Archaeology of the Eternal City. Coulston. J. & H. Dodge (Eds.). 16-41. Oxford University School of Archaeology.
Smith, C. J.(1996) Early Rome and Latium: Economy and Society c.1000 to 500 B.C. Oxford: Clarendon Press
12 7
Soren, D. (n.d.a) Week 2 Episode 2: The Etruscans [MOOC]. Coursera. https://www.coursera.org/learn/roman-art-archaeology/lecture/pSOMb/2-the-etruscans
Soren, D. (n.d.b) Week 2 Episode 4: The people of Ancient Italy [MOOC]. Coursera. https://www.coursera.org/learn/roman-art-archaeology/lecture/agPVN/4-the-people-of-ancient-italy
Soren, D. (n.d.c) Week 3 Episode 1: Early Roman Expansion [MOOC]. Coursera. https://www.coursera.org/learn/roman-art-archaeology/lecture/wpPnB/1-early-roman-expansion
Southern, P. (1998). Augustus. New York: Routledge.
Stamper, J. W. (2008). The Architecture of Roman Temples: The Republic to the Middle Empire. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Steiner, D. (n.d.). Greek and Roman Theories of Art. In Oxford Handbook of Greek and Roman Art and Architecture. Marconi, C. (Ed.). 21-24. New York: Oxford University Press.
Steingräber, S. (2001). "The Process of Urbanization of Etruscan Settlements from the Late Villanovan to the Late Archaic Period (End of the Eighth to the Beginning of the Fifth Century B.C.): Presentation of a Project and Preliminary Results," Etruscan Studies 8: 7-33.
Stockton, D. (1986). “The Founding of the Empire” In the Oxford History of the Classical World, edited by Boardman J. Griffin, J &. Murray O. 531-59. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Tagliamonte, G. (1996). “Iuppiter Optimus Maximus Capitolinus, Aedes, Templum (fino all’a. 83 a. C.).” In Lexicon Topographicum Urbis Romae 3, edited by E. M. Steinby, 144–148. Rome: Quasar.
Thayer, B. (n.d.). Concordia. Lacus Curtius • Temples of Concord (Platner & Ashby, 1929). Retrieved October 7, 2022, from https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Gazetteer/Places/Europe/Italy/Lazio/Roma/Rome/_Texts/PLATOP*/Concordia.html#3
12 8
Thomas, E. (2007). “Buildings, Politics and the Monumentality of Antonine Cities.” In Monumentality and the Roman Empire: Architecture in the Antonine age. 107-126. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Trümper, M. (2007). “Differentiation in the Hellenistic houses of Delos: the question of functional areas.” British School at Athens Studies, 15, 323–334.
Varner, E.R. (2014). “The Patronage of Greek and Roman Art.” In Oxford Handbook of Greek and Roman Art and Architecture. Marconi, C. (Ed.). 21-24. New York: Oxford University Press.
Von Blanckenhagen, P. H. (1954). “The Imperial Fora.” Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians 13(4), 21-26.
Walker, S. (2000). “The Moral Museum: Augustus and the city of Rome.” In Ancient Rome: the archaeology of the Eternal City (J. C. Coulston & H. Dodge, Authors). Havertown: Oxbow Books.
Waterhouse, A. (1993). Boundaries of the City: The Architecture of Western Urbanism. University of Toronto, Toronto.
Weinstock, S. (1971) Divus Julius. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Weiss, M. "'Cui bono?' The beneficiary phrases of the third Iguvine table" (PDF). Ithaca, New York: Cornell University
Welch, K. E. (2010). “Art and Architecture in the Roman Republic.” In A companion to the Roman Republic, N. S. Rosenstein & R. Morstein-Marx (Authors). 496-542. West Sussex, United Kingdom: Wiley-Blackwell.
WordSense Online Dictionary (n.d.a) "privatus”. Retrieved April 22,2022 from https://www.wordsense.eu/privatus/
WordSense Online Dictionary (n.d.b) "publicus”. Retrieved April 22,2022 from https://www.wordsense.eu/publicus/
Yegül, F., & Favro, D. (2019). Roman Architecture and Urbanism: From the Origins to Late Antiquity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
12 9
Zanker, P. (2004). Die Apotheose Der Römischen Kaiser: Ritual Und Städtische Bühne (Munich: Carl Friedrich von Siemens Stiftung.
Zanker, P. (2015). "Popular" Architecture in Rome. In The Emperor and Rome: Space, Representation, and Ritual, B. C. Ewald (Author). Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.
Zanker, P. (1990). The Power of Images in the Age of Augustus. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.
13 0
APPENDICES
A. TURKISH SUMMARY / TÜRKÇE ÖZET
Bu tez, antik Roma'da kamusal alanın kalbi olarak tanımlanabilecek Forum Romanum ve erken Emperyal Forumlarda, cumhuriyetten imparatorluğa geçiş sürecinde üretilen imge ve simgelerindeki güç temsillerine odaklanmaktadır. İmgeler ve simgeler özellikle de imparatorluğun merkezi olan Roma’da sosyal, kültürel ve politik alanlarda kilit roller oynamış, politik alandaki kişiler, topluluklar ve farklı sınıflar arasındaki ilişkileri yansıtmış ve sivillerin zihinlerini şekillendirmede önemli bir araç olarak kullanılmıştır. Bu bağlamda, kamu alanlarında sergilenen bu imgeler aracılığıyla kişiler kendilerini hem topluma hem de politik alanda etkin bireylere ifade edebilmiş, hem de insanların zihinlerindeki temsillerini güçlendirmişlerdir.
İnsanların kamusal alanda oluşturdukları imgeler, onları kamusal alandaki statülerini tanımlayan görsel yansımaları haline gelmiştir. Senatoda yer alan siyasi figürler mimari ve sanatsal eserler aracılığıyla kamusal alanda kendi varlıklarını daha görünür hale getirdiler. Bu temsiller yalnızca görselleştirme gücü açısından değil aynı zamanda da mekanların yüzyıllar boyunca nesilden nesile aktarılan hafızasını da oluşturmuştur. Kamusal alandaki bireylerin temsiller, görsel çeşitlilik ve kendini ifade biçimi açısından Antik Roma’nın geç Cumhuriyet Dönemi’nde zirveye çıkmıştır. Ancak erken İmparatorluk Dönemi’nde, siyasi gücün tek bir kişide toplanması ile, bu ifade biçimleri de yeni bir üsluba dönüşmüştür. Bitmeyen siyasi güç savaşlarından sonra, Augustus dönemi ile birlikte tüm gücün tek bir kişinin elinde olduğu bir zaman gelmiştir. Politik yapıdaki güç dengelerinin değişmesi ile aynı dönemde gerçekleşen, mimari ve sanat eserlerindeki değişim de oldukça dikkat çekicidir.
İmgeler karmaşık anlam yapısına sahip olmalarına rağmen Antik Roma’da sık kullanılan iletişim araçlarındandır. İmgeler genel olarak bakıldığında onlarla
13 1
karşılaşan insanların zihninde resimler üreten bir dil olarak tanımlanabilir.298 Antik Roma’da kullanılan imgelere bakıldığında ise, çeşitli araçlar arasında belleğe hayat veren ve anlamlar yaratan genel diller bütününün bir parçası olarak da değerlendirilebilir. İmgeler, geçmiş ve bugün arasında bir köprü görevi görürken aynı zamanda gücü somutlaştırma aracı olarak kullanılmıştır. Yaşayanlar için, insanların anılarını ve değerlerini ortaya çıkarabilir ve hedeflenen kitlenin zihinlerine bu anıları kaydedebilmektedir. Bu bağlamda, Forum Romanum ve Emperyal Forumlar gibi anılarla dolu mekanlarda bulunan imgeler hayati bir önem kazanmaktadır. Bu iki kamusal alanda, mekanların kendine özgü tarihsel gelişimleri sebebiyle, bu mekanlardaki imgelerin yorumlanması açısından iki farklı yaklaşım kullanılmaktadır. Forum Romanum ilk olarak milattan önce 7. ve 6. yüzyıllarda oluşmaya başladı.299 Forum Romanum’un yüzyıllar süren oluşumu ve gelişimi düşünüldüğünde imgelerin üst üste yığılarak zaman içerisinde biriktiği katmanlı ancak doğal bir gelişim gösterdiği düşünülmektedir. Bu sebep, Forum Romanum’daki imgelerin zaman içerisinde meydana gelen değişimlerini ve bu değişimlerin özellikle politik güç dengeleri ile ilişkisinin çalışılmasını gerekli ancak bir o kadar daha karmaşık bir hale getirmektedir. Diğer yandan Emperyal Forumlar ilk olarak Forum Romanum’un devamı olarak inşa edilmiş ve belleksel anlamda boş bir alan üzerine inşa edilmiştir. Bu nedenle, Emperyal Forumların önceden olan kamusal hafıza açısından çalışılması mümkün değildir. Tezde, önceden var olan imgeler ve bellekten ziyade, Forum Romanum ve Emperyal Forumlar arasındaki imge ve bellek aktarımı ele alınmıştır. Kamusal alandaki görseller incelenirken yapılardaki heykeller, kabartmalar, süslemeler gibi farklı ölçeklerdeki sanatsal ve mimari ögeler dikkate alınmış ve bulundukları ortamdaki ilişkileri üzerinden değerlendirilmişlerdir. Bahsedilen bu ögelerin tamamı belleği etkileyen görseller veya onlara anlam kazandıran maddi unsurlara sahip olduğundan, bu ögelerin tamamı tez içerisinde imge olarak adlandırılmaktadır. Ayrıca siyasal ve kamusal alanın bir parçası olan imge, güç ile ilişkisi açısından da incelenmektedir. Genel olarak düşünüldüğünde, imgeler, kamusal alandaki görsel temsiller olarak kabul edilebilmektedir. Bu çalışma sonucunda, Antik Roma’da
298 Oxford Learners Dictionaries (n.d.)
299 Mackendrick 1983, 63.
13 2
Cumhuriyet’ten İmparatorluk Dönemi’ne geçiş sürecinde imgelerdeki değişimin izini sürmeye yönelik bir inceleme yapılması amaçlanmıştır.
Bellek ya da hafıza, imgelerle yakından ilişkisi olan ve Romalıların yaşam tarzının hayati parçalarından birini oluşturan bir diğer öğedir. Roma toplumunda nesnelerin isimleriyle bile var olan derin bir hafıza vardı. Anılar ve isimler, çevrelerindeki her şeyin anlaşılmasında bir köprü olmuştur. Örneğin, domi ve militae kelimelerinin anlamlarına bakıldığında, sırasıyla “evde” ve “savaşta” anlamına geldikleri görülmektedir ki bu da Roma’da sivil ve askeri alanlarda net bir ayrımın olduğunu göstermektedir.300 Bu isimlerin iki farklı yetki alanında uygulanan kuralları da birbirinden ayırdığı görülmüştür. Öte yandan, yetki alanlarının ayrılması askeri yetkililer için hareket alanlarını kısıtladığından şehirde gerçekleştirilen zafer kutlamalarını ve tören alaylarını etkilemiştir. Bellek ve şehrin kimliği arasındaki ilişki tekrar düşünüldüğünde ise, kentin daha önce birçok uygarlığa ev sahipliği yapması nedeniyle mekanlara ait belleklerin sadece Romalılara değil çok kimlikli bir yapıya sahip olduğu da görülmektedir. Geleneksel Roma kent planlamasında, yolların en önemli özelliklerinden biri olan adının Yunanca olması, Roma'nın zaman içinde gelişen ve hafızasını koruyan canlı bir organizma olduğunu kanıtlamaktadır.
Bellek ve imgelerin birlikte kullanılması Romalılar için yeni bir kavram değildir. İnsanlar kültürel olarak imgeleri ve mimari temsilleri okumaya alışkındı. Ancak, Helenizm ile gelen, yeni ifadelerle imgelere yaklaşım ve anlayışta değişimler meydana gelmiştir. Eski geleneklere göre tanrılar kutsalken, Helenizm ve yeni ifadelerle siyasetçiler tanrısal özelliklerle kişiselleştirilerek daha yüksek statüdeki bireylerin algısı değiştirilmiştir. Bu durum, Senato’daki politikacılar için güçlü bir beyana dönüştü. Ancak bu dönüşüm politikacıların kamu alanlarına bakış açılarını da değiştirdi. Örneğin, bir zafer kazanıldığında, galip gelen generaller, savaştan elde ettikleri gelir ile halk için yapılar inşa etmişlerdi. Ancak Helenizm ile karşılaştıktan sonra, bu inşaatlar toplum yararı için yapılan projelere değil, kendi ünlerini arttırmak ve gösterişte birbirleriyle yarışmak için inşa edilen yeni yapılara dönüştü.
300 Koortbojian 2011, 247-248.
13 3
Güç imgelerine ilişkin inceleme, yalnızca başkent olan ve bütün önemli resmi işlerin, savaşın ve barışın kararlaştırıldığı güç merkezi olan Roma’ya odaklanmaktadır. Hükümeti temsil eden Senato, karar almak için Forum alanlarında toplantılar gerçekleştirmektedir. Ayrıca sosyal ve yaşamsal alanlar da forum alanı etrafında toplanmıştır. Forumların bu çok işlevselliği, vatandaşların bu mekanlarda sık sık sosyalleşmesine ve değişimleri takip etmesine olanak sağlamıştır. Bu nedenle, İmparatorluğun merkezindeki bu alanı mekanlaştıran, şekillendiren ve güç imgelerinin izini taşıyan mimari ve sanat, kamusal alandaki merkezi aktörler haline gelmiştir. Dolayısıyla bu çalışma Forum Romanum’da ve erken Emperyal Forumlarının genişleyen kamusal alanında zaman içinde kademeli olarak örtüşen güç imgeleri ve mimari ilişkisindeki değişimi değerlendirmeyi amaçlamaktadır.
Bu tez, kronolojik olarak Geç Cumhuriyet ve Erken İmparatorluk dönemlerine odaklanarak, Forum Romanum ve erken Emperyal Forumlarındaki temsillerin dönüşümünü, bütünsel bir imge ve kimlik oluşturmak için tamamlayıcı bileşenler olarak çalışan farklı ölçeklerdeki mimari ve sanat eserlerine odaklanarak incelemeyi amaçlamıştır. Bu doğrultuda, çalışma üç kamusal alan üzerine odaklanmaktadır; Forum Romanum, Forum Iulium ve Augustus Forumu.
Tez beş bölümden oluşmaktadır. 1. bölümde, tezi oluşturan ana mekanların ve temel konseptlerin kısa bir tanıtımı yapılmaktadır.
2. bölümde, Roma’da kamusal alanda görülen karakteristik özellikler kendi içerisinde iki kısımda incelenmektedir. İlk kısımda, toplumu derinden etkileyen kavramların etimolojik kökenleri ve bunların kültürel ve mimari yansımaları arasındaki bağlantılar ele alınırken, ikinci kısımda ise kent yaşamıyla ilgili daha önce tanıtılan bu kavramlar kent ile ilişkilendirilmiştir. Roma şehrinin kuruluş tarzı birden farklı bakış açısıyla incelenerek, Roma’yı eski uygarlıkların izlerini taşıyan, içerisinde birçok katmanı barındıran bir kent olarak ortaya koymayı amaçlamıştır. Bu çoklu unsurların varlığı, kentin gelişimini derinden başlayarak etkilemiştir. Kentte tek bir alan hem sosyal, hem kültürel, hem de dini işaretleri aynı anda taşıyabilmekteydi. Bununla birlikte hem
13 4
tarihsel gerçekler hem de mitler beraber incelendiğinde, Palatine tepesini, çevresini ve Forum alanını temel olayların meydana geldiği merkez olarak işaret etmektedir. 301
3. bölümde, Roma’daki ilk kamusal alan olan Forum Romanum ele alınmıştır. Forum Romanum antik Roma’da yer alan en eski kamusal alanlardan biri olmasının yanı sıra imgelerin ve kendini ifade biçiminin kamusal alanda kendisini gösterdiği ilk alanlardan biri olarak antik Roma’nın en değerli ve önemli alanlarından biri olmuştur. Forum Romanum’un ilk oluşumundan cumhuriyetin son dönemlerine kadar olan döneme bakıldığında, forumda yer alan mimari alanın antik Roma’nın büyümesi ve gelişmesiyle benzer zamanlarda gelişim gösterdiği ve bu değişimlerinde gerek mimari gerekse diğer ifade araçlarıyla forumda kendini gösterdiği görülebilmektedir. Bunun yanı sıra, bünyesinde dini imgeleri ve kutsal alanları da barındıran bir alan olduğundan, gücün temsili açısından çok uygun bir alan oluşturmaktadır. Bu nedenle, Forum mekanının şekillenmesinde özellikle etkili olan dini ve siyasi alanların mekânsal gelişiminin izleri, etkilendiği politik ve sosyal olaylarla ilişkisi de göz önüne alınarak incelenmiştir. Böylece mekanlar üzerinden gerçekleşen güç ilişkileri vurgulanmıştır. Bu bölüm, gücün mekandaki köklerini ve mimari aracılığıyla aşamalı dönüşümünü anlamayı amaçlamıştır. Helenizm etkisiyle hızlanan değişim ve dönüşüm, bu çalışma sırasında özellikle vurgulanmaktadır. Bu sayede, Geç Cumhuriyet’ten Erken İmparatorluğa geçiş sürecinde özellikle bu değişimden etkilenen mimari ve sanatsal güç temsillerinin Erken İmparatorluk dönemindeki dönüşümü takip edilmektedir.
Cumhuriyet’in sonlarına doğru Forum Romanum’daki genel tabloya bakıldığında, önemli projelerin bu alandaki hafızaya eklemlendikleri görülmektedir. Cumhuriyet Dönemi’nde politikacıların kamusal alanda inşası ve temsili o kadar önemli ve yaygın olarak görülmektedir ki, benzer projelerin sıklaşmasıyla politikacılar birbirlerini geçmeye, daha iyisini yapmaya çalışıyorlardı. Bu tür bir rekabetin sonucu olarak, kamusal alanda yaratıcı, değişken forumlar ve tasarımlar ortaya çıktı. Bireyler bu imgeler aracılığı ile kamusal alanda kendi kimliklerini oluşturmaya ve şekillendirmeye çalışmaktaydı. Bu imgeler, sadece mimari temsiller sınırlı kalmamış, resim ve heykel gibi diğer iletişim araçlarını da bu amaç doğrultusunda kullanmışlardı.
301 Schulz 1975, 84-88; Koortbojian 2011, 248; Gates ve Yılmaz 2011, 328.
13 5
Roma aristokrasinin eski geleneklerine göre, Yunan tanrılarıyla bağlantı kurmak ve toplumdaki konumlarını tanrılarla olan bağlantılarıyla güçlendirmek politik gücü ifade etmenin yöntemlerinden biriydi. Bu nedenle özellikle Forum Romanum’da dini olarak kutsal sayılan alanlarla ilişki kurmak da siyasi figürler açısından önemliydi. Mimarinin bu alanlarla ilişki kurmak için bir araç olarak kullanılması özellikle çok yaygındı. Forumda özellikle de tapınakların politik figürler tarafından yeniden inşası, bu dinsel bağların mekânsal olarak somutlaştırılması olarak da düşünülmektedir.
4. Bölümde, Helenizm, mimari ve imgeler arasındaki bağlantılar kurularak, mekân algısındaki değişim vurgulanmaktadır. Iulius Caesar geç Cumhuriyet Dönemi’nin önemli temsilcileri arasında olduğundan Helenizm etkisiyle gerçekleşen değişimlerin izi mimari ve sanat üzerinden farklı ölçeklerde analiz edilerek açık bir şekilde vurgulanmaktadır. Siyasetin dili olarak görülen mimarlık, rekabet ortamına uyum sağlamak için ifade dilini değiştirmiştir. Helenizm etkisinde inşa edilen mimarinin açıkça daha gösterişli formlardan oluştuğu ve daha cesur güç ilişkileri kurduğu görülmektedir. Bu güç ilişkileri ise geç Cumhuriyet Dönemi’nin en önemli isimlerinden olan Pompey ve Caesar üzerinden anlatılabilir. Pompey, Doğu’ya düzenlediği başarılı sefer sonrasında askeri başarısını kutlamak için büyük kutlamalar düzenledi. Bu kutlamalar, halk üzerinde güçlü bir otorite imgesi oluşturmak için büyük bir fırsattı. Ritüel ve törenler aracılığıyla, insanların hafızalarındaki görünürlüğü arttırırken, bu törenlerin temsil ettiği güç ise kişisinin gücünün görselleştirilmesi ve halkı etkilemek gibi amaçlara hizmet etmekteydi. Kutlamalara ek olarak, Pompey savaştan kazandığı ganimetleri kullanarak bir grup inşaat projesi başlattı.302 Bu projelerden en önemlilerinden birisi de Pompey’in tiyatrosudur. Bu tiyatro M.Ö 55 yılında Campus Martius’da gösterişli bir açılış etkinliği eşliğinde kullanıma açılmıştır.303 Pompey’in tiyatrosu, geç Cumhuriyet Dönemi’nde Roma’nın sınırlarının genişlemesi ve Senato’da üye sayısının artması sonucu ortaya çıkan yer ihtiyacını karşılamak için yapılmış bir proje olarak düşünülebilir. Diğer taraftan bu proje aynı zamanda Helenizm’in etkisiyle gerçekleşen mimari alandaki değişimlerden biri olarak
302 Cass. Dio 37.20
303 Stamper 2005, 85.
13 6
da yorumlanabilmektedir. Antik Roma’da daha önceki dönemlere bakıldığında şehirde sofistike ahşap yapıların şehrin çehresini oluşturmada önemli bir rolü olduğu görülmektedir.304 Ancak bu yapılar ahşap olduğundan geçici olarak inşa edildiğinden toplumsal alanda kalıcı izler bırakmamaktadır. Bu yapıların aksine, Pompey ‘in tiyatrosu yapılan ilk taş tiyatrolardan biri olduğu için toplumsal alanda kalıcı olarak Pompey’in izini bırakan bir yapı olarak yorumlandığında, kendisinden önceki yapılara oranla sergilediği tutum büyük bir farklılık ortaya koymaktadır. Yapıya genel olarak bakıldığında ise içerisinde birçok fonksiyon barındıran çok işlevli bir yapı olduğu görülmektedir. Tiyatro kompleksi, içerisinde Pompey’in zaferlerinden elde edilen savaş ganimetlerinin sergilendiği peyzajlı alana sahip bir portiko, Senato’nun toplantılar için kullandığı bir Curia ve bazilika barındırmaktadır.305 Bu yapının bitişiğine ise yine Pompey tarafından bir ev ve bahçe inşa edilmiştir. Venüs Victrix tapınağı bütün yapıyı gören konumdadır.306
Forum Iulium ise Caesar’ın Pompey tarafından gerçekleştirilen bu büyük güç gösterisinin karşılığı olarak düşünülmektedir. Aynı zamanda mevcut alanın büyütülmesi ihtiyacı sebebiyle gerçekleştirilen bir proje olarak da açıklanmaktadır. Projenin başlangıcından bitişine kadar geçen süre içerisinde politik güç dengesinde yaşanan sürekli değişim nedeniyle Forum Iulium’da da yapısal olarak değişimler meydana gelmiştir. Bu değişimlerle birlikte, ilk olarak sadece ek alan ihtiyacını karşılamak için Forum Romanum’a ek olarak tasarlanan yapı Caesar’ın insanüstü statüsünün bir beyanına dönüşmüştür. Bu dönüşüm Augustus’un ideolojisinin de temel taşlarını oluşturmaktadır.
Forum Iulium’un en önemli niteliklerinden biri konumu nedeniyle çevresiyle kurduğu ilişkilerdir. Yapı, Forum Romanum’un politik merkezinin olduğu kısımda yer almaktadır. Curia Hostilia, Porcia Bazilikası ve Atrium Libertatis’in yakınında yer almaktadır. Forum Iulium’un inşası ve yangın sebebiyle, Curia’nın yıkılıp yeniden konumlandırıldığı ve Comitium’un yıkıldığı bilinmektedir. Projenin
304 Favro ve Yegül 2019, 27.
305 Erasmo 202, 44-45.
306 Favro ve Yegül 2019, 27.
13 7
tamamlanmasından sonra Iulium Forumu Forum Romanum’un bazı işlevlerini kendi bünyesine aktarmıştır. Forum Iulium’da tabernae resmi devlet işleri için, Curia ise Senato toplantıları için kullanılmaktaydı. Venüs Genetrix Tapınağının önünde bulunan konuşmacı rostra ise halka açık toplantılar sırasında kullanılmak üzere yeni bir alan olarak kullanılmaktaydı.307 Dolayısıyla, Forum Iulium, fiziksel olarak Forum Romanum’a tamamen bitişik bir yapı olmamasına rağmen bu iki forumun sürekli iletişim halinde olduğu söylenebilmektedir.
Yapıyla ilgili değişimlere bakıldığında kompleksin en önemli kısımlarından olan Curia ve Venüs Genetrix Tapınağı’nın yapıya daha sonradan eklemlendiği düşünülmektedir. Bu değişimler Caesar’ın Pompey’i yenmesi sonrası siyasi gücünün mimari bir temsili olarak yorumlanabilmektedir. Forum Iulium, Forum Romanum’un bazı fonksiyonlarını kendi bünyesine aktarmıştır. Bu durumda, Forum Romanum’daki bazı önemli işlevler Forum Romanum’daki eski alan ve dolayısıyla bellekten ayrılarak Caesar’ın kendi alanında kontrollü bir alanda yeniden yorumlanmıştır.
Mimari olarak kamusal mekanda var olma yarışında Pompey’in tiyatrosuna bir karşılık niteliğinde inşa edilen bu yapılardaki tapınaklara bakıldığında ise dikkat çekici bir ayrıntı fark edilmektedir. Pompey’in Venüs Victrix’e adadığı tapınak sonrası Caesar’ın da Venüs Genetrix’e bir tapınak adamıştır. İki farklı politikacının aynı tanrıça ile bağ kurmaya çalışması bu durumun politik bir yarış olarak da nitelendirilmesine sebep olabilse de daha derin olarak konu incelendiğinde Caesar’ın aslında çok daha derin bir ilişki tanımladığı görülebilmektedir. Pompey tapınağını Victrix’e yani zafer kazanmış bir Venüs’e adamışken Caesar tapınağını daha sonrasında Iulius hanedanlığının da atası kabul edilen, Genetrix’e adamıştır.308 Pompey’in tiyatrosu onun siyasi gücünün Roma’da daha önce görülmemiş bir ölçekte yansıtsa da Caesar bu tapınakla birlikte sadece kendi gücünü somutlaştırmak yerine aynı zamanda kendisini tanrılara bağlayacak bir statü kurgulamıştır.
307 Senseney 2011, 423.
308 Grossi 1936, 216-217.
13 8
Forum kompleksinin tarihsel gelişimi ve bu kompleksin arkasındaki ideolojik nedenler de Forum Iulium’un Emperyal Forumlar’ın bir parçası olmasına neden oldu. Forum Iulium, Helenizm etkisiyle ortaya çıkan kişisel gücün kamusal alanda temsilinin bir parçası olsa da geçirdiği ideolojik ve yapısal eklentiler sonucunda zaman içerisinde kamusal alanda tanımlanan bir yönetim organı ve emperyal gücün bir parçası olmuştur.
5. Bölüm, Augustus’un ideolojisi ve bunun forum kompleksinde görülen ideolojik ve mekânsal yansımaları üzerinde yoğunlaşmaktadır. Augustus tarafından üretilen imgeler bu bölüm içerisinde iki kısımda incelenmiştir. Bu imgelerin kökenlerine inildiğinde, Augustus tarafından yoğun bir şekilde kullanılan ilk imgelerin ideolojisinin kendisini tanrılaştırılmış Caesar’ın “oğlu” olarak bağlayan imgeler olduğu görülmektedir. Augustus’un çabasının en somut örneklerinden biri 1. yüzyılın sonunda Divus Iulius tapınağını inşa ettirmesi olarak düşünülebilir.309 Tapınak ve madeni paralar üzerinde görülen tapınak imgelerindeki sekiz köşeli bir yıldızın Caesar’ın tanrı statüsünün somut bir ifadesi haline geldiği görülmektedir. Bu tapınağın inşasının tamamlanmasından bile önce tapınak imgelerinin yıldızla birlikte madeni paralar üzerinde tasviri görsel dilin Augustus tarafından etkili bir şekilde kullanılmasına örnek olarak da gösterilebilir.310 İkinci kısım ise, Augustus’un tek başına iktidara gelmesinden sonra kendine yeni bir kimlik edinmesini incelemektedir. Artık sadece Caesar’la bağlantısı yüzünden güç kazanan biri değil, Senato’nun başı ve Cumhuriyet’in kurtarıcısıydı. Bu yeni unvanlarını ise Augustus adını kabul etmesi ve “Apollo” imgesini benimsemesiyle yansıtmıştır. Augustus yeni kimliğini oluşturmasıyla birlikte, Caesar’ın oğlu olarak tanınmasını sağlayan eski imgelerden kurtulmak için kentteki tüm gümüş heykellerini kaldırdı ve bu gümüşlerin parasını da Apollon Tapınağı’na altın adaklar sunmak için kullandı.311 Bu eylem, Augustus’a eski imgelerini ortadan kaldırması için fırsat verdi.312 Augustus’un diğer tanrılar arasında Apollon’u seçmesi de Augustus’un, halkın aklında oluşturmak istediği imgesi ile
309 Zanker 1990, 35.
310 Zanker 1990, 35.
311 Res Gestae 24.
312 Zanker 1990, 86.
13 9
uyumludur. Apollon, Roma için umut dolu bir gelecek vaat eden, devletin kurtarıcısı olarak görülen bir tanrıydı. Bu nedenle tanrı Caesar’ın oğlu kimliğinin yanı sıra Apollon da Augustus’u destekleyen bir tanrı olarak sunuldu. Böylece kişisel amaçlarını gerçekleştirmeye çalışan bir figür yerine Apollon’un Roma’ya verdiği sözleri yerine getiren kişi olduğu da vurgulanmaktadır.
Augustus’un ideolojik yaklaşımını yansıtan imgeler çok çeşitli biçimlerde kamusal alanda kullanılmış olsa da Augustus’un ideolojik politikalarını yeni görsel dili kullanarak üreten, yine Augustus tarafından oluşturulan kültürel ve ahlaki programın en iyi yansıtan yapı Augustus Forumu’dur. Bu yeni dil, Yunan ve eski Roma mimari ve kültürel ögelerinin karakteristik özelliklerinin sentezlenmesiyle oluşturulmuştur. Bu yeni dil ile, Augustus büyük bir kentsel projeden bağlayıcı bir dil yarattı. Özellikle geç Cumhuriyet dönemine hâkim olan kaostan, kargaşadan ve geleneklerinden uzaklaşan insanlar için bu dil yeni bir hayat vaat etmekteydi. Projenin amacı ise görsel aktarımın en iyi özelliklerini uyumlu hale getiren, antik Yunanlıların klasik kültürüne eş yeni bir görsel dil yaratmaktı. Bu özellikler, Augustus Forumu’nun her bir bileşeninde görülebilmekteydi.
Augustus’un ideolojisinin bir parçası olarak Roma tarihinin yeniden yazılmasındaki önemli rolleri nedeniyle Augustus’un Forumu’ndaki heykel koleksiyonunun özel olarak üzerinde durulması bu çalışma açısında önem arz etmektedir. Bu heykel koleksiyonuna genel olarak bakıldığında üç farklı grup olduğu görülmektedir. Bunlarda ilki Iulia hanedanlığı, ikinci grup Roma’nın kuruluşunda önemli roller oynayan tarihsel figürler ve son olarak da forumun tam ortasında yer alan Augustus’un kendi heykelidir. Heykelleri galerilerde sergilenmektedir. Bu heykellerin arasında Roma tarihi açısından daha öne çıkan figürler galeriler içerisinde yer alan anıtsal nişler içerisine yerleştirilmiştir. Forum alanının iki tarafına yerleştirilmiş bu galerilerin birbirleriyle kurdukları görsel ilişki de çok dikkat çekmektedir. Summi viri olarak adlandırılan ve Roma tarihinin önemli isimlerini barındıran heykel grubu, Iulia hanedanlığı üyelerinin tam karşısına yerleştirilmiştir. Bu sayede iki grup arasında sağlanan görsel bağlantı, Forum Romanum’daki iki konuşmacı platformunun yerleşimi ile benzerlik göstermektedir. Konuşmacı platformlarında, yeni platform, eski platformun karşı tarafına yerleştirilerek platformlar üzerindeki imgelerin görsel bağlantısı sağlanmıştır. Eski platform M.Ö 4. yüzyılda gerçekleşen sivil savaşlara
14 0
karşı kazanılan zaferi temsil ederken, yeni platformdaki imgeler ise Augustus’un Aktium Savaşı’nda kazandığı zaferi görselleştirmektedir. Bu iki önemli tarihi olayın karşı karşıya yerleştirilmesi ile sağlanan görsel bağlantı ise antik Roma için önemli dönüm noktası olan bu iki olay arasında bir ilişki sağlamaktadır. Her iki durumda da Cumhuriyet kurtarılmıştır ancak bu sefer bunu başaran kişi Augustus’tur. Benzer bir görsel ve sembolik bir ilişki ise Augustus Forumu’nda öne çıkan tarihi figürler ve Iulia hanedanlığı üyeleri arasında sağlanarak, Iulia ailesi üyelerini efsanevi ve tarihi olarak öne çıkan bu figürlere bağlamıştır. Bu bağlantı hanedanlığa sıra dışı bir statü kazandırarak onların imparatorluğu yönetme hakkını meşrulaştırdı. Daha sonrasında ise imparatorluk kültü haline geldi. Sunulan tüm görseller arasında, forumun ortasında ise bütün figürlerin önünde duran pater patrie olarak duran Augustus heykeli ise forumdaki en cesur eylemlerden biri olarak da görülebilir. Tezde açıklanan aile gelenekleri nedeniyle, pater familias konumu evi yöneten kişi olarak hanedeki en güçlü figürü temsil etmekteydi.313 Benzer bir şekilde Augustus’un heykeli ise onu devletin babası olarak ilan etmiştir. Bu da açıkça Augustus’u ülkenin başı olarak ülkedeki en yetkili kişi haline getirmiş ve önemli bir propaganda aracı haline gelmiştir.314
Roma’nın tüm imparatorluğun kalbi olarak tanımlanabilecek kimliği, şehrin kuruluş öyküsündeki mitler, efsanelerle iç içe geçmiş derin kökleri nedeniyle zaman içerisinde önemini korumaya devam etmiştir. Bu derin bağlar, imparatorların imparatorluklarını inşa ettikleri bellek olarak kamusal alanda mimari ve sanat ile somutlaşmış yaşayan, değişen ve gelişen bir ortam sağladı. Efsaneler ve mitler Forum Romanum’dan başlayıp Augustus Forumu’nda pekiştirilen ve Emperyal Forumlar için kalıcı bir altlık sağlayan güç imgeleri aracılığıyla parlak bir gelecek vaadiyle şanlı bir geçmiş sunarak ortaya koydular.
313 Favro 1992,72.
314 Karababa 2017, 46-47
14 1
B. THESIS PERMISSION FORM / TEZ İZİN FORMU
ENSTİTÜ / INSTITUTE
Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü / Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences
Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü / Graduate School of Social Sciences
Uygulamalı Matematik Enstitüsü / Graduate School of Applied Mathematics
Enformatik Enstitüsü / Graduate School of Informatics
Deniz Bilimleri Enstitüsü / Graduate School of Marine Sciences
Hiç yorum yok:
Yorum Gönder