Prof. Dr. Eric M. Moormann (Nijmegen):
“Augustan Wall Painting Exemplified by the Frescos from the Villa della Farnesina”
The frescos of an ancient villa discovered in 1879 beneath the Renaissance Villa Farnesina are amongst the most important examples of urban Roman domestic art in the early Augustan period. Thanks to the finds from Augustus’s house on the Palatine Hill, which have been almost entirely published, new conclusions can be drawn for the wall paintings from the ancient Villa della Farnesina.
A connection of the villa with the Julian-Claudian family, suggested already in 1948 by H.G. Beyen, is very probable. Some evidence points to the villa being erected and decorated as a residence for Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa during his second consulship with Octavian in 28 BC, a time when he was closely related with the first princeps through his marriage with Octavian’s niece, Claudia Marcella. The lecture reported on new researches in the decoration of the Villa della Farnesina as well as on the connections in terms of art history with the frescos of the Domus Augusti.
Dr. Martin Tombrägel (Leipzig):
“The fundus Quintiliolus near Tivoli”
The so-called fundus Quintiliolus (also known as “Villa di Quintilio Varo”), which extends across a prominent vantage point directly northwest of the Latin town of Tibur (today’s Tivoli), is an outstanding building of the Late Republican epoch – not only because of its potential connection with Publius Quinctilius Varus.
The Roman otium villa, which goes back to the first half of the 2nd century BC, is one of the earliest examples of this type of building and also the largest and the most prominently positioned one in the area of Tibur. This leads to the question of how likely the connections of the villa with the person of Varus are. In addition the paper is concerned with presenting the life of an aristocrat in his otium villa at around the middle of the 1st century BC. The focus was on the one hand on an analysis of the fundus Quintiliolus itself, on the other on the social intercourse between Tibur’s luxury residences in the framework of the so-called villeggiatura.
Prof. Dr. Eugenio La Rocca (Rome):
“The Peace of the Ara Pacis”
The Ara Pacis, whose construction was decided under the Consuls Tiberius and Varus on the 4th of July 13 BC, is one of the most important monuments of Augustan art and is at the same time a symbol for the (peace) policy of the first princeps. The lecture was able to demonstrate that the ideological concept which was combined here with the pax did not correspond with the Greek ideal of eirene but originated in the Roman thinking of the late Rupublican period respectively of the Roman civil wars. Alongside “peace” the pax always implied “pacification”, too.
The lecture was also concerned with the question in how far the inauguration of the Ara Pacis in January 9 BC was connected on the one hand with important dates for the family of Augustus and on the other with Roman public life. Livia’s birthday on the 30th of January 58 BC and the settlements in January 27 BC known under the slogan of res republica restituta are just two of the most famous events.
Prof. Dr. Detlef Liebs (Freiburg):
“The Criminal Liability of Arminius According to Roman Law”
In this lecture the deeds were assessed which Arminius committed in September AD 9 on Roman territory against Romans and their allies. The very circumstances make it plain that Arminius was under Roman jurisdiction, especially as he himself was a Roman citizen. He committed the criminal offences of killing and of high treason. These delicts would have been dealt with by regular jury courts: The court de sicariis et veneficiis was responsible for offences involving killing, the court de maiestate for high treason. By this time the Senate court was also in charge for deeds of great importance. Here both complexes could have been dealt with and punishment for both decided upon. The Senate court did take its orientation from punishments stipulated by law but it could also deviate from them in certain cases.
Of the approximately 25 known offences covered by the Lex Cornelia de sicariis et veneficiis, Arminius had committed three, the first two – we estimate – a hundredfold, the third many thousandfold. The punishment foreseen by law was the death penalty, carried out under the supervision of a magistrate with an axe or by crucifixion. If no magistrate was available, it could be carried out under the supervision of a tribunus plebis by the convicted person being thrown from a high rock. Of the approximately 30 known delicts covered by the Lex Iulia maiestatis Arminius had committed 12. The punishment foreseen by law was banishment, combined with the loss of Roman citizenship and confiscation of property.
Dr. Konstantinos Zachos (Ioannina) – Evangelos Pavlidis, B.A. (Preveza):
“Nikopolis, the Victory City near Actium: The Results of Recent Years’ Research”
The “victory city”, which the young general, Octavian, had built in the vicinity of Actium directly after the sea battle, is a symbol of one of the most important turning points in Roman history: Octavian’s autocracy and thus the beginning of a new era. But Nikopolis was, too, a special town. As “ΙΕΡΑ ΝΙΚΟΠΟΛΙΣ” it was almost free but still bound to its venerable founder, Augustus, and the propaganda of his victory over Marcus Antonius and Cleopatra.
At the beginning of the nineties of the last century an enormously productive programme of research began which is still going on today. Protected zones have been set up and excavations have been carried out at specific points in the city. This means that, on the one hand, our historical and archaeological knowledge of ancient Nikopolis has been enriched, on the other, that the face of today’s site has been changed. The lecture dealt particularly with archaeological research on the early buildings of the city. Special mention should be made of the victory monument with its scarcely known triumphal frieze. Beyond that the different phases of work being carried out in the areas of preservation and didactic presentation, which are working towards turning the excavation site into an archaeological park, were emphasised.
Prof. Dr. Josef Wiesehöfer (Kiel):
“Augustus and the Parthians”
The rivalry between Rome and the Iranian Parthians determined the foreign policy of Augustus and the ideology of Roman rule over the orbis terrarum, particularly up to the temporary diplomatic solution to the conflict in 20 BC, but beyond it, too. If at first the revenge for the defeat of Crassus in 53 BC and that of Antonius in 36 BC took centre stage in public discourse as well as in concrete politics, later it was dealing with the factual division of rule over the world.
The children of Phraates IV, who had been living in Rome since 10 BC, were of practical use to Augustus, and his successors. With their help, the emperors tried again and again – however in vain – to influence Parthian policies. Two phenomena were particularly important at that time in the prevailing ideology: The development of a colourful but also ambivalent image of the eastern barbarians in art, partially formed in accordance with older models, as well as the development of literary images of the Parthians, in which western topoi of Nomads and Persians played an important role, but which provided little historical information.
Prof. Dr. Luisa Musso (Rom):
“Leptis Magna from Augustus to Tiberius: Romanisation and Reshaping of a Punic City”
Although Leptis Magna was a recent addition to the Roman Empire and its Punic traditions were still alive, considerable changes can be noticed in the city itself and its territory in Augustan and Tiberian times. The actual area of the city was extended and ordered by the building of a orthogonal street system. Especially in the city centre typical Roman buildings were erected, which, however, were more often donated by romanised peregrines than by Roman citizens, even if a proconsul Africae belonged to the founders.
The forum vetus was of special importance, because here Leptis’s links to Rome were stressed particularly. The Leptitans expressed their loyalty to the Roman Empire and the family of Augustus by erecting monumental buildings. Like two further market places, which came into being in Augustan times, the forum was at the same time also a symbol of the considerable economic upswing experienced by Leptis Magna in the early imperial period.
Prof. Dr. Dieter Salzmann (Münster):
“The Portrait of Publius Quinctilius Varus – An Attempted Approach”
Two cities of the Province Africa proconsularis minted coins with the image of the Proconsul of the year 8/7 BC, Publius Quinctilius Varus: Achulla and Hadrumetum. The lecture concentrated on the 19 known coins from Achulla. Due to the great historical interest in the person of Varus these coins were mentioned in scholarly literature again and again, whereby the iconographic value of the Varus portrait has always been a matter of discussion. By broadening the material basis and by comparing these coins to those of other provincial cities, the lecture was able to present the characteristics and the importance of the Varus portrait in a larger context.
The portraits of Varus on the coins from Achulla demonstrate efforts of individualisation which set them off clearly from portraits of the imperial family and put them more in a late Republican tradition. However, the work of Achulla’s local die-cutters do not permit us to identify three-dimensional portraits as those of Varus reliably. The extant coins from Hadrumetum, only three in number, which bear a divergent portrait of Varus, also remind us to be cautious.
Prof. Dr. Wolf-Dieter Heilmeyer (Berlin):
“Augustan Architecture – The Classical and the Politics”
Anyone who tries to get an overall idea of the Augustan era – considerable efforts have been made to give it prominence as the aurea aetas, the “Golden Age” – quickly encounters, alongside Latin literature, the extant examples of Roman architecture, indeed particularly the princeps’s emphatic, unmistakable commitment to the classical material, i.e. marble.
The material and style, quality, function and significance of Augustan architecture, its monumentalisation and canonization represent a world of forms which can be understood as a new classicism which seems to have been spread throughout the imperium as an active cultural policy. Considering the long discussed question as to the workshops of Roman stone decor, the paper was able to demonstrate how the new language of architecture created in Rome under Augustus was recognised and propagated. In that process the aurea aetas was indeed understood as an ideal, but one, too, which not everyone was able or wanted to follow.
Prof. Dr. Joseph Patrich (Jerusalem):
“The praetoria at Caesarea Maritima”
The foundation of Caesarea Maritima is one of the most important building projects initiated by Herod the Great, the Roman client king of Iudaea. The harbour town served as an important administrative centre and Herod had a prestigious palace built for himself, too. Its fresh water pools were built down to the rocky shore of the Mediterranean. When Iudaea came under Roman rule in 6 BC the Roman governor – a praefectus subordinate to the legate of Syria – claimed Herod’s palace as his administrative seat. From the Acts of the Apostles we know of the building as Herod’s praetorium. After the destruction of Jerusalem Vespasian founded a Roman colonia in Caesarea, which now became the capital of a province with its own administration. It was governed by a legatus Augusti pro praetore, who probably also resided in Herod’s palace. The tax administration, however, was under charge of a procurator provinciae, who occupied his own praetorium in Caesarea.
Archaeological excavations carried out in Caesarea since the 1970's uncovered the remains of these two praetoria – that of the praefectus respectively the legatus Augsti pro praetore and that of the procurator. The buildings have characteristic spatial structures and facilities and thus can be compared with the praetoria of other provinces of the (early) imperial period. In addition extensive epigraphic material was discovered here which has broadened our knowledge of the administrative history of Iudaea considerably.
Prof. Dr. Hans Ulrich Nuber (Freiburg):
“Military Operational Strategies in the Alpine Campaign of 15 BC”
Although literary records do not shed much light on it and the epigraphic evidence reveals more confusion than clear insight into the aims and course of the operation, the Alpine Campaign of 15 BC is a “turning point” in numerous respects: Rome subjugated the last autonomous tribes in the Alps, put an end to their warlike activities and created a belt of dependant peoples on Italy’s northern border. Thus the year 15 BC brought with it in the newly created Alpine provinces politically and culturally a turning point from the autochthonous early history of local territories to the great variety of peoples of the Roman Empire.
The written sources on the advance of 15 BC are well known and have been exhaustively examined, but once in a while archaeological discoveries can contribute new insight into the organisation and course of the Alpine War. Finds in Southern Germany and Northern Switzerland show that Tiberius moved with an army from Gaul across the Lake Constance to the sources of the Danube, and Drusus marched with further troops from the south over the Alps through the Etsch Valley to the north. These undertakings were logistically so well planned that within only a year the area between the Rhine and the Inn was subjugated and the main goal, control over the Alpine passes and the upper reaches of the Danube and the Rhine, could be realised.
Amongst the finds of this time an inconspicuous lead disc from Dangstetten is of particular interest, because with its help we can trace a further stage in the biography of Publius Quinctilius Varus: The tessera bears an inscription which, according to a revised reading, permits us to conclude that Varus played a decisive role in the Alpine campaigns as legatus legionis of the 19th legion.
Ivan Radman-Livaja, M.A. (Zagreb) – Dr. Marko Dizdar (Zagreb):
“Archaeological Traces of the Pannonian Revolt: Evidence and Conjectures”
According to the literary sources the Pannonian revolt was not a local revolt at all; it forced the world power Rome to invest considerable energy to prevent the disturbances spreading to other parts of the empire. For some time even half of the entire Roman army was stationed in the Balkans and Tiberius, Augustus’s designated successor, organised the countermeasures. Suetonius actually describes the revolt as the worst threat to Rome’s security since the Punic Wars.
In Southern Pannonia some artefacts, mainly militaria, have been discovered in recent years which perhaps are connected with the events of the years AD 6-9. These are chance finds, all of them from rivers, so that stratigraphic or other indications for a precise dating are generally lacking. Some of the objects could well originate from earlier or later campaigns. A coin hoard from Valpovo has the greatest claim to be dated from the time of the Pannonian revolt, because a terminus post quem of AD 2 has been determined for its deposit. The present state of research does not permit any conclusive results, but the known material does at least provide a basis for further (field) research.
Dr. Michael Gechter (Overath):
“New Research on the Augustan Military Camps on the Lower Rhine”
Reassessing the archaeological traces of the pre-Claudian camps on the Lower Rhine showed that there were no permanent camps with solid inner buildings in the Neuss area during the whole Augustan period. The same can be assumed for the camps in Bonn, Moers-Asberg, Xanten-Vetera and Nijmegen. Only in Nijmegen-Hunerberg we can find evidence of a permanent camp. In processing the archaeological features, it became apparent, too, that Varus’s defeat had no influence on the garrisoning of the camps on the Rhine and that troops were still not permanently stationed at the river.
Some bases on the Rhine did become permanent camps, but only after Germanicus had concluded his campaigns in Germania right of the river. East of the Rhine, however, troops were already stationed in permanent camps in Augustan times. New researches on small finds furthermore suggest that the camp at Oberaden was not founded from the Rhine, from Xanten-Vetera or Neuss, but by troops who marched north from the Wetterau or the Upper Rhine Valley. In any case the Lippe was probably not navigable in pre-Roman times; it was straightened not until the campaigns of Drusus.
Prof. Dr. Reinhard Wolters (Tübingen):
“The Occupation of Germania in the Light of Numismatic Evidence”
Coins play a special role amongst the archaeological evidence on the occupation of Germania, not only because of the large number of finds but also because they can be dated relatively precisely. The differentiation of special find horizons has become an established method of determining the relative and absolute chronology of the Roman places east of the Rhine. Particular coin types have proved to be reference objects and often even relatively few finds allow us to classify places chronologically.
However, a problem which has become increasingly apparent in recent years is that only the years between 12 BC and AD 9 are represented numismatically in sufficiently large numbers. The years of the attempted re-conquest, from AD 10 to AD 16, are not adequately represented by the 19 known coin finds. Considering the great dimensions of the campaigns under Tiberius and Germanicus this is unexpected. As Augustan coins were in circulation quite long and certain gaps are discernible in Roman imperial coinage, it should be remembered that numismatic finds, which have up to now been classified as belonging to a time before (or during) the Varus Battle, could well belong to a later horizon.
Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. mult. Werner Eck (Köln):
“Publius Quinctilius Varus – His Career as a Senator and His Deeds in Germania: Normality or Aristocratic Incompetence?”
In most sources Publius Quinctilius Varus is made solely responsible for the disastrous defeat of AD 9. His behaviour towards the subjugated Germanic tribes was allegedly completely inappropriate and had driven them into revolt. But in view of the fact that all assessments of Varus originate from after AD 9 and were written with the knowledge of the catastrophe in the saltus Teutoburgiensis, all such have to be examined critically.
Thanks to his Roman aristocratic background and his relations to Augustus’s family, Varus could look back on a successful career already when he assumed command in Germania. He had risen to the highest circles of Roman nobility and seems to have carried out the tasks assigned to him in accordance with Augustus’s wishes, i.e. the offices as queastor Augusti (21 BC), legatus legionis (15 BC), consul with Tiberius (13 BC) as well as governor in Africa proconsularis (8/7 BC) and Syria (7/6-4 BC).
These successes predestined him for the post of legatus Augusti pro praetore in the province of Germania. That the area east of the Rhine was at that time generally regarded as being pacified and being a regular province is reflected in the constitution of administrative centres, in the systematic exploitation of natural resources and in the establishment of a common emperor cult for both sides of the Rhine in the oppidum Ubiorum. Thus it comes as no surprise that – like governors in other provinces – he put Roman principles of order into force and thereby also administered justice. Even if he did perhaps misjudge the progress of Romanisation in Germania, he cannot be made (solely) responsible for the failure of Roman policies there. The slandering of Varus in ancient sources in particularly aimed at obscuring the responsibility of the Roman central authorities and presenting a scapegoat who could not defend himself. Nowadays we should, however, separate the causes of the Germanic revolt from those which led to the catastrophe in the saltus Teutoburgiensis. As far as the former are concerned we can probably exonerate Varus by far and large; but he probably contributed to the defeat, if one can trust the ancient accounts of his credulity.
