What is ‘local’ and what ‘Roman’ about depictions of imperial power in the provinces?

The question of what is ‘local’ and what is ‘Roman’ about depictions of imperial power in the
provinces is a difficult one, given that the provinces too came under the umbrella of the Roman
Empire. As Elsner argues, those in the Roman Empire, from Briton to Asia Minor, were so involved
administratively, politically and in the more practical area of construction and ‘civilisation’ through
building works that to attempt to make a black and white divide between ‘local’ and ‘Roman’ is
perhaps reductive.1 There was clearly a process of ‘Romanisation’ occurring in conquered regions and
provinces with previously local identities, as can be seen in the extensive and characteristically Roman
building works. The colonnaded street looking towards the ‘Arch of Trajan’ in Timgad, in North Africa,
built in the 2nd Century AD is a clear example of this, with an arch directly influenced by arches of
Trajan elsewhere and in typical Roman columnar style. 2 Straying from the architectural into the
legislative, Caracalla in 212AD granted free inhabitants of the Empire full Roman citizenship, further
unifying a scattered collection of localities. That is not to say, however, that representations of
imperial power in the provinces were direct imitations of similar monuments found in Rome, or were
in any way entirely Roman. Many of the reliefs and buildings examined have distinctly local marks,
such as the Hellenic façade with inset frames and niches for Greek-named statues in the Library of
Celsus in Ephesus.3 There was an evident push-and-pull system at work here; cities in the provinces
wanted both to promote themselves to the periphery as part of the Roman identity, yet demarcate
themselves from the wider Empire with their own civic and local individuality. This struggle for the
modern scholar to try and determine self-identity in the provinces is further exacerbated by the fact
that we do not know the mechanisms of dissemination of art – whether it radiated from the centre
that is Rome, whether it was devised independently and so on – and thus it is hard to tell how
distinctly ‘local’ depictions were. Nonetheless, much of what we see, as will be demonstrated through
the exploration of local mythology, detail and style, manages to successfully merge a local flavour
with Roman and imperial messages.

The Sebasteion at Aphrodisias (Figures 1 and 2) gives, as Smith argues ‘an unrivalled picture of the
physical setting of the imperial cult in a Greek city’. 4 The iconography is not purely Roman or imperial,
however, as mythological panels in Hellenistic tradition and style are a nod to the Greek city’s roots,
and thus provide ‘a missing link between the iconographic repertoire of the Hellenistic world and that
used under the Roman empire’, both legitimising Aphrodisias as a city in Greek Asia Minor within the
Roman world and marking their Greek identity. 5 The Sebasteion was built in the Julio-Claudian period,
and the extant inscriptions and representations of emperors within the reliefs suggest that the
building work was started under Tiberius, at some point during his reign from 14-37AD and ended
under Nero, as Augustus, Tiberius, Claudius and a youthful Nero (which appears to have been
removed after his damnatio memoriae) are all portrayed on the reliefs. The emperor thus plays a clear
part in the iconography of the Sebasteion, but what of Roman style and message can be found in
these reliefs? The South portico combines Roman and semi-local elements in the form of mythology
on the reliefs on the lower storey, whilst the imperial family are displayed on the upper storey,
portraying their imperial power. Focusing on the mythological reliefs, the selection is Greek and
mostly taken from the standard canon, displaying, for example, Meleager and the boar, Centaurs and
Lapiths, Achilles and Thetis, and Achilles and Penthesilea. These Greek myths can be seen as a way of
solidifying local identity in the sense that they assert the Greek heritage of Aphrodisia. Although
specifically ‘local’ myths are not, to our knowledge, shown, the Greek culture and religion evoked by
these myths centres the monument of the Sebasteion in Greek Rome. There are, however, a few
1
J. Elsner, Imperial Rome and the Christian Triumph (Oxford 1998), p118-9
2
Arch of Trajan, a three vaulted arch in the Western gate of the city of Timgad, North Africa, from the
late 2nd Century AD
3
Library of Celsus, Ephesus was built in honour of the Roman Senator Tiberius Julius Celsus
Polemaeanus and completed sometime between 117 and 120 AD by Celsus' son, Gaius Julius Aquila
4
The Sebasteion at Aphrodisias (Figures 1 and 2) was a grandiose temple complex dedicated to
Aphrodite, the Julio-Claudian emperors and the people and was decorated with a lavish sculptural
program of which much survives, built from c20AD-c60AD. See also Smith, R. R. R., “The imperial
reliefs from the Sebasteion at Aphrodisias,” Journal of Roman Studies 77, p88
5
Smith, R. R. R. “The imperial reliefs from the Sebasteion at Aphrodisias,” Journal of Roman Studies
77 (1987), p88
myth panels which could be described as more ‘Roman’, due to their references to Roman foundation
myth or Aphrodite. One panel shows the Flight of Aeneas from Troy, and given that this was erected
long after the Aeneid was written, with its clear framing of Augustus as a descendant of Aeneas, the
founder of Rome proper, this has a clearly ‘Roman’ message, and serves to connect the Greek city
with the foundation of Rome, and thus legitimise the association with contemporary Rome too. The
same can be said of the depictions of Romulus and Remus with the wolf, and moreover of the Birth of
Eros from Aphrodite. This myth is the ultimate combination of ‘Roman’ and ‘local’ through the means
of mythology, and the birth of Aphrodite not only pays homage to the ancestry of Augustus and the
Julio-Claudians, believed to be descended from the goddess via Aeneas, but also to the foundation of
Aphrodisias itself. This theme is reinforced by a panel of the upper storey which in all likelihood
depicted a personification of the Polis crowned by Roma, though it is in a state of disrepair and is thus
unclear. Here, the combining of Roman and local can be seen through the medium of mythological
iconography. Although the myths are mainly Greek in origin, thus making clear the place of
Aphrodisias in the Hellenic world, and show Aphrodite and the polis, the Roman connotations of the
Aeneas and Twins myths demonstrate the link to the Roman Empire. As stated, this is a blatant
example of cities in the provinces promoting themselves to the periphery as part of the Roman
identity, and at the same time highlighting local individuality.

The Antonine altar at Ephesus in Asia Minor (Figures 3 and 4) has been described by both Vermeule
and Elsner as the supreme, or greatest surviving Roman monument in Asia Minor at least, and thus
the reliefs from this altar, found scattered in various places around this, give an unparalleled insight
into the iconography of imperial power in the provinces. 6 The frieze, dating either (as Vermeule rather
weakly argues) to around 140AD, or as Kleiner postulates, 169AD after the death of Lucius Verus,
glorifies Hadrian and the Antonine House, depicting the imperial family from Trajan to Lucius Verus. 7
At first glance, the imagery used to surround these imperial depictions is decidedly Roman, with the
imperator found on the right end shadowed by the Wolf and Twins (Romulus and Remus) in the
landscape behind, immediately placing this monument in a Roman context with reference to the birth
of the city of Rome itself. The fact that this slab has stylistic and compositional basis found in the
Heracles and Telephos slab of the inner frieze at Pergamon suggests that these Roman additions were
no accident or influenced by a Roman model, but rather a deliberate move to mark out the status of
Ephesus as Roman by those that had commissioned it.8

The combat scenes too are celebratory of both imperial and Roman power, as scenes of fleeing and
dying barbarians are punctuated by Romans proclaiming victory or charging on horseback. The
barbarians are thought to be Parthians, both in the context of Verus’ Parthian victories from 163-
166AD and in the dress of the barbarians which demarcates them as Eastern, with shaggy beards and
hair (much like in the depiction of Eastern ethne in the reliefs of the Sebasteion at Aphrodisias). 9 This
Parthian context, however, whilst honouring the victories of a Roman Emperor, adds a local context
to the altar. As Elsner argues, this depiction is no imperial cliché or irrelevant recount of Varus’ or his
predecessors’ achievements, but rather a direct reference to the protection of the East, and especially
those wealthy cities such as Ephesus, from the continuing threat to both their riches and safety of
Parthia.10 Thus, although the imagery propagated by the altar is still that of imperial protection, and
the great military power of Rome, it becomes, in its geographical context, relevant to those locals
viewing it. The relief on the long side depicting the imperial family is in fact the perfect example of the
blending of ‘local’ and ‘Roman’. The composition is sophisticated and harmonious with Ephesus, a
personification of the locality, signalled by a chiton and tunic, and a vexillium embroidered with four
pointed star above a crescent and Isis, the Eastern goddess, with Isiac ringlets and a chiton and
6
The Great Antonine altar at Ephesus in Asia Minor (Figures 3 and 4) was a high-relief marble
monument showing a dynastic relief, battle relief and gods and goddesses, built in c169AD
7
D.Kleiner. (1992). Roman Sculpture (New Haven), p309 and C. Vermeule. (1968). Roman Imperial
Art in Greece and Asia Minor (Harvard), pp96-7
8
Pergamon altar was built in marble during the reign of Greek King Eumenes II in the first half of the
2nd Century BC on one of the terraces of the acropolis of the ancient Greek city of  Pergamon in Asia
Minor. See also Bieber, Sculpture of the Hellenistic Age, p120f.
9
See Smith, “Simulacra gentium: the ethne from the Sebasteion at Aphrodisias,” Journal of Roman
Studies 78, p60 on No.6, for example
10
J. Elsner, Imperial Rome and the Christian Triumph (Oxford 1998), p124
himation knotted in Isiac fashion on the left, and Sabina, modelled as Hera, and Faustina I as Demeter
on the right. The balance of these ‘goddesses’ (the imperial women we portrayed as goddesses as
they were granted divine status in 136/7AD and 141AD respectively), on either side of the male
imperial family is an excellent metaphor for blending of local and Roman in the altar as a whole; the
empresses, deified in Rome, are given equal importance with local goddesses, and both are
associated with the divine power of the imperial family. The depictions of military glory in a local
framework are here made Roman not only by the subject matter, with the goddess Roma flanking the
end on the left while the Wolf and Twins punctuate that of the right, but also by the style, often
‘Roman’ and naturalistic, as seen in the goddesses in the Profectio of Divus Traianus scene, who are
stylistically similar to those on the city-goddesses relief in the Louvre from Diocletian’s Arcus Novus. 11
A similar example of militaristic depictions of imperial power in the provinces can be seen in the
victory monument of Trajan in Adamklissi in Dacia after his successes there, 12 but here the local
element is incorporated into the style, where, as Elsner outlines, ‘local sculptors…visualised their
subjects with all the vitality, vigour and non-classicism of barbarian art’, telling a Roman version of
victory with a barbarian viewpoint. 13 Thus it is demonstrated that, whether by context, subject matter
or style, the provincial depictions of imperial power through military glory manage to combine the
distinctly Roman with a touch of evident locality.

The Arch of Septimius Severus at Lepcis Magna (Figures 5 and 6), generally accepted to have been
erected at the time of Severus’ African tour in 203AD, presents a new difficulty in the already complex
relationship between Rome and the Roman Empire, and the provinces. 14 As Elsner argues, there was
an increasing emphasis on provinces at the periphery in Roman culture, occasionally at the expense of
the Roman centre, and, given that Septimius Severus was himself born in Lepcis Magna, this is evident
in the extensive and ornate building works in his home-city. 15 It is thus far harder at this point to
differentiate between ‘local’ and ‘Roman’ as the two began to merge. The emphasis on this arch is the
very ‘Roman’ triumphal procession, with trophies and barbarian captives portrayed, much in the style
of, for example, the arch of Titus, erected in Rome in 81AD by Domitian, yet the fact that this triumph
honours Septimius Severus, a citizen of Lepcis Magna, also means that the ‘local’ is thoroughly
represented. Moving away from the emperor himself, one of the pillars shows siege of a walled city,
which can be compared with the portrayal of the capture of Seleucia by Septimius Severus from his
arch in the Roman forum at around the same time. 16 In this siege relief, however, the shields and
costumes of the soldiers outside the walls are, as Townsend argues, of a type identical with those of
the trophies of shown and of the defenders of Seleucia, suggesting that the soldiers of the Lepcis
relief are the besiegers, defeated by Romans, rather than defenders who have fallen from the walls.
Furthermore, it is logical to suppose that the victory celebrated by this arch was the relief of Lepcis
Magna itself by the arrival of Septimius Severus and the Roman army. This argument is well made by
Townsend, but the topographical indications, such as the lighthouse, which have been observed in the
reliefs point clearly to Lepcis as the scene of the triumphal procession. 17 These local details, along with
the inclusion of the Gens Septimia, a cult which was clearly important in Africa, as seen by the
prominence of the temple of the Gens Septimia Aurelia, erected at Cuicul in 229 AD in the Forum
Novum, would suggest that this arch was more ‘local’ than Roman, but the fact that the emperor
himself was from Lepcis Magna, and the emperor was inextricably linked with Rome, makes this a
Roman monument too.18

11
Diocletian’s Arcus Novus was dedicated in the late 3rd or early 4th Century and stood on the Via Lata,
decorated with high-relief
12
The monument of Trajan in Adamklissi was dedicated to Mars Ultor in 109AD and documented his
victories over the Dacians.
13
J. Elsner, Imperial Rome and the Christian Triumph (Oxford 1998), p126
14
The Arch of Septimius Severus in Lepcis Magna (Figures 5 and 6) was a quadrifonal arch erected in
203AD, showing military reliefs and a triumphal procession
15
J. Elsner, Imperial Rome and the Christian Triumph (Oxford 1998), p126
16
Arch of Severus, Roman Forum, was a white marble triumphal arch dedicated in 203AD to
commemorate the Parthian victories of Emperor Septimius Severus and his sons Caracalla and Geta, in
the two campaigns against the Parthians of 194/195 and 197-199AD.
17
P.W. Townsend, P. W. (1938). “The significance of the Arch of the Severi at Lepcis,” American
Journal of Archaeology 42, pp522-3
 The changing relationship between Rome and the provinces makes the complicated relationship
between the different areas of the Roman Empire even more difficult to decipher. From the study of
these three monuments, the Arch of Septimius Severus at Lepcis Magna, the Antonine Altar at
Ephesus, and the Sebasteion at Aphrodisias, it is evident that those in the provinces sought to
legitimise their place within the greatest empire in the world at the time, and at the same time assert
to those in Rome their local identity. Be this through the medium of mythology, as in the Sebasteion,
through depictions of military conquests specific to the area yet still highlighting imperial power, such
as the portrayal of the defeat of the Parthians on the altar at Ephesus, or through the representation
of local gods and cults, such as Aphrodite in Aphrodisias, Ephesus in Ephesus and the Gens Septimia in
Lepcis Magna, monuments presenting imperial power in the provinces certainly assert their local
identity. Although in all the examples explored, the emperor, with his connotations of Rome, it being
the centre of his empire, and the imperial family are central, the ‘local’ elements demarcate these
monuments as individual and, to an extent, un-Roman.

Figure 1 (above) showing Sebasteion at Aphrodisias

Figure 2 (right) showing Aeneas fleeing Troy on relief on
Sebasteion
Figure 3 (below) showing combat scene on Altar at Ephesus
Figure 4 (below right) showing imperial relief

18
Gens Septimia Aurelia temple was built in Cuicul in 229 AD in the Forum Novum, which was built
in 216AD
Figure 5 (right) showing Arch of Septimius Severus at
Lepcis Magna
Figure 6 (below) showing triumph depicted on arch