UNDERGRADUATE PAPER

The Soft Power of Stone – The Illustration of Imperial Sovereignty

Upon the Sebasteion of Aphrodisias

David T. Richey-Lowe, Macquarie University

Imperial statuary constituted one of the few available visual media – besides coinage – through

which the publicity of the emperor could be widely distributed in a repetitive manner amongst

the provinces.1 However, discussions in modern scholarship regarding the significance of

provincial imperial iconography have tended to adopt a top-down perspective towards the

subject. This approach, whilst partially correct, nevertheless portrays the relationship between

the emperor and his subjects as a fixed system whereby the latter was merely a passive

consumer of the former`s self-promotion, and largely only accounts for monuments directly

sanctioned by the state. It is suggested that in order to understand imperial power from the

bottom-up, one should turn their focus towards municipal cult centres the Hellenic East of Asia

Minor, such as the Sebasteion of Aphrodisias, within which the Roman authorities had limited

involvement in terms of the artistic process.2

1
The other medium which fits this category of mass-production would be coinage.
2
Leon, 2011: 11. During the Imperial period, there were two forms of cultic worship - namely those directly
sanctioned by the emperor (provincial) as mentioned above, and those set up in honour of the imperial household
solely upon the initiative of private families (municipal). The Sebasteion is such an example of municipal cults,
with dedicatory inscriptions indicating that the building project was solely funded by two local Aphrodisian
families.

1
 DAVID T. RICHEY-LOWE

The Sebasteion formed part of a wider temple complex devoted to the worship of Aphrodite,

the patron goddess of Aphrodisias, as well as the Theoi Sebastoi, and the Demos.3 Comprising

of the propylaea and two triple-tiered porticoes, the axial alignment of the Sebasteion with the

entrance of the temple suggests that the monument acted as a processional corridor.4 Several

assemblages of high-relief panels adorned the second and third level of these porticoes, and

consisted of imported Roman imagery within a wider structure based upon Classical and

Hellenistic artistic conventions.5 The configuration of the reliefs can be characterised

according to the following thematic zones: on the second storey of the southern portico, there

were mythological scenes, whilst the third tier displayed imagery in connected to members of

the imperial household. Likewise, geo-political personifications (ethne) of Roman provinces

adorned the second floor of northern portico, with the level above utilising allegorical

representations.6

Regarding the first of these registers, namely the mythological scenes upon the southern

portico, the eastern-most end of this storey was characterised by imagery derived from the

conventional scope of Greek mythology, such as scenes related to the life of Herakles.7 As one

approached the western end of the portico, the subject matter began to incorporate elements

imported from Roman mythology, such as Lupa, and Roma.8 This addition of the newer

Roman mythological material amongst the older, established Greek canon depicted Roman

mythology as an extension of its Greek counterpart.9 Such an arrangement thus implies some

3
Erim, 1982: 278, n. 8; Smith, 1987: 90.
4
Chaniotis, 2009: 317.
5
Smith, 1987: 89.
6
Ajootan, 2014: 345.
7
Smith, 1987: 97.
8
Smith, 1990: 95-96.
9
Smith, 2013: 314.

2
THE SOFT POWER OF STONE – THE ILLUSTRATION OF IMPERIAL SOVEREIGNTY UPON
THE SEBASTEION OF APHRODISIAS

level of continuity between the two cultures, within which the political ascendency of Rome

merely formed part of a progression from the earlier days of Greek history.10

Although a minor digression from the central topic, one would like to bring the reader`s

attention to the manner in which Herakles was depicted in the Herakles/Prometheus scene as a

cleanshaven male. Whilst there are several occasions elsewhere in the Greco-Roman world

where Herakles has been shown as beardless, it is highly unusual to find Herakles in his lion-

pelt without a beard, as the orthodox representation of Herakles adorned with a skin was in the

bearded fashion. It is suggested here that, in addition to relating to the canonical myths of

Herakles, this particular scene also sought to be an implicit allusion to Alexander the Great.

Considering that the Greek East, by the first century A.D., had previously spent centuries under

the Hellenistic states – a period during which the tradition had developed, through the

promotional efforts of the Diadochi, that Alexander was idealised through this cleanshaven

likeness of Herakles.11 Although tentative, if this proves to be the case, then one argues that

the Aphrodisians` attempt of conjuring memories of Alexander was a bid to frame the present

authority, which in this case was now the emperor, as the symbolic inheritor of Alexander`s

legacy, and by extension, the natural successor to the Hellenistic monarchs who likewise had

rested their justification to power upon perceived connections with Alexander.12

More significant, however, is the specific focus paid to Aphrodite`s son, Aeneas, with one

panel showing the flight of Aeneas from Ilion, and the other featuring a cloaked Aeneas with

10
Ibid.: 314.
11
Dahmen, 2006: 10-11.
12
Thonemann, 2015: 11.; Shannahan, 2017: 60.

3
 DAVID T. RICHEY-LOWE

Poseidon.13 With respect to the former scene, in addition to emphasising the Trojan ancestry

the gens Iulia, the presence of Aphrodite alongside Aeneas may serve as a reminder of the debt

which the imperial household owed to Aphrodite.14 Regarding the second depiction of Aeneas,

one is personally inclined to accept Smith`s suggestion that this may be a reference to the arrival

of Aeneas, in Italy.15 When both reliefs are considered in conjunction, it seems that the

inclusion of scenes from the Aeneid amongst the Sebasteion was an attempt to advertise a link

between the Aphrodisian temple – and by association, the city – and the Julio-Claudian

dynasty.16 The success of utilising this ploy of connecting their patron deity with the origins

of the imperial family may be seen by the fact that Aphrodisias was recognised as an

independent polis within the administrative province of Asia Minor, and was consequently

released from taxation.17

On the upper register of the southern portico, one finds various emperors and members of the

imperial family being depicted. These imperial representations sought to promote core ideals

manifested by the Julio-Claudian dynasty.18 For instance, the value of pietas, or religious piety

is arguably reflected by the depiction of a female member (Livia?) pouring a libation upon the

altar.19 In addition, one might also argue that the modest presentation of Agrippina, standing

by Claudius, publicises her sense of ‘pudicitia’.20

13
Leon, 2011: 31.
14
This message is reinforced by the eastern appearance of Aeneas` son, Ascanius, which is shown by the Parthian
trousers (Rose, 2001: 102).
15
Smith, 1990: 97
16
Edwards, 1994: 707-8.
17
Smith, 1987: 90.
18
Noreña, 2001: 146.
19
Smith, 1987: 126; Noreña, 2001: 154.
20
Noreña, 2001: 159.

4
THE SOFT POWER OF STONE – THE ILLUSTRATION OF IMPERIAL SOVEREIGNTY UPON
THE SEBASTEION OF APHRODISIAS

The more prominent values underlining the majority of the imperial reliefs were related to the

‘masculine’ qualities of the emperor, namely those of auctoritas, ‘authority’, and virtus,

‘valour’ or ‘manliness’. The first of these principles was embodied in emblematic depictions

of political authority being bestowed upon the emperor, typically through the guise of military

honours. One such scene shows Claudius being crowned with an oak wreath by a togate figure.

The oaken wreath, known as the corona civica, was historically awarded to those who saved a

citizen`s life under the hardship of battle. However, since a wreath could only be bestowed by

someone of higher rank than the recipient, considering that the recipient is the emperor, this

scene cannot be viewed as a historical commemoration.21 Instead, if one interprets this relief

from a metaphorical angle, then the togate figure, acting as an allegorical personification of the

Senate or the People, seems to be recognising the emperor for his deeds as a saviour of the

wider populace.22

Nero is depicted in a similar way to Claudius, this time receiving a laurel wreath from

Agrippina – arguably, this alludes to Nero`s elevation to emperor in A.D. 54.23 In this context,

Agrippina is allowed to crown Nero by virtue of her seniority in the imperial family.24 It is

worth noting that whilst the rank of the emperor is explicitly shown by their regalia, the

hierarchical standing of each individual within the composition is subtly reinforced by their

relative stature. With Claudius, Agrippina is shown as smaller in height to her husband, whose

21
Smith, 1987: 107-8, and 129.
22
Further meaning may be conveyed from this scene, namely with the embracing of hands between Claudius and
Agrippina. Considering that such a gesture tended symbolised marital unity in a Roman context, the depiction of
her and Claudius in this manner implies domestic concord between the emperor and his wife, and hence, amongst
the imperial household (Noreña, 2001: 154).
23
Smith, 1987: 128-29.
24
Ibid.: 129.

5
 DAVID T. RICHEY-LOWE

position was higher than that of his wife, whereas in the Nero scene, Agrippina`s senior position

amongst the Augustan household when compared to Nero is reflected by her taller stature.25

The value of virtus was represented in two forms of imagery, both inspired by a military

context. The first of these metaphorical depictions, which revolves around the erection of a

trophy, appears twice: firstly, with Augustus, and secondly with Germanicus. The former of

these panels acts as a generic representation of Augustus` campaigns, with the theme of victory

being stressed by the presence of Nike.26 In comparison, the latter relief may be a specific

reference to the Germanic campaign of Germanicus, in A.D. 14-16 – as implied by the northern

ethnicity of the captive with his lengthy hair and tightly-fitting trousers.27 The interplay

between stature appears once more, with the prominence of Augustus being made evident by

the fact that he shown as the tallest figure. Similarly, the relative position of Germanicus and

his captive is also demonstrated by the significantly smaller height of the Germanic individual.

In both cases, the heightened stature of these figures was an implicit reminder of the superior

standing of the Romans over non-Roman peoples, which fits in accordance with their

ideological view their place amongst the hierarchy of the known world.

The bellicose spirit of virtus is more strongly symbolised by the depictions of provincial

personifications of Britannia and Armenia being brutally subdued by the hand of Claudius and

Nero respectively. In the case of Claudius, he is shown standing over the woeful figure of

Britannia, who tries in vain to either defend herself, or cry for mercy as Claudius delivers a

25
Ibid.
26
Ibid.: 104.
27
Ibid.: 112. Since the Gallic Wars had been concluded long before the commencement of the Sebasteion, the
other ethnicity which could fit the northern appearance of the captured individual would be that of the Germanic
tribes.

6
THE SOFT POWER OF STONE – THE ILLUSTRATION OF IMPERIAL SOVEREIGNTY UPON
THE SEBASTEION OF APHRODISIAS

mortal blow upon her.28 In contrast to the belligerence of the Claudius depiction, Nero is shown

raising the exhausted image of Armenia, whose eastern origins is emphasised by the

iconographic devices of a Phrygian cap and bow.29 The stylistic arrangement of both panels is

reminiscent of the Amazonomachies, and uses such a scene to express the relationship between

the conqueror and the subjugated in strongly gendered terms of the dominant position that the

male was expected to exercise over the female.30 Depictions of the emperor single-handedly

slaying an ethnos were rare in official iconography. More commonly, imperial imagery

attempted to portray the princeps in a favourable light, often through displays of the emperor`s

clementia towards the defeated.31 Therefore, this derivation from imperial ideology implies

that such a style was a local adaptation unique to Aphrodisias, and possibly could be viewed

as a cautionary tale to the Greeks. Perhaps this artistic abnormality was an attempt on the part

of the Aphrodisian patrons to infer to the citizens of Aphrodisias that the power of the emperors

was, in effect, akin to that of the gods, and thus Aphrodisias would be wise to propitiate them

as so to avoid suffering from the imperial wrath.

Amongst these imperial reliefs, connotations are also established between the imperial family

and certain deities, as a way of inferring to the emperor`s divine status. Agrippina, for example,

is associated with the goddess, Demeter, through the motif of corn ears in her left hand - an

affiliation which began with Livia.32 On another occasion, Agrippina is again shown in divine

connection, this time being linked by the iconographic device of the cornucopia to the female

deity of prosperity, Fortuna.

28
Erim, 1982: 277-81; Stewart, 1995: 7.
29
Smith, 1987: 118
30
Whittaker, 2004: 120-22; Souza, 2011: 54.
31
Smith, 1987: 117.
32
Ibid.: 109.

7
 DAVID T. RICHEY-LOWE

Perhaps the most explicit representation of this divine connection is seen in one of the panels

showing a naked Augustus, striding forth to receive a cornucopia from the personification of

land on his right, and a rudder from the sea to his left.33 Such a scene may be understood in

one of two ways. On one hand, these attributions may specifically reference Augustus`

accomplishments in securing the grain supplies for Rome in 22 B.C., and defeating of Sextus

Pompeius in 36 B.C., which significantly reduced piracy around the Mediterranean.34 On the

other hand, this could merely serve as a general characterisation of the prosperity of the land

and the navigability of the seas guaranteed under imperial rule.35 A similar scene appears on

the Tellus Panel of the Ara Pacis Augustae. In the Tellus scene, however, Augustus is dressed

in the respectable togate style and is presented as an inactive participant of the action. This

passivity on Augustus` part is likely because the emperor tried to maintain the façade of being

no more than a Rome citizen.36 In contrast, because no such moral principles existed in the

Greek East, where people were accustomed to the idea of an individual attaining apotheosis

during their lifetime from centuries of exposure to the Hellenistic practise of ruler worship,

such blatant references to an emperor`s divinity were socially appropriate.37

In comparison to its southern counterpart, a greater proportion of the reliefs along the northern

portico have perished, especially material from the middle section of the northern portico.38

As a result, the overarching focus linking this group together is not easily discerned.

Nevertheless, it is evident that regarding the ethne sequence of the second floor, the ethnicities

33
Ibid.: 104.
34
Augustus, Res. Gest. 5; Appian, Civil Wars 5.9.80; 12.121.
35
Smith, 1987: 106.
36
Ibid. One should bear in mind it was the senate itself, rather than the emperor, that commissioned the
construction of the Ara Pacis. Could this then provide an insight into how the senatorial class envisioned the role
of Augustus in the post-Republic era?
37
This matter was probably further helped by the fact Augustus had been deified by this time of the Sebasetion`s
construction.
38
Smith, 1988: 56-57.

8
THE SOFT POWER OF STONE – THE ILLUSTRATION OF IMPERIAL SOVEREIGNTY UPON
THE SEBASTEION OF APHRODISIAS

and territories depicted amongst this assemblage have been drawn from either ends of the early

Imperial empire.39 Despite the multi-ethnic nature of the composition, expressions of cultural

individualism amongst the ethne are surprisingly low – only coming through with the

occasional inclusion of cultural attributes specific to the represented region in question.40

Smith has argued that, based on the difference in the appearance of the represented peoples

annexed into the empire, there is a distinction between two groups of female personifications.41

In other words, the figures shown in a Hellenised style of attire symbolised groups who had

joined at their free will, whereas those who were violently subdued were stereotyped by non-

Greek fashion – such an effect can be seen with the ‘barbaric’ representations of Britannia and

Armenia depicted on the southern portico.42 However, it has also been further suggested that

the use of feminine characters was an attempt to portray the empire in a domesticated manner.43

By using the gender dynamics within the patriarchal structure of Roman households, parallels

can be made between the dependency of free-born women and slaves upon their male guardians

and the reliance of the ethnic and regional units upon Rome.44

Other hypotheses have also been proposed. For instance, it has been suggested by Jiménez that

the ethne series provided a visual mode through which the geographical breadth of the Roman

empire could be epitomised.45 Yet, based upon the assumption that the archaeological

provenience of the statue bases approximately corresponds to their contemporary arrangement

along the portico, this idea seems doubtful since several of the pedestals do not strictly adhere

39
For a detailed summary of the various regions represented, see: Smith, 1988: 55-57 (esp. 56).
40
Kemp, 2016: 167. For instance, Egypt is differentiated from her fellow ethne by her coiled hair, whilst Sicily
is similarly distinguished by her symbol of the triskelion.
41
Smith, 1987: 96.
42
Ajootan, 2014: 346. Cf. Padel 1992, 160.
43
Ramsby and Severy, 2007: 49.
44
Rubin, 2008: 79.
45
Jiménez, 2016: 22.

9
 DAVID T. RICHEY-LOWE

to any rule of geographical configuration.46 Alternatively, Reynolds claimed that this

assemblage of personifications acted as a list of all the ethnicities and territories that were added

to the Roman empire under Augustus.47 Although most of the provinces comply with

Reynolds` criterion, several of the regions fall outside this range, either because they were

recovered after an initial period of defection, such as the capture of Crete from the Antonian

forces in 31 B.C., or else, were never part of the Augustan empire, as is the case for Dacia and

the Bosporus region.48 However, as suggested by Smith, a possible solution may be found if

one redefines the above classification to also include ethnic groups who were merely defeated

in battle and did not suffer the further reprisals of annexation.49 Whilst this hypothesis is yet

to be conclusively proven, such a notion does align neatly with the general martial overtone of

the Sebasteion.

With respect to the interpretations of the upper storey of the northern portico, the general theme

behind these reliefs cannot be discussed in any depth, as only a limited amount of the original

material remains intact. From the small sample that is available, however, the panels appear

to concern the allegorical representation of both natural and metaphysical concepts.50 Two

extant panels portray the female personification of day (Hemera) and the male representation

of the ocean (Okeanos).51 As argued by Smith, the appearance of these interdependent

concepts must imply that their counterparts, such as Night (Nux) and Land (Gaia), would also

have been present.52 Thus, one could plausibly argue from this segment that the statuary

sequence aimed to convey a sense of the position held by the Roman empire amongst the wider

46
See Smith, 1988: 57.
47
Reynolds, 1981: 326-27.
48
Smith, 1988: 58; Jiménez, 2016: 22.
49
Smith, 1988: 59.
50
Ibid.: 51.
51
Fragmented remains also indicate that an allegorical figure for time was also present.
52
Smith, 2013: 86.

10
THE SOFT POWER OF STONE – THE ILLUSTRATION OF IMPERIAL SOVEREIGNTY UPON
THE SEBASTEION OF APHRODISIAS

cosmic order, an empire which transcended day and night, and stretched across both land and

sea.53

As has been demonstrated, an examination of the Sebasteion enables one to view Roman

imperial power from a vantage-point which would otherwise be unavailable to those relying

solely upon official imperial iconography. Notwithstanding several differences, there is a high

degree of similarity between the local and imperial portrayal of the empire and the role of the

emperor within. Yet, it is also evident that, in the absence of the artistic restrictions seen in

Rome, the provincial subjects were able to recalibrate the representations in such a way as to

align with their own cultural view of both their position, and that of the emperor and empire,

within the wider world order.

0
---ooO Ooo---

53
Kemp, 2016: 160. As an analogy, it may be worth comparing this notion to the ninetieth century phrase
describing the extent of the British sovereignty as “the empire on which the sun never sets”.

11
 DAVID T. RICHEY-LOWE

Bibliography

Translations

Appian, Roman History, Volume IV: The Civil Wars, Books 3.27-5, trans. H. White,

(Cambridge, MA: Harvard U. P., 1913), (= LCL 5).

Augustus, Res Gestae Divi Augusti: Text, Translation, and Commentary, trans. A. E. Cooley,

(Cambridge: Cambridge U.P.), 2009.

Modern Scholarship

Ajootian, A., ‘Simulacra Civitatum at Roman Corinth’, Hesperia, Vol. 83, No. 2 (2014), pp.

315-377.

Chaniotis, A., ‘Myths and Contexts in Aphrodisias’, in U. Dill and C. Walde (eds.) Antike

Mythen: Medien, Transformationen und Konstruktionen, (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2009), pp. 313-

338.

Dahmen K., The Legend of Alexander the Great on Greek and Roman Coins, (London, New

York: Routledge, 2006).

Edwards, D. R., ‘Defining the Web of Power in Asia Minor: The Novelist Chariton and His

City Aphrodisias’, Journal of the American Academy of Religion, Vol. 62, No. 3 (1994), pp.

699-718.

Erim, K. T., ‘A New Relief Showing Claudius and Britannia from Aphrodisias’, Britannia,

Vol. 13 (1982), pp. 277-281.

12
THE SOFT POWER OF STONE – THE ILLUSTRATION OF IMPERIAL SOVEREIGNTY UPON
THE SEBASTEION OF APHRODISIAS

Jiménez, A., ‘What is a Province?’, in Alcock, S. E., Egri, M., and Frakes, J. F. D. (eds.) Beyond

Boundaries – Connecting Visual Cultures in the Provinces of Ancient Rome, (LA: Getty

Publications, 2016), pp. 16-30.

Kemp, J., ‘Movement, the Senses and Representations of the Roman World: Experiencing the

Sebasteion in Aphrodisias’, Exchanges: the Warwick Research Journal, Vol. 3, No. 2 (2016),

pp. 157-184.

Leon, A. V., ‘A Study on the Local Character of the Cult of the Roman Emperors in Asia

Minor: The Sebasteion of Aphrodisias’ [Dissertation], (Michigan: University of Kansas, 2011).

Noreña, C. F., ‘The Communication of the Emperor's Virtues’, The Journal of Roman Studies,

Vol. 91 (2001), pp. 146-168.

Ramsby, T. R., and Severy, B., ‘Gender, Sex, and the Domestication of the Empire in Art of

Augustan Age’, Arethusa, Vol. 40, No. (2007), pp. 43-71.

Reynolds, J., ‘New Evidence for the Imperial Cult in Julio-Claudian Aphrodisias’, Zeitschrift

für Papyrologie und Epigraphik, Vol. 43 (1981), pp. 317-327.

Rose, C. B., ‘Forging Identity in the Roman Republic: Trojan Ancestry and Veristic

Portraiture’, Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome - Supplementary Volumes, Vol. 7

(2008), pp. 97-131.

Rubin, B. B., ‘(Re)presenting Empire: The Roman Imperial Cult in Asia Minor, 31 BC – AD

68’ [Dissertation], (Michigan: University of Michigan, 2008).

Shannahan, J., ‘The Numismatic Evidence for the Impact, Legacy, and Image of Alexander the

Great’, Ancient History: Resources for Teachers, Vol. 46, 2017, pp. 51-77.

Smith, R. R. R., ‘The Imperial Reliefs from the Sebasteion at Aphrodisias’, The Journal of

Roman Studies, Vol. 77 (1987), pp. 88-138.

13
 DAVID T. RICHEY-LOWE

- ‘Simulacra Gentium: The Ethne from the Sebasteion at Aphrodisias’, The Journal of

Roman Studies, Vol. 78 (1988), pp. 50-77.

- ‘Myth and Allegory in the Sebasteion’, in Roueché, C., and K. T. Erim (eds.)

Aphrodisias Papers: Recent Work on Architecture and Sculpture, (Ann Arbor:

University of Michigan, 1990), pp. 89-100.

- The Marble Reliefs from the Julio-Claudian Sebasteion, (Darmstadt; Maine: Verlag

Philipp von Zabern, 2013).

Souza, P. de., ‘War, Slavery, and the Empire in Roman Imperial Iconography’, Bulletin of the

Institute of Classical Studies, Vol. 54, No. 1 (2011), pp. 31-62.

Stewart, P. C. N., ‘Inventing Britain: The Roman Creation and Adaptation of an Image’,

Britannia, Vol. 26 (1995), pp. 1-10.

Thonemann, P., The Hellenistic World – Using Coins as Sources, (Cambridge, M.A.:

Cambridge U. P., 2015).

Whittaker, C. R., Rome and its Frontiers: The Dynamics of Empire, (London: Routledge,

2004).

14