Dacians In Roman Sculpture And Where Can We See Them Today

Trajan's Column, built by the architect Apollodorus of Damascus (60-129 (?) AD), was inaugurated on May 12, 113 AD in the Forum of Trajan in Rome, and it is located behind the building Ulpia Basilica and between the two libraries (Bibliotheca Ulpia or Bibliotheca Traiani). It was carved in marble of Luni (Carara) and raised on a pedestal decorated with eagles bearing the scalloped edges and, on the pedestal surfaces, Dacian arms in relief, while a wreath of laurel serves as torus (round molding with convex profile located at the base of the column). This monument is the only one well preserved in the Forum of Trajan, in the middle of a field of ruins. The Column is not only a figurative chronicle for capturing the wars between Romans and Dacians (101-102 and 105-106 AD), it also became the Emperor’s tomb, after the Trajan's death, in 117 AD, his ashes being deposited in a golden urn that was placed in a specially arranged sepulchral room in a vestibule of the Column. But this Column have a different meaning as well, the only one in fact, reminded by the laconic inscription that is still visible, a little damaged because of the passing of time, above the entrance which allows to penetrate inside the Column; in a cartridge borne by two Victories one can read as follows :

This concise and modest text appears, obviously, inconsistent when the greatness and splendor of the Column. The total height of the Trajan’s Column, without the statue, is of 39.83 m. The base of the Column, the spindle and the column head have together 29.78 m, approximately 100 Roman feet¹. The frieze width at the base is of 0.89 m, at the top of 1.25 m, the height of a character is 0.60 m at the base and of 0.90 m² at the top. The carved band has a length of 200 m, the relief is carved on 404 marble support slabs forming part of the Column structure, where there are represented 124 episodes relative to the wars against the Dacians and more than 2500 characters. At the pedestal level is placed the entry into the Column through a metal door that leads to a vestibule from which you access on a spiral staircase to the top of the monument where the statue of Emperor Trajan was placed. This colimason staircase is lit by 43 small rectangular openings that pierce quite discreetly from place to place the thickness of the marble wall of the Column. Column is schematically represented on coins of the reign of Trajan.

Trajan's Column is the largest sculpture in relief of all antiquity³. Aesthetically, Trajan's Column is above all an original creation of Roman art in its period of maximum maturity of the early IInd century AD, due to its great compositional unity and homogeneity of bas-reliefs, the realistic nature of the characters represented and the narrative quality of the scenes. Its value as archaeological and historical source is invaluable, since the Trajan’s writings on the Dacian Wars are now lost. Likewise, the Column bas-reliefs present important information about clothing, weapons, fortifications, harness, and especially on the characters’ faces. Many are the modern specialists who expressed their opinion regarding the real historical value of the Trajan's Column. For some, the reliefs represent a fairly accurate chronicle of the wars fought by the Romans against the Dacians, and the various details helps us to know more about these events. For others, to the contrary, the column is only an artistic representation, of synthesis, with the inevitable exaggerations and misrepresentations of the events described; these historians look the reliefs with disbelief, wondering where the boundary between historical truth and artistic convention is. To all these opinions on the matter regarding the historical documentary value of the Trajan’s Column, it should be added the official “courtly” character of the anonymous artists who created this important monument, which somewhat fulfilled the role of a political act of propaganda for the Roman Empire and the Emperor Trajan. This does not allowed the artists to exclusively follow their own inspirations and initiatives within the meaning of artistic creativity, and therefore the designers and sculptors could not depart too much from the text of Trajan⁴. It is increasingly accepted among the experts that it is more likely Traian to have brought with him in Dacia, during the wars against the Dacians, designers, painters and sculptors to immortalize in this way the different aspects and moments of war and also for immortalize the Emperor himself. As it is known quite well, for organizing the Roman army at war, Trajan had at its disposal engineers, technical designers, technicians to build fortified camps, roads, bridges, for the maintenance of the war machines etc. And it is not impossible that "teams" of "reporters" of antiquity to have been part in "mandatory" manner of the Roman army, especially when it is was at war⁵.

It was mentioned sometimes the argument related to the impression that the work (the representations on the Column) was made by several sculptors, in the meaning of many styles. It is very likely that most artists have worked together on these representations of the Column, but we should not lose from our view that the unity and homogeneity from the artistic point of view are obvious; and let us remember that these representations were made for the same monument, the Column, and that these bas-reliefs could not be presented to the viewers in several styles, or with personal artistic "effects".

Trajan's Column repeatedly escaped from destruction or to be removed :

Since the construction of the architectural complex of Forum of Trajan, the only monument in this Forum that remained intact is the Column. Forum of Trajan was admired until the late antiquity. The historian Ammianus Marcellinus⁶ relates how the Emperor Flavius Iulius Constantius, with his residence in the new capital of Constantinople, visiting Rome in 357 AD, was amazed by the complex construction of Forum of Trajan and by the equestrian statue of the emperor, located approximately in the middle of the square of this Forum. This monumental complex remained intact until the fourth century, but then, over the centuries, it gradually fell into ruins. The precious building materials were recovered to serve for the erection of various buildings, and many of the artworks were taken to decorate various houses and private gardens, becoming as such private collections and, later, state collections. Unfortunately, today, from this famous and exceptional Forum only the Trajan's Column resisted, the rest became only ruins. The destruction of Trajan's Forum began quite early, by the beginning of the IVth century AD, because some iconographic elements of decor (reliefs with Dacians, statues of Dacians) have been displaced from this complex to be incorporated in the Arch of Constantine, at Rome, a monument inaugurated in 315 AD. Then the suite of destructions caused to Rome by the invasions of the Visigoths of Alaric I, in 410, of the Vandals of Ginseric, in 455, of the Ostrogoths of Totila, in 546. In 663, the Byzantine Emperor Constant II Heraclius (Flavius Constantinus Augustus) took some bronze statues and ornaments from Rome. And, perhaps, among these works was included the statue of Trajan, of gilt bronze, which was at the top of the Column (the statue disappeared during the Middle Ages). It also worth to be mentioned a series of devastating earthquakes that shaken Italy at different times, causing, of course, important damage in the Forum of Trajan: in 801 (25 or April 30) AD, another earthquake reported in 1222 (January 11) in Köln (Cologne) and that was felt up to Italy, another one in 1348 (January 25), produced in Carinthia (Austria) and that spread to Rome.

At the beginning of the XIth century a small church (San Niccolò de Columna) was set in base space of Trajan's Column; it is still visible today the path excavated, under the form of a roof, above the entrance, destroying a portion of the ancient inscription of this monument. It is assumed that it would have existed since the VIIIth or IXth century. The church was probably demolished during the visit to Rome of Emperor Charles Quint (Charles V), in 1546. During the XVIth century a number of private buildings around the Column were demolished, and the base was released of the deposits under which it was covered, and so the area near the monument was arranged and cleaned, until the excavations performed at the beginning of the XIXth century.

During the Middle Ages the destruction of Trajan's Forum increased because a lot of the precious colored marbles were taken to be reused to different constructions and in the contemporary sculpture. The Trajan’s Column was saved thanks to a decree of the Roman Senate, dated March 27, 1162, which declared, under the penalty of death, the interdiction to destroy or damage it, which provided the protection of this monument left by imperial Rome to the holy city: "Nous, sénateurs romains, ayant pris connaissance du litige qui oppose le prêtre Angelus et l’abbesse de saint Cyriaque au sujet de l’église de Saint-Nicolas, au pied de la Colonne Trajane, décrétons que l’église et la Colonne sont la propriété de l’abbesse, à condition que soit sauvegardé l’honneur de la ville de Rome. Par conséquent la Colonne Trajane ne devra jamais être abattue ou endommagée, mais elle devra rester telle qu’elle est pour toute éternité, pour l’honneur du peuple romain, entière et intacte aussi longtemps que la terre durera. Quiconque attentera à l’intégrité de la Colonne sera condamné à mort, et ses biens seront confisqués"7During the Middle Ages the destruction of Trajan's Forum increased because a lot of the precious colored marbles were taken to be reused to different constructions and in the contemporary sculpture. The Trajan’s Column was saved thanks to a decree of the Roman Senate, dated March 27, 1162, which declared, under the penalty of death, the interdiction to destroy or damage it, which provided the protection of this monument left by imperial Rome to the holy city: "Nous, sénateurs romains, ayant pris connaissance du litige qui oppose le prêtre Angelus et l’abbesse de saint Cyriaque au sujet de l’église de Saint-Nicolas, au pied de la Colonne Trajane, décrétons que l’église et la Colonne sont la propriété de l’abbesse, à condition que soit sauvegardé l’honneur de la ville de Rome. Par conséquent la Colonne Trajane ne devra jamais être abattue ou endommagée, mais elle devra rester telle qu’elle est pour toute éternité, pour l’honneur du peuple romain, entière et intacte aussi longtemps que la terre durera. Quiconque attentera à l’intégrité de la Colonne sera condamné à mort, et ses biens seront confisqués" ⁷.

This solicitude was maintained further on for the Column of Trajan, but, unfortunately, it was not provided for the other areas the Forum of Trajan, who continued to be exploited more and more, especially in the XVIth century, to build the new churches⁸.

In the period of military and political career of Napoleon Bonaparte Trajan's Column was about to be dismantled and transported to Paris to be raised in the beautiful Place Vendôme. In the year VI (1797-1798) of the French republican period, General Jean François René Pommereul wrote: " La république française trouvera sans peine, parmi ses artistes, des hommes capables de faire la translation de la colonne trajane de son ancien Forum à la place Vendôme. Le doute à cet égard n’est pas même permis ; la dépense aussi ne doit pas effrayer… La liberté se réjouirait de voir sa statue succéder sur le sommet de cette belle colonne à celle de l’apôtre Pierre.". But Napoleon's closest advisers convinced him to abandon this project as being too expensive and, for the construction of th future "Colonne Vendôme" (1810) materials have been ordered abroad in order to build in Paris. In these circumstances, Trajan's Column has remained in Rome on its original place, very fortunately indeed⁹.

1. These dimensions could confirm the name of Columna centenaria that the Trajan’s Column borne in Antiquity. A Roman feet = old measurement unit for length (0.3248 m)
2. The difference between top and bottom is meant to compensate the perspective effects.
3. Costantin Daicoviciu şi Hadrian Daicoviciu, Columna lui Traian, Bucureşti, 1966, p. 9-13 ; Radu Vulpe, « Columna Traiană », în Viaţa militară, anul XXI, nr. 6, iunie 1968, p. 16-18 ; Raymond Chevallier, « Le Forum de Trajan », în Les dossiers de l’archéologie (La Colonne Trajane), nr. 17, iulie-august 1976, p. 12-16 ; Radu Vulpe, Columna lui Traian, Bucureşti, 1988, p. 9-12 ; Filippo Coarelli, La Colonna Traiana, 1999, Editore Colombo, Roma ; Constantin C. Petolescu, Dacia şi Imperiul Roman, Bucureşti, 2000, p. 111-114 ; Radu Vulpe, Columna lui Traian (Trajan’s Column), Bucureşti, CIMEC, 2002, p. 13-14, 16, 107-108 ; Martin Galinier, La Colonne Trajane et les Forums impériaux, Rome : École française de Rome, 2007, p. 1 et suiv.
4. Marie Turcan-Deleani, « Les monuments représentés sur la Colonne Trajane ; schématisme et réalisme », în Mélanges d’archéologie et d’histoire, LXX, 1958, p. 149-176, cu 4 pl. în afara textului ; Constantin Daicoviciu, Hadrian Daicoviciu, Columna lui Traian, Bucureşti, 1966, p. 14-20 ; Radu Vulpe, Columna Traiană, în Viaţa militară, anul XXI, nr. 6, iunie 1968, p. 18 ; Raymond Chevallier, AlainMalissard, « 19 siècles de découverte de la Colonne Trajane », în Les dossiers de l’archéologie (La Colonne Trajane), nr. 17, iulie-august 1976, p. 88-92 ; Constantin C. Petolescu, op. cit., p. 113-114.
5. Marie Turcan-Deleani, op. cit., în Mélanges d’archéologie et d’histoire, LXX, 1958, p. 170-171: It is likely that such representations to have been made according to documents brought from the campaigns. That a historiographer, or the head itself, to have beeen noted the daily events, accompanying his account with sketches and plans, is an admitted fact. »; The author also uses the opinion on the subject made by Lehmann-Hartleben, Die Trajanssäule, Berlin, Leipzig, 1926, p 139; Emil Panaitescu, « Il ritratto di Decebalo », in ED, I, 1923, p. 409 : « Artisti, architetti, ingegneri romani sono stati in Dacia, a Sarmizegetusa e molto probabilmente hanno lavorato proprio sotto gli ordini diretti di Decebalo, poichè egli li richiese da Roma. Alla firma della pace con Domiziano (a. 89) Decebalo chiese maestri, construttori, esperti in qualsiasi arte della pace o della guerra... ». As it may be found, the author Emil Panaitescu also asserts that the Dacian King could have been observed and studied by the Romans (even before the conquest by Trajan, in the years 101 – 102, 105 – 106 AD.), who came to Dacia after the peace concluded between Decebal and Domitian, in the year 89 AD. According to the ancient literature, this peace was very favorable for Decebal; he received, as a result of these agreements, significant amounts of money, by sending him as to an ally, weapons, war machines and craftsmen, engineers for military construction that he will build, and all kinds of artisans. Radu Vulpe, « Despre portretul lui Decebal », in Apulum, XIII, 1975, p. 71 ; here the author expreses his skepticism about the assertions of Emil Panaitescu, saying: "And we do not have the right to imagine that to his court in Sarmizegetusa sculptors or painters ever had come to study his figure and represent it in any of their works. Neither the slightest indication supports such an assumption"; Constantin C. Petolescu (Decebal, regele dacilor, Bucureşti, 1991, p. 39) contradicts the skepticism of Radu Vulpe and at the same time confirms the opinions of Emil Panaitescu: According to Emil Panaitescu, Traian in Dacia was accompanied by a team of painters and sculptors, who would have been immortalized various aspects of Dacian campaigns. The skepticism expressed in this regard by Radu Vulpe is not fully justified. Thus, at Pliny the Younger we read in the Panegyricus, when he imagines the future triumph of Trajan: ,, I think I see the pictures full of the terrible doings of the barbarians ...''. At least Apollodorus took part in the war, forming part of the headquarters of the Emperor, and no doubt that in his mind came the tought to decorate the Column with images of Dacian wars. The Romans had the opportunity to directly see the image of Decebal at least once during the Dacians surrender after the first war; Pliny the Younger, Panegyricus, 17, 1-2, in Fontes, I, 1964, p. 483: “17, a. I think I see now a triumph not full of prey brought from the provinces or of gold extorted from the allies but of the enemies’ weapons and of the chains of the prisoner kings; I see myself how I try to recognize the long names of these leaders and their bodies that do not belie at all the fame of their names. 2. I think I see the pictures full of terrible doings of the barbarians, and each of them, his hands tied, following the picture with his exploits." Likewise, refer with respect to this text to: Pline le Jeune, Panégyrique de Trajan, 17, 1-2, p. 110-111 ; refer also to the important notes on page 189 (for our text on page 110 refer to note 8*, and for the continuation of this text on page 111 refer to notes 1* and 2*), a text established and translated by Marcel Durry, Paris, 1964: “17. Je crois contempler déjà un triomphe8* que chargent non les dépouilles de nos provinces et l’or extorqué à nos alliés, mais les armes ennemies et les chaînes des rois prisonniers ; je me vois cherchant à reconnaître ces chefs aux noms interminables et aux statures dignes de ces noms1*; 2. je crois voir les brancards lourds des atrocités qu’ont osées les barbares, chaque prisonnier suivre, les mains liées, l’image de ses forfaits2*, ...
   p. 110, n. 8*. – 17.1. The triumph the crowned the first Dacian war is by the end of 102, started in 103. Panegyric have been reshuffled in 101, is undoubtedly about a prophecy dating from the beginning of the war (spring 101) and not about a uaticinatio post euentum, but an uncertainty exists; cf. Pline le Jeune, Panégyrique, éd. Durry, introd. p. 13.
   p. 111, n. 1* - 17.1. The names were posted on panels (tituli, Ov., Tr. 4, 2, 20), as the same are seen on the bas-reliefs of the Arch of Titus.
   p. 111, n. 2* - 17.2. The panels borne paintings or decors showing the main events of the war. It was seen in these representations the orgin of the reliefs like the ones on the Trajan’s Column.
6. Ammianus Marcellinus, Histoire, XVI, 10, 15, text established and translated by Édouard Galletier in cooperation with Jacques Fontaine, Paris, 1968, p. 167.
7. Refer to Salvatore Settis, « La Colonne Trajane : l’empereur et son public », în RA, 1991, fasc. 1, p. 186-188 şi nota 2.
8. Refer to : Feu A. Nibby, Itinéraire de Rome et de ses environs, Rome, 1842, t. I, p. 206 ; Alexis Perrey, « Mémoire sur les tremblements de terre, le quatrième siècle de l’ère chrétienne jusqu’à nos jours (1843 inclus) », în Mémoires couronnés et mémoires des savants étrangers, publicat de l’Academie royale des sciènces et belles-lettres, Bruxelles, t. XVIII, 1845, p. 12, 21-23 ; Salomon Reinach, La Colonne Trajane, Paris, 1886 ; Henry Thédenat, Le Forum romain et les Forums impériaux, Paris, Librairie Hachette et Cie, 1898 ; Michael Grant, Le Forum romain, Paris, 1971, p. 179 and seq. (« IX. La destruction du Forum »).
9. Salomon Reinach, La Colonne Trajane au Musée de Saint-Germain, Paris, Ernest Leroux, Éditeur, 1886 ; Raymond Chevallier, « 19 siècles de découvertes de la Colonne Trajane », p. 91 et Alain Malissard, « La Colonne Vendôme, une Colonne Trajane à Paris », p. 116-121, both articles published in Les dossiers de l’archéologie (La Colonne Trajane), nr. 17, July-August 1976.