The restoration of Trajan’s Column, which took place in 1981–1988, allowed us to get a close look at the details of the sculpture, which had never before been seen all together and for so long. The monu-ment is built by placing marble blocks on top of each other. Originally, though, it must have looked like a single block, so perfect were the joints. Today, the mimesis of a colossal monolithic shaft is less perfect because the edges of the drums have been worn by time. The column offers a wealth of detail and is fortunately in a fine state of preservation. I shall present some features of the sculpted relief through photographs taken with the aid of oblique light, so that we can appreciate the details as if from the scaffolding (Pl. 17, Fig. 1).
Our first discovery was that under the dirt there was a golden yellow patina of calcium oxalate, present only on the undamaged parts of the relief, predominantly to the north and west (Pl. 18, Fig. 2).
The patina had also been observed in the nineteenth century, which led to a discussion on ancient polychromy;1 probably it had also been observed as early as the Renaissance and had contributed to the popularity of monochrome.2 Where there was the patina we also found marks left by tools used by the sculptors.3 We can recognize: the rasp; scraper; flat chisel; gouge; a 3–4 mm diameter tip violin drill to carve the outlines of the figures and the eyes, sculpt leaves in full relief and drill holes in clenched fists; and finally small point chisels to carve the zigzag patterns of the loricae hamatae (Pl.
18, Fig. 3).
After being rough-hewn, the relief was sculpted with a flat chisel. The violin drill was used for figures in full relief. The outlines were traced with a flat 1–2 mm wide chisel (Pl. 19, Fig. 4), but a 3–4 mm diameter tip violin drill was used to make deeper impressions. Gouges were used especially for the curved lines of leaves, river waves and hair (Pl. 19, Fig. 5). The whole sculpture was then finished with scrapers and rasps, and, less frequently, flat chisels, used for cutting and creating an unpolished rough finish to increase the contrast of light in parts such as cheeks, loricae, or shields. We observed that the relief was not pumiced by the sculptors, but left rough to make it easier to see it from a dis-tance and without getting dazzled by reflections of the sun. On the outside surface, we found no sur-viving tooth chisel marks but the surfaces inside were finished by means of tooth chisels alone, which sometimes had five distinct teeth, worked in different directions so as to form a basket filigree; finally for the stairs, flat chisels and fine-toothed chisels were used to form two continuous strips along the edges of the block joints, highlighting the architectural lines (Pl. 19, Fig. 6).
The average height of the frieze is 120 cm; it wraps around the shaft 23 times at an angle of 6°.
There are window slits placed along a 12° incline, corresponding to the helix of the inside staircase.
The ground line of the frieze is carved to resemble a rock; it protrudes 38 mm, the maximum projec-tion of the frieze. The cornices of the 40 windows also have the same projecprojec-tion (Pl. 20, Fig. 7). I have identified three ways in which the rocky ground line was sculpted. Firstly, the rocks are shaped as if they were clay, with small roundish masses forming a plaited pattern (Pl. 20, Fig. 8). In the second instance, the rocks are again shaped as if they were clay, with long parallel strips of marble being re-moved, like a piece of clay that is being modelled (Pl. 20, Fig. 9). The third produces a naturalistic effect, with the rocks simply carved out of the marble (Pl. 20, Fig. 10). Clearly these three methods of sculpting the rocks are an indication of different sculptors working on the column.
* This paper has been translated by Fred Moffa, the British Institute of Rome.
1 Semper (1833); Morey (1836). On the nature of the patina: Alessandrini (1989).
2 Martines (1986).
3 Rockwell (1989) 249–258.
Cinzia Conti 56!
In the bas-relief, 205 trees are depicted (Pl. 21, Figs. 11 and 12). Numerous scholars, one being the Romanian botanist Stoiculescu,4 have tried to identify the varieties and compare them with those found in the forests of Dacia. Seven tree species can be identified: 1) Populus nigra L.; 2) Cypressus sempervirens L.; 3) Acer genus; 4) Sorbus torminalis; 5) Quercus genus; 6) Prunus genus; 7) Fagus genus. The tree shapes are simplified and characterized by just a few leaves. The leaves within the same species are carved in different ways; here are some examples of maple, oak and poplar. This, too, is an indication of the work of different sculptors.
The whole frieze contains 2.570 figures (of which 634 Dacians), 930 feet, and 1.429 ears, since soldiers are often shown wearing helmets or shown face on. The feet and ears are different, too, not only because they belong to different people but also because they are actually carved in different ways (Pl. 21, Fig. 13). These differences found in the representations of the same object using the same tools is akin to the different handwritings found in a manuscript attributable to different copyists in a scriptorium. Looking at these differences of form and composition in the scenes, I have identified 5 hands,5 which I shall now present.
Sculptor A specialises in stocky figures, for example soldiers with short necks, who commonly appear in construction scenes (Pl. 21, Fig. 14). The obverse and reverse of drawings are used to create a wealth of similar postures with numerous variations. The figures are depicted in the act of doing something, conveyed by a significant detail: e.g. in scene LXVII a soldier is bending a shoot of a pop-lar tree with his foot and is about to cut it down with an axe.6 Figures depicted by sculptor B have bodies with elongated muscles, slender legs and elegant busts, sculpted in full relief (Pl. 21, Fig. 15).
He creates small groups of two or three figures that make up an autonomous group within a scene. He carves the emperor’s tent, adorned with tiny pearls.7 Sculptor C specialises in paratactic compositions (Pl. 22, Fig. 16), i.e. juxtaposing figures and buildings, which remain in the background of the scene.
He carves the longest and most significant scenes.8 Sculptor D instead specializes in the composition of figures in a circular space (Pl. 22, Fig. 17); from his standpoint, always higher up than the scene, he achieves a depth of field. The bodies are slightly twisted round, which gives the composition a cen-tripetal motion towards the main action of the scene.9 Sculptor E is a chaser (Pl. 23, Fig. 18): he sculpts the figures by carving them as if they were on a metal plate; he mostly depicts Dacians. The structure of the individual figures and of the whole is an articulated combination of broken lines and angles, which produces and effect of movement and energy.10
There were five sculptors, helped by another two, recognizable by the different characteristics of their work, visible, though, only in a very few scenes.11 Since the frieze is 220 m long, each sculptor
4 Stoiculescu (1985).
5 Conti (2001).
6 Lehmann-Hartleben (1926) 42. I believe we can attribute the following scenes to sculptor A: XI, XII, XV–XVII, XIX, XX, XXIII, XXVI–XXVIII, XXXIV, XXXIX, XLVII, XLVIII, LI, LII, LV, LVI, LX, LXV, LXVII–LXIX, LXXIII, LXXIV, LXXXII, LXXXVI, LXXXVIII, XCII, XCVII, XCIX, CI, CIX, CX, CXVI, CXVII, CXXVII, CXXIX, CXXXVIII, CXXXIX.
7 I believe we can attribute the following scenes to sculptor B: XI, XIII, XXI, LXII, XCI, CXIII, CXXVIII, CXXX, CXXXI, CXXXVII, CXLI, CXLII.
8 I believe we can attribute the following scenes to sculptor C: VI–IX, XXV, XXVII, XXVIII, XXXIII, XXXIV, XLVI, XLVIII, LI, LIII, LXXIV, LXXV, LXXIX, LXXX–LXXXII, LXXXV, LXXXVI, XCI, XCVIII, XCIX, C, CIII, CXVIII, CXXXVIII.
9 I believe we can attribute the following scenes to sculptor D: X, XII–XIV, XVI, XVIII, XX, XXII, XXIV, XXVI, XXVII, XXXII, XXXIII, XXXV–XL, XLII–XLIV, LII, LIV, LVII, LVIII, LX, LXII, LXVI, LXVIII, LXIX, LXXI, LXXII, LXXV, LXXVII, LXXXVII–XC, XCVI, XCVII, CIV, CVI, CIX, CX, CXIII–CXV, CXXIII, CXXXIV, CXLV, CLI–CLIV.
10 I believe we can attribute the following scenes to sculptor E: XVIII, XXIV, XXV, XVII–XXIX, XXXI, XXXII, XXXVIII–XLI, XLIII, XLV, XLVI, LIII, LIX, LXI, LXIV, LXVI, LXVII, LXX, LXXII, LXXV, LXXVI, XC, XCI, XCIII–
XCVI, CXI, CXII–CXVI, CXVIII–CXXII, CXXIV–CXXVI, CXXX, CXXXII–CXXXVI, CXL, CXLI, CXLIII–CXLVI, CLI.
11 We can recognize sculptor F in the laurel wreathed heads and heavy drapery of the sacrifice scenes; I believe we can attribute the following scenes to sculptor F: VI, VII, VIII, XXXIII, XXXIV, XLVIII, LI–LIII, LXVIII, LXXV, LXXVII–
LXXXI, LXXXIII–LXXXVII, XCI, XCVIII–XCIX, CI, CIII, CIV, CXIV, CXVIII, CXXXVII. We can recognize sculptor G in the characteristic shape of the helmets of the soldiers; I believe we can attribute the following scenes to sculptor G: X, XIII, XIV, XVIII, XXII, XXIV, XXXII, XXXIII, XXXVI–XXXVIII, XL, XLII, XLIV, LIV, LXI, LXII, LXVI, LXXI, LXXII. These two sculptors probably worked as assistants to the ones previously described. Their work can be recognized in
Some Characteristics of the Sculptured Bas-relief 57!
could have done an average 31.4 m, an extension of the sculpted surface corresponding to 8 complete sarcophagi, so it is plausible that the frieze was sculpted in the years between the conclusion of the war and the inauguration of the monument. As I went up and down the scaffolding, I also identified what could be termed a mistake — a portion of a scene slightly more concave than the cylindrical surface of the shaft, probably a reworking of a previous sculpture; this is a hypothesis (Pl. 23, Fig. 19).
Even the portraits of Trajan contain differences, such as facial features, the way the hair is sculp-ted, and the shape of the ears. Trajan can be identified with certainty 58 times.12 Scanning the spiral from bottom to top we get the impression of an aging emperor. Trajan’s facial features were certainly known to the sculptors; artists could either know the emperor from life or through official portraits:
among the possible iconographic sources, such as marble or bronze sculptures and coins, the most easily recognizable are the following models: the Ostia Antica marble portrait and some coins like especially the so-called 313 Mil [Milan] type (Pl. 24, Figs. 20 and 21).
There remain a number of questions. Did the sculptors follow a specific plan? Or did each de-velop a theme in the space they were allotted? How much freedom were they given? Was the bas-relief carved on the drums before or after they were assembled? From the bottom up or vice versa?
Was the frieze originally painted? Some questions I shall endeavour to answer. The frieze was carved after the drums were assembled: this is confirmed by the numerous tool marks that go from one drum to another. The work was probably completed from the bottom up. At the beginning of the frieze, from the figure of the Danube to scene X, the sculpture is 25–30 mm deep, while for the rest of the relief and all the way to the top, the depth is 35–40 mm. Also, an understanding gradually develops between the sculptors, who work separately in the scenes at the bottom and then together in the higher spirals, collaborating in the execution of the same scenes.
As for the polychromy, not much can be added to Prof. Ranuccio Bianchi Bandinelli’s study (Pl.
25, Fig. 22);13 however, during the restoration no trace of colour was found on the surface. I can con-firm, though, that originally the relief included metallic elements: small spears, swords and tools, in-serted in the drilled fists of the soldiers (Pl. 25, Fig. 23). This was not done uniformly but predomi-nantly at the top and at the bottom.
At the end of the restoration, large format photographs were taken by the Istituto Centrale per il Catalogo e la Documentazione, Director Prof. Oreste Ferrari, photographer Eugenio Volpi. Smaller size photos were taken by the German Archaeological Institute in Rome, Director Prof. Paul Zanker, photographers Franz Schlechter and Klaus Anger, supervised by Helmut Jung, published in a book by Filippo Coarelli.14 Prof. Giovanni Pugliese Carratelli, then Director of the Enciclopedia dell’Arte Antica, and Prof. Salvatore Settis, then Director of the Scuola Normale Superiore of Pisa, had planned to write a supplement to the Encyclopedia, containing only photos, which has not yet seen the light.
We hope this book may soon be published so that other scholars can get a chance to answer these questions and fully identify all the sculptors, as if they too were on the scaffolding.
Bibliography
Alessandrini (1989) = G. Alessandrini (ed.), The Oxalate films: origin and significance in the conservation of works of art. Proceedings of the Symposium organized by the Centre CNR “Gino Bozza”, Milan, 25th–26th October 1989, Milan 1989.
Belloni (1973) = G. G. Belloni, Le monete dell’imperatore Traiano. Zecca di Roma. Catalogo della Collezione del Civico Gabinetto Numismatico e Museo Archeologico di Milano, Milano 1973.
Belloni (1974) = G. G. Belloni, Significati storico-politici delle figurazioni e delle scritte delle monete da Augusto a Traiano (Zecche di Roma e ‘imperatorie’), in: Aufstieg und Niedergang der Römischen Welt II 1 (1974) 997–1144.
scenes dominated by a different sculptor. The number of scenes mentioned above does not cover the entire frieze, because for some scenes, I have not been able to find a correspondence with the sculptors identified above.
12 Conti (2014).
13 Bianchi Bandinelli (1978). On painted plaster: Settis (1988) 597; Martines (1992) 139.
14 Coarelli (1999).
Cinzia Conti 58!
Bianchi Bandinelli (1978) = R. Bianchi Bandinelli, La Colonna Traiana: documento d’arte e documento politico (o Della libertà dell’artista), in: R. Bianchi Bandinelli, Dall’ellenismo al medioevo, Roma 1978, 123–140.
Coarelli (1999) = F. Coarelli, La Colonna Traiana, Roma 1999.
Conti (2001) = C. Conti, Gli scultori della Colonna Traiana, in: F. Festa Farina et al. (eds.), Tra Damasco e Roma. L’architettura di Apollodoro nella cultura classica, Roma 2001, 199–215.
Conti (2014) = C. Conti, I ritratti del Principe sulla Colonna Traiana, in: M. Bevilacqua et al. (eds.), La festa delle Arti. Scritti in onore di Marcello Fagiolo per cinquant’anni di studi I, Roma 2014, 296–301.
Lehmann-Hartleben (1926) = K. Lehmann-Hartleben, Die Traianssäule. Ein römisches Kunstwerk zu Beginn der Spätantike, Berlin, Leipzig 1926.
Magnaguti (1950) = A. Magnaguti, Ex Nummis Historia III. Monete di Traiano, Adriano e loro famiglie (98–
138), Roma 1950.
Martines (1986) = G. Martines, La Colonna Traiana e i chiaroscuri della Sala di Costantino in Vaticano: note sul monocromo, Bollettino d’Arte 35–36, Supplemento 1 (1986) 31–36.
Martines (1992) = G. Martines, Calco della Colonna Traiana, scena XXXII, in: A. La Regina (ed.), Roma. 1000 anni di civiltà, Roma 1992, 139.
Mattingly (1936) = H. Mattingly, Coins of the Roman Empire in the British Museum III. Nerva to Hadrian, Lon-don 1936.
Morey (1836) = P. Morey, Sui colori altrevolte veduti nelle sculture della Colonna trajana. Lettera al sig. cav.
Bunsen, Bullettino dell’Istituto di Corrispondenza Archeologica (1836) 39–41.
Rockwell (1989) = P. Rockwell, Lavorare la pietra. Manuale per l’archeologo, lo storico dell’arte e il restaura-tore, Roma 1989.
Semper (1833) = G. Semper, Scoprimento d’antichi colori sulla colonna di Trajano. Al dott. Kellermann, Bullet-tino dell’Istituto di Corrispondenza Archeologica (1833) 92–93.
Settis (1988) = S. Settis (ed.), La Colonna Traiana (Saggi 716), Torino 1988.
Stoiculescu (1985) = C. D. Stoiculescu, Trajan’s Column documentary value from a forestry viewpoint, Dacia 29 (1985) 81–98.