Fragment of a relief of a double Suovetaurilia, Julio Claudian Period- Joe Geranio

Fragment of a relief of a double Suovetaurilia sacrifice, Julio Claudian period. 25-50 A.D.? Grey-veined marble , 230 x 180 cm. The Louvre (MA 1096-MR852 - N 1119). Cat. no. 31. Discovered in Rome in the late 15th century, then part of the Grimaldi collection, it was seized in 1798 during the revolution and exchanged in 1816. These purification rites involved the sacrifice of a pig, ram, and bull led by a priest, most probably the emperor. His face and those of several of the other figures were restored after it was found. Text paraphrased from article. (Courtesy Photo Prof. John Pollini)

Joe Geranio

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

A wonderful example of suovetaurelia, indeed.

 

Great piece of art .
rzage

 

wonderful

 

What prompted the focus on this particular antiquity?

 

All Julio Claudian period non-numismatic artefacts are so rare that I must share them!! I have a passion for all things Julio Claudian,

Joe

 

Not to step on your toes GD, but I would say you don't have to limit your posts to numismatic items, but if they're not numismatic, then you can put them in the General Discussion forum.

It's really a great piece of art though and I didn't realize that items like this from the Julio-Claudian period were so much more rare than other Roman artifacts. What does Suovetaurilia mean or what is that?

 

Guess that was his point. Sure, in G.D. such posts are perfectly fine. In the coin forums they make sense IMO if they are related to coins that are being discussed, e.g. "the goddess portrayed on your Roman coin is also depicted on this relief" ...

See the initial post. "These purification rites involved the sacrifice of a pig, ram, and bull led by a priest, most probably the emperor."

(Edit) Here for example is some more info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suovetaurilia

Christian

 

Thats the funny thing about history. The Julio-Claudians (in the imperial age) were, more often than not, terrible despots. Not to get into comparisons or anything to make a point. The family history reads like an ancient soap opera as they played deadly family games and engaged their passions at the expense of the people. But it is the Julio Claudians that so many people seem interested in because of it...

If I were to say I was crazy about Antoninus Pius...most people would be saying WHO? Then again an able, capable, good emperor with a long peaceful reign just isnt as interesting...While with Caligula or Nero it was almost a race to see how much blood one could spill...Antoninus on the other hand was a rare good man:

Not much is known of his young life but it can be assumed that with the likes of family friends such as Pliny the Younger he was under the best tutelage. Along with good looks and a kind disposition he grew into a well respected and well educated man who was well versed in the matters of empire with a relative respect for those around him.


Holding many offices under Trajan and Hadrian he showed he was a man of considerable talents and he was adopted by the emperor Hadrian on the condition that he would adopt Marcus Aurilius and Lucius Verus as his sons and heirs. On succeeding Hadrian he remained a humble man choosing to live and conduct his life much the same way he always had as a private citizen and it is commonly believed he administered the empire with marked ability and integrity.

His reign was the longest since Augustus which may have been made possible by a strong empire under able leadership leading to relative peace and contentment with few internal or external conflicts and his relative good temperament and fair minded policies and actions. Indeed he is said to have been proud of the fact that few had died because of acts against him and those few who did, did so through the actions of the senate and not by his decree.

Antoninus came to his new office with simple tastes, kindly disposition, extensive experience, a well-trained intelligence and the sincerest desire for the welfare of his subjects. Instead of plundering to support his prodigality, he emptied his private treasury to assist distressed provinces and cities, and everywhere exercised rigid economy. He spurned the very conspiracies that were formed against him into opportunities for demonstrating his clemency. Rather than give occasion to that oppression which he regarded as inseparable from an emperor's progress through his dominions, he was content to spend all the years of his reign in Rome, or its neighbourhood.

It is almost certain not only that at no time in his life did he ever see, let alone command, a Roman army, but that, throughout the twenty-three years of his reign, he never went within five hundred miles of a legion". His reign was the most peaceful in the entire history of the Principate


Of Antoninus Julius Capitolinus states "With such care did he govern all peoples under him that he looked after all things and all men as if they were his own." This fairness and kindness showed in his marked disdain of the use of informers and treason trials, his monetary policies and social policies which were both conservative and fair. His general good nature and respect for human life might have earned him the name 'Pius' or it may have been his aid to those who faced death under unfair rulings, but the name fits this rare emperor who seemed to be lacking the common imperial traits of ambition and cruelty.


His name would become synonymous with 'Good Emperor' since his nephew and successor Marcus Aurelius would also bear this name. The name Antoninus would be adopted by many successive emperors (most who shared none of his good qualities) wishing to associate themselves with the reign of this rare good emperor.


The story just isnt that juicy and exciting...no incest, no mass murder, no insanity and sexual depravity.... But it was a true golden age for Rome.

 

So true. And not only does it read as an ancient soap opera, it makes for great television today (i.e. HBO's Rome).

 

I always felt bad for the Julio-Claudians. Caligula and Nero gave them such a bad rap, but Claudius and Tiberius were actually pretty good rulers. Granted Tiberius was a bit paranoid, but thats mostly forgiveable.

 

Are they still showing it , haven't seen anything about it yet .
rzage:smile

 

Not to get into that deep of a discussion but I would say Tiberius was a tyrannical despot with very few redeeming qualities save he was well suited for military command. Most historical accounts seem to paint a poor image of the man. Tacitus generally refers to the Julio-Claudian Rule as criminal and Tiberius as a tyrant, wicked, cruel, self indulgent to the point of criminality. Treason trials, confiscation of belongings, paranoia that bred paranoia that ended in death. Eventually a completely absent ruler leaving the empire to run on its own, he contributing little from then on but threats to peoples welfare, thugs, and scary stories of what he did on that island. I wouldn't say he was a good ruler at all but instead that there were few as cruel as he and the empire by that time was able to function without a head. Even discounting half of what is said about him as slander and taking into account that the treasury was full and the empire was strengthened and at peace for most of his rule. I would still say he was not even close to the 'good' list.

Claudius is a complex case of course. I believe the truth about Claudius is that he survived so long in that family because he WAS not only physically, but probably slightly mentally or emotionally disturbed, the degree is hard to tell. Maybe if the right people were looking for a puppet, they found it in him...and maybe he WAS a bit more capable than many thought. With Claudius, I am still unclear how much was Claudius as historical depictions of him are mostly unkind. I dont tend to think of him as this secretly very capable man, so crafty that he fools his family who hid him away and denied him almost all honors and offices because of some perceived serious defects that were only physical. Though it is clear that even though he is depicted as an idiot, limited, erratic, under the control of others, he was capable enough to have a literary career

I tend to think of him as a son of a roman hero who had serious physical and mental problems, thus his family tried its best to keep him out of the public eye and out of most affairs of family and state. He was left to read and study. He was not stupid but was seen as feeble and brought to power in a crisis, he was both more able than they thought, but still able to be manipulated. And then there were the treason trials...He wouldn't be on my 'good' list but he doesn't quite make the bad either...

 

A sacrifice to ensure prosperity. One walks the animals around the property owned by the sacrificer and then (sacrificer) says a few prayers to MARS, kills the animals, and examines the entrails.

They actually found a written reference (church archives naturally, LOL) in northern Italy on what animals (yikes and people) were suitable for such rituals.

Dying for the Gods, Miranda Green

Ben

 

On the history of the Julio Claudian princeps you must be careful on the sources. Suetonius had a huge axe to grind against most of them. Look at the numismatic eveidence. Supposedly Caligula hated being related to Agrippa, then why was there an AES struck with a portrait of Agrippa?

Think about Caligula and his situation:

Germancicus (his father) dies under suspicion
Had to spend years on Capri with Tiberius
Tiberius had his brothers and mother killed.
Had to show deference to Tiberius
Was only 20 or so at this time (on Capri)
Thrust into World rule at 25 years of age

I know he was not the best ruler, but it was a very complicated situation. How much of the rumors were true?



Joe

 

I have read quite extensively most sources concerning the Julio Claudians (as they are the family that sparked my interest in ancient roman imperial history). I am well aware of the problems with historical references concerning this family...either so close that its just all praise...or an all out attack...in between there is some truth her and there and it is up to us to try to find it. Even discounting many many things (like the horse as senator, senatorial ***** house, etc) and taking into consideration he was raised in a nest of pit vipers...he was still not a good emperor nor were most of his family. Lets face it, most people find him interesting BECAUSE of the stories about his misdeeds whether they be true, false, or a little of both...and that seems to be a reason why Julio-Claudians grab interest...not because of their level headed rule and concern for the welfare of the people. What is a more interesting read to most...The sordid details of tyrants like Tiberius, Caligula, or Commodus? Or Antoninus Pius...that was my only point.

 

Good points Drusus.

Julio Claudian Joe

 

all that being said, great post. I enjoy your posts here and on other forums about the very controversal first imperial family. It was a Julio-Claudian that drew me to coin collecting...the one in my profile.

In fact I saw a recent post of yours about caligula that was a good read

 

Thanks and nice TI CLAVD coin!!

Multa cum Amicitia

Josepho