Hostname: page-component-699b5d5946-g2pq9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-03-08T14:38:31.823Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The Magna Mater, Victoria, and Victoria Virgo in Rome

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 February 2026

Charles Brian Rose*
Affiliation:
University of Pennsylvania, USA
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Three early Imperial reliefs with architectural façades, found in Rome’s Via Lata and referred to as the Valle-Medici reliefs, include representations of the temples of Mars Ultor and the Magna Mater. A third relief showing a tetrastyle Ionic temple is identified here as the aedicula of Victoria Virgo, constructed between the temples of Victoria and the Magna Mater on the Palatine. All three reliefs belong to a monumental altar, similar in scale to the Ara Pacis, that included scenes of sacrifice in the Forum of Augustus and on the southwest Palatine. The figural pediment of the Ionic temple shows three scenes representing different moments in the Trojan War. The design was probably intended to complement the adjacent temple of Magna Mater, whose cult was closely connected to Rome’s Trojan ancestry.

Information

Type
Note
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2026. Published by Cambridge University Press

Three related early Imperial reliefs with architectural façades, generally referred to as the Valle-Medici reliefs, have been subjected to a wide range of interpretations during their unusually peripatetic life.Footnote 1 Two of them, each consisting of two large slabs of a longer sequence representing sacrificial processions in front of the temples of Mars Ultor (Fig. 1) and Magna Mater (Fig. 2), have been known since the 16th c. They were reportedly discovered in and around the Via Lata (the modern Via del Corso) in the 16th c., and embedded in the façade of the Villa Medici in the last quarter of that century, where they remain today.Footnote 2 The third relief (Figs. 34), a single slab representing a tetrastyle Ionic temple, was discovered in 1923, also on the Via Lata, and is now displayed in the Museum of the Ara Pacis.Footnote 3

Fig. 1. Cast of the relief with the temple of Mars Ultor attributed to Diocletian’s Arcus Novus. (Rome, Museo della Civiltà Romana. Digital image courtesy of the American Academy in Rome, Photographic Archive–Fototeca Unione: FU.Roma.ARAPI.8.)

Fig. 2. Cast of the relief with the temple of Magna Mater attributed to Diocletian’s Arcus Novus. (Rome, Museo della Civiltà Romana. Digital image courtesy of the American Academy in Rome, Photographic Archive–Fototeca Unione: FU.Roma.ARAPI.7.)

Fig. 3. Relief with an Ionic tetrastyle temple from the Via Lata, now in the Museum of the Ara Pacis. (DAIR 29.266.)

Fig. 4. Detail of the pediment from the Ionic tetrastyle temple from the Via Lata. (DAIR 37.588.)

All three reliefs have usually been regarded as components of the same monument due to their similarities in size, carving style, and composition. There is general agreement on an early Imperial date, probably Claudian, but the appearance of the monument that these reliefs decorated remains uncertain, as does the identity of the tetrastyle Ionic temple on the Via Lata relief. It is the latter temple that forms the focus of this article. I identify it as the aedicula of Victoria Virgo on the southwest Palatine, flanked by the temples of Magna Mater and Victoria, and I assign all three reliefs to the precinct wall of an altar of Claudian date that was analogous to the Augustan Ara Pacis (Figs. 56).

Fig. 5. Plan of the southwest Palatine during the early empire. (Rendered by Ardeth Anderson after Atlas Tab. 70.)

Fig. 6. Plan of the temples of Magna Mater and Victoria, with the aedicula of Victoria Virgo between them. (Rendered by Ardeth Anderson after Atlas Tab. 70.)

One of the reasons why the function of the reliefs is so difficult to decipher is that they were reused in a Tetrarchic monument ca. 300 CE, and there is no way to determine where they were first installed. Since they were discovered near the Via Lata, where Diocletian’s Arcus Novus was reportedly located, the reliefs have often been assigned to that arch, but there is no reason to assume that they initially formed part of a monument in this area.Footnote 4

The iconography of the Mars Ultor and Magna Mater reliefs is relatively straightforward. In the case of the former, the sacrifice of a bull occurs in front of the Mars temple in the Forum of Augustus, dedicated by him in 2 BCE, which is represented as an octastyle Corinthian building with drafted margin masonry (Fig. 1).Footnote 5 The temple is shown frontally, unlike the other temples in this series which are flattened and presented obliquely. The sculpted pediment features Mars flanked by Venus, Fortuna, Romulus, and Roma, while personifications of the Tiber and Palatine occupied the corners. Although the left end of the temple has been damaged, it is clear that Victories were used as corner acroteria.

The Magna Mater temple on the Palatine hill shown in the second relief was begun in 204 BCE, dedicated 13 years later in 191, and restored by Augustus in 3 CE (Fig. 2).Footnote 6 In this scene, a bull wearing a diadem and infula is led by two victimarii to a sacrifice at the right of the temple. The pediment was filled with sculpture: at the center stood an empty throne with mural crown that was flanked by two galli, or eunuch priests, reclining on drums; in the corners were lions and kraters, while armed dancers with swords and shields, known as corybantes, served as corner acroteria.Footnote 7

None of these elements is particularly surprising: the empty throne was occasionally used for mystery cults focused on an agent tied to rebirth, as it would be in Christian imagery.Footnote 8 The mural crown was often worn by the Magna Mater, who was generally flanked by lions and her consort Attis, clad in the same costume as the galli. The temple is hexastyle Corinthian with the same kind of drafted margin masonry that had appeared on the Mars Ultor temple dedicated five years earlier, while a palmette course decorates the raking sima. The left side of the temple does not survive, but the side wall of the temple has been depicted behind the victimarii. The latter, in turn, are clearly moving toward the right, to a site of sacrifice located to the east of Magna Mater’s temple.

Before considering the third relief, it is worth noting that the relief reproductions of these temples are largely accurate, and that is true for other early Imperial temples that were rendered in Roman sculpture.Footnote 9 The Magna Mater temple is shown as hexastyle Corinthian on a high podium, and the Mars Ultor temple as octastyle Corinthian with Victory acroteria and drafted margin masonry, all of which were discovered during the temple’s excavation.Footnote 10 These carefully structured relief reproductions of the actual buildings facilitated their recognition by viewers, who could then understand where in Rome the illustrated sacrifices were being staged.

The third relief (the “Via Lata relief”) is the most fragmentary of the group, although clearly the same size as the others (Figs. 34) and found in the same area of the Via Lata. Preserved on the relief is a tetrastyle Ionic temple with the right side shown obliquely, thereby complementing the presentation of the Magna Mater temple.Footnote 11 The palmette course on the Ionic temple’s raking sima duplicates the one on the Magna Mater temple, as do the door moldings, so it looks as if the sculptors were intending to highlight a connection between the two buildings. The Ionic temple was depicted as more diminutive, however; there were no more than nine steps, of which seven are preserved, whereas the Magna Mater temple was shown with 14 of them.

There are eight figures in the pediment, comprising three pairs of combatants, and a reclining figure in each corner (Fig. 4).Footnote 12 The extensive wear on the figures has made it difficult to determine both gender and dress so it is not surprising that there are various opinions about the subject of the battle represented. Scholars have consistently shifted between myth and history in their identifications, favoring either an Amazonomachy, a Celtomachy, or the Trojan War.Footnote 13 The Celtomachy is the least likely of these since there are no known pediments in Rome that featured scenes from Republican armed conflicts, while the other two proposals are primarily related to the combatants’ gender, which I consider below. For ease of discussion, I have numbered the figures from 1 to 8 in Figure 4, and I begin with nos. 6 and 7 since they provide the key to the interpretation.

This is a scene involving a man at the left and a woman at the right. The gender of the latter is clearly indicated by her breasts and fleshy thighs, while the man is heavily muscled and his phallus is visible.Footnote 14 Although the head is missing and the right arm damaged, it is clear that his left arm encircles the seemingly lifeless body of the woman as he pulls her right arm around his shoulders with his right hand. Her body leans against that of the man, and her left arm hangs limply across her body. This is a well-known type representing Achilles and Penthesileia, which suggests that the subject of the pediment is the Trojan War (Fig. 7).Footnote 15

Fig. 7. Sarcophagus with Achilles and Penthesileia, ca. 180 CE. (Louvre. Inv. no: LP2584; Ma 2119.)

The central pair of combatants (nos. 4, 5) is also in accord with this interpretation. A nude male with billowing cape pulls the long hair of a draped, unarmed figure at the left while pressing his foot against his opponent’s lower back (Fig. 4). The bulge of male genitals is visible beneath the drapery of the figure, who reaches back to grab the hand of his attacker.Footnote 16 Such hair-pulling scenes appear in both Trojan War and Amazonomachy iconography, but in this context, the long hair and male genitals suggest Priam being slain by Neoptolemus, son of Achilles, during the fall of Troy.Footnote 17

The scene to the left of this (nos. 2, 3) is the most enigmatic of the three. A nude male combatant with shield raised behind his head lunges toward a foe who has fallen against a rocky outcropping and raises a right arm to fend off the attack. The latter figure has been called both male and female since the abraded surface makes it nearly impossible to discern the gender. There are no indications that the fallen figure is armed, nor are there any clear signs of breasts or genitals.Footnote 18 It does look, however, as if the body of the fallen foe is larger than the attacker, especially the arms and thighs. This suggests that he is male rather than female, since women in scenes of armed conflict – even Amazons – are not shown larger than their opponents. His position in the pediment ties him to the Trojan War, and the rocky outcropping suggests that his death occurred outside the citadel walls. The closest comparandum I can find is that of Hector and Patroclus in one of the scenes on the early Imperial Iliac tablets. Hector raises his shield-bearing arm while lunging with a dagger toward Patroclus, who appears to be unarmed and has fallen on the ground, leaning back from his attacker as on the Via Lata pediment.Footnote 19

The figures in the corner may be place personifications, although the format of their bodies is rather unusual.Footnote 20 Normally such figures recline on one side, as in the Magna Mater and Mars Ultor pediments (Figs. 12). Here, however, the left figure lifts himself up on both outstretched arms, while the figure at the right supports himself on one straight arm (Fig. 4). One of them could conceivably personify the river Scamandrus, although on Megarian bowls of the 3rd/2nd c. BCE he is shown sitting on a rock.Footnote 21

The identifications proposed above illustrate the idiosyncrasy of the overall design of the pediment, with three scenes representing different moments in the Trojan War. As far as we know, this was one of the few examples of sequential narration within a single pediment, which generally involved unity of time and space. The only other known example from Rome appears on the relief of a decastyle temple, almost certainly representing the Agrippan Pantheon, where the pediment features three sequential scenes from the life of Romulus: Mars and Rhea Silvia in the center, the Lupercal at left, and likely the divinized Romulus in the missing section at right.Footnote 22 The Achilles and Penthesileia pairing on the Ionic temple was well known and would probably have supplied viewers with the key to understanding the scenes, but the design of both this temple and the Agrippan Pantheon represented a new way of reading a pedimental narrative.

How securely can we pinpoint the topographical location of this tetrastyle Ionic temple? To answer that question, we first have to consider the type of monument to which the Via Lata relief belonged, as well as the original position of the relief on that monument. I begin this analysis by noting again that all three reliefs must have formed part of the same monument. The overall heights of the slabs (1.55 m) are the same, as are the heights of the temples, and each of the pediments features elaborate sculptural decoration. All three also evince the same style and carving techniques, which are readily apparent on the drapery, coiffures, and animals. Especially noteworthy are the architectural elements that are shared among the reliefs: as noted above, the door moldings of all three temples are nearly identical, as are the palmette simas of the Magna Mater and Ionic temples, while the drafted margin blocks on the temples of Magna Mater and Mars Ultor are essentially the same size. Although only the shoulder of a standing figure survives at the left of the Ionic temple, he is nearly the same height as the other figures on the Valle-Medici reliefs. More unusual is the fact that these human figures are almost the same size as the temples next to which they stand – a format that is otherwise rare in Roman sculpture with historical scenes.Footnote 23

There is enough evidence to reconstruct the general format of the monument to which these reliefs belonged. The movement in the Mars Ultor relief seems to be from right to left, and in the Magna Mater relief, from left to right (Figs. 12). These contrasting directions, coupled with the different topographic locations of the temples, suggest that we are dealing with two sides of a single monument: one side that included a sacrifice in front of the temple of Mars Ultor, and a second side focused on the southwest corner of the Palatine where the Magna Mater temple was located (Figs. 45). Moreover, the reliefs’ height of 1.55 m matches that of the processional friezes on the precinct wall of the Ara Pacis, so it seems likely that these reliefs decorated a similar type of altar enclosure (Fig. 8).Footnote 24 Such altars were located in the open air, which would fit with the considerable wear on the reliefs, especially the pedimental figures. If the sacrifice reliefs were also the same length as those on the Ara Pacis, then there would have been two long panels, ca. 9.45 m long; these, in turn, may have been complemented by four shorter panels, two on each face of the precinct wall, with a length of ca. 2.40 m.

Fig. 8. Reconstruction drawing of Magna Mater relief and Ionic temple relief. (Rendering by Ardeth Anderson after Rehak Reference Rehak1990, fig. 4b.)

It looks as if one long side focused on a sacrifice in the Forum of Augustus, and the fact that the Mars Ultor temple was depicted frontally rather than obliquely, with the sacrifice placed in front of it, suggests that it formed the center of the panel (Fig. 1). Nor could the relief have been positioned on one of the short sides on this conjectural altar since it is already 2.46 m wide, and there were clearly more figures to the left and right.

The panel depicting the southwest side of the Palatine is missing its right side, where the bull was intended to be sacrificed, but this too can be plausibly restored since the topography of the early Imperial Palatine is now relatively clear (Figs. 56).Footnote 25 I describe the southwest corner of the Palatine in some detail below, since the assemblage of buildings in this area is directly related to a reconstruction of the monument to which the Via Lata relief belongs.

The earliest of the temples in this area, that of Victoria, was constructed in the wake of Rome’s successful conclusion of the Second Samnite War in 294.Footnote 26 The design differed from that of its predecessors in that it was the first hexastyle temple with lateral colonnades to have been built since the temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus two centuries earlier, although the podium measured only 33 x 20 m.Footnote 27 It was also built to last: the temple featured the first stone columns in Rome for which we have evidence, and apparently the city’s first stone entablature supporting a closed pediment with sculptural decoration.

The surviving terracottas of the pediment are unfortunately very fragmentary, but preliminary analysis suggests that the program represented a narrative of Mars, Rhea Silvia, and Romulus.Footnote 28 The lacunose nature of the evidence makes such an identification impossible to prove conclusively, but it would be perfectly in keeping with the temple’s context: it was located above the Lupercal, the cave where Romulus and Remus were suckled by the she-wolf, and adjacent to a thatched hut that was believed to have belonged to Romulus.Footnote 29 It was also here, in a nearby shrine of Mars, that Camillus reportedly discovered the lituus of Romulus after the Gallic sack of 390.Footnote 30 The temple was joined to the Lupercal by the Scalae Caci, where Hercules had fought the giant Cacus, and the settlement of Evander described in Vergil’s Aeneid was believed to have lain at the Scalae’s base.Footnote 31 A pedimental theme that capitalized on the site’s heroic associations therefore seems likely, and the legendary aura that embraced the Victoria Temple may be evoked in a painting from the House of Fabius Secundus in Pompeii that appears to show the temple of Victoria above a narrative of Romulus’s life.Footnote 32

The neighbor of the Victoria temple was the sanctuary of the Magna Mater, which was dedicated in 191 BCE, rebuilt after a fire in 111 BCE, and rebuilt yet again by Augustus in 3 CE following another fire. The decision to construct the temple was made in 205, toward the end of the Second Punic War, when the priests of Rome consulted the Sibylline Books and prophesied that Hannibal would be driven out of Italy if the cult of the Magna Mater were to be brought from Asia Minor to Rome.Footnote 33 In essence, the Magna Mater had two homes in Asia Minor: one in the west-central region, at Pessinus, and another on Mt. Ida, southeast of Troy. The cult image was embodied in a black stone, almost certainly the fragment of a meteorite, which was transported to Rome and temporarily installed in the Victoria temple until an adjacent temple for the cult could be constructed.Footnote 34 The new temple was hexastyle, like that of Victoria, with a podium measuring ca. 33 x 17 m and an internal colonnade in the cella.

Although the Magna Mater would remain associated with Rome’s triumph over Carthage, the assistance of a foreign goddess in war was not the primary point. The cult’s durable significance lay instead in the goddess’s close association with Troy, and therefore with the origins of the Roman people. The transfer of her cult was an overtly political act calculated to assert Rome’s identity as scion of Troy, both in Italy and abroad.Footnote 35 To drive home the goddess’s Trojan associations, her new temple was placed on the southwest corner of the Palatine, where the Lupercal and the hut of Romulus lent it more ties to Rome’s legendary ancestry than any other part of the city would.

Augmenting the triumphal aura that surrounded both temples was an aedicula dedicated to Victoria Virgo that lay between the two temples and effectively linked them to one another.Footnote 36 The evidence for the aedicula’s identification lies in a passage in Livy coupled with references to August 1 in two calendars of the late Republic and early empire, The Livy passage reads: Iisdem diebus aediculam Victoriae Virginis prope aedem Victoriae M. Porcius Cato dedicavit biennio post quam vovit.Footnote 37 In other words, the aedicula of Victoria Virgo is located either beside or near the Palatine temple of Victoria. This matches the architectural organization on the southwest Palatine, where the aedicula is turned toward the Victoria temple and actually abuts it. A similarly close connection between the two buildings appears in the Fasti Antiates and Praenestini, which indicate that they shared the same dedication day of August 1. In the former calendar they are referred to as “the two Victories,” and they are joined in the latter one as well (“Victoriae, Victoriae Virgini in Palatio”).Footnote 38

The Victoria Virgo aedicula was vowed by M. Porcius Cato in 195 BCE, prior to a military campaign in Spain for which he was voted a triumph, and dedicated two years later in 193 (Fig. 6).Footnote 39 The dedicator’s emphasis on public morality may explain why the epithet Virgo was applied to Victoria, an unprecedented linkage that effectively transformed the personification into an amalgamation of both triumph and traditional Roman virtues.Footnote 40 Only the footprint of the temple survives, measuring ca. 12 x 7.40 m, but a tetrastyle prostyle building would easily fit on its foundations, and it has been restored as such in the Atlas of Ancient Rome (Fig. 4).Footnote 41 Moreover, the passage of two years between vow and dedication suggests a building of some prominence, and since the aedicula abutted the Victoria temple, which burned at the end of the 1st c. BCE along with the Magna Mater temple, it too must have been reconstructed by Augustus.

By 28 BCE, the area to the east and south contained a terraced sanctuary dominated by a temple of Apollo, the cult statues of which represented Apollo, Diana, and their mother Latona/Leto, below which were the Sibylline Books.Footnote 42 These had been transferred from the Capitoline to the newly dedicated Apollo temple, where they were kept in gilded cases within a vaulted passage below the cult statues.Footnote 43 The Sibylline prophecies were directly connected to Apollo, and one of those prophecies had led to the import of the Magna Mater, who was now Apollo’s neighbor. In sum, the Palatine’s southwest corner featured a plethora of ties to the legendary history of Rome and the Romans, and those legends served as a bonding agent for the principal temples in the area.

Returning to the missing section of the Via Lata relief to the right of the Magna Mater temple, it looks as if we are justified in restoring there the aedicula of Victoria Virgo as well as the adjacent temple of Victoria, all of which were rebuilt by Augustus (Fig. 8).Footnote 44 There would surely have been a group assembled around the altar where the sacrifice was intended to occur, as in the Mars Ultor relief, and presumably the emperor as well. It is less likely that the precinct of Apollo Palatinus was also represented in the relief, for two reasons. There was no easy conduit from the temple of Victoria to that of Apollo, and if the length of the frieze did match that of the Ara Pacis, then there would have been enough space for the sacrificial procession, altar group, and the three temples presented obliquely, but not for much more. In this reconstruction, then, the procession would have been shown marching toward the temple of Victoria where the bull was intended to be sacrificed, thereby complementing the sacrifice to Mars Ultor on the opposite side.

How does the Ionic temple relief fit into this reconstruction, and where might it have been positioned? The relief’s width of .90 m would preclude its placement on one of the short sides of the putative altar: in addition to the temple façade, there would have been one full oblique side of the temple and at least one standing figure, all of which would have occupied more than the likely available 2.40 m. Moreover, the action depicted in the panel was not self-contained; it clearly belonged to a larger, more complex scene, one that would not have formed part of the Mars Ultor panel since no tetrastyle Ionic temple existed in the Augustan forum.Footnote 45 It therefore looks as if the Ionic temple relief must have belonged to the altar’s second long side, which was focused on the Magna Mater temple and the area to the east of it (Fig. 8).

In 1990, Paul Rehak reached the same conclusion but chose to identify the tetrastyle Ionic temple as that of Victoria. During the last 35 years, however, further excavation and research on the southwest Palatine have shown that Victoria’s temple was hexastyle Corinthian, which removes it from consideration as the Ionic temple in the relief.Footnote 46 However, the sacred structure adjacent to it, the likely tetrastyle aedicula of Victoria Virgo, is a strong candidate, and fits the depiction of the temple as smaller than the others.Footnote 47

During excavations in and around the temple of Victoria, two Ionic capitals were discovered, and Patrizio Pensabene was unsure where to place them.Footnote 48 In the end he assigned them to an interior colonnade in the Magna Mater’s cella, but this seems unlikely.Footnote 49 As far as we know, there were no temples in Republican or Imperial Rome in which the order of the interior columns differed from those of the exterior, which would preclude their placement in either of the two adjacent temples, both of which were Corinthian.Footnote 50 Consequently, based on size, plan, and the Ionic capitals, the Victoria Virgo aedicula is the most likely candidate for the tetrastyle temple, since these three buildings were the only ones on the Palatine’s southwest corner.Footnote 51 This would mean that the Via Lata relief should be placed at the right of the Magna Mater relief, after which one can probably restore the temple of Victoria along with the altar where the sacrifice would have taken place (Fig. 8).

The Trojan War scenes in the pediment of the Victoria Virgo aedicula (Fig. 4), as I will now call it, should be seen as a complement to and comment on the cult of Magna Mater, whose homeland lay in the Troad. As many have noted, her cult was originally brought to Rome from Asia Minor due to Rome’s increasing emphasis on its Trojan ancestry, so the incorporation of a Trojan War pediment on an adjacent sacred structure would have reinforced that connection, as did the eastern costumes of the galli and corybantes in the Magna Mater’s pediment.Footnote 52 Nor was there anything discordant about the insertion of scenes from the Trojan War on a sacred structure whose name included “Victoria.” As I noted above, the southwest Palatine featured more associations with the Romans’ legendary origins than any other part of the city, and by this point in time, the most effective visual evocations of Homeric Troy featured scenes from the war.Footnote 53 Even the residents of Ilion used such scenes in the decorative program of their Athena temple, and it is worth noting that Cato’s treatise on Roman history, the Origines, provided the first Latin account of Aeneas’s arrival in Italy.Footnote 54

As an Ionic building sandwiched between two Corinthian temples, the aedicula of Victoria Virgo would have had a more prominent appearance than one might have expected considering its small size. The majority of new buildings in Augustan Rome were Corinthian, and as far as I know, there were only a handful of Ionic temples in the city: Jupiter Stator and Juno Regina in the Porticus Metelli, Mars in the Circus Flaminius, Portunus in the Forum Boarium, and the temples of Divus Iulius and Divus Augustus.Footnote 55 Tetrastyle temples were also rare in early Imperial Rome: other than the temple depicted on the relief, the only others known still to have been standing were those dedicated to Portunus, Veiovis, and Divus Augustus.Footnote 56

Unfortunately, we cannot supply a name for the altar that contained this intricate architecture, although several attempts have been made over the years. The original suggestion by Bloch in 1939 assigned the reliefs to an Ara Pietatis, but Gerhard Koeppel successfully demonstrated in 1982 that there was no evidence for such a monument.Footnote 57 At the same time, Mario Torelli proposed that they belonged to the Ara Gentis Iuliae that had been erected on the Capitoline by 43 CE, perhaps in connection with Livia’s deification.Footnote 58 A decade later, Eugenio La Rocca advanced the hypothesis that they decorated an altar celebrating the victorious return of Claudius from his campaign in Britain and his triumph in 44 CE, an “Ara Reditus Claudii.”Footnote 59 We may never be able to determine conclusively the impetus for the altar’s erection, but the style does favor a date in or around the Claudian period, and the dedication date of both the temple of Victoria and the aedicula of Victoria Virgo was August 1, the birthday of Claudius.Footnote 60

Conclusions

This discussion has admittedly involved considerable speculation, since the monument with which we are dealing had already been spoliated by the Tetrarchic period, but the reliefs that decorated it still provide valuable information about the topography of Rome. The tetrastyle Ionic temple with Trojan War scenes in the pediment can most plausibly be identified as the aedicula of Victoria Virgo that was rebuilt by Augustus along with the adjacent temples of Victoria and the Magna Mater. The Trojan War was probably chosen as the subject of the pediment to highlight Rome’s recognition of its Trojan ancestry, which was likely one of the reasons why the Magna Mater cult was imported from Asia Minor.

This panel probably formed one long side of a monumental altar depicting the Victoria and Magna Mater temples as well as a sacrificial procession that moved toward the main altar of the former temple.Footnote 61 The opposite side of the altar featured a sacrifice in front of the Mars Ultor temple in the Forum of Augustus, and the sculptors working on both sides of the monument meticulously represented the pedimental sculptures so that the temples could be easily recognizable. Since both panels rose to the same height as the processional friezes on the Ara Pacis, we are probably dealing with an altar of similar size and shape, ca. 11 x 10 m. The circumstances leading to the altar’s construction are uncertain, although a date in the Claudian period shortly after the emperor’s victory in Britain seems possible.Footnote 62

Perhaps the most distinctive feature of the reliefs is that both the buildings and the people moving around them rise to the full height of the panel, regardless of the structures’ actual size. This suggests that the designers considered the buildings to be just as important as the people, and since all of them were constructed or restored by Augustus, his victories and temple sponsorship must be tied to the overall program. It is striking that the monument presents a map of at least two different parts of Rome – the Augustan Forum and the Palatine – rather than focusing on a single locale. This makes it difficult to determine whether the two sacrifices depicted are contemporaneous or sequential, and whether the emperor was present at both of them. Further excavation in Rome may someday yield the foundations of this monument, which probably lay near one of the temples depicted in the reliefs, and, in turn, could shed light on the reasons behind the monument’s spoliation in the 3rd c. CE.

Acknowledgments

For assistance in the preparation of this article, I thank Ann Kuttner, Mantha Zarmakoupi, and Alan Shapiro. I also thank Ardeth Anderson, who created the drawings, and Daria Lanzuolo in the Fototeca of the German Archaeological Institute in Rome.

Footnotes

1 Koeppel Reference Koeppel1983, 98–106, nos. 12–14; 109–10, no. 17; Rehak Reference Rehak1985; Cordischi Reference Cordischi1985; Rehak Reference Rehak1990; Kaderka Reference Kaderka2018, 145–86.

2 Cagiano de Azevedo Reference Cagiano de Azevedo1951, 3–31; La Rocca Reference La Rocca and Volker1994, 267; Kaderka Reference Kaderka2018, 145, 162.

3 Inv. no. 1386. Bloch Reference Bloch1939; Cagiano de Azevedo Reference Cagiano de Azevedo1951, 15–17; Hommel Reference Hommel1954, 34–41; Lattimore Reference Lattimore1974; Lattimore Reference Lattimore1975; Torelli Reference Torelli1982, 70–82; Koeppel Reference Koeppel1982; Koeppel Reference Koeppel1983, 107–8, no. 17; Cordischi Reference Cordischi1985, 258–64; Rehak Reference Rehak1990; Kaderka Reference Kaderka2018, 174–86; Helbig 2.526–28, no. 1751 (E. Simon).

4 Cagiano de Azevedo Reference Cagiano de Azevedo1951, 43–50, nos. 15, 16, 21, 22; Laubscher Reference Laubscher1976; De Maria Reference De Maria1988, 197–98, 312–13; Kinney Reference Kinney1997, 129–33; Coarelli Reference Coarelli and Harris1999; LTUR 1, s.v. Arcus Novus, 101–2 (M. Torelli); Atlas 487, Tab. 201B; Kaderka Reference Kaderka2018, 145–86.

5 Koeppel Reference Koeppel1983, 98–101, no. 12; Kaderka Reference Kaderka2018, 148–62.

6 Val. Max. 1.8.11; Ovid Fast. 4.347–48; Augustus RG 19; Koeppel Reference Koeppel1983, 101–3, no. 13; Kaderka Reference Kaderka2018, 162–74. For the architecture and excavation history of the temple, see Ganzert Reference Ganzert1996.

7 Haselberger Reference Haselberger2007, 208–9; Pensabene Reference Pensabene2017, vol. 1, 389–92; Kaderka Reference Kaderka2018, 162–74; Dubosson-Sbriglione Reference Dubosson-Sbriglione2018, 55–57. There is no way to determine whether the Republican temple’s pediment was also decorated, but figural pediments are far more common in the early empire than the late Republic.

8 Empty throne: Picard Reference Picard1954; iconography of Cybele in Rome and Ostia: Vermaseren Reference Vermaseren1977, 38–63; Roller Reference Roller1999, 263–320.

9 Albertson Reference Albertson1987, 447–49, 452–55.

10 Coarelli Reference Coarelli2012, 249–82 (Magna Mater temple); Ganzert Reference Ganzert1996 (Mars Ultor temple).

11 For discussions of the relief, see above, n. 3. The Ionic temple has been variously identified as Apollo Palatinus (Bloch Reference Bloch1939; Cagiano de Azevedo Reference Cagiano de Azevedo1951, 17), Juno Regina on the Aventine (Hommel Reference Hommel1954, 34–41), Fides (Torelli Reference Torelli1982, 80), sacrarium of Divus Augustus ad Capita Bubula (Picard Reference Picard and Walter1984), Victoria (Rehak Reference Rehak1990), Penates (La Rocca Reference La Rocca and Volker1994, 281), and Felicitas (Fuchs Reference Fuchs and Meyer2011, 154). Lattimore (Reference Lattimore1974, 58) proposed that it was fictitious.

12 The influence of Classical and Hellenistic Greek sculpture on the iconography of the battle groups has often been noted: Cagiano de Azevedo Reference Cagiano de Azevedo1951, 16; Hommel Reference Hommel1954, 39; Lattimore Reference Lattimore1974, 57–58; Lattimore Reference Lattimore1975; Rehak Reference Rehak1990, 179, 181; Kaderka Reference Kaderka2018, 179–82, 185. Compare, for example, the corner figures in the pediment with those on the temple of Zeus at Olympia (Boardman Reference Boardman1985, figs. 18–19), or the hair-pulling scene with the Parthenon metopes (Brommer Reference Brommer1967, pl. 29, 39, 210). Some have considered the possibility that the pedimental sculptures were Greek booty, like those in the temple of Apollo Sosianus (La Rocca Reference La Rocca1985), but I find nothing that would preclude an Augustan date for them.

13 Trojan War: Hommel Reference Hommel1954, 34–41; Gros Reference Gros1976, 30; Cordischi Reference Cordischi1985, 258–64; La Rocca Reference La Rocca and Volker1994, 277. Amazonomachy: Colini Reference Colini1923, 334 n. 2; Mancini Reference Mancini1925, 232; Rehak Reference Rehak1990, 177 n. 23. Celtomachy: Ryberg Reference Ryberg1955, 70; Torelli Reference Torelli1982, 80. Battle with Thracians: Picard Reference Picard and Walter1984, 677. Greeks and easterners: Cagiano de Azevedo Reference Cagiano de Azevedo1951, 16; Lattimore Reference Lattimore1974; Kaderka Reference Kaderka2018, 185.

14 Lattimore Reference Lattimore1974, 59; Rehak Reference Rehak1990, 178–80; Kaderka Reference Kaderka2018, 179–82.

15 LIMC 7, 300–1, s.v. Penthesileia (E. Berger); Gensheimer and Welch Reference Gensheimer and Welch2013; cf. Kaderka Reference Kaderka2018, 181 n. 220.

16 Rehak (Reference Rehak1990, 177) identifies the figure as female, but the detailed photo in Kaderka (Reference Kaderka2018, 177, fig. 42c) shows that he is male.

17 LIMC 7, 517–18, s.v. Priamos (J. Neils). For the hair-pulling motif, which also appears in Amazonomachy, Centauromachy, and Gigantomachy scenes, see Lattimore Reference Lattimore1974, 58–59; Rehak Reference Rehak1990, 180; Kaderka Reference Kaderka2018, 180. On the Parthenon, Brommer Reference Brommer1967, fig. 85, pl. 29 (Amazon); fig. 89.1, pl. 39 (Giant); fig. 90, pl. 210 (Centaur).

18 Lattimore Reference Lattimore1974, 58; Rehak Reference Rehak1990, 177–78; Kaderka Reference Kaderka2018, 179–80.

19 Squire Reference Squire2011, 133, fig. 41, level Π. Another very similar example, representing Hector and a Greek, appears on an early 3rd-c. CE sarcophagus: LIMC 4.2, 286, no. 41, s.v. Hektor (O. Touchefeu); Linant de Bellesfonds Reference Linant de Bellesfonds1985, 108–11. Whatever the subject is, it should represent a major event in the Trojan War, not an obscure episode, since the other pairs in the pediment are Achilles/Penthesileia and Priam/Neoptolemos.

20 Rehak Reference Rehak1990, 179 with n. 38.

21 LIMC 7, 789, no. 9, s.v. Skamandros (R. Vollkommer). There was likely influence from the Dying Gaul statuary type: Stewart Reference Stewart2004, 14, fig. 28; 31, fig. 41.

22 The temple in the relief is spread across two fragmentary panels, one in the Vatican’s Museo Gregoriano Profano, and the other in the Palazzo Massimo alle Terme: LIMC 7.1, 617, no. 8, s.v. Rea Silvia (M. Hauer-Prost); Albertson Reference Albertson1987; Atlas 508, Tab. 242; Kaderka Reference Kaderka2018, 196–208.

23 The only relief that comes close, on one side of the Sorrento Base, depicts the Vestals in front of the Atrium Vestae with the temple of Vesta beyond: Ryberg Reference Ryberg1955, fig. 26; Cecamore Reference Cecamore2004.

24 Rehak Reference Rehak1990, 184–85.

26 Livy 9.44; LTUR 5, 149–50, s.v. Victoria, aedes (P. Pensabene); Wiseman Reference Wiseman1981; Pensabene Reference Pensabene1991; Ziolkowski Reference Ziolkowski1992, 172–79; Pensabene Reference Pensabene2001; Cecamore Reference Cecamore2002, 114–28; Pensabene Reference Pensabene2002, 77–80; Pensabene Reference Pensabene and Tomei2006a; Coarelli Reference Coarelli2012, 226–34; Abbondanza Reference Abbondanza and Gasparini2016; Davies Reference Davies2017, 50–54; Atlas Tabs. 64A, 65.

27 Davies Reference Davies2017, 50–51. The temple of Bellona Victrix, dedicated shortly thereafter, also appears to have been hexastyle: LTUR 1, 190–92, s.v. Bellona, aedes in Circo (A. Vioscogliosi); Davies Reference Davies2017, 53.

28 Pensabene Reference Pensabene2001; Davies Reference Davies2017, 52.

29 LTUR 3, 198–99, s.v. Lupercal (F. Coarelli); LTUR 1, 241–42, s.v. Casa Romuli (Cermalis) (F. Coarelli); Pensabene Reference Pensabene1993; Pensabene Reference Pensabene2002, 80–81; Coarelli Reference Coarelli2012, 132–45; Pensabene Reference Pensabene2017, vol. 1, 293–95; D’Alessio et al. Reference D’Alessio, Gallocchio, Pensabene, Livadiotti, Pasqua, Caliò and Martines2018.

30 Plut. Vit. Cam. 32; Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. 14.2.1–2; Ziolkowski Reference Ziolkowski1992, 173; Pensabene Reference Pensabene, Carandini and Cappelli2000.

31 LTUR 4, 239–40, s.v. Scalae Caci (P. Pensabene); Aeneid 8.102–369; Atlas 217, Tabs. 62, 65; Coarelli Reference Coarelli2012, 191–92.

32 Wiseman Reference Wiseman1981, 36–37; Coarelli Reference Coarelli2012, 165–74.

33 Livy 29.10.4–29, 29.11.8, 29.14.5–14; Ov. Fasti 4.247–348; Gruen Reference Gruen1990, 5–33; Roller Reference Roller1999, 263–85; Dubosson-Sbriglione Reference Dubosson-Sbriglione2018, 23–49.

34 LTUR 3, 206–8, s.v. Magna Mater, aedes (P. Pensabene); Gruen Reference Gruen1992, 186, 205–22; Roller Reference Roller1999, 274, 288; Pensabene Reference Pensabene and Luciana Drago1998; Pensabene Reference Pensabene2002, 81–87; Pensabene Reference Pensabene and Tomei2006a; Fortunati Reference Fortunati2006; D’Alessio Reference D’Alessio2006; Pensabene Reference Pensabene and Venetucci2008; Coarelli Reference Coarelli2012, 249–82; Davies Reference Davies2017, 80–82, 86, 100–2, 115; Atlas 225–26, Tabs. 64, 65.

35 Livy 29.14.13; Gruen Reference Gruen1990, 92–106; Gruen Reference Gruen1992, 32–44; Erskine Reference Erskine2001, 15–43; Rose Reference Rose2005, 28–29.

36 LTUR 5, 150–51, s.v. Victoria Virgo, aedicula (P. Pensabene); Atlas 226, Tab. 65; Pensabene Reference Pensabene1980, 71; Pensabene Reference Pensabene1988, 57; Pensabene Reference Pensabene2002, 89–93; Coarelli Reference Coarelli2012, 226–34; Dubosson-Sbriglione Reference Dubosson-Sbriglione2018, 49–59. The enthroned cult statue, holding a palm branch and patera, is probably represented on coins of 89 BCE struck by M. Cato, whose ancestor erected the shrine: Crawford Reference Crawford1974, 351–52, no. 343.

37 Livy 35.9.6; Coarelli Reference Coarelli2012, 229.

38 Inscr. It. 13, 2, 16 (Fasti Antiates); Inscr. It. 13, 2, 135 (Fasti Praenestini); Coarelli Reference Coarelli2012, 229–30. For a history of the identifications proposed for the aedicula, see Pensabene Reference Pensabene2002, 89–93; and Schippa Reference Schippa1980–82. These include the Auguratorium (LTUR 1, 143, s.v. Auguratorium [F. Coarelli]), temple of Jupiter Victor (Wiseman Reference Wiseman1981, 39, 45, 46), and temple of Juno Sospita (Rüpke Reference Rüpke1995). The surviving remains are from a Hadrianic rebuilding: Boatwright Reference Boatwright1987, 212, 217.

39 Livy 34.8–21; Astin Reference Astin1978, 302–10.

40 Astin Reference Astin1978, 78–103, 341–42.

41 Atlas, Tab. 65.

42 LTUR 1, 54–57, s.v. Apollo Palatinus, aedes (P. Gros); LTUR 1, 113, s.v. Area Apollonis (Palatinum) (E. Rodriguez-Almeida); LTUR 5, 225, s.v. Apollo Palatinus, aedes (A. Claridge); Haselberger Reference Haselberger2007, 84–87; Zink Reference Zink2008; Wiseman Reference Wiseman2012; Wiseman Reference Wiseman2013; Zink Reference Zink2012; Zink Reference Zink2015; Pensabene and Gallocchio Reference Pensabene and Gallocchio2013; Atlas 233–35, Tabs. 70–72; Wiseman Reference Wiseman2019, 23, 122–39; Pensabene et al. Reference Pensabene, Fileri and Gallocchio2021.

43 Suet. Aug. 31; Zink Reference Zink2012, 398–99; Wiseman Reference Wiseman2019, 108–12. An oracular crypt was also located in the sanctuary of Hercules Victor at Tivoli.

44 Livy 35.9.6; LTUR 5, 149–50, s.v. Victoria, aedes (P. Pensabene); LTUR 4, 23, s.v. Palatium (età repubblicana–64 d.C.) (E. Papi).

45 Three Ionic capital fragments were found in the Augustan forum, but their original location is unclear: Kockel Reference Kockel1991, 281. In his publication of the Mars Ultor temple, Ganzert (Reference Ganzert1996, 70, 211, pl. 91, 1–5) suggested that they may have been used for an upper order in the cella, but this was admittedly just a guess.

46 LTUR 5, 149–50, s.v. Victoria, aedes (P. Pensabene); Pensabene Reference Pensabene1991.

47 None of these sacred structures, which are tetrastyle, hexastyle, and octastyle, would have been the same height, but their varying sizes are indicated only by the number of columns on their façades. The representation of disparate images or objects at the same scale was common in Roman friezes, as in the case of the Sant’Omobono reliefs (Kleiner Reference Kleiner1992, 53, figs. 34–35) or the Porticus Octaviae reliefs (Zanker Reference Zanker1988, 126–27, fig. 102).

48 Pensabene Reference Pensabene1991, 47–49.

49 LTUR 3, 207, s.v. Magna Mater, aedes (P. Pensabene).

50 Pensabene Reference Pensabene1991, 14, 24, 48–50. This is not to say that order-mixing in the interior of early Imperial buildings in Rome was unprecedented. The Augustan Basilica Aemilia featured a two-storied interior colonnade with Ionic below and Corinthian above (Freyberger and Ertel Reference Freyberger and Ertel2016, Farbtafel 8a), and Tuscan, Ionic, and Corinthian probably decorated the outer face of the cavea in the theaters of Pompey and Marcellus (Davies Reference Davies2017, 228, fig. 6.6; Atlas Tab. 229).

51 La Rocca (Reference La Rocca and Volker1994, 281) has argued that the Via Lata temple represents that of the Penates which was restored by Augustus. As I have noted above, however, the altar decorated with these reliefs focuses on two areas, the Forum of Augustus and the southwest Palatine, whereas the Penates temple was on the Velia. The Penates temple may be represented in the Aeneas relief on the Ara Pacis, where it was shown as a Corinthian building with a pediment containing two litui and a shield, but the iconography is probably generic: Simon Reference Simon1967, fig. 24.

52 Gruen Reference Gruen1992, 32–44; Roller Reference Roller1999, 263–320; Erskine Reference Erskine2001, 15–43.

53 LTUR 1, 241–42, s.v. Casa Romuli (Cermalus) (F. Coarelli); LTUR 3, 198–99, s.v. Lupercal (F. Coarelli); LTUR 5, 128–29, s.v. Vesta, Ara, Signum, Aedes (in Palatio) (R. Cappelli); LTUR 4, 239–40, s.v. Scalae Caci (P. Pensabene); Procop. 8.22.5–8; Finn Reference Finn2020 (ship of Aeneas).

54 Trojan War scenes in Ilion: Rose Reference Rose2014, 186–88. Gruen Reference Gruen1992, 33–34; Casali Reference Casali2023.

55 Ionic was also used for the Villa Publica and the porch of the Curia Iulia: LTUR 5, 202–5, s.v. Villa Publica (S. Agache); LTUR 1, 332–34, s.v. Curia Iulia (E. Tortorici). The type of columns used for the aedicula in the time of Cato is uncertain; we know only that the Augustan rebuilding was in the Ionic order.

56 Temple A in Largo Argentina was tetrastyle when it was first constructed in the 3rd c. BCE but became hexastyle when it was rebuilt in the early 1st c. BCE: Zink et al. Reference Zink, Pflug and Ceci2020.

58 Torelli Reference Torelli1982, 76–82; La Rocca Reference La Rocca and Volker1994, 279, 289, 290. Torelli (Reference Torelli1982, 80) identifies the Ionic temple as that of Fides on the Capitoline, but this temple appears to have been hexastyle: LTUR 2, 249–52, s.v. Fides populi Romani/Publica, aedes (C. Reusser). Within this group of tetrastyle temples, the closest match to the temple depicted on the relief is that of Portunus, but there is no evidence that it had a figural pediment.

60 Dio assigned the dedication date of August 1 to the temple of Mars Ultor (60.5.3), although C. J. Simpson (Reference Simpson1977) has argued persuasively for May 12 as the actual day of dedication, as noted by Ovid in the Fasti (5.545–98). Michaela Fuchs (Reference Fuchs and Meyer2011, 154) proposed a Neronian date for the reliefs and identified the Ionic temple as that of Felicitas, although that temple burned in the Claudian period (Pliny HN 34.69) and was not rebuilt.

61 This side would also presumably have included an incense bearer, cult musicians, camilli, and conceivably other sacrificial animals: Fless Reference Fless1995, pl. 12.2 (“altar of Claudius Gothicus,” Museo Nazionale, Rome), 15.2 (Boscoreale Cup of Tiberius), 23.2 (medallion of Antoninus Pius), 24.1 (Nollekens relief), 24.2 (Tetrarchic Decennalia base), 37.1 (Lares altar, Conservatori), 43.2 (Arch of Trajan, Beneventum), 45.1 (Lares altar, Conservatori), 46.2 (Marcus Aurelius relief, Conservatori). The reconstruction drawing in Figure 8 shows a narrow slab missing between the sacrificial bull and the Magna Mater temple. This slab would certainly have been larger originally but has been narrowed here for purposes of illustration.

62 Some have argued that the ritual calendar of the Magna Mater cult was reorganized under Claudius (Lambrechts Reference Lambrechts1952a; Lambrechts Reference Lambrechts1952b; Coletti and Diosono Reference Coletti, Diosono, Galoppin, Guillon, Lätzer-Lasar, Lebreton, Luaces, Porzia, Rubens Urciuoli, Rüpke and Bonnet2022, 954–57), but the evidence is limited and inconclusive (Alvar Reference Alvar and Gordon2008, 284–92; Beard Reference Beard, Rasmus Brandt and Jon2012, 333). There is consequently no compelling reason to link the altar to Claudius’s alleged reform of the cult. Moreover, the sacrifice depicted here must have taken place in front of the temple of Victoria, and the emphasis in the reliefs is on Augustan buildings, not just the Magna Mater temple.

References

Abbondanza, Letizia. 2016. “Ali marmoree dal Palatino: un recente rinvenimento.” Vestigia: miscellanea di studi storico-religiosi in onore di Filippo Coarelli nel suo 80° anniversario, ed. Gasparini, Valentino, 574–90. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag.Google Scholar
Albertson, Fred C. 1987. “An Augustan temple represented on a historical relief dating to the time of Claudius.” AJA 91: 441–58.10.2307/505365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alvar, Jaime. 2008 . Romanising Oriental Gods: Myth, Salvation, and Ethics in the Cults of Cybele, Isis and Mithras (transl. and ed. Gordon, R.). Leiden: Brill.10.1163/ej.9789004132931.i-486CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Astin, Alan E. 1978. Cato the Censor. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Atlas = Andrea Carandini and Paolo Carafa, eds. 2017. The Atlas of Ancient Rome: Biography and Portraits of the City. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Beard, Mary. 2012. “The cult of the ‘Great Mother’ in Imperial Rome: The Roman and the ‘foreign’.” In Greek and Roman Festivals: Content, Meaning, and Practice, ed. Rasmus Brandt, J. and Jon, W. Iddeng, 323–62. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199696093.003.0013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bloch, Raymond. 1939. “L’ Ara Pietatis Augustae.” MÉFRA 56: 81120.Google Scholar
Boardman, John. 1985. Greek Sculpture: The Classical Period. London: Thames and Hudson.Google Scholar
Boatwright, Mary T. 1987. Hadrian and the City of Rome. Princeton: Princeton University Press.10.1515/9780691224022CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brommer, Frank. 1967. Die Metopen des Parthenon. Mainz am Rhein: von Zabern.Google Scholar
Cagiano de Azevedo, Michelangelo. 1951. Le antichità di Villa Medici. Roma: La Libreria dello Stato.Google Scholar
Casali, Sergio. 2023. “Cato’s Origines and Virgil’s Aeneid: The war in Latium and the name of Iulus.” Maia 75: 324–38.Google Scholar
Cecamore, Claudia. 2002. Palatium: topografia storica del Palatino tra III sec. a.C. e I sec. d.C. Roma: Bretschneider.Google Scholar
Cecamore, Claudia. 2004. “Le figure e lo spazio sulla base di Sorrento.” RM 111: 285321.Google Scholar
Coarelli, Filippo. 1999. “L’edilizia pubblica a Roma in età tetrarchica.” In The Transformations of Urbs Roma in Late Antiquity, ed. Harris, W. V., 2333. JRA Suppl. 33. Portsmouth, RI: JRA.Google Scholar
Coarelli, Filippo. 2012. Palatium: il Palatino dalle origini all’impero. Roma: Edizioni Quasar.Google Scholar
Coletti, Fulvio, and Diosono, Francesca. 2022. “Cybele and Attis from the Phrygian crags to the city: History, places and forms of the cult of Magna Mater in Rome.” In Naming and Mapping the Gods in the Ancient Mediterranean, ed. Galoppin, Thomas, Guillon, Élodie, Lätzer-Lasar, Asuman, Lebreton, Sylvain, Luaces, Max, Porzia, Fabio, Rubens Urciuoli, Emiliano, Rüpke, Jörg, and Bonnet, Corinne, 945–70. Berlin: De Gruyter.10.1515/9783110798432-048CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colini, Antonio M. 1923. “Indagini sui frontoni dei templi di Roma.” BullCom 51: 299347.Google Scholar
Cordischi, Lanfranco. 1985. “Sul problema dell’ ‘Ara Pietatis Augustae’ e dei rilievi ad essa attribuiti.” ArchCl 37: 238–65.Google Scholar
Crawford, Michael H. 1974. Roman Republican Coinage. London: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
D’Alessio, Alessandro. 2006. “Il santuario della Magna Mater dalla fondazione all’età imperiale: sviluppo architettonico, funzioni e paesaggio urbano.” ScAnt 13: 429–54.Google Scholar
D’Alessio, Alessandro, Gallocchio, Enrico, and Pensabene, Patrizio. 2018. “L’impatto dei templi e delle platee sostruite del Palatino sull’immagine della città.” In Theatroeideis: l’immagine della città, la città delle immagini: atti del Convegno, Bari, giugno 2016, ed. Livadiotti, Monica, Pasqua, Roberta Belli, Caliò, Luigi Maria, and Martines, Giacomo, 1532. Roma: Edizioni Quasar.Google Scholar
Davies, Penelope. 2017. Architecture and Politics in Republican Rome. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781316146026CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Maria, Sandro. 1988. Gli archi onorari di Roma e dell’ Italia romana. Roma: Bretschneider.Google Scholar
Dubosson-Sbriglione, Lara. 2018. Le culte de la Mère des dieux dans l’Empire romain. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag.10.25162/9783515120036CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erskine, Andrew. 2001. Troy Between Greece and Rome. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780199240333.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finn, Jennifer. 2020. “The Ship of Aeneas.” Ancient History Bulletin 34, nos. 1–2: 124.Google Scholar
Fless, Friederike. 1995. Opferdiener und Kultmusiker auf stadtrömischen historischen Reliefs. Mainz: von Zabern.Google Scholar
Fortunati, Silvia. 2006. “L’intervento augusteo nell’area del temenos del santuario della Magna Mater.” ScAnt 13. 455–64.Google Scholar
Freyberger, Klaus S., and Ertel, Christine. 2016. Die Basilica Aemilia auf dem Forum Romanum in Rom. Wiesbaden: Reichert.Google Scholar
Fuchs, Michaela. 2011. “Der gerettete Staat: Die Krise des Jahres 59 n. Chr. und die Tempelreliefs Valle-Medici.” In Kunst und Politik – Religion und Gedächtniskultur, ed. Meyer, Hugo, 139–56. München: Biering and Brinkmann.Google Scholar
Ganzert, Joachim. 1996. Der Mars-Ultor-Tempel auf dem Augustusforum in Rom. Mainz am Rhein: von Zabern.Google Scholar
Gensheimer, Maryl, and Welch, Katherine. 2013. “The Achilles and Penthesilea statue group from the Tetrastyle Court of the Hadrianic Baths at Aphrodisias.” IstMitt 63: 325–77.Google Scholar
Gros, Pierre. 1976. Aurea Templa: récherches sur l’architecture religieuse de Rome a’ l’époque d’Auguste. Rome: École française de Rome.Google Scholar
Gruen, Erich. 1990. Studies in Greek Culture and Roman Policy. Leiden: Brill.10.1163/9789004674905CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gruen, Erich. 1992. Culture and National Identity in Republican Rome. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Haselberger, Lothar. 2007. Urbem adornare: Die Stadt Rom und ihre Gestaltumwandlung unter Augustus/Rome’s Urban Metamorphosis under Augustus. JRA Suppl. 64. Portsmouth, RI: JRA.Google Scholar
Hommel, Peter. 1954. Studien zu den römischen Figurengiebeln der Kaiserzeit. Berlin: Verlag Gebr. Mann.Google Scholar
Inscr. It. = Attilio Degrassi, ed. 1963. Inscriptiones Italiae. Vol. 13. Fasti et elogia. Roma: La Libreria dello Stato.Google Scholar
Kaderka, Karolina. 2018. Les décors tympanaux des temples de Rome. Bordeaux: Ausonius éditions.Google Scholar
Kinney, Dale. 1997. “Spolia: Damnatio and renovatio memoriae.” MAAR 42: 117–48.Google Scholar
Kleiner, Diana. 1992. Roman Sculpture. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Kockel, Valentin. 1991. “Antike Gipsabgüsse von Baugliedern? Überlegungen zu einer Kopie der ionischen Kapitelle der Erechtheion-Nord-Halle.” AA 1991: 281–85.Google Scholar
Koeppel, Gerhard. 1982. “Die ‘Ara Pietatis Augustae’: Ein Geisterbau.” RM 89: 453–55.Google Scholar
Koeppel, Gerhard. 1983. “Die historischen Reliefs der römischen Kaiserzeit I: Stadtrömische Denkmäler unbekannter Bauzugehörigkeit aus augusteischer und julisch-claudischer Zeit.” Bjb 183: 61144.Google Scholar
Lambrechts, P. 1952a. “Attis à Rome.” In Mélanges Georges Smets, 461–71. Brussels: Éditions de la Librairie encyclopédique.Google Scholar
Lambrechts, Pierre. 1952b. “Les fêtes ‘phrygiennes’ de Cybèle et dʼAttis.” BBelgRom 27: 141–70.Google Scholar
La Rocca, Eugenio. 1985. Amazzonomachia: le sculture frontonali del tempio di Apollo Sosiano. Roma: De Luca.Google Scholar
La Rocca, Eugenio. 1994. “Arcus et arae Claudii.” In Die Regierungszeit des Kaisers Claudius (41–54 n. Chr.): Umbruch oder Episode?, ed. Volker, M. Strocka, 267–93. Mainz am Rhein: von Zabern.Google Scholar
Lattimore, Steven. 1974. “A Greek pediment on a Roman temple.” AJA 78: 5561.10.2307/503757CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lattimore, Steven. 1975. “A Greek pediment on a Roman temple: Addenda.” AJA 79: 375–76.10.2307/503075CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laubscher, Hans-Peter. 1976. Arcus Novus und Arcus Claudii: Zwei Triumphbögen an der Via Lata in Rom. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht.Google Scholar
LIMC = Lexicon Iconographicum Mythologiae Classicae (1981–97).Google Scholar
Linant de Bellesfonds, Pascale. 1985. Sarcophages attiques de la nécropole de Tyr. Paris: Editions Recherche sur les Civilisations.Google Scholar
LTUR = Eva Margareta Steinby, ed. 1993–2000. Lexicon Topographicum Urbis Romae, Roma: Quasar.Google Scholar
Mancini, F. 1925. “Roma.” NSc: 232–34.Google Scholar
Pensabene, Patrizio. 1980. “La zona sud-occidentale del Palatino.” ArchLaz 3 (QArchEtr 4): 6581.Google Scholar
Pensabene, Patrizio. 1988. “Scavi nell’area del tempio della Vittoria e del santuario della Magna Mater sul Palatino.” ArchLaz 9 (QArchEtr 16): 5467.Google Scholar
Pensabene, Patrizio. 1991. “Il Tempio della Vittoria sul Palatino.” Bollettino di archeologia 11–12: 1151.Google Scholar
Pensabene, Patrizio. 1993. “La Casa Romuli sul Palatino.” RendPontAcc 63: 115–62.Google Scholar
Pensabene, Patrizio. 1998. “Palatino, area sud-occidentale: il santuario della Magna Mater.” In Scavi e ricerche archeologiche dell’Università di Roma La Sapienza, ed. Luciana Drago, Troccoli, 2939. Roma: Bretschneider.Google Scholar
Pensabene, Patrizio. 2000. “Le reliquie dell’età Romulea e i culti del Palatino.” In Roma, Romolo, Remo e la fondazione della città, ed. Carandini, Andrea and Cappelli, Rosanna, 7482. Milano: Electa.Google Scholar
Pensabene, Patrizio. 2001. “Contributo delle terrecotte architettoniche alla definizione dei luoghi di culto dell’area sud occidentale del Palatino.” Ostraka 10: 81103.Google Scholar
Pensabene, Patrizio. 2002. “Venticinque anni di ricerche sul Palatino: i santuari e il sistema sostruttivo dell’area sud ouest.” ArchCl 53: 65136.Google Scholar
Pensabene, Patrizio. 2006a. “Architetture e spazio sacro sul Palatino: il tempio della Vittoria e il santuario della Magna Mater.” In Roma: memorie dal sottosuolo: ritrovamenti archeologici 1980/2006, ed. Tomei, Maria Antonietta, 4352. Milano: Mondadori Electa.Google Scholar
Pensabene, Patrizio. 2006b. “I luoghi del sacro: elementi di topografa storica.” ScAnt 13: 329–55.Google Scholar
Pensabene, Patrizio. 2008. “Il culto di Cibele e la topografia del sacro a Roma.” In Culti orientali: tra scavo e collezionismo [Atti del convegno “Testimonianze di culti orientali tra scavo e collezionismo”], ed. Venetucci, Beatrice Palma, 2139. Roma: Artemide.Google Scholar
Pensabene, Patrizio. 2017. Scavi del Palatino 2: culti, architettura e decorazioni. Roma: Bretschneider.Google Scholar
Pensabene, Patrizio, and Gallocchio, Enrico. 2013. “Alcuni interrogativi sul complesso augusteo palatino.” ArchCl 63: 557–82.Google Scholar
Pensabene, Patrizio, Fileri, Patrizio, and Gallocchio, Enrico. 2021. Il complesso di Augusto sul Palatino: nuovi contributi all’interpretazione delle strutture e delle fasi. Roma: Bretschneider.Google Scholar
Picard, Charles. 1954. “Le trône vide d’Alexandre dans la cérémonie de Cyinda et le culte du trône vide à travers le monde gréco-romain.” CahArch 7: 117.Google Scholar
Picard, Gilbert-Charles. 1984. “Le tétrastyle ionique de l’ Ara Pietatis.” In Hommages à Lucien Lerat, vol. 2, ed. Walter, Hélène, 671–78. Paris: Les Belles Lettres.Google Scholar
Rehak, Paul. 1985. “Ara Pietatis Augustae or Ara Gentis Iuliae?” Unpubl. diss., Bryn Mawr College.Google Scholar
Rehak, Paul. 1990. “The Ionic temple relief in the Capitoline: The temple of Victory on the Palatine?JRA 3: 172–86.Google Scholar
Roller, Lynn. 1999. In Search of God the Mother: The Cult of Anatolian Cybele. Berkeley: University of California Press.10.1525/9780520919686CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rose, Charles Brian. 2005. “The Parthians in Augustan Rome.” AJA 109: 2175.10.3764/aja.109.1.21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rose, Charles Brian. 2014. The Archaeology of Greek and Roman Troy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rüpke, Jörg. 1995. “Iuno Sospita oder Victoria Virgo? Zur Identifizierung des sogenannten Auguratoriums auf dem Palatin.” ZPE 108: 119–22.Google Scholar
Ryberg, Inez S. 1955. Rites of the State Religion in Roman Art. Rome: American Academy in Rome.10.2307/4238633CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schippa, Ferruccio. 1980–82. “Una dedica alla Vittoria dalla casa di Augusto al Palatino.” RendPontAcc 53–54: 293–95.Google Scholar
Simon, Erika. 1967. Ara Pacis Augustae. Tübingen: Wasmuth.Google Scholar
Simpson, C. J. 1977. “The date of dedication of the temple of Mars Ultor.” JRS 67: 9194.Google Scholar
Squire, Michael. 2011. The Iliad in a Nutshell: Visualizing Epic on the Tabulae Iliacae. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Stewart, Andrew. 2004. Athens, Attalos, and the Akropolis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Torelli, Mario. 1982. Typology and Structure of Roman Historical Reliefs. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Vermaseren, Maarten J. 1977. Cybele and Attis: The Myth and the Cult. London: Thames and Hudson.Google Scholar
Wiseman, T. P. 1981. “The Temple of Victory on the Palatine.” AntJ 61: 3552.10.1017/S0003581500029000CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiseman, T. P. 2012. “A debate on the Temple of Apollo Palatinus: Roma Quadrata, archaic huts, the house of Augustus, and the orientation of Palatine Apollo.” JRA 25: 371–87.Google Scholar
Wiseman, T. P. 2013. “The Palatine from Evander to Elagabalus.” JRS 103: 234–68.Google Scholar
Wiseman, T. P. 2019. The House of Augustus: A Historical Detective Story. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Zanker, Paul. 1988. The Power of Images in the Age of Augustus. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.10.3998/mpub.12362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zink, Stephan. 2008. “Reconstructing the Palatine Temple of Apollo: A case study in Early Augustan temple design.” JRA 21: 4763.Google Scholar
Zink, Stephan. 2012. “Old and new archaeological evidence for the plan of the Palatine temple of Apollo.” JRA 25: 388402.Google Scholar
Zink, Stephan. 2015. “The Palatine sanctuary of Apollo: The site and its development, 6th to 1st century BC.” JRA 28: 358–70.Google Scholar
Zink, Stephan, Pflug, Jens, and Ceci, Monica. 2020. “How a temple survives: Resilience and architectural design at Temple A of Largo Argentina in Rome.” RM 126: 387427.Google Scholar
Ziolkowski, Adam. 1992. The Temples of Mid-Republican Rome and their Historical and Topographical Context. Rome: Bretschneider.Google Scholar
Figure 0

Fig. 1. Cast of the relief with the temple of Mars Ultor attributed to Diocletian’s Arcus Novus. (Rome, Museo della Civiltà Romana. Digital image courtesy of the American Academy in Rome, Photographic Archive–Fototeca Unione: FU.Roma.ARAPI.8.)

Figure 1

Fig. 2. Cast of the relief with the temple of Magna Mater attributed to Diocletian’s Arcus Novus. (Rome, Museo della Civiltà Romana. Digital image courtesy of the American Academy in Rome, Photographic Archive–Fototeca Unione: FU.Roma.ARAPI.7.)

Figure 2

Fig. 3. Relief with an Ionic tetrastyle temple from the Via Lata, now in the Museum of the Ara Pacis. (DAIR 29.266.)

Figure 3

Fig. 4. Detail of the pediment from the Ionic tetrastyle temple from the Via Lata. (DAIR 37.588.)

Figure 4

Fig. 5. Plan of the southwest Palatine during the early empire. (Rendered by Ardeth Anderson after Atlas Tab. 70.)

Figure 5

Fig. 6. Plan of the temples of Magna Mater and Victoria, with the aedicula of Victoria Virgo between them. (Rendered by Ardeth Anderson after Atlas Tab. 70.)

Figure 6

Fig. 7. Sarcophagus with Achilles and Penthesileia, ca. 180 CE. (Louvre. Inv. no: LP2584; Ma 2119.)

Figure 7

Fig. 8. Reconstruction drawing of Magna Mater relief and Ionic temple relief. (Rendering by Ardeth Anderson after Rehak 1990, fig. 4b.)