Propagare: Exploring Mechanisms of Propaganda in the Ancient World

The story of human civilization reaches far back into the murky depths of time. One of the earliest human settlements, found at Jebel Irhoud, Morocco, is thought to be over 300,000 years old (Richter et al, 2017, p. 293). At the centre of our understanding of human evolution is the tension between biological evolution (BE) and cultural evolution (CE): BE has been defined as the result of complex interactions between genes, the environment, and other individuals (Lewnotin, 2002); CE, as the evolution of a community’s collective body of knowledge (Richerson and Boyd, 2006, p. 15), that in turn influences individual behaviour.

Ancient objects act as a lens through which we can explore cultures of the past. Paying respect to both biological and cultural standpoints lend a broader understanding of the objects a given culture produces. Patterns of usage and design help in understanding an objects’ cultural significance, in turn lending insights into what life might have been like in the societies they were found (Bassi, 2005, p. 2). In this essay, I discuss three objects of cultural significance from the ancient world, using them as conduits for exploring the environment they were found in. I will argue that the Roman silver didrachm, Augustus from Prima Porta statue, and Trajan’s Column served as instruments of propaganda for the Roman elite, communicating carefully chosen narratives with the aim of forwarding their meeting their own needs. 

Our first object is a Roman silver didrachm, known as the Romulus and Remus coin, an ancient silver coin worth 2 drachmae. The Romulus and Remus coin appeared in 269BC among the first issue of silver coinage under the consulship of Quintus Ogulnius and Gaius Fabius (Plin. N.H. 33.13.42; Cornell, 1995, p. 61). On the obverse is a depiction of Greek hero Herakles demonstrating Greek influence on Roman culture; on the reverse are the brothers Romulus and Remus suckled by a she-wolf, alluding to the mythical foundation story of the to-be Empire. While larger propagandistic programs were at play, coinage proliferated all levels of Roman society. As a result, coinage functioned as an ideal instrument of political propaganda, enabling the elite to present handpicked messages with the aim of influencing the behaviour of the Roman people (Ellithorpe, 2017, p. 3).

Known as numismatics, the study of coins form part of the record of the past (Mitchell, 1976, pp. 65-66). Numismatic material is often used as evidence to fill out arguments about what the past was thought to have been like. While coinage has proved useful in understanding the past, it requires historical context to be understood; Philip Grierson, a pioneer in the field, went so far as to say, “numismatics without history is impossible” (cited in Mitchell 1976, p. 65). Coinage acted as a medium to concretize and encode values into Roman culture, spreading standards of behaviour (Hölkeskamp, 2010, p. 64): those who chose what was conveyed influenced the trajectory of the empire.

Figure 1: Roman silver didrachm, (obverse) 269BC, Head of Herakles.

On the obverse of the coin is Herakles, the greatest of the Greek mythical heroes (see Figure 1). Originating in Greece, Herakles appearing on Roman coinage signals the influence of Greek thought in Roman society. Dionysius of Halicarnassus (7.72.13-14) details the pompa circensis, a Roman religious procession, in which Herakles was celebrated as one of the divine gods. Further, Herakles appeared under various cult titles— Hercules Augustus (Lipka, 2009, p. 74) & Herakles Magnus (Lipka, 2009, p. 45) —all pointing to his influence on the Roman world. Herakles represented both a hero and a god, demonstrating heroic values such as aristos (Greek, ‘best’), arête (Greek, ‘excellence’), and aristeia (Greek, ‘bravery’) (Hornblower, 1999, p. 684). Associating the symbolic power of Herakles with the Roman character, the Romulus and Remus coin attempted in part to inculcate and strengthen elite ideals in the minds of the Romans.

On the reverse of the coin are Romulus and Remus, the twin brothers central to the mythological foundation of Rome (see Figure 2). Sentenced to death by their uncle, Amulius, the twins’ fate had them survive to be taken in by shepherds. Discovering their true identity after coming of age, the boys overthrew Amulius, returning their grandfather, Numitor, to the throne. The twins founded Rome at the foot of the hill they were saved. Upon founding Rome, Remus jumped over its walls in defiance of Romulus, who in turn killed him (Enni. Ann. 102-103), demonstrating the lengths one must go to protect the sanctity of the Roman state. In contrast to earlier Greek cosmologies, Roman tradition presents the city’s founding as a gradual process: Rome was seen as a product of the collective wisdom of past generations as opposed to the work of a single heroic figure. As a propagandistic instrument, the Romulus and Remus coin acted as a platform through which the elite propagated traditional ideals to strengthen contemporary society, in turn influencing how Roman citizens behaved in their day-to-day lives. 

Between 300 and 100 BC, Rome conquered the Greek world. Enamoured by Greek civilization, the Romans assimilated Greek culture (Bonanno, 1982, p. 69-70). This fusion can be seen in Rome’s adoption of the Greek pantheon: Greek Zeus was transformed into Roman Jupiter; Athena, into Minerva. From the reign of Augustus onward, emperor and the state become synonymous: objects featuring the emperor take on new significance when viewed through a propagandistic lens (Bonanno, 1982, p. 71). An example of this comes in form of a cuirassed statue of Emperor Augustus, known as Augustus from Porta Prima, dated 20 AD (see Figure 3). The sculpture celebrated Augustus’ achievements, placed him in the proximity of the gods, painting him as the rightful leader of the Roman Empire. 

Found amongst the ruins of the Villa of Livia— Augustus’ third wife —at Prima Porta during the excavations of 1863-64 (Paolinelli, 2012, p. 44). Standing 2.08 meters tall and weighing 1,000 kg (Museivaticani, 2021), Augustus is shown as a commander with his right hand raised in an adlocutio (Latin, ‘addressing the army’) stance. The breastplate relief, previously compared with the Shield of Aeneas in its propagandistic intent, commemorates Augustus’ establishment of Pax Romana, associating Augustus with Rome’s mythological history, giving him divine allure (Pollini, 1995, pp. 262-263). 

Art reflects the implicit and explicit values of a given society. Scholars have argued that the Augustus of Prima Porta was influenced by an earlier Greek statue attributed to Polykleitos, Doryphoros (see Figure 4) (Pollini, 1995, p. 267). Through Polykleitos, Augustus of Prima Porta carries forth Greek ideals of vitality, strength, purity. Carved out of the purest of all Greek marble, lychnites, which can be seen as a symbol of Augustus’ ethical and moral purity (Pollini, 1995, p. 268), adding to his image as the rightful leader of the Roman world.

Figure 4: Full-length portrait statue, c. 440AD, Doryphoros (Spear-Bearer).

Deeply embedded in Roman society was reverence for mos maiorum (Latin, ‘ancestral custom’), an unwritten set of customs from which the Romans derived their social norms (Wallace-Hadrill, 1982, p. 45). The statue seems to be an amalgamation of these traditional values— including gravitas (Latin, ‘heaviness’), pietas (‘devotion’), and auctoritas (‘authority’) —that generally came with high office and military triumph (Ward et al, 2016, p. 138). The Augustus from Prima Porta acts as a constant reminder of Augustus’ capacity as imperator (Latin, ‘to order’, ‘to command’) (Pollini, 1995, p. 276), responsible for returning Rome to glory.

Figure 5: Roman triumphal monument, 113AD, Trajan’s Column.

Our third object is known as Trajan’s Column, a Roman triumphal monument, completed in 113AD (CIL. VI. 960). Comprised of 20 Carrara marble drums and standing 30 metres (98 feet) tall, Trajan’s Column is one of the few extant monuments from Ancient Rome—surviving more than 1,900 years. The column’s spiral frieze features Trajan’s Dacian expeditions, known as his Dacica, of which there is little written account (Davies, 1997, p. 43). Scholars generally agree the column’s initial purpose was either a triumphal column, glorifying Trajan and his victories against the Dacians, or a funerary monument, designed for his burial and remembrance (Davies, 1997, p. 60). Regardless of the thought behind the initial design, the symbolism throughout the column implies propagandistic intent, associating Trajan with the successes of the Roman Empire.

Trajan inherited an empire in turmoil. Domitian’s failed Dacian conquests likely left a negative connotation of war in the minds of the Roman people (Davies, 1997, p. 62). Believing that war could return the empire to its former glory, Trajan set about winning over both the people and the Senate: he commissioned Apollodorus to build a new urban centre, the Forum, which acted as the centre of Roman life. It was in this centre that Trajan’s column was erected. Together, Trajan’s column and the Forum the surrounded it was an attempt to showcase his diligence in leading the Roman world. This is evidenced in part by Trajan’s swiftness in initiating a campaign against the Parthians soon after the column was completed (Sicker, 2000, p. 166). 

Embedded in the design of Roman funerary monuments, such as the Mausolea of Augustus and Hadrian, is an implicit requirement for physical interaction: the full experience requires the viewer to move in predetermined directions (Davies, 1997, p 53). Davies speculates that the circular design of funerary monuments was due to the Romans’ magical belief that encircling an object or person was protective (Davies, 1997, p. 54). The act of moving around a sacred object, known as circumambulation, has been integral to religious processions throughout human history. The created boundary enclosed and protected, shown in the annual Roman festival of amburbium (circumambulation of the city) (Scullard, 1981, pp. 82-83). Trajan’s column guides the viewer through a phenomenological experience, manipulating them into walking around the column, both inside and out. The spiralling design of Trajan’s Column enforced psychophysical interaction, engaging Roman citizens with Trajan’s narrative while covertly re-enacting sacred honorific rituals (Davies, 1997, p. 58). Ending in a revelation of the emperors’ career, viewers were kept aware of the greatness of the Roman state through the leadership of the optimus priceps (Latin, ‘best ruler’), Trajan.

Figure 6: Crossing the Danube (Scenes 4-5), 113AD, Trajan’s Column.

Carved into the column’s helical band of reliefs are more than 2,500 individual figures over 155 scenes, framing the Dacian campaign in one continuous frieze (Stokstad and Cothren, 2011, p. 194). Roman art shows a preference for repetition, flooding the viewer with a particular narrative; Trajan’s Column is no different, with the emperor recurring 58 times throughout (Stokstad and Cothren, 2011, p. 194). The column showcases Trajan demonstrating Roman values of virtus (Latin, ‘courage), pietas (Latin, ‘piety’), and fides (Latin, ‘good relations’). Purposefully placed in the busiest part of the city, onlookers were kept aware of Trajan’s role in the successes of the state (Ramage and Ramage, 2011, p. 197). 

In our attempts of unearthing the secrets of times past, it serves us to be open to multiple lines of inquiry. Exploring why objects were made, what their place was, and what they meant in antiquity requires an understanding of the environment that gave rise to them. In turn, understanding the purpose of an object complements our understanding of the environment it was found in. Taken together, the objects discussed in this essay— the Roman silver didrachm, Augustus from Prima Porta statue, and Trajan’s Column —help us in developing an understanding of how objects acted as powerful propagandistic mechanisms, influencing the thoughts, feelings, and behaviors of individuals in the ancient world.

References

Attalus, 2021. Ennius, Annales. [online] Available at: http://www.attalus.org/poetry/ennius1.html [Accessed 25 April 2021].

Bonanno, A., 1982. In M. Henig, ed. A Handbook of Roman Art. Oxford: Phaidon, pp. 66–96.

Cornell, T., 2012. The Beginnings of Rome: Italy and Rome from the Bronze Age to the Punic Wars (c. 1000–264 BC). New York: Routledge.

Davies, P.J., 1997. The politics of perpetuation: Trajan’s column and the art of commemoration. American Journal of Archaeology, pp. 41-65.

Ellithorpe, C., 2017. Circulating Imperial Ideology: Coins as Propaganda in the Roman World. Dissertation, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Hornblower, M., 1999. The Oxford Classical Dictionary. New York: Oxford University Press.

Hölkeskamp, K.J., 2010. Reconstructing the Roman Republic: An Ancient Political Culture and Modern Research. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Bostock, J., 2021. Pliny the Elder, The Natural History. [online] Perseus.edu. Available at: https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Plin.+Nat.+toc [Accessed 25 April 2021].

Lewontin, R.C., 2002. The triple helix: Gene, organism, and environment. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Lipka, M., 2009. Roman Gods: A Conceptual Approach (Vol. 167). Boston: Brill.

Mitchell, R.E., 1976. Roman Coins as Historical Evidence: The Trojan Legends of Rome. Illinois Classical Studies, 1, pp. 65-85.

Museivaticani, 2021. Augustus from Prima Porta. [online] Available at: https://www.museivaticani.va/content/museivaticani/en/collezioni/musei/braccio-nuovo/Augusto-di-Prima-Porta.html [Accessed 20 April 2021].

Paolinelli, M.C., 2012. A Visitor’s Guide to the Villa of Livia at Prima Porta. Dissertation, California State University, Sacramento.

Pollini, J., 1995. In W. G. Moon, ed. Polykleitos, the Doryphoros, and Tradition. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, pp. 262–282.

Ramage, N.H. and Ramage, A., 1991. The Cambridge Illustrated History of Roman Art. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Richerson, P.J. and Boyd, R., 2008. Not by genes alone: How culture transformed human evolution. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Richter, D., Grün, R., Joannes-Boyau, R., Steele, T.E., Amani, F., Rué, M., Fernandes, P., Raynal, J.P., Geraads, D., Ben-Ncer, A. and Hublin, J.J., 2017. The age of the hominin fossils from Jebel Irhoud, Morocco, and the origins of the Middle Stone Age. Nature, 546(7657), pp. 293-296.

Scullard, H.H., 1981. Festivals and ceremonies of the Roman Republic. London: Thames & Hudson.

Sicker, M., 2000. The Pre-Islamic Middle East. Westport: Greenwood Publishing Group.

Stokstad, M. and Cothren, M.W., 2011. Art history. Volume 1. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Wallace-Hadrill, A., 1982. Civilis princeps: between citizen and king. The Journal of Roman Studies, 72, pp.32-48.

Figure sources

Figure 1: Roman silver didrachm (obverse), 269BC, Head of Herakles. Museums Victoria [online]. Available from https://collections.museumsvictoria.com.au [Accessed 27 April 2021].

Figure 2: Roman silver didrachm (reverse), 269BC, She-wolf suckling Romulus and Remus. Museums Victoria [online]. Available from https://collections.museumsvictoria.com.au [Accessed 27 April 2021].

Figure 3: Full-length portrait statue, 20AD, Augustus from Prima Porta. Wikipedia [online]. Available from https://en.wikipedia.org [Accessed 27 April 2021].

Figure 4: Full-length portrait statue, c. 440AD, Doryphoros (Spear-Bearer). ResearchGate [online]. Available from https://www.researchgate.net/ [Accessed 27 April 2021].

Figure 5: Roman triumphal monument, 113AD, Trajan’s Column. Wikipedia [online]. Available from https://en.wikipedia.org [Accessed 27 April 2021].

Figure 6: Crossing the Danube (Scenes 4-5), 113AD, Trajan’s Column. Trajans-Column.org [online]. Available from https://www.trajans-column.org [Accessed 27 April 2021].