ArticlePDF Available

Sol : the sun in the art and religions of Rome

Authors:

Abstract

De heersende denkbeelden over de Romeinse zonnegod behoeven herziening. Dat betoogt promovendus Steven Hijmans, die onderzoek deed naar deze zonnegod, Sol. In de afgelopen twee decennia zijn de opvattingen over de Romeinse zonnegod Sol sterk veranderd. Het negentiende-eeuwse idee dat het vereren van de zon onromeins was, heeft afgedaan. De zonnecultus is juist geworteld in de vroegste Romeinse tradities en is doorlopend in Rome aanwezig geweest. Schriftelijke bronnen hiervoor zijn schaars, maar materiële bronnen zijn ruim voorhanden. Deze zijn met name waardevol omdat in het sterk visueel georiënteerde Romeinse rijk de materiële cultuur een belangrijke communicatieve taak had. Het is echter niet eenvoudig de betekenis van deze bronnen te ontsluiten. In de Romeinse beeldtaal bijvoorbeeld hebben veel voorstellingen betekenissen die niet vanzelf spreken. In het geval van Sol blijkt dat gangbare voorstellingstypes veelal niet duidden op Sol of "zon", maar eerder een aura van kosmische stabiliteit aan een voorstelling gaven. Ook konden deze types verbanden leggen met de rijksideologie van een stabiele Romeinse wereldorde. Het is ondoenlijk om in één studie een diepgaande analyse te geven van alle Sol-gerelateerde voorstellingsgroepen. Na een historische en methodologische inleiding en een catalogus en algemene bespreking van Sol-voorstellingen, past Hijmans de in zijn proefschrift bepleite analytische principes daarom in slechts enkele deelstudies diepgaander toe. Zo stelt Hijmans onder meer vast: dat de stralenkrans van de Romeinse keizers geen zonnesymbool was, maar een met Augustus en Actium verbonden erekrans; dat het leitmotiv van Horatius' Carmen Saeculare de door Sol en Luna verbeelde aeternitas-gedachte is; dat Sol in een beroemd mozaïek in de Vaticaanse necropolis ten onrechte geduid wordt als Christus; en dat de rol van de zonnecultus in het ontstaan van het kerstfeest verwaarloosbaar is.
RIJKSUNIVERSITEIT GRONINGEN
SOL
THE SUN IN THE ART
AND RELIGIONS OF ROME
Proefschrift
ter verkrijging van het doctoraat in de
Letteren
op gezag van de
Rector Magnificus, dr. F. Zwarts,
in het openbaar te verdedigen op
donderdag 3 september 2009
om 13.15 uur
door
Steven Ernst Hijmans
geboren op 21 november 1960
te Wijnberg, Zuid Afrika
Promotores: Prof. dr. P.A.J. Attema
Prof. dr. M. Kleibrink
Beoordelingscommissie: Prof. dr. J.N. Bremmer
Prof. dr. E.M. Moorman
Prof. dr. R.R. Nauta
This book is dedicated to
my father
Ben Hijmans
1929-2008
ISBN 978-90-367-3931-3
This research was financially supported by
the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific
Research.
Introduction
This study has been long in the making. I first became interested n Sol over twenty years ago,
when I planned to study the iconography of Sol in the transition from Roman to Christian art in
late antiquity for my doctoraal thesis. My aim was to study the broader context of the famous
image Christ-Helios in mausoleum M in the Vatican Necropolis, but I soon realized that there
was no parallel for this image of a solar Christ, or at least not one that was recognizably
Christian. I decided to focus instead on the Roman iconography of Sol and graduated in 1989 on
a thesis titled Sol Invictus: een Iconografische Studie. As I embarked on my career my interests
initially drew me away from Sol, but when plans for a field project in Turkish Mesopotamia fell
through as a result of the first Gulf War and its aftermath, I returned to Sol and accepted an
NWO-funded research position as wetenschappelijk onderzoeksmedewerker with the aim to
publish a doctoraat dissertation that would build on my earlier work. Thus I embarked on writing
the book that you now have before you.
My goal, somewhat naive, was to take three or four years to write a close analysis of the
extant images of Sol, focusing on what those images could tell us about the chronology, origin,
and nature of the cult of Sol in the Roman world. My work progressed well and resulted in a
number of articles (Hijmans 1994, 1995, 1996a and b, 1997), but was not even near completion
when my three-year research position ended in 1997. The impediments to completion were to
some degree practical (illustrated by the sheer mass of material collected in chapter four), but
primarily theoretical: I had come to realize that many of the images of Sol in my database did not
depict Sol, if by Sol we mean the Roman sun god. What they did depict was less clear to me, nor
was I entirely sure how to find out. I thus found myself facing a choice between pragmatism and
principle. With relatively little extra work I could have published an iconographic discussion in
the tradition of many volumes in the EPRO-series of Vermaseren. That would have resulted in a
book that consisted essentially of chapters one, three and four of this book. But the shortcomings,
in this particular case, of such a book were simply too obvious, and in the final analysis I felt
certain that I would come to regret such a book as a missed opportunity.
I decided instead to afford myself the luxury of an “old style” approach to my doctoraat,
i.e. to pursue my career as an academic while continuing to work on my dissertation until I felt it
was ready for publication. I must admit that at the time I did not anticipate that it would take me
quite so long to reach that point, but I do not regret the decision. It has allowed me to develop my
ideas about the Roman art of visual communication, try them out in various seminars with senior
undergraduate and graduate students at the University of Alberta and explore their implications
for our understanding of the imagery of Sol in a number of case studies (Hijmans 2000, 2003,
2004, 2006, 2007). This does not mean that I consider this study to be more finished than it
would have been had I published it earlier. In fact it is, paradoxically, less finished than a “corpus
of images and monuments of Sol” in the EPRO-tradition would have been. On two fronts,
however, it represents a major improvement over the straightforward iconographic study I briefly
contemplated publishing around 2000. It addresses the problems of visual signification and
Roman viewing and it explores those issues in a number of loosely linked case studies.
Once my decision was made I initially attempted to find a suitable body of visual or
material culture theory to provide a framework for my intended analyses. But I felt like an
v
anthropologist attempting to study a culture without really knowing its language. The problem
with images is that they may seem straightforward but are not. As Magritte points out with his
famous series of paintings captioned “ceci n’est pas une pipe”, one cannot smoke a painting.
Social codes govern how images function, and those codes are by definition neither universal
nor, necessarily, transparent. A society that consistently for centuries depicts the sun as a
youthful beardless male charioteer rather than as a fiery orb, for example, clearly has a complexly
coded visual system that goes well beyond Magritte’s unsmokable painting. Thus in Roman art
what you see is often not what you get, for despite the way in which they depicted the sun, it is
quite clear that most Romans did not think that it was a youthful male charioteer, just as they did
not think that Eternity was a woman bearing the severed heads of the sun and the moon on her
outstretched hands; it was simply the way they visualized the concept. In other words, they
thought of the sun as the youthful charioteer when they visualized him in art, but not when they
conceptualized him as a cosmic body.
This obvious difference between image and concept depicted underlines the importance
of the social coding in Rome’s visual system and hence the importance of being privy to those
codes if one is to understand the image. Are we well-versed in Rome’s visual codes? My
research led me to realize that we are not, or at least not as well as we like to think. We are
certainly not illiterate when it comes to Roman art, but we do not come close to the fluency of a
“native viewer”. Problems still arise at various levels of interpretation. At the basic,
lexicographical level it is still common to find images defined as “Sol” that clearly do not depict
him, as well as images defined as “not-Sol” that do. Likewise there is still confusion over which
iconographic elements and attributes are or are not indicative of Sol. For example, one can find
certain conventions for the depiction of radiance described as “solar” or typical of Sol, and thus
giving the bearer a “solar aspect”, despite the fact that the particular convention under discussion
may be one that was actually never used for Sol. For the fluent Roman viewer the use of such a
convention would thus actually have the opposite effect of conclusively defining a figure as not-
Sol, just radiant.
Problems of this type are straightforward and could be adequately resolved in a
publication of the EPRO-corpus type. But establishing that an image “is” Sol does not tell us
very much, because all that we have done is securely recognize the image, not the concept that
image depicts. Reconstructing the social conventions that render the image recognizable gives us
the correct ways to “spell” the image, but does not define what the image, thus spelled, means.
Classicists have generally side-stepped this problem by assuming that the image meant the same
as the most closely associated Latin word: the image of Sol is “Sol”. But in the case of Sol it is
soon apparent that this does not work, for while an image of Sol may be deemed to be Sol, it has
long been recognized that an image of Sol and Luna together usually means aeternitas, not Sol
Lunaque.
Upon closer consideration it is quite obvious that verbal and visual modes of
communication differ too fundamentally to be equated. The primary dimension of verbal
communication is temporal, not spatial, whereas visual communication is spatially organized, but
not temporal. In short, we cannot rely on our knowledge of Latin to understand Rome’s visual
social codes. Words construct meanings differently from images.
Reaching this point was not difficult, particularly because Sol and Luna are very often
vi
appended as a symbolic pair to an image in which they have no direct role, making it was quite
obvious that an image of Sol regularly represented - or co-represented - concepts that were not
directly related to the Latin word Sol. More difficult was the question how to proceed. I faced the
conundrum that is so typical for our field of knowing too little for a sophisticated art historical
analysis and too much for a prehistorical approach. I realized that really I had no choice but to
attempt to gain a more fluent understanding of the basic potential meanings of an image of Sol,
the range of predefined possibilities a Roman would have in the back of her mind as she viewed
and interpreted a particular image. This led me to ground my study in a very basic, semiotic
framework.
Other problems presented themselves. Do images evoke meanings that cannot, or at least
cannot easily, be expressed in words? How does one recognize and define such meanings? How
does one deal with all the other images that contribute to our understanding of the image of Sol,
but that we likely do not know or recognize any better than we do images of Sol? What is the
most effective methodology to decipher the social codes that govern the agreed upon meanings of
a given type of image, and how does one deal with the inevitable gradual change of those
concepts over time? These are some of the fundamental questions that came to drive much of the
research now presented here.
This study does not come close to answering all these questions. Indeed in many respects
it barely scratches the surface. But it does acknowledge the importance of these questions and
others like them, and the impact that they have, or should have, at every step of the interpretative
process. The common denominator in all these questions is that they force us to reflect on the
complex factors at play in the interaction between viewer and the viewed. And while there is a
great deal more to learn, I believe that asking these questions has already paid significant
dividends in the present study. The conclusions I arrive at here have challenged me to rethink
some of our most basic ideas about the role and nature of the sun in Roman religion. They show
that long-held notions concerning, for instance, the origins and chronology of solar cults in
Rome, the nature and importance of those cults, or the role of solar cult in the deification of
emperors, must be reconsidered or even simply rejected. In a broader perspective, I believe the
conclusions of this study demonstrate the potential of this type of visual analysis to enhance and
subvert our current ideas concerning many aspects of Roman religion and social history in
general.
I see many avenues for further research beyond the conclusions presented here; research
further exploring specific aspects of the images of Sol, research expanding beyond Sol (to Luna,
for instance, or the Dioscuri), as well as research to strengthen the theoretical and methodological
framework for the types of analyses pursued here. One fundamental pre-understanding is the
premise for this, namely that Roman society was profoundly visual. That visuality is evident in
the proliferation of meaningful images in the Roman world. Living Romans were surrounded by
inanimate ones, in the form of statues, reliefs, paintings and the like, to a degree that is difficult
for us to conceive. Walking through public spaces in imperial Rome must have been akin to
walking through a baroque church in Rome today - with works of art vying for your attention
from all sides. The ground level alone of the Forum of Augustus formed the stage for close to
100 statues, if we accept Zanker’s reconstruction. At the same time, Romans were not as
inundated with images as we are by every medium from children’s books to television. The effort
vii
required to produce even one of those statues on Augustus’ Forum dwarfs the effort required to
publish a photograph in a weekly magazine. No matter how widespread they were, images in the
Roman world therefore commanded more respect and, quite possibly, attention than the
ubiquitous imagery that we process today. In a world without mass media they were bound to.
Thus from coins to statues Romans deployed art to communicate key social concepts and ideals
in public as well as private settings.
This premise is fundamental to this study, but not argued extensively in it. Of course one
can accept the premise and still reject my conclusion, but I do not see how one can reject the
premise, yet accept the outcomes of this study.
Thanks are due to very many people.
First and foremost I must single out the museums and their staff. I have received
assistance in one form or another from virtually every museum in the catalogue, for which I am
most grateful. Studies such as this one would be impossible without them.
Numerous colleagues have also encouraged me, challenged my views, and provided
assistance in various other ways: Leonardo de Arrizabalaga y Prado, Roger Beck, Joe Bryant,
Tristan Ellenberger, Arwen Fleming, Garth Fowden, Richard Gordon, Margriet Haagsma,
Nathalie de Haan, John Harris, Tracene Harvey, Chris Mackay, Eric Moormann, Frits Naerebout,
Inge Nielsen, Andrew Palmer, Reinder Reinders, Jeremy Rossiter, Selina Stewart, the staff of the
Netherlands Institute at Athens, the staff of the Netherlands Institute at Rome, untold numbers of
critically inquisitive students, and many, many others. A very special word of thanks is due to
Peter Attema and Marianne Kleibrink for their unflagging support and incredible patience. After
so much help and advice, all remaining errors are, of course, my own.
Special thanks is also due to my mother, for her editorial assistance, to my daughters Zoë, Anna,
and Phoebe for keeping me sane, and above all to Margriet for, well, everything and more.
This book is dedicated to my father, Ben Hijmans, who contributed more to it than he ever knew.
viii
Table of Contents
Introduction v
Chapter 1. Sol in the Roman Empire: Previous Research, General Trends;
A Brief Survey of the Status Quaestionis 1
Chapter 2. Classical Art, Roman Religion, and Visual Meanings 31
Chapter 3. Description and Discussion of the Iconography of Sol 71
Chapter 4. The Images: Catalogue and Discussion 103
A. Sculpture: life-size or larger 107
B. Sculpture: small-scale 125
C. Relief sculpture 135
C1. Architectural reliefs 135
C2. Votive reliefs and other religious reliefs 146
C2a-b. Sol alone and Sol with Luna 146
C2c. Mithraic reliefs 152
C2d. Jupiter Dolichenus 186
C2e. Jupiter-giant pillars 190
C2f. So-called “Danubian Riders” 195
C2g. Hosios kai Dikaios 217
C2h. Saturnus 219
C2i. Planetary deities 233
C2j-C2x. Various deities 245
C3. Funerary reliefs 253
C4. Other reliefs 270
C5. Identity of Sol doubtful 275
D. Mosaics and Opus Sectile 280
E. Wall-paintings and stucco decorations 289
F. Decorated plates and vessels 294
G. Lamps 301
H. Intaglios 322
H1. Sol on quadriga to the left 322
H2. Sol on quadriga to the right 327
H3. Sol on frontal “split” quadriga 327
H4. Sol on frontal or three-quarter quadriga 330
H5. Sol/Usil on frontal triga 331
H6. Sol standing 332
H7. Head or bust of Sol to the left 341
H8. Head or bust of Sol to the right 353
H9. Frontal or three-quarters head or bust of Sol 353
ix
H10. Sol as minor figure 355
H11. Sol and Luna as minor figures 358
H12. Sol riding on horseback 361
H13-H18. Varia 361
HA. Intaglios in ancient rings 364
I. Cameos 386
J. Jewellery, costume (including ependytes), personal ornaments 386
K. Minor objects 394
L. Coins (selection) 411
Chapter 5 Temples of Sol in Rome 467
Chapter 6 Not all Light Comes from the Sun. Symbolic Radiance and Solar Symbolism in
Roman Art 509
Chapter 7 Sol-Luna Symbolism and the Carmen Saeculare of Horace 549
Chapter 8 Image and Word: Christ or Sol in Mausoleum M of the Vatican Necropolis? 567
Chapter 9 Aurelian, Constantine, and Sol in Late Antiquity 583
Conclusion 621
x
... Güneş inancının Suriye kökenli olduğu inanışı yaygındır. Bk. Hijmans 2009, 485. 156 Halsberghe 1972. ...
Article
Full-text available
In this article, brick rosettes on the façade of northern and north-eastern annex of St Nicholas Church are discussed in terms of origin, chronology and symbolic meaning. Northern and north-eastern annex of St Nicholas Church were revealed completely during the excavations led by Prof. Dr. S. Y. Ötüken between 1989-2009. In the article “A New Review on Northern Additional Structure of Demre-Myra St Nicholas Church”, architecture of the northern annex, architectural plastic stone pieces, ceramic and coin finds were evaluated. In this article, brick rosette on the K5 place façade of the northern additional structure was mentioned, but the pattern was not subject to a detailed study. Brick rosettes are especially found on the façade of the capital Constantinople (İstanbul), Anatolia, Balkans, Greece and Aegean Islands in the Middle and Late Byzantine Period. This type of brick rosettes is seen on structures with various functions such as palace, church, episkopeion, tower, Castle and fountain. The fact that a similar pattern is common among Emirates Period and Early Ottoman Period structures causes a discussion that it was made by Byzantine masters as well as pointing out to continuity of the pattern. Similar brick ornaments were named in various ways by researchers such as ‘rosette, sun pattern, symbol of light, sun disk, disk and round patterns’. In publications, it stands out that there is no consensus on the symbolic meaning, origin and chronology of the pattern. In this study, brick rosettes on the façade of northern and north- annexes of St Nicholas Church are compared in detail with examples from different geographies. The brick rosette on the façade of north-eastern annexes of the church is important in that it is a unique example which is painted and in which the original pattern can be identified. In this regard, rosettes on the northern and north-eastern annexes present interesting conclusions. Our goal is to identify the origin and chronology of the pattern and present how the symbolic meaning of the motive that is thought to be originating from pagan beliefs was transformed in the Early Christianity Period with examples. In this regard, impacts of the Unconquered Sun/Sol belief, which has become popular in Rome as of 3rd century, on Christianity was discussed within the framework of researchers’ views. We hope that the results would constitute a significant reference for similar studies on this subject that may be conducted in the future.
Article
Full-text available
The article deals with the problem of the association of the Roman god Sol Invictus and the solar gods of ancient Palmyra. The identification of this association is carried out on the basis of an analysis of the evidence of sacred art and numismatic material. The iconography of the solar gods of ancient Palmyra and Rome demonstrates similarities and differences between these gods. Images of the Roman Sol Invictus clearly indicate his military and state character. The Palmyrene gods were at the same time the gods of the sun and the gods of the plant world, also affecting the local sacred source.
Article
Ancient Gaul was transformed during the reign of Augustus (r. 31 BC–14 AD) through a major programme of city building. The new Roman cities were constructed according to topographic, health and ritual considerations, and we hypothesise that their orientations also reflect distinct celestial conceptions held by the Gauls and by the Roman emperor Augustus. Our study of the orientation of 60 cities verifies the existence of coherent patterns, and distinguishes two dominant schemes: a pattern prevailing in the south and focused on cardinal orientations, possibly related to the dies natalis of Augustus; and a pattern dominant in the north, focused on the dates of the festivities at the beginning of the seasons from the Celtic tradition. We argue that the orientation of the cities was used by the Gallic elites to express the validity of their cultural tradition when they became a part of the Roman Empire.
Article
Full-text available
Article
This article engages three deities, one Greek and two Oriental, that their cults were worshipped in caves during the Hellenistic and Roman periods. The first deity is a Hellenistic terracotta figurine of Aphrodite, recovered from the prehistoric cave Me‘arat ha-Nahal (Wadi el-Maghara) at the foot of Mount Carmel. It probably represents Aphrodite Pandemos (Ἀϕροδίτη Πάνδημος) or Aphrodite en Kepois (Ἀϕροδίτη ἐν Κήποις). It may be assumed that the cave, and its proximity to the city of Dor, was modified to serve as a cultic site or shrine. The second deity is represented by a sunken relief engraved on a rough rock surface adjacent to a cluster of 18 caves, known as “The Temple Cave” complex, along Keziv Stream (Nahal Keziv) in western Galilee. The largest and main cave in this complex seems to have had a cultic function in the Roman period, that is, it constituted a cultic site for a particular divinity. The sunken relief depicts a walking male military figure, dubbed “The Man in the Wall.” Based on a comparative study and the figure’s iconographic characteristics, we may identify it with Sol Invictus Mithras, a Late Roman-period deity, manifesting cultic pagan activity in a remote and isolated area, in the very heart of nature. The third deity is Ba‘al Carmel (identified with Zeus/Jupiter) who was presumably worshipped in Elijah’s Cave on the western slope of Mt. Carmel. Ba‘al Carmel’s visual representation, the depiction of a libation vessel and the presumed figure of a priest or, alternatively, an altar within an aedicula suggest it was used in the Roman period. Notably, one of the Greek inscriptions, dated to the Roman period, explicitly addresses the cave’s sacred nature and the prohibition against its profanation.
Article
Full-text available
The winter solstice shaped Rome and its landscape from the ancestral cult of Saturnus as primordial god of the Roman territory before the city’s founding to its use by Augustus as one of the signs of his multiple celestial and solar connections. The important feasts around this date are well known and, in this paper, we propose to demonstrate how some significant public monuments, possibly from the origins of Rome and certainly from during Augustus’s reign, are oriented towards the winter solstice sunrise or sunset. To demonstrate the importance and truly cultural sense of these observations we show how the solstitial orientation is dominant in the cities founded or significantly rebuilt under Augustus. The winter solstice appears then as a powerful and stable cultural marker that traverses the history of the city of Rome, links Augustus with the origins of the city as a kind of new founder – as was already known through other evidence – and connects any provincial cities with Rome to show the depth of their commitment to her as a part of a common world view.
Preprint
It appears that Apollo’s identification with the physical sun is predominantly understood in modern scholarship as a philosophical interpretation of a traditional religious belief. More precisely, it is often understood as an application of physical allegoresis on the tenets of traditional religion and thus attributed to a later stratum of Greek thought. A new evaluation of ancient evidence presented here reveals that the Apollo-sun identification was present in Greek ethnographic context from the earliest period and cannot be reduced to a philosophical reinterpretation of traditional myth and religion. At the same time, the authors interested in the interpretation of traditional religion in terms of natural philosophy were especially prone to use the Apollo-sun identification in their works, since it was able to provide substantial support for their hermeneutic approach.
Article
Full-text available
The text analyses Christianisation of the Roman calendar in the light or the Roman imperial constitutions in the 4th century. The author first of all underlines that only humans recognise religious feasts despite that human perception of time is not that remote from the apperception of time in the case of other animals and that the belief in the supernatural/religion and rituals belong to human universals, the roots of which, together with the judiciary, are to be sought in the evolutionary past of the genus Homo. Furthermore, the author deduces that the first direct Christian influence on the Roman official calendar was probably C. Th. 9,35,4 = C. 3,12,5 (a. 380), prohibiting all investigation of criminal cases by means of torture during the forty days which anticipate the Paschal season, contesting the opinion that dies solis were regarded as dies dominicus (Christian Sunday) already in C. Th. 2,8,1 and C. 3,12,2 (a. 321). Finally, on the margin of the Polish debate concerning the limitation of legal trade during Sundays, when Constantinian roots of dies dominicus were quoted frequently and with great conviction, the limitations of politics of memory are underlined.
Article
In 274 AD, Emperor Aurelanus carried out a religious reform, the aim of which was the ideological unity of the Roman Empire. At the head of an official religious worship was put the cult of Sol Invictus that personified the power of the Roman Emperor. The transformation of the ancient cult of Sol into the official cult of the Emperor Aurelanus took place through a long syncretism, starting with the imperial cult, as well as the unification of Sol, which became Sol Invictus, with the cult of Mithra. The reform of Emperor Aurelanus had to consolidate the unity of the restored empire at the religious level, and the idea foresaw the establishment of monotheism and the triumph of Christianity.
Article
Full-text available
Located at the foot of the Palatine Hill, the Septizodium, a monumental facade fountain, was built during the reign of the emperor L. Septimius Severus. The construction of the Septizodium was part of a larger plan of urban development aimed at creating a monumentalized district honoring the imperial family. This plan included the construction of new imperial baths, the refurbishment of aqueducts, and possibly the layout of a new road. With a three-story high columnar facade, the Septizodium once dominated a large plaza at the terminus of the Via Appia. The Septizodium has been the subject of modern scholarly debate for a little over a century. Widely ranging opinions on the monument's appearance, function, and interpretation have appeared over the years. After a brief review of some earlier studies of the Septizodium's architecture, I will attempt to reevaluate the monument within the context of Severan dynastic politics. Once the architectural form of the Septizodium is established, the discussion will move to its decoration. Comparison of the structure at Rome with other monuments, particularly those with similar facade arrangements and known sculpture programs, allows for speculation about the Septizodium's decoration. Other factors for consideration in this proposal are the monument's urban setting and its role in the dynastic politics of the emperor Severus. Understanding the architecture, urban context, and possible decoration of the Septizodium leads to the conclusion that the monument had great significance within the building program of the emperor L. Septimius Severus.
Christ or Sol in Mausoleum M of the Vatican Necropolis?
  • Word Image
Image and Word: Christ or Sol in Mausoleum M of the Vatican Necropolis? 567