Art in the Limes: Analysis of Sculpture Production in Roman Frontiers
p. 15-32
Texte intégral
I. Art of the frontier and Romanization
1The physical and geopolitical peripheral territories were changing as the Roman Empire expanded its borders, defining the line between the solum romano and the barbaricum. Newly gained territories of the Empire were mostly born from military colonies; a structured model of military expansion. The frontiers were for much time the meeting point between Roman soldiers, their commanders, the local population, migrants and traders from the outside of its borders. As the powers of Rome expanded further, each frontier, once established was no longer the frontier regions but a provincial territory. These territories were an integral space of interaction between Romans, recently conquered cultures, barbarians and groups of people beyond the frontier. Political expansion and the domination of Romans in its new provinces connected cultural, technological, religious and artistic encounters between the conquerors and the conquered. These exchanges and connections formed a pattern of influences that has been called Romanization1, a term which, as we shall see, has posed multiple problems for bettering the understanding of Roman culture.
2During the first third of the 20th century, historiography understood Romanization as the process of cultural conversion to a population in the frontiers from other cultures to more advanced (specifically Roman) cultural development and the civilization as a whole. Rome being perceived as morally, culturally and technologically superior comes from classical Latin literature itself2. Somehow this idea still prevailed into early 20th century historiography - heavily Eurocentric in nature - many considered Romanization of newly conquered territories a natural process of acculturation3.
3Since the 1970s the paradigm of Romanization studies has extended its understanding that Romanization of other cultures was consequence of Rome’s Imperialism, historians view this process as unfavorable to the native population. Historians often accepted a view that Romanization served as a social stratagem for local elites. An opportunity for achieving higher status and more power in the conquering Empire, subordination to Roman convention and culture could have been used by these elites as a control mechanism over the rest of the population. This historiographical perspective viewed indigenous resistance to the invading culture to be a process of “shallow Romanization”, wherein local customs continued under a Roman guise. A fundamental element of this is to understand the cultural and technological conditions prior to the arrival of the Romans.
4In general, these perspectives were based on post-colonialist theory including anthropological and social paradigms developed in the latter half of the 20th century, emphasizing differences between elites and the rest of the population and the colonial relationship between the metropolis and its colonies. This relationship between metropolis and province was a series of negotiations, where material and economic benefits were obtained by Rome through the exploitation of and trade with those new lands4. These revised historiographical tendencies took less to the colonial-inclined theories from the early 20th century, and understands it to be an always evolving culture, not fixed and static.5
5Here we find similarity between these two theories. They both share the fundamental premise: that the existence of a clash between two cultures, had one way or another to result with a superior civilization and the proliferation of its culture and technology. According to Gregory Duncan Woolf, this confrontation had less impact on the daily life of inhabitants in the frontier than it might once have been supposed. Woolf viewed these historiographical perspectives as problematic due to their focus on cultural identity as inextricably linked to political and social conventions. For the author, this difference in culture was for its inhabitants more practical and tangible (eg. the divide between rich and poor - or - their religious nature). New research in cultural studies and on the processes of colonization, lead us to a different conception of the complex Romanization process. This conception includes a fundamental premise, concerned with understanding the specific changes occurring in the conquered territories rather than trying to explain the process as a two-sided cultural confrontation. It is thus, neither about demonstrating that Roman culture wholly replaced the indigenous culture, nor about analyzing which indigenous customs withstood this cultural avalanche. Understanding this fascinating process as the beginnings of imperial-colonial culture, this culture engendered its own cultural rules and conventions, changing the conquerors Roman culture almost as much as that the conquered6.
6With this new paradigm imperial-colonial culture is seen as a process of syncretic construction between different cultural realities that ultimately result in an entirely new identity for both cultures. Created through an exchange between the indigenous cultures of each territory, this negotiation is understood to be clearly advantageous for the colonizing society. It is irrefutable that Roman political leaders and its military presided over the indigenous citizens, however, we cannot speak of a direct replacement of one culture by another, it is a milieu of transformations in both. We can speak about the "creolization" of Roman society, a term originating in Linguistics which denotes the fusion of languages. It is also used to discuss the religious, cultural, artistic and material syncretism. In the field of American Studies, specifically on colonialization, this term describes the mix between African, European and indigenous Americans7.
7From this point of view, we can say that the process of conquest and settlement by the Romans in its new lands was itself the engine driving the evolution of Roman culture and society. Expansion around the Mediterranean, the conquest of Greece, relationships with Celtic, Germanic or Parthians societies was defining the Roman Empire and reconstructing its culture. There was not an original, static and incorruptible Roman culture that imposed itself over several centuries and different cultures, but a Roman society in flux. The cultural relationship was transforming both cultures in different ways.
8This new conception of Romanization - namely the creation of creole or pidgin cultures, mixing Roman and indigenous elements - entails us to study each cultural, religious and social difference throughout the various acquired territories. This new conception explicates distinct cultural groups within the expanding Roman Empire rather than a model of two clashing cultures. The methodological premise of this essay is to use analysis of period sculptures, indicating the kind of cultural fusion of different identities that evolved throughout the frontiers of the Empire.
II. A new cultural reality: representation of the gods
9The Roman expansion over Gaul can be used as an example to demonstrate the process of forming new cultural identity, indicative of what happened in other territories. With the conquest of Gaul, Rome went from being a hegemonic power in the Mediterranean Sea to become an institutionalized and more complex empire. Augustus organized the administrative framework of provinces, as controlled by census. The establishment of the Romans in Gaul - from c. 50 BC until the end of 1st century AD produced many changes on the lives of the Gaul people and also to the Romans themselves and their culture.
10The conquest of Gaul brought the association of different peoples and cultures under one power. The people of Gaul were not a homogeneous people, and they had local differences in artistic style. These people can be understood as part of a cultural and technological pattern known as “Peoples of the European Iron Age” but the differences between its peoples go beyond an artistic style. There were factors such as coinage (present in southern Gaul, influenced by Mediterranean cultures, and absent in the North), the construction of monumental architecture (such the large walled fortifications or oppida - a tradition extending from Bohemia and southern Germany, with regional differences in construction) or burial practices (there are remnants of ancient burials in Iron Age, differing to practices of cremation). Roman occupation represented a mixed-race new order, where each community was uniquely transformed, despite being within the technologies offered by the Romans8.
11Interesting conclusions can be drawn from sculptural analysis over different regions and times throughout Romanization eg. an iconographic study of deities worshipped in Gaul offers an example of the syncretic changes of Roman and indigenous culture throughout different parts of Gaul. Celtic and Roman art were very different - Celtic art based incorporates geometric and stylized decorative shapes, whilst Greco-Roman art was mainly drawing from anthropomorphic naturalism. While the Roman pantheon is well known, the Celtic deities, as well as the German, were based on elements of nature. Gods represented the Sun, Moon, stars, day and night, however in the Druidic tradition those gods were nameless and didn‘t have concrete form. In Gaul, religious sculpture was strange, except in southerly regions where prior Mediterranean influence brought Greek and Roman stylistic models that were not used in the North9 (with some exceptions as the sculptures of Roquepertuse sanctuary in Bouches-du-Rhône).
12After the annexation of the three Galliae to Roman territory in 50 BC, Celtic Druidic orders were suppressed by Roman order, favouring its own artistic style, the appearance of anthropomorphic depictions of deities, and names for gods. Many of the Roman pantheon gods were assimilated to previous Celtic deities, and they became known by composite names such as Mercurius Dumias, Grannus Apollo, Apollo Bellenus or Mars Leherennus. This is a clear example of interpretatio romana. One of the most often represented gods was Mercury, depicted in the 1st Century BC as a mature, bearded man, dressed in a tunic, pants and petaso or carrying a small bag and a ram-headed serpent10. There are many examples of representations of the god Jupiter, such as the Taranis Jupiter (found in the late eighteenth century in Le Châtelet, near the River Marne), where he is depicted carrying a beam and a wheel which are solar symbols11 (Ill. 1). There are also known many statuettes representing other mixed gods, like goddess Diana, interpreted as the Celtic goddess of Gallia Belgica Arduinna or Hercules as Ogmios.
Ill.1. Bronze, Statue de Jupiter-Taramis trouvée à la fin du XVIIIe siècle au Châtelet. Musée d'Archéologie National, Saint-Germain-en-Laye, France.

13The representation of these gods shows how these Gallo-Roman gods differ from their peers in the Roman pantheon. They differ from Roman deities in form and style. Now we do not talk about Celtic gods prior to the arrival of the Romans or assimilated Roman gods of the pantheon, we speak of a cultural manifestation of this new territory. They are the product of cultural negotiation between the local populations and the Romans. This negotiation was sometimes on the side of Roman interpretatio, yet other times cultural production was similar to Celtic perspectives. This is the case for the representation of other gods that retained their primitive character. For example, the horned god Cernunnos or the horse goddess Epona. Iconographically Cernunnos is very rich and interesting as it is depicted with antlers, sitting cross-legged and in some cases is shown with three heads. These are just some of the attributes associated with the deity, and were not in every example. In any case, the animal origin of Cernunnos seems clear12, often depicted with a ram, and other times snakes are seen in representations of the version of Mercury (Ill. 2, 3). The first image shows the god with bull and ram, while the second image shows it seated with three horned heads (there are two small heads added to the side of the main head, and on the rear of the heads there are cavities which would locate two horns).
Ill.2. Apollon, Cernunnos et Mercure. Collection du Musée de Saint-Rémi de Reims, Reims, France.

Ill.3. Cernunnos. Musée d'Archéologie National, Saint-Germain-en-Laye, France.

14The representation of the goddess Epona involves zoolatry, connecting the goddess’ image to the representation of horses. Despite many statues of horses, with no relationship to the divinity, several statues of the goddess can be found without a horse. It was likely Greco-Roman anthropomorphic influence that created a goddess with an individual name and a form associated to horses (Ill. 4). Their representation spread from Britain to Dacia, but it was especially prominent on the north and east of Gaul, and on Germania Superior’s edge. Even when the sculptures of Epona and Cernunnos are represented with naturalistic details, they don’t have any correlation with the Roman pantheon. It was previously thought that in the most Romanized areas of Gaul, like Narbonne, Epona was represented less due to its closeness to Celtic style - this view suggests again Romanization is a process of conquest and cultural resistance. This paper however, results in an inclination toward thinking of it as a syncretic cultural creation as the result of negotiations between the conquering society and indigenous beliefs, iconographic forms: and not that indigenous resistance was a substrate to Roman culture. The syncretic process is not spontaneous but construed, so there are differences between regions.
Ill.4. Epona avec des chevaux vers 200 av. J.-C., trouvée à Köngen, Allemagne. Musée historique de Berne, Suisse

15Similarly, it is interesting to note that Epona and Cernunnos are rarely accompanied by epigraphic notes, which is convention with Gallo-Roman gods. The placement of epigraphic inscriptions on the sculptures of Roman officials and indigenous elites was common practice. However, its use was not spread regarding these particular divinities. According to Jane Webster, this is not the result of its standing on a cultural level. Some images of Epona are works of high technical caliber, financed by people with critical judgment and who had money to commission such works. Provincial cultural criterion believed it unacceptable their gods shared Roman characteristics, it did however, bring about their anthropomorphic conversion. A median point between acceptance and resistance can be seen here, an example of the complex and uneven process of creating a new Gallo-Roman culture with regional variations13.
III. Funerary art - cultural conventions of peripheral Roman societies
16Sculptural decoration and Funerary art in Roman provinces are a good source of information as they reflect the construction of identity and character of each community which strays from the classical Roman model as much as from the indigenous model before it got conquered. Provincial variations offer valuable insights that help us understand how Romanization included constructions of new cultural reality, in which both Roman and indigenous cultures were represented.
17The frontier city Palmyra (at the eastern reach of the Empire) became rich through mercantile trade and passing caravans on route from Rome to the Parthian Empire. During Roman domination (around the first three centuries AD), the Palmyrene society developed, in part due to its prosperity, a unique taste for urban and funeral monuments around the city's Necropolis. Ruling families that wanted to display their social status placed their richly ornamented tombs in key locations of the Necropolis.
18In the Necropolis of Palmyra, we find hundreds of sculptures placed in niches and hypogea, either busts or reliefs that represent the deceased. The sculptures still maintained today date from the second half of the 1st century AD until the late 3rd century AD. It is difficult to date works accurately as many of them are out of context, they can be classified into three groups by stylistic criterions (from AD 50 to 150, from AD 150 to 200 and from AD 200 to 273). A distinguishing characteristic of these sculptures is their amazing gestural symbolism. In representing the deceased, these tombs aimed at dignifying the person and emphasizing symbolic aspects of his attributes, profession or familiar relationships. The society of Palmyra used a complex series of gestural codes. In one of the most famous examples of funerary sculptures from Palmyra14 we can observe a woman wearing a tunic, veil and turban, the right hand held up with the palm looking forward and the left hand supporting the spindle and distaff. Another Palmyrene funerary sculpture of the same series shows us a bearded man holding his right arm in a sling of his tunic, extending the index and middle fingers of his right hand, and holding a twig in his left hand15. It is not here an intention to outlay deep interpretations of Palmyrene symbolism, but to display the negotiation of cultures. In Rome as in Palmyra these gestures were identified as signifying ideas or values eg. the holding of the men’s' right arm in a sling (habitual in the 1st century AD) and the extended fingers of the sculpture mentioned above. This gesture probably belongs to the Mediterranean area, not specifically to Roman symbolism. The gesture signified a dignified citizen. By the same token, the women were represented raising their arm with the hand directed towards her face, touching her veil or face in certain instances16. This typical Roman gesture is symbolic of women relation to the pudictia. It is unclear if this gesture originates from Rome, yet it is undeniable the gesture is represented in both contexts (Rome and Palmyra).
19What Maura K. Heyn interprets in her study about gestures in Palmyra, is that these gestures indicate two functions. Firstly, Heyn defines the symbols and codes which have strong roots in Palmyra without a Roman equivalent - arising from the fusion of indigenous cultural tradition and Roman convention. Secondly, defining the symbols which copy some formal aspect of typical Roman gestures. We call it formal because the role of a woman in Palmyra is, in spite of the patriarchal society, quite different from a Roman woman. Women in Palmyra didn’t have a secondary, mother and wife, social role - rather women participated actively in rituals of the city (in fact, almost half of the funerary sculptures found represent women by her character and dedications, demonstrating her life in society). It may seem like the model of the modest Roman woman, typified by the gesture of the pudicitia, has no real parallel in Palmyrene society, whereby these gestures represented in tombs were not representative of daily life. It is possible that female attributes of the Palmyrene sculptures (which mimics the attributes of the Roman examples) didn’t have the social meaning that they had in Rome. Gestural representations such as the pudicitia, expressions of mourning (eg. resting the hand above the deceased’s shoulder17) or feminine symbols (eg. holding the spindle) appertained more to artistic fashion than to real Roman symbolism. Similarly, the gesture of the rising hand with the palm outwards (an apotropaic sign in Roman tradition) could symbolize the deceased woman’s participation within Palmyrene rituals, rather than a protective gesture to keep bad spirits away18.
20Another similar example is found in the tombs of two burial places in Ghirza (250 km southeast of Tripoli) which was an important religious center in the third or 4th century AD. The construction of the tombs there was different from the Italic model, as rituals surrounding the deceased were different, eg. most tombs have small spaces reserved for unclear purposes, they also avoided outdoor burials. Both the decorative elements of the tombs, mainly the reliefs, and the architecture itself, show this new cultural construction - a mixture of Libyan and Punic funerary art and Roman traditions. It is neither an appropriation of a Roman model, nor a cultural resistance of the indigenous substrate who secretly kept this local tradition. Ghirza’s tombs are representational of the model of cultural construction in a multicultural society that reinterprets its cultural symbols within the technological and social framework that was given by the Romans. In Ghirza funerary reliefs deal with issues of daily and religious life of its inhabitants, and show, as well as in funeral sculptures in the Palmyra necropolis, the importance of the predominating families19. Sometimes the graves had their names written in Latin but also in the Punic language, as can be seen by archaeological remains20.
21As in Palmyra, funerary reliefs of Ghirza show images that served to denote the power of some families, because they show us the heads of the families receiving offerings (depicted in larger scale and sitting on a kind of quasi-throne.) Some scenes depict punishments of other people, armed men appear to be fighting, and other scenes are depictions of power and class. Scenes of life in the countryside, such as sowing, harvest and commercial activities (eg. merchants riding camels) were also present in African representations21.
22In the representations of Palmyra as well as in the ones of Ghirza, the images have a propaganda and status function, this is common in Roman examples. Nevertheless, the ways of representing status differs greatly between cultures, both in style and in the used symbolism. At two places as far-apart as Ghirza and Palmyra, we see how sculptures show us two modes of cultural construction that were afforded by Roman technology. In each case, negotiations of construction had varying results, sometimes closer to and sometimes further from Roman examples. With this in mind, studying these works allows us to understand in a better way, how identity was shaped in frontier provinces of the Roman Empire.
23The last example detailing funerary art is again in Gaul. Development of funerary monuments from 50 AD onwards occurs in places of highest Roman presence, (Narbonne, Lyon and other military establishments around Rhineland). At the beginning of the colonization of Gaul, high-positioned military officers ordered construction of such monuments. Mainly constructed to the taste of their sponsors, italic styling is still very visible. Early on groups of itinerant Italian sculptors brought the Roman design models from Narbonne to Lyon, but this stylistic trend began to transform quickly.
24While Roman culture penetrated Gaul, both societies created their own identity models specific only to Gaul. Funerary altars had no precedent in Celtic culture, who buried their leaders sumptuously, but without this attention to permanence in time -represented by physical elements like altars or mausoleums. During the first years after colonization Roman models were common, however, these conquered territories developed soon their own models and stylistic conventions. The works differ due to primary influences such as the demands of the sponsors of the works, the capacity of the sculptors and the quality of the used materials (Ill. 5). Local workshops were not producing less valid copies of Roman models, as the workshops and its artists had freedom to choose and stylise the models. In this sense, a wide range of own symbolic and representative combinations were available.
Ill.5. Stèle funéraire du centurion M. Caelius. Bonn, Allemagne.

25From the 2nd century AD onwards, these variations specific to some local workshops started to standardize and expand to other areas of the region. In the Mausoleum of the Secundinii - in present day Igel, Germany - the tradition of placing busts and statues in mausoleums became less popular, and it became more fashionable to have sculpted reliefs. We can see this was influenced by its precursor, the famous funerary steles of Rhineland. This style of funerary pillar appeared widely in Northern Gaul and Central-Eastern Gaul. Through regional diversifications, as opposed to indigenous resistance, Gaul became a production engine of this shared ‘culture as demonstrated across funeral monuments22.
26As seen in the famous gravestone for Blussus and Menimane, dated to the Claudian period (Landesmuseum, Mainz, Germany), Walburg Boppert confirms that, despite stylistic similarity to Roman models, the style is a nuance of this specific region. The depicted people are dressed in traditional Gaelic attire, furthermore they are seated in an manner specific to the culture of the region. Though there are precedents for sitting sculptures in Rome, it is possible that being represented in a sitting position had symbolized honour and respect in Gaelic-Roman culture23.
IV. Analysis of portraits
27In referring to portraits made in the provinces by local craftsmen, most traditional archeological studies dealt with local variations of a classical Roman style24. In general, these provincial portraits loose gradually the Roman taste for naturalistic forms and simplify them. This process in the provinces arises not only because of less skilled artists, but also due to changes to the interpretation of conventional Roman art by a foreign culture having their own tastes and preference25. If we understand Romanization as the syncretic process of forming a new culture (incorporating to a greater or lesser extent elements of the previous cultures) we cannot say that the sculptures were simply low-quality local variants.
28Examples of Imperial portraits made by provincial workshops near the borders of the Empire like the portrait of the emperor Gordian III from the Rheinisches Landesmuseum (Bonn, Germany) or the Portrait of Emperor Marcus Aurelius from the Bernisches Historisches Museum (Avenches, Switzerland) are indicative of the simplification of forms, delineation of volumes, and level of detail given to hair. A particular portrait of Emperor Marcus Aurelius, made in Alexandria and Aphrodisias was destined to the Wadi Bel Gadir sanctuary in Cyrene. This portrait (made by an Italic/Greek sculptor) has had variations made to it by a local artist. Compared to a conventional Roman model difference is seen in the particularly crude detail of the hair, the ovalesque shaped head and the pronounced features of his expression26. These discussed examples are indicative of each peripheral region, and demonstrate alterations to the existing aesthetic convention, that of Court artworks, proliferated and exported throughout the entire Roman territory.
29Throughout the Roman conquest of new lands, it is possible to assert that cultural representations changed and developed on both sides, in the new conquered territories and the in metropolis. These quasi-Roman cultures run concurrent with the perspective that Roman culture held about the barbarians27. The description of the barbarian in Rome was associated with the attribute of ferocitas contrasted to the concept of civilized culture (to which Rome thought itself). Herodian, when discussing the supposedly barbarian heritage of Emperor Maximinus Thrax writes:
30Ἦν δὲ καὶ τὴν ὄψιν φοβερώτατος, καὶ μέγιστος τὸ σῶμα, ὡς μὴ ῥᾳδίως αὐτῷ τινὰ μήτε Ἑλλήνων τῶν σωμασκούντων μήτε βαρβάρων τῶν μαχιμωτάτων ἐξισοῦσθαι.
31Era, además, un hombre de aspecto terrible y tan corpulento que no podían fácilmente igualarle ni un atleta griego ni el mejor guerrero bárbaro.
32Ce prince était terrible par son seul aspect ; on n’eût trouvé personne, ni parmi les athlètes grecs, ni parmi les plus belliqueux des Barbares, qui lui fût comparable pour la taille et pour la vigueur28.
33Herodian states that his brute strength and ferocity are traits of a barbarian. Regardless of the truth about barbarians, sculptures of Thrax found in Gaul depict him in this manner. Bianchi Bandinelli says this kind of sculptures shows an indigenous taste for the grotesque, fantastic and monstrous29. The local sculpture made in stone in the Musée Denon (Chalon-sur-Saône, France) that represents a lion bringing down a gladiator and the famous sculpture of the “Tarascan” (Musée Lapidaire, Avignon, France) show this taste for fierceness and violence.
34These representations are distant from the Italic taste, representing precisely how these cultural constructions in the frontier include elements of indigenous culture, which vary in each region and the historical circumstances of the time of its production. Not as a resistance to the conquerors foreign forms and models but as active participants, sculpture workshops had a dynamic role as part of this syncretic culture.
35Many other sculptural examples show how these societies on the Empire’s fringes participated in this syncretic culture. The gold plated bronze head of a Helvetian (of 2nd century AD from Musée romain d’Avenches), the bronze portrait of a Celtic warrior from Rheinisches Landesmuseum or the portrait of a Libyan found in Cyrene are unusual images, each with a distinctive sculptural style. Although it is difficult to pinpoint an answer as to why they were built, they are evidence of the cultural reality that existed in the Roman Provinces. These particular cultures that found their place even within imperial portraits.
* *
36Here we have been analyzing some select sculptures made in different peripheral territories of the Roman Empire, showing a special interest in the frontier of Gaul and Germania. The analysis aims to exemplify a heterogenous understanding of Romanization, it being a non-linear and multifaceted process of syncretic cultural realities between Italic and indigenous cultures. In general, it is wrong to embark on an analysis of Roman provincial arts, grounded on the idea of a natural process of Roman acculturation over the barbarians. Examining sculptural art on the frontiers reflect the evolution of new social structures, created and negotiated by the cultural elements that make up a society.
37The examples chosen here for analysis represent the particular local styles, one that integrated into broader cultural nuances, a syncretic combination of indigenous and Roman elements. It would be a mistake to define artistic production in frontier territories by technical quality according to Roman conventions, for as demonstrated, there are many elements to consider when analyzing Roman sculpture. This analysis in turn helps us to understand the reality of this vast and complex Empire, thereby giving a sharper conception of Roman society. Viewed not as a single culture that attempted to homogenise its people into one uniform culture, but, a society that was constantly adapting to regional difference and incorporating indigenous cultures into its new identity.
38The subject of this study is very broad, and the artistic production in these peripheral parts of the Empire deserve a more extensive and incisive review. This paper has only documented examples of cultural realities in Roman provinces through the analysis of several significant sculptures - focusing on artefacts from Gaul and Germania, Africa and the oriental city of Palmyra. It is not for a lack of other frontier territories that produced these syncretic cultural exchanges. This process is a part of the wider Roman culture, as seen also in Britain, the bordering regions of Pontus and the regions around the Danube. Using this methodological direction, further studies and revisions to the analysis of Roman artistic nuances could provide valuable information helping to understand the complex histories of the Empire's frontiers.
Notes de bas de page
1 Philip W. M. Freeman, “Romanisation and Roman material culture”, Journal of Roman Archaeology, t. 6, 1993, p. 438-445.
2 Gregory Duncan Woolf, “The formation of Roman provincial cultures”, Jeannot Metzler, Martin Millet, Nico Roymans and Jan Slofstra (eds.) Integration in the Early Roman West. The Role of Culture and Ideology, Luxembourg, Dossiers d’Archéologie du Musée National d’Histoire et d’Art, t. 4, 1995, p. 9-18.
3 Francis Haverfield, “The Romanization of Roman Britain”, Proceedings of the British Academy, 1905-1906, p. 185-217.
4 William Vernon Harris, War and Imperialism in Republican Rome 327-70 B.C., Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1979, p. 68 - 105.
5 Martin Millet, The Romanization of Britain. An Essay in Archaeological Interpretation, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1990, p. 1 - 9.
6 G. D. Woolf, “Beyond Romans and Natives”, World Archaeology, vol.28, n.3, Culture Contact and Colonialism, 1997, p. 339-350.
7 Jane Webster, “Creolizing the Roman Provinces”, American Journal of Archaeology, vol. 105, n. 2, 2001, p. 209-225.
8 For a detailed explanation of the process of colonization of the Roman Gaul, see: Gregory Duncan Woolf, Becoming Roman: The Origins of Provincial Civiliation in Gaul, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1998.
9 Fred S. Kleiner, “Gallia Graeca, Gallia Romana and the Introduction of Classical Sculpture in Gaul”, American Journal of Archaeology, vol. 77, n. 4, 1973, p. 379-390.
10 As the Mercury of Lezoux (Puy-de-Dôme, 1st Century BC, Saint Germain-en-Laye, Musée des Antiquités Nationales, France) or Mercury with the nymph Rosmerta from the so called Group Néris (Musée de Néris-les-Bains, France).
11 A. N. Newell, “Gallo-Roman Religious Sculpture”, Greece & Rome, vol. 3, n. 8, 1934, p. 74-84.
12 For a detailed explanation of the relationship of the Celtic gods with animals, see: Miranda Green, Animals in Celtic Life and Myth, London, Routledge ed, 1992.
13 Jane Webster, “Creolizing the Roman Provinces...”, op. cit., p. 220-221.
14 Funerary Portrait of a woman, Palmyra. British Museum, London, UK.
15 Funerary Portrait of a man, Palmyra. Portland Art Museum, Oregon, USA.
16 As we can see in the Funerary Portrait of a woman (Palmyra) from The Metropolitan Museum of Art (New York, USA).
17 As we can see in the Funerary relief of mourning in Palmira (Beirut, American University Museum, Lebanon).
18 Maura K. Heyn, “Gesture and Identity in the Funerary Art of Palmira”, American Journal of Archaeology, vol. 114, n. 4, 2010, p. 631-661.
19 For example, the Family portrait of the tomb SC (Jmahariyah Museum, Tripoli, Libya), the Chieftain scene from Tomb NB (Lepcis Magna Museum, Khom, Libya), the scene with chieftain and regalía from the tomb NC (Jmahariyah Museum, Tripoli, Libya) or the cultivation scene from the tomb SC (Jmahariyah Museum, Tripoli, Libya).
20 David John Mattingly, “Family Values: Art and power at Ghirza in the Libyan Pre-Desert”, Sarah Scott and Jane Webster (eds.) Roman Imperialism and Provincial Art, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2003, p. 153-171.
21 David John Mattingly, “The Laguatan: A Lybian Tribal confederation in the Late Roman Empire”, Libyan Studies, t.14, 1983, p. 96-108.
22 Nicolas Laubry, “Aspects de la romanisation en Gaule et en Germanie : les monuments et les inscriptions funéraires sous le Haut Empire”, Rome et l’Occident. IIe siècle avant J. C.-IIe siècle après J.-C. Pallas, n. 80, 2009, p. 281-305.
23 Walburg Boppert, “Zur Sepulkralkunst in Raum der Obergermanischen Provinzhauptstadt Mogontiacum”, Peter Noelke (ed.), Romanisation und Resistenz in Plastik, Architektur und Inschriften der Provinzen des Imperium Romanum. Neue Funde und Forschungen. Akten des VII. Internationalen Colloquiums über Probleme des provinzialrömischen Kunstschaffens, Köln 2 - 6. Mai 2001. Mainz, 2003, p. 265-284.
24 Antonio García y Bellido, Arte Romano, Madrid, CSIC, 1972 (entre autres, p. 743-747).
25 Ranuccio Bianchi Bandinelli, Roma, el fin del Arte Antiguo, Madrid, editorial Aguilar, 1971, p. 139-150.
26 Donald White, “Seven recently discovered sculptures from Cyrene, Eastern Libya”, Expedition, t. 18, 2, 1976, p. 14-32.
27 For a detailed study of the relationship between barbarians and romans, see Yves Albert Dauge, “Le barbare. Recherches sur la conception romaine de la barbarie et de la civilisation”, Revue d´Études Latines, Bruxelles, 1981 ; David Álvarez Jiménez, Rosa Sanz Serrano & David Hernández de la Fuente (eds.), El espejismo del bárbaro. Ciudadanos y extranjeros al final de la Antigüedad, Castelló de la Plana, Publicacions de la Universitat Jaume I, 2013.
28 Herodian, Roman History, VII, IV, Spanish transaltion, Juan José Torres Esbarranch, Madrid, editorial Gredos S. A., 1985, p. 293; french translation: Léon Halevy, Paris, Librairie Firmin Didot Frères, Fils et Cie, Imprimeurs de l'Institut, 1860.
29 Ranuccio. Bianchi Bandinelli, Roma, el fin del Arte Antiguo…, op. cit., p. 140-145.
Auteur
Le texte seul est utilisable sous licence Licence OpenEdition Books. Les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés) sont « Tous droits réservés », sauf mention contraire.
Essai sur le philosémitisme catholique
Entre le premier et le second Vatican. Un parcours dans la modernité chrétienne
Olivier Rota
2012
La traversée France-Angleterre du Moyen Âge à nos jours
Stéphane Curveiller, Florence Hachez-Leroy et Gérard Beauvillain (dir.)
2012
Les religions dans le monde romain
Cultes locaux et dieux romains en Gaule de la fin de la République au iiie siècle après J.-C : persistance ou interprétation ?
Marie-Odile Charles-Laforge (dir.)
2014
Les archives Princières xiie-xve siècles
Xavier Hélary, Jean-François Nieus, Alain Provost et al. (dir.)
2016
Les Comtes d’Artois et leurs archives. Histoire, mémoire et pouvoir au Moyen Âge
Alain Provost (dir.)
2012
Mobilités et déplacement des femmes
Dans le Nord de la France du Moyen Âge à nos jours
Youri Carbonnier, Stéphane Curveiller et Laurent Warlouzet (dir.)
2019
Deux siècles de caricatures politiques et parlementaires
Pierre Allorant, Alexandre Borrell et Jean Garrigues (dir.)
2019