THE 'DRACO' STANDARD by J.C.N. Coulston

An excellent recent piece on the draco standard.  My apologies for the format issues; I had to resort to Google docs to extract this from a rather bizarre pdf.  The several B+W photos are missing.  Otherwise, the text seems intact and is very informative.  Enjoy!

Journal of Roman Military Equipment Studies 2 1991
101
The ‘draco standard
J.C.N. Coulston
At some point in the 1st or early 2nd century AD, Roman cavalry started to use an entirely new type of military standard, the draco'. According to Roman sources, this standard flew from the top of a staff and had a wolf or snake's head with a free-flowing, sinuous body. The aim of this paper is to review both the Roman and non-Roman evidence for dracones', and to attempt to explain their adoption and spread amongst Roman troops. The ramifications of this discussion are not only important for Roman military equipment studies, but are also relevant to an under standing of cultural interactions between the Roman empire and its neighbours.
each legionary cohors. This might refer to Tetrarchic practice, as well as to 4th century provision. Two draconarii are also mentioned in inscriptions. One of them was a Tetrarchic or later period cavalryman in the numerus octava Dalmatarum.8
Fourth century dracones were mentioned by Zosimos and Ammianus. One was lost ignominiously by Roman scouts during Julian's Persian war. When the usurper Silvanus was elevated at Köln by his troops cloth from purple dracones and vexilla was used as a temporary expedient. 10 On Julian's acclama tion a draconarius of the infantry Petulantes supplied his torquis as a diadem. 11 At the battle of Argentorate Julian was recognised by his personal purple draco which was on a tall staff and apparently hung like a snake-skin. 12 The entry of Constantius II into Rome saw the emperor surrounded by purple-embroidered dracones attached to gilded and gem-studded staffs. With their mouths open they hissed and waved in the wind. 13 Similar qualities of sound and movement were noted by Prudentius 14 and Claudian.15
REPRESENTATIONAL SOURCES
DOCUMENTARY SOURCES
In his discussion of Hadrianic period cavalry manoeuvres, Arrian descibed a standard attached to a staff, with a head in snake form and a body of brightly coloured cloth.2 This body hung down when the standard was at rest, but, when carried by a horseman at the gallop it extended, and the draco hissed and moved realistically in the wind. This was not only an effective sight but the standards also distinguished detachments of troops and prevented confusion between them on the march. Arrian further stated that the draco was not Roman in origin, but was adopted from the 'Scythians', an important ascription which will be further discussed below.
After Arrian there are a number of literary refer ences to Roman dracones, most of them recorded in the 4th century.3 The Historia Augusta stated that legionary troops paraded with dracones and other standards in Rome during the reign of Gallienus.4 When Aurelian's troops entered Palmyra the Temple of Sol (Bel) was apparently sacked by legionary aquiliferi, vexillarii, draconarii and cornicines. In this unreliable source these details may have been supplied from 4th rather than 3rd century practice.
The legionary rank of draconarius was mentioned by Vegetius on a number of occasions in conjunction with other standard-bearers. Of particular interest is his statement that a draconarius carried a draco for
Probably the earliest representations of dracones' in Roman art appear on two Flavian(?) pier-shafts from Rome, and now at Firenze (Fig.1).16 Long, narrow panels depict piles of military equipment which was presumably intended to be spolia taken from defeated barbarians. The high degree of applied decorative detail, and the inclusion of ships and artillery-pieces owed more to the triumphal genre than to empirical observation of actual artefacts by the sculptors. However, approximately ten 'dracones' are clearly distinguishable from Celtic animal standards and boar-headed trumpets (carnyces). Allowing for damage and the florid style of the work, each draco' has a sinuous body and a head with pointed ear, prominant eye and nostril, a long narrow snout and jaws with serried sharp teeth (including canines). A fin-like appendage below the head suggests that a hybrid lupine/aquatic creature is intended.
102
Journal of Roman Military Equipment Studies 2 1991
Fig.1: 'Draco' head on a Domitianic(?) pilaster relief
from Rome. Galleria degli Uffizi, Firenze (after
CROUS 1933). On the spiral frieze of Trajan's Column there are no less than 20 'dracones', most of which are carried by Dacian warriors (Fig.2). 17 All are wolf-headed with pointed ears, gaping mouths, and curving tongues. They have undulating, tapering bodies with three or four narrow fillets which trail short ribbons. Each 'draco' is attached by the head to the top of a staff, and the junction comes below the neck, the eye, or the jaw. Amongst the barbarian spolia on the sides of the pedestal of Trajan's Column there are three pairs of 'dracones' (Fig.3).18 These are of the same type as those on the spiral, but their undoubtedly lupine dentition is more detailed because they are larger-scale representations.
Another barbarian draco' is sculpted on one of the dado panels from the Hadrianeum in Rome (Fig.4).19 Dating to the late Hadrianic or early Antonine period, the wolf-head has a prominant eye and nostril, pointed ears, gaping mouth, a thick curving tongue and both molar and canine teeth. The body is longer and narrower than previous examples, and it sports at least
five ribbon-bearing fillets.
Rather less well-depicted 'dracones' appear on two Late Antonine(?) works. Scene LV of the Column of Marcus Aurelius shows two trophies of barbarian equipment; the one on the right includes a pair of carnyces, whilst two 'dracones' with wolf-heads figure on the left.20 However, the Portonaccio sar cophagus from Rome bears the earliest representa tions of 'dracones' being carried by Roman troops, and not in barbarian use. 21 The main battle scene on the front includes one draco' which serves with other types of standards to frame the central mounted general figure (Fig.5). A wolf-head has a flaring nostril, long snout and pointed ears, but the staff joins the undulating tapering body, not the head. This feature is also seen on the right end of the sar-
cophagus where five dismounted Roman cavalrymen carry spears, a vexillum and two lupine 'dracones' (Fig.6).22
A standard without its head is carried by a cavalry man on a relief from Chester (England).23 The body is smooth, sinuous and supported on a staff which is held vertically in two hands (Fig. 7). The degree of sculpted detail is not high, but a ribbed conical helmet is worn by the rider. On the basis of the latter, and for other reasons, he is generally identified as a Sarmatian with reference to the 5,500 lazy ges reportedly sent to Britain by Marcus.24 Running parallel with his thigh may be seen either the edge of a saddle, or a short sword. If it is a weapon, comparison may be made with Sarmatian artefacts,25 and with the swords worn by Sarmaticised horsemen on 1st to 2nd century Crimean gravestones.26 The Chester stone may date to the later 2nd century, or to the 3rd century.
A rather more stylised 'draco' is seen on an Antonine(?) panel, now in the British Museum Town ley Collection.27 This depicts spolia in a style which clearly plagiarises the pedestal reliefs of Trajan's Column. A draco' with prominant eye and pointed ear, but no nostrils, has a toothless, pointed and curving mouth. Despite the ears, the effect is more ichthic than lupine.
The first, and in many ways the most convincing representation of a truly serpentine draco is on the 3rd century Great Ludovisi Sarcophagus from Rome (Fig. 8).28 As on the Portonaccio Sarcophagus, it too serves to pinpoint the main mounted general on the front panel, and it too is associated with Roman cavalry. The body is smooth, but the head is depicted with overlapping scales, an upstanding crest, a snake eye, a full set of small teeth but no canines, and barbels on the lower jaw. The staff joins the body, not the head.
Serpentine dracones are next depicted on the Arch of Galerius at Thessalonike (c.AD 298–305) in some numbers (Fig. 9).29 They are employed specifically to signpost imperial figures in battle and adlocutio scenes, in the latter case in combination with vexilla, and are carried exclusively by cavalrymen.30 In common with the overall style of the sculptures, the dracones are given little detail, and many are dam aged. Heads with teeth, but lacking ears, are attached to staffs and trail long and plain undulating bodies. Cavalry on the Arch of Constantine in Rome (AD 315) carry two dracones which are carved in higher relief and in slightly more detail than on the Galerian arch (Fig. 10).31 The better preserved example has an
Journal of Roman Military Equipment Studies 2 1991
103
Fig.2: Dacian 'draco' on the spiral frieze of Trajan's Column, Rome. Detail of Scene LXIV (Photo: J.C.N.
Coulston).
Fig.3: 'Draco' on the pedestal of Trajan's Column, Rome. Detail of the upper left, north-east side (Photo:
J.C.N. Coulston).
104
Journal of Roman Military Equipment Studies 2 1991
HAATATAAN
Fig.4: Draco' and tunic spolia, relief from the Hadrianeum, Rome (Photo: J.C.N. Coulston).
Fig.5: 'Draco' on the front of the Portonaccio Sarcophagus, Museo delle Terme, Rome (Photo: J.C.N.Coulston).
Journal of Roman Military Equipment Studies 2 1991
105
Fig.6: 'Draco' on the right end of the Portonaccio Sarcophagus, Museo delle Terme, Rome (Photo: J.C.N.
Coulston).
upstanding, swept-back crest, a gaping mouth with small teeth (but not canines), a small eye, and barbels on the lower jaw. There is also a broken fin below the head. The staff joins the body, not the head.
Copper alloy box panels from Ságvár (Hungary), dating to the 4th century, provide the last depictions of Roman dracones (Fig. 11).32 The scale is too small and the detail too slight to give a clear indication of the draco type, but, most importantly, the dracones are carried by infantry as well as cavalry.
of eyes faces out to the sides from positions forward of the corners of the mouth. A brow-ridge runs across the skull between and above the eyes, and then back along the sides of the head. The open mouth is full of triangular teeth, but exhibits no fangs or canines. An upstanding crenellated crest is attached to the top of the skull.
Two holes are pierced one above the other through the top behind the crest and through the bottom on the neck. These would have served to secure the head to its staff by passing it through both of them. On the bottom surface there is a pair of 2cm long axial slits. This may have served to fix an internal mechanism designed to produce the desired hissing noise effect. The upper sheet is gilded whilst the lower is tinned and a brightly coloured fabric body was presumably attached over the rear flange.
DISCUSSION
THE ARTEFACT
A copper alloy object found on the south-east edge of the fort vicus at Niederbieber (Germany) may with some confidence be identified as the head of a draco standard (Fig. 12).33 A 30cm long snake-head is formed by joining two embossed sheets. An upper half overlaps a lower and the two are attached by five flattened rivets on each side. At the base of the neck the sheets are turned out to form a circular flange on which a pair of rivets also fixes the two halves together. The neck and skull are covered with over lapping scales and the area in front of the eyes has a series of parallel ridges and a pair of small nostrils facing forward on the front. The under-surface of the lower jaw has parallel lines of dashing. A small pair
A number of conclusions may be drawn from the Roman evidence reviewed above. Firstly, the lupine form of draco' standard was principally associated with 1st-2nd century Danubian barbarians. It came into Roman cavalry use, but in the surviving pictorial sources it does not outlast the Antonine period. On the other hand, Arrian indicated that the snake-headed
106
Journal of Roman Military Equipment Studies 2 1991
Fig. 7: Sculpture of a rider carrying a 'draco' standard, Chester, Grosvenor Museum.
draco was in existance and in Roman cavalry employ from at least the time of Hadrian. It became the sole type in Roman use after the 2nd century. Through the 2nd and most of the 3rd centuries, 'dracones' were seemingly confined to cavalry, but they spread to legionary and other infantry possibly in the later 3rd, and certainly by the 4th century. In addition, dracones were employed as the personal standards of emperors during the 4th century.
There is some additional evidence for the use of dracones by Rome's eastern adversaries. Lucian of Samosata described Parthian dracones in the 2nd century AD,34 and the Historia Augusta mentioned 3rd century Sassanid examples.35 The former used the standard to parody fantastic 'eyewitness' detail supplied by a historian who never left home. The dracones in question were said to have been real, ferocious snakes which came off their staffs and swallowed up Roman soldiers! Lucian adds in parent hesis that a draco led a thousand men. The Historia Augusta is again not altogether reliable in detail, and no dracones are figured in Parthian or Sassanid art. However, a silver head of a senmurv (a mythical
Iranian dog-bird hybrid) at the Hermitage Museum in St Petersburg has been identified as part of a draco' standard.36 By coincidence, it is the same length as the Niederbieber snake-head (30cm). Nevertheless, the piece is undated and may be post-Sassanid. If the forces of Rome's Mesopotamian-Iranian neighbours did use 'dracones', they may have adopted them from Roman use or through northern contacts with steppe nomads. Even if the evidence is taken at face value, it suggests that the Romans adopted dracones' before the Parthians did.
Arrian stated that Roman troops took the draco standard from the 'Scythians', most likely his archais ing term for 'Sarmatians'.37 Given the Danubian ethno-historical context of the pictorial evidence, this allows for the straight-forward hypothesis that the westward advance of Sarmatian groups spread
dracones' from Asia into Europe. The first sedentary people to use these standards were perhaps the Dacians (Fig.2). Roman cavalry adopted 'dracones' during a series of Flavian and Trajanic conflicts with trans-Danubian peoples.38 This forms a pattern in common with other periods and places. The material
Journal of Roman Military Equipment Studies 2 1991
107
Fig.8: Draco standard on the front of the Great Ludovisi Sarcophagus, Museo delle Terme, Rome (Photo:
J.C.N. Coulston).
Fig. 9: Draco standard on the Arch of Galerius, Thessalonike. Detail of battle scene on the south-west side of the
middle pier (Photo: J.C.N. Coulston).
108
Journal of Roman Military Equipment Studies 2 1991
Fig. 10: Draco standard on the Arch of Constantine, Rome. Detail of the Constantinian adventus frieze (Photo:
J.C.N. Coulston).
culture of Asiatic steppe nomads was often crucially influential upon sedentary societies in the sphere of equestrian military equipment.39 A clear contem porary parallel is the 1st century AD Sarmaticization of Greek cities in the north Black Sea region. Crimean frescoes and sculptures depict Sarmatian armour and weapons used by local elites for both hunting and
war. 40
Several features of Roman military practice reflected the impact of Sarmatian culture. The order of battle planned by Arrian for facing the Alani was solely designed to withstand and repulse the charge of lance-armed cavalry.41 This assault posed the most urgent tactical problem for Roman commanders.42 Part of the solution adopted in the 2nd century was to equip selected units of Roman cavalry with more complete armour (alae catafractariorum) and/or lances (alae contariorum) following Sarmatian practice.43 Thus, 'dracones' would have been adopted along with other steppe cavalry equipment.
It is interesting to note that wolf-headed dracones' continued in steppe nomad use after the Roman period. For example, a Chinese description of Turkish cavalry dating to AD 581 included standards with staffs topped by the gold head of a she-wolf.44 Fres coes from a number of Central Asian sites demonstrate that lupine dracones' were in use as late
as the 10th century AD (Fig. 13).45 A close medieval parallel to Roman 'draco'-adoption is provided by a 9th century illumination in the St Gall Psalter (Fig.14).46 It depicts Carolingian cavalry led by a draconarius. The draco' has a very long staff, a yellow body with fins, and a green fish-head with fire(?) coming from the mouth in medieval dragon style. Its Frankish employ may be explained by Carolingian wars with the Avars and Magyars. In support of this supposition, an ivory plaque at Trier (Germany) shows a Carolingian horseman with a realistically modelled asiatic composite bow.47 Whether Roman or Frankish, sedentary cultures were periodically forced to adopt asiatic forms of equip ment in order to face each new wave of nomadic
steppe horsemen which moved into Europe.48
For the draco to have been adopted alongside more functional equipment, it must have been an impres sive and efficient cavalry standard, if such terms may be employed. The Roman sources constantly emphas ised the lifelike qualities of the snake (both in movement and sibilance) and its bright colour, often purple. Even if these features contributed to the creation of a literary topos, the image created is very different from conventional Roman standards. Unlike many of the latter, dracones may not have borne unit identifying inscriptions. They were ideal for fast
Journal of Roman Military Equipment Studies 2 1991
109
10 cm
Fig.12: Copper-alloy head, Niederbieber, Germany.
Staatliches Amt fur Vor- und Frühgeschichte, Koblenz (after EIDEN 1982).
Fig.11: Dracones on a copper-alloy box panel, 4th
century AD, Ságvár, Hungary. Detail of infan try and triumphal emperor. National Museum,
Budapest (after BURGER 1966). movement as Arrian described, and as the Arch of Galerius successfully conveys (Fig. 9). Silk for the body would have enhanced its sinuous undulation. The gem-encrusted staff described by Ammianus on Constantius II's standard reflected the decoration current on other classes of 4th century military equip- ment.49 The hissing sound could perhaps have been varied to a howl for a wolf-headed ‘draco'. Sound was an important element of display and psychologi- cal stimulus in any pre-modern battle. The whistling of the humming-bulb arrows50 used by later Asiatic peoples would have added to the blare of horns51 and howling or hissing of dracones.
Two problems yet remain to be examined. It seems strange that, after the steppe draco' tradition was adopted for Roman use, wolf-heads should have given way to snake-headed standards. Secondly, some explanation should be attempted for the spread of a steppe cavalry type of standard to eventual employ- ment by Roman infantry.
The snake-heads of draco standards depicted on Roman monuments and represented by the Niederbie- ber head are not 'dragons' in the medieval sense, but true reptilian snakes. They follow the conventions of Roman art which commonly included the upstanding crest and mouth full of sharp teeth. Many examples are to be seen in lararium paintings at Pompeii,52 for example, and in funerary sculpture.53 Indeed, the standards with snake-heads are less fantastic than the
lupine type which may be linked with the senmurv, oriental dragon and other Asiatic mythical beasts.54
The explanation for the adoption of snake imagery for standards may lie with the fact that Thracian equestrian traditions were dominant in those Roman frontier regions contacted by Sarmatian peoples.55 This Danubian mounted culture was symbolised by the numerous class of votive stone, terracotta and metallic plaques which depict the Thracian Rider God. Often the deity is accompanied by a snake which seems to float above him.56 The serpent on a plaque from Carnuntum is represented with scales, teeth and an upstanding frilled crest,57 just like the dracones seen elsewhere in Roman art. In many of these cases the riders carry a spear, held vertically, and when the weapon and snake coincide there is naturally the possibility that a draco standard was intended. 58 The snake may pass in front of, or behind the shaft, but the attitude of the latter in a few instances makes a standard identification almost certain (Fig. 15).59 Many of these plaques may date to the 2nd and 3rd centuries AD, and they raise the possibility that Sarmatian wolf-dracones' were given a local interpretation and transformed into the writh ing snakes appropriate to Danubian cavalrymen. In this connection it is also noticeable that snakes play a prominent part in the decoration of those classes of 2nd 3rd century military equipment (sports helmets, greaves and chamfrons) particularly associated with
110
Journal of Roman Military Equipment Studies 2 1991
Fig.13: 'Draco' on an 7th-8th century AD fresco,
Qizil, Xinjiang, China (after VON LE COQ 1925).
draco to each legionary cohors. This seems to be the first reference to a single, overall cohort standard. Traditionally there were none between the levels of centurial or manipular signa and legionary aquila.61 This is a curious absence if the cohors was the tactical unit in the Principate legio, and auxiliary units had their own cohors level standards.62 Perhaps the increasing tendency in the 3rd century to detach cohortes from parent legiones played a part in draco provision.
It might further be speculated that replacement of the traditional vexillum in such circumstances started as a Danubian practice which spread out to other army groups with the movement of Illyrian units. From the Antonine to the Tetrarchic periods the Danubian army rose to a military, political and cultural prominance which was reflected in the development and spread of military equipment types. This process was certainly stimulated by interaction with Sarmatians beyond the frontiers. The Roman adoption of both ring-pommel swords and scabbard-slides in the 2nd century, like the use of dracones, may, with some assurance, be attributed to such contacts.63
There is a chronic need for a definitive study of all types of Roman military standards. Since the work of Domaszewski64 and Renel65 there has been little attempt to create an updated corpus of relevant artefacts, literary references, epigraphic material and artistic representations. Only aspects of the subject have been dealt with in articles (such as the present work) and, as a result, monographs devoted to the
Fig. 14: Cavalryman with draco', St Gall Psalterium
Aureum f.163v (after MUTHERICH &
GAEHDE 1977). mounted troops.60 The use of dracones by Roman cavalry is thus explicable on a number of levels.
The emperors' personal draco standards made functional sense in the context of battle when the emperor would have been mounted and needed to be clearly identifiable. Julian's purple draco certainly played an important role at Argentorate. Perhaps this usage developed in response to the increased mobility and involvement in warfare of emperors in the 3rd century. In comparison with 1st-2nd century Augusti, many spent their short reigns entirely on the move.
The key to understanding the use of infantry dracones may lie in Vegetius' asignment of one
Fig. 15: Danubian Rider-God, silver plaque,
Römisch-Germanisches Museum der Stadt Köln (after Kölner Römer Illustrierte 1, 1974).
Journal of Roman Military Equipment Studies 2 1991
111
17.
Roman army in general have only been able to draw upon a small proportion of the evidence.66. Predict ably, very few artefact fittings from standards may be identified with any conviction.67 However, the draco head from Niederbieber may be one of the more credible examples.
It is hoped that the above discussion has demon strated the necessity of studying Roman standards in a broad temporal and cultural context. With such an approach, this important class of military equipment may in future take its proper place in Roman studies.
NOTES
1.
26.
Throughout this paper a distinction is made between snake-headed standards, to which the latin word for snake (draco) may be applied with strict accuracy, and the wolf-headed standards, for which the conventional term draco' is employed in inverted commas. For discussions of both types of 'dracones' see RENEL 1903, 206–11; FIEBIGER 1905a; REINACH 1909, 1321; VON LE COQ 1925, 18; DARKO 1935, 465; KIECHLE 1964, 120–22; GARBSCH 1978, 14-5; WEBSTER 1985, 134-5; COULSTON 1986, 69. Research work for this paper has been generously supported by The British Academy, The Tess and Mortimer Wheeler Fund, and the British School at Rome. The writer is grateful to Dr M.C. Bishop and Dr H. Dodge who kindly read the manuscript at various stages and made many helpful corrections and sugges tions. Opinions and any mistakes in the final paper are the writer's responsibility alone. Techne Taktike 35.1-6. Literary references were collected by FIEBIGER 1905a. SHA, Gallieni duo 8.1. SHA, Aurelianus 31.7. De re militari I.20; II.7; III.5. II.13. The dating of Vegetius' legionary organisation is obviously problematic, but Tetrarchic features may be an important indicator (COULSTON 1990, n.146).
FIEBIGER 1905b. 9. Zosimos, Historia Nova III.19. 10. Ammianus Marcellinus 15.5.16. 11. Amm. 20.4.18. 12. Amm. 16.12.39. 13. Amm. 16.10.7. 14. Liber Cathermerinon 5.55-6. 15. Panegyricus 7.138-41.
CROUS 1933, 77; MANSUELLI 1958, No.2–3. These have been thought to come from a Domitianic monu ment on the Aventine, but ibid. 25-7 suggests a Trajanic date by comparison with other works. If this is correct then the pier reliefs owe nothing to the influx of actual barbarian spolia to Rome from Trajan's Dacian wars which presumably provided models for Trajan's Column. Wolf-headed monsters do also appear in marine artistic contexts, and some confusion of this sort is
suggested by the fins on the pilaster 'dracones'. It may be that in this instance the sculptors were using the closest model in their normal artistic repertoire, especially if the pilasters are early in date. CICHORIUS 1896-1900, Scenes XXIV, XXV, XXXI,
XXXVIII, LIX, LXIV, LXVI, LXXV, LXXVIII, CXXII. 18. Ibid., PL.II-III. See GAMBER 1964,9. 19. VOGEL 1973, P1.49; NASH 1981, I, P1.562. 20. PETERSEN et al. 1896, Pl.64. Lack of a dedicatory
inscription makes exact dating of the Marcus Column impossible, but it may be ascribed to the reign of Com modus (Cf. MORRIS 1952 which requires re-working). KIECHLE 1964, Pl.14.2; KOCH & SICHTERMANN 1982, 92, P1.76; BERTINETTI et al. 1985, 177. Approximate dating is based on the fact that the end figures are carved in exactly the same style and poses as
seen on the Marcus Column. 22. Ibid., 178. 23. WRIGHT & RICHMOND 1955, No.137; SULIMIRSKI
1970, P1.46. 24. Dio LXXI.16. See RICHMOND 1945, 17. 25. For example PÁRDUCZ 1944, PI.XXV.5; SULIMIR
SKI 1970, Fig.42, 45, 48-9, 67, P1.47. VON KIESERITZKY & WATZINGER 1909, No.599–600, 619, 627, 650, 664-5, 693, 708. Ribbed, conical helmets are also associated with Sarmatian horsemen (ibid., No.400, 650; JAMES 1986, 128–31). However, interpretation of this relief is problematic. If it is funerary and does represent a Sarmatian, then it is curious that it was erected at a legionary fortress. The carved detail is crude and the helmet ribs might not indicate a steppe helmet form but an ordinary 2nd 3rd century ribbed Roman helmet (WRIGHT & RICH MOND 1955, 51. Cf. ROBINSON 1975, Pl.258-68). If the 'sword', helmet and standard are not diagnostically Sarmatian, then the rider may have been a legionary or auxiliary cavalryman. Such figures do occasionally appear on legionary building inscriptions (KEPPIE & ARNOLD 1984, No.68, 137). The other possibility is that a Danubian Rider-God is represented, some exam ples of which wear cap or helmet (e.g. TUDOR 1969, No.36, 43, 45, 49, 74–5, 149–50). However, few of these deities were carved on such a large scale, and few have been found in the west, but perhaps the movement of Sarmatians to Britain formed some cultural connection
with the Danubian region. 27. SMITH 1904, Fig.69; REINACH 1912, 497, Fig.1. The
date of the piece is not assured. However, a pedestal at Frascati with similarly plagiarising reliefs on one side has figures on another in the style of the Marcus Column (SPANNAGEL 1979, Fig.2-4). However, parts of the stone have been restored in modern times and they may
include the 'draco'. 28. KIECHLE 1964, Pl.14.1; KOCH & SICHTERMANN
1982, 92, P1.78; PALMA & DE LACHENAL 1983, 56. For dating purposes the portrait of the central general is usually identified as one of the two sons of Decius (c.260). However, the sculpture overall may have been executed some time before the portrait. The general on
16.
112
Journal of Roman Military Equipment Studies 2 1991
29.
the Portonaccio Sarcophagus was never given facial features and it was common practice to complete the work except for such final customising touches for a specific client. The equipment of soldiers on the right end of the Ludovisi sarcophagus includes a ring-buckle and a circular scabbard-chape (ibid., 66), equipment ascribable to the early 3rd century onwards. LAUBSCHER 1975, P1.13, 14.1, 31.1, 52, 53.1, 54.2,
53.1, 54.2, 63. 30. For the identification of troops with armour and dra
cones as Roman cavalry rather than as men of other
ethnic types see COULSTON 1990, 142, n.45. 31. L'ORANGE & VON GERKAN, 1939, Pl.12b, 13a;
KIECHLE 1964, Pl.13.. 32. BURGER 1966, 116–7, Fig. 106, PI.XCV; MÓCSY
1974, P1.44c. 33. EIDEN 1976, 39–42, Fig.31; 1982, 137, PI.B; GARB
SCH 1978, T, P1.48.3. 34. De historia conscribenda 29. 35. Aurelianus 28.5. 36. TREVER 1964, PI.XLVIII. 37. Techne Taktike 35.2. 38. For summaries of these Danubian conflicts see WILKES
1983; STROBEL 1984. 39. DARKO 1935; BIVAR 1972, 281-87; HALDON 1975,
11-3, 22-5; COULSTON 1986, 68-70. 40. VON KIESERITZKY & WATZINGER 1909,
No.570-683; ROSTOVTZEFF 1913, PI.XLVII, LI, LXIV, LXXVIII-IX, LXXXIV, LXXXVIII-IX, XCI,
XCIII. 41. Ektaxis kat Alanon 15-8.
Cf. Tacitus, Annales 6.35; Historiae 1.79; Valerius Flaccus, Argonautica 6.162; Statius, Achilleid 2.132;
Ammianus Marcellinus 17.12.2; COULSTON 1986, 69. 43. Ibid., 69. Other elements of the Roman response
included the use of Moorish light cavalry and an unusual concentration of archer units along the middle Danube (COULSTON 1985, 296–7). However, Sarmatian archery equipment does not seem to have been influential, and Syrian-Mesopotamian traditions remained dominant with Roman sagitarii until the 4th
century (ibid., 241-42). 44. Quoted by GROUSSET 1970, 87. 45. VON LE COQ 1925, Fig. 101-2, 116-8. 46. St Gall Psalterium Aureum f.163v; VON LE COQ 1925,
Fig. 120; MÜTTERICH & GAEHDE 1977, PI.46. 47. SCHINDLER 1980, Fig.264. It is unclear whether the
presence of two 'dracones' depicted on the Bayeux Tapestry may be explained by far-flung Varangian contacts, or by the adaptation of indigenous artistic animal styles. Each standard is attached through the jaws to its staff, and exhibits a wolf head, fore-legs and wings (WILSON 1985, P1.71). These are dragons in the medie val sense of the word. See n.39. 'Waves' of new equipment types are reviewed
by BALINT 1989. 49. Cf. KLUMBACH 1973, P1.1-5, 12-8 (helmets);
SOMMER 1984, 96, PL. 74 (shield boss). 50. For Turkish and other humming-bulb arrows see STONE
1934, 668, Fig.858; GROUSSET 1970, 87; BALINT
1989, Fig.121.7. 51. For asiatic trumpets see GORELIK 1979, Fig. 35. 52. JASHEMSKI 1979, Fig.100, 186, 209, 247, 318;
TOYNBEE 1973, P1.112. For Roman snakes in general see ibid. 223-6, 233-6. A paper entitled 'Snakes in Roman Art' was read by Dr C. Johns at a Rewley House conference in Oxford (November 1987) and the writer is very grateful to Dr Johns for discussing military dra
cones at that time. 53. E.g. BERTINETTI et al. 1985, No.II.20. 54. TREVER 1964, 163-70. 55. For the importance of Thracian traditions amongst
Roman cavalry see KIECHLE 1964, 117-22. 56. TUDOR 1969, No.37, 45, 47. 57. Ibid., No.150. 58. Ibid., No.42, 49, 149. 59. Ibid., No.36, 43, 73, 75; Kölner Römer Illustrierte 1,
1974, Fig.197. This identification was also made by P RVAN 1926, PI.XVII.1. ROBINSON 1975, P1.273-6, 378-83, 391-96, 407-10, 522, 524; GARBSCH 1978, P1.4.2, 5.1, 6.2, 11.1, 28, 31-2, 38.2. Some snakes are attached to gorgon heads, but those cited above are separate animals. Amongst the decorative motifs on embossed copper alloy armour eagle imagery predominates. However, it is notable that snakes seldom appear on cuirass chest-pieces, many of which are likely to have been used by infantry. For some trenchant observations on these, and on decorated helmets see PETCULESCU 1990. VON DOMASZEWSKI 1885, 12-24, 27-8; RENEL 1903, 27-8. VON DOMASZEWSKI 1885, 73-6. BISHOP & COULSTON in press, Chap.6–7, 10. The process of new equipment adoption, and the evolution of old forms, have traditionally been seen by scholars as symptoms of 'decadence' and 'barbarisation'. Not only is this a hopelessly subjective standpoint based on the equation of change' with decline', but it assumes High Imperial Roman military culture to have been inherently static and conservative. This view is self-evidently untrue, and modern discussions of barbarisation' have generally been unhelpful to the study of an army built up from a mélange of cultural traditions. VON DOMASZEWSKI 1885. RENEL 1903. RE, s.v. 'aquila', 'signum', 'vexillum'; REINACH 1909; VON DOMASZEWSKI 1909; ROSTOVTZEFF 1942; SPEIDEL 1976, 137–43; GARBSCH 1978, 14-5; WALTON 1980; CONNOLLY 1981, 219; MAXFIELD 1981, 219; VON PETRIKOVITS 1983; CAMPBELL 1984, 96-9; KEPPIE 1984, passim; WEBSTER 1985, 133–39; WEBSTER 1986; JUNKELMANN 1986,
212-16. 67. VON DOMASZEWSKI 1885, 50–5; REINACH 1909,
Fig.6411, 6413, 6418-9; ROSTOVTZEFF 1942; VON GONZENBACH 1951-52; CONNOLLY 1981, 219;
TOYNBEE & WILKINS 1982; HORN 1982.
42.
63
66.
48.
Journal of Roman Military Equipment Studies 2 1991
113
BJ:
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bonner Jahrbucher JRS:
Journal of Roman Studies RE:
Paulys Real-Encyclodädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft, Stuttgart, 1893
BALINT, C. 1989: Die Archäologie der Steppe. Steppenvölker
zwischen Volga und Donau vom 6. bis zum 10. Jahrh
undert, Wien. BERTINETTI, M., DE LACHENAL, L. & PALMA, B. (ed.)
1985: Museo Nazionale Romano, Le Sculture 1.8.i, Catalogo delle sculture esposte nelle aule delle terme,
Roma. BISHOP, M.C. & COULSTON, J.C.N. in press: Roman
Military Equipment from the Punic Wars to the Fall of
Rome, London. BIVAR, A.D.H. 1972: "Cavalry tactics and equipment on the
Euphrates on the Euphrates', Dumbarton Oaks Papers
26, 273-91. BURGER, A.S. 1966: 'The Late Roman Cemetery at Ságvár',
Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungari
cae 18, 99-234. CAMPBELL, J.B. 1984: The Emperor and the Roman Army,
31BC-AD235, Oxford. CICHORIUS, C. 1896-1900: Die Reliefs der Traianssäule
II-III, Berlin. CONNOLLY, P. 1981: Greece and Rome at War, London. VON LE COQ, A. 1925: Bilderatlas zur Kunst- und Kultur
geschichte Mittel Asiens, Berlin. COULSTON, J.C. 1985: Roman archery equipment', in M.C.
Bishop (ed.), The Production and Distribution of Roman Military Equipment. Proceedings of the Second Roman Military Equipment Research Seminar, (BAR
Suppl. Ser. 275), Oxford, 220–366. COULSTON, J.C. 1986: 'Roman, Parthian and Sassanid
tactical developments’, in P. Freeman and D. Kennedy (ed.), The Defence of the Roman and Byzantine East,
(BAR Internat. Ser. 297(1)), Oxford, 59-75. COULSTON, J.C.N. 1990: "Later Roman armour, 3rd-6th
centuries AD', Journal of Roman Military Equipment
Studies 1, 139-60. CROUS, J.W. 1933: 'Florentiner Waffenpfieler und Armilus
trum', Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen
Instituts, Römische Abteilung, 48, 1-119. DARKO, K. 1935: "Influences Touraniennes sur l'évolution de
l'art militaire des grecs, romains et des byzantines',
Byzantion 10, 443-69. VON DOMASZEWSKI, A. 1885: 'Die Fahnen in römischen
Heer', Abhandlungen des Archaologisch-Epigraphis
chen Seminares der Universitat Wien 5, 1-80. VON DOMASZEWSKI, A. 1909: 'Die Tierbilder der Signa'
Abhandlungen zur römischen Religion, Leipzig &
Berlin, 1-15. EIDEN, H. 1976: Zehn Jahre Ausgrabungen an Mittelrhein
und Mosel, Einfuhrung – Fundplatze – Funde,
Koblenz. EIDEN, H. 1982: Ausgrabungen an Mittelrhein und Mosel
1963-1976, (Trierer Zeitschrift Beiheft 6), Trier.
FIEBIGER, A. 1905a: "Draco', RE V, Stuttgart, 1633–4. FIEBIGER, A. 1905b: Draconarius', RE V, Stuttgart, 1634. GAMBER, O. 1964: 'Dakische und Sarmatische Waffen auf
der Traianssäule', Jahrbuch der kunsthistorischen
Sammlung in Wien 64, 7–44. GARBSCH, J. 1978: Römische Paraderüstungen, München. GORELIK, M. 1979: 'Oriental armour of the Near and Middle
East from the 8th to 15th centuries as shown in works of art', in R. Elgood (ed.), Islamic Arms and Armour,
London. VON GONZENBACH, V. 1951–52: 'Fides exercituum. Ein
Hand aus Vindonissa', Gesellschaft pro Vindonissa,
5-21. GROUSSET, R. 1970: The Empire of the Steppes, New
Brunswick HALDON, J.F. 1975: 'Some aspects of Byzantine military
technology from the sixth to the tenth centuries',
Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies 1, 11-47. HARTLEY, B.R. & WACHER, J.S. (ed.) 1983: Rome and Her
Northern Provinces, Gloucester. HORN, H.G. 1982: Cohors VII Raetorum equitata. Signum
scheibe aus Niederbieber', Das Rheinische Landes museum Bonn: Bericht aus der Arbeit des Museums 4,
52-5. JAMES, S. 1986: 'Evidence from Dura-Europos for the
origins of Late Roman helmets', Syria 63, 107-34. JASHEMSKI, W.F. 1979: The Gardens of Pompeii, Hercu
laneum and the Villas Destroyed by Vesuvius, New
York. JUNKELMANN, M. 1986: Die Legionen des Augustus. Der
römische Soldatim archäologischen Experiment,
Mainz. KEPPIE, L. 1984: The Making of the Roman Army from
Republic to Empire, London. KEPPIE, LJ.F. & ARNOLD, B.J. 1984: Corpus Signorum
Imperii Romani, Great Britain I, 4, Scotland, Oxford. KIECHLE, F. 1964: "Die 'Taktik des Flavius Arrianus',
Bericht der Römisch-Germanischen Kommission 45,
87-129. VON KIESERITZKY, G. & WATZINGER, C. 1909:
Griechische Grabreliefs aus Sudrussland, Berlin. KLUMBACH, H. 1973: Spätrömische Gardehelme, München. KOCH, G. & SICHTERMANN, H. 1982: Römische Sarkoph
age, München. LAUBSCHER, H.P. 1975: Der Reliefschmuck des Galeriusbo
gens in Thessaloniki, Berlin. MANSUELLI, G.A. 1958: Galleria degli Uffizi, le sculture I,
Rome. MAXFIELD, V.A. 1981: The Military Decorations of the
Roman Army, London. MÓCSY, A. 1974: Pannonia and Upper Moesia, London. MORRIS, J. 1952: "The dating of the Column of Marcus
Aurelius', Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld
Institutes 15, 33-47. MÜTTERICH, F. & GAEHDE, J.E. 1977: Carolingian
Painting, London. NASH, E. 1981: A Pictorial Dictionary of Ancient Rome I,
New York. L'ORANGE, H.P. & VON GERKAN, A. 1939: Der
114
Journal of Roman Military Equipment Studies 2 1991
SOMMER, M. 1984: Die Gürtel und Gürtelbeschläge des 4.
und 5. Jahrhunderts im römischen Reich, (Bonner Hefte
zur Vorgeschichte), Bonn. SPANNAGEL, M. 1979: 'Wiedergefundene Antiken',
Jahrbuch des deutschen archäologischen Instituts,
348-77. SPEIDEL, M.P. 1976: 'Eagle-bearer and trumpeter', BJ 176,
125-63.
spätantike Bildschmuck des Constantinsbogens, Berlin. PALMA, B. & DE LACHENAL, L. 1983: Museo Nazionale
Romano, Le sculture I.5, i marmi Ludovisi nel Museo
Nazionale Romano, Roma. PÁRDUCZ, M. 1944: Denkmäler der Sarmatenzeit Ungarns
II, (Archaeologica Hungarica 28), Budapest. PĀRVAN, V. 1926: Getica: o protoistorie a Daciei, Budapest. PETCULESCU, L. 1990: Contributions to Roman decorated
helmets from Dacia', in H. Vetters & M. Kandler, Akten des 14. Internationalen Limeskongresses 1986 in
Carnuntum, Vienna, 843–54. PETERSEN, E., DOMASZEWSKI, A. VON,& CALDERINI,
G. 1896: Die Marcus-säule auf der Piazza Colonna in
Rom, Monaco. VON PETRIKOVITS, H. 1983: 'Sacramentum', in HART
LEY & WACHER, 179–201. REINACH, A.J. 1909: 'Signa militaria', in C. Daremberg &
E. Saglio, Dictionaire des antiquités grecques et romaines d'aprés les textes et les monuments IV, Paris,
1307-25. REINACH, S. 1912: Répertoire des Reliefs Grècs et Romains
II, Afrique, Îles Britanniques, Paris. RENEL, C. 1903: Cultes militaires de Rome: les enseignes,
Paris. RICHMOND, IA. 1945: 'The Sarmatae, Bremetennacum
Veteranorum and the regio Bremetennacensis', JRS 35,
15-29. ROBINSON, H.R. 1975: The Armour of Imperial Rome,
London. ROSTOVTZEFF, M.I. 1913: Antichnaya Dekorativnaya
Zheevopeec na Yuge Rossiye, St Petersburg. ROSTOVTZEFF, M.I. 1942: 'Vexillum and Victory', JRS 32,
92-106. SCHINDLER, R. 1980: Führer durch das Landesmuseum
Trier, Trier. SMITH, A.H. 1904: A Catalogue of Sculpture in the Depart
ment of Greek and Roman Antiquities, British Museum, London.
STONE, G.C. 1934: A Glossary of the Construction, Decor
ation and Use of Arms and Armour, New York. STROBEL, K. 1984: Untersuchungen zu den Dakerkriegen
Trajans, (Antiquitas 1 Abhandlungen zur alten Ges
chichte 33), Bonn. SULIMIRSKI, T. 1970: The Sarmatians, London. TOYNBEE, J.M.C. 1973: Animals in Roman Life and Art,
London. TOYNBEE, J.M.C. & WILKINS, A. 1982: "The Vindolanda
horse', JRS 13, 245–51. TREVER, C.V. 1964: Tête de senmurv en argent des collec
tions de l'Hérmitage', Iranica Antiqua 4, 162-70. TUDOR, D. 1969: Corpus Monumentorum Religionis Equitum
Danuviorum I, The Monuments, Leiden. VOGEL, L. 1973: The Column of Antoninus Pius, Harvard. WALTON, S. 1980: A corpus of Roman army standard
representations on monuments and coins from the Republic to Septimius Severus. A brief study, Unpub lished BA Dissertation, Institute of Archaeology,
London. WEBSTER, G. 1985: The Roman Imperial Army, London. WEBSTER, G. 1986: Standards and standard-bearers in the
alae', BJ 186, 105-16. WILKES, J.J. 1983: 'Romans, Dacians and Sarmatians in the
first and early second centuries', in HARTLEY &
WACHER, 255-89. WILSON, D.M. 1985: The Bayeux Tapestry, London. WRIGHT, R.P. & RICHMOND, I.A. 1955: The Roman
Inscribed and Sculptured Stones in the Grosvenor Museum, Chester, Chester.