Il MAUSOLEO di Augusto -- ricostruzione

Speranza

the Mausoleum of Augustus
Keywords: ancient architecture, Mausoleum of Augustus, Rome, 3D computer models, visualisation, transparency.
This paper represents the collaborative efforts of four researchers at the University of Southern California: Parts I and III reflect the work of Lynn Swartz Dodd, Karen Kensek, Nicholas Cipolla and John Pollini; part II presents John Pollini’s new findings on the great dynastic Mausoleum of Augustus (Figs. 1-3 and 8), which was constructed in the ancient Campus Martius in Rome largely during the earlier 20s BC. This and other Augustan monuments located in the northern Campus Martius are the subject of his forthcoming book, Dynastic Narratives in Augustan Art and Thought: The Rhetoric and Poetry of Visual Imagery. The computerised models for the Mausoleum and other Augustan structures is the work of Pollini’s graduate student collaborator Nick Cipolla.

Fig. 1. Mausoleum Augusti with console. Image © John Pollini and Nick Cipolla.

Fig. 2. Detail of the Mausoleum Augusti. Image © John Pollini and Nick Cipolla.

In undertaking the Augustan Mausoleum Project, which is still in progress, we have attempted to make more transparent the relationship between fragmentary physical evidence, ancient literary and epigraphic sources, and a restored virtual world. In this sense, we are endeavouring to make ambiguity explicit. There are three objectives to this paper: first, to explore in general theoretical and pedagogical concerns; second, to demonstrate several solutions resulting from three years of experimenting with various archaeological reconstructions, including the creation of ‘virtual products’ by students in university courses; and third, to share some of the lessons learned from this process.

Theoretical Issues and Methodological Approaches: The Practical Solution

The representation of antiquity using virtual reconstructions creates a highly ambiguous relationship of data, interpretation, and presentation. Virtual three-dimensional reconstructions have considerable value as visualisation tools, in that they create an immediacy of spatial perception and experience. Yet, in the context of university teaching and research, or for that matter the establishment of web-based sites on the Internet, virtual three-dimensional reconstructions are problematic intellectual products. As in the case of an artist’s recreation of a boat seen through the columns of a virtual Egyptian temple¹, reconstructions can be seductive, especially if they lack a form of didactic critique and documented citations. This point was brought home when we utilised virtual reconstructions in teaching upper division courses in archaeology. For a variety of reasons, unmediated virtual products can be quite deceptive. Likewise, ‘static mediation’ (e.g. text files) or ‘over-mediation’ (e.g. explanations or ‘pop-ups’, or other features that are always present rather than being shown on demand) can be distracting in experiencing the virtual three-dimensional world of antiquity. They can also drastically limit the pedagogical effectiveness of these virtual products.
When presented with either a two- or three-dimensional reconstruction of an ancient monument, those unfamiliar with the archaeological or written record on which the model is based will either accept the reconstruction as reflecting an ancient reality or – if acquainted with the evidence or cognizant of the fragmentary nature of antiquity –will ask what the evidence is for the reconstruction. As is the case with books or site reports, the relationship between the evidence and a virtual three-dimensional reconstruction should be demonstrable upon demand, thereby allowing consumers of such research products to see and to understand the link between evidence and interpretation. In other words, in order to maintain the immediacy and interactivity of a virtual experience, the equivalent of footnotes should be accessible within the virtual world that we create.
When we started our Mausoleum Project at University of Southern California (USC), there were already a number of ways not only to create and transmit archaeological knowledge through virtual reconstructions but also to show the extant physical evidence along with the reconstructed interpretation. For example, the description of the Lansdowne Herakles in the Getty Museum in Malibu is illustrated online with a reconstruction drawing showing how voids, false colour-fills, and multiple versions can be used where original data is lacking or ambiguous. ² In the case of the Laocoon in the Vatican Museum the original group can be shown with the old, incorrect Renaissance restoration of the Laocoon’s raised right arm, or with the correct original bent section of the arm that was recovered only in modern times and added in place of the old restored arm.³ In complex architectural reconstructions like that of the Church of Saint Salvator in Enamé in Belgium created by the Enamé Centre,⁴ overlays provide us with another way in both two- and three-dimensions of distinguishing between the physical evidence and an interpretative reconstruction. In another case, the Urban Simulation Team at the University of California in Los Angeles (UCLA), working in collaboration with the Israeli Antiquities Authority, created a real-time, navigable version of the Temple of Yahweh in Jerusalem.⁵ Clickable boxes embedded in the display permit users to see text commentary. For this program, as well as UCLA’s Roman Forum Project,⁶ viewers are provided with a pop-up textual critique. In both programs the evidence is shown, thereby adding to the scholarly value of these projects. However, the immediacy of the experience is diminished because we are constantly compelled to look away from the visual reconstruction to the textual evidence.
Experiments with avatars⁷ and humans in digital spaces offer a promising solution to this problem. Several colleagues outside of USC have already taken steps to make the process transparent through the use of digitised reconstructions, as in the case of the Palace of Ashurnasirpal at Nimrud produced by Samuel and Paley.⁸ Still other colleagues are including digital reconstructions in their excavation reports, as exemplified by the Nemea Valley Project in Greece, which is produced in collaboration with a commercial educational web-development company called Learning Sites, Inc.⁹ Such efforts involving detailed data or plans along with a viable reconstruction represent a further step in the direction of greater transparency.
The work on the Augustan Mausoleum in progress at USC represents an attempt to diminish the divide between the physical evidence and the virtual world. In this regard, it is our intention to keep the user in a viewing mode, while at the same time making ambiguity as unambiguous as possible. After teaching a number of classes in which students struggled to present just one interpretation, we decided to create a data presentation-tool, as exemplified in the Great Aten Temple Project, created by Nick Cipolla.¹⁰ This program allows users to mediate intuitively and interactively between the virtual image experience and an assessment of evidence, without leaving the virtual world and without a break in concentration, so as to lead to a new awareness and experience of ancient places.

Fig. 3. Console of Mausoleum Augusti. Image © John Pollini and Nick Cipolla.

The Mausoleum of Augustus as a Case Study: Evidence, Problems, New Issues

Let us now turn to the virtual reconstruction console of the Mausoleum of Augustus (Figs. 1 and 3), which was created with a program called Macromedia Flash. All of the proposed reconstructed elements that we have input for the Mausoleum model (e.g. obelisks, oak trees and laurel bushes) can be selected by clicking on one of several icons. When an icon is selected, an image of the reconstructed element is automatically inserted into the entire Mausoleum model, while at the same time a scrollable text-box with supporting evidence for that particular reconstructed element is activated. This device allows the user to scroll up or down to see all of the available evidence. With the activation of the scroll-box, the blue columns of our so-called ‘reliability meter’ summarise the complex evidence graphically at a glance, thus providing the user with a handy graphic assessment of the degree of likelihood of a particular suggested reconstruction. Such a ‘reliability meter’, needless to say, represents a particular scholarly opinion or point of view; and, as is the case with any subjective apparatus, one scholarly assessment might privilege one type of evidence over another. For example, classicists and archaeologists may disagree about the relative importance that should be accorded the written record as compared with archaeological evidence. Accordingly, an assessment about the reliability may vary, depending on the scholar or group of scholars creating the ‘reliability meter’. Our console nevertheless offers viewers the opportunity to have some degree of control within this virtual world by allowing them to manipulate various graphic options (i.e. the suggested reconstructed elements), while having available all the supporting evidence from the surviving written and archaeological record. Ultimately, it is the viewer who will make his own assessment about the evidence presented in the console. Even for a student or lay audience, such an apparatus immediately brings home the fact that there are always elements of uncertainty about reconstructions of monuments for which our information is imperfect. One of the most valuable learning experiences for a non-scholarly audience is being made aware of the limitations of our evidence and that what you see in a reconstructed model is not necessarily the reality of what once was.

Fig. 4. Reconstruction of the Mausoleum Augusti by G. Gatti. Reproduced after G. Gatti, ‘Nuove osservazioni sul Mausoleo di Augusto’, L’Urbe, 3 (1938), Fig. 13.

In the case of the Mausoleum of Augustus, there are, of course, substantial archaeological remains; however, gaps in our evidence for the Mausoleum’s original appearance has led to multiple reconstructive interpretations, as in the old 1938 reconstruction by Guglielmo Gatti (Fig. 4)¹¹ and in the more recent 1994 version by Henner von Hesberg (Fig. 5).¹² In interest of brevity the discussion will be limited here to three problematic areas in the creation of our Mausoleum model: the area around the entrance at ground level, the middle structure with its trees, and the form of the image of Augustus crowning the summit.

Fig. 5. Reconstruction of the Mausoleum Augusti by H. von Hesberg. Reproduced after H. von Hesberg and S. Panciera, Das Mausoleum des Augustus: Der Bau und seine Inschriften, Munich: Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1994, Fig. 59.

1. Lowermost Structure of the Mausoleum
The first area of ambiguity is at ground level around the entrance to the Mausoleum: Fragmentary marble reliefs representing two laurels (Fig. 6) were discovered in past excavations of the Mausoleum.¹³ These reliefs are plausibly reconstructed in two shallow niches flanking the doorway of the Mausoleum (Figs. 2 and 8). The laurels represented would have recalled the actual laurels that adorned the two doorposts of Augustus’ house on the Palatine Hill in Rome, as we know from Augustus’ own record of his achievements, the Res Gestae (34.2). Also found in the excavations of the Mausoleum was a marble fragment depicting the Clupeus Virtutis (Fig. 9), an honorific shield on which were recorded the virtues of Augustus.¹⁴ This shield would have been a replica of the actual gold shield that was awarded to Augustus by the Roman Senate and set up in the Curia Iulia (or Senate House) in the Roman Forum (Res Gestae 34.2). The Mausoleum’s fragmentary marble shield, which von Hesberg logically places over the entrance (Fig. 8) can be reconstructed on the basis of an ancient marble replica of the Clupeus Virtutis that was found at Arles.¹⁵

Fig. 6. Fragmentary relief of laurel from the Mausoleum Augusti. Reproduced after H. von Hesberg and S. Panciera, Das Mausoleum des Augustus: Der Bau und seine Inschriften, Munich: Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1994, Pl. 6e.

2. Middle Structure of the Mausoleum
The second area of ambiguity is in the middle structure, the section of the Mausoleum with concentric ring walls and wedge-shaped hollows that served as planters for trees. For the possible types of trees planted, our primary source is the ancient geographer Strabo, who wrote at the time of Augustus. In his Geography (5.3.8), Strabo uses the word aeithalesi, which for trees means literally ‘always-’ or ‘ever-’ green.¹⁶ Although Strabo does not name the specific type of ‘ever-green’ trees, the two likely candidates are oak and/or laurel, since these two trees are closely associated with Augustus and are commonly represented in his various artistic programs. The oak is sacred to Jupiter; the laurel, to Apollo. Less likely to have been planted on the Mausoleum in antiquity are cypress trees like the ones growing on the tomb today (Fig. 7); the latter date to the Fascist period and are based on Gatti’s 1938 reconstruction.

Fig. 7. Aerial View of the Mausoleum Augusti: Reproduced after M. Cattaneo and J. Trifoni, World Heritage Sites: Ancient Civilizations, New York: Rizzoli, 2004, p. 53.

We know from ancient literary sources that over the door of Augustus’ house on the Palatine Hill in Rome was hung the corona civica (or ‘civic crown’) to symbolise the oak crown awarded to him for ‘having saved the lives of Roman citizens’ (ob cives servatos).¹⁷ Although different varieties of oak were used for the ‘civic crown’, the type frequently found in portraits representing Augustus and his successors wearing this particular crown appears to be variety of the Quercus robur, or ‘common oak’.¹⁸ In the case of laurel, it has already been noted that the doorposts of Augustus’ Palatine House were dressed with laurels, which symbolised both victory and his patron god Apollo (Res Gestae 34.2). In his triple triumph in 29 BC, around the time that his monumental tomb was being constructed, Augustus wore the triumphator’s laurel crown and carried a branch of laurel in his right hand, while over his head the state-slave held a great golden oak-crown, the corona triumphalis.¹⁹ Laurel, or Laurus nobilis, is ever-green and a very likely candidate for the Mausoleum of Augustus. Laurels could have been placed in the planters that ring the outer shell-wall of the Mausoleum. But if only laurel was growing on Augustus’ tomb, why did Strabo not mention it by name rather than say there were ever-green trees? The probable explanation is that more than one type of ever-green tree decorated the Mausoleum. If oak were planted, it is unlikely to have been the Quercus robur (or ‘common oak’), the type often used for the corona civica, because Quercus robur is a deciduous tree and therefore not ‘ever-green’.²⁰ In any case, trees without leaves for part of the year would have left the Mausoleum looking rather bare. The variety of oak on the tomb may instead have been the Quercus ilex (or ‘holly oak’), the only type of ever-green oak that grows in central Italy.²¹ The Quercus ilex, moreover, was the type of oak first used for the corona civica, as Pliny the Elder tells us in his Historia Naturalis (16.11).²²
Since oak trees are larger than laurels and have deeper roots, they were probably located in the large semi-circular planters in the outer ring of the Mausoleum, while laurels – most likely bushes rather than trees – would have decorated the upper levels of the middle-ring of the Mausoleum (Figs. 1 and 10). When seen from ground-level, laurel bushes would not have obstructed the view of the image of Augustus that crowned the summit of his Mausoleum. By contrast, cypress trees, which grow quite tall, would have interfered with the view of the statue from ground level, another reason why they were unlikely to have been used on the Mausoleum in antiquity.
3. Image of Augustus Crowning His Mausoleum
In reconstructions of the Mausoleum – from Gatti’s model in 1938²³ to the more recent reconstruction by von Hesberg²⁴ – the image atop Augustus’s tomb is invariably shown as a statua pedestris (i.e. a statue on foot), although there is no specific evidence for the form that this figure took. Our only reference to it in the entire corpus of Latin and Greek literature is a passing comment by Strabo (5.3.8), who notes that crowning the Mausoleum was ‘a bronze image of Augustus Caesar’.²⁵ The Greek word he uses for ‘image’ is eikōn, a very general term that means any form of ‘image’, including a three-dimensional sculpture or a two-dimensional sketch or painting. Eikōn, from which we derive our word ‘icon’, was commonly used with reference to any kind of a portrait image, including one mounted in a quadrigae, or four-horse chariot. In fact, the ancient author Cassius Dio (53.33.2) uses the very word eikōn in referring to images of Augustus in chariot that were set up on commemorative arches on the Milvian Bridge over the Tiber River in Rome and at Ariminum (modern Rimini).²⁶ On Augustan denarii one of these quadrigate images is shown on an arch on the Milvian Bridge commemorating Augustus’s repairs of the Via Flaminia between Rome and Ariminum.²⁷ Moreover, a great quadrigate image of Augustus crowning his Mausoleum would have evoked the image of King Mausolos in a chariot that once stood atop the Mausoleum at Halicarnassos, one of the canonical wonders of the ancient world.²⁸ In a funereal context, such a chariot group symbolises apotheosis, or deification.²⁹ It was undoubtedly in a bid to challenge and outdo the Great Mausoleum at Halicarnassos that Augustus constructed his own monumental tomb in the Campus Martius in Rome. In Augustus’s funeral, for which he left specific instructions,³⁰ a quadrigate image of Augustus was borne in procession,³¹ to symbolise his triumph over death and destined deification. As we know from ancient literary sources, Hadrian, who emulated Augustus, likewise crowned his own great Mausoleum in Rome with a quadrigate image.³² A great deal of other circumstantial evidence also argues for a great bronze image of Augustus in a chariot atop his Mausoleum.³³

Fig. 8a. Mausoleum Augusti with statue on foot. View from ground level. Image © John Pollini and Nick Cipolla.

Fig. 8b. Mausoleum Augusti with quadrigae. View from ground level. Image © John Pollini and Nick Cipolla.

From an architectural point of view, a single statue on foot – even a very large one – would have been lost with respect to the height and mass of Augustus’s tomb, especially when seen from ground level – a viewing-angle that others have not considered in their reconstructions. By hitting a key in our Mausoleum console, the viewer can immediately compare the single-statue suggestion with my proposed quadrigate image reconstruction (Figs. 8a and 8b). One of the particular advantages of a three-dimensional virtual model over a two-dimensional line-drawing is that certain problems in architectural design and construction become more evident when we rotate and look at our model from different viewing angles. Ultimately, it is the viewer who will make up his or her own mind with regard to the type of statue that would have crowned the mausoleum, based on all of the information presently available. New evidence may lead to modifications or substantial alterations in our model. For example, recent excavations at the Mausoleum of Augustus turned up the foundations for the exact location of two Egyptian obelisks and the pillars for Augustus’s Res Gestae,³⁴ the inscribed record of his achievements, that the Roman biographer Suetonius (Vita Augusti 101.2) tells us, stood on either side of the entrance to his tomb. This new information has already been integrated into our model (Figs. 1 and 2).
It is important to note at least two drawbacks to any computer model or virtual world. One pertains to the moment in time represented by the model, since the incomplete written and archaeological evidence often refers to different periods of time during which the monument existed. The other drawback involves the context in which the monument was originally situated: We usually have limited knowledge about the area and objects surrounding a given ancient structure because 1) they no longer exist, 2) our evidence is incomplete, or 3) the surrounding area has not yet been excavated. As monuments were altered over time, additional models representing different specific phases in the existence of that monument can be produced, based on our available evidence, thereby creating a visual and virtual history – albeit an incomplete one – of a given monument. In creating such programs, especially for the Internet, we always need to include a caveat, particularly for the untrained user; namely, that what we create can never represent the ‘true’ world of the past, but only an approximation of that world, at a given moment in time, that is only as reliable as the available evidence.

Fig. 9. Fragmentary relief of the clupeus virtutis from the Mausoleum Augusti. Reproduced after H. von Hesberg and S. Panciera, Das Mausoleum des Augustus: Der Bau und seine Inschriften, Munich: Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1994, Fig. 15.

Results and Conclusions

Finally here are some ‘lessons learned’ to be offered to those who would pursue this kind of work. It can hardly be overstated that the creation of multimedia outputs is time-consuming. The creation of a three-dimensional model and the programming of the Mausoleum console were done on a home computer, added to which was the sort of academic research that one normally does. Regarding pedagogical outcomes, the impact on students in classes in which virtual reconstructions were assigned was both positive and negative. Students achieved a high level of understanding of their chosen ancient site, while becoming more sophisticated consumers of various types of archaeological evidence, made available at a moment’s notice with critique of the original excavator’s conclusions and lack of attention to particulars, such as the precise detail needed for a student to finish a wall. Students also became acutely aware that the presentation of antiquity grows out of choices made in the present, which can include the decision to represent a particular moment in time or the decision to privilege one piece of evidence over another. On the other hand, students tended to be overwhelmed with the workload of a one-semester course in which they not only received basic archaeological training and an introduction to regional case studies but also learned a complex software program used by architects for modelling buildings and landscapes. In short, students learned a great deal but were certainly overworked in the process. For us, the investment of time has been fruitful because of the extended interaction with the ancient place – albeit a virtual ancient place. Whatever the cautions in creating virtual models and worlds, the goal of our research is to create new ways of allowing scholars, students, and the general public to experience and consider antiquity in all its complexity.

Fig. 10. Model of Mausoleum Augusti: From H. von Hesberg and S. Panciera, Das Mausoleum des Augustus: Der Bau und seine Inschriften, Munich: Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1994, Pl. 3c.

November 2006
Acknowledgements: For financial support of this project we would like to thank the University of Southern California Grant for Innovative Undergraduate Teaching and the Taggart Foundation.

Notes:

1. Ancient Egyptian Virtual Temple, a website owned by Christina Paul, http://showcase.netins.net/web/ankh/first.html (14 October 2006).
2. The Landsdowne Heracles, The Getty website at http://www.getty.edu/art/collections/objects/o7638.html; for restoration of the back, select ‘Technical Views’ (14 October 2006).
3. See images available on the website of the National Gallery of Art in Washington, at http://www.nga.gov/images/decor/dpalaocoon_fs.shtm (14 October 2006).
4. A virtual reconstruction of Saint Salvator’s is available for public viewing in a kiosk located on the site of the archaeological remains of this church. For further information visit the website of the Enamé Center for Public Archaeology and Heritage Presentation http://www.ename974.org/Eng/pagina/archeo_concept.html (14 October 2006).
5. For the use of this image in the delivered paper we thank Bill Jepson and Lisa Snyder: Copy-right Urban Simulation Team at UCLA and the Israel Antiquities Authority.
6. The Roman Forum Project, University of California in Los Angeles (UCLA) Cultural Virtual Reality Lab. With the departure of Professor Bernard Frischer from UCLA, the Roman Forum Project is now shared between UCLA, under the direction of Professor Diane Favro in the School of Architecture, and the University of Virginia, under the direction of Professor Frischer.
7. The term is used here to refer to a digital representation of a guide in a virtual space. In a video game a player chooses a given avatar, For example, an appearance, character or a weapon.

8. See Learning Sites, Inc., http://www.learningsites.com/NWPalace/NWPalhome.html (14 Oc-tober 2006).
9. See Learning Sites, Inc., http://www.learningsites.com (14 October 2006).
10. The virtual reconstruction of the sanctuary of the Great Aten Temple at Amarna, Egypt, de-veloped by Nicholas Cipolla at USC, http://www-scf.usc.edu/~cipolla/rel394.htm (14 October 2006).
11. Gatti, G. (1934), ‘Il Mausoleo di Augusto’, Capitolium, 10, pp. 457-64; Gatti, G. (1938), ‘Nuove osservazioni sul Mausoleo di Augusto’, L’Urbe, 3, pp. 1-17, Fig. 13.
12. Hesberg, H. von and Panciera, S. (1994), Das Mausoleum des Augustus: Der Bau und seine Inschriften, Munich: Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, fig. 49.
13. Hesberg, H. von and Panciera, S. (1994), Das Mausoleum des Augustus: Der Bau und seine Inschriften, Munich: Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, p. 14, Cat. No. Vu 12, Fig. 16, Pl. 6e.
14. Hesberg, H. von and Panciera, S. (1994), Das Mausoleum des Augustus: Der Bau und seine Inschriften, Munich: Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, pp. 14-5, Cat. No. Vu 11, Fig. 15, Pl. 5b.
15. Now in the Musée Lapidaire in Arles; see Bromwich, J. (1993), The Roman Remains of Southern France: A Guidebook, London: Routledge, pp. 149f, Pl. 19 with further bibliography.
16. ... achri koruphēs tois aeithalesi tōn dendrōn synērphes.
17. See further Res Gestae 34.2; Cassius Dio 53.16.4.
18. Pliny, Historia Naturalis (6.11) indicates that the corona civica was first made of Quercus ilex, but that later Quercus aesculus, Quercus petra, and a variety of Quercus robur were also used. Although Pliny does not mention the Quercus pubescens, this type of oak may also have been used, as this was another common type found in central Italy. For the carbonised remains of the Quercus pubescens from Oplontis, see The Natural History of Pompeii, W. Feemster Jashemski and F.G. Meyer, eds. (2002), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. 156, Fig. 145. It is difficult to tell in some cases which variety of oak was used as a model for the civic crown in portraits, as sculptors sometimes represented the leaves with artistic license and/or left them partly or wholly unfinished. For a discussion of the corona civica and the types of oak: Jashemski and Meyer, eds. (2002), pp. 155-7. I thank Professor Jashemski for this reference and for kindly discussing with me matters pertaining to Italian oak trees. I would also like to express my appreciation to Professor Philip W. Rundel, Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, UCLA, for discussing with me the nature and different type of oak trees.
19. Also known as the corona Etrusca. See Versnel, H.S. (1970), Triumphus, Leiden: Brill, especially pp. 56-7, 74-7 et passim; for the laurel crown, composed of real laurel leaves, and the laurel branch held by the triumphator: pp. 56f et passim.
20. Like the Quercus robur, the Quercus aesculus and Quercus petra are deciduous trees. See note 18.
21. As proposed by Hesberg, H. von and Panciera, S. (1994), Das Mausoleum des Augustus: Der Bau und seine Inschriften, Munich: Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, pp. 23 and 27. The leaves of the Quercus ilex, which is also called the ‘ever-green’ oak, are more holly-like in shape. See also note 18.
22. This usage would also have appealed to Augustus’ antiquarian interests: See for example, Res Gestae 8.5, 20; Suetonius, Vita Augusti 29.4, 30.2, 31.4-5, 40.5, 72.3, 75, 89.2, 93. A stucco wreath of quercus ilex is represented over the doorway of the house of a likely Augustalis (i.e. priest of the imperial cult) at Pompeii in imitation of the corona civica over the door of Augustus’s house on the Palatine. Two laurel trees are also represented next to the corona civica, recalling the doorposts of Augustus’ Palatine house that were clothed in laurel. For this stucco wreath and painted representations of laurels, see Pompei, pitture e mosaici 3 (1991), Rome: Istituto della Enciclopedia italiana, pp. 109 (II.2.4), 110-1; Jashemski and Meyer (edd.) (above n. 18), p. 155, fig. 144.
23. Gatti, G. (1934), ‘Il Mausoleo di Augusto’, Capitolium, 10, pp. 457-64; Gatti, G. (1938), ‘Nuove osservazioni sul Mausoleo di Augusto’, L’Urbe, 3, pp. 1-17, Fig. 13.
24. Hesberg, H. von and Panciera, S. (1994), Das Mausoleum des Augustus: Der Bau und seine Inschriften, Munich: Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.
25. ... ep’ akrō men oun eikōn esti chalkē tou Sebastou Kaisaros.
26. Augustus mentions this restoration of the Via Flaminia in his Res Gestae 20.5.
27. Some of these coins show him in a quadrigae, drawn by four horses; some, in a biga, drawn by two elephants. The reference to his restoration of the roads is noted in the numismatic inscription QVOD VIAE MVN SVNT. One of the reasons for using a chariot (or even an equestrian figure) was for greater visibility of the honoree to the viewer at ground level. For these images of Augustus in chariot, see Mattingly, H. [1923], Coins of the Roman Empire in the British Museum, London: British Museum, (1976), vol. i, p. 75 (Nos. 432-435), Pls. 10.6-8.
28. Pliny, Historia Naturalis 36.30-31. See also Stewart, A. (1990), Greek Sculpture: An Exploration, New Haven: Yale, pp. 180-82 with sources, Fig. 524 (reconstruction); Maderna, C. (2004) in Die Geschichte der antiken Bildhauerkunst: II Klassische Plastik, Bol, P. (ed.), Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, pp. 303f. For a new reconstruction of the Mausoleum by the leading authority on the Mausolos tomb, see Jeppesen, K. (2002), The Maussolleion at Ancient Hallikarnassos, Aarhus: Aarhus University Press.
29. The notion of ascension to heaven in a chariot, a common motif for legendary heroes like Herakles and Romulus, will be discussed further in Pollini, J. (in progress), Dynastic Narratives in Augustan Art and Thought: The Rhetoric and Poetry of Visual Imagery.
30. Suetonius, Vita Augusti 101.
31. Cass. Dio 56.34.2.
32. As reported by John Malalas (Antiochinus); see Richardson jr., L. (1992), A New Topographical Dictionary of Ancient Rome, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, pp. 249-51 s.v. ‘Mausoleum Hadriani’.
33. This evidence will be discussed in Pollini, J. (in progress), Dynastic Narratives in Augustan Art and Thought: The Rhetoric and Poetry of Visual Imagery.
34. Buchner, E. (1996), ‘Ein Kanal für Obelisken: Neues vom Mausoleum des Augustus in Rom’, Antike Welt, 27, pp. 161-68, esp. Fig. 3.