Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T02:55:39.692Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

THE PROCESSION AND PLACEMENT OF IMPERIAL CULT IMAGES IN THE COLOSSEUM*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 October 2014

Nathan T. Elkins
Get access

Abstract

The Colosseum is well understood as a dynastic monument that was key to the Flavian building programme and to Flavian ideology. From this point of view it has been approached as the fulfilment of Augustus's ambition for a large-scale amphitheatre, as serving to diminish Nero's memory as it was constructed on the atrium of his dismantled Golden House, and as a victory monument built with the spoils of the Jewish War. One important political aspect of this dynastic monument has been largely overlooked: its connection with emperor worship. Outside Rome, it is well known that amphitheatres served as a venue for the procession and placement of imperial cult images; in Rome, the Circus Maximus and the theatres were venues for the display of imperial images and attributes brought in during their respective pompae. Through the deployment of textual, topographical and visual evidence, this article demonstrates that the Colosseum also had a pulvinar that displayed images and attributes of the gods and divi brought in during the pompa. The location of the pulvinar and the mechanisms by which it was serviced are explored, as are the ideological implications of cultic activity in the Colosseum.

Il Colosseo è considerato un monumento dinastico, chiave del programma edilizio e dell'ideologia flavia. Da questo punto di vista è stato considerato in molti modi: compimento del desiderio di Augusto di un anfiteatro di grandi dimensioni, o ancora la sua edificazione è stata letta come volontà di oblio di Nerone, essendo stato costruito sull'atrio della demolita Domus Aurea e anche come monumento legato alla vittoria di un evento bellico, costruito con le prede della guerra giudaica. Tuttavia un importante aspetto politico di questo monumento dinastico è stato ampiamente tralasciato: la sua connessione con il culto imperiale. Al di fuori di Roma, è ben noto come gli anfiteatri servissero come sede per la processione e per collocarvi le immagini di culto imperiali. In Roma il Circo Massimo e i teatri erano sedi in cui venivano esibiti le immagini imperiali e gli attributi portati durante le rispettive pompae. Attraverso l'analisi di testi, fonti topografiche e iconografiche, il presente articolo dimostra come il Colosseo fosse fornito anche di un pulvinar, in cui venivano esposte immagini e attributi degli dei e divi portati nella processione. Vengono esaminati la localizzazione del pulvinar e il meccanismo di manutenzione, nonché le implicazioni ideologiche dell'attività cultuale all'interno del Colosseo.

Type
Articles
Information
Papers of the British School at Rome , Volume 82 , October 2014 , pp. 73 - 107
Copyright
Copyright © British School at Rome 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

I am grateful to Kathleen Coleman for her comments and encouragement on an early manuscript. I would like to thank also the Papers of the British School at Rome referees for their apt feedback during the peer-review process. The reproduction costs of some images were subsidized by an Allbritton Art Institute Grant for Art Faculty Scholarship. Abbreviations used include:

AEpig = L'Année Épigraphique (Paris, 1888–).

BMCRE II = H. Mattingly, Coins of the Roman Empire in the British Museum II: Vespasian to Domitian (London, 1966).

CIL = Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum (1863–). Berlin, Georg Reimer/Walter de Gruyter.

EAOR = P.S. Tumolesi, Epigraphia anfiteatrale dell'Occidente Romano I: Roma (Rome, 1988).

Fishwick I.1, etc. = D. Fishwick, The Imperial Cult in the Latin West: Studies in the Ruler Cult of the Western Provinces of the Roman Empire, 3 vols in multiple parts (Leiden, 1987–2005).

ILTG = P. Wuilleumier, Inscriptions latines des Trois Gaules (Paris, 1963).

RIC I2 = C.H.V. Sutherland and R.A.G. Carson, The Roman Imperial Coinage I: From 31 bc to ad 69 (revised edition; London, 1984).

RIC II = H. Mattingly and E.A. Sydenham, The Roman Imperial Coinage II: Vespasian to Hadrian (London, 1926).

RIC II.1 = I.A. Carradice and T.V. Buttrey, The Roman Imperial Coinage II, Part I: From ad 69–96, Vespasian to Domitian (second fully revised edition; London, 2007).

RIC III = H. Mattingly and E.A. Sydenham, The Roman Imperial Coinage III: Antoninus Pius to Commodus (London, 1930).

References

1 For example, Futrell, A., Blood in the Arena: the Spectacle of Roman Power (Austin, 1997), 79–93Google Scholar. Welch, K., The Roman Amphitheatre: from its Origins to the Colosseum (Cambridge, 2007), 72–101Google Scholar, has discussed Republican amphitheatres in Italy as markers of Roman identity.

2 ‘Colosseum’ is a modern word. It first seems to have been applied to the amphitheatre in Rome in medieval times, and derived from the colossal statue of Nero that stood in the atrium of his Golden House. The statue was reworked by the Flavians to display the features of Sol and stood next to their amphitheatre. It is assumed generally that Romans referred to the amphitheatre as the Amphitheatrum Flavium, although the dedicatory inscription calls it the Amphitheatrum Novum and the Severan marble plan labels it Amphitheatrum. As it was the only amphitheatre in Rome at the time, it may well have been referred to simply as the Amphitheatrum. See Coleman, K.M., Martial: Liber Spectaculorum (Oxford, 2006), lxvi–iiiGoogle Scholar with further references.

3 Coleman, K.M., ‘Euergetism in its place: where was the amphitheatre in Augustan Rome?’, in Lomas, K. and Cornell, T. (eds), ‘Bread and Circuses’: Euergetism and Municipal Patronage in Roman Italy (London/New York, 2003), 69–70Google Scholar. On the inscription: Alföldy, G., ‘Eine Bauinschrift aus dem Colosseum’, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 109 (1995)Google Scholar; AEpig 1995, 111b; CIL VI 40454a.

4 The translation is from Coleman, Martial (above, n. 2), 14.

5 There is debate as to whether or not Martial's Liber Spectaculorum chronicles the inaugural games of the Colosseum held under Titus or Domitianic games; see Coleman, Martial (above, n. 2), xlv–lxiv; Buttrey, T.V., ‘Domitian, the rhinoceros, and the date of Martial's Liber de Spectaculis’, Journal of Roman Studies 97 (2007), 101–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

6 On this research problem, see principally Gradel, I., Emperor Worship and Roman Religion (Oxford, 2002), 1–26Google Scholar and passim.

7 Gradel, Emperor Worship (above, n. 6), 75, 111–15, 152–9, 223–8, 232–3 and passim; Worship of the emperor's genius in Rome in various periods of Imperial history did not denote outright divinity; but genius worship had servile connotations going back to the Republic, and hence it seems to have been avoided by worshippers of high standing and by certain emperors for the purposes of moderatio (Gradel, Emperor Worship (above, n. 6), 99–103, 162–97).

8 Gradel, Emperor Worship (above, n. 6), 27–31 and passim.

9 AEpig 1959, 78, 81 = ILTG 217 = EAOR V.75.

10 Audin, A. and Le Glay, M., ‘L'amphithéâtre des Trois-Gaules à Lyon: première campagne de fouilles’, Gallia 28 (1970), 72–3CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Audin, A., ‘L'amphithéâtre des Trois-Gaules à Lyon: nouvelles campagnes des fouilles (1970–1972, 1976–1978)’, Gallia 37 (1979), 98CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

11 Fishwick I.1, 120–5, 133; III.3, 276–7.

12 Futrell, Blood in the Arena (above, n. 1), 84.

13 Fishwick I.2, 255; Golvin, J.-C., L'amphithéâtre romain: essai sur la theorisation de sa forme et de ses fonctions (Paris, 1988), 409Google Scholar.

14 Fishwick I.2, 242–3; Futrell, Blood in the Arena (above, n. 1), 88–9.

15 Fishwick III.3, 270–1.

16 Fishwick II.1, 559; III.3, 271; Golvin, L'amphithéâtre romain (above, n. 13), 126 and 408.

17 Étienne, R., ‘Un complex monumental du culte imperial à Avenches’, Pro Aventico 29 (1985), 15Google Scholar; Fishwick III.3, 269–71; Bridel, P., ‘L'amphithéâtre d'Avenches. Originalité de quelques aspects architecturaux et fonctionnels’, in Fuchs, M.E. and Dubosson, B. (eds), Theatra et spectacula. Les grands monuments des jeux dans l'antiquité (Lausanne, 2011), 293–306Google Scholar.

18 Fishwick III.3, 268–70.

19 Bomgardner, D.L., The Story of the Roman Amphitheatre (London/New York, 2000), 58CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Tumolesi, P. Sabbatini, Gladiatorum paria. Annunci di spettacoli gladiatorii a Pompei (Rome, 1980), 23–44Google Scholar.

20 CIL XII 697 = EAOR V.7 (pp. 34–5); Bomgardner, The Story of the Roman Amphitheatre (above, n. 19), 114 and n. 183; Formigé, J., ‘L'amphithéâtre d'Arles’, Revue Archéologique 2 (1965), 44Google Scholar.

21 For discussion, see Ryberg, I.S., Rites of the State Religion in Roman Art (Rome, 1955), 99–100Google Scholar; for a similar relief from the Necropolis Maritima of Pompeii, see pp. 101–2, fig. 50a–c, pls 32–3.

22 Tuck, S.L., ‘Spectacle and ideology in the relief decorations of the Anfiteatro Campano at Capua’, Journal of Roman Archaeology 20 (2007), 255–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar, has contextualized these reliefs as interior decorations for the amphitheatre at Capua and as representing actual events that occurred within that venue.

23 Humphrey, J.H., Roman Circuses: Arenas for Chariot Racing (London, 1986), 78Google Scholar; Arena, P., Feste e rituali a Roma. Il principe incontra il popolo nel Circo Massimo (Bari, 2010), 53–102Google Scholar.

24 Hanson, J.A., Roman Theater-Temples (Princeton, 1959), 84–7Google Scholar; and further bibliography presented in the discussion of theatres below (n. 38).

25 Étienne, ‘Un complex monumental’ (above, n. 17), 15–16; Fishwick III.3, 276.

26 For discussion and bibliography, see Fishwick III.3, 274–9.

27 CIL VI 1872, 1936, 3756, 8696; ILS 9517; AEpig 1940, 62; for discussion, see Fishwick II.1, 538–40; III.3, 279.

28 For the Circus Maximus in general, see Humphrey, Roman Circuses (above, n. 23), 56–294. Among recent publications, two that stand out are Nelis-Clément, J. and Roddaz, M. (eds), Le cirque romain et son image (Bordeaux, 2008)Google Scholar, and Marcattili, F., Circo Massimo: architetture, funzioni, culti, ideologia (Rome, 2009)Google Scholar.

29 See Humphrey, Roman Circuses (above, n. 23), 176–294 and passim, and Nelis-Clément and Roddaz (eds), Le cirque romain et son image (above, n. 28).

30 On the coin representations, see Humphrey, Roman Circuses (above, n. 23), 92; B. Bergmann, ‘Pictorial narratives of the Roman circus’, in Nelis-Clément and Roddaz (eds), Le cirque romain et son image (above, n. 28), 363–5. Hill, P.V., The Monuments of Ancient Rome as Coin Types (London, 1989), 47–8Google Scholar, advanced an awkward and incorrect argument that the view is from the area of the Forum Boarium.

31 Coleman, K.M., ‘Entertaining Rome’, in Coulston, J.N.C. and Dodge, H. (eds), Ancient Rome: the Archaeology of the Eternal City (Oxford, 2000), 214–15Google Scholar.

32 Madigan, B., The Ceremonial Sculptures of the Roman Gods (Leiden, 2013)Google Scholar, provides extensive discussion of the visual and textual evidence for processional statues, litter statues and exuviae in Roman religion.

33 The reader should be aware that the term pulvinar frequently is used by many authors to mean the ‘imperial box’ or the primary viewing platform for the magistrate or official presiding over the games. For clarity, the term is used here to mean only the viewing platform from which the statues or attributes of the gods would ‘watch’ the spectacles. This is the sense of the word used and more thoroughly defined in Humphrey, Roman Circuses (above, n. 23), 78–83.

34 For further discussion on the Circus's pulvinar, see Rodríguez, C., ‘The puluinar at the Circus Maximus: worship of Augustus in Rome?’, Latomus 64 (2005), 619–25Google Scholar, and van den Berg, C., ‘The pulvinar in Roman culture’, Transactions of the American Philological Association 138 (2008), 239–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

35 Abaecherli, A.L., ‘Imperial symbols on certain Flavian coins’, Classical Philology 30 (1935), 132–3CrossRefGoogle Scholar; for types, see, for example: RIC I2 (Tiberius) 51, (Gaius) 55, (Claudius) 103; RIC II.1 (Titus) 264, (Domitian) 717; RIC II (Trajan) 749 (corr.); RIC III (Antoninus Pius) 1141. For Sabina and Julia Mamaea, see Abaecherli, ‘Imperial symbols’ (above), 132, nn. 12 and 14.

36 See, for example: RIC I2 (Nero) 4–7, RIC II.1 (Titus) 360–1. Some of the types depicting Claudius's carriages show it supporting seated images of Divus Claudius and Divus Augustus.

37 Carcopino, J., La vie quotidienne à Rome à l'apogée de l'empire (Paris, 1939), 241–2Google Scholar; Millar, F., The Emperor in the Roman World (Ithaca, 1977), 369–75Google Scholar. Coleman, K.M., ‘Fatal charades: Roman executions staged as mythological enactments’, Journal of Roman Studies 80 (1990), 47, 72CrossRefGoogle Scholar and passim, suggested that the collective viewing of spectacles, and especially executions, united all Roman social classes, who were present with the emperor, and asserted Roman moral superiority in opposition to criminals and non-citizens who were condemned to death. Arena, Feste e rituali (above, n. 23) has focused on this ruler–subject interaction in the Circus Maximus.

38 It is true that Tertullian's description (De Spectaculis 7) of the pompa circensis includes chairs, but it seems he has conflated the pompa circensis, the pompa theatralis and the pompa funebris into a single description; see Hanson, Roman Theater-Temples (above, n. 24), 84–7. For the nature of struppi and exuviae, and for their transport, see: Abaecherli, ‘Imperial symbols’ (above, n. 35), 134–8; Madigan, The Ceremonial Sculptures (above, n. 32), 67–102.

39 Crawford, M.H., Roman Republican Coinage, 2 vols (Cambridge, 1974), 513Google Scholar, nos. 497/2a–d.

40 Gradel, Emperor Worship (above, n. 6), 224–8.

41 Taylor, L.R., ‘Lucretius on the Roman theatre’, in White, M.E. (ed.), Studies in Honour of Gilbert Norwood (Toronto, 1952), 149Google Scholar; Hanson, Roman Theater-Temples (above, n. 24), 83–8; Tosi, G., Gli edifice per spettacoli nell'Italia romana (Rome, 2003), 709–47Google Scholar.

42 Translations of Tertullian are taken from the Loeb edition (1931, trans. T.R. Glover).

43 Translations of Dio are taken from the Loeb edition (1969, trans. E. Cary). In his text, Dio uses theatron to mean amphitheatre. The context is certainly that of amphitheatre spectacles.

44 Cf. Gradel, Emperor Worship (above, n. 6), 198–9: ‘As it is, our literary texts generally narrate only eccentric aberrations from the usual patterns which were well known and hence without interest to contemporary audiences. Many common practices therefore go largely unnoticed, and may force us to arguments e silentio … The basic point, however, is that absence of evidence cannot be taken as evidence of absence, as has usually been assumed in the few remarks found on the subject [of household emperor worship] in modern scholarship’.

45 For a complete list of arena spectacles held during Augustus's principate, many of which have a funerary or memorial context, see Coleman, ‘Euergetism in its place’ (above, n. 3), 74–7.

46 Vespasian and his sons dismantled much of the Domus Aurea after damning Nero's memory and began associating themselves with Claudius. They rebuilt many of his aqueducts and completed construction of the Temple of the Deified Claudius. For Flavian work on the temple and general associations between Vespasian and Claudius, see Darwall-Smith, R.H., Emperors and Architecture: a Study of Flavian Rome (Brussels, 1996), 48–55Google Scholar; for additional commentary on Vespasian's associations with Claudius, see Levick, B., Claudius (New Haven, 1990), 190Google Scholar, n. 30; Levick, B., Vespasian (London/New York, 1999), 71–8Google Scholar and passim.

47 Elkins, N.T., ‘The Flavian Colosseum sestertii: currency or largess?’, Numismatic Chronicle 166 (2006), 215Google Scholar; for the identification of this figure as Claudius on Claudian sestertii, see von Kaenel, H.-M., Die Münzprägung und Münzbildnis des Claudius (Berlin, 1986), 241Google Scholar.

48 Elkins, N.T., ‘Locating the imperial box in the Flavian amphitheatre: the numismatic evidence’, Numismatic Chronicle 164 (2004), 153–5Google Scholar. For variant types of the Colosseum sestertii, see Elkins, ‘Flavian Colosseum sestertii’ (above, n. 47), 215–21. Millar, F., ‘Last year in Jerusalem: monuments of the Jewish War in Rome’, in Edmonson, J., Mason, S. and Rives, J. (eds), Flavius Josephus and Flavian Rome (Oxford, 2005), 101–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar, has discussed in detail the Flavian triumphal route and the triumphal character of Flavian building in central Rome. On p. 117, Millar briefly has discussed a suggestion made to him by E.M. Steinby that the structure shown flanking the right side of the Colosseum on the sestertii is a triumphal arch. The structure is clearly a two-storeyed porticus rather than a triumphal arch. For substantiated arguments identifying the porticus as that of the Baths of Titus, see Price, M.J. and Trell, B.L., Coins and their Cities: Architecture on the Ancient Coins of Greece, Rome, and Palestine (Detroit, 1977), 61Google Scholar; Rea, R., ‘Le antiche raffigurazioni dell'Anfiteatro’, in Conforti, M. and Reggiani, A.M. (eds), Anfiteatro flavio: immagine, testimonianze, spettacoli (Rome, 1988), 34Google Scholar; and Elkins, ‘Flavian Colosseum sestertii’ (above, n. 47), 213, 218–19, from an ideological point of view.

49 For the inclusion of the tripod types in this series, see Abaecherli, ‘Imperial symbols’ (above, n. 35), 136–7. She explains that attributes of certain deities were not placed on chairs or thrones, but rather on tripods or other accoutrements; for example, the dolphin on a tripod would represent Apollo and the altar type represents Vesta.

50 Unless otherwise noted, the following types all have a head of Titus, laureate, l. or r., on the obverse with the legend IMP TITVS CAES VESPASIAN AVG P M [The Emperor, Titus Caesar Vespasianus Augustus, Pontifex Maximus]. Reverse legends are TR P IX IMP XV COS VIII P P [Holder of the Tribunician Power for the Ninth Time, Acclaimed Imperator Fifteen Times, Consul Eight Times, Father of the Fatherland], unless otherwise noted. All designs can be found on denarii and aurei.

51 Struppi are archaizing images or attributes of the gods fashioned from twigs and vines (verbena). Struppi are discussed by Madigan, The Ceremonial Sculptures (above, n. 32), 67–82.

52 BMCRE II, lxxii.

53 Taylor, L.R., ‘The sellisternium and the theatrical pompa’, Classical Philology 30 (1935), 122–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

54 Abaecherli, ‘Imperial symbols’ (above, n. 35), 131–40.

55 Taylor, ‘The sellisternium’ (above, n. 53), 122 and 127; Damsky, B.L., ‘The throne and curule chair types of Titus and Domitian’, Schweizerische Numismatische Rundschau 74 (1995), 70Google Scholar, suggested that the curule chair type supporting the crown represents Divus Vespasianus. It must instead represent the reigning emperor; Vespasian was indicated by the coin types referring to the divi in general and also by other contemporary coin types that specifically celebrated his deification.

56 Damsky, ‘The throne and curule chair’ (above, n. 55), 62–3.

57 RIC II.1 (Titus) 356–84 and 399–497.

58 Tiberius and Caligula were the only first-century emperors who were neither consecrated as divi nor officially damned; their ambiguous status apparently caused some confusion for the Romans as well — see Gradel, Emperor Worship (above, n. 6), 286–8 and n. 42.

59 Damsky, ‘The throne and curule chair’ (above, n. 55), 63–5. Although Damsky's suggestion that the pulvinaria types depict chairs and thrones carried in pompae in the Colosseum, in contrast to Taylor's arguments associating them with theatres, Damsky's argument does not account for the fact that chairs were not carried in the amphitheatre procession. Therefore, the coins must represent the chairs and thrones supporting struppi and exuviae while presiding over the spectacles, since the chairs and thrones must have been a more permanent fixture, as in the pulvinar in the Circus Maximus.

60 RIC II.1 (Titus) 114–16.

61 Golvin, L'amphithéâtre romain (above, n. 13), 178; Claridge, A., Rome: an Oxford Archaeological Guide (Oxford, 1998), 278–9Google Scholar; Richardson, L. Jr, A New Topographical Dictionary of Ancient Rome (Baltimore, 1992), 10Google Scholar; Luciani, R., Il Colosseo (Milan, 1993), 79Google Scholar; Lugli, G., Roma antica, il centro monumentale (Rome, 1946), 330Google Scholar; Lugli, G., L'anfiteatro flavio (Rome, 1961), 23–5Google Scholar; Hopkins, K. and Beard, M., The Colosseum (Cambridge (MA), 2005), 134Google Scholar; Bomgardner, The Story of the Roman Amphitheatre (above, n. 19), 9. The idea that the box opposite the imperial box was reserved for the Vestal Virgins in particular is drawn from Suetonius (Divus Augustus 44), who records that Augustus reserved a box across from the praetor's tribunal for the Vestal Virgins. After the dedication of the Colosseum, however, more than half a century after Augustus's death, it is clear that the one platform would have been reserved for the emperor (not the praetor). The opposing box need not necessarily follow the exact Augustan precedent, since the legislation discussed by Suetonius primarily concerned the need for prominent citizens and upper classes to have reserved seats at the games, since lower-class citizens were usurping the better seats. Without doubt the Vestals, senators and other prominent citizens would have had some of the best seats in the Colosseum, but they need not have been directly across from the emperor's box.

62 For the suggestion of the southern platform serving as a pulvinar, see Elkins, ‘Locating the imperial box’ (above, n. 48), 155–7.

63 Lugli, Roma antica (above, n. 61), 23–5. Platner, S.B. and Ashby, T., A Topographical Dictionary of Ancient Rome (London, 1926), 10Google Scholar, and Rea, R., Anfiteatro flavio (Rome, 1986), 2Google Scholar, suggested that the northern platform rather than the southern platform served as the location for the imperial viewing box. Platner and Ashby's claim was left unsubstantiated, and Rea's seems to have been a typographical error as she later wrote that it was on the southern side: Rea, R., Anfiteatro flavio (Rome, 1996), 128Google Scholar. Elkins, ‘Locating the imperial box’ (above, n. 48), 151, n. 16, erroneously recorded that the contradiction occurred in the same volume from 1986. Golvin, L'amphithéâtre romain (above, n. 13), 178, stated that the imperial viewing box was on the northern side, but he clearly meant the southern side since his arguments were based on the presence of the ‘Cryptoporticus of Commodus’ (which is on the southern side); his plates of the Colosseum (36 and 37) have the compass at the wrong orientation; Bomgardner, The Story of the Roman Amphitheatre (above, n. 19), 9, stated that the viewing platform was on the northern side, but it is clear he simply followed Golvin's error and meant the southern side as he also invoked the cryptoporticus.

64 If arguments for a southern location of the imperial box are to persist, they ought to be based on practical considerations, such as the sun's glare having been more of a problem on the northern side (for example, Coleman, Martial (above, n. 2), lxxii, n. 155), rather than relying on the problematic interpretation of the cryptoporticus as a supposed secret entrance for the emperor. The sun's glare may not have been an issue considering that the emperor's box would have had its own covering; aurei of Septimius Severus depicting the Stadium of Domitian show an awning over the imperial box, as does the imperial box depicted on the obelisk base of Theodosius in the Hippodrome at Constantinople.

65 Iacopi, I., ‘Il passaggio sotterraneo cosiddetto di Commodo’, in La Regina, A. (ed.), Sangue e arena (Milan, 2001), 79Google Scholar, 87, n. 3; cf. Platner and Ashby, A Topographical Dictionary (above, n. 62), 10. Despite Iacopi's suggestion of a cultic function, the assumption that the tunnel served as a secret imperial entrance persists in many scholarly publications. Elkins, ‘Locating the imperial box’ (above, n. 48), 148–51, 155–7, provides further discussion.

66 Elkins, ‘Locating the imperial box’ (above, n. 48), 157; for the inscriptions, see Buzzetti, C., ‘Claudius, Divus, Templum’, in Steinby, E.M. (ed.), Lexicon Topographicum Urbis Romae I (A–C) (Rome, 1993), 277Google Scholar; CIL VI 1984–8.

67 Audin and Le Glay, ‘L'amphithéâtre des Trois-Gaules’ (above, n. 10), 72–3; Audin, ‘L'amphithéâtre des Trois-Gaules’ (above, n. 10), 98.

68 See generally Golvin, L'amphithéâtre romain (above, n. 13), 337–40 and passim.

69 Fishwick III.3, 274–9; CIL VI 1872, 1936, 3756, 8696; ILS 9517; AEpig 1940, 62; for discussion, see Fishwick II.1, 538–40; III.3, 279. Hanson, Roman Theater-Temples (above, n. 24), 84–7, discussed an inscription that records that the honorary chair for Germanicus was stored in the Temple of Mars Ultor until the completion of the Temple of the Deified Augustus.

70 It is highly improbable that the Temple of the Deified Vespasian was completed by the time of Vespasian's deification, and so the procession for any games held in celebration of his consecration might have proceeded from the Temple of the Deified Claudius, with whom Vespasian closely associated himself, or from some other venue. This may be the case also for a procession for games in celebration of Titus's consecration. In later periods, processions from the Templum Divorum may be an attractive hypothesis, given the ‘triumphal’ nature of the place. It has been noted that the marble plan does not show the Villa Publica, where parades for the pompa triumphalis would gather, and it is thought that the Templum Divorum replaced the Villa Publica in this function. See Darwall-Smith, Emperors and Architecture (above, n. 46), 158; Richardson, Jr, A New Topographical Dictionary (above, n. 61), 111.

71 Damsky, ‘The throne and curule chair,’ (above, n. 55), 68–9; Elkins, ‘Flavian Colosseum sestertii’ (above, n. 47), 214 and n. 22. For the dating of Vespasian's consecration, see Buttrey, T.V., ‘Vespasian's consecratio and the numismatic evidence’, Historia 25 (1976), 449–57Google Scholar; Scott, K., The Imperial Cult under the Flavians (Stuttgart/Berlin, 1936), 40–5Google Scholar. Jones, B.W., The Emperor Titus (New York, 1984), 152–4Google Scholar, maintained the delay in Vespasian's consecration was due to the lack of precedent for the deification of non-Julio-Claudians.

72 Darwall-Smith, Emperors and Architecture (above, n. 46), 52, on the presence of a grand staircase on the northern side of the temple platform.

73 Cf. Carcopino, La vie quotidienne (above, n. 37), 241–2, on the emperor and the images of the gods on the pulvinar in the Circus Maximus. Favro, D. and Johanson, C., ‘Death in motion: funeral processions in the Roman Forum’, Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians 69 (2010), 12–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Johanson, C., ‘A walk with the dead — a funerary cityscape of ancient Rome’, in Rawson, B. (ed.), A Companion to Families in the Greek and Roman Worlds (Oxford, 2011), 408–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar, have discussed the importance of dynastic monuments and political communication in aristocratic and imperial funeral processions, which are no less important in imperial amphitheatre processions.

74 Futrell, Blood in the Arena (above, n. 1), 81–92 with further bibliography. For a similar discussion, on Aventicum and amphitheatres more generally, see, respectively, Bridel, ‘L'amphithéâtre d'Avenches’ (above, n. 17), 303–4, and T. Hufschmid, ‘Funktionale Gesichtspunkte des Theaters und des Amphitheaters im architektonischen, sozialen und politischen Kontext’, in Fuchs and Dubosson (eds), Theatra et spectacula (above, n. 17), 275–87.

75 Gradel, Emperor Worship (above, n. 6), 338–56, 369–71.