The Ara Pacis and local Roman politics

 The Ara Pacis seems to be the target of local Roman politicians who apparently don't appreciate the structure that was erected around it. The article points out that the Ara Pacis was not originally located at its current location but moved there by Mussolini in 1938. Gemini points out that it wasn't just a simple relocation, however.

"Original Location: The Ara Pacis wasn't moved directly from its original location to its current one. Its initial site was in the northeastern corner of the Campus Martius, a large open space in ancient Rome near the Tiber River. This area was roughly north of the current Piazza del Popolo and west of the Mausoleum of Augustus.

"Gradual Burial and Rediscovery: Over time, sediment deposits from the Tiber gradually buried the Ara Pacis. It wasn't until the 16th and 19th centuries that fragments of the monument were rediscovered in various locations around the Campus Martius.

"Reconstruction and Modern Location: In the early 20th century, extensive excavations uncovered more substantial portions of the Ara Pacis. Mussolini then commissioned the reconstruction and reassembly of the monument in a new, purpose-built pavilion designed by architect Vittorio Ballio Morpurgo. This pavilion, near the Mausoleum of Augustus and the Lungotevere in Augusta, is where the Ara Pacis stands today.

"Therefore, it wasn't a simple case of moving from point A to point B. The Ara Pacis was originally located in the Campus Martius, gradually buried over centuries, rediscovered in fragments, and then reconstructed in its current location."

https://timesofmalta.com/.../controversial-rome-building...

Image: The Ara Pacis with its current enclosure courtesy of Wikimedia Commons contributor Rabax63

If you enjoyed this post, never miss out on future posts by following me by email!

Modern misconceptions of Alexander the Great and Hephaestion

 I watched Netflix's docudrama and, like Professor Paul Cartledge in his recent interview (https://www.thecollector.com/paul-cartledge-alexander-the-great-interview/), I thought Netflix overemphasized the possible physical aspects of the relationship between Alexander and Hephaestion as a lead-in to the program. I also thought the program did not really emphasize Alexander's intellectual prowess as it pertained to military strategy, especially in the dramatization of the battle at the Granicus River. Alexander did not charge headlong recklessly into the Persian troops immediately upon arrival as portrayed in the film but carefully deployed his forces with unit commanders selected for their experience with troops armed with specific weapons. According to Arrian of Nicomedia, "After both armies finished their deployment, there was a moment of silence. Alexander then ordered Amyntas, son of Arrhabeus, to attack the Persian left wing with the Companion cavalry squadron of Socrates (now led by Ptolemy, son of Philip) at the front, followed by the Paeonian cavalry, the prodromoi and an unspecified infantry unit. Arrian then gives the impression that Alexander advanced at nearly the same time with the remainder of the right wing and the infantry, but later makes it clear that Alexander's attack came after the troops of Amyntas were pushed back.

The Persians answered the charge of the vanguard with volleys of javelins. Amyntas's force was at a disadvantage because they were severely outnumbered and the Persians were defending higher ground at the top of the bank. The Macedonians suffered losses and retreated towards Alexander, who now attacked with the remaining Companion cavalry of the right wing.

Historian A. M. Devine reasons that the failure of the attack led by Amyntas was not a mistake, but a ruse to draw the Persian cavalry out of formation as they pursued the retreating force of Amyntas into the riverbed. The disruption of the Persian formation would have made them vulnerable to the second attack led by Alexander in person.

Although other historians do not necessarily agree with Devine, Devine's explanation of Alexander's strategy reminded me a lot of Hannibal's tactics at the Battle of Cannae where the appearance of weakness was used to draw the enemy into a vulnerable position.

The docudrama also presented Alexander as a youthful, inexperienced commander when, in fact, Alexander had successfully put down several revolts in the Balkans and Greece after Phillip's assassination to reassert Macedonian authority before embarking on his Persian campaign.

Image: Sculptures of Alexander the Great and Hephaestion that I photographed at the Getty Villa in Malibu, California.

If you enjoyed this post, never miss out on future posts by following me by email!

Roman jewelry of the Fourth Century CE

 Another beautiful artifact from the collections of the Dumbarton Oaks Museum in Washington D.C. photographed by my good friend Allan Gluck - a fourth century CE fragmented gold necklace studded with cabochons (gemstones that have been polished but not faceted) of emeralds, garnet, pearl, and amethyst.

Gold Roman necklace fragments with cabochons of emerald, garnet, pearl, and amethyst, 4th century CE, from Libya now in the collections of the Dumbarton Oaks Museum in Washington D.C. Image courtesy of Allen Gluck. Purchased from a private collector in 1977

Gold Roman necklace fragments with cabochons of emerald, garnet, pearl, and amethyst, 4th century CE, from Libya now in the collections of the Dumbarton Oaks Museum in Washington D.C. Image courtesy of Allen Gluck. Purchased from a private collector in 1977

Gold Roman necklace fragments with cabochons of emerald, garnet, pearl, and amethyst, 4th century CE, from Libya now in the collections of the Dumbarton Oaks Museum in Washington D.C. Image courtesy of Allen Gluck. Purchased from a private collector in 1977

Gold Roman necklace fragments with cabochons of emerald, garnet, pearl, and amethyst, 4th century CE, from Libya now in the collections of the Dumbarton Oaks Museum in Washington D.C. Image courtesy of Allen Gluck. Purchased from a private collector in 1977

Gold Roman necklace fragments with cabochons of emerald, garnet, pearl, and amethyst, 4th century CE, from Libya now in the collections of the Dumbarton Oaks Museum in Washington D.C. Image courtesy of Allen Gluck. Purchased from a private collector in 1977

Gold Roman necklace fragments with cabochons of emerald, garnet, pearl, and amethyst, 4th century CE, from Libya now in the collections of the Dumbarton Oaks Museum in Washington D.C. Image courtesy of Allen Gluck. Purchased from a private collector in 1977

Gold Roman necklace fragments with cabochons of emerald, garnet, pearl, and amethyst, 4th century CE, from Libya now in the collections of the Dumbarton Oaks Museum in Washington D.C. Image courtesy of Allen Gluck. Purchased from a private collector in 1977

Gold Roman necklace fragments with cabochons of emerald, garnet, pearl, and amethyst, 4th century CE, from Libya now in the collections of the Dumbarton Oaks Museum in Washington D.C. Image courtesy of Allen Gluck. Purchased from a private collector in 1977

Gold Roman necklace fragments with cabochons of emerald, garnet, pearl, and amethyst, 4th century CE, from Libya now in the collections of the Dumbarton Oaks Museum in Washington D.C. Image courtesy of Allen Gluck. Purchased from a private collector in 1977

The museum's description: "Certain late antique images of well-dressed women depict them wearing a necklace in the shape of a broad collar, as in the early fourth-century mosaics from Piazza Armerina in Sicily. Surviving examples of such necklaces are exceedingly rare, so these three fragments, probably once part of such a necklace, are precious specimens indeed. In this case, there may have been eighteen or twenty sections, each combining four pierced-work rectangles into a gradually flaring trapezoid. Each section includes a cabochon set first with an emerald at the top, followed by a pearl, another emerald, and finally an oval amethyst. The goldsmith reinforced the trapezoid from behind with gold straps (visible wherever a stone is missing) and then gave the piece depth by attaching it to a lower trapezoid by the use of struts of fine braided wire. The small garnet at the top right corner of the most complete piece is set in a goblet-shaped piece that may have been used to hinge the sections together."

"I asked Bard (now called Gemini) "How did ancient Roman jewelry design of the 4th century CE differ from Roman jewelry produced in earlier centuries?"

Roman jewelry design in the 4th century CE did show some distinct differences from earlier centuries, reflecting cultural, political, and economic changes within the empire. Here are some key points:

Materials and Techniques:

Increased use of gemstones: While Romans always loved gem-encrusted pieces, the 4th century saw a rise in the quantity and variety of gemstones used. This stemmed from increased trade with the East, making stones like emeralds, sapphires, and rubies more accessible.

Emphasis on color: Jewelers played with color combinations more, using contrasting stones and colored glass to create vibrant pieces.

More complex techniques: Granulation (tiny metal beads soldered onto the surface) and millefiori (fused glass rods creating patterned layers) became popular, showcasing sophisticated craftsmanship.

Styles and Motifs:

Christian symbolism: With the rise of Christianity as the official religion, Christian symbols like crosses, doves, and fish started appearing in jewelry.

Byzantine influence: As the empire split into Eastern and Western halves, Eastern influence grew stronger in the Western Empire, leading to more intricate and detailed designs.

Shifting popularity: Certain styles faded and others came into vogue. Cameo pendants, popular in earlier centuries, declined, while snake bracelets and gemstone-studded finger rings gained favor.

Social Implications:

Continued emphasis on status: Jewelry remained a way to display wealth and social standing, but with growing Christian values, moderation and simplicity became more prominent.

Gender differences: Styles remained broadly similar across genders, but men started wearing more jewelry, particularly rings and signets.

Important to note:

These are general trends, and individual pieces could diverge significantly. Regional variations existed within the vast empire.

Jewelry styles evolved gradually, making clear-cut distinctions between centuries challenging."

If you enjoyed this post, never miss out on future posts by following me by email!

Fishing as a symbolic act of capture in Roman mosaics

Today's artwork is a mosaic depicting three erotes collaboratively fishing with a net. It was originally discovered in the House of Menander in Pompeii in front of a fountain. It is now installed in the Dumbarton Oaks Museum in Washington D.C. My good friend Allan Gluck photographed the mosaic in situ there but I have also included detail images provided by the museum for closer inspection.

Roman floor mosaic depicting erotes fishing (symbolically for love?) found in the House of Menander in Pompeii, now on display at the Dumbarton Oaks Museum in Washington D.C. Photograph by Allan Gluck.

Roman floor mosaic depicting erotes fishing (symbolically for love?) found in the House of Menander in Pompeii, now on display at the Dumbarton Oaks Museum in Washington D.C. Research photography by Neil Greentree

Roman floor mosaic depicting erotes fishing (symbolically for love?) found in the House of Menander in Pompeii, now on display at the Dumbarton Oaks Museum in Washington D.C. Research photography by Neil Greentree

Roman floor mosaic depicting erotes fishing (symbolically for love?) found in the House of Menander in Pompeii, now on display at the Dumbarton Oaks Museum in Washington D.C. Research photography by Neil Greentree

Roman floor mosaic depicting erotes fishing (symbolically for love?) found in the House of Menander in Pompeii, now on display at the Dumbarton Oaks Museum in Washington D.C. Research photography by Neil Greentree

Roman floor mosaic depicting erotes fishing (symbolically for love?) found in the House of Menander in Pompeii, now on display at the Dumbarton Oaks Museum in Washington D.C. Research photography by Neil Greentree

I asked Bard about possible symbolism of the imagery and found its answers quite interesting:

"There isn't a single, definitive meaning tied to the portrayal of Erotes fishing in ancient Rome. However, based on the context and the nature of Erotes themselves, we can consider multiple possible interpretations:

1. Love as Capture:

Fishing is an act of capture, and Erotes, companions of the god of love, could be seen as metaphorically "fishing" for hearts or capturing love interests. This aligns with their playful and mischievous nature, using their charms to ensnare unsuspecting individuals.

2. Love as a Game:

Fishing can be seen as a recreational activity and a game of skill. By depicting Erotes fishing, the Romans might be suggesting that love, while powerful, is also playful and involves a kind of strategic "game" where both parties participate.

3. Unexpectedness of Love:

Just like fish are unpredictable and surprise the angler, love can also strike unexpectedly and catch individuals off guard. This resonates with the unpredictable and impulsive nature of love associated with Erotes.

4. Abundance of Love:

A bountiful catch often symbolizes abundance and prosperity. By showing Erotes with a full net or basket of fish, the Romans could be expressing the idea that love is plentiful and readily available to those who seek it.

5. Specific Target of Love:

Sometimes, depictions of Erotes fishing might show them targeting specific types of fish. In these cases, the type of fish could carry symbolic meaning related to the desired type of love or the intended object of affection.

It's important to remember that these are just possible interpretations, and the specific meaning might vary depending on the individual artwork, and its context.

Bard then asked me for more information to expand on the work's interpretation:

"What kind of fish is Erotes catching? Different types of fish carry different symbolic meanings in Roman culture. For example, dolphins were associated with love and pleasure, while tuna symbolized strength and fertility.

"What tools and techniques is Erotes using? Is he using a net, a spear, or a line? Each method might suggest different aspects of love, like seduction, conquest, or patience.

"Is Erotes alone, or are there other figures present? If there are other figures, their identities and interactions with Erotes could offer clues about the target and meaning of his "fishing."

"Where is the mosaic located within the House of Menander? Its placement might inform its intended message and audience."

I then told Bard the species of fish depicted include mullet, dolphin shrimp, and cuttlefish. Bard replied:

"The inclusion of specific fish species adds another exciting layer to interpreting the symbolism in the mosaic! Here's how the different fish might contribute to the overall meaning:

Mullet:

In Roman culture, mullet was often associated with luxury, indulgence, and even Aphrodite, the goddess of love. Its presence could symbolize the pleasurable and desirable aspects of love, or the idea that love can lead to a life of abundance and enjoyment.

Dolphin:

Dolphins were highly symbolic in Roman culture, representing joy, love, playfulness, and even protection. Its inclusion could emphasize the joyful and playful nature of love, or suggest that love offers safety and security.

Shrimp:

While less common in symbolic interpretations, shrimp could represent abundance, fertility, or even hidden desires due to their association with the sea and their small, numerous nature. It might add a layer of complexity to the portrayal of love, suggesting its unexpectedness or hidden depths.

Cuttlefish:

Cuttlefish were known for their ability to change color and camouflage themselves. In the context of love, this could symbolize the transformative power of love, the ability to adapt and change, or even the deceptive nature of love.

Considering Together:

The combination of these fish species paints a multifaceted picture of love. It encompasses pleasure, joy, abundance, transformation, and potentially even hidden desires or complexities."

I also explained three erotes were using a net and it offered additional possible meanings:

"Number Three:

In Roman and Greek mythology, the number three often held symbolic significance. It could represent completion, harmony, or divine intervention. Three Erotes working together might emphasize the power and inevitability of love, or suggest different aspects of love working in concert.

Collaboration in Love:

Unlike the solitary hunter image often associated with love, the depiction of three Erotes collaborating could suggest that love involves teamwork, cooperation, and potentially even competition. Perhaps they represent different stages of love working together to capture hearts.

Targeted Effort:

While a single Erotes might cast a wide net, three working together could target a specific individual or group, suggesting a more focused and strategic approach to capturing love. Analyzing the surrounding context might reveal who or what their target might be.

Division of Roles:

It's interesting to consider if the three Erotes have individual roles in the fishing process. Does one hold the net, another lure the fish, and the third capture them? Such divisions could symbolize different aspects of love working together, like attraction, persuasion, and commitment.

Net as Metaphor:

The net can represent various aspects of love in this context. It could symbolize the entanglement of falling in love, the trapping of hearts, or the capture of desired individuals.

The net might also imply a collective effort or strategic approach to capturing love, as opposed to individual pursuit.

Shared Effort:

Three Erotes using a net together emphasize the collaborative nature of love. It suggests that love often involves multiple forces working in concert, like attraction, persuasion, and opportunity.

This portrayal could also imply the abundance of love and its inevitability. With three figures and a net, they seem well-equipped to capture many hearts."

I then pointed out that one erote is in a boat while the other two are standing on land. Bard replied with:

"That's another interesting detail that adds to the symbolism of the mosaic! Here are some potential interpretations based on the different positions of the Erotes:

Division of Roles:

The Erote in the boat could represent the active pursuit of love, venturing out and taking initiative. The two on land might symbolize the attraction and receptivity that draw love in, creating a space for it to flourish.

Alternatively, the Erotes on land could represent the preparation and foundation necessary for love, while the one in the boat embodies the culmination or expression of love.

Stages of Love:

The positions could depict different stages of love - the initial spark (Erotes on land), the pursuit and commitment (Erote in the boat), and finally, the shared experience and enjoyment (all Erotes together).

Social Context:

Perhaps the Erote in the boat represents a specific individual actively seeking love, while the two on land symbolize the broader societal context or potential partners waiting to be discovered."

Lastly, I pointed out that the mosaic was found in front of a fountain in a courtyard of the House of Menander in Pompeii.

Bard explained how even the position of the mosaic possibly carries further meaning:

"The placement of the mosaic in front of a fountain adds another intriguing layer to interpreting its meaning! Fountains in Roman culture often held symbolic significance, associated with:

Love and desire: Water itself was often seen as a symbol of love and desire, and fountains provided a source of life and refreshment. This connection strengthens the overall theme of love depicted in the mosaic.

Fertility and abundance: Flowing water symbolized fertility and abundance, aligning with the potential interpretations of the fish species and the collaborative effort of the Erotes.

Purification and renewal: Fountains were sometimes used for ritualistic cleansing, suggesting that love could represent a transformative or purifying experience.

Gathering place and social interaction: Fountains were often central gathering places, and the mosaic's location might imply that love thrives in social settings and communities.

Considering these symbolic associations, here are some possible interpretations of how the fountain placement impacts the meaning of the mosaic:

Love as a source of life and desire: The Erotes fishing near the fountain emphasizes the life-giving and desirable nature of love, drawing parallels between water and love's power to sustain and refresh.

Love as a promise of abundance and fertility: The fish species and the collaborative effort gain further meaning in the context of the fountain, symbolizing the potential for love to bring forth abundance and growth.

Love as a transformative experience: The fountain's association with purification adds another dimension to the portrayal of love, suggesting that love can bring about positive change and renewal.

Love as a social phenomenon: The location of the mosaic encourages viewers to consider love within the context of social interaction and community, highlighting its role in bringing people together."

If you enjoyed this post, never miss out on future posts by following me by email!

The precarious existence of Constantine I's family members

These Roman treasures, solid gold medallions dated between 370-390 CE (I'm a little dubious about the dating as both of these sons of Constantine were already dead and had been subjected to damnatio memoriae before those dates), from the collections of the Dumbarton Oaks Museum in Washington D.C. photographed by my good friend, Allan Gluck represent the precarious existence of members of Constantine I's family.

Gold medallions celebrating the consulships of Constantine's sons Crispus and Constantine II dated from 370-390 CE photographed at the Dumbarton Oaks Museum in Washington D.C. by Allan Gluck.

Gold medallions celebrating the consulships of Constantine's sons Crispus and Constantine II dated from 370-390 CE photographed at the Dumbarton Oaks Museum in Washington D.C. by Allan Gluck.

Gold medallions celebrating the consulships of Constantine's sons Crispus and Constantine II dated from 370-390 CE photographed at the Dumbarton Oaks Museum in Washington D.C. by Allan Gluck.

Gold medallions celebrating the consulships of Constantine's sons Crispus and Constantine II dated from 370-390 CE photographed at the Dumbarton Oaks Museum in Washington D.C. by Allan Gluck.

Gold medallions celebrating the consulships of Constantine's sons Crispus and Constantine II dated from 370-390 CE photographed at the Dumbarton Oaks Museum in Washington D.C. by Allan Gluck.

Gold medallions celebrating the consulships of Constantine's sons Crispus and Constantine II dated from 370-390 CE photographed at the Dumbarton Oaks Museum in Washington D.C. by Allan Gluck.

Gold medallions celebrating the consulships of Constantine's sons Crispus and Constantine II dated from 370-390 CE photographed at the Dumbarton Oaks Museum in Washington D.C. by Allan Gluck.

Gold medallions celebrating the consulships of Constantine's sons Crispus and Constantine II dated from 370-390 CE photographed at the Dumbarton Oaks Museum in Washington D.C. by Allan Gluck.

Gold medallions celebrating the consulships of Constantine's sons Crispus and Constantine II dated from 370-390 CE photographed at the Dumbarton Oaks Museum in Washington D.C. by Allan Gluck.

Gold medallions celebrating the consulships of Constantine's sons Crispus and Constantine II dated from 370-390 CE photographed at the Dumbarton Oaks Museum in Washington D.C. by Allan Gluck.

Gold medallions celebrating the consulships of Constantine's sons Crispus and Constantine II dated from 370-390 CE photographed at the Dumbarton Oaks Museum in Washington D.C. by Allan Gluck.

Gold medallions celebrating the consulships of Constantine's sons Crispus and Constantine II dated from 370-390 CE photographed at the Dumbarton Oaks Museum in Washington D.C. by Allan Gluck.

Gold medallions celebrating the consulships of Constantine's sons Crispus and Constantine II dated from 370-390 CE photographed at the Dumbarton Oaks Museum in Washington D.C. by Allan Gluck.

Gold medallions celebrating the consulships of Constantine's sons Crispus and Constantine II dated from 370-390 CE photographed at the Dumbarton Oaks Museum in Washington D.C. by Allan Gluck.

The museum's curator observes: The consummate skill used to create these pendants place them among the most highly accomplished examples of gold jewelry from the early Byzantine period. The elaborate frames around the imperial medallions combines two techniques: chisel cutting of sheet gold masterfully worked to create lacelike tendrils, scrolls, and geometric designs; and hollow, three-dimensional heads formed by working the gold from both the interior and the exterior. The contrast of flat, silhouette patterns and heads in the round produces a dynamic counterpoint rarely seen in jewelry of this period.

The medallions show the emperor Constantine wearing a crown of rays—an attribute of Apollo—while his sons Crispus and Constantine II are in consular robes on the reverse, co-celebrating their third consulate in 324 on the round pendant while the similarly designed, although hexagonal, pendant celebrates the second consulate in 321 of these same imperial sons. In mint condition, these medallions were never put into circulation; they were framed so that both sides are visible, allowing all the imperial portraits to be seen. Despite their different shapes, the shared techniques, style, and decorative schemes confirm that these pendants were made as part of a set. Three additional pendants belong to this set judged by medallion type, techniques, designs, and superb execution: a circular pendant (Musée du Louvre, Paris); a hexagonal pendant (British Museum, London); and a slightly larger octagonal pendant (Cleveland Museum of Art).

The curator speculates these pendants may have been an award from an emperor to an outstanding general or high ranking official, although their exact function is not certain.

These pieces were purchased from a Christie's auction in 1970.

Sadly, both of these sons suffered tragic fates.

Crispus, Constantine's eldest son, was initially seen as the heir apparent. He showed military prowess and held high positions within the Empire.

However, in 326, at the age of 28, Crispus was executed on Constantine's orders. The exact reason remains unclear, with various theories including:

False accusations: One theory suggests his stepmother, Fausta, falsely accused him of adultery to eliminate him as a rival for her own sons.

Palace intrigue: Others propose political conspiracies or power struggles within the family played a role.

Dynastic concerns: Some historians believe Constantine saw Crispus as a threat to his rule and took a ruthless step to secure his lineage.

Regardless of the reason, the execution was swift and brutal, followed by an act of "damnatio memoriae," erasing Crispus's name and achievements from official records.

Constantine II, born to Constantine and Fausta, was much younger than Crispus. He received titles and positions throughout his childhood, suggesting favor from his father.

Following Crispus's death, Constantine II gained further prominence, becoming Caesar and later co-emperor alongside his brothers.

However, Constantine II complained that he had not received the amount of territory that was his due as the eldest son. Annoyed that Constans had received Thrace and Macedonia after the death of Dalmatius (murdered in the purge of Constantine I's male relatives after his death), Constantine II demanded that Constans hand over the African provinces, to which he agreed in order to maintain a fragile peace. Soon, however, they began quarreling over which parts of the African provinces belonged to Carthage, and thus Constantine, and which belonged to Italy, and therefore Constans. Even after campaigning against the Alamanni in 338, Constantine II continued to maintain his position. The Codex Theodosianus recorded Constantine’s legislative intervention in Constans’ territory through issuing an edict to the proconsul of Africa in 339.

In 340 Constantine II marched into Italy at the head of his troops to claim territory from Constans. Constans, at that time in Naissus, detached and sent a select and disciplined body of his Illyrian troops, stating that he would follow them in person with the remainder of his forces. Constantine II was then killed by Constans's generals in an ambush outside Aquileia. Constans then took control of his deceased brother's realm and his brother, like Crispus before him was subjected to damnatio memoriae." Update 2/11/2024: The museum estimates the pendants have been produced between 370 and 390 CE, decades after both men were subjected to damnatio memoriae. I asked ChatGPT about it (I have Gemini working on an extensive conversation about Ptolemaic relations with southern India at the moment) pointing out that such pieces would have been commissioned by wealthy clients who would have been well aware of possible political ramifications of displaying such works.

"The specific context that these gold pendants celebrated Crispus and Constantine II, both of whom faced tragic fates, adds an additional layer of complexity to their production. Given this information, a few specific considerations may help explain why such pendants were created for wealthy clients aware of the political consequences:

"Selective Memory: The damnatio memoriae imposed on Crispus and Constantine II may not have been uniformly accepted or adhered to by all individuals, even within the ruling class. Some wealthy clients might have chosen to selectively remember and celebrate the achievements of these individuals, focusing on their campaigns in Africa and downplaying or ignoring the subsequent events leading to their deaths.

"Dynastic Loyalty: The clients who commissioned these pendants might have had personal or familial ties to Crispus or Constantine II. Loyalty to a particular branch of the imperial family could override political considerations, leading individuals to commemorate these figures despite their controversial fates.

"Political Complexity: The political landscape during the era of Constantine I and his sons was marked by power struggles and conflicts within the imperial family. Wealthy clients might have supported different factions or individuals within the family, contributing to the diverse responses and commemorations.

"Symbolic Resilience: The production of these pendants could signify a symbolic resilience against the tragedies that befell Crispus and Constantine II. The act of commissioning such items may have been a way for wealthy clients to express their belief in the positive aspects of these rulers' legacies, particularly their campaigns in Africa.

"Cultural and Artistic Value: Beyond political considerations, the cultural and artistic value of these pendants might have played a significant role. Wealthy patrons could have seen them as unique and aesthetically valuable pieces, and their historical significance may have been secondary to their artistic appeal.

"In summary, the production of gold pendants celebrating Crispus and Constantine II in the face of damnatio memoriae suggests a nuanced interplay of political, familial, and cultural factors among the wealthy patrons involved. The complexities of the historical context likely contributed to varying responses and commemorations of these individuals despite the controversial circumstances surrounding their lives and deaths." - ChatGPT

If you enjoyed this post, never miss out on future posts by following me by email!