The naming of the Saxon Shore with its associated fortifications is an example of how archaeology is ignored when it does not fit the historical framework. My first 'own' dig was in one of these forts during the autumn of 1968, when I was a mere lad and chosen for that very reason so as to not scare the landowning farmer into worrying about the site becoming 'protected'. How the Romans needed massive walls against 'barbarian' sea-raiders puzzled me then and such major features puzzle historians still.
The nine British Saxon Shore forts in the Notitia Dignitatum.
This source is usually considered to be up to date for the Western empire in the 420s.
The term 'Saxon Shore' comes directly from the Roman document in which it is first mentioned, the Notitia Dignitatum dated to the fifth century, which lists the names of the Saxon Shore forts from Norfolk to Hampshire that were under the command of the Count of the Saxon Shore for Britain (Latin: comes litoris Saxonici per Britanniam).
The post was created possibly during the reign of Constantine I and was probably existent by 367, when a series of invasions from Picts, Franks, Saxons, Scots and Attacotti appears to have defeated the army of Britain and resulted in the death of Nectaridus, the then office holder. This attack is known as the Great Conspiracy, a year-long war described by Ammianus Marcellinus as a barbarica conspiratio that capitalised on a depleted military force in the province brought about by Magnentius' losses of the Battle of Mursa Major after his unsuccessful bid to become emperor.
Further stations up the North Sea coast were probably also the responsibility of the Count. Forces he controlled were classified as limitanei, or frontier troops. By the end of the fourth century the role of Count had been diminished and Gaul had its own dux tractus Amoricani and dux Belgicae Secundae.
The complete fortification system of the Saxon Shore extended on both sides of the Channel.
The term 'Saxon Shore' is therefore of the late 4th century, referring to the system of defence and the office holder. Historians, though, use the term to refer to the individual fortifications, as in Saxon Shore forts. The nine forts mentioned in the Notitia Dignitatum for Britain, listed from north to south, with their garrisons:
Branodunum (Brancaster, Norfolk). One of the earliest forts, dated to the 230s, built to guard the Wash approaches and is of a typical rectangular castrum layout. 1 It was garrisoned by the Equites Dalmatae Brandodunenses, although evidence exists suggesting that its original garrison was the cohors I Aquitanorum. 2
Gariannonum (Burgh Castle, Norfolk). Established between 260 and the mid-270s to guard the River Yare (Gariannus Fluvius), it was garrisoned by the Equites Stablesiani Gariannoneses.
Othona (Bradwell-on-Sea, Essex). Garrisoned by the Numerus Fortensium. 3
Regulbium (Reculver, Kent). Together with Brancaster one of the earliest forts, built in the 210s to guard the Thames estuary, it is likewise a castrum. 4 It was garrisoned by the cohors I Baetasiorum since the 3rd century.
Rutupiae (Richborough, Kent), garrisoned by parts of the Legio II Augusta.
Dubris (Dover Castle, Kent), garrisoned by the Milites Tungrecani.
Portus Lemanis (Lympne, Kent), garrisoned by the Numerus Turnacensium.
Anderitum (Pevensey Castle, East Sussex), garrisoned by the Numerus Abulcorum.
Portus Adurni (Portchester Castle, Hampshire), garrisoned by a Numerus Exploratorum.
These garrisons are those referred to in the Notitia Dignitatum – and therefore do not refer to whatever units were stationed in the forts before the late fourth century.
Some of these units, such as the Numerus Fortensium ("The Company of Brave Men") at Othona, are known to us through the Notitia Dignitatum only and therefore it cannot be assumed that these same units were the garrison units in earlier times. The archaeological evidence found by this writer at Othona was for Syrian cavalry.
At the time the earlier forts were built, their garrisons are typical of the units stationed in Britain.
The Equites Dalmatae Branodunenses, Branoduno (Brancaster) + cohors Prima Aquitanorum and the Equites Stablesiani Gariannonenses, Gariannonor. (Burgh Castle)
Units of Dalmatian cavalry were, we are specifically told by the Byzantine writer Cedrenus (Bonn edition I, 454) first raised by Gallienus (260-68). They also played a distinguished part in Claudius’ wars against the Goths (S.H.A. Claudius 11.19). A unit of Dalmatian cavalry could therefore have come to Britain at any time after the recovery of the island with the rest of the Gallic Empire on the defeat of Tetricus in 274 but not before. This might be thought to cause difficulties for those who, like the present writer, would see in Brancaster a fort that is typologically among the earliest of the Shore forts, with rounded corners, internal bank, and no external bastions. This difficulty is, however, resolved by the recent find of a tile stamp of Cohors I Aquitanorum just outside the Shore fort, since this unit can now be regarded as the original garrison (Britannia 6 (1975), ‘Roman Britain in 1974’, part II, inscriptions no. 25). Cohors I Aquitanorum has been previously attested at Carrawburgh on Hadrian’s Wall under Hadrian (RIB 1550), and at Brough-on-Noe under Antoninus Pius (RIB 283), and there is no evidence as yet that it was ever stationed at a site in the Wall hinterland with easy access to the east coast. The point is important because it is just conceivable that the tile came to Brancaster as ship’s ballast in the same way that a tile of Legio VI Victrix P.F. found at Gayton Thorpe, Norfolk, must almost certainly have come from York (JRS 47 (1957), 233). Professor J M C Toynbee (1962) has linked the Dalmatian cavalry at Brancaster with parts of two fine cavalry helmets found in the river Wensum which she dates stylistically to the 3rd century, a date which receives support from the recent study by Russell Robinson of Roman armour (1975).
- The historical background and military units of the Saxon Shore by M W C Hassall
Units are drawn from across the empire, as had become the norm, to avoid a conflict of local loyalties.
At Regulbium (Reculver), the '1st Cohort of Baetasians, citizens of Rome', is an auxiliary Cohort of 500 Infantry recruited from the Baetasii who occupied the Rhineland near the Legionary fortress of Neuss. At around 139, they garrisoned the fort at Old Kilpatrick, being moved to Maryport at around 160. Their last known base was that of Reculver, shown in the Notitia Dignitatum. They are also attested at Manchester, with no certain date.
The building of forts in the early and mid-third century rules out completely all of the main hypotheses for their origin:
a shore attacked by Saxons;
a shore settled by Saxons;
to guard against an attempt at reconquest by the empire during the Carausian Revolt) in 289-296.
The system of defence that we see in the late-fourth century used components of earlier times which are in no manner associated with Saxons. Reculver for example, built ca. 210, predates all these threats by a very wide margin. The term 'Saxon Shore fort' is therefore applicable only to the system of defence of that late period and should not be used to describe the original purpose of all the fortifications.
The Wash-Solent limes – the Roman name if a name existed is unknown – is a unified system performing the same duty as the limes of Hadrian and Antoninus Pius in the north, with the coast itself serving the same function as a wall. Roman limes are frontier barriers and not solely, or even primarily – defensive.
Because the garrisoned troops controlled the wall completely, the control of the influx of provincials and trade with those beyond the wall could continue without difficulty from the tribes north or south of the wall. It obviously functioned as a permanent border and was designated the immovable border of the Roman Empire.
The large forts, no matter the size and shape, all contained certain structures that reinforced their Roman nature. They helped with the Romanization of the Britons by bringing peace and trade to the north, bringing religions from the Roman world, and synthesizing the gods of the Britons and Rome. In addition these forts imposed the Roman militaristic administration.
Other Romanization that the wall brought was the increase in trade within the province and production of Roman goods. With the incursions from the north halted, Roman traders could move more freely through the province, and the Britons began to create Roman goods for trade within the province and trade with other provinces. The Britons had access to Roman amenities that surrounded the forts, such as the baths, brothels, drink shops, and food shops.
- Hadrian's Wall: Romanization on Rome's Northern Frontier by Joshua P. Haskett (December 2009)
Sea trade along the coast of Roman Britain was an important economic activity. 5 Goods from continental Europe were imported and shipped north. British produce was shipped south.
The military campaigns in the north 6 during the early-third century made huge logistical demands, met largely by sea transport along the east coast.
Remains of Reculver Church viewed from the west, September 2005
A church was built on the same site as the Roman fort in about 669, when King Ecgberht of Kent granted land for the foundation of a monastery there.
The remains of the fort, the Saxon church and the twin towers are a Scheduled Ancient Monument run by English Heritage.
The founding date of Reculver (early third century) matches the campaigns of Severus and his son, Caracalla.
Eboracum (York) became a thriving port, handling olive oil, wine, red Samian ware from Gaul, fine tableware from Germany and supplies of grain, pottery and horses for the army. Roman tombstones show the cosmopolitan nature of the city with merchants from Gaul, Sardinia and elsewhere. Emperor Septimius Severus visited Eboracum in 211 and made it his base for campaigning in Scotland. Around 200, it had been made the capital of Britannia Inferior (Upper Britain) – and therefore seat of the governor or praeses – when Britain had been divided into two provinces; and it was probably during Severus' time in the city that York was given the status of a Colonia.
The fort of Reculver stood directly at the northern entrance of the mile-wide Wantsum Channel, which separated Thanet island from the mainland. The Channel was a favoured passage for shipping, and the fort was built to both control it and act as a navigational marker. The fort itself was a typical castrum, square-shaped with rounded corners. The single rampart was 10 feet (3 m) thick at the base and tapering to 8 feet (2.5m) at the top, with a height of probably 20 feet (6 m). It was additionally strengthened by an earthen rampart in the interior, and surrounded by two external ditches.
The Reculver Inscription, recording the building of the principia of the fort.
Found in 1960 by A. O. Lewington of the Reculver Excavation Group, in the cellared strongroom of the principia,
the inscription must have been placed on the wall of the sacellum above.
Left: Remains of the rampart of Regulbium. The typical Roman mixture of stone and bricks is evident.
About three-quarters of the Reculver Inscription are recovered, in 11 fragments and a reconstruction with translation was made by the late Professor Sir Alan Richmond 7.
It seems that the shrine of the standards (AEDEM) of the headquarters (PRINCIPIORVM) together with (CVM) the crosshall (BASILICA) were built under (SVB) the consular governor (COS), A. TRIARIVS RVFINVS. The work was carried out by FORTVNATVS who was probably the commander of the fort. Triarius Rufinus was consul at Rome in AD 210 and Professor Richmond suggested that he probably became governor of Britain in about 210-216.
This dating coincides with other archaeological evidence 8.
The Q. ARADIVS RVFINVS has been identified by R.P. Harper 9 as Quintus Aradius Rufinus, the consular governor of the inscription, in office in the mid 220s.
Professor Richmond also added about the inscription:
"epigraphically, its importance lies in the fact that this is the first time the inscribed phrase aedes principiorum can be applied to and identified with the official shrine of the headquarters buildings, hitherto unmentioned in any inscription. It is also the first certain instance of the application of the name basilica to a military crosshall, although the resemblance between these buildings and a civil basilica has often been stressed." So, too, does it add another name (RVFINVS) "to the meagre list of third century consular governors."
Another Rufinus – Aulus Triarius Rufinus – held the consulship in 210. Rufinus was a Roman name given to several figures:
- Rufinus a governor of Roman Britain in the early 3rd century who may be the same man as one of the two consuls.
- Rufinus a chief minister for two Eastern Roman emperors, Theodosius I and Arcadius in the late 4th century.
- Tyrannius Rufinus, a monk of the later 4th century
- Saints Rufinus, eleven saints named Rufinus in Roman Martyrology, including -
- Rufinus of Assisi, 3rd century and first (legendary) bishop of Assisi and martyr. His remains were put to rest in a Roman sarcophagus. The front is sculpted in low relief with the myth of Selene and Endymion. It is now located under the main altar of the Cathedral of San Rufino, which is the third church to have been erected over his remains.
Main altar with tomb of S. Rufino; Cathedral of San Rufino, Assisi, Italy.
By itself, the appearance of a Rufinus is this inscription may not be taken to mean very much, however, he fits neatly into the pattern we at History Hunters International are establishing for elite Romans who (a) also spend part of their public service in Britain, and (b) appear in Christian tradition: Aulus Pudens in the Chichester inscription being another.
In describing how statues were made and used in the first centuries of this era, we have been using terms such as resurrection, Greek magic and ritual, and related them to the Antinous cult of Hadrian and the concept of the messiah.
Pygmalion and Galatea, oil on canvas by François Boucher (1703 – 1770)
In Book X of the Metamorphoses by Ovid (43 BCE – 17 or 18 CE), Pygmalion is the king of Cyprus who carved a woman out of ivory, fell in love with its beauty and through a kiss, brought the statue to life. This basic plot has been reworked in various media down through the ages and as a Transformational myth, may be compared to both Hadrian and Antinous, and to the Hadrianic creation of Jesus Christ.
Left: Bust of Antinous From Patras, (National Archaeological Museum of Athens). In October 130, according to Hadrian, cited by Dio Cassius 1, "Antinous was drowned in the Nilus" – on the day and in the place Egyptians believed Osiris was drowned (before being resurrected).
On the third day, Hadrian recovered the body of his catamite and as Pontifrex Maximus (high priest of the College of Pontiffs), made a blessing and declared him to be divine.
In Ovid's story, Pygmalion is a sculptor who is not interested in women. He kissed his ivory statue and thought the kisses were returned. He talked to it with words of love, and brought to it the kind of gifts that are thought would please, such as shells and pebbles, little birds, and flowers of all colours. Besides all this, he also draped it with robes, put rings upon its fingers, and a necklace around her neck. By night, Pygmalion put the statue on a bed, called it the consort of his bed, and rested its head upon soft pillows.
He knows 'tis madness, yet he must adore,
And still the more he knows it, loves the more:
The flesh, or what so seems, he touches oft,
Which feels so smooth, that he believes it soft.
Pygmalion and Hadrian both find women sexually loathsome, but love their own, divine creations.
We at History Hunters International are studying the divine men of Classical Antiquity, from Buddha and Khrshna to Alexander the god, Apollonius of Tyana and Pythagoras, to Jesus Christ. Though some of them may have an historiographical existence in earlier times, in the late-first and early-second centuries of this era and especially in the Alexandrian cities of the panhellenic world, these figures of ancient cultural heritage were resurrected in divine form.
Statues were made and through the appeal of magic ritual, divine intervention was sought to resurrect the dead. In the minds of those wizards, or the beholders of such statues, at least, these statues now contained the animus of the dead – and were now divine in themselves.
The Argonauts Castor and Pollux capture Talos, the bronze giant who guarded the island of Crete.
Red-figured vase, 5th cent. BCE from Apulia (Museo Jatta in Ruvo di Puglia)
The story of the breath of life in a statue has parallels in the examples of Daedalus, who used quicksilver to install a voice in his statues; of Hephaestus, who created automata for his workshop; of Talos, an artificial man of bronze; and, according to Hesiod, Pandora, who was made from clay at the behest of Zeus.
The discovery of the Antikythera mechanism suggests that such rumoured animated statues had some grounding in contemporary mechanical technology. The island of Rhodes was particularly known for its displays of mechanical engineering and automata – Pindar, one of the nine lyric poets of ancient Greece, said this of Rhodes in his seventh Olympic Ode:
The animated figures stand
Adorning every public street
And seem to breathe in stone, or
move their marble feet.
The roots of the Pygmalion tale run deep.
Priests of Anubis, The guide of the dead and the god of tombs and embalming, perform the "Opening of the Mouth" ritual
The Opening of the mouth ritual was an ancient Egyptian ritual described in funerary texts such as the Pyramid Texts. The ritual involved the symbolic animation of a statue or mummy by magically opening its mouth so that it could breathe and speak. There is evidence of this ritual from the Old Kingdom to the Roman Period.
Ancient Egyptians believed that ritual existed which would bring sensory life back to the deceased’s form, enabling it to see, smell, breathe, hear, and eat, and thus partake of the offering foods and drinks brought to the tomb each day. Priests would recite hymns such as this one, for Pa-nefer:
Awake!..May you be alert as a living one, rejuvenated every day, healthy in millions of occasions of god sleep, while the gods protect you, protection being around you every day.
Temple of Dendur commissioned by Emperor Augustus and built by the Roman governor of Egypt, Petronius, around 15 BCE.
Dedicated to Isis, Osiris, as well as two deified sons of a local Nubian chieftain, Pediese ("he whom Isis has given") and Pihor ("he who belongs to Horus"). 2
Under Augustus, “deification by drowning” had provided the rationale for the native hero cults at the temple of Dendur, but Hadrian’s Egyptianising cult of Antinous was extended throughout the empire. The receipt by Antinous of traditional rituals (“opening the mouth") was recorded in hieroglyphs on the last commissioned obelisk, thereafter erected in Rome 3.
Dieter Arnold, Temples of the Last Pharaohs. Oxford University Press. pp. 244. (1999) ↩
M. W. Daly, Carl F. Petry, The Cambridge History of Egypt: Islamic Egypt, 640-1517. Volume 1 of The Cambridge History of Egypt, Cambridge University Press, 1998 ↩
The Zodiac of Dendera, Ptolemaic Period, reign of Cleopatra VII, 50 BCE. Temple of Hathor at Dendera, Bas-relief, sandstone (Louvre, France)
This sandstone slab comes from the domain dedicated to the goddesses Hathor and Isis at Dendera. It was part of the ceiling of one of the chapels where the resurrection of Osiris was commemorated, on the roof of the great Temple of Hathor. The vault of heaven is represented by a disc, held up by four women assisted by falcon-headed spirits. Thirty-six spirits or "decans" around the circumference symbolize the 360 days of the Egyptian year. The constellations shown inside the circle include the signs of the zodiac, most of which are represented almost as they are today. Aries, Taurus, Scorpio, and Capricorn, for example, are easily recognizable, whereas others correspond to a more Egyptian iconography: Aquarius is represented as Hapy, the god of the Nile flood [and point of entry for Antinous into the pantheon of Panhellenic deities], pouring water from two vases. The constellations of the northern sky, featured in the center, include the Great Bear (Ursa Major) in the form of a bull's foreleg. A hippopotamus goddess [Tarwete, about whom we will have more to say later as she relates to Britannia and the northern lands of the empire], opposite Ursa Major and Ursa Minor, represents the constellation of the Dragon. (Source: Louvre Museum, Paris France).
In this installment of our ongoing series on Hadrian and the second century, my colleague and I shall attempt to more fully map some of the major aspects of second-century Panhellenic magic based on archaeological and primary source textual evidences.
Frequently in archaeology the style and method of field and excavation reports find their way into the narrative archaeologists write when they turn toward the broad cultural implications of the finds they have brought to light. Thus, one finds excellent discussions of discrete elements of architecture, glassware, pottery, sculpture, and textual remains, etc., without necessarily finding all of these elements linked to a coherent system of cultural practice. Admittedly, this is the most uncertain aspect of the historical craft and it must rest on the bedrock of science.
During our discussions and research, we are continually impressed with the importance of astronomic observation, astrology, and the zodiac. There exists in the archaeological record numerous examples of vaults and ceilings, so to speak, containing a representation of the celestial realm represented most completely in Egypt (see Dendera Zodiac, supra). However, it should be noted that these vaults, as archaeological structures, are always supported by some other architectural element.
In this post we first will examine some basic elements of the Hellenistic exedra and relate this architectural form to its general function in the Hellenistic division of public and private space. Second, we will attempt to situate the exedra as an architectural form within the context of Hadrian's Antinous-Osiris cult and suggest its development within our hypothesized proto-Rabbinic Judaism prior to its split from proto-Orthodox Christianity. Third, we hope to depict the exedra and vaults of this period as an organic component seamlessly connected with religious practice. These practices should be understood to encompass a liturgy that itself left tangible remains in the archaeological record and contained materials connected to the trade and daily life of the empire and the cultures connected to it.
Throughout the records that have survived from the first and second centuries of the current era, philosophers and religious thinkers are frequently associated with building complexes that began as palatial quarters for a family or gens. Often these complexes comprised both baths and libraries. One of the most ubiquitous architectural expressions organizing Roman public and private space was the exedra. Ultimately, when one configures a site plan of four exedrae facing inwards at four cardinal points, one arrives at a cruciform structure capable of supporting a vault.
Modern divisions of public and private space within homes and libraries are now very clearly differentiated; there are few if any parallels between major modern architectural forms among this distinct class of building. In the ancient world and in the Roman Empire of the second century particularly, this was not the case. Wealthy mansions and libraries, indeed temples, all shared an incorporated architectural form that served to heighten discourse, declamation, and religious reflection. This form was the exedra.
In its basic exposition, the exedra is a recess or alcove that could be entirely free-standing or built into a structure dedicated to multiple uses and purposes. There are examples of first and second century exedra so numerous that they would quickly overwhelm this small discussion; however, we will touch on just a few for purposes of familiarizing our ground and argument. Jumping over the connection between political and religious discourse that clearly occurred within exedra spaces, it is perhaps important to state that as the Republican political institutions of Roman culture gave way before the imperial, both religious and philosophical declamation likely filled the void left by politics to some degree. In this movement, we also associate the public and private use of exedra.
Highlighting the religious and philosophical aspects of the use of exedra architectural forms was their use as free-standing funerary monuments. Oftentimes such funerary exedrae were situated to protect a traveler from the elements and provide a reflective space for quiet thought or discussion. Nevertheless, the monumental and religious aspects of these exedra, particularly as the first and second centuries progressed, was always clearly understood by the living passing by.
Porta Nocera Necropolis in Pompei.
Immediately outside Porta Nocera is the necropolis, of considerable importance, with its exedra and aedicula tombs. The funerary building, dating from the Tiberian period (14-37 CE) is architecturally imposing, build by Eumachia, priestess of Venus, for herself and her family members: the exedra stands on a high terrace, with the burial chamber and fence in the back. The structure, in opus caementicium, was covered with Nocera tufa and divided into niches with statues, separated by half columns and crowned with a decorated frieze. The tomb was inserted between two other previously existing aedicula burial sites, from the late Republican period, consisting of a podium supporting the cell containing the statues of the dead (source: official guidebook for the site).
Forum Novum
In contrast to the necropolis outside Porta Nocera with its numerous exedrae located on the outskirts of a prosperous and well-settled town, are other funerary exedrae types located in the countryside, proximate to villae and which represent the single such monument within a wide area encompassing several hectares. The British School at Rome excavated the remains of one such site at a small, very small, municipium known as Forum Novum in the Sabine hills, in which a free-standing exedra existed from the first-century through perhaps the third-century of the current era.
The georadar results had showed that the exedra was situated in a vast triangular or diamond-shaped precinct, formed by two large enclosure walls. These walls also continued behind the exedra, and excavation revealed that they converge at the north towards the river, meeting at a point some 15 metres behind the podium. The walls seem to be of one build and are in a form of masonry that is either superior opus mixtum or opus quasi-reticulatum. All had been reduced to foundation level with the exception of two areas of the exedra wall which survived to a height of two courses. No trace of any flooring was found, though a fragment of possible floor preparation was found near the southern corner of the entrance to the exedra. Unfortunately the podium wall, which was still visible prior to 2002 (approximately 1.5 metres in height), has since been destroyed.
Pottery from the foundations indicate that the exedra was built in the period of Augustus (c. 30BC – 10AD). Coarelli has suggested that this was a funerary exedra of the type in use during the late Republican and early Imperial period, various examples are known, in particular at Pompeii. These have a semi-circular wall, at the centre of which is a podium topped by a column, supporting a stone urn for the ashes of the deceased. Set around the wall are benches for passers-by to sit and rest (all Pompeian examples are situated along roads). However, unlike the Pompeian examples which are set amongst many others, the Forum Novum monument was intended to be the sole focus, and to dominate totally its setting.
It is not unreasonable to think in terms of a wall and podium some 2.5metres high, and assuming that there was a central column, that this may have risen some 4 metres above that. This monument must have been the focal point of the north of the town and would have commemorated a person of considerable importance and perhaps the owner of the adjacent villa.
The end of the monument’s use seems to be marked by a large quantity of pottery of the late second/early third century AD scattered throughout the exedra area. This corresponds to the date of the pottery which fills the destruction/demolition levels of the baths and may indicate that this whole area passed out of organized use at that time. Numerous burials covered with tiles (“a cappuccino”) were noted against the walls in the exedra area, suggesting that in late antiquity this area, like parts of the villa, was used as a cemetery.
Right: The exedra outside the villa at Forum Novum (near modern Vescovio, Italy) demarcated by chalk and members of the famed British School at Rome. The survey rod at the center of the exedra enclosure represents the podium (2.5 m in height) that held the urn and ashes of the deceased notable. This particular configuration echos elements related to solar worship and associating the deceased with the sun. This particular relationship of exedrae with podia and columns was greatly expanded during the imperial period and, after the Ptolemaic fashion, incorporated at times obelisks as we shall discuss later.
Just to emphasis some architectural relationships, the aedicula, here associated as small shrine (aedicula as a Latin lexeme denotes a small house or temple. Below we see the use of the aedicule within the architecture of a library, the famous and often noted library of Celsus. In the photograph can be seen the seven remaining aediculae.
Briefly, the identifiers between the sacred and secular, political, and religious, the familial and clientele, are frequently bridged by architectural symbolism and the spaces created by these forms. Following is the equally-cited donation inscription for the library of Celsus, which is worth pondering for a moment:
To Tiberius lulius Celsus Ptolemaeanus, consul and proconsul of Asia. Tiberius lulius Aquila Ptolemaeanus, consul, his son, built the Celsian library out of his own funds, with all the building decorations, the statues and books. He also left 25.000 dinars for its equipment and for the acquisition of books, 2000 dinars of which were spent in one year, so that from the annual interest of the remaining 23.000 the library will be kept and its attendants will be paid 18001 dinars, which shall be paid to them on the birthday of Celsus for all times. And also according to the will of Aquila new books shall be bought every year. And also his [Celsus's] statues shall be hung with wreaths thrice a year. And also all other statues shall be decorated every year on the [birthday]feast of Celsus. After the same heirs had commissioned the equipment of the library with the 2000 dinars taken (from the capital], the library was officially opened on the feast of Celsus HI, so that… on the seventeenth on the month… according to the wording of the will, no demand nor deduction nor expenditure shall be put up to them from the stated funds, for the heirs of Aquila have wholly completed the work. Executor of the will was Tiberius Claudius Aristion, three times asiarch.
Two detailed inscriptions on the cheeks of the stair banisters, which used to bear two equestrian statues of the honoured patron, state all offices in the career of Tiherius Julius Celsus after the Roman fashion, in Greek in the south, in Latin in the north. Thanks to the keen perception of old historians, especially that of Josef Keil, it has been possible to assign the offices to certain years.
Celsus was born probably in Sardeis. His father was a Roman knight, hence rather wealthy. Celsus read the law and began his military career 68 CE as military tribune in Alexandria, in the legion that was to proclaim its commander Titus Flavius Vespasianus emperor in the next year. After the latter had triumphed over his rival Vitellius, he made his loyal liegeman Celsus senator about 70. After this, Celsus was in his first office as a civilian as aedilis in Rome. In the mid-seventies he was praetor, supreme judge in Rome. From 78 to 85 he was first sent to Cappadocia as legatus iuridicus, then was commander of a legion in Syria and after that governor in Bithynia and Pontos. About 85/87 he was in charge of the pension fund for veterans in Rome, from 89 until 91 he was a legate in Cilicia. In appreciation of his services the emperor Domitianus made him consul suffectus in Rome in 92. After these honours, he was able to be elected into the noble council of priests of the quindecimviri sacris faciundis.
In the following years, he was curator aedium sacrarum et operum locorumque publicorum populi Romani in Rome for an unknown length of time. In this office he was responsible for the finances and organization of imperial building projects in the capital, which had reached enormous proportions in the reign of the emperors Domitianus (who reigned 81-96) and Traianus (r. 98-117). The culmination of Celsus' successful career was, as for every consul before him, the office of proconsul (governor) of the rich province of Asia, with the seat in Ephesus, given to him in 105/6.
After this last office he seems to have stayed in Ephesus and died there before 114. His son, Tiberius lulius Aquila, continued the library project as a burial gift for his famous father.
He himself, born 70-75, had been suffect consul in Rome in 110 after a career hitherto unknown to us. After the gigantic Traianus forum was formally opened in 112 and the Caesar's forum completely restored in 113, architects and building guilds must have become available whom Aquila could hire for his Ephesian project, thanks to his own and especially his father's good relations to the building industry of the town of Rome.
On the Celsus library (left), the construction of which began about 113/4, there appeared a relief style cultivated on the Traianus and Caesar's fori, and ornamental motives from the city of Rome which had been unknown unti! then in Asia Minor. The construction must have lasted only three to four years, but Aquila died shortly before the building was completed (source:Volker Michael Stroka, The Celsus Library in Ephesus (Sonderdrucke aus der Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg, 2008) p. 40.)
Apollo Radiant and the Sacred Muses
The connection between the library and the tomb now has a deep meaning, for it was believed in antiquity that taking part in the spiritual world, which was embodied by Apollo and the muses, made that person immortal. Thus Romans of the second and third centuries of this era liked to decorate magnificent sarcophagi with the figures of philosophers and muses or Apollo and muses, and the deceased hold book rolls in their hands which document their spiritual interest. This symbolism is directly related to ritual aimed at mastering and understanding the astrology and zodiac under the solar vault of heaven, so to speak.
Exedrae as an architectural form provided a representational space where both liturgy and learning were actively performed before an audience of the living, the dead, and perhaps most importantly, the divine. Thus, the use and assignment of space within the library of Celsus should be viewed in some ways as a foreshadowing of the use and assignment of space within ecclesiastical structures of later centuries. Although the library of Celsus is not often cast in this light, it is nevertheless a building that was sacred and like a church, dedicated to the divine word.
The library of Celsus contained a burial. Given that the library and burial were within the precinct of the civitas, this represents a noteworthy exception to the Hellenistic and Roman practice of burial outside of the precinct (itself also sacred) of the civitas. Here again the Celsus library foreshadows the use and assignment of space within the emerging architecture of Imperial Roman Christianity.
The use of exedrae in the Celsus library in association with the written word links it architecturally to Hellenized Judaic proseuche or synagogue. However, the placement of a monumentalized burial within the edifice itself distances the architectural form from Jewish architectural arrangements.
Above is a site plan of the Library of Celsus. Of course the library is classified as a classical secular structure; however, throughout the literature treating the architecture of the building, the exedra in the rear of the edifice is habitually referred to as an apse; be that as it may, the large interior exedra or apse of the library is unusual:
That the apse was intended for a colossal statue is only supposition; in any case, it's clear that no such statue was ever placed; the floor of the apse is roughly finished, and there is no suitable base prepared for such a statue. But there may well have been an altar and a painted portrait (source: W. Wilberg, et al. Forschungen in Ephesos V 1 (Österreichischen Archäologischen Institut Wien, 1953). Report of the original excavators)
It is therefore an open question as to what precisely was represented on the exedral vault of this interesting building and what purpose it served with respect to the layout and use of space.
At Ephesus, we may therefore ponder whether or not we have evidence of a special theological shift emerging within the Roman elite classes, particularly those with roots in Egypt and the Hellenized Jewish Diaspora as the second Jewish Revolt (Kitos) unfolded. The use of exedrae was cross-cultural within the empire and are archaeologically attested within Jewish contexts, particularly those areas of the empire where Judaism was highly Hellenized. The use of exedra is also therefore associated with the architectural spaces of proseuche (synagogues):
[I]t will indeed have been annexed to the proseuche,, and the proseuche might well have been accessible through it, but it will also have been important in its own right. Is use for discussion, …, could be envisaged as including judicial and teaching sessions, and would fit Philo [of Alexandria]’s emphasis (e.g. Leg. 156) on the proseuchae as places of education in ancestral philosophy. (source: William Hornbury, David Noy, Jewish Inscriptions of Graeco-Roman Egypt: with and Index of the Jewish Inscriptions of Egypt and Cyrenaica (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), p. 50)
We thus see that the exedra defined an unusually-important place architecturally as it transitioned between uses within the context of power, religion, literacy, and the trans-generational transmission of knowledge in the Helleno-Judaic world of the second century. The Hadrianic battle for religious mastery of the empire was fought with more than words and texts, it was fought within the very configurations of architectural space before live audiences. As these spaces were organized, so followed organization of the philosophic and religious mind.
Left: Bust of Antinous From Patras, (National Archaeological Museum of Athens). In October 130, according to Hadrian, cited by Dio Cassius 
The georadar results had showed that the exedra was situated in a vast triangular or diamond-shaped precinct, formed by two large enclosure walls. These walls also continued behind the exedra, and excavation revealed that they converge at the north towards the river, meeting at a point some 15 metres behind the podium. The walls seem to be of one build and are in a form of masonry that is either superior opus mixtum or opus quasi-reticulatum. All had been reduced to foundation level with the exception of two areas of the exedra wall which survived to a height of two courses. No trace of any flooring was found, though a fragment of possible floor preparation was found near the southern corner of the entrance to the exedra. Unfortunately the podium wall, which was still visible prior to 2002 (approximately 1.5 metres in height), has since been destroyed.
Recent blog comments