No abstract

No abstract

Roman imperial succession was in practice a dynastic system. Since the Roman Empire had a high rate of child-mortality, many of the rulers did not have surviving biological sons. This made adoption a standard method of appointing an heir. There was, however, a clear preference for consanguineals when adopting someone into the imperial family. The only exception to this practice of adopting a family member as imperial successor was the adoption by the emperor Nerva (96 -98) of Trajan (98 -117). This article analyses some of the possible motives for this break with precedent, and the consequences for the ways in which imperial ancestry was represented. There was a noticeable emphasis on Trajan's biological father, the Elder Trajan, towards the end of the emperor's reign, but not similarly pronounced in all ancient 'media'. Attention to the Elder Trajan was limited to Rome, where the new form of imperial adoption seems to have led to discussions about the relative merits of succession by adoption or through bloodline. These discussions are not traceable to the provinces, where images of imperial ancestry stuck to precedent. The mixed messages from the centre were apparently not sufficient to change local expectations.

Abstract:Within the discipline of ancient history, diverse types of sources, such as coins, inscriptions, portraits and texts, are often combined to create a coherent image of a particular ruler. A good example of how such a process works is the way in which reconstructions by modern scholars of the emperor Nero tend to look for a clearly defined 'Neronian image', by bringing together various types of primary evidence without paying sufficient attention to these sources' medial contexts. This article argues that such a reconstruction does not do justice to the complex and multi-layered image of the last JulioClaudian. By focusing on one particular aspect of Neronian imagery, the propagation of this emperor's ancestry, we will argue that different types of sources, stemming from varying contexts and addressing different groups, cannot unproblematically be combined. Through an investigation of the ancestral messages spread by imperial and provincial coins, epigraphic evidence and portraiture, it becomes clear that systematic analysis of ancient media, their various contexts and inconsistencies is needed before combining them. Such an analysis reveals patterns within the different sources and shows that, in creating imperial images, rulers were constrained by both medial and local traditions. Modern studies of ancient images should therefore consider this medial and geographical variety in order to do justice to the multi-faceted phenomenon of imperial representation.

This article pays close attention to one aspect of the famous battle of images between Mark Antony and Octavian in the build-up to Actium. It challenges the common assumption that the figures of Hercules and Omphale were purposefully portrayed as Octavian 'anti-propaganda'‚ against Mark Antony and Cleopatra, displaying the triumvir as emasculated by the Egyptian Queen. The link between Hercules and Antony was tenuous, especially in his later career, and there is little evidence that the mythological scene had propagandistic connotations. With this in mind, it seems that a political reading of the images is stretching the evidence too far.