'Aegyptus Redacta': The Egyptian Obelisk in The Augustan Campus Martius

Taylor & Francis, Ltd.
College Art Association
'Aegyptus Redacta': The Egyptian Obelisk in the Augustan Campus Martius

Author(s): Molly Swetnam-Burland
Source: The Art Bulletin, Vol. 92, No. 3 (September 2010), pp. 135-153
Published by: College Art Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/29546118
Accessed: 18-10-2015 11:15 UTC
REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/29546118?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Taylor & Francis, Ltd. and College Art Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The
Art Bulletin.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 77.43.27.61 on Sun, 18 Oct 2015 11:15:36 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Aegyptus Redacta: The Egyptian Obelisk in the Augustan
Campus Martius
Molly Swetnam-Burland
The Montecitorio Obelisk, a Late Period Egyptian monu? obelisk, are inextricable, equally valuable, and equally worthy
ment brought to Rome in 10 BCE by the emperor Augustus of study.This requires more than giving greater exposure to
and in the Campus Martius, formed a in the monument, however, for the
placed centerpiece long-overlooked Egyptian
the city of brick thatAugustus remade inmarble.1 The mon? Egyptian monument informed its laterRoman display inways
ument, to commemorate the defeat heretofore I aim to move a
long thought emperor's unrecognized. beyond merely
of Mark Antony and Cleopatra at the Battle of Actium in factual account to an
investigation the
complex of act of
31 BCE, continues to attract attention in the modern cross-cultural which a monu?

city, appropriation through single
where it stands in the Piazza Montecitorio, in front of the ment was not moved from one to another but
just place by
Camera dei Deputati. Just under 71V2 feet (21.79 meters) this act transplanted and transformed.
high, the obelisk is carved with hieroglyphs, many rendered

illegible by extensive repairs (Fig. 1). ItsRoman base presents
a Latin
inscription, carved onto two of its faces: "Caesar The Spoils of Egypt: The Appropriated Art History of
Augustus, imperator,
son of a divus, pontifex maximus, im
Augustus's Obelisk
perator 12 times, consul 11 times,with tribunician power 14 In 10 BCE, at the behest of Augustus, two Egyptian obelisks
times.With Egypt having been brought into the domain of were brought by river and sea to the city of Rome, the Piazza
the Roman people [aegypto redacta in potestatempopuli Ro del Popolo Obelisk and theMontecitorio Obelisk.7 He placed
mani], Augustus gave this gift to the sun" (Fig. 2).2 The theMonecitorio Obelisk within his meridian in the Campus
showcases honors, Martius?a travertine marked with a bronze
language Augustus's public emphasizing pavement single
his office as pontifex maximus (assumed only two years be? guideline
often referred to in secondary literature as the
fore). The inscription speaks

in no uncertain terms of the Horologium, though recent work has exploded this interpre?
might of theRoman state; the Latin word redactus implies the tation.8 The meridian was a calendrical instrument of unpar?
irrevocable of one region by another.3 alleled scale, designed

to track the
length
of the sun's noon?
co-option
The Montecitorio Obelisk is arguably the best known of the time shadow throughout the calendar year (Fig. 5). The Latin
that Roman across the sea to grace at the obelisk's base makes overt reference to the
many emperors brought inscription
the capital city.4The meridian inwhich the obelisk was set?a conquest of Egypt and further proclaims the obelisk a dedi?
sundial that tracked the length of the obelisk's shadow at cation to Sol,
translating into terms
easily understood by its
noon?was located in close proximity

to two other major
new Roman audience the original function of the obelisk as
monuments: the Ara Pacis, a stone altar dedicated an embodiment of the sun's rays. Within the
Augustan earthly Campus
in 9 BCE to celebrate the peace and prosperity of the Au? Martius, the obelisk's shadow projected
the
emperor's future
gustan regime, and his mausoleum, built in about 28 BCE to plans

onto the city's surface and, at the same time, rewrote
house the ashes of themembers of his family and, eventually, the past by casting the civilwars fought against Mark Antony,
of Augustus himself (Figs. 3-5). Within this symphony of his fellow Roman, as victories over a
foreign enemy, Cleo?
structures, the obelisk stood as a of a con? the Campus Martius, the use of obe?
tangible symbol patra. Beyond repeated
quered land within a monumental program that cast lisks as forms?striking vertical elements in the
cityscape?
foreign
his works, and his as drew attention to urban Two other rose
Augustus, public conquests expressions Augustus's program.9
of thewill of the gods.5 Scholars have tended to focus on this granite obelisks flanked the doorways to the Mausoleum of
Augustan setting rather than to consider the monument for Augustus, while the Piazza del Popolo Obelisk stood on the
what it is: an Egyptian obelisk.6 All too often, obelisks in Spina,
or
dividing barrier, of the Circus Maximus.10 Thus, the
Roman and Renaissance contexts are treated as more or less Montecitorio Obelisk has been of great interest to scholars of
interchangeable, having but a single Egyptian meaning or the city of ancient Rome as both monument and signifier
function. within the Augustan city.
Yet a study of theMontecitorio Obelisk's Late Period Egyp? Yet itsAugustan existence in the Campus Martius was but
tian and early Roman lives, situated within the historical and the second of several lives led by this obelisk. From its cre?
political contexts of its patrons, Psametik
II and Augustus, ation in Egypt during the Twenty-sixth Dynasty (664-525
brings us to a different way of looking at
the monument. A BCE) to its installation in its present location in Rome's
diachronic and individuated approach to the Montecitorio Piazza Montecitorio, the obelisk led rich lives before and
Obelisk and others like itenhances our understanding of the after its Roman incarnation. Recent
approaches
to obelisks,
Roman
appropriation
of the monument: if we do not con?
particularly those repeatedly appropriated (from the Roman
sider what these monuments meant to those who created
period to the Renaissance through today), stress the individ?
them, we cannot
comprehend the nature or extent of the ual histories of these objects through time, rather than in a
appropriative acts that brought them toRome. The Egyptian and conceive their reerection not as a sim?
single period,
and Roman monuments, embodied in the same rose feat of but as a labored
granite ple engineering "complex, process
ART KL'LI. ET IN SEPTEMBER 20 10 VOM'ME XCII NUMBER 3
|36
2 Montecitorio Obelisk, detail of the base, 10 BCE, Aswan

rose Rome (artwork in the public domain;
granite, photo?
graph by the author)
a twinmonument at the sanctuary to Re inHeliopolis by the

Late Period king Psametik II (594-589 BCE). Nearly six
hundred later, itwas across the Mediterranean
years shipped
Sea to Rome and alone, on a made base within
placed, newly
meridian in the Campus Martius. After a few short
Augustus's
decades, the timepiece ceased to function, and in the late
first century CE, the emperor Domitian recalibrated it. He
had a new pavement made, at once as meridian and

acting
seasonal calendar, which and then reset?
required unseating
For centuries un?
ting the obelisk.12 thereafter, it remained
touched: it is mentioned in the "Curiosum urbis Romae
regionum," a regionary catalog dating roughly to the reign of

Diocletian, about 300 CE,13 and was noted in situ as well in
the Einsiedeln Itinerary,part of a sylloge collected in 852 CE,
itself likelydating to 757-67 CE.14 There is no record of how
or when the obelisk fell. The condition of the base (relatively
good) and of the obelisk itself (burnt, scarred, and frag?
1 Montecitorio Obelisk. 26th Dynasty, commission of
Psametik II (r. 595-589 Aswan rose
BCE), granite, approx. mented) suggested to Erik Iversen that perhaps it fell in the
71 ft. 6 in. in height (22 m), Rome (artwork in the public
Norman siege of Rome in the eleventh century CE, when the
domain; photograph by the author)
base had already been covered by the rising ground level.15
Rediscovered in the fifteenth century, the obelisk became
well known in Renaissance and early modern Rome. Though
which decontextualized remains assumed new there were abortive to excavate and reerect the
through many plans
forms, sites, and even identifications."11 monument, itwas not until 1792, under Pope Pius VI, that it
In brief, the history of the Montecitorio Obelisk may be was
fully uncovered, restored, and placed
in its present loca?
summarized as follows. Quarried from the living
stone in tion.16This single piece of stone therefore embodies several
Aswan, itwas brought down the Nile River and erected with different monuments, each
conceptually linked to but
phys
THK KGYI'TIAN OUKLISK IN IHK Al'GlSTAN CAMPUS MARTH S
137
3 Mauseoleum of Augustus,
ca. 28 BCE, Rome (artwork in the
public domain; photograph byVanni,

provided byArt Resource, NY)
4 Ara Pacis 13-9 BCE, Luna

Augustae,
marble, Rome (artwork in the
public
domain; photograph by Scala, pro?
vided byArt Resource, NY)
which stood in a differ? tions of modern which are often flooded with
ically divorced from its predecessor, structures,
ent site. These remains, indeed, are not the
groundwater. original
That the relation between the Egyptian and Roman mon? but to Domitian's reconstruction.
Augustan pavement belong
uments embedded in the Montecitorio Obelisk has not pre? Peter Heslin has contravened many
recently long-standing
been is in one respect
as the beliefs about the Augustan monument the preva?
viously explored unsurprising, (including
Egyptian lifeof the obelisk falls into a gulf between the strong lent interpretation that itwas a sundial and the belief that its
interest of classical historians and art historians in its appro shadow to the Ara Pacis to mark
pointed annually Augustus's
priator, Augustus, and the limited interest of Egyptologists in birthday).

He argues that the present Flavian pavement
itsoriginal patron, Psametik II. Nonetheless, the fact that the should be considered an
important
monument in its own
pre-Augustan history of the Montecitorio Obelisk has been right: Domitian undertook reconstruction of the meridian
ignored is astonishing, given that its later history clearly not only to recalibrate the instrument but also to stylehimself
informed (and in certain respects limited) contemporary deliberately after Augustus.]/ That Domitian did not rein
understanding of itsfunction, both literal and ideological, in scribe the obelisk, instead reusing the Augustan base as itwas,
the Augustan Campus Martius. The broad expanse of the adds weight to this interpretation.
Roman meridian exists in small sec? While Heslin concentrates on the meridian's
today only fragments, primarily
tions of the once vast travertine now far below the it is to realize that the obelisk, too, is
pavement pavement, important
street level and visible in the basement founda not even the same monument that stood in Augus
present only physically
ART BULLETIN SEPTEMBER 2010 VOLUME XCII NUMBER 3
138
1.Originalpositionofobelisk(after
Sch?tz)
2. AraPacis
3. Mausoleum of Augustus
4. Excavation of meridian line
5. Unsuccessful excavation
6. Rnd-spotofcippi
7. Borehole number 13
8. Basilica of San Lorenzo in Lucina
9. Sacristy of San Lorenzo
10. Arcodi Portogallo
11. Present-day site of obelisk with meridian
12. Extent of Buchner's original reconstruction
13. Extent of Buchner's circular reconstruction
5 Campus Martius, Rome, topo?

graphical plan showing the ancient
fcsa&-:.4?
^RWrh 'ft&ib^iV V locations of the Mausoleum, Ara Pacis,
Piazza
^Piazza di I Colonna
and the Montecitorio Obelisk (? Peter
Montecitorioln Heslin, "Augustus, Domitian and the
So-called Horologium Augusti," fig. 1)
tus's day. Broken when it fell, with some fragments finding themonument. This is troubling given that the study of any
theirway to private collections,18 itwas repaired just before its act of appropriation requires striving to understand both the
resurrection in the Piazza Montecitorio. Missing sections object (that is,what was appropriated) and the re-creative act
were replaced with bricks and mortar and then revetted with through which that object became adopted and adapted as
matching rose granite quarried from the Column of Antoni? an emblem or artwork of a different or later culture (that is,
nus Pius, which had been rediscovered nearly
a
century be? how and why itwas appropriated).20 Particularly in cases of
fore. Its was refitted with a new bronze ornament.19 relative to
pinnacle appropriated "antique" objects?which appear,
Even the Latin inscription visible today, proclaiming the the new cultural context, to have been created
by unfamiliar
annexation of Egypt, is in part reconstructed. In fact, or exotic cultures in the distant lies the
despite past?there potential
the intense interest of classical scholars in the Augustan for a
complete
reinvention of
symbolism
and purpose.
monument, that monument is "visible" to us
only through the Though these meanings often eclipsed the artworks' original
lens of itspostantique history. functions or
symbolism,
it is a mistake to assume that they
Thus, we have only a partial and imperfect knowledge of reflect a complete ignorance of their former lives on the part
THE EGYPTIAN OBELISK IN THE AUGUSTAN CAMPUS MARTIUS I39
of those engaging
in
imaginative
reuse. In many cases, these The production of obelisks entailed excavating deep
new are on the best trenches on either side of a chosen block in the quarry, then
meanings contingent appropriators'
understanding of the
peoples
of the past and their cultures, shaping the granite using diorite stone tools, and eventually
even if these in scholarly incorrect. For under the formed monument to detach it
appear, hindsight, tunneling partially
in Roman contexts could be from the rock. The sides were usually dressed after
example, Egyptian antiquities living
ascribed a
generalized magical function, whereas Egyptian transport, including both the carving of the hieroglyphs and
antiquities
reused in Islamic contexts were seen as
having polishing; sometimes the shaftwas further revetted with thin
specific abilities to ward off reptiles. In both cases, the new sheets of precious metal.30 At the height of the New King?
understandings
were
contingent
on the
appropriators'
own? dom, this process could be completed relatively quickly; in
differing?grasp of the meaning and symbolism of hiero? the case of theMontecitorio Obelisk, however, it likely took
three or even
glyphic script.21 years longer.31
Too readily has the obelisk in theAugustan meridian been Psametik II was the third king of Egypt's Twenty-sixth
reduced to the value of its shadow onto the pave? A scant two before, his
projected Dynasty. generations grandfather,
ment?treated as a of generic
signifier Egyptianness.22
With Psametik I, hailing from Sais in Egypt's delta, reunified Up?
few exceptions, the monument's
scholars gloss Egyptian sig? per and Lower Egypt by overthrowing the Nubian (or Kush
nificance with but a
generalized
statement about obelisks' ite) kings who had been ruling in Thebes and the south for
role as Pharaonic cult objects dedicated to the sun.23 Preva? over a century. The dynasty he established ended a period of
lent, too, is the view that both Roman authors and audiences, fragmentation inwhich theNubian kings ruled in name and
who could not read
hieroglyphs,
were interested more in the fact, although theywere in constant competition with local
miraculous feats of imperial engineering that brought the chieftains and the nearby Assyrian Empire.
Even after Psame?
monoliths to Rome than in the obelisks as individual monu? tik I's reunification of Egypt, a struggle for control continued
ments.24 This presumption
is not meritless; Pliny's well at the southern border. Psametik II died during a campaign
known discussion in his Natural conflates the two the frontier, but the Saite retained control
History protecting dynasty
obelisks brought to Rome by Augustus, confusing their of Egypt from the time of his death until the arrival of the
heights and the Egyptian king associated with each.25 These Persians in 525 BCE.32 Despite troubles at the borders, this
same sources, however, much richer evidence than is was a prosperous one, in which and Lower
provide period Upper
believed. most is the remained united. this relative domestic calm,
commonly Perhaps troubling persis? Egypt During
tence of frames of reference even as the field the Saite revitalized and sanctuaries
antiquarian kings temples through?
focuses on issues of cultural out
increasingly heritage, investigat? Egypt.
ing the shifts in meaning, from antiquity to the present, Though its removal to Rome occasioned the loss of its
brought about by the loss of context caused by plundering.26 original context, the text of theMontecitorio Obelisk attests
The assumption that one obelisk might be interchanged with that it was one of a
pair
of rose
granite
monoliths that
another in Roman contexts to little effect results in the Psametik II dedicated to the sun god in the guise of Re
essential denial of Egyptian obelisks in Rome as monuments Harakhti inHeliopolis.33 These obelisks constituted but one
in their own right. Ifwe do not adopt an individuated ap? component of an ambitious and comprehensive royal build?
proach
to monuments like these, we risk reappropriating ing program, which included the completion of works likely
their very (art) history, even ifunintenionally. begun by Psametik's father, Necho II. Psametik II's other
constructions clustered around oases and trade routes, as well
The Montecitorio Obelisk as Psametik IPs Kingly as at sites with strong connections to the Pharaonic
past.34
Commission Obelisks figured prominently throughout this royal program.
In Egyptian contexts, obelisks (in Egyptian, thn, from the In addition to those at Heliopolis, he erected a pair of smaller
verb "to shared certain common features and sym? obelisks, 26 feet (8 meters) tall, at Karnak35 and may
pierce"27) roughly
bolic associations. In form, are monoliths with a four have erected another obelisk or of obelisks at Sais.36
they pair
sided base, to an isosceles (the The obelisks associated with Psametik II mark a revival of
square tapering pyramidion
uppermost piece
or
capstone).
First attested in the Old King? the form in Egypt, one manifestation of a floruit of Late
dom (2686-2181 BCE), Egyptian obelisks were most com? Period kingly constructions throughout Upper and Lower
mon as kingly commissions during theNew Kingdom (1550 Egypt,
a
widespread archaism in the arts,
language,
and social
1069 BCE), resplendent in size, carving, and polished finish. practice.37

These were the first truly monumental obelisks,
In the worldview, these monuments were since those of the New to be
Egyptian closely Kingdom, quarried, transported,
related to the institution of kingship, expressing the relation? and carved in Egypt. As kingly dedications, theywere emu?
sun god
ship between the ka, or "spirit," of the king and the lated by Psametik II's successors, including Apries, Amasis,
Re. They appeared, usually in pairs, primarily as kingly ded? and Nectanebo II.
ications in temples, often at Heliopolis, or in Egyptian, Iwnw, Although II's various obelisks deliberately re?
Psametik
"pillar."28
As cult objects
representing
the sun's rays, obelisks called the Pharaonic past, itwould be a mistake to take them
literally renewed Egypt by reflecting the sun's benefits onto as the symbolic and functional equivalent of the massive
the combined lands of Upper and Lower Egypt, thereby monoliths of the New Kingdom. The Egyptian world of the
becoming symbols
of
regeneration
and rebirth.29 As monu? Montecitorio Obelisk diverged significantly from theMiddle
ments, they also conveyed the king's regal authority, testa? and New Kingdom culture it celebrated. That is to say,while
ments to his ability to have such a monolith of stone quarried, the form of theMontecitorio Obelisk closely recalled older
moved the length of Egypt, and erected. monuments, its function as reflective of kingship differed in
ART BULLETIN SEPTEMBER 20 10 VOLUME XCII NUMBER 3
140
the human cosmos) to Re-Harakhti and to the Atum,

god
both fundamental to creation The obelisk
Egyptian myths.
stood as a testament to his an emblem of reunited
kingship:
Egyptian identity.
A prism of Assurbanipal (669-627 BCE) from Nineveh,
recording the seizure of war spoils from Thebes in Egypt,
illustrates the contemporary Late Period value of obelisks as
symbols of Egyptian kingship. This account is essentially con?
temporaneous with the accession of Psametik I in 664 BCE.43
Written in the voice of Assurbanipal, itmentions
first-person
stones, embroidered male and female
precious clothing,
slaves, horses, and, "two columns made of
notably, high
electrum, of which the weight was 2500 talents, which
adorned the gate of the temple and which I removed from
their place and which I brought through the country to
Assur."44 The columns referred to may have been electrum
obelisks, or the electrum sheets that faced an obelisk (or

pyramidion).45
of in
The interpretation of thisAssyrian text is complicated by
6 Montecitorio Obelisk, detail the pyramidion (artwork
the public domain; photograph by the author) the fact that in his reunification of Egypt, Psametik I received
the support of the Assyrians, whose quarrel was with the
Kushite rulers of the Twenty-fifth Dynasty. In making an
alliance with the rulers of Sais in the delta and supporting
certain In contrast to the of their claims to the Assyrians created a buffer
important respects. godlike kings self-governance,
the distant past, those of the Late Period were widely per? between their territories and the Kushites to the south. In
ceived to be more mortal than divine.38 The king's authority, view of this history, the seizure of these treasures, from an
long defined in opposition to the foreign peoples living on Assyrian point of view, can be read as symbolic of victory not
Egypt's borders, in the Late Period depended on the control over
"Egyptians," broadly understood, but rather over the last
of trade routes to the outside world and the maintenance of Kushite king, then resident inThebes.46 The inclusion of the
armies within of Greek and Carian mercenar obelisks on the prism shows that as monuments obelisks had
standing Egypt
ies.39 a particular charge both within and without Egypt in the
The surviving text of theMontecitorio Obelisk reveals how period just before the reunification of Egypt in the Late
the monument was intended to reflect on Psametik II's Period. Even if we treat record of his con?
king? Assurbanipal's
ship. The obelisk is inscribed on all four sides, in two regis? quests and war
booty
as more boast than fact, it shows that in
ters. The text the sun of Re-Harakhti the before Psametik II's obelisks were
praises god Heliopolis, period shortly quar?
(Re-Horus of the Horizon).40 It validates Psametik II's role as ried, the monoliths were regarded as symbolic of political
the ruler of the twounited lands, naming him the chosen son authority and kingship well beyond Egypt's borders. A mere
of the sun its formulaic nature, the text illus? later, the production of Psametik II's new obelisks,
god. Despite generation
trates how Psametik II used an archaic form (the obelisk) to quarried in the far south and brought down the Nile to the
signal the legitimacy of his rule to his subjects, recalling the north, may well have brought
to mind the contemporary
traditions of the past without slavishly adhering to them. political reunion of Upper and Lower Egypt.
Emanuele Ciampini reads in line Fl2 of the text a reference The use of material from the Aswan quarries,
in my view,
to the
performance
of a heb-sed festival or
jubilee,
an inclusion played a significant role in conveying the currency of this
not but unusual on New obelisks.41 message. Aswan rose was the traditional material used
unprecedented Kingdom granite
The heb-sed,inwhich the king ran a ritual course to display his formonumental obelisks in theNew Kingdom, its luminosity
vigor and to enact the union of
Upper
and Lower Egypt,
was and color deemed particularly appropriate for dedications to
traditionally performed during the thirty-sixthyear of a king's the sun.47 In the reign of Psametik II, however, rose granite
reign. Psametik II did not govern long enough to perform had been notably absent from the north of Egypt for over a
this ritual at the appropriate time, as itwas practiced in the century. The Kushite kings of the Twenty-fifthDynasty had
Old and New Kingdoms.42 The manipulation of the heb-sed used the material, but they concentrated their monumental
suggests that Psametik II was concerned with justifying his constructions at Thebes and points south.48 This would make
rule. The obelisk, part of this ritual and monumental cam? Psametik II's use of rose granite noteworthy, especially in
paign, more than simply reflecting an established Pharaonic the context of its
programmatic
use in
royal commissions
worldview, attempted
to re-create and reestablish a worldview
throughout the entirety of Egypt.
inwhich the two lands of Egypt were unified. The depictions The area around the first cataract, rapids
near
Elephantine
of the king on the obelisk, located on the pyramidion, rein? (modern Aswan), the source of the
granite,
was
important
force this reading of themonument (Fig. 6). He is shown in throughout the Saite period as a frontier stronghold against
the guise of a Sphinx, a representation long associated with the Kushites (Fig. 7). Royal cartouches of Late Period kings
the king's ability to defend and protect the land of Egypt, as are carved on the
granite
cliffs
throughout
the
region,
and
he makes an offering of ma at (a symbol of natural order in the area was central to the
military campaigns
of Psametik II.49
THE EGYPTIAN OBELISK IN THE AUGUSTAN CAMPUS MARTI US 14]
7 Map of the Mediterranean, 2009
(provided by theAncient World

Mapping Center, www.unc.edu/awmc)
Greek graffiti from his reign may even indicate that the Thus, the reappearance of
royal
works in rose granite
in
campaign was directed by the king himself from the garrison the north doubly reinforced the king's position. Psametik II's
of Elephantine (atmodern Shellal).50 A series of rose granite twin obelisks in Heliopolis established him as a legitimate
stelae testifythat the king personally took part in the battles king within the Egyptian world of his day. The creation myth
against
Rush. The stelae, ranging from more than one and a
implicit within the form of the obelisk was inextricable from
half to six and a half feet (one-half to twometers) in height, an
understanding of
Egypt
as the combination of two lands,
were set up at major temple sites throughout Egypt, north making the obelisk a marker of the intersection of the cosmic
and south?that is, found near
Elephantine, Karnak, and and terrestrial landscapes particularly meaningful during the
Tanis.51 The texts describe the
king's
victories in a battle Late Period reunification of those lands under Egyptian rule.
against Kush, but they also stress his revival of Egypt through At the same time, the obelisks tied Psametik II to his father,
his monumental works. They
demonstrate that the king's who began the project, and to the Egyptian kings of the
activities near the borders were broadcast ancient who, like the Saite were from the north
throughout Egypt. past, kings,
The red material of the stelae reinforced the text's and who first and raised monumental obelisks at
granite quarried
message, tangibly demonstrating Psametik IPs control of the Heliopolis.
resources of the disputed territories. Though the stelae do While the foregoing by no means exhausts what can be said
not
directly
refer to the obelisks, the inscription
on a statue of about the "Egyptian life" of the Montecitorio Obelisk, it
a under a basis for
key administrator
Neferibre-nofer, working Psametik provides exploring the interaction between its
II, gives a more detailed list of Psametik IPs monumental and Augustan lives, to ask how much of the monu?
Egyptian
works. The list declares that the monumental works ment's survived the obelisk's
"pene? particular Egyptian history
trate the hearts and rejuvenate the thoughts of his subjects" transportation
to Rome, and in what
guise.
and specifies thematerials used: a pyramidion at Sais, ofAyan
sandstone; a bark-shrine, a small
boat-shaped shrine for car? Educating Roman Eyes: Augustus's Obelisks, Described in
rying statues of gods, embellished with gold and gems; the Rome
obelisks themselves, "ofElephantine granite" (my emphasis).52 What would a person living in the city of Rome in the first
Final confirmation of the close relation between the pro? century CE and after have understood about Psametik II and
grammatic
use of Aswan granite for
royal commissions and his Egyptian obelisk?54 The educated elite might have
the military contests for the territory it came from can be learned something of Psametik II from the works of ancient
found in another inscription belonging to a statue of the historians, including Herodotus, Diodorus Siculus, and
overseer Horwedja working under Necho II, designated as Manetho. Yet, though
Herodotus asserts that the Greeks
the "overseer of the gate of the foreign lands," a title bor? knew "everything that has happened" in Egypt from the reign
rowed from the Old Kingdom; this sculpture is proof of the of Psametik I onward (as a direct result of the influxof Greek
fact that themonument, though itbears Psametik IPs name, settlers, mercenaries, and colonists),55 he relates little about
must have been begun by his father. The inscription states Psametik II, beyond an anecdote about his reception of a
that, in this capacity, Horwedja was responsible for the royal delegation
of Eleans and his pronouncement that true
equity
works from the granite quarries, including obelisks.53 in the Olympic Games necessitated their performance on
142
neutral soil.56 Diodorus and Manetho would have the form's symbolism and function.61 Finally, Pliny explains
similarly
afforded little information; are, for all intents and that the hieroglyphs on its sides are texts. His char?
they pur? Egyptian
silent about the reign of Psametik II.57 acterizations of the hieroglyphs as and
poses, "effigies" "scalptu
On the surface, it would seem that none of these sources and "carved
rae"?"representations" ornaments"?suggests
offered much to assist an ancient Roman in the that Romans otherwise have attributed to the hiero?
reading might
visual of and that was a decorative function; once these are
complex negotiation past present glyphs purely signs
Psametik IPs monument. Even the two accounts understood as the obelisk becomes an inscribed
Egyptian language,
that directly treat the obelisks in Rome, written in the first and interactive monument, able to
speak.62
century CE by Pliny the Elder and the fourth century CE by Underlying these explications of the form, function, and
Ammianus Marcellinus, on the feats of the obelisk are two First,
place greatest emphasis meaning assumptions. Pliny
of engineering that brought them to Rome.58 Nonetheless, assumes that without aid his readers would not be able to
while its Roman was foremost its meaning: as monolith, as cultic as

redeployment incontrovertibly parse representation,
in the minds of those who saw the Montecitorio Obelisk text, and as emblem of the office of Egyptian kingship. Sec?
standing within Augustus's meridian, a closer look at these ond, he assumes that the Egyptian monument persists in its
ancient reveals that obelisks in the ancient new location, its Egyptian neither made irrele?
descriptions city significance
represented something
more to Roman viewers than a mono? vant nor wholly eclipsed by the act of appropriation. This
lithic symbol of Egypt as "foreign" and of its history and assumption
is revealed, for
example,
in
Pliny's description of
people
as "other." The
question
is not whether Roman audi? the Montecitorio Obelisk: "to the one in the Campus, the
ences grasped an obelisk's Egyptian significance as a resident divine Augustus
added a miraculous use."63
of Late Period Egypt would have but, rather, whether the After his introduction to the form of obelisks, Pliny pro?
Egyptian
content of the monument, as Romans understood it, vides a catalog of specific examples commissioned by Egyp?
was to them. Both authors, in my view, made a tian Pharaohs, Ptolemaic monarchs, and Roman emperors.
significant
considerable effort in their introductions to alert Roman eyes In one sense, his report is comprehensive, all those
discussing
to complexities inherent in Egyptian obelisks, through com? on view in the Rome of his day. In another sense, it is
parisons between these foreign objects and more familiar selective. Pliny lists, of those still standing in Egypt, only
and materials. obelisks notable to him because of their prove?
symbols, shapes, particularly
Pliny's
treatment introduces his readers to the forms and nance (Heliopolis, which he renders "in Solis urbe" [in the
decoration of the exotic monument
through visual analogy: city of the sun]), their size (the largest), or their symbolic
of kingship. his narration appears eclec?
performance Though
The kings made great beams [trabes]of thismaterial [rose tic, itsorganization is instructive, roughly following the phys?
granite] in a spirit of competition, calling them "obelisks" ical
path
of the monuments
transported
to Rome,
beginning
which were dedicated to the divine spirit [numen] of the inHeliopolis, traveling downriver toAlexandria (where many
sun. Its symbolism is as
representation
of [the sun's] rays,
were brought by the Ptolemies, and later on were moved by
and this is signified indeed by itsname in Egypt. Mesphres the Romans), and transferred across the sea to Rome. In
[Thutmoses III], who ruled in the city of the sun, first of tracing this path, Pliny shifts the obelisks "forward" through
all [the kings] built it [an obelisk], having been ordered in time and space from their ancient and remote
origins
in
a dream; and this itself was inscribed on it, for as a matter to their locations in present-day Rome. even
Egypt Pliny
of fact those sculptures [scalpturae] and representations attempts to orient his readers to unfamiliar Egyptian kings by
we see on them are Egyptian letters.59
[effigies] giving them comparative markers of chronology, indicating
that one king was roughly contemporary with theTrojan War,
In part, Pliny's intention is to render the form of the obelisk another with Pythagoras.
In so
doing,
he
acknowledges the
to with, he what a Ro? Roman use of the monuments without ever the
comprehensible; begin acknowledges denying
man viewer would actually
see: what would appear notewor?
importance of their individual Egyptian pasts or the strong
on confrontation with an unknown form. He then pro? connections between those and lives. Through?
thy pasts present
ceeds to elaborate its form, function, and meaning; he is out, Pliny treats obelisks as monuments that put kingship on
educating
the reader's eyes. He first refers to the shafts of
display, even, as he says quite openly, as acts of competition
obelisks with the word trabes, literally, "tree trunk," or "archi? among kings.
tectural beam," which approximates
the
shape
of the obe? In addition, Pliny asks his readers to see obelisks as symbols
lisk's shaft and conveys the notion that the stone was a single of imperial undertaking, the end products of a technical
piece. In the section just before thispassage, he notes that the process that
required mastery of forces and circumstances at
material, rose
granite,
came from the area of Syene, that is, the limits of human control. Pliny casts both the initial erec?
modern Aswan, in the Thebaid.60 After his explication of the tion of an obelisk and its later
transplantation
as
opera, great
form and itsmaterial, he explains the obelisks' Egyptian works: one of ancient Egypt, the other of Rome. Though he
as sacred to the sun; the word he uses here, numen, the moving of an obelisk as an act than its
purpose judges greater
connotes a divine will or force, the real and he remains interested in and relates stories
stressing present quarrying,64
power of the obelisk in an unfamiliar worldview. He also about these works in their Egyptian contexts, making sure to
to show how that function was at once sacred, a information about, for example, the original who
attempts give patron
votive, and "as of its [the sun's] commissioned each.
symbolic, representation
rays."Here, Pliny offers both a reasonable translation of the Pliny famously confused the heights and Egyptian patrons
Egyptian word for obelisk and a (largely) accurate picture of of Augustus's two obelisks, saying that Psametik II commis
sioned the one set in the Circus Maximus, rather than that in remember that for Pliny, however, a like
phrase "interpreta
the Campus Martius: tio naturae rerum" (the of the nature of
interpretation
things) was not used lightly. If anything, it is evocative of his

The one which the divine Augustus set up in the great own purpose in his Encyclopedia,which he described as setting
circus was the king dur? forth "the nature of things [natura rerum], that is, life."72
quarried by Psemetnepserphreus,
ingwhose reign Pythagoras was in Egypt. In addition to its Centuries later, Ammianus Marcellinus wrote his own his?
base, of the very same stone, it was eighty-five and three tory in Rome. He emphasizes his firsthand knowledge of
quarters feet tall.That one, however, which [he placed] in obelisks, not only in the Rome of his day but in Egypt as well:
the Campus Martius, smaller by nine feet, [was quarried
by] Sesothis. Having been inscribed, both contain the In this city [Alexandria], among the vast sanctuaries and
of the nature of [verum naturae] in diverse colossal works the countenances of
interpretation things portraying
the philosophy of the Egyptians.65 Egyptian deities, I have seen many obelisks, some thrown
down and smashed. When a was in

population conquered
Psemetnepserphreus, the name he uses for Psametik II, de? war, the kings?elated by the favorable outcome of critical
rives from transliterations of the king's birth name, Psametik, affairs?offered these as dedications, cut
things having
and his good name, or the name given
on accession, Neferi them out of the veins of themountains, [veins] sought out
bre, "the heart of Re is beautiful."66 this render? even those residents of the very limits of the world,
Importantly, among
ing of the king's name differs significantly from the way in and having erected them [the obelisks] to the highest
which Psametik II was named in historical sources that Pliny gods in their religion. Now, the obelisk is of the hardest
would have had access to, where he was Psamouthis or Psam stone, in shape rather like a meta, gradually rising up to a
mis.67 Yet both and Neferibre?can so that it portrays a sunbeam, ever
appellations?Psametik great height, growing
be found in the text of theMontecitorio Obelisk. (That the more slender a little at a time. [The obelisk is] four-sided,
is transliterated as to a narrow summit, worked smooth a
transcription imperfectly Psemetnepser? leading up by
reflects the tradition. Of the skilled hand. Of the countless however, called
phreus postantique manuscript shapes,
extant most to a or lesser extent in which we see on it, incised an
manuscripts, vary greater hieroglyphs, everywhere,
their rendering of the name,
unsurprisingly,
because of its ancient authority makes evident the antiquity of the first
unusual spelling.)68 Similarly, Pliny's rendering of the name wisdom. Truly, they carved birds and beasts, and even
as Sesothis may derive from one of the epithets of the king on many species
of another world, so that the memory of
the obelisk from the Circus Maximus; though often ascribed things achieved might more ably survive for the future
simply to Ramses II, in fact, the obelisk was begun by Sety I, centuries of another generation; [the obelisks] gave evi?
and indeed bears the names of both kings.69 Thus, even if dence of the vows of kings, whether promised or carried
in certain ways confused the two obelisks, he also dem?
Pliny
onstrated access to of the of these
knowledge naming Egyp?
tian kings from outside the Greek historiographic tradition, As with Pliny,Ammianus first introduces the obelisks through
perhaps?perhaps even likely?derived from the Egyptian visual analogy: he compares the shape of the obelisk to thatof
texts of the obelisks themselves. How exactly Pliny acquired the meta, well known to Roman audiences as the "turning
this specialized knowledge is unclear, for by the first century marker" in the circus. In so
doing,
he also engages in seman?
CE the ability to read hieroglyphs was limited to an elite ticplay, because the circus was the setting formany imported
class in we must assume an an Roman obelisks. Ammianus also demonstrates a
priestly Egypt; intermediary, sophisticated
interpreter
or written translation.70 While we do not know for grasp of the Egyptian symbolism, conveying how the obelisk
certain whether the Montecitorio's text was ever translated reflects and imitates the sun's and connects
light literally
for the Roman it is clear, as discussed the and Ptolemaic
audience, below, that earth and sky. While specific Egyptian
the text of obelisk in the Circus Maximus (later are of little concern to Ammianus, he emphasizes
Augustus's patrons
moved to the Piazza del was translated and that as monuments, obelisks were
kingly dedications that
Popolo) pub?
lished in the city of Rome. Itmay be possible that theMon? communicated military and other triumphs to the Egyptian
tecitorio Obelisk's text, too, was translated. people. And, though his comprehension of their texts is less
Despite certain errors, in his catalog Pliny consistently sophisticated
than Pliny's, he sees obelisks as monuments
provides his readers with information about the Egyptian that are to be read: to Roman eyes, the letters look like
a clear saw as birds and but nonetheless
patrons of the obelisks, indication that he them animals, beasts, they contain Egyp?
individual monuments with unique histories. Further, he tian wisdom and history.
Ammianus's relation presumes that
stresses that despite

their decorative appearance, the Egyp? to understand them redisplayed in Rome, a viewer would
tian letters convey Egyptian philosophy. This, too, improves need to know: first, the Egyptian form, as sunbeam writ in
in certain respects
on the Greek tradition; Herodotus, for stone; second, the Egyptian function, as symbol of the power
example, thought that the characters represented the food of itsoriginal king; and finally, as an object that transmits an
consumed by the workers who built the Egyptian pyramids ancient, and important, Egyptian wisdom and history. Of
and other monuments {The Histories, 2.125). For some, these, it is the last that ismost meaningful toAmmianus. His
Pliny's statement that the obelisks disclosed "the nature of account goes far beyond Pliny's, quoting verbatim for his
things" is an indication that he naively took the hieroglyphs, readers a translation of the text of
Augustus's obelisk in the
representations
of animals, as
relating information about the Circus Maximus, from the book of an author identified by
birds and beasts they resembled.71 We would do well to Ammianus simply
as
Hermapion.
144
required detailed study of the Egyptian text, and that both

relate to the same monument, the Piazza del Obelisk,
Popolo
seems to be a coincidence. Nonetheless, we know
unlikely
little of Hermapion's book beyond what Ammianus tells us:
that itwas a translation of the Egyptian text of the Piazza del
Popolo Obelisk (and perhaps others, forAmmianus says that
he a and that it was
preserves only representative sample),
available to him, in Rome, in the fourth century CE. Yet even
the existence of book stands as testament to

Hermapion's
Roman curiosity about the Egyptian meaning of the obe?
lisks.80 The accuracy of the translation is less
important than
what it allows us to reconstruct of what Romans the
thought
content ivas.
Egyptian actually
translation is neither literal nor
Hermapion's comprehen?
sive. The text is abbreviated, the characters on the north face
of the obelisk (ostensibly) omitted altogether. The text is
translated in a nonlinear fashion, so that new sense has been
reconstructed from the Egyptian phrases. It is framed so that
the obelisk literally speaks on behalf of the sun, opening with
a form typical of Greek and Latin epistolography, "From the
sun, to the Ramestes."81 Here is the first line of Herma?
king
pion's translation of the south side of the monument:
The sun, to Ramestes. I have to you the entire

King given
settled world [oikoumene], to rule over with joy, [you]
whom Helios loves.?And mighty, truth-lovingApollo, the
son of Heron, born from a god and the founder [ktistes]of
the settled world, him whom the sun prefers above all
others, themighty King Ramestes [son of] Ares. To whom
the entire land ismade with and courage.
subject, strength
King Ramestes, the immortal child of the sun.82
The translation highlights the king's place in both the hu?

man and divine spheres?a rendering of Egyptian divine
kingship fairly accurate to the original Egyptian text. The
translation renders Re, the sun as the Greek
Egyptian god,
Helios, identified in and Ammianus's discussions as
Pliny's
the Latin Sol. Sol had been understood as divine as as
early
8 Piazza del
Popolo Obelisk, 19th Dynasty, commission of the pre-Roman period, particularly as Sol Indiges, an epithet
I (r. 1290-1279 BCE), rose 75 ft.
Sety granite, height approx. the sun's connection to the native The
stressing landscape.83
(24 m), Rome (artwork in the public domain; photograph by
translation equates Ramestes (Ramses) with
the author) Apollo, casting
him in various guises
as both the ktistes, or founder, of the
world and as its earthly ruler, the basileus of the world who
This textwithin a text has been the focus of much study controls it by virtue of
having conquered its foes.84 Thus, the
and curiosity; Athanasius Kircher
repudiated the passage as a translation makes the Egyptian tradition of divine kingship,
whole-cloth invention/4 while others hoped it would prove, in which the king was at once mortal and immortal, compre?
like the Rosetta stone, a to the then hensible to the Greco-Roman audience the king as
key undecipherable by casting
Egyptian script.70 In 1914, Adolf Erman was able to prove a ktistes,a word often used for the mythic hero founders of
both that the text was a translation into Greek of a hiero? cities and peoples, similarly straddling the divine and human
glyphic text, and that the text was from Augustus's obelisk realms. At the same time, with Helios specified as granting
from the Circus Maximus (Figs. 8, 9)./6 It isunclear when the the king this power, the sun is also positioned as a divine
book was written?some see
Hermapion
as
contemporary founder of theworld. And this, in fact,mirrors a distinctively
with
Augustus,77
others with the emperor Aurelian78?nor Roman perception of Sol Indiges, whom Diodorus called the
are there any other references toHermapion or his work in "founder of the human race."85
the entire of ancient authors. the same In describing the king's mandate on earth as
corpus Notably, Egyp? presiding
tian text was character for character from the Piazza over the oikoumene, a word that connotes
copied Hermapion employs
del Popolo Obelisk onto a second, Roman-made obelisk (in in both Greek and Latin contexts not the entire known world
antiquity, on display in the Horti Sallustiani; today, standing but its inhabited places, that is, the civilized world. The
in front of the Trinit? dei Monti above the Spanish Egyptian text here more literally refers to the lands and
Steps).79
Though there is no direct link between the translation and mountains of Upper and Lower Egypt, centering on the
the
replication
of the text in the second monument, both acts
king's role as the ruler of the two united lands.86 On one
THE EGYPTIAN OBELISK IN THE AUGUSTAN CAMPUS MARTIUS 145
level, the translation the two dif?

captures through analogy
ferent notions of what constituted "the world": the oikoumene,
up to the wild and uncontrolled as understood

antipodes, by
Greeks and Romans, was similar to what the Egyptians iden?
tified as the united lands of Upper and Lower Egypt, inas?
much as the inside the boundaries was cast as the
territory
civilized world (that is, Egypt itself). At the same time, in
the word to oikoumene, the translation also under?
changing
scored a of in a sense
contemporary conception geography,
the authentic text of the translated obelisk to express a
using
current worldview that could be relevant to the monument's
redisplay in Italy.
As noted above, in its Roman context, the Piazza del
Popolo Obelisk stood at the center of the track dividing the

Circus Maximus. While we do not know that the translation of
the text was relevant to the Circus Maximus?for

Augustan
we do not know when the translation was first made,
having
the secure date of Ammianus's text?it is useful to
only
consider the translation within the rich context of the circus
as a social arena, as relevant to the
relationship between the 9 Trinit? dei Mond Obelisk, Roman-period copy of the
and the emperor. The circus was a where com? Piazza del Popolo Obelisk, detail of the upper register and
people place
Rome, after 2nd CE, rose
petitions were staged and a place for people to see and be pyramidion, century granite
seen. were
(artwork in the public domain; photograph by the author)
Spectators divided by class, the best seats going to
those of highest rank. The emperor the a

occupied pulvinar,
structure where he sat side by side with is die in Ammianus, this translation also
templelike represen? Herviapionis snippet
tations of the gods, including recently deceased members of approximates
the visual
experience of the monument. Her
the imperial family, or divi. His position in the pulvinar mapion's translation opens by telling its readers that the
showcased his piety toward the gods of the state; of living hieroglyphic text begins in the first line of the south side of
men, he was closest to the the obelisk, and it continues to translated segments
gods.87 provide
What is revealing about the translation of the obelisk is that by line and cardinal direction. The translation thus re-creates
it could have been read later audiences to refer at once to the experience of a different culture's
by way of reading, follow?
the ancient and exotic traditions of Egyptian kingship as well ing vertical lines of text up, down, and around a monument.
as to this Roman a dedication to the sun, of The content of the translation also explicates the vignettes at
setting: symbolic
the relationship between the emperor and his
people,
and the obelisk's pyramidion and base, which show the king in
symbolic, too, of the relationship between the emperor and the process of venerating or making offerings to Egyptian
the gods. The obelisk, appropriated, therefore established solar deities, Re-Harakhti, Atum, and Kephri (Figs. 9, 10).88
Rome as the of culture and the as the These become illustrations of the conversation be?
epicenter emperor pictorial
earthly ruler of the oikoumene. In its new Roman home, the tween the king and the sun, of which the obelisk itself is the
obelisk represented the transferral of the locus of civilization
lasting testimony.On the Trinit? dei Monti Obelisk, with its
from Egypt to the city of Rome, seemingly supported by the replica of the Piazza del Popolo Obelisk's hieroglyphic text,
text of the monument in this translation. the scenes at the base have been relative to the
enlarged
For both and Ammianus,
the Egyptian content of the above, that were a focal for
Pliny hieroglyphs indicating they point
monuments was vital to their in Rome. the Roman audience.
understanding display
This is not to say that the content was all that From the vantage of contemporary the central
Egyptian scholarship,
interested them?indeed, their interest was in the is that each of these texts, Ammianus's, and
primary point Pliny's,
Roman monuments: how were to the is a of and to the act of
they brought capital, Hermapion's, description guide
under what circumstances, what But both a an obelisk and its carved elements.
using technology. viewing physical object,
authors saw the of the monu? and Ammianus took to educate their Roman
original, Egyptian meaning Pliny pains
ments as a foundation for their Roman meaning(s). Both readers not just about the obelisk's Egyptian history (where it
therefore took to educate their readers on how to look came from, who commissioned it, and how it came to Rome)
pains
at the Egyptian monuments and what to see in them. They but also its art history?how it should be viewed, which visual
achieved this largely through visual analogy. Their accounts elements were
significant, and what those elements meant.
are most useful to readers who have seen the physical mon? The "life" of the monument, as these writers under?
Egyptian
for those who have and Ammianus stood it and as their to understand it, was
they asked
uments, but, not, Pliny readers
re-create the act of seeing them, resplendent
in their new indeed important to them as a root of themeaning(s) of the
Roman settings. The written text is the lens that brings the Roman monument.
obelisk into focus for the highly educated Roman audience.

In similar fashion, the translation of the inscription found Reconsidering theMontecitorio Obelisk inAugustan Rome
in Ammianus serves as an additional key
to
seeing
the text of Little of the specific symbolism of Psametik IPs monument,
the hieroglyphs firsthand. Though all we know of the librum celebrating his control over the two lands of Egypt, survived
146 ARI BULLETIN SEPTEMBER 2010 VOLUME XCII NUMBER 3
each carved on two faces with Latin inscriptions proclaiming

them as dedications to the Sol. The use of this material
god
was motivated aesthetic and consid?
surely by both practical
erations?a desire to match the material of the obelisks, and
the necessity for a foundation that could bear their massive

Yet the re-erection of the obelisks on new bases also
weight.
changed their meaning. The act of inscribing an identical

Latin text on the bases of both the Piazza del Popolo and
Montecitorio obelisks had the effect of making two singular
monuments into this means, linked
pendants. By Augustus
building programs in different parts of the city,marking the

urban topography with his patronage.89 The addition of the
base also changed the height of theMontecitorio Obelisk. As
Michael Sch?tz has noted, the actual height of the monu?
ment is difficult to determine, due to its restorations. Once
thought to stand at 100 Roman feet (that is,73>4 feet or 29.42

meters), he has shown that the Domitianic height (and, thus,
also the Augustan, which stood on the same base) was in fact
105.37 Roman feet (31 meters).90 With the addition of the

base, it could not boast a symbolic height, but the base was
critical to the functioning of the Augustan and Domitianic
meridians, and its new was calculated for this
height precisely
function. In Rome, the Montecitorio Obelisk and
Augustan
its base were both marvels.
By the end of the first century CE, the Roman trade in

marmora (an ancient term marbles,
encompassing granites,
and porphyry) was so widespread that types of marble from
the are attested in a range of contexts
throughout empire
throughout Italy.91Yet in the Rome of 10 BCE, rose granite
had never been seen before. Though it is possible that the
material for the bases was reused, from some source
spoliated
within Egypt, there is evidence of Roman exploitation of
Egyptian quarries early in the first century CE.92 Works from
within too, show that Augustus con?
contemporary Egypt,
trolled the source of the red such as a colossal (8%
granite,
feet, or 2.65 meters, of the emperor in
high) representation
10 Piazza del Popolo Obelisk, detail of the base and its the guise of a Pharaoh from Karnak, likely commissioned
Roman inscription (artwork in the public domain; photograph during his reign.93 Moreover, the Trinit? dei Monti and S.
by the author) Maria Maggiore obelisks are now also thought to be Augustan
(Figs. 11, 12).91 Thus, the obelisk bases, along with the two
smaller obelisks beforethe doorways to the Mausoleum, rep?
the Montecitorio Obelisk's to Rome. Its re? resent the earliest datable uses of rose in the
transplantation Egyptian granite
from context it forever from its and on balance,
moval its original divorced city of Rome, the evidence suggests that they
It no reflected the sun on the land, were not least because a size of stone
pendant. longer ritually freshly quarried, precise
hearts and minds. little of was to create a
rejuvenating Egyptian Knowing required functioning gnomon.
Psametik II's short reign
or
accomplishments, the Roman Certainly, granite with such a striking appearance would
audience of the Montecitorio Obelisk could not reasonably have attracted notice on its introduction to Rome. At the end
be thought
to have
appreciated the monument as itwas seen of his life, according to Suetonius, Augustus boasted that he
in itsown day, in Egypt. This bare fact notwithstanding, inmy found Rome a city of brick, but left it a "cityof stone [urbem
view, knowing the monument's Egyptian history greatly en? marmoream] ."95 This boast conjures
an
image of a
city of
riches our perception of its later Roman life and reuse by glittering white marble, but marmora
encompasses the range
training our inquiry on aspects of its display largely over? of colored hard stones known to the Romans.
Expensive
looked. In Late Period Egypt, as I have shown, thematerial of colored stones were used deliberately for effect inmany other
the obelisk?Aswan rose a constructions, such as in the cella of the Temple of
granite?had particular charge. Augustan
The same material had a similar distinctiveness in the Roman Mars Ultor in the Forum of
Augustus, whose pavement fea?
cultural context. Even as made the Montecitorio tured materials from the Roman Em?
Augustus imported throughout
Obelisk his own by moving it across theMediterranean Sea, pire.96
he also re-created the Egyptian monument by placing iton a Rolf MichaelSchneider has pointed out that rose granite
new base of stone
quarried from the same
Egyptian
source. may have been understood to have solar symbolism.97 Pliny
Both of Augustus's obelisks sat on bases of rose
granite, noted that the word the Greeks used to describe it,pyrrho
THE EGYPTIAN OBELISK IN THE A I'GUST AN CAMPUS MARTIUS
11 Trinit? dei Monti Obelisk (artwork in the public domain;

photograph by the author)
in Greek means He chose to name

poecilos, "fiery-colored."
the stone the "Thebaicus translated most as 12 S. Maria date in front
lapis," literally Maggiore Obelisk, debated, placed
"stone from the Thebaid," and knew that itwas quarried near of the Mausoleum ca. 10 BCE-14 CE (artwork in
by Augustus
the town of Syene. That Pliny named the stone by the loca? the public domain; photograph by the author)
tion in which itwas found is telling. In so doing, he elabo?
rated a that runs his nar?
geographic metaphor throughout
rative, in which various colored stones become emblems of
redeployment of a Roman legion toArabia and occupied the
This site of the quarry was as of the first at
by Rome.
the regions region cataract, storming the garrison Syene
conquered
important to Pliny as its color symbolism, and he further (near Aswan). They
enslaved the town's residents and tore
emphasized that the source is within the bounds of the down statues of the emperor. Martial conflict between Meroe,
Roman Empire: "inAfricae parte Aegyptio adscripta," within the capital city of the Kingdom of Kush, and Rome lasted
a of Africa that has been to the Roman about six years, which time Roman traveled as
part assigned province during legions
far south the Nile as the fourth cataract." Tensions ended
Aegyptus.98 up
Taking
a diachronic view of the monument, while acknowl? in 20 BCE with the peaceful reception of an embassy from
edging its Egyptian history, sheds new light on the Roman Meroe by Augustus
himself in Samos, and the border was
monument. In both the Egyptian and Roman periods, the reestablished over fiftymiles beyond the first cataract in the
source of the granite was known to be at the critical known as the Dodekaschoinos, at the site of Pselchis
quarries region
boundary of the oikoumene, a

region that was for Late Period (Fig. 7). The best ancient source for the conflict between
the "gateway to lands" and in the Augustan Rome and Meroe is Strabo. His written in Rome,
Egyptians foreign Geography,
period became one of themost contested borderlands of the

a sense of contemporary awareness of the relation
gives good
Roman
Empire.
between Rome and its imperial borders inEgypt, and?for all
At the death of Cleopatra, Ptolemaic Egypt extended to the Strabo's insistence that the Ethiopian peoples beyond
of the first cataract, an area rich in mineral resources, Rome's borders are and both un?
region peaceful nonthreatening,
including goldfields, gem mines, and quarries for decorative der control and easily controlled?his account transmits the
stones (such as the quarries at Syene). The border had been shock that attended the seizure and dismemberment of stat?
more or less stable throughout the Ptolemaic period, with the ues of the emperor by a foreign power.100
resource-rich lands beyond Aswan governed
under a tacit The discovery in 1910 of a portrait head of Augustus at the
"co-regency"
between the Ptolemies and the rulers of the site of ancient Meroe has long been connected with this
Kingdom of Kush. Roughly five years afterAugustus defeated conflict, its interment taken as of Kushite resistance
symbolic
Antony and Cleopatra, Kushite forces took advantage of the of a

to the Romans. The head, once cuirassed
part full-length
ARI BULLETIN SEPTEMBER 20 10 VOLUME XCII NUMBER 3
148
13 Head of Augustus, from Meroe, ca. 27 BCE. British

Museum, London (artwork in the public domain; photograph
? Trustees of the British Museum GR 1911.9.-1.1)
14 Villa of Livia at Primaporta,
Primaporta Augustus,
ca. 20 BCE, marble copy of a bronze Museo
original.
Chiaramonte, Vatican Museums (artwork in the public
statue, was discovered buried beneath the of
ritually steps domain; photograph by Scala, provided by Art Resource, NY)
Building 22 inMeroe, a temple decorated with scenes of the
subjugation of Roman soldiers (Fig. 13).101 The bronze head
is majestic, over-life-size and of highest It belongs to
quality.
the imperial portrait type developed and disseminated in The Parthian capture of Roman army standards, similarly
27 BCE when Octavian formally took the name Augustus, the symbolic of Roman authority and military prowess, lived in
typebest exemplified in the Primaporta Augustus (Fig. 14).,()2 collective memory from 53 BCE, when they were taken in
When the Ethiopians sacked Syene, this portrait would have battle from theRoman general Crassus, until their negotiated
been newly erected?an
important symbol of Augustus's po? return in 20 BCE, widely celebrated by Augustus in his Res
sition as and a testament to the extent of the Roman and
literary and
princeps gestae contemporary visual sources, including
state itself.Nor was it the only such overt show of Roman the cuirass of the
Primaporta
statue itself.104 Thus, the storm?
authority at the borders. An inscription at Philae celebrated ing of Syene by the Ethiopians and their appropriation of its
Roman victories in the region in the period after annexation, statues constituted not simply acts of military aggression but
chronicling the success of the prefect of Egypt, Cornelius also a profound challenge to the visual language of Roman
Gallus, in subduing both local riots and Ethiopian forces authority.
from Rush. The inscription,
a rare case written in Greek, in Romans had long appreciated the ideological value of the
Latin, and in hieroglyphs, spoke directly to (literate) soldiers expatriation of meaningful artworks of
conquered peoples.
involved in the dispute.103 Spoils of war figured prominently in Roman triumphs from
The dismemberment of the imperial portrait likelywould the Republican period through the empire, particularly ob?
have been taken as a tremendous affront the emperor and that were the active focus of a collective
by jects identity?for
Romans living in the capital as well as by forces at the border. example,
the Great Menorah
captured
in
Judea and marched
THE EGYPTIAN OBELISK IN THE AUGUSTAN CAMPUS MARTIUS 14g
in As noted above, the Montecitorio base of the monument lends to this second
Vespasian's triumph.105 weight reading.
Obelisk itself has long been understood in this context as part The phrase "Egypt has been brought under the power of the
of a deliberate
display of Roman
sovereignty
over the con? Roman people" is one that goes beyond praising military
quered land and
people of Egypt, and specificially
as a me?
victory to express an idiom (redigere in potestatem) signifying
morial to over his rival Mark the of territories as new within
Augustus's victory longtime co-option provinces brought
Antony. the of Roman control.108
sphere
Yet the symbolism of the obelisk as a victorymonument in
Rome was both more subtle and more as consider? and Transformation
complex, Appropriation
ation of the Egyptian history of the obelisk makes plain. As demonstrated above, our
understanding of the Monteci
Besides celebrating Roman
ascendancy
and authority through torio Obelisk gains from a closer look at the specifics of its
the annexation of the monument recorded Roman an that to mon?
Egypt, history, understanding applies appropriated
in conflicts closer in time to its erection and dedica? uments like it more First, and most Late
victory generally. obviously,
tion in Rome, the troubles at the border at Period obelisks within their contexts are
specifically, Syene. Egyptian underap?
In the Rome of 10 BCE, the skirmishes at the borderlands preciated objects of study, reflective of a unique Egyptian
had more immediacy than the Battle of Actium, and also hit view of the world and its geography, from the cosmic to the
closer to home as tests of
Augustus's authority
as
princeps, by quotidian, and of the relationship among the Egyptian gods,
thenwell established within the capital city.One sore point in the king, and his people. In the case of expropriated obelisks,
the conflict in southern was that even as the Ethiopians the investigation of their histories" and the recon?
Egypt "Egyptian
tore down and desecrated statues of the struction of their contexts are vital to any
emperor, they Egyptian study of
claimed not to know who he was, much less recognize his their subsequent reuse. To fail to consider the of such
origin
authority.106
It was
largely through
an act of formal
recogni?
an obelisk is to make the mistake of treating the act of
tion of Augustus as head of a Roman state that the conflict as an break from the past,
appropriation irreparable allowing
between Rome and Kush was resolved on terms to the monument's later life to its earlier
agreeable eclipse history, thereby
both
parties; Candace, the queen of Meroe, was forced to
ignoring the object's life (or lives) as accumulative of multi?
meet with Augustus in person to
negotiate the new boundary ple and related layers of significance. The extent of this error
at Pselchis. After requiring her to travel to the island of becomes evident by considering how absurd itwould be to
Samos, in the center of the empire, he offered treat the Montecitorio Obelisk as a modern that makes
squarely quite object
reasonable terms.107 no or reference to its Roman life; to
significant sophisticated
The Roman appropriation of the Montecitorio Obelisk the contrary, the present pavement, like the Roman one, acts
required: the selection of the obelisk in Heliopolis and its as a meridian?a deliberate reference to the monument's
removal, unharmed, from its Egyptian foundations; its trans? past life and lives. Chronicling the history of a monument
portation down the Nile toAlexandria and then Rome (on from its manufacture and original
context makes it
possible
ships built specially for the purpose); the quarrying and then for us to accord commensurate value to each of the
phases of
carving
of the rose
granite base; complex mathematical cal? its long life,whether hewn from the living stone in Egypt,
culations it to function as a time teller in the Cam? above the streets of Rome, reconstructed
enabling towering Augustan
pus Martius. The reerection of the obelisk in the Campus by Domitian, or moved and reerected by Pope Pius VI. While
Martius was but the last, and culminating, step in a long and Psametik IPs twin obelisks inHeliopolis may be visible to us
involved process. Comparison with the time it took for
only through overlapping postantique lenses, the obelisks
Necho II and Psametik II to commission and complete their were major commissions in the Egypt of their day, marking
Egyptian
monument
suggests that, given the magnitude of the revival of an abandoned form that coincided with the
the endeavor, it could have taken half a decade or more,
political revival of the office of the king. This historywould be
from to Thus, the events around of value to scholars of the obelisk's later lives even had it been
inception completion.
20 BCE are as relevant to our of the monu? the Romans or later Italians.
interpretation wholly repudiated by
ment as is over and Second, the history of the obelisk was not, in fact,
Augustus's triumph Antony Cleopatra, repudi?
eleven years earlier. ated but considered significant by at least some highly edu?
The placement of theMontecitorio Obelisk in the Campus cated Roman elites of the early imperial period. Though
Martius as the of Egypt excellence celebrates the Romans had neither a nor a under?
symbol par comprehensive precise
of the area. But, fashioned from material from of the obelisk, the information available to them was
acquisition standing
the remotest of Rome's it also detailed. aside of accuracy, elite
regions Egyptian territory, surprisingly Setting questions
represented
a definitive
response to the seizure and desecra? authors writing about the obelisk in itsnew home took pains
tion of a symbol of Rome's own authority, enacted by the to demonstrate a sophisticated grasp of the object's Egyptian
Kingdom of Kush against the person of the emperor, embod? history, employing visual analogy that amounted to a kind of
ied in his official portrait. Interpreted as a celebration of contemporary art criticism. That
knowledge represented the
conquest, the obelisk has been read as casting Egypt and its height of contemporary learning.
residents as alien, defining the land of Egypt as "other"?that As the gnomon in themeridian of the Campus Martius, the
is, designating a civil war as
foreign. Understanding the obe?
Egyptian obelisk was remade as a symbol of the imperial unity
lisk as a symbol of empire, by contrast, affords Egypt, a land both textually, through its inscription, and visually, through
with a long and storied history even within the Romans' the addition of the globe to itspyramidion.109 These Roman
conceptions of history, a place within the inhabited world, additions overwrote, but did not invalidate, the underlying
the oikoumene. The Latin text carved into the rose
granite Egyptian symbolism of the monument attested by Pliny and
150
Ammianus. In short, the obelisk was refitted for a cultural pointed at the Ara Pacis on the birthday of Augustus. Edmund B?ch?
ner, Die Sonnenuhr des Augustus: Nachdruck aus RM 1976 und 1980 und
in which time and were understood
system space differently Nachtrag ?ber die Ausgrabung 1980/1981 (Mainz: P. von Zabern, 1982),
than in its original context, but the obelisk's expres? 37ff. Contra, see Michael Sch?tz, "Zur Sonnenuhr des Augustus auf
original
dem Marsfeld: Eine Auseinandersetzung mit E. Buchner's Rekon?
sion of the between rulers, and men
relationship gods, struktion und seiner Deutung der Ausgrabunsergebnisse, aus der
the agency of the sun was elaborated, not Sicht eines Physikers," Gymnasium 97 (1990): 432-57. For the early
through repudi?
ated, in that refitting. scholarship, see Erik Iversen, Obelisks inExile (Copenhagen: Gad,
1968), 142-60; and Anne Roullet, The Egyptian and Egyptianizing Mon?
uments of Imperial Rome (Leiden: Brill, 1972), cat. no. 82. For a sum?
mary of recent arguments and full bibliography, see especially the
her PhD in classical art and ar? comprehensive treatment of Peter Heslin, "Augustus, Domitian and
Swetnam-Burland received
Molly the So-called Horologium Augusti," Journal ofRoman Studies 97
chaeologyat theUniversityofMichigan inDecember 2002 and was (2007): 1-20; and Rehak and Younger, Imperium and Cosmos, 83-85.
a postdoctoralfellow at theGettyResearch Institute in 2007-8. She Other important treatments include Emilio Rodriguez-Almeida, "II
is art and at the Campo Marzo settentrionale: Solarium e pomerium," Atti della Pontifi
currently assistant professor of classical archaeology cia Accademia Romana di Archeologia 51-52 (1978-80): 195-212; Ste?
College ofWilliam and Mary [Department ofClassical Studies, the phen Quirke, The Cult ofRa: Sun-Worship inAncient Egypt (London:
Thames and Hudson, 2001), 140-42; G. W. Bowersock, "The Pontifi?
College ofWilliam and Mary, PO Box 8795, Williamsburg, Va. cate of Augustus," in Between Republic and Empire, ed. Kurt Raaflaub
23187-8795, mswetnam@wm.edu]. and M. Toher (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1990), 380
95; Penelope J. E. Davies, Death and theEmperor: Roman Imperial Funer?
aryMonuments, from Augustus toMarcus Aurelius (Cambridge: Cam?
Notes bridge University Press, 2000), 51-67, 93-95; and Diana E. E. Kleiner,
Cleopatra and Rome (Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press of Harvard Uni?
This paper was written while I was the Getty Villa Postdoctoral Fellow at the versity Press, 2005), 165-66.
Getty Research Institute. A version of this paper was read at the American 9. Diane Favro, "Reading the Augustan City," inNarrative and Event in
Society for Oriental Research 2008 conference in Boston, supported in part Ancient Art, ed. Peter Holliday (Cambridge: Cambridge University
by funds from the Reeves Center at the College ofWilliam and Mary, with Press, 1993), 230-59; and Lothar Haselberger and Alexander Thein,
additional research funding from a Suzanne Matthews Research Grant in the Urbem adornare: Die Stadt Rom und ihreGestaltumwandlung unter Augus?
summer of 2009. I thank Peter Heslin for his generosity in allowing me to tus = Rome's Urban Metamorphosis under Augustus, Journal of Roman
reproduce his plan of the Campus Martius. In addition, I am grateful to Archaeology, suppl. series 64 (Portsmouth, R.I.: Journal of Roman
Sinclair Bell, Barbara Boyd, Bob Caldwell, John Chesley, Erich Gruen, Ken 2007), 169-79.
Archaeology,
Lapatin, and David Swetnam-Burland, who read the work-in-progress. Their 10. All three have been moved from their original locations. The two rose
help, and the responses of The Art Bulletins anonymous readers, enriched the now stand on the Quirinal, in
text immeasurably. All mistakes remain my own. granite obelisks from the mausoleum
front of the Trinit? dei Monti, and in front of S. Maria Maggiore, re?
Unless otherwise noted, all translations are my own.
spectively. There is some debate about their date, for Ammianus Mar
1. I refer to the obelisks by present location. For example, the obelisk cellinus {History 7.4.16) includes them in a list of obelisks brought
once placed in Augustus's meridian is the Montecitorio Obelisk, and over after Augustus. Recently, based on excavation, Edmund B?chner
that from the Circus Maximus is the Piazza del Popolo Obelisk has argued that their foundations were contemporary with the mauso?
(as
to the "Flaminian," as it is sometimes called). leum, seated at the Augustan ground level (significantly lower than
opposed
the Flavian level). Buchner, "Ein Kanal f?r Obelisken," Antike Welt 27,
2. Corpus inscriptionumLatinarum (hereafter CIL), 17 vols. (Berlin: De no. 3 (1996): 161-68.
Gruyter, 1863-), vol. 6, 702: "imp caesar divi fil / Augustus / pontifex
maximus / imp xii cos xi trib pot xiv / aegypto in potestatem / po 11. Jeffrey Collins, "Obelisks as Artifacts in Early Modern Rome: Collect?
on the obe? ing the Ultimate Antiques," in Ricerche di Storia della Arte 72 (2000):
puli romani redacta / soli donum dedit." The inscription
lisk in the Circus Maximus, CIL, vol. 6, 701, is identical. 49-69, at 50. For approaches to obelisks, see also Grant Parker, "Nar?
3. P. G. Glare, ed., Oxford Latin Dictionary (Oxford: Oxford University rating Monumentality: The Piazza Navona Obelisk," Journal ofMediter?
ranean Archaeology 16 (2003): 193-215; and idem, "Obelisks Still in
Press, 1983), s.v. "redactus," 10a, 10b. The verb redigerecan be used Exile." For a recent general treatment of obelisks in Roman contexts,
for the power of people (such as the patria potestas of a paterfamilias) see Brian Curran et al., Obelisk (Cambridge, Mass: Burndy Library,
or of the state. See further at n. 108 below.
2009), 31-60.
4. For two recent approaches to obelisks, see Rolf Michael Schneider,
12. Pliny the Elder, Naturalis historia 36.72?73. See also Heslin, "Augustus,
"Nicht mehr ?gypten, sondern Rom: Der neue Lebensraum der Obe?
Domitian and the So-called Horologium."
lisken," Stadel fahrbuch, n.s., 19 (2004): 155-79; and Grant Parker,
"Obelisks Still in Exile: Monuments Made toMeasure," inNile into 13. "Obulisci," in "Curiosum urbis Romae regionum," XIII, in Roberto
Tiber: Egypt in theRoman World; Proceedings of theIHrd International Con? Valentini and Giuseppe Zucchetti, Codice topographicodella Citt? di
Roma (Rome: Tipografia del Senato, 1940), vol. 1, 149.
ference of Isis Studies, Faculty ofArchaeology, Leiden University,May 11-14,
2005, ed. Laurent Bricault, Miguel John Versluys, and Paul G. P. Mey 14. Valentini and Zucchetti, Codice topographico,vol. 2, 181, 186.
boom (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 209-22.
15. Iversen, Obelisks in Exile, 144.
5. The bibliography on Augustan visual culture is vast. For recent bibli?
16. For its postantique rediscovery and reerection, see Curran et al., Obe?
ography and summary, see, for example, Paul Zanker, The Power of Gli
lisk, 196-202; Iversen, Obelisks inExile, 142-60; Cesare D'Onofrio,
Images in theAge ofAugustus (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, obelischi di Roma (Rome: Bulzoni, 1967), 280-91; and JeffreyCollins,
1988); Karl Galinsky, Augustan Culture: An InterpretiveIntroduction
Papacy and Politics in Eighteenth-CenturyRome (Cambridge: Cambridge
(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1996); and Paul Rehak and
University Press, 2004), 210-19.
John G. Younger, Imperium and Cosmos: Augustus and theNorthern Cam?
pus Martius (Madison: University ofWisconsin Press, 2006). 17. Heslin, "Augustus, Domitian and the So-called Horologium," 16-18.
6. For the Augustan meridian, see n. 8 below. Treatment of the Egyp? 18. There are at least two published fragments associated with the monu?
tian monument is limited to Peter Der Manuelian's study of the ar? ment: S. Bosticco, "Frammenti inediti dell'Obelisco Campense," Aegyp
chaism of its language, in his appendix to Living in thePast: Studies in tus 37 (1957): 63-65; and Camillo Orlando-Castellano, "Frammento
Archaism of theEgyptian Twenty-SixthDynasty (New York: Kegan Paul dell'Obelisco di Montecitorio," VUrbeTl (1964): 13-15.
International, 1994). 19. The extent of the Renaissance repairs came to light through a second
7. For their transport, see A. Wirsching, "How the Obelisks Reached intervention, in 1965-66. Iversen, Obelisks inExile, 100.
Rome," International fournal ofNautical Archaeology 29, no. 2 (2000): 20. The most prevalent terms are spoliation (the reuse of materials, often
273-83; idem, "Supplementary Remarks on the Roman Obelisk architectural, sometimes for ideological purposes and sometimes for
Ships," International Journal ofNautical Archaeology 32, no. 1 (2002): economic expedience) and appropriation (the act of taking an earlier
121-23; and idem, "Die Obelisken auf dem Seeweg nach Rom," Mittei? artwork and re-creating it, through a shift in context and sometimes
lungen des Deutschen Arch?ologischen Instituts Rom 109 (2002): 141-56. For definitions and reprise of the state of
physical manipulation).
To summarize, both of Augustus's obelisks were brought to Rome in
to Alexandria, scholarship, see Maria Fabricius Hansen, The Eloquence ofAppropriation:
10 BCE, by river from Heliopolis and then by sea to
Prolegomena to an Understanding of Spolia inEarly Christian Rome (Rome:
Rome, on ships that were designed after Egyptian double-hulled ships see Robert S.
L'Erma di Bretschneider, 2003), 14. On appropriation,
but reworked to withstand maritime conditions. in Critical Terms for Art History, ed. Nelson
Nelson, "Appropriation,"
8. Most famously, it has been argued that the shadow of the obelisk and Richard Shiff (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2003). For
THE EGYPTIAN OBELISK IN THE AUGUSTAN CAMPUS MARTIUS 151
application to classical periods, see, for example, Catherine Keesling, 34. He founded new temples at the El-Kharga Oasis and a temple at El
"Misunderstood Gestures: Iconatrophy and the Reception of Greek Mahalla el-Kubra, and the oldest known remains on Philae date to his
Sculpture in the Roman Imperial Period," Classical Antiquity 24 reign. In addition, he added temple blocks to existing sites at Mem?
(2005) : 41-79. phis, Abydos, and Karnak. Dieter Arnold, Temples of theLast Pharaohs
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), 74-79.
21. Molly Swetnam-Burland, "Egyptian Objects, Roman Contexts: A Taste
for Aegyptiaca in Italy," in Bricault et al. Nile into Tiber, 113-36; and 35. Ibid., 76, 333 n. 73.
Finbarr Barry Flood, "Image against Nature: Spolia as Apotropaia in 36. As attested by the inscription of Neferibre-nofer, referring to a pyra
Byzantium and the dar al-Isalm," Medieval History Journal 9, no. 1 midion {bnbn-t). For a transcription, see Ramadan El-Sayed, Documents
(2006) : 143-66, esp. 155ff.
relatifs? Sais et ses divinites (Cairo: Institut Francais d'Archeologie Ori?
22. See, for example, two recent treatments: as symbol of Egypt, see entale du Caire, 1975), 93-108.
Kleiner, Cleopatra and Rome, 162-64; and as symbol of Apollo (elided 37. On the archaism of the Twenty-fifth and Twenty-sixth Dynasties, see
with the native Italian sun cult), see Rehak and Younger, Imperium Der Manuelian, Living in thePast, and Kathlyn Cooney, "The Edifice
and Cosmos, 90-93. of Taharqa by the Sacred Lake: Ritual Function and the Role of the
23. This is not to say, of course, that the obelisk as an Egyptian form has King," Journal of theAmerican Research Center inEgypt 37 (2000): 14-47,
escaped scrutiny, but it is usually treated as part of a category rather .and bibliography, n. 5.
than discussed as an individual monument. See, for example, Eman 38. Anthony Spalinger, "The Concept of Monarchy during the Saite
uele Marcello Ciampini, Gli obelischi iscrittidi Roma (Rome: Istituto
Epoch?an Essay of Synthesis," Orientalia 47, no. 1 (1978): 21-36.
Poligrafico e Zecca dello Stato, Libreria dello Stato, 2004), 17-32;
Curran et al., Obelisk, 13-31; and Iversen, Obelisks in Exile, 11-18. A 39. Both Herodotus (for example, Hist. 2.154) and Diodorus (for exam?
un?
notable exception focused on specific monuments, aimed at the lay ple, Bibliotheke 1.67) stress the importance of Greek mercenaries
reader: Labib Habachi and Charles Cornell Van Sielen, The Obelisks of der the Saite kings, and graffiti throughout Egypt testify to their pres?
ence in Late Period Egypt. For discussion, see Alan B. Lloyd,
Egypt: Skyscrapers of thePast (New York: Scribner, 1977).
Herodotus, Book II (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1975), 14-24; and Ove Hansen,
24. For example, Sorcha Carey, Pliny's Catalogue of Culture: Art and Empire "On the Greek Graffiti at Abu Simbel concerning the Campaign of
in theNatural History (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), 86-91. Psammetichus f?r ?gyptische Sprache und Al?
II in Ethiopia," Zeitschrift
25. See also discussion below. In short, Pliny discusses both of Augustus's terumskunde 111 (1984): 84.
obelisks but seems to confuse them. Thus, he attributes the one from 40. For translation, see Ciampini, Gli obelischi iscrittidi Roma, no. 6.
the Campus Martius to "Sesothis" (Pliny, Nat. hist. 36.14.71), a mis?
41. Ibid., 43.
taken identification that likely informed the Renaissance dedicatory
inscription attributing the work to Sesostris (Senwosret). 42. It has been suggested that in earlier periods, the heb-sed festival might
have itself followed a periodic thirty-six-or thirty-seven-year cycle,
26. So, for example, Margaret Miles discusses Augustus's obelisks as in?
stances of the practice of plundering, but with littlemention of their rather than representing the thirty-seventh year of a king's reign.
Patrick O'Mara, "Was the Sed Festival Periodic in Early Egyptian His?
original contexts, functions, or patrons. Miles, Art as Plunder: The An?
cientOrigins ofDebate about Cultural Property (New York: Cambridge tory?"Discussions inEgyptology 11 (1988): 21-30.
University Press, 2008), 243-46. 43. For the Assyrians and Psametik I, see Anthony Spalinger, The Third
IntermediatePeriod (Warminster: Aris and Phillips, 1986), 392ff.
27. The word obeliskderives from the ancient Greek word obeliskos,mean?
ing "small spit" or "skewer," but this does not capture the symbolic 44. For the original text and its translation into French, see Jeanne-Marie
content of the Egyptian language, which can imply regeneration Aynard, Le prisme du Louvre Ao 19.939 (Paris: H. Champion, 1957), 33,
through sexual action. So, for example, bnbn, the Egyptian word for lines 50-55.
the pyramidion at the apex, is etymologically close to the word for the 45. Ibid., 23-25. Egyptian obelisks were commonly faced with electrum.
primeval mound of the Egyptian creation myth, and also implies the See also Christian Desrouches Noblecourt, "Deux grands obelisques
action of "rising" or "becoming erect." John Baines, "Bnbn: Mytholog?
precieux d'un sanctuaire ? Karnak: Les egyptiens ont-ils erige des
ical and Linguistic Notes," Orientalia 39 (1970): 389-404; Ciampini,
obelisques d'electrum?" Revue d'Egyptologie 8 (1951): 47-61.
Gli obelischi iscrittidi Roma, 24-25; Erik Iversen, "Two Suggestions Con?
46. On the conflict, see Anthony Spalinger, "Assurbanipal and Egypt: A
cerning Obelisks," Discussions inEgyptology 33 (1995): 14-44; and Cur?
ran et al., Obelisk, 14-15. Source Study," Journal of theAmerican Oriental Society 94, no. 3 (1974):
322-24; and Jean Yoyotte, "Quelques toponymes
" egyptiens men
28. On the site, see L?slo Kakosy, "Heliopolis," in Lexikon der ?gyptologie,
tionnes dans les 'Annales d'Assurbanipal,' Revue d Assyriologie et
ed. Wolfgang Helck and Eberhard Otto (Wiesbaden: O. Harrassowitz,
d'Archeologie Orientale^ (1952): 212-14.
1977), vol. 2, 1111-13.
47. On the symbolic use of red granite, see Christina Karlhausen, "Gra?
29. For solar symbolism, see Quirke, The Cult ofRa, 134-42. nite rose et serpentinite verte: Le choix de la pierre dans l'art de
30. See still Reginald Engelbach, The Aswan Obelisk, with Some Remarks on l'Egypte ancienne," 42-29, and John Baines, "Stone and Other Mate?
theAncient Engineering (Cairo: Institut Francais d'Archeologie Orien? rials in Ancient Egypt: Usages and Values," 29-41, both in Pierres egyp
tale, 1922); Dieter Arnold, Building inEgypt: Pharaonic StoneMasonry tiennes,ed. Karlhausen et al. (M?ns: Faculte Polytechnique de M?ns,
(New York: Oxford University Press, 1991), 27-55; and Curran et al., 2000); and Arielle P. Kozloff et al., Egypt's Dazzling Sun: Amenhotep III
Obelisk, 25-29. and His World (Cleveland: Cleveland Museum of Art; Bloomington:
Indiana University Press, 1992), 142-46.
31. Though remarkable texts inscribed on Hatshepsut's obelisks in Kar
nak suggest that theywere quarried, transported, and erected 48. Arnold, Temples of theLast Pharaohs, 43.
quickly?in a period of about seven months?it is likely that the pro? 49. Labib Habachi, "Psammetique II dans la region de la premiere cata
duction of the Montecitorio Obelisk, and, indeed, many others, took
racte," Oriens Antiquus 13, no. 4 (1974): 314-26; and Serge Sauneron
far longer. For a translation of the relevant texts, see James Henry and Jean Yoyotte, "La campagne nubienne de Psammetique II et sa
Breasted, Ancient Records ofEgypt: Historical Documents from theEarliest
signification historique," Bulletin de l'InstitutFrancais d'Archeologie Orien?
Times to thePersian Conquest, vols. 1-4 (Chicago: University of Chicago tate50 (1952): 157-207.
Press, 1906), vol. 2, 304-36. Herodotus, a closer source to the Late
50. Hansen, "On the Greek Graffiti."
Period, says that it took two thousand men a period of three years to
move the naos, a shrine for holding a cult image, of Amasis (similarly 51. On the texts, see especially Der Manuelian, Living in thePast, 351-71;
a monolith, and perhaps twice the weight of an obelisk) from the and H. S. K. Bakry, "Psammetichus II and His Newly Found Stela at
quarry to Sais in the delta, not including the time required for quar? Shell?l," Oriens Antiquus 6, no. 2 (1967): 223-44. For interpretation of
rying (Herodotus, The Histories 2.175). As I argue below, the Monteci? the series, see Habachi, "Psammetique II dans la region de la pre?
torio Obelisk was likely begun by Necho II (who governed for roughly miere cataracte"; and Roberto B. Gozzoli, The Writing ofHistory in An?
fifteen years) and then dedicated by his son Psametik II (who gov? cientEgypt during theFirstMillennium BC: Trends and Perspectives (Lon?
erned for six)?again suggesting itwas several years in production. don: Golden House Publications, 2006), 95-97.
32. See K. A. Kitchen, The Third IntermediatePeriod inEgypt, 1100-650 B.C. 52. For the section on the obelisks: "[Psametik II] built the temple of the
(Warminster: Aris and Phillips, 1986), 399-408; Herodotus, Hist. lord of eternity; he erected a pyramidion [bnbn-t] in the Mehenet of
2.151-82; and Diodorus Siculus, Bibliotheke 1.66-68. Sais, in work . . .fine limestone of Ayan [text continues on the left
face of the socle] obelisks of Elephantine granite, houses for the first
33. For translation of the hieoroglyphic text into Italian, see Ciampini, Gli
time for Neit; the sacred bark-shrine of gold, encrusted with every
obelischi iscrittidi Roma, 143-49. Its "twin" is lost, though recent exca?
vations in the harbor of Alexandria revealed fragments of an obelisk precious metal"; modified from Breasted, Ancient Records ofEgypt,
vol. 4, 981. For a full translation into French, see El-Sayed, Documents
bearing the cartouche of Psametik II. See Jean-Yves Empereur, "Alex?
andria: The Underwater Site near Qaitbay Fort," Egyptian Archaeology 8 relatifs? Sais, 93-109.
(1996): 7-11. 53. Breasted, Ancient Records ofEgypt, vol. 4, 980. For Horwedja, see
152
Anthea Page, Egyptian Sculpture: Archaic toSaite (Warminster: Aris and 72. Pliny, Praefatio 13: ". . . rerum natura, hoc est via, narratur."
Phillips, 1976), cat. no. 107. 73. Ammianus Marcellinus, Hist. 17.4.6: ". . . in hac urbe inter delubra
54. Here, I necessarily reconstruct the perspective of an elite or educated ingentia, diversasque moles, figmenta Aegyptiorum numinum expri
viewer, with access to one or both of the ancient texts at hand. For a mentes, obeliscos vidimus plures, aliosque iacentes et comminutos,
characterization of status among Roman viewers, with attention to "or? quos antiqui reges bello domitis gentibus, aut prosperitatibus summa
dinary" viewers, see recently John R. Clarke, Art in theLives of Ordinary rum rerum elati, montium venis vel apud extremos orbis incolas per
Romans: Visual Representation and Non-Elite Viewers in Italy, 100 B.C. scrutatis excisos, et erectos dis superis in religione dicarunt. Est autem
A.D. 315 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2003), 4-7. obeliscus asperrimus lapis, in figuram metae cuiusdam sensim ad pro
55. Herodotus, Hist. 2.154. ceritatem consurgens excelsam, utque radium imitetur, gracilescens
paulatim, specie quadrata in verticem productus angustum, manu
56. Herodotus, Hist. 2.160.
levigatus artifici. Formarum autem innumeras notas, hieroglyphicas
57. Though Psametik II (under the name Psamouthis) appears in appellatas, quas ei undique videmus incisas, initialis saptientiae vetus
Manetho's list of Egyptian kings as transmitted by later authors, little insignivit auctoritas. Volucrum enim ferarumque etiam alieni mundi
substantive information is provided about him. (Fragments 68, 69, in genera multa sculptentes, ut ad aevi quoque sequentis aetates, impe
Manetho, trans.W. G. Waddell [Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University tratorum vulagtius perveniret memoria, promissa vel soluta regum
Press, 1980].) Diodorus does not include him in his treatment of vota monstrabant."
Egypt's Late Period. 74. Daniel Stolzenberg, "Egyptian Oedipus: Antiquarianism, Oriental
58. Carey, Pliny's Catalogue ofCulture, 86-90; and Valerie Naas, Le projet Studies, and Occult Philosophy in theWorks of Athanasius Kircher"
encyclopedique de Pline Landen (Rome: Ecole Francaise de Rome, 2002), (PhD diss., Stanford University, 2004), 335-56.
366-67. 75. For the postantique reception of the text, see Berenice Lambrecht,
59. Pliny, Nat. hist. 36.14: "... trabes ex eo fecere reges quodam cer "L'obelisque d'Hermapion," Le Museon: Revue d'Etudes Orientales 114,
tamine, obeliscos vocantes Solis numini sacratos. Radioriorum eius no. 1 (2001): 51-95, esp. 91-92.
argumentum in effigie est, et ita significatur nomine Aegyptio. Primus 76. Adolf Erman, "Die Obelisken?bersetzung des Hermapions," Sitzungs?
omnium id instituitMesphres, qui regnabat in Solis urbe, somnio ius
berichteder preussischen Akademie derWissenschaften, 1914: 245-73; and
sus; hoc ipsum inscriptum in eo, etenim scalpturae illae effigiesque 82.
Lambrecht, "L'obelisque d'Hermapion,"
quas videmus Agyptiae sunt litterae."
60. Pliny, Nat. Hist. 36.13.
77. John Rolfe, trans., Ammianus Marcellinus (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard
University Press, 1972), 327 n. 7.
61. As noted in D. E. Eichholz's translation of Pliny, Natural History (Cam?
78. Lambrecht, "L'obelisque d'Hermapion," 91.
bridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1967), vol. 10, 50.
79. On the Trinit? dei Monti Obelisk, see Iversen, Obelisks inExile, 128
62. On obelisks as "speaking" and active makers of meaning, see Parker,
41; and D'Onofrio, Gli obelischi di Roma, 268-79, and bibliography.
"Obelisks Still in Exile"; and Linda Safran, "Points of View: The Theo
dosian Obelisk Base in Context," Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 80. It is unclear whether Hermapion (or a different author) similarly
34 (1993): 409-35. translated the Montecitorio Obelisk, or how comprehensive his book
of translations was. That there were at least some residents of Roman
63. Pliny, Nat. Hist. 36.15: ". . . ei, qui est in campo, divus Augustus addidit
cities who could read and write hieroglyphs is confirmed by other
mirabilem usam" (my emphasis).
texts, likely created in Italy, including one on Domitian's obelisk in
64. See Pliny, Nat. hist. 36.14.66, for Ramses' opus in Heliopolis, and the Piazza Navona; see, for example, J.-C. Grenier, "Les inscriptions
36.16.67, comparing the initial erection of the obelisk with the act of hieroglyphiques de l'obelisque Pamphili: Un temoignage meconnu
quarrying it. sur avenement de Domitien," Melanges de lEcole Francaise de Rome 99
65. Pliny, Nat. hist. 36.71: "is autem obeliscus quern divus Augustus in (1987): 937-61.
circo magno statuit excisus est a rege Psemetnepserphreo, quo reg 81. This phrase, in fact,may correspond to the Egyptian text on the obe?
nante Pythagoras in Aegypto fuit, lxxxv pedum et dodrantis praeter lisk's south face, though most of what Hermapion gives as the text of
basim eiusdem lapidis; is vero, quern in campo Martio, novem pedum the south face of the obelisk in fact comes from the north face. Lam?
minor, a Sesothide. inscripti ambo rerum naturae interpretationem brecht, "L'obelisque d'Hermapion," 79.
Aegyptiorum philosophia continent."
82. Ammianus Marcellinus, Hist. 17.4.18:
66. That is, Psemet + nepserphreus. This is noted also in Eichholz, trans., "HX105BccoiaeT 'Pauecmr). 8E8cbpr|uca aoi ?v? Traaav oiKounEvnv ueto
-
Pliny, Natural History, 56 n. b. Xap?s ?aaiAeuEiv, ?v "HX105 cpiXsT. [Kai] AttoXXcov KpaTEp?s q>iXaXr|9r|s
mos "Hpcovos, 8eoyr|Vvr|Tos ktiottis Tfjs oiKoujirjvES, ?vUXios irpoEKpiVEV,
67. See n. 57 above.
aXtanos '?pscos BaaiXsus 'PauE?Tris. <+>Tr?aa uttotetccktgci r|yfj uetcx ?XKfjs
68. The best (and earliest) manuscript, the Codex Bambergensis, tran? Kai Sapaoug. BaoiXsu^ 'PauEcrrris 'HXiou Trais aicovo?ioc;."
scribed in the tenth century in Italy, in fact preserves spemetnepser
as Psemet 83. Cesare Letta, "Helios / Sol," in Lexicon Iconographicum Mythologiae Clas
phreus. The word is understood by most editors of the Latin sicae (hereafter LIMQ, ed. John Boardman, Hans Christoph Acker?
nepserphreus. This is a fair reading, especially because the mistakes in
the spelling would be simple mistakes for a scribe fluent in Latin. mann, and Jean-Robert Gisler (Zurich: Artemis, 1988), vol. 4, pt. 1,
592-624.
They render unusual phonetics as Latin words: that is, as spem-et
nepserphreus, replacing the unusual prefix psem with the accusative of 84. Ammianus Marcellinus, Hist. 17.4.20:
spes and linking the elements with the common Latin et.Other manu? "AttoXXcov KpccTEp?s uio$ "Hpcovos BaoiXeus oikouuevtis PauEQTT|$, ?$
later than the Codex Bambergensis?preserve other
scripts?much EcpuXa^ev AiyuTTTOV T0O5 ?XXoe8v?Ts viiaiaas" (powerfulApollo, son
variants of the name, including semneserteo.The apparatus criticusused who protects Egypt, having con?
ofHeron, Ramestes king of the oikoumene,
for this reading was the Teubner edition: Jan von Ludwig and Karl
quered other peoples).
Mayhoff, C. Plini Secundi Naturalis Historiae libriXXXVII (Stuttgart:
Teubner, 1967). The manuscript tradition (establishing the Codex 85. Diodorus Siculus, Bibliotheke 37.11.
Bambergensis as the most accurate manuscript for this section of 86. Ciampini, Gli obelischi iscrittidi Roma, 145.
Pliny's work) is discussed in L. D. Reynolds and Peter K. Marshall, 87. For Roman laws and customs on seating in the circus, see Humphrey,
Texts and Transmission: A Survey of theLatin Classics (Oxford: Claren?
Roman Circuses, 77; and Peter Rose, "Spectators and Spectator Com?
don Press, 1983), 307-16. I thank Barbara Boyd for her help on this
fort in Roman Entertainment Buildings," Papers of theBritish School in
point. Rome 73 (2005): 99-130. For the pulvinar, see Humphrey, 78-83; and
69. The names of both Sety I and Ramses II appear on the monument.
Christopher van den Berg, "The Pulvinar in Roman Culture," Transac?
Sesothis likely derives from sthy,as the king is named on the monu? tions of theAmerican Philological Association 138 (2008): 239-73.
ment. For the Piazza del Popolo Obelisk as Egyptian monument, see
88. See especially Ciampini, Gli obelischi iscrittidi Roma, 143-49.
Peter Brand, "The 'Lost' Obelisks and Colossi of Seti I," Journal of the
American Research Center in Egypt 34 (1997): 101-14; and idem, The 89. Haselberger and Thein, Urbem adornare, 169-71 n. 220.
Monuments of Seti I: Epigraphic, Historical, and Art Historical Analysis 90. Sch?tz, "Zur Sonnenuhr des Augustus auf dem Marsfeld," 432-57.
(Leiden: Brill, 2000), vol. 3, 16.
91. For the definition of and full bibliography on marmora, see Rolf Mi?
70. See also Molly Swetnam-Burland, "Egyptian Priests in Roman Italy," in chael Schneider, "Marmor," in Der Neue Pauly, vol. 7 (Stuttgart: J. B.
Cultural Identity and thePeoples of theMediterranean, ed. Erich Gruen Metzler, 1999), 928-38. Most evidence suggests that extensive exploi?
(Los Angeles: Getty Research Institute, forthcoming). tations of the Egyptian quarries began in the Julio-Claudian period,
71. Eichholz, trans., Pliny, Natural History, 56 n. b. This conclusion is of? with only intermittent use of the material by Augustus and Tiberius.
ten echoed elsewhere, for example, John H. Humphrey, Roman Cir? This would, however, serve tomake Augustan use more notable in
cuses and Chariot Racing (Berkeley: University of California Press, Rome. On the marmora trade, see Martin Maischberger, "Some Re?
1985), 661 n. 236. marks on the Topography and History of Imperial Rome's Marble
Imports," in Archeomateriaux: Marbres et autres wehes, ed. Max Schvoerer hand experience with the sites in question, to which he traveled him?
(Talence: CRPAA: PUB, 1999), 325-34; idem, Marmor inRom: Anlief? self not long before the conflict with Meroe.
erung, Lager- und Werkpl?tze in derKaiserzeit (Wiesbaden: Reichert, 101. R. C. Bosanquet, "Bronze Head of Augustus," Annals ofArchaeology and
1997); and Hazel Dodge, "Decorative Stones forArchitecture in the
Roman Empire," OxfordJournal ofArchaeology 7, no. 1 (1988): 65-80. Anthropology 4 (1912): 66-71; and Denys Haynes, "The Date of the
Bronze Head of Augustus from Meroe," in Alessandria e ilmondo ellenis
92. For Egyptian stone quarried by Augustus and Tiberius, see Pliny, Nat. tico-romano,ed. N. Bonacasa (Rome: L'Erma di Bretschneider, 1983),
hist. 36.55; and Clayton Fant, "Augustus and the City of Marble," in 177-82. For detailed bibliography, see Dietrich B?schung, Die Bildnisse
Schvoerer, Archeomateriaux, 277-81, esp. 279 and fig. 1. On the dates des Augustus (Berlin: Gebr?der Mann, 1993), cat. no. 122.
of the Egyptian quarries, see especially J. B. Ward-Perkins and Hazel
102. B?schung, Die Bildnisse des Augustus, cat. no. 122.
Dodge, Marble inAntiquity: Collected Papers off. B. Ward-Perkins (Lon?
don:'British School at Rome, 1992), 23 n. 8. 103. See J. N. Adams, Bilingualism and theLatin Language (New York: Cam?
93. The dates of the piece have been much debated. For the argument bridge University Press, 2003), 533-34, 637-41.
that it isAugustan, see Volker Michael Stroka, "Augusuts als Pharao," 104. Augustus, Res gestae 28.
in Eikones: Studien zum griechischen und r?mischenBildnis, ed. Rolf A.
105. On Roman displays of spoils of war in the triumph, see recently Mary
Stucky and Ines Jucker (Bern: Franke, 1980), 177-80. Beard, The Roman Triumph (Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press of Har?
94. See n. 10 above. vard University Press, 2007), 143ff.; and Miles, Art as Plunder.
95. Suetonius, Divus Augustus 28. 106. "Petronius . . . sent ambassadors to demand what they had taken, as
96. Joachim Ganzert, Im Allerheiligsten des Augustusforums: Fokus "Oikoume also to ask why they had begun war; and when they said that they had
nischerAkkulturation" (Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 2000), esp. 46-53. been wronged by the Nomarchs, he replied that these were not rulers
Rose granite was not used in this building, but alabaster imported of the country, but Caesar." Strabo, Geography 17.2.54, C 820, trans,
from Egypt was. and ed. Horace Leonard Jones, vol. 8 (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard
97. Schneider, "Nicht mehr ?gypten," 165. University Press, 1946), 137.
107. "Ambassadors came [to Petronius] but he bade them go to Cae?
98. Pliny, Nat. hist. 36.63.
sar . . .and theywent to Samos, since Caesar was there and intended
99. Derek Welsby, The Kingdom ofKush: The Napatan and Meroitic Empires to proceed to Syria from there, after dispatching Tiberius to Armenia.
(Princeton: Markus Wiener, 1998); William Adams, Nubia: Corridor to And when the ambassadors had obtained everything they pled for, he
Africa (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1977), esp. 333-82; L. P. even remitted the tributes which he had imposed." Ibid., 17.2.54,
Kirwan, "Rome beyond the Southern Egyptian Frontier," Geographical C 821, trans. Jones, Geography, 141.
Journal 123, no. 1 (1957): 13-19; idem, "Beyond Roman Egypt's
Desert Frontiers: Review," Geographical Journal 144, no. 2 (1978): 294 108. See particularly Florus, Epitomies 1.3 (1.9.8), in the context of the ex?
97; and Anna Maria Demicheli, Rapporti di pace e di guerra dell'egitto tension of the Roman state (by warfare) to include all of Italy ("totam
romano con lepopolazioni dei deserti africani (Milan: A. Giuffre, 1976), Italiam sub se redegerent"). See also Caesar, Bellum civile 3.73; Livy, Ab
65-95. For dates of the conflict, see Shelagh Jameson, "Chronology of urbe condita 5.29.4; and Cicero, De provinciis consularibus 32.
the Campaigns of Aelius Gallus and C. Petronius," Journal ofRoman 109. On the globe as symbol, see Claude Nicolet, Space, Geography, and Poli?
Studies 58 (1968): 71-84. tics in theEarly Roman Empire (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan
100. Importantly, Strabo's account, Geography 17.1.53-55, also reflects first Press, 1991), 35-36.

'Aegyptus Redacta': The Egyptian Obelisk in The Augustan Campus Martius - Molly Swetnam-Burland

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

'Aegyptus Redacta': The Egyptian Obelisk in The Augustan Campus Martius - Molly Swetnam-Burland

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Taylor & Francis, Ltd.

College Art Association

You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

31 BCE, continues to attract attention in the modern cross-cultural which a monu?

high, the obelisk is carved with hieroglyphs, many rendered

fore). The inscription speaks

irrevocable of one region by another.3 alleled scale, designed

noon?was located in close proximity

gustan regime, and his mausoleum, built in about 28 BCE to plans

2 Montecitorio Obelisk, detail of the base, 10 BCE, Aswan

a twinmonument at the sanctuary to Re inHeliopolis by the

had a new pavement made, at once as meridian and

regionum," a regionary catalog dating roughly to the reign of

public domain; photograph byVanni,

4 Ara Pacis 13-9 BCE, Luna

priator, Augustus, and the limited interest of Egyptologists in birthday).

5 Campus Martius, Rome, topo?

1069 BCE), resplendent in size, carving, and polished finish. practice.37

the human cosmos) to Re-Harakhti and to the Atum,

obelisks, or the electrum sheets that faced an obelisk (or

7 Map of the Mediterranean, 2009

(provided by theAncient World

while its Roman was foremost its meaning: as monolith, as cultic as

things) was not used lightly. If anything, it is evocative of his

down and smashed. When a was in

stresses that despite

required detailed study of the Egyptian text, and that both

the existence of book stands as testament to

pion's translation of the south side of the monument:

The sun, to Ramestes. I have to you the entire

The translation highlights the king's place in both the hu?

level, the translation the two dif?

up to the wild and uncontrolled as understood

Popolo Obelisk stood at the center of the track dividing the

the text was relevant to the Circus Maximus?for

those of highest rank. The emperor the a

obelisk into focus for the highly educated Roman audience.

each carved on two faces with Latin inscriptions proclaiming

the necessity for a foundation that could bear their massive

changed their meaning. The act of inscribing an identical

building programs in different parts of the city,marking the

thought to stand at 100 Roman feet (that is,73>4 feet or 29.42

105.37 Roman feet (31 meters).90 With the addition of the

By the end of the first century CE, the Roman trade in

11 Trinit? dei Monti Obelisk (artwork in the public domain;

in Greek means He chose to name

boundary of the oikoumene, a

period became one of themost contested borderlands of the

Antony and Cleopatra, Kushite forces took advantage of the of a

13 Head of Augustus, from Meroe, ca. 27 BCE. British

You might also like