Engraved gems, especially glass ones, created a connection between the recipients and politicians.
By Dr. Paweł Gołyźniak
Department of Classical Archaeology
Institute of Archeology
Jagiellonian University
Introduction
This article is concerned with Roman propaganda on engraved gems in general. It is divided into two parts. The first introduces areas where intaglios and cameos were intended to influence and shape public opinion as well as to bring individuals round to the propagandist’s point of view. These include aspects unrelated to the actual emission of propaganda but are rather concerned with its processing and the recipients’ response to it. They have been selected according to the general rules of the theory of propaganda as well as previous scholarship. It is essential to analyse propaganda practices known from other branches of Roman art (especially coins and sculpture) because many mechanisms applied to them might be employed on engraved gems as well. Overall, it is hoped that they will help to elucidate the numerous propaganda campaigns undertaken by Roman politicians and other social and political applications of glyptics. This should also help to determine how far intaglios and cameos were used for propaganda purposes and which forms of propaganda were preferred by Late Roman Republican politicians and Augustus. All the areas listed here will be once more discussed in the fourth part in combination with a study of glyptic art’s position in Roman propaganda in general. The second part discusses various problems and limitations relating to the investigations of propaganda on gems.
Anticipated Areas of Propaganda on Engraved Gems
Use of Gems in Triumphs
Triumphs and processions were perfect occasions for propagandists not only to show off their power but also to exhibit the spolia of war. Triumphs were especially dear to Roman dictators and imperators. They were the only chance to appear in the city in full glory. They could show what they brought to Rome and for this they were appreciated by the people. Such spectacles were meant to raise the authority of the propagandist and gain him popularity, but he could also distribute freely money and other valuable objects presenting scenes commemorating the event.1 Engraved gems, especially glass ones, if indeed distributed among people during triumphs, created a connection between the recipients and politicians. Moreover, exhibiting gems among the spolia of war also aimed to raise the popularity of the triumphator and as it will be shown, their presentation to the temples might have been perceived as ritual act in which the donor proved his pietas erga deos and pietas erga patriam. All these aspects will be discussed in the third part of the study.
Collecting
Collecting is an ancient practice. The wealthy spent money on objects that had no practical use but had other meanings for their owners. It was the Ptolemaic dynasty who collected books from all over the world and put them into the famous library in Alexandria.2 Art in all its forms was a primary subject of interest to notable collectors. The first securely dated art collector was Aratos of Sikyon (271-213 BC) who was known as a collector of paintings.3 When in the 3rd century BC Rome started to conquer the Mediterranean world, it lacked luxury; a hundred years later it had been seduced by the enervating abundance of the East. Romans started to be interested in almost everything of value and then brought those things to their land where marble or bronze statues, paintings and so forth decorated their villas.4 This naturally resulted in the creation of a specific art market which was a good platform to raise money for a range of reasons, including political ones. Various sources highlight the connection between auctions of works of art and dependence on effective short-term cash-mechanisms for the consolidation of military and political positions.5 Collecting itself should be regarded as an aspect of propaganda machinery since the practice was reserved only for a few who used it to show off their high social status and financial capabilities.6 Moreover, spending money on the best pieces of art could confirm regular incomes or other benefits in the propagandist’s followers’ eyes. Besides, collecting of art might have been regarded as proof of a propagandist’s or collector’s high educational, aesthetical and cultural aspirations and was appreciated by members of the upper class. As Casagrade-Kim notices, in Rome, art-collecting often worked on two levels, private and public one and both were useful in propaganda.7 In this respect glass gems are of special importance because as will be discussed, the political disturbances of the second half of the 1st century BC resulted in an increase in their production and there is some evidence that many glass gems were objects created for less wealthy collectors.
Employment of Gem Engravers
Some propagandists (e.g. leading Roman politicians) were probably engaged in the production of ‘propaganda gems’, especially the cheap glass ones that perhaps were manufactured in workshops under their control or influence. These products flooded the market under encouragement of Roman statesmen or were distributed directly to their recipients. However, it was neither easy nor cheap to impress the most influential people because only very special and expensive artworks could engage their interest. Therefore, if a propagandist wanted to gain their support, he had to employ leading artists who produced masterpieces. This was a powerful signal because it proved that a propagandist could afford to do something which is possible only for a few. Besides, in the case of engraved gems, having an artist working exclusively for somebody was like, and perhaps in some cases (Augustus?) indeed was an imitation of Alexander the Great who placed Pyrgoteles on a level with Apelles and Lysippus, by naming him as the only artist permitted to engrave seal-rings for him.8 The employment of a well-respected artist certainly added splendour and it could be even a matter of rivalry to offer a job to the best artists available.
Seals
The primary function of intaglios was sealing. In general, they were used to secure properties, in correspondence and in some legal practices.9 Images appearing on them were deliberately chosen so that they tell much about their sitters. Of course, the official seals of prominent politicians were used to send out propaganda messages. Collon and Siddall notice that already some cylinder seals were engraved with meaningful communications and intended as propaganda.10 In medieval times official seals used by kings and high-ranking dignitaries were given elaborated and complex iconography glorifying their users.11 Rambach informs us that French kings had several seals for various purposes at their disposal so that they could send out more than just one message if they wished.12 Assuming that engraved gems were carried in rings in order to manifest political allegiances, many more people (recipients of propaganda) have seen a sealing created by a specific gemstone if that sealing was attached to a letter or another document. It would be a part of propaganda package because the sealing not only transfers a message but it also guarantee the source of the document through authority of its issuer. If the document had travelled, it would have been very helpful in dissemination of propaganda messages. There is evidence, although from later period, that sealings attached to the letters sent to the secretariats of local magnates from Rome influenced local coinages.13 Bearing all of this in mind, it is to be expected that official seals used by prominent Roman politicians were also used to communicate propaganda messages.
Personal Branding and Self-Promotion
Personal branding is the most significant and popular of all propaganda activities performed in ancient Rome and beyond. According to present-day marketing studies, it is the practice of people marketing themselves and their careers as brands.14 The term first appeared in the 20th century, but it can be successfully applied to studies of ancient propaganda as well.15 It is closely related to the concept of self-promotion and in this study is mostly concerned with portraits and their dissemination within the public and private spheres. Promotion of or through origo as well as highlighting various capabilities, high social status etc. (the two latter will be more extensively discussed in the following sections) might also be considered personal branding; however, because they usually express familial connections, they are treated as a separate category. In any case, personal branding was intended first, to popularise a politician, make him recognisable, and second, to make him an appealing figure, worth following. Since ancient times the images of kings, emperors and other key figures widely circulated within society by means of the visual arts because this was the only chance for ordinary people to ‘meet’ their leader.16 Rulers were perfectly aware of this. They issued self-images which played a crucial role in creating a connection between them and their people.17 Personal branding is perhaps best seen on coins and sculpture since these two categories offered a wide dissemination of the image: first thanks to the number of objects issued and their various forms, second due to their installation in public places.18 Julius Caesar was one of the first to put an image of a living person (his own) on a coin.19 Although this act proved counterproductive for him, subsequent generations issued coins with their own images without any hesitation. Coins were perfect for personal branding also because the sender of a propagandistic message could be easily identified thanks to the inscription accompanying the image.20 In the case of sculpture, one observes a similar mechanism and overall, the propagandistic value of statues, busts and heads must have been considerable since they were so abundant.21 Moreover, private initiatives and reactions to official images in the form of putting busts and heads of famous Roman politicians in private houses or putting up their statues in cities and towns throughout the Empire (reception) are widely attested.22 All these observations bring us to the question as to whether or not engraved gems were used for personal branding too.
Induction and Manifestation of Loyalty and Support
Another propaganda practice that seems to be well represented on engraved gems but hard to find in other branches of Roman art is the manifestation of loyalty and support as well as political views in general. Intaglios and cameos are evidence for personal relationships between people.23 Portrait gems could be used to express someone’s loyalty and support for his political patron.24 This view is based on the well-established patron – client model existing in ancient Rome where usually, the former is an influential politician, while the latter is his supporter and follower.25 Regarding glyptics, this phenomenon existed in three forms. First of all, portrait gems could be distributed by political leaders to their clients (soldiers, followers and supporters) in order to gain their support and bind them with the use of precious objects that would be longstanding mementos of the occasion and person from whom they were gifted. Secondly, the clients themselves could commission gems with portraits of their patron which they later either gifted to them, collected or displayed to manifest their loyalty. This mechanism is analogous to that known from sculpture. Whole communities in Asia Minor and other Roman provinces erected statues to their Roman patrons (for instance Pompey the Great and Augustus) in order to demonstrate their loyalty and support.26 By doing this, they also advertised the support of prominent Roman politicians for themselves, so that this was a mutually beneficial relationship. This approach eliminates some of the problems related to the identification of portrait gems. As Yarrow points out, would the ancient wearer have associated a specific meaning with the portrait? Would that meaning have been obvious to at least some of those who encountered it as his personal seal? The variety and obscurity of portrait gems make sense if one thinks not about individuals making individual choices, but instead of a small community taking the portrait as a shared symbol, perhaps at the instigation of a particular community leader, copied from various media by multiple artists.27 As a result, one ends up with groups of gems inconsistent in style and with alterations to physiognomic features but still attributable to specific political leaders. Finally, political affinity could also be expressed by following the general framework offered by official art. This is supposed to have been particularly successful in Augustan times and we would expect engraved gems, like coins, sculpture and any other branch of Roman art, to testify to its existence. For glyptics is always based on deliberate choices made by the gems’ users who identified themselves for whatever reason with the subject-matter engraved. It is evident that the expression of political affinity was one of the main reasons for possessing a ring with an intaglio or cameo for the Romans especially during the 1st century BC and early 1st century AD.
Use of Heritage
Various assets understood as private heritage contribute to a person’s public image. In ancient Rome, just as nowadays the number of inherited belongings influenced how people perceived each other. The usefulness of heritage for political actions was not only determined by wealth, but also by other qualities. For instance, the fact that Augustus shared much of the wealth inherited from Julius Caesar with common people and soldiers brought him much respect and popularity. There were also other subtle ways of using heritage for political reasons. Intaglios and cameos as precious objects bearing important subjects by definition were used to transfer not only material value, but also various qualities including auctoritas. Gems set in family rings definitely helped to build a positive image for the propagandist since they were objects testifying to his legitimacy to act as successor to his great ancestors. These two activities based on the use of inherited name and authority should be considered agitation and integration propaganda in one. They were intended to raise the authority of a propagandist through his claim to some special inherited qualities (usually his name, but also divine protection or nobility). At the same time, gems helped to unite the followers of the propagandist’s predecessor so that he could advertise himself as a new political leader of a faction. The most common technique used in this respect is the transfer device.
Promotion of Family and Oneself through Origo
The next popular subject of Roman propaganda is promotion of family and sometimes specific family members as well as promotion of oneself by demonstration of noble origo. This mechanism was deeply anchored in Italic tradition and the Romans paid great attention to the cult of ancestors as well as of legendary founders of their families, cities and the state.28 It is not surprising then that official and private art was very much concerned with this issue. Promotion of family history was performed for example through literature which includes descriptions of family legends such as Julius Caesar’s relationship with Venus or Octavian’s with Apollo.29 Since c. 200 BC coins gradually became a platform for promotion of familial subjects. There are many motifs alluding to the legendary founders of specific gentes reflecting their relationships with deities, for example Vulcan with gens Caecilia and Ulysses with gens Mamilia.30 This was especially popular in the 1st century BC among upstart families like the Julii Caesares, the Memmii of the Galria tribe, the Mamilii and the Marci.31 However, divine nature was not the only way to promote a family. The Triumviri monetales of some gentes tended to put images on coins that were related to their legendary ancestors, for instance members of the gentes Aemilia and Servilia.32 The studies performed by some scholars encourage us to look for familial subjects on intaglios and cameos alike and to check whether they could be related to propaganda or were simply family heirlooms.33 Perhaps the same phenomenon occurred on gems as on coins as suggested by Vollenweider.34 Henig has made an interesting remark about the use of gems bearing an image of a famous predecessor in order to raise one’s own authority.35 This transfer of authority is clearly a form of propaganda technique called transfer device. Finally, the last form of family propaganda is the promotion of successors, a mechanism well-known from the studies of Roman coins and sculpture of Augustan times.36 The same mechanism can be traced on engraved gems, especially, as far as the successors of Augustus are concerned. Promotion of family is a complex matter and is a form of agitation and integration propaganda. The main purpose was to send a positive message to society about one’s origo or to transfer authority from a predecessor onto a propagandist. This action was intended to integrate his supporters by raising his authority and strengthening his legitimacy to rule. Promotion of new family members was also agitation propaganda aimed at gaining supporters for them.
Promotion of Faction
The political scene of ancient Rome was very complex. It was driven by various political forces which today we would term parties, but back then they were called factions (factiones). There was fierce rivalry between these groups, whether they were just two opposing sides (Optimates and Populares) or more numerous as after the assassination of Julius Caesar (Pompeians, Republicans and Caesarians).37 In ancient literary sources one finds useful information relating to political life and these factions.38 However, it is not so easy to find traces of their activities in visual arts.39 The actions of well-known members of those political parties are sometimes difficult to identify because, for instance, everybody used the same range of symbolism or reference such as Neptune in the case of Sextus Pompey, Octavian and Mark Antony. It is debatable whether such symbolism was employed on coins. For instance, the view that head of Apollo served as a political sign of the Populares faction was accepted until Crawford rejected it.40 In fact, engraved gems could offer one of a kind insight into the political allegiances in ancient Rome and related matters. This is due to the symbols and signs that might have been regarded as markers of political parties and factions. By definition, this kind of activity is integrational propaganda.41 Political views could be expressed by a range of symbols which I aim to identify and describe in this study.
Commemoration
The next important area where engraved gems possibly functioned as propaganda means is the commemoration of military successes and other important events.42 All the commemorative actions undertaken by Roman political leaders using visual arts are a form of agitation propaganda. They were intended to show capacity to rule, military prowess and other positive features that made a political leader an appealing figure predestined to get power and worth following. An exception to the rule is Augustus and his efforts oriented towards the promotion of peace and prosperity (Pax Augusta and aurea aetas). These actions were intended to build a positive climate within his empire which can be recognised as integration propaganda. As far as commemoration is concerned, engraved gems probably functioned on a more personal level than other branches of Roman art. For gems if gifted or distributed in any way were treated as private objects and were considered precious. Therefore, they are expected to create a special connection between a propagandist and recipient, who looking upon his ring would come back to the event this object commemorates. So gems were intended to bind him to the propagandist, not only to inform him about an event.
Promotion of Abstract Ideas
It is crucial for a propagandist to observe the audience, to be aware of its needs and desires and then to react by sending messages that properly address them. Towards the end of the Roman Republic, an increasing desire for peace is noticeable everywhere. Because engraved gems are strictly private objects, they are possibly the best material evidence for social moods since people tended to put on them symbolism and scenes related to their needs. Furthermore, it seems that Roman political leaders answered the messages sent by ordinary people. Such a phenomenon should be seen as indirect propaganda because even though the impulse originates, for instance, from the imperial court of Augustus and transmits ideology (in this case issues of peace and prosperity), it had been adopted by artists and craftsmen and used completely unconsciously. The ultimate goal of every propagandist is to reach as many recipients as he can and in fact Augustus managed to drive his propaganda machinery so well that at these lower levels it almost did not require any action and effort from him. The mechanism then can be regarded as agitation and integration propaganda at the same time since, on the one hand, it broadcasted specific messages assuring people that they are governed by an always caring emperor. On the other hand, it welded them to him by creating a climate within which everyone could identify with the same values.
Religious, Divine, and Mythological References
Propaganda, if conducted properly, touches every aspect of political, social and religious life. In ancient Rome, politics and religion were from the start closely connected.43 The people of Rome regarded every military success as sanctioned by the gods and thus, individuals who wished to gain popularity and the support of others needed to refer to religion in their political language.44 This is noticeable in various spheres like architecture, since victorious generals used to found new temples to their patron-deities, or coinage, which had been used for the promotion of legendary ancestors of a specific family.45 Roman art exploited mythological scenes in a different way to the Greeks, tending to give them a didactic, moralistic, or at least, allegorical character.
Engraved gems advertised connections between an individual and a deity who usually played the role of his divine patron. This was sometimes extended to direct identification, but less formal allusions to the similarities between mythological figures and propagandist were also common practice. Another variety of this kind of propaganda was references to mythical or divine ancestors. Such activities are a form of agitation propaganda. The basic goal was to create a positive image, sanctioned by divine power and strengthened by its authority. This sort of propaganda was widely cultivated in ancient Rome because of the importance of religion in everyday life as well as due to the creation of a kind of hierarchy between deities, propagandists and people. A political leader became first an agent acting on behalf of gods and over time he was raised to the same level of his divine patrons, but his cult was more private in character. Intaglios and cameos illustrate those intimate connections because they circulated as private objects and were less limited by the rules of official art. Some scholars conclude that every mythological scene presented on Roman art-works might be more than just a beautiful image; there is always something behind it, a kind of symbolism or reference hidden behind the image which often relates to politics.46 In her monumental work, Toso argues that a good number of 1st century BC engraved gems bearing scenes of these kinds should be interpreted through politics.47 This attitude was one of the starting points for my critical analysis of the considerable amount of material presenting motifs related to mythology and religion. It has been challenged whether some of them had any political significance at all. But gems bearing such complex images might have been understood in many different ways by their users. Politics cannot t have been the only interpretation and in any case more private explanations do not exclude usefulness of such gems for politics.48
Political Symbols
The political situation within the Roman Republic became gradually complicated towards the end of the 2nd century BC. The Celtic (121 BC) and Germanic (113-101 BC) threats as well as the Jugurthine War (111-104 BC) coincided with internal conflict between two the Populares and Optimates. Such conditions were difficult for ordinary people and they became even worse in the 1st century BC when the rivalry between various factions and political leaders became fiercer than ever before. Unstable politics resulted in economic difficulties and thus social moods descended to a low level.
Engraved gems were private objects, and many used them to express their desires and needs. This form of self-presentation is very typical of a peculiar class of intaglios that bear combinations of symbols. They started to be produced around the late 2nd century BC, and were at their most numerous in the second half of the 1st century BC.49 This corresponds with the afore-mentioned political and social changes. During the imperial period (1st-3rd century AD) they were used to a lesser degree, often replaced by the so-called grylloi/baskania gems.50
The phenomenon of symbolic gems is complex. It is certainly unnecessary to be explained only in one specific way. Scholars often interpret those sorts of gems within their political context. Vollenweider related them to political events, mostly military victories of Rome over regions that it conquered. For instance, she suggests that the club of Heracles appears on gems due to the Roman victories over Philip V and Perseus, kings of Macedon, as it was a symbol of this land frequently used in the coinage issued by those rulers. Another example are vases and amphoras which may origin from the East and Rhodos in particular.51 As Vollenweider and Sena Chiesa suggest, around 44 BC many symbolic gems were issued to accord with Julius Caesar’s promotion of ordo rerum and other positive concepts related to his propaganda.52 More recently, a similar view has been taken by Nardelli and Vitellozzi.53 Gesztelyi claims that these symbolic gems were mostly produced for soldiers,54 while Sena Chiesa links them to representatives of nobilitas.55 These and many other scholars based their ideas on comparing gems and coins which indeed share the range of symbols used.56
I would like to propose a slightly different approach from the most popular one. In order to analyse their political significance and possible propagandistic value symbolic gems are thoroughly analysed in a wider context. Cases which have traditionally been interpreted as propagandistic are critically investigated and discussed alongside many other similar ones with special attention to the objects bearing inscriptions. To get a comprehensive and accurate picture, all configurations are examined not only those similar to coins. I should be able to clarify that only some configurations of symbols on gems were indeed have been related to politics, usually reflecting some of its aspects, while most were used for purely private (usually amuletic) purposes. This has been done for each period from the late 2nd century BC down to Augustus in order to show the way in which the process evolved as well as to illustrate the stages which relate to specific political leaders. If indeed intended as propaganda, symbolic gems would be expected to show signs of, for example, manifestation of loyalty and support, commemoration of important events and military successes or the promotion of abstract ideas. Therefore, they might be examples of both agitation and integration propaganda.
Luxury Objects: State Cameos – Carved Vessels – Works in the Round
Many categories of archaeological artefacts can be regarded as relating to the mainstream of the Roman state policy and individual actions of policy makers in Rome. Architecture, sculpture, coins – all these include examples of objects bearing iconography expressing the ideas propagated by political leaders, as do luxury objects. Even garments dyed in the famous Tyrian purple were greatly prized in antiquity and in Rome, exclusively related to the imperial family.57 Luxury arts were, by definition, a part of propaganda. They offered social distinction for the propagandists and confirmed their ability to govern. Because one could afford the best pieces of jewellery, art, materials and so on, one seemed more powerful. Luxury art was also more likely to distinguish the propagandist from his peers not only because of the special forms and materials used, but also because they transmitted complex messages reserved only for a few well-educated people who would not be impressed otherwise. For these reasons many intaglios and cameos with high aesthetic value and artistic virtuosity were produced on the commissions of top Roman politicians and the imperial court of Augustus. Reading Pliny the Elder’s Historia Naturalis book 37, one has an impression that this section was composed by him specifically for the elite to demonstrate the high esteem for engraved gems within Roman society.58 Engraved gemstones are by definition luxury objects, however, three classes of glyptic art products are particularly important since they combine the high esteem of the luxury goods and space for display of powerful propaganda communications. This combination makes State Cameos, carved vessels and works in the round perfect propaganda tools. Their propagandistic value is high and can be compared only with other masterpieces of Roman decorative art. They are forms of agitation propaganda since most of them emit powerful communications based on the idea of the unity of the imperial house. Although their influence seems limited at first glance due to their small number and relatively small group of recipients, they were intended to affect the most demanding people at the court of Augustus.
Problems with Studying Propaganda in Ancient Times with Emphasis on Engraved Gems
Overview
There are many obstacles and difficulties in any study of Roman propaganda in general and its occurrence on engraved gems in particular. The reader might be not fully aware of some problems which investigation of such a complex phenomenon throws up. Therefore, in this article I elaborate on the difficulties that cause problems to the investigations and limit the studies. One of the most problematic issues is that the study is largely based on the analysis of iconography which by definition poses some theoretical and practical problems. Moreover, the analysed material is often controversial as far as dating, precise meaning and the functions of individual pieces is concerned. Finally, our knowledge of Roman society and how propaganda worked 2,000 years ago is only fragmentary. The limited sources do not make this research easy. One should be aware of these problems but not discouraged by them because, drawing a general picture of the various applications of glyptics in self-advertising and politics is possible and necessary to stimulate future discussions.
Intaglios, cameos and other products of glyptic art studied in this work bear various representations: from single symbols which are easy to interpret to complex, multi-figural scenes that hide whole narratives using a sophisticated language. A natural question then is whether one can properly decode and understand the meaning and reasons for which various iconographical elements appear on engraved gems? To tackle this problem, I have applied here the methodology based on Panofsky iconology and iconography analysis while being aware of its shortcomings.59 However, the most influential methodology is the recent operating sequence created by Lorenz and the contribution of Hölscher to the visual aspect of Greek and Roman culture.60 As a result, each engraved gem is treated here as an archaeological artefact and a work of art in one. All archaeological evidence available (material, form, style, provenance, provenience information and so on) is first analysed. Then, I proceed with iconographical analysis drawing on literary sources that might be related to the particular motif, art history and its repertoire, historical events that might be reflected on the specific object, allegories and symbols. This is followed by iconological analysis that puts the object into its historical, political, philosophical and socio-cultural context. Next, the decoding of its semiotics is addressed and finally the principles of image studies are applied. The ultimate goal is to answer the question why the analysed item has been created in its specific circumstances and if its creation has anything in common with the current political situation, more precisely, various propaganda and social activities.
I am going to provide information about various problems and limitations that one encounters during the process described above. They span from very basic and perhaps quite obvious technical issues to very complex matters such as object’s identity and cultural significance.
Basic (Technical) Problems
Most engraved gems have very small dimensions that usually do not exceed 1 or 2 centimetres. Sometimes they are even smaller, and this results in two basic difficulties. First, they must be analysed with the use of optical devices, ideally at first hand since it is very easy not to understand or notice some iconographical details. Second, the engraver usually had very limited space to work on, thus, the representations appearing upon gems are often abbreviated to a considerably degree. As a result, the abstracted motifs can be unidentifiable.61 This leads to the basic question: could the potential recipients and users of propaganda gems indeed decode and understand the messages encoded on them? It seems so and other archaeological material (coins, for example) proves that an object’s dimensions were not as problematic as we suspect today.
Related to this are techniques employed for engraving and styles used by the artisans. The ultimate effect of engraving always largely depends on the skills of a gem’s producer and the tools he uses. Sometimes the same subject approached by two different artists looks completely different on two stones, but still, their function and possible propagandistic value should be the same. It goes without saying that cursorily cut intaglios and cameos may have been wrongly interpreted and thus, some ‘propaganda gems’ were not only unintentionally omitted in this study, but also their message could have been unnoticed by their ancient recipients. Regarding styles, these can be misleading too since scholars, due to the lack of other, more objective criteria, often date gems according to their styles and traditions. There is also a great danger of overinterpreting a specific object because of its impressive stylistic features. The same hand could make good and bad gems and the reason usually was the money spent on the commission.62 It is obvious that some top engravers worked only for the highest bids, but a propagandist, if he wanted to reach a larger audience would employ less skilful artisans too who could quickly produce propaganda gems in greater quantities. The conclusion is that depending on a target group, the propagandist chose whose services to use, but his actions could be a part of the same propaganda campaign. Finally, the gemstones themselves may also pose problems since some examples, like mottled jasper or rock crystal, make it difficult to read their iconography properly. Some help comes from their impressions but these are not always made. Often it is difficult or even impossible to be read and interpret glass gems apart from their impressions in plaster or other materials.
The next highly problematical issue that should be singled out here are post-classical copies of ancient engraved gems. From the Renaissance to the second half of the 19th century there was a high interest in engraved gems as collectors’ objects.63 This fascination, especially in the 18th and 19th centuries, resulted in an increasing demand for ancient and post-classical gems. The number of the former was, of course, limited, therefore, many cutters excelled in imitating and paraphrasing ancient works which proved to be a profitable business. Some of them were so good at this that they were able to copy the subjects and styles of the ancient masters. Their techniques completely misled their customers and they could ask high prices. Even though scholarship made significant progress in this matter, still, it is not easy to distinguish a faithful modern copy of an antique intaglio or cameo from the original. Portrait gems are particularly vulnerable and in fact, sometimes it is even impossible to say if an object is genuine or not.64 Publications of public and private collections are not free of errors even though they have been minutely studied by top specialists in the field of glyptics. For instance, only very recently two intaglios thought to have been original masterpieces signed by Gnaeus showing the heads of Cleopatra Selene and Mark Antony, turned out to be fakes created for Prince Stanislas Poniatowski in the 19th century. Because only a portion of the material selected for this study could be examined at first hand, one must mostly rely on the information and findings of other scholars regarding individual objects and accurate descriptions and photographs of the images they bear. Of course, their judgments have been re-examined during the selection of the material. Some pieces that in light of new data available or reinterpretation are not considered ancient anymore, but used to be considered as propagandistic, are here revised. Naturally, I do not claim that this study is free of fake gems, but an effort has been made to limit their number as much as possible.
As mentioned, only part of the material selected for this article has been studied at first hand. The rest was examined through images either published online by the museums or in relevant catalogues. Unfortunately, the latter are often printed with small pictures of poor quality.65 The increasing number of collections published online with high-resolution images is a welcome trend for glyptic studies in general. I have been using this source wherever possible to limit the possibility of misinterpretations. However, a considerable number of Roman Republican and Augustan gems that are the main subject of this article remains unpublished, especially in local Italian museums as well as in Rome itself. This may distort my investigations to some degree, but the general picture should not be severely affected since scholars have made a considerable effort to publish previously neglected material over the past decades.
The archaeology of engraved gems is another problematic issue that should be mentioned here. Most of the material examined in this study consists of public and private collections usually created in the period spanning from the 16th to 19th century. Because of the above-mentioned high interest in the gems trade and collecting those days, 93% of them were acquired from the art market which they usually reached from uncontrolled excavations and looting. As a result, most intaglios and cameos described and analysed here have little or no information on their provenance and context. The information about the places where those objects have been crafted or deposited has been lost. This also affects their dating and is a huge problem for my reconstruction of propaganda gems’ production, distribution and circulation. Nevertheless, to tackle this problem I applied a specially designed methodology of the reconstruction of the contexts based on the analysis of the history of the art market for engraved gems from the 16th to 19th century and hence, some provenience information could be recovered.
Finally, among technical issues is previous scholarship. Basically, the problem is with interpretations of individual objects that have not been recognised as propagandistic. The subject of political applications of engraved gems in the Roman Republic and under Augustus has been largely neglected. There is therefore always a danger of following the description and thus the point of view presented by the author of a collection catalogue or any other study which might be false, but since they had direct access to the object and one cannot control their judgment otherwise, they should be trusted.
Iconographical Problems
The ‘technical’ problems of the study of propaganda gems are only the tip of the iceberg. Iconographical analysis of engraved gems and their subject-matter is even more problematic and challenging.66 The fundamental question one must ask is whether or not one can read the iconography of the gems correctly. There are many difficulties in this starting from inaccurate deciphering of the symbols to incorrect identification of figures depicted in the figural scenes. Iconography is concerned with the description of works of arts (e.g. gems) and its function is to provide information for their further interpretation dating, authenticity and origin. It tells, for example, how a specific depiction or type of object was influenced by other cultural circles. It also brings to light political and social influences.67
Even if one can read iconography of the gems accurately, it is not that easy to imagine the multinational and cosmopolitan society of the Roman Republic and later Empire doing this too. It is recorded that people living in the eastern part of the Mediterranean basin had different customs and could wear several rings on their fingers, while in the western (more romanised) part, this was considered inappropriate.68 One can only make more or less educated guesses on this matter since a lack of hard data related to this problem complicates things. However, as Evans has proved, even if only a few members of a target group properly decoded the propagandist’s messages and understood them correctly, the whole campaign would not have been in vain. They could further explain the meaning of these communications and spread the news since Roman culture was largely based on oral, rather than written communication.69 It is estimated that only a small proportion of Roman citizens were literate, which at the first glance might be seen as a problem for spreading propaganda messages, but inscriptions on engraved gems are scarce so that one assumes their iconography, although often based on complex symbolism, was legible to their users.
I have already discussed the situation where it is almost impossible to attribute a motif to a specific propagandist. Similar to these are situations when a gem’s iconography might have two or even more equally suitable meanings. For instance, Heracles on gems could be related to the propagandistic campaigns of several politicians , but on the other hand he might have been popular on gems due to his role in averting and fighting evil.70 The sign of Capricorn about which there seems to be sufficient records for its political use in the times of Augustus in ancient literary sources and Roman art is still ambiguous when it appears on gems because it may stand for the astrological sign and be related to someone’s private horoscope or a military emblem for a legionary.71 In many instances it is impossible to determine a single correct interpretation of a motif because each visual representation usually had more than one meaning and role which depended on the intention of its commissioner, creator or user.72 Therefore, even if a suggestion for possible political application of a specific object is made here, it is only optional and perhaps other scholars will find other explanations more plausible. There is much space for speculation and because ancient literary sources deliver limited information and evidence for the application of engraved gems in politics, considering them as useful propaganda tools should be at least taken into account and investigated, not dismissed out of hand. For engraved gems due to their devices belong to a more holistic image of Roman visual art that as Hölscher specifies, reflected ancient lifestyles and was used as a communication platform.73
Our understanding of the iconography might often be completely different (including wrong) from the one presented by ancient people because we are unable to reconstruct the exact circumstances in which archaeological artefacts were used.74 Moreover, in many cases it is even difficult to imagine why a user utilised a gem with a specific device engraved upon it.75 The context is often crucial to understanding the nature and function of the object because the images appearing on gems, apart from their artistic value, usually had a deep meaning, while the iconographical analysis may be not enough to uncover it.76 In the case of engraved gems, the absence of this cultural and historic context is particularly troublesome, but at least it does not entirely exclude the possible political significance of some gems.77
Concerning iconography, the analysis of portraits on engraved gems proves particularly frustrating. Extraordinarily cut cameos with male and female portraits are far easier to attribute than regular intaglios repeating the same subject. The first are often supposed to be produced for the imperial family or the highest society. Due to the fact that a number of people (especially women) wanted to present themselves with the same coiffure as the great Roman matrons or empresses, the risk for incorrect identification of the portrayed person is high. If the facial or any other portrait’s features are not distinctive enough, it is extremely difficult to attribute a portrait to a particular person and classify it as a private or official one.78 One more problem related to portraits is their reception. Sometimes it is hard to establish whether a portrait of a famous politician was cut when he was alive or maybe his successor commissioned such pieces to commemorate his predecessor and to transfer his authority onto himself. This seems to be the case for several portraits of Pompey the Great the production of which was possibly encouraged by his son Sextus Pompey and those of Julius Caesar that were perhaps cut after his death by the order of Octavian or his supporters.79
It seems helpful in some cases to trace the whole history of a specific motif to discover when and why it was given a new, special (political) meaning. A good example of that is the motif of Aeneas running out of Troy with his father Anchises and son Iulus, the popularity of which from the 3rd century BC until Augustus’ reign derived from general preferences of the Romans who tended to choose subjects related to the history of their empire. However, in the times of Augustus, the motif is vigorously promoted as relating to the Julio-Claudian dynasty and the emperor himself. There are many other examples like this and usually they can be detected if their political allegiances are confirmed in other branches of art. It is relatively easy to ascribe political meaning to a subject which appears at a specific moment, usually marked by a significant historical event.
Iconological, Conceptual, and Interpretational Problems
The frequent lack of any archaeological context in the case of engraved gems makes studying them extremely difficult. This is a serious problem from the iconological point of view because in our decoding of the symbols and iconographical elements presented upon gems as works of art so much depends on what we know about the gems as objects in use and the environment in which they were created.80 The content of gems as works of art arose from the cultural, political and philosophical circumstances they were created in. It is difficult to re-create these if an object is analysed in separation from its peers. However, thanks to considerable efforts of many scholars, the general chronological, cultural and historical framework for Roman Republican and Augustan gems is established. Therefore, from a technological, artistic and iconological points of view, it is not as problematic as it might seem to place ‘propaganda gems’ among other glyptic products of those periods. In fact, as observed by Lapatin, artworks were rarely valued by the ancients only for technical, stylistic and aesthetic reasons, but most importantly for their ability to encompass political, cultural and religious agendas.81
Furthermore, it is essential to confront the depictions presented on gems with a wider spectrum of art (Roman Republican and Augustan in the case of this study) in order to elucidate their possible meanings.82 I believe that contextualisation of the images selected for the study in their historical context is possible even in a period of such great political instability as the Late Roman Republic. There is not one single way, the right way, of analysing and interpreting pictures appearing on them; thus, explanations referring to politics should be treated as feasible and tested which is the very basis for the whole study presented in this work.83 The fact that there is so much surviving literary testimony regarding the choice of image and the associated meaning for the signet rings of Rome’s political leaders, which is often of a political nature, suggests that these images were readily recognisable among the Roman elite and perhaps even beyond.84
Regarding other iconological problems, much has already been said about the potential lack of comprehension of political messages encoded on gems due to the cultural variety among citizens of the Roman Empire. One cannot be sure if they were understandable for everyone and if the symbolism used in Italy worked in Asia Minor and other places too.85 However, ‘propaganda gems’ were probably initially produced and distributed only within Italy and only later transferred beyond it by soldiers, merchants and other users, which suggests that the propagandists would have taken this problem into account.
Another problem is that although we may seem to understand the iconography of a specific work of art today, it may include some details adopted from different cultural circles which escape our notice.86 As a result, our understanding is biased to the things we know and understand but it might be far from the truth. Therefore, sometimes a complete understanding of a work of art and consequently the propagandistic message encoded on it is impossible, but a full iconological analysis helps to overcome this problem.87 Moreover, it is equally difficult to measure whether today we may properly judge the effectiveness of the symbolism used by propagandists in the past according to our current knowledge.88 Nevertheless, ancient literary sources and our observations of propaganda mechanisms in other branches of art allow us to widen our knowledge in this respect and limit the risk of drawing incorrect conclusions.
Regarding semiotics, there is some danger that today, we cannot properly decipher interactions between symbols and figures and their arrangement within the composition appearing on gems since all those elements may communicate specific thematic messages. Moreover, it is not easy to identify the creators of the messages communicated through works of art.89 It seems crucial to establish with whom we should associate a specific motif. Because only very few gems bear any kind of inscription (which is usually of no use for identification of the subject with a specific politician), and the representations themselves are often ambiguous because their cultural and historical contexts escape us today, it seems almost impossible to fulfil this task unless one draws conclusions from comparison of an object with different media like coins, descriptions in literature and so on.90 But sometimes even such comparisons are of little use. For instance, one of the most common device for the 1st century BC gems – the head of Apollo – appears on coins minted by Sulla and thus, researchers tend to link this motif with the Optimates.91 Nevertheless, Julius Caesar also highlighted his relationship with the god and Octavian and Mark Antony did the same after his death. So, the image could be suitable for the faction of Populares and Caesarians alike.92 However, statistical analysis of a single motif can help to determine whether there are any concentrations of its use at certain points of time which can be further linked with specific propagandists. Another question is whether one can discover true intentions of a propagandist who issued propaganda gems. In many instances, we cannot be entirely sure if he meant just to praise himself for his military victory, to commemorate it, elevate his personal status or there was something more than meets the eye behind a specific depiction. Among other problematical issues, it appears difficult to establish whether a message was meant to reach a specific target group or was for everyone because it is never altogether clear whether some representations on gems in general were intended for specific groups of people.93
As for image studies, a problem is the application of engraved gems for more than one task which suggests many viewing points for one object. An intaglio may serve as a seal and thus be very practical, but it works well for personal adornment at the same time and as evidenced from literary sources, intaglios were applied even for abstract situations like the one where Pompey the Great put his seal on the swords of his soldiers to stop their quarrels while in Sicily.94 There is a risk that today, we cannot reconstruct all the applications of glyptic artefacts and accordingly all viewing points of their iconography. Besides, while investigating images decorating ancient artefacts, we create our own pictures of their applications based on well or poorly documented data sets available. They might be inaccurate;thus, our creations are often not as reliable as it is wished.95 Nevertheless, this allows us to discover the potential applications of objects in many specific and precise conditions, in the case of gems, for instance, when used in a triumphal procession, as seals, amulets, jewellery, showpieces or vehicles for propaganda.96
Concerning the concept of propaganda itself, much more problematic is the capacity of that term and as a result, sometimes scholars wrongly apply the term propaganda to subjects that have nothing to do with it. In fact, following Zanker one may say that propaganda machinery had not been established at all under Augustus, but his ‘cultural programme’ and the actions aimed at promoting the emperor and his successes were a natural consequence of the ongoing political changes which succeeded in changing public thinking and re-shaping art.97 It may seem that Zanker is rejecting the concept of propaganda in Roman times, but he is in fact only criticising its misuse.98 Indeed, there is a great risk, especially if there is not enough data about the objects, to misinterpret them and ascribe political significance to them. It is a common practice in archaeology to make educated guesses about an object’s functions. To better illustrate this problem, in this study I decided not only to describe all the propagandistic pieces for which I was able to prove their potential political usefulness, but also to comment on objects previously recognised as having political or propagandistic meaning but in fact lacking evidence for taking them as such. This is not a very common, but I believe it to be absolutely necessary because the basic goal of the research is verification of the use of engraved gems for self-presentation and propaganda purposes, not just proving its existence.
The next conceptual problem I have encountered is deciding whether self-presentation through gems should be treated as a separate phenomenon or rather combined with propaganda. I believe that an evolutionary model can be proposed showing the gradual development of Roman propaganda on gems from early acts of self-presentation to complex propaganda campaigns. It is a fact that self-presentation was always an essential part of the latter; thus, I think both should be treated as interconnected and not separated.
Finally, I should highlight that overall, our understanding of the propaganda practices performed by the Romans is limited. One may be unable to decipher their meaning because a cultural context cannot be fully reconstructed. In many instances, propagandistic messages can be encoded through various allusions to heroic or mythical themes which were comprehensible to ancient people but are not clear today. Sometimes one notices cultural changes perhaps associated with political events which are reflected in art and thus identifies them successfully, but the number of motifs that one cannot identify, for instance as propagandistic, must be considerable.99
See endnotes and bibliography at source.
Chapter 5 (33-44) from Engraved Gems and Propaganda in the Roman Republic and under Augustus, by Pawel Golyzniak (Archaeopress Archaeology, 06.30.2020), published by OAPEN under the terms of a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International license.
