Distinguishing between Romans and outsiders in ancient art

[guy]

Here are two related articles on how the Romans differentiated between themselves and neighboring “barbarians” in art and sculpture.

 

Quote

“The Romans drew lines between themselves and the “other,” between “barbarous” and “civilized” with words, customs, and clothing. They also used color. Color was an important means of defining and depicting what was foreign. The use of colored marbles and of brightly painted patterns in Roman art were common orientalizing techniques that told the viewer when they were looking at a statue of a barbarian or a painting of an easterner“

 

Statue of a conquered barbarian, likely a Dacian. He is wearing a Phrygian cap.

 

The ‘Kneeling Barbarian’ sculpture from the Palatine Hill in Rome, dates to the first century CE, made of pavonazzo marble and nero antico.
 

https://hyperallergic.com/440466/barbarians-and-sculptures-color-barrier-in-ancient-rome/

 

https://ancientimes.blogspot.com/2021/06/barbarians-in-roman-art.html?m=1

 

Summary: This is a delightful insight into the portrayal of “barbarians” in Ancient Rome. The need to tie Ancient Rome to “whiteness” is silly, however. Ancient Rome was a multi-ethnic and multicultural empire. I am sure that a Roman emperor from Northern Africa (Septimius Severus) would have had an immediate revulsion and disgust for a band of beer-guzzling, pants-wearing, blond and blue-eyed, non-Latin speaking visitors from Germania.

Edited August 21, 2021 by guy

[caldrail]

I would be more careful in these subjective divisions. It is true the Romans generally thought their culture was superior (but check out the sermons from late empire christians - they thought the Romans were decadent, lazy, weak - or at least told their congregations that to inspire more positive attitudes) but ROme was definitely not the one-culture empire most people assume it was.

The Roman Empire was cosmopolitan. It was inclusive, not exclusive. True, adopting Roman fashions and language would likely allow you to do better in life, but note that the Romans praised Palmyra for its mix of cultural influences. 

So when we view these images and figures, clearly we see 'barbarian' styles being depicted. But there is no actual way of determining whether the subject is a Roman citizen or foreigner simply by style. Okay, explicit text or context might dictate that, but visually, no. This idea that all Romans wore the same clothes from one end of the empire to the other is just nonsense. So while the senators of Rome laughed at a young Trajan for his first speech in a rural Iberian accent, ordinary people still spoke other languages than Latin, particularly Greek. 

I do concede that there was a 'fashion police' attitude in elite circles, so for instance the western Emperor Gratian was criticised for his adoption of Germanic clothing. However, normal human social dynamics suggests that was because he was not as influential as say Hadrian was, whose fashion choices became desirable for everyone else. That said, normal trending behaviour exhibited itself such that Augustus felt compelled to reinforce the idea that Senators should wear formal togas and not go to work in casual attire.

Categorisation is a common trend in people (I'm just as guilty) but it is important to realise that the reality is another bell curve instance. A few will dress with precise traditional attire, some rejecting formality or conformity altogether, most adopting a comfortable mix. So a figure in barbarian attire might be a foreigner. Probably a foreigner? But never must be a foreigner. That's why you need to observe clues from the context of the piece.