Context Matters: Pliny’s Phryges and the Basilica Paulli in Rome

Three years with Anthony in Cambridge (1998-2001), at and beyond the Faculty of Classics, have left a profound impression on me. Remem­ bering vivid debates with him I will here ride a hobby horse that both of us share. lt concerns the multiple relationship and reading of image, text and context or, in other words, art, archaeology, philology and his­ tory. By tackling this, I will re-open an issue touched upon in my book Bunte Barbaren (1986: rr5-25). My argument is twofold: one strand is the archaeology of the Basilica Paulli (for the name, see below), built on the Forum Romanum in Rome; 1 the other is a misread passage in Pliny's Natural History (XXXVI.ro2) on this building. I will begin my study as an archaeologist and art historian who examines the architecture, sculp­ ture and history of the Basilica Paulli. Next, I will become a philologist who analyses Pliny's passage within its textual tradition and reading of Classical scholarship. Then I will confront the outcome of both and dis­ cuss concurrences, differences and blind spots. Finally, I will sketch out a historical framework, which is based not on the deficient premise of the intentional reading, but on the practice of intentional readings within the wider context of 'intentionaler Geschichte' (Gehrke 2014: 9-36). Before I go on, however, I need to clarify a problem of terminology. Whenever I speak of statues of Asians and Asian dress, I refer not to all peoples of Asia but to those of Asia Minor and the Near East.

statements again and concluded that only the assumption of two separate basilicas, set up in the Forum Romanum in two different areas, would resolve the contradictions in the texts. 3 This, however, is not as obvious as she has argued it to be. The different names and locations depend, at least in some part, on the choices and objectives of the individual writers who mention the above basilica(s) while pursuing their own agenda, and who do not have an academic interest in being accurate as to name and loca tion. These inconsistencies and the lack of verifiable archaeological remains of a separate 'Basilica Aemilia' do not endorse the unambiguous reading Steinby has proposed. I will omit this problem here, as it cannot be resolved and does not affect my argument in a serious manner. More specific than the texts are the archaeological remains of the Basilica Paulli found in this area of the Forum Romanum, as we will see below.
The excavations of the Basilica Paulli began in 1898 (Figs. 17.1-17.2). 4 The essential spadework was cl one by Giacomo Boni (1898-1905 5 and was continued by Alfonso Bartoli (until 1939), 6 then by Gianfilippo Carettoni (1946-8) 7 and Riccardo Gamberini Mongenet . 8 As a result of this evidence and more than twenty years of painstaking research (1970-9os) Heinrich Bauer, a Classical archaeologist with substantial architectural knowledge, proposed a new reconstruction of the basilica and its chronology in the early imperial period (Fig. 17. 3 ). 9 Around the same time Laura Fabbrini started to investigate the numerous sculptural fragments found inside the basilica by Boni and Bartoli. ' 0 In collaboration   (Heinrich Bauer, 1970s;revised by Johannes Lipps, 2012). After 14 BC. Tübingen. Johannes Lipps. with Heinrich Bauer she established a large series of over-life-sized stat ues (height c. 2.3-2.4 m) depicting foreigners in Asian dress and sculpted mainly in marmor Phrygium (Fig. 17 .4)." Both scholars assigned them stylistically to the period of Augustus. They also identified the statues' pedestals, made of white marble (width 84-94 cm, height 72-6 cm,  Fabbrini and Heinrich Bauer, 1970s). After 14 BC. Rome. DAI, Heide Behrens: 2007.1812. THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF GREECE AND ROME depth 64-6 cm), adorned on the front and the two shorter sides with subtly arranged tendrils . Finally, Fabbrini and Bauer linked eighteen heads in white marble to the statues and fitted one of these heads into a well-preserved Phrygian cap, which had been carved from the same block of Phrygian marble as one of the statues . The heads show handsome, clean-shaven faces framed by rich locks. Many heads preserve traces of ancient colouring. Bauer read the statues as representa tions of Parthians holding with raised arm a Roman Standard (Fig. 17.8),,, which refers to the well over a hundred lost to them by Roman arrnies beginning in 5 3 BC and eventually regained by Rome in 20 BC (Schneider 2012: rr2-19). Regrettably, none of these scholars published their studies.
In 1980 I was allowed to investigate the remains of the basilica's statues set up in Rome's Antiquario Forense, but was denied access to the store rooms and was not given perrnission to publish the sculptures.' 3 On the basis of the accessible fragments I suggested a new reconstruction for the statues, namely with a raised arm in a pose of structural support, and, subsequently, argued in favour of an architectonic and symbolic function (see Fig. 17.13 below). I understood them, then too one-sidedly, to be idealised portrayals of subdued Parthians conceived in the aftermath of 20 BC and related to the so-called settlement of the Parthian question. In 2005 Stefan Freyberger and Christine Ertel initiated the 'Basilica Aernilia Project'. In collaboration with the German Archaeological Institute at Rome they aimed to present a systematic review of the unpublished data; a detailed architectural survey of the remains in situ; a new reconstruction  and reading of the basilica in its historical context (prelirninary report by Freyberger and Figure 17.Sa-b Rome, Antiquario Forense. Reconstruction: pedestal of a handsome Asian statue (Laura Fabbrini and Heinrich Bauer, 1970s (Christine Ertel and Stefan Freyberger, 2007). After 14 BC. Tübingen. Johannes Lipps Ertel 2007). Two Classical archaeologists from Munich joined this project: Johannes Lipps to examine the architectural decor and Tobias Bitterer to study the handsome Asians. From a mass of some ten thousand fragments of architectural decor, Lipps (20n) singled out 1,877 pieces, which he linked to the basilica. In allocating 9 5 3 pieces to their original setting, he contrib uted profoundly to the basilica's reconstruction and reading. ' 4 Tobias Bitterer (2007), on the other hand, scrutinised 718 surviving fragments of the hand some Asians. He confirmed the assumptions proposed in 1986, namely the reconstruction of the raised arm, the architectonic function of the statues and their stylistic dating to the period of Augustus. Bitterer presented in his pre liminary report the most essential fragments of the statues including one of their spectacular heads (Figs. 17.6-17.7 above) and a right hand (Fig. 17.II). For the first time, the architectural decor and the key fragments of the Asian statues became widely accessible to scholarship.
The above research produced evidence of three main building phases: deep in the ground, two earlier structures including remains of column set tings attributable to but not precisely datable within the Hellenistic period of Rome; and, above these structures, the layout of the basilica built in the period of Augustus. As a consequence, the first two building phases cannot be neatly linked to the major building activities in the second and first century BC as mentioned by ancient authors. 1 5 The conflicting texts hand down : a first construction of the basilica by M. Fulvius Nobilior (and M. Aernilius Lepidus?) in r79 BC; the instal-· lation of a water clock in r59 BC; the attachment of imagines clipeati in the basilica's interior in 78 BC, portraying the ancestors of M. Aernilius Lepidus -also attested by denarii minted by his son in Rome ( c. 6 I- 5 8 BC) which show a double-storey basilica with double-storey colonnades;' 6 the construction of a new building around the middle of the first century BC, financed by the Aemilii Paulli and/or Caesar, and inaugurated in 34 BC; a drastic re-building of the basilica financed by M. Aemilius Paullus, his friends and Augustus after a fire in I4 BC (Fig. r7.3 above); and a reno vation of the Augustan building in AD 22, which has not yet been identi fied by the archaeological records (Lipps 20n: r9). Looking back, it has become evident that both the archaeology and the history of the Basilica Paulli are complex and, despite substantial progress within the last forty years, dogged by unsolved or unsolvable problems. But it has also become clear that the Basilica Paulli played a key role in the development of the design of the Roman basilica.
I will now focus more closely on the basilica mentioned by Pliny (Nat. Hist. XXXVI.rn2). This is essentially the building constructed after I4 BC, a date now established by thorough research into the archaeological, architectonic and decora tive evidence. ' 7 The Augustan basilica was a most advanced building . ro above), measuring from west to east 94.ro min length and from north to south 25.65 min width (Lipps 20n: 3 5 ). The space was divided by a long central nave, nave aisles on all four sides and a smaller, additional nave aisle in the north. The edifice was (at least) two storeys high. The central nave was supported by a two-storey colonnade, Ionic on the lower and Corinthian on the upper level. The floor and walls of the main naves had been lavishly veneered with white marble from Luna and mottled marbles of distinct colours: yellow-coloured mar mor Numidicum; multicoloured marmor Luculleum, distinguished by its areas of red, beige, white and grey; whitish marmor Phrygium, veined with violet and crimson breccia; green-and-white-veined marmor Carystium; and pink and grey portasanta. ' 8 The monolithic columns of the basilica were made of marmor Luculleum (lower colonnade) and marmor Ca ry s tium (upper colonnade). They were all smoothly polished and literally highlighted the extensive colouring of the naves. Whereas the interior had been designed in the very latest fashion of Roman architecture and mate rial, the exterior was arranged in a more antiquated style and uniformly clad in white marble as a separate and (probably) single-storey portico of arches, decorated with half-columns and crowned with a high attic . Overall the fa<;ade displayed an unconventional arrange ment of Tuscan, Doric and Ionic styles. In short, the edifice stood out with its exceptional design, decoration, craftsmanship and (coloured) marble. Even though these features have been generally accepted, the architectural reconstruction of the upper parts of the Augustan basilica is still the sub ject of controversial debate (Figs. 17.8-17.10 above).' 9 I will come back to this later.

Handsome Asians
To the present day 718 fragments of statues of over-lif-size have been found, mostly inside the basilica, including eighteen heads (Figs. 17.6-17.7 above) and one rather well-preserved right hand ( Fig. 17.n above).2° The fragments testify to a minimum of eighteen over-life-sized statues of stand ing Asians measuring about 2.3-2.4 min height. The clothed parts of the statues had been sculpted in one block of coloured marble, mostly in mar mor Ph ry gium, but some also in marmor Numidicum. Heads and hands were separately carved in white marble and originally attached to the body, as in the statue of Ganymede in Sperlonga (Fig. 17.16 below).2' The Asian statues show the same weighted stance and the rich Asian dress: soft shoes, long trousers, a double-belted tunic, a long mantle covering the back and the Phrygian cap (   (Schneider 2007= 76-8). This stereotype allowed different people of Asia Minor and the Near East to be portrayed as uniform and thus essentially the same, whether past or present, mythical or historical. The style of the statues and their heads, both worked to an exceptional finish, links the Asians to the restoration of the Basilica Paulli after I4 BC.
Obvious clues make it possible to reconstruct the original pose of the basilica statues ( Fig. I7.I3). The sculptural fragments attest two rnirror images characterised by a weighted and a non-weighted leg, either on the left-hand or the right-hand side. The concept of ponderation was comple mented by a close correlation of the poses of both arms and legs (Schneider 2007: 72-5 ). The arm over the weighted leg was raised in an elaborate man ner: while the upper arm was stretched horizontally to the side, the lower arm was bent vertically and the hand again horizontally to the side with the palm showing upwards. The position of the arm over the non-weighted leg was a form of antithesis. lt pointed diagonally downwards and then back to the body where the hand rested firmly on the hip bone. Hence, the basilica statues were shown in a refined motif of architectural support but without the ability to hold actual weight.2 2 The weighted stance and the elaborated pose established a potent Roman image of an exotic Asian: a compliant supporter, very handsome, lavishly dressed, richly coloured and stylishly designed ( Fig. 17.13). lt was a metaphor adopted from Hellenistic art and popular throughout the Roman Empire.2 3 A close parallel to the iconography of the basilica statues is the Asian of an architectonic relief, which can be dated to around AD 40 ( Fig. 17.15 below).2 4 lt once adorned (the attic? of) a large grave monument near Avenches measuring originally THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF GREECE AND ROME more than 20 min height. So far so good, but what do we actually know about the architectonic setting of handsome Asians when they act as figures of support? A case in point is a bronze tablet with a Greek inscrip tion framed on each side by a fluted Corinthian column ( Fig. 17.14).2 5 A handsome Asian, set up on top of the right-hand column, acts as a sup port figure under the entablature -most of which is missing. This makes the tablet the earliest known example representing a handsome Asian in the pose of the basilica statues. Found in faraway Cappadocia and attributed to the later second century BC, the inscription records that the demos of the otherwise unknown city of Hanisa bestowed a golden wreath upon a certain Apollonios. To sum up, the handsome Asian acting as a support was conceived as an integrai element of architecture and as such was inherently related to the building it adorned. Generally, the handsome Asian was set up above a ground-floor colonnade, be it as a free-standing sculpture or as a figure carved out of a pillar or a half-column. 26

Reconstructing the basilica
As it has become evident that the handsome Asian is a vital component of the architectonic blueprint of the Basilica Paulli, I will now rackle the building's reconstruction, which has caused an ongoing controversy. Two opposing reconstructions have been presented. In the 1970s, Bauer pro posed a two-storeyed building with an additional mezzanine in which he placed the handsome Asians based on the decorated pedestals mentioned above, a gallery of, all in all, forty over-life-sized statues  and 17.12-17.13 above). 2 7 The pedestals (Fig. 17.5a-b above) were set on large matching marble blocks (console geisa) projecting beyond the hori zontal geison of the lower colonnade. The statues were related to pilasters and capitals which were, like the pedestals, decorated with tendrils (Lipps 2001: 25-7). According to Bauer (1977;1988;19936) the portico facing the Forum Romanum was a separate, two-storeyed building crowned with a high attic ( Fig. 17.8 above). Freyberger and Ertel (2007) suggested a dif ferent reconstruction: a two-storeyed basilica in connection with a sepa rate, one-storey portico crowned with a high attic in which they place the handsome Asians (Figs. 17.9-17.10 above).2 8 Here the portico also serves as a substructure for a large terrace roofed over with a pergola-like con struction, supported by the decorated pilasters and capitals which Bauer had placed in his mezzanine ( Fig. 17.8 above).
As the Basilica Paulli is a most exceptional building of which crucial architectonic elements are missing, it comes as no surprise that both pro posals have shortcomings. One, in particular, is the currently unsolvable problem of how to reconstruct the basilica's upper storey(s). In a smart move, Bauer added to the basilica a mezzanine (Fig. 17.8 above), for which, however, there is no hard proof on site and no structural parallel in Roman architecture.2 9 As there is no matching entablature, he misread the handsome Asians, as we have seen, as Parthians presenting with raised arm a Roman Standard (Schneider 2012: n2-19). In doing so, he invented an iconography of standing Asians which does not exist and which can be refuted by the fragment of a right hand (Fig. 17 .II above). Bauer's further argument for a two-storeyed portico is not substantiated by the evidence (Lipps 20II: 127 with n. 727).
The weak point of the Freyberger-Ertel reconstruction is their design of the upper part of the portico (Figs. 17.9-17 .10 above). Here they locate two sets of architectural decoration: in front of the attic a gallery of fifteen handsome Asians and on top of the portico the decorated pilas ters and capitals. The Freyberger-Ertel reconstruction fails for a variety of reasons: 1. Most of the fragments of the Asian statues were found not in front of the portico but inside the basilica (Bitterer 2007: 5 3 5-9   What can we deduce from all this? The Freyberger-Ertel reconstruction requires substantial revision. Bauer's reconstruction of the basilica's lower storey is structurally by and large plausible,3' up to placing the handsome Asians and their pedestals on top of the projecting console geisa, which rested on the lower colonnade of the main nave. The architectonic and iconographic evidence supports the assignment of the statues together with the adorned pedestals, pilasters and capitals to the basilica's upper zone. But how this could be reconstructed constitutes a major puzzle which cur rently cannot be solved.

Pliny's Ph ry ges
Around AD 70 Pliny listed the Basilica Paulli among the most magnificent buildings of the world. But as archaeologists and philologists have misread Pliny's text, they have failed to recognise why he rated the basilica as one of the world's three rnost beautiful works.32 A cornprehensible understand ing ernerges only when one exarnines the philological and archaeological evidence together. As a first step I will present Pliny's passage in the con text of book XXXVI following the established Latin text: 33 (IoI} But it is time to pass on to the architectonic wonders of our own city and look closely at our ability to learn over the last eight hundred years, and show that here too we have conquered the world. You will see that these victories have occurred almost as often as the wonders have been cited. In fact, if you heaped up all the architectonic wonders and threw them into a single pile, such grandeur would arise as to make you think tha t no less than another world was being described in one and the same place. (Io2) Even if we do not mention amongst our great achievements the Circus Maximus built by the dictator Caesar -as long as three stadia and as wide as one, with its buildings covering about three acres and seats for two hundred and fifty thousand -should we not include in our magnificent works the basilica of Paul[l]us, which is adrnired for its colurnns of Phrygians or the forurn of Divus Augustus or the temple of Peace of Vespasianus Imperator Augustus, all of which are the most beautiful buildings the world has ever seen?
All editors of Pliny's text agreed that the Basilica Paulli was adrnired for its 'columns of Phrygians', read as 'columns made of Phrygian marble'. 3 4 This reading, however, is problematic for several reasons. Remains of such col urnns have never been found. Early attempts to discover them and claims that they were later reused in Rome's San Paolo fuori le mura proved to be wrong (Lanciani I899). To cut a long story short, the archaeological evi dence allows us to draw one conclusion only: such columns never existed. In fact, the basilica columns were, as noted above, made not of marmor Phrygium, but of marmor Luculleum and marmor Carystium. The dis tinct colouring of the three marbles makes it unlikely that Pliny rnixed up the names, especially in bis book about (coloured) stones. The reading of columnis e Phrygibus also fails to explain why Pliny praised the former as particularly admirable but excluded the colurnns in coloured marble which adorned the other two most beautiful works in the world, namely the forum of Augustus and Vespasian's temple of Peace. 3 5 The three won ders were set up in the immediate neighbourhood and, hence, competed with each other (Fig. I7.I8 below). What is rnore, philological arguments are against the established reading. When identifying the mostly non Roman origin of marble, Pliny does not refer to it by the noun of the peo ple whose territory supplied the material. He uses an adjective, a location, a quality or the name of an eminent individual, for example marmoris Numidici How do Latin manuscripts hand down this passage? To answer this question we need to consult four early Latin codices of Pliny's text. 3 8 Two of them, (vetustior) Bambergensis dass. 42 of the tenth century (Schneider 1986: 122 fig. 1) and (alterius familiae) Vindobonensis CCXXXIV of the twelfth or thirteenth century, transmit columnis e Phrygibus. The other two, both prioris familiae, Florentinus Riccardianus 488 of the eleventh century (Schneider 1986: 123 fig. 2) and Parisinus Latinus 6797 of the thirteenth century, hand down columnis et Phrygibus. These four main codices prove no less than that both readings are equally viable. 39 But why have classicists and archaeologists never considered the alternative reading columnis et Ph ry gibus a worthy option? As most scholars were unfamiliar with the fragmentary evidence of the Basilica Paulli and its Asian statues in Phrygian marble, the translation 'columns made of Phrygian marble' was a plausible option despite its archaeological and philological shortcomings, as discussed above. But, in fact, it is the published archaeological data of the Basilica Paulli which enable us to disclose and correct the flaws of the established reading. lt is the 'lectio difficilior' of columnis et Ph ry gibus which allows us to relate archaeology, philology and history to each other and to explain why Pliny praised, in particular, the Basilica Paulli with its cutting-edge design and imagery as one of the three most beautiful works the world had ever seen.
But who were the Phrygians Pliny so prominently alludes to? In Roman literature Phryx predominantly signifies the Trojan. Latin authors such as Accius, Ennius, Virgil, Aetna, Horace, Propertius, Ovid, Vitruvius, Festus, Phaedrus, Seneca, Lucan, Petronius, Pliny and numerous others coming after him often employed Phryx when addressing the Trojan. 4 0 In doing so they adopted a Greek tradition that was in place perhaps as early as the sixth century BC.4' In Rome, this reference was given a new edge by Augustan writers, who related the Trojan Phryges to characteristics such as magnus, 4 2 semivir,43, pius, 44 timidus 45 and sophus. 46 Thus the vener ated Trojan forefathers of the imperial Gens Iulia and the people of Rome became the subject of multiple readings connecting conflicting ideologies of affinity and difference to each other. However, it does not come as a surprise that the Trojan Phryges were conceived within a wide spectrum of Roman interpretations oscillating between two opposite poles: while the Phrygian forefathers embody Rome's outstanding myth-historical past, 47 the Phrygian strangers exemplify, with their exceptional setting, luxurious representation and submissive function, particular habits of the Asian.
This literary tradition leaves little doubt that Pliny read the Asian stat ues so prominently displayed in the Basilica Paulli as images of handsome Trojans, whom he called Phryges in reference to their homeland. There are good reasons for arguing that the basilica's statues had been under stood in this way under Augustus. Here portrayals of Aeneas' son, Inlus Ascanius, another handsome Trojan in Asian dress, were omnipresent in Rome. His image distinguished not only works such as the Ara Pacis, the forum of Augustus and the temple of Mars Ultor, but also wall paintings, the so-called Tabulae Iliacae, cameos, gems and the like (Schneider 2012). A further Trojan prince showing up in Augustan imagery was Ganymede, Martial's handsome Phryx puer (Epigr. IX.36.2). Crucial here is the over life-sized statue of Ganymede being seized by Jupiter in the guise of a huge eagle (Fig. 17.16}. This statue was designed as the landmark of the stately villa at Sperlonga (Fig. 17.17). 4 8 lt is the most spectacular image of Ganymede we know of: the only one larger than life, made of Phrygian   Spivey and Squire 2004: 122-3, fig. 205. marble, dressed in Asian garb and located outside to be seen from far away -on top of a huge grotto in which equally spectacular marble sculp tures re-enacted narratives from the epic cycle. The basilica's Trojans and the Ganymede of Sperlonga share many features such as high positioning, size, dress, general pose, handsome face, Phrygian cap and Phrygian mar ble, while hands and heads were separately carved in white marble. Addi tionally, both Trojans are portrayed as Phrygians who physically embody their Phrygian homeland. In Sperlonga, Ganymede acted as a mythical waiter to high-ranking members of Rome's elite. In Rome, the gallery of Trojan statues, set up high above the ground, acted as myth-historical images of support in the most avant-garde and lavishly decorated basilica of the early Imperial city.
Less obvious yet not impossible is the assumption that the basilica's statues also alluded to the so-called settlement of the Parthian question in 20 BC, claimed by contemporary writers to be Augustus' greatest foreign victory and a major triumph of the Roman west over the Asian east. 49 The architect Vitruvius (De arch. I.1.6}, who lived under Caesar and Augus tus, confirms the political topicality of such portrayals. According to him, statues of Persians (statuae Persicae) in rich barbarian dress and posed as (if) supporting architraves were widely set up in architecture for two reasons: to make the eastern enemies tremble for fear of what western bravery could achieve (the latter chimes well with Pliny, who makes this a hallmark of Rome) and to encourage the western viewer to be prepared to defend bis freedom. There is, however, no textual evidence backing the hypothesis that the basilica's Ph ry ges could have been (also) read as images of Parthians, especially since Augustan poets usually addressed the latter as Medes, Persians or Achaemenians. 5 0

Pliny's columns
A concluding question remains: why did Pliny consider the basilica's columns to be particularly noteworthy and why did he relate them so closely to the Phrygians? As ever, the answer is manifold. The column is a tectonic element and as such associated with the architectural statues of Phrygians in a gesture of support. In addition, the columns and the Phrygians complement each other with their distinct coloured marble, the former in marmor Luculleum and marmor Carystium, the latter in marmor Phrygium. Imperial writers attest an almost idiomatic relation ship between columns and pillars in human form. According to Vitruvius (De arch. l.1.5 ), Caryatides were set up pro columnis in apere. Pliny (Nat. Hist. 3 6. 3 8) affirms for the Pantheon of M. Agrippa in columnis tem pli eius Cariatides. And Pausanias (Ill.11.3) reports that sn:i ,&v Kt6vmv Ilspcrm adorned Sparta's renowned Persian Stoa. Pliny's phrase colum nis et Phrygibus augments this tradition. The prepositions pro, in or sn:i indicate that the architectural figures of support were positioned above, attached to or in place of columns (Fig. 17.14 above). This coincides well with the archaeological evidence of figures of structural support which in Graeco-Roman architecture usually ornamented the upper storey.51 Sta tius gave the relationship between a column and a pillar in human form a mythical dimension when he praised Domitian's new palace: 'Here is the august building, immense, not with a mere hundred columns but enough to support the heaven and the gods, were Atlas to ease bis burden.' 5 2 In brief, the column is the identifying marker that signifies the function and setting of architectural figures which act or operate as support.

Context matters
By now we have got a better idea of why Pliny praised the Basilica Paulli as one of the three most beautiful works the world bad ever seen. But what are the miracula in and outside of Rome with which the Basilica Paulli is here competing? 53 Before Pliny starts to focus on Rome's con structions he comments at length on the building works of Egypt (Nat. Hist. XXXVl. : obelisks, pyramids, the Sphinx, the Pharos, laby rinths, hanging gardens and the hanging city of Thebes. At the time of Pliny at least five pharaonic obelisks had, for the first time ever, left Egypt and bad been transported to Rome, four under Augustus and one under Caligula. 54 Here they were re-erected in the most popular public spaces and transformed into exotic landmarks of the imperial urbs: as matchless spoils they made supreme Rome's claim to rule the world. lt is obvious 422 THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF GREECE AND ROME that for Pliny Egypt was a point of reference when it came to Rome. 55 Compared with the wonders of Egypt the list of Greek wonders is short (Nat. Hist. XXXVI.94-100). This changes when Pliny tackles the world's top man-made wonders accumulated in Rome. In twenty-four chapters (Nat. Hist. XXXVl.IOI-24) he recites no fewer than eighteen of her numerous miracula: Outside Rome, Pliny (Nat. Hist. XXXVI.I25) lists the harbour of Ostia and the miracula of Italy such as roads, the separation of the Tyrrhenian Sea from Lake Lucrinus by an embankment, vast numbers of bridges and the marble quarries.
Rome's architectonic wonders differ distinctly from the ones Pliny recited before. In striking contrast to Egypt, all the works he listed for Rome address aspects of public and domestic life despite Pliny's scorch ing criticism of (private) sumptuousness: spaces for political and religious rituals such as the imperial fora; buildings for social and financial activities such as the Basilica Paulli; spaces for mass entertainment and communica tion such as the Circus Maximus, theatres and baths; complex examples of public infrastructure such as sewers, aqueducts, wells, fountains, roads and bridges; and places for living in, in which, ideally, public and domes tic affairs were settled, such as the residences of the emperors and the very rich. In this list of marvellous works the Basilica Paulli stands out as the sole building supplying, besides an exceptional space for the public, a unique gallery of handsome Trojans serving to excite stories about Rome's myth-historical past and her right to claim reign over the world.
CONTEXT MATTERS: PLINY'S PHRYGES AND TIIE BASILICA PAULLI For a more nuanced understanding of the basilica, the Trojans and the list of Rome's wonders we need to go back to Pliny's initial chapter, IOI. Here he gloats over the fact that Rome has conquered the world with her inimitable works. He relates this claim to the city's outstanding ability to learn over the previous 800 years or, in other words, to appropriate and perfect skills such as strategy, knowledge and technique. 57 In a further step he links the frequency of Rome's victories to the rate of public response to her buildings, which formed, as we have seen above, the city's public infra structure. In making this point, Pliny refers to a long-standing practice set up by Roman generals. After gaining a victory, they financed major public constructions in the city de or ex manubiis.58 This enabled them to turn part of their (vast) military booty into symbolic capital and, thus, enhance their constantly competitive campaigns for more political power in Rome. Then Pliny takes stock, in saying that Rome alone has accomplished so many architectonic wonders that, in doing so, she crafted another mun dus in addition to the orbis terrarium she had already conquered. Finally, Pliny's opening reference to Rome's very beginnings, 800 years before, is connected to the city's claim to her myth-historical descent from Troy. lt was Troy's downfall which led to the arrival of Trojans in Latium and the foundation of Rome. lt is hardly a coincidence that this claim is at the core of two of the three wonders shortlisted by Pliny: the Basilica Paulli and the forum of Augustus. Yet only the basilica was adorned with a gallery of handsome Trojans meant to endorse forever Rome's claim of universal uniqueness. The reading of the Trojan statues was complemented by the long marble frieze which decorated the nave(s) of the Augustan basilica. The frieze depicts stories of the city's myth-historical past, namely selected narratives of Aeneas and Romulus, her Trojan forefathers. 59 The array of coloured marble inside the basilica would have fuelled fur ther debates. 60 The over-life-sized statues of the basilica's Trojans were the first of their kind to be sculpted in coloured marble. For them only the most expensive stones had been chosen, mostly marmor Phrygium, but occasion ally marmor Numidicum, which would have permitted allusions to Dido and Aeneas. As the quarries of the two marbles were situated in distant prov inces and required a global infrastructure to be transported to Rome, the new polychromes constituted a distinct symbol of the city's global power or, in other words, a new material map of her Empire. 61 The exotic colour and high polish of the basilica's Trojans enhanced their presence, intensity and meaning as they personified commodities never before seen in Rome. The preferred use of Phrygian marble to portray the basilica's Phryges opened up further readings. From Augustus onwards this marble became known as Phrygium (Schneider I986: I40-I), signifying the homeland of Troy and, in a wider sense, also that of Rome as her powerful successor. Phrygian mar ble was not only the most suitable substance for the basilica's Trojans; it also allowed multiple allusions to their famous homeland. 6 ' As most of the polychromes became Imperial property under Augustus, a new ideology of place, colour, history and power took shape. 6 3 The earliest known icons of this ideology were the basilica's Trojans (Figs. I7.4-I7.7 and I7.I2-I7.I3 above), the Trojan prince Ganymede in Sperlonga (Fig. I7.I6 above) and three over-life-sized statues of handsome kneeling Asians (who carried a bronze tripod) in Rome and Athens, all made of Phrygian marble and set up under Augustus. 6 4 Of Trojan origin was not only the Phrygian marble but also the Phry gian cap, an essential of the Near Eastern dress in Graeco-Roman art (Fig. 17.6 above). 6 5 Juvenal is the first to call the headgear by this name. 66 He describes the Phrygia bucca tiara as part of the dress of the semivir Gallus, the self-castrated and flamboyantly foreign attendant(s) of Mater Magna, who was, since the period of Augustus, also known as Mater Deum Magna Idea, the great Trojan foremother of all gods. 67 Her temple was built on top of the Palatine Hill, next to the temple of Victory. This was a prominent location, with Mater Magna becoming integrated into one of the city's most symbolic landscapes, the core area of her myth historical past. A military version of the Phrygian cap was the Phrygian helmet. On coins struck in Republican Rome the goddess Roma is some times depicted with a Phrygian helmet, another strong marker of Rome's Trojan descent. 68 Later in history, the Phrygian cap served new masters in the west. The most famous was the bonnet rouge of the Jacobins in the French Revolution (Wrigley 1997).

Intentional history
The Phryges of the Basilica Paulli -wrongly thought to signify the Phry gian marble of columns which did not exist -attest a new visual presence and concept of Trojans in Augustan Rome. They are handsome, exotic, luxurious and portrayed in a stylish pose ready to support, in stone, diverse claims of the new regime: Rome's distinguished myth-historical past; her (seemingly) unlimited control over foreign peoples, resources and home lands; her ability to integrate on a large scale the foreign as an essential of what had made Rome universally distinct; and her ability to transform political claims into pervasive icons of multiple reading. Although we are not yet able to confirm the basilica's Trojans' precise setting, they consti tuted a spectacular case in point, as a gallery of formerly perhaps forty over-life-sized statues in Trojan marble placed not, as tradition has it, out side on the fac;:ade but inside the basilica's abundantly adorned hall. This setting was an exceptional move, as it marked a pointed contrast to the setting of another spectacular gallery of figures of architectural support: the Caryatides in the forum of Augustus. 6 9 We should keep in mind that the forum was constructed in the immediate vicinity of and at about the same time as the basilica, and that both occupied and perhaps even shared an immense building site (Fig. 17.18). Following the Greek tradition, the Caryatides were displayed outside, in the attic of the two porticoes fram ing the forum's longer sides. In closest proximity the Basilica Paulli and the Forum Augustum offered two different spaces, two different designs and two different galleries of architectural figures acting or operating as sup port. In their structural and symbolic function they seem to represent some of Rome's earliest known over-life-sized architectural statues. In this role  Carnabuci and Bruccalenti 2011: 39, fig. 8 (modified).
they were sure to attract attention and stimulate debate, and contribute to the complex ideologies of Rome's new emperor. What is more, both seem to echo the famous Caryatides and Persian statues cited by Vitruvius (De arch. I.r.5-6) as the only two examples of architectural ornamenta whose history every architect ought to know. 70 Is all this just a mere coincidence? The basilica's Trojans also facilitated another comparison with Augustus' forum. The Trojan forefathers in the forum -Aeneas, Anchises and Iulus Ascanius -were individualised and distinguished by dress, age and habit,7' whereas in the basilica they were an anonymous collective characterised by handsome sameness and support.
The basilica's Phryges constitute in terms of hermeneutics too a case in point. They show how easily a misunderstanding in scholarship can achieve the status of communis opinio and, in doing so, prevent further research.
They mark exemplarily that neighbouring disciplines, despite claims to the contrary, like separate tables (Snodgrass 2006 usually even less liked, in particular when they contradict the framework of an intentional and coherent understanding. But this, I argue, neglects a vital agency of intentionality which, especially in the richly conceptualised realities and imageries of Greece and Rome, was to produce multiple and ostensibly inconsistent readings. lt is within the both flexible and norma tive practice of Rome's 'intentionaler Geschichte' that the exceptional stat ues of the Ph ry ges set up in the extraordinary Basilica Paulli took shape. I will end with a quotation taken from Michael Frayn's much-debated play Copenhagen, which prerniered in London in 1998. Frayn re-enacts a controversial but not recorded discussion between Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg about the Nazi atornic bomb project when the latter visited Bohr in 1941 in his Copenhagen harne. After Heisenberg denied on cat egorical grounds the existence of a physical anomaly during an experiment both of them had witnessed, Frayn (2000: 65-6) has Bohr reply -touch ing on an issue which you, Anthony, have always liked to discuss: Yes [Heisenberg], and you've never been able to understand the sug gestiveness of paradox and contradiction.
That's your problem. You live and breathe paradox and contradic tion, but you can no more see the beauty of them than the fish can see the beauty of water.