DISCUSSION of the Preview Ehrenstatue für Hadrian in Rom

Der folgende Text enthält Literaturangaben und viele Abbildungsnummern. Vergleiche FORTVNA PAPERS vol. III-1, S. 1097 ff. für die entsprechenden Bildunterschriften ("List of illustrations"), S. 1128, für die Abkürzungen ("Abbreviations") , und S. 1129 ff., für die Literatur ("Bibliography") .

Dieser Band ist open access auf unserem Webserver publiziert. Siehe: https://FORTVNA-research.org/FORTVNA/FP3.html

Fig. 58: Karte des Forum Romanum (Detail), mit dem Tempel des Divus Vespasianus. C. Häuber und F.X. Schütz, "AIS ROMA" (2022).

This text, a discussion of the Preview, "Ehrenstatue für Hadrian in Rom für die Niederschlagung des Bar Kochba-Aufstandes" belongs to FORTVNA PAPERS vol. III-2,

Appendix IV.c.2.) The Ogulnian monument (a statue group representing the she-wolf suckling Romulus and Remus, standing underneath the sacred fig tree ficus Ruminalis), and the she-wolf suckling Romulus and Remus on a headless cuirassed statue of a Flavian emperor (Domitian?) in the Vatican Museums (cf. here Fig. 6, right) and on Hadrian's cuirassed statue from Hierapydna at Istanbul (cf. here Fig. 29). Exactly like the statue of the ficus Ruminalis on the Anaglypha Hadriani (cf. here Figs. 21; 22), the lupa and the twins on those cuirasses symbolize Rome's claim to eternal power and divine mission, and that it was the task of the Roman emperor to fulfill this obligation (cf. C. Parisi Presicce 2000, 28, 29). With a discussion of the meaning of the lupa and the twins on the "Rilievo Terme Vaticano" (cf. here Fig. 31), and with The second Contribution by Claudia Valeri

... To conclude this survey: very different occasions have so far been suggested for the creation of the series of statues that resemble Hadrian's portrait-statue from Hierapydna (cf. here Fig. 29): shortly after AD 117, after 121, after 131/132, around 132-135, or after Hadrian's divinization.

Parisi Presicce (2000, 29, quoted verbatim infra) suggests that these statues could have been commissioned by the magistrates of the towns in question soon after Hadrian's divinization. Birgit Bergmann (2010b) believes this statue-type was created after Hadrian's foundation of the Panhellenion 131/132 and was especially frequently copied in connection with Hadrian's victory in the Bar Kokhba Revolt (132-135 or 136). As we shall see below, this was followed by Michaela Fuchs (2014), who suggests that the iconography of the original statue-type was appropriately adjusted to the new purpose.

Cornelius Vermeule was first to suggest that the statue from Hierapydna (here Fig. 29) commemorates Hadrian's victory in the Bar Kokhba Revolt (132-135 or 136); cf. Vermeule (Art of Antiquity, Volume Four, Part Two. Jewish Relations with the Art of Ancient Greece and Rome (``JVDAEA CAPTA SED NON DEVICTA´´) 1981, pp. 24-25, quoted verbatim supra, in volume 3-1, p. 918).

Vermeule's findings were overlooked by (almost) all the other scholars discussed here.

My thanks are due to Hans Rupprecht Goette, who alerted me to Vermeule's publication (1981), after I had finished writing this Appendix IV.2.c). Later I decided to `cut out´ from this Appendix the text, which became the separate Study on Hadrian's portrait-statue from Hierapydna in volume 3-1, pp. 899-959.

Matteo Cadario (2004) prefers an earlier date, namely sometime after AD 121, and sees a connection with Hadrian's travels in Greece (AD 121-125). Pavlina Karanastasi (2012/2013, 381), on the other hand, believes that this series of statues was created even earlier than that, in response to "repercussions of the uprising of the Jews of the Diaspora, which had broken out under Trajan in AD 116/7", and which, as we have learned above from Goette (2019, 2, quoted verbatim supra, at Appendix IV.c.1.). Post Scriptum: Hadrian's situation in AD 117-118), Hadrian had only to deal with as late as in August of AD 117 Trajan had fallen ill and decided to leave the Levant for Rome.

Karanastasi (2012/2013, 342-348, Section: "Der Aufstand der Juden in der Diaspora") discusses this uprising of the Jews in the diaspora, seen from the perspective of the people, who lived in the island of Crete, who had commissioned the many statues of this `Hadrian series´ found there.

But as we have seen above, in Parisi Presicce's discussion of those statues (here Fig. 29), examples of them have also been found elsewhere; cf. Parisi Presicce (2000, 25-30), on the now almost 30 `replicas´ of Hadrian's portrait-statue from Hierapydna at Istanbul, who notes that they are not faithful copies of one prototype in the true sense of the word. For a discussion of this fact in detail; cf. Birgit Bergmann (2010b, 230-235); and Pavlina Karanastasi (2012/2013, 334).

See also Karanastasi (2012/2013, 325-332; cf. pp. 358-363, cat. nos. 1-29). Cf. pp. 358-365: her cat. nos. 1-22 are, in her opinion, certain replicas of this statue-type; cf. pp. 365-366: her cat. nos. 23-24 possibly belong to this statue-type; cf. pp. 366-367: her cat. nos. 25-29 probably do not belong to this statue-type.

Before discussing the hypothesis of Karanastasi (2012/2013, 342-348) concerning her suggestion that the series of portrait-statues of Hadrian (cf. here Fig. 29) `were a response to the uprising of the Jews in the Diaspora shortly after 116/117 AD´, I will anticipate a summary of the results of my telephone- and E-mail-conversations with several colleagues and friends concerning this matter.

My correspondence with Hans Rupprecht Goette dates from 6th October-8th November 2024. The following summary of my research (published supra, in volume 3-1; to which I have now added many new observations supporting my dating of this statue) from 14th October-14th November. This correspondence began, when I sent Hans the Link to the Preview to FORTVNA PAPERS volume III-2 on our Webserver, of the "Ehrenstatue für Hadrian in Rom für die Niederschlagung des Bar Kochba-Aufstandes (132-135 oder 136 n. Chr.)", in which I discuss the portrait of Hadrian from Hierapydna (here Fig. 29). Online at: <https://fortvna-research.org/FORTVNA/FP3/Hadrian_Ehrenstatue_in_Rom.html>.

Because Hans wrote me that he does not agree with my `late´ dating of this portrait of Hadrian (Fig. 29) - he himself dates it to circa AD 120 - I have summarized below my arguments for this suggestion. In the course of this correspondence with Hans, and after discussions with Franz Xaver Schütz (13th October-12th November); with Lorenzo Cigaina (15th October-14th November), with Eberhard Thomas (25th October-9th November), with Eric M. Moormann (28th October-10th November), with John Pollini (14th-October-9th November), and with Peter Herz (October-November), all of whom I sent the Preview on the "Ehrenstatue", and also this manuscript, I have realized now more clearly than before that Karanastasi's hypotheses (2012/ 2013) are based on some (erroneous) assumptions.

First of all, I am not convinced of Karanastasi's (2012/2013) explanation, why so many portraits of Hadrian of the `Hierapydna-type´ (five or even six?; cf. here Fig. 29) have been dedicated in Crete.

As will be discussed in detail in the following, Karanastasi (2012/2013) explains the dedications of those many portraits of Hadrian in Crete as responses to the Revolt of the Jews in the diaspora (AD 116-117). But let me before anticipate here the results of my own research that will be summarized below:

I myself explain the dedications of those portraits of Hadrian in Crete (cf. here Fig. 29), following the hypotheses of Lorenzo Cigaina (2020, 221-222, § IV.6, quoted verbatim infra). Cigaina suggests that Hadrian (in AD 133-136) had improved a pre-existing road that connected the western part of Crete with its eastern part. Cigaina, therefore, convincingly suggests that Hadrian used this road to guarantee the transportation of soldiers and supplies that Hadrian needed for his suppression of the Bar Kokhba Revolt in Judaea (AD 132-135 or 136). In Cigaina's opinion, all the replicas of this statue-type of Hadrian (here Fig. 29) are datable to AD 132-138; and that they were, therefore, dedicated to commemorate Hadrian's suppression of the Bar Kokhba Revolt. Cigaina's hypotheses are corroborated by the date and by the iconography of Hadrian's coins (cf. here Fig. 129, above; Fig. 129, below, left; 129, below, right). Those coins of Hadrian represent, in my opinion, the prototype of Hadrian's portrait-statue from Hierapydna (here Fig. 29, and of its replicas), and because those coins were issued in Rome, this prototype stood there.

As also Karanastasi agrees (2012/2013; cf. below, and infra, in Post Scriptum, at point 5.)), these coins, issued by Hadrian in Rome, show on their reverses a statue strikingly similar to Hadrian's portrait-statue from Hierapydna (here Fig. 29). Those coins are dated in the catalogues of the British Museum to `AD 130-138´. Peter Franz Mittag (Römische Medaillen Caesar bis Hadrian, 2010, 48) dates those coins to: "vor 132(?)-138(?) n. Chr.". I thank Peter Herz for the reference. I myself assume that Hadrian issued those coins in Rome in AD 136 (for a discussion; cf. infra, in Post Scriptum, at point 3.)).

Karanastasi (2012/2013, 352-353; cf. also p. 324 with n. 4, p. 356 with n. 191 (both text-passages quoted verbatim infra), Fig. 7. London, Brit. Mus. Inv. 1972.0711.4: Silbersesterz Hadrians [= here Fig. 129, below, right]), publishes one of those coins, which she dates to `AD 128-138´.

But Karanastasi (2012/2013, 353, with n. 178, p. 356 with n. 191) does not consider the date of this coin Fig. 129, below, right (`AD 128-138´) in her discussion of the question, on which occasion the portrait-statue of Hadrian from Hierapydna (here Fig. 29; and its replicas in Crete) could have been dedicated.

Let's now turn to Karanastasi's hypotheses in detail:

As was discussed above, in this Appendix IV.c.2.), Karanastasi (2012/2013, 342-348, Section: "Der Aufstand der Juden in der Diaspora") writes (on page 348): "Dass die ›Feinde‹ in diesem historischen Moment für die Insel [i.e., Crete] keine anderen als die aufständischen Juden in der Diaspora sein konnten, scheint im Licht der geschilderten Ereignisse über jeden Zweifel erhaben".

I have in this context commented on Karanastasi's (2012/2013) observations as follows: ``Karanastasi (2012/2013) suggests that the portraits of Hadrian of her `eastern type´, of which, apart from the statue discussed here [i.e., Hadrian's portrait-statue from Hierapydna; here Fig, 29], also many other replicas were found in Crete, were dedicated as Loyalitätsadressen [to Hadrian] in response to the uprisings of the Jews in the diaspora [which she dates: AD 116-117] inter alia in Cyrene, a Roman province that was closely connected to Crete, since the capital of the province Creta et Cyrenae, with the residence of its proconsul, was Gortyn in Crete; cf. Cavalieri and Jusseret (2009, 357); and Karanastasi (2012/2013, 347 with n. 145)´´.

Whereas Karanastasi (2012/2013, 342-348, Section: "Der Aufstand der Juden in der Diaspora") discusses the Revolt of the Jews in the diaspora (AD 115-117) in more detail, she only mentions the Great Jewish Revolt or War (AD 66-73) on p. 346 with n. 137, and the Bar Kokhba Revolt (AD 132-135 or 136), on p. 342 with n. 105, p. 346 with n. 137, and on p. 350, with n. 167.

Based on different parts of the immense available research on those subjects than that consulted by Karanastasi (2012/2013), all those uprisings of the Jews are here dealt with in great detail; see below, in this Appendix IV.2.c).

In this research, I have followed the methodological approach of the military historian Rose Mary Sheldon (Spies of the Bible. Espionage in Israel from the Exodus to the Bar Kokhba Revolt, 2007), to whom this book is dedicated. She starts her research with the Maccabean Revolt (167-163 BC), and describes all those above-mentioned conflicts from the perspective of the Jews and of the Romans alike. It thus became also evident for me in the course of my own studies that all those uprisings of the Jews against the Romans are interrelated. In addition, I follow those scholars, who have suggested that the Emperor Trajan (and his natural father, Traianus pater) had caused the Revolt of the Jews in the diaspora, whereas it was the Emperor Hadrian, who caused the Bar Kokhba Revolt. What is less well known: the Emperor Nero had himself, if not caused the Great Jewish Revolt, at least "helped to precipitate the great insurrection of 66"; cf. Howard Hayes Scullard ("Gessius Florus", in: OCD³ [1996] 635); cf. supra, in volume 3-1, pp. 192-193.

The Bar Kokhba Revolt lasted from AD 132-135; cf. Rose Mary Sheldon (2007, 179-199, "Chapter 8 Israel's Last Stand - The Bar Kokhba Revolt"; cf. Werner Eck (2007); Werner Eck and Andreas Pangerl (2008, 385 with n. 72). According to Werner Eck (2019b, 201 with n. 34; and id. 2022, Sp. 486; and according to D. KIENAST, W. ECK and M. HEIL 2017, 123: it lasted until AD 136 instead). For a discussion of this point; cf. supra, in volume 3-1, p. 959.

There is no doubt, as also Karanastasi stresses (2012/2013, 342-348, Section: "Der Aufstand der Juden in der Diaspora"), that the Emperor Hadrian tried very hard to improve the situation in those parts of the Roman Empire that had greatly suffered from the Revolt of the Jews in the diaspora (AD 115-117).

This Appendix IV. is, after all, inter alia dedicated to a study of the here-so-called Anaglypha Hadriani (here Figs. 21; 22), one of which is called `the burning of debt records´ relief (here Fig. 22):

Appendix IV. D. Filippi (1998) has convincingly identified the `first gate of the Capitolium´ (Tac., Hist. 3,71,1-2) with the remains of an arch, excavated by A.M. Colini in the 1940s, with the Porta Pandana, and with the arch, visible on the `burning of debt records´ relief of the here-so-called Anaglypha Hadriani (Figs. 21; 22). With some new ideas concerning the Anaglypha Hadriani; and discussions of the colossal statue of Hadrian (now Constantine the Great) in the courtyard of the Palazzo dei Conservatori (cf. here Fig. 11); of the inscription (CIL VI 974 = 40524; cf. here Fig. 29.1), belonging to a statue of Hadrian; of two headless cuirassed statues of Flavian emperors (Titus or Vespasian? and Domitian?) in the Vatican Museums (cf. here Fig. 6, left and right) and of Hadrian's cuirassed statue from Hierapydna at Istanbul (cf. here Fig. 29).

On this `burning of debt records´ relief (here Fig. 22) is represented the burning of debt records, kept at the aerarium populi Romani, on the Forum Romanum in Rome. This event had occurred shortly after Hadrian had returned to the City as the new emperor on 9th July of AD 118. The debt records in question, comprising also many of the fiscus (that were instead burnt on the Forum of Trajan), had amounted to altogether 900.000.000 sestertii (!). But contrary to what was earlier believed, Hadrian did this by no means for the poor all over the Empire, but rather for the rich, as Peter Herz has been able to demonstrate, and thus in order to improve his own precarious situation.

In the following, I repeat, therefore, what has already been said above; cf. supra, at Appendix IV.b):

``After having finished writing this entire Appendix IV., I had again, beginning with the 11th November 2020, the chance to discuss the whole matter with Peter Herz in several telephone- and E-mail conversations.

Herz alerted me to the fact that Hadrian ordered the destruction of the debt records of the fiscus, recorded by Cassius Dio (69,8,1 ² ) and by the Historia Augusta (Hadr. 7,6), because of very different reasons than those that have been suggested so far. The debtors of the fiscus were by no means the poor all over the Empire, but instead the rich. Since it was the goodwill of those, which Hadrian needed desparately because of his own precarious situation at the beginning of his reign.

This was caused by a variety of reasons: because of Hadrian's lack of legitimization, because he had ordered the assassination of four consulares, and because he, at the very beginning of his reign, had immediately given up some of Trajan's recently conquered provinces in the East and in the Balkans.

Besides, as Herz has informed me as well, the debts at the fiscus, which those documents recorded, could not possibly be payed back, because many of the debtors had for example been the tenants of imperial domains in Egypt, the Cyrenaica and in Cyprus, that is to say, in those Roman provinces that had been greatly devastated in the course of the Revolt of the Jews in the diaspora. The emperor's relevant benefactions were thus the immediate results of the Revolt of the Jews in the diaspora, from which Hadrian had just come back in AD 118 [my emphasis]´´.

See for a detailed discussion of all this, supra, in volume 3-1, pp. 1281-1282, at The third Contribution by Peter Herz: Der Übergang von Trajan auf Hadrian und das erste Regierungsjahr Hadrians.

The just-mentioned `assassination of the four consulares´ at the beginning of Hadrian's reign, shows another difference between Karanastasi's approach to describe the historical situation shortly after AD 117 and the one presented here: Karanastasi (2012/2013, 343-345) mentions the important rôle of Marcius Turbo in the suppression of the Revolt of the Jews in the diaspora (inter alia in Egypt) under Trajan. To this we may now add Peter Herz's account (cf. supra, in volume 3-1, p. 1276), who mentions, in addition to Turbo's actions under Trajan, also those under Hadrian, which served again the purpose of improving Hadrian's own precarious situation.

Peter Herz (supra, in volume 3-1, p. 1280) writes about those four consulares, who had been killed at the beginning of Hadrian's reign:

"SHA Hadr. 7.2: quare Palma Terracinis, Celsus Baiis, Nigrinus Faventinae, Lusius in itinere senatus iubente, invito Hadriano, ut ipse in vita sua dicit, occisi sunt.

``Deswegen wurde Palma in Tarracina, Celsus in Baiae, [Avidius] Nigrinus in Faventia, Lusius [Quietus] auf dem Weg (wohin ist unbekannt) auf Anordnung des Senates und gegen den Willen Hadrians, wie er selbst in seiner Autobiographie sagt, getötet.´´".

Herz (supra, in volume 3-1, p. 1276) writes about Lusius Quietus and Marcius Turbo:

"Hadrian erreichte die Nachricht vom Tode Trajans (und seiner Adoption auf dem Sterbebett) wahrscheinlich am 11. August 117 in Antiochia. Seine wohl erste Personalentscheidung war die Ablösung von Lusius Quietus von der Position des legatus Augusti Iudaeae. Quietus scheint sich dann zusammen mit seinen maurischen Stammeskriegern in Richtung Mauretanien begeben zu haben ... Kurze Zeit danach wurde Marcius Turbo, der bisher in seiner Eigenschaft als praefectus classis praetoriae Misenensis gegen die noch nicht endgültig unterworfenen jüdischen Aufständischen in Ägypten eingesetzt gewesen war, dort abgezogen und mit der Masse seiner Truppen nach Mauretanien gesandt, wo zwischenzeitlich die Stammeskrieger des Quietus rebelliert hatten".

Cf. supra, in volume 3-1, p. 1283, "Note by the editor Chrystina Häuber"):

"Cf. most recently for "Lusius Quietus, der Statthalter in Iudaea ... einer der Teilnehmer der angeblichen Verschwörung der vier Konsulare gegen Hadrian", likewise mentioned by Peter Herz: Werner Eck (2022b, 231; cf. p. 227 with n. 14)".

Secondly, I do not agree with Karanastasi concerning her interpretation of the representation on Hadrian's cuirass.

Karanastasi (2012/2013, 338, 381, both text-passages quoted verbatim supra) asserts that the Palladion, represented on the cuirass of Hadrian's portrait-statue from Hierapydna (here Fig. 29), should instead be identified with the Athena Promachos; she regards this (alleged) fact as an argument for her early dating of this portrait of Hadrian. In reality, Karanastasi's assertion, which she bases on some further (erroneous) assumptions, is not true, as already observed by Michaela Fuchs (2014, 127, n. 24, quoted verbatim supra, in volume 3-1, pp. 903-905):

"Für eine frühe Entstehung des Panzerschmucks [of Hadrian's portrait-statue here Fig. 29] spricht sich jetzt auch Karanastasi 2012-2013, 338 aus und beruft sich auf Prägungen, die seit 121 bzw. [beziehungsweise] 119 n. Chr. das Bild der Lupa Romana bzw. [beziehungsweise] der Athena Promachos, wie sie das Palladion deutet (S. 332-333), zeigen. Beide Motive begegnen jedoch auch schon viel früher und können als Einzelbilder natürlich nicht für die Datierung der Komposition am Panzerschmuck herangezogen werden".

Karanastasi writes concerning the date and iconography of those coins, which Hadrian issued in Rome (Fig. 129, above; Fig, 129, below, left; Fig, 129, below, right), on which, in my opinion, the prototype appears, after which the portrait of Hadrian from Hierapydna (Fig. 29, and its replicas) were copied;

cf. Karanastasi (2012/2013, 352-353, with Fig. 7. London, Brit. Mus. Inv. 1972.0711.4: Silbersesterz Hadrians [= here Fig. 129, below, right]):

"Sucht man nun nach einem konkreten freiplastischen Vorbild bzw. nach einem Vermittler für diese Werke [which she has discussed before], bieten sich als beste Kandidaten [page 353] die Hadrianstatuen aus Kreta im ›östlichen Typus‹ an, zuvorderst die Statue aus Hierapytna [cf. here Fig. 29], die nach orientalischem Habitus den Fuß auf den geschlagenen Feind setzt [with n. 177, providing references]. Die enge Verbindung des statuarischen Schemas der zuletzt genannten Figur mit Ägypten wird durch eine in die Spätzeit Hadrians datierte stadtrömische Prägung noch deutlicher (Abb. 7 [= here Fig. 129, below, right]): der Kaiser, der in einer zum Verwechseln ähnlichen Pose und mit den gleichen Attributen wie die Statue aus Hierapytna dargestellt ist, setzt den Fuß auf das Zeichen von Ägypten, das Krokodil [with n. 178; my emphasis]".

To Karanastasi's (2012/2013, 353) just-quoted passage, I should like to add some comments.

The crocodile is here (i.e., on the coins here Fig. 129, above; Fig. 129, below, left; Fig. 129, below, right) not predominantly "das Zeichen von Ägypten" (`a symbol of Egypt´), as Karanastasi (2012/2013, 353) asserts, who mentions in her note 178 (referring to her note 191) the article by Annalina Calò Levi (1948). Levi quoted in this text Paul Leberecht Strack (1933), who already then had (correctly) characterized the meaning of the crocodile "as a symbol of ... the enemy in general", as Levi (1948, 31) wrote. Karanastasi (2012/2013, 356, n 191, quoted verbatim infra) quotes "Levi 1948" for this statement, but ignores the fact that this was Strack's (1933) interpretation of this crocodile.

We have already heard that the same interpretation of the crocodile, as that suggested by Strack (1933, 138) has, in the meantime, also been provided by the Egyptologist Emanuele M. Ciampini (2016):

"Levi (1948, 35, Fig. 5) bildet ein Relief im Hathor-Tempel von Dendera in Ägypten ab, das einen Pharao als Horus zeigt, der ein Krokodil tötet (hier Fig. 129.1), und stellt zu Recht fest, dass Hadrians Münze (hier Fig. 129, above) den Kaiser somit `als Horus´ zeigt, mit dem die ägyptischen Pharaonen identifiziert wurden: `Hadrian as King of Egypt´ lautet deshalb der Titel ihres Aufsatzes.

Dargestellt ist somit auf diesem Relief (hier Fig. 129.1) die Hauptaufgabe des ägyptischen Pharaos: Die Etablierung der (sozialen) Harmonie in seinem Herrschaftsbereich, Ma'at genannt, ein Idealzustand, den nach ägyptischer Vorstellung nur der regierende Pharao herbeiführen konnte, und der es nötig machte, dass der König `das Böse bzw. [beziehungsweise] das Chaos bekämpfte´; vergleiche Emanuele M. Ciampini (2016, S. 115-116, mit Anm. 4) (s.o., in Band 3-1, S. 29-30, 909, 915-923; und oben, im Appendix II.) [my emphasis]";

cf. <https://fortvna-research.org/FORTVNA/FP3/Hadrian_Ehrenstatue_in_Rom.html>.

Annalina Calò Levi (1948, 31) wrote: "Strack [with n. 4] also believes the type [i.e., the coins here Fig. 129, above; Fig. 129, below, left; Fig. 129, below, right] to be not earlier than A.D. 134 ... Strack's explanation excludes a reference to Hadrian's journey to Egypt. The motive, in his opinion, is a victory motive; but he queries whether the crocodile might not be a symbol of Palestine or of the enemy in general". In her n. 4, Levi quoted: P.L. Strack (1933, 138).

See also above, in volume 3-1, p. 920: Paul Leberecht Strack (1933, 138) wrote that the crocodile [on the coins here Fig. 129, above; Fig. 129, below, left; Fig. 129, below, right] symbolizes ""``das Gefährliche und Feindliche schlechthin´´ ... oder [das] auch als Symbol für Palästina verstanden werden kann [with n. 43]". Cf. Michaela Fuchs (2014, 130, quoting in her n. 43: P.L. STRACK 1933, 138).

Karanastasi (2012/2013) dates Hadrian's portrait-statue from Hierapydna (here Fig. 29; and its replicas) `early´, that is to say, as honorary statues, dedicated to Hadrian as Loyalitätsadressen in response to the uprisings of the Jews in the diaspora, which, in her opinion, lasted from AD 116-117.

In doing so, Karanastasi does not consider the following facts in her reasoning:

a) already Strack (1933, 138) had written that Hadrian could not possibly have issued those coins (here Fig. 129, above; Fig. 129, below, left; Fig. 129, below, right) in Rome `before AD 134´. Karanastasi herself (2012/2013, 356, n. 191) illustrates the coin here Fig. 129, below, right, as her Fig. 7, and dates this coin as follows: `AD 128-138´ (see below). Nor does Karanastasi mention the fact -

b) that Strack (1933, 138) had suggested - obviously because of the date of those coins - that this crocodile (here Fig. 129, above; Fig. 129, below, left; Fig. 129, below, right) could also `have been a symbol for [a victory over] Palestine´. Nor does Karanastasi consider the facts -

c) that Annalina Calò Levi (1948, 31) had not only followed Strack (1933, 138) concerning point a) and point b), but -

d) that Levi (1948), concerning those coins (here Fig. 129, above; Fig. 129, below, left; Fig. 129, below, right), had been of the following opinion. Levi (1948, 30-31, 38 with n. 36) believed that the cuirassed portrait-statue of Hadrian, which appears on the reverses of those coins, must have been erected in Rome, suggesting that this statue of Hadrian had been dedicated - after AD 134 - at the cenotaph of Antinous, which she located at the Mausoleum of Hadrian/ Castel Sant'Angelo (cf. here Fig. 58, labels: Tomb of the Emperor Hadrian/ SEPULCRUM: P. AELIUS HADRIANUS / Castel S. Angelo); cf. supra, in volume 3-1, pp. 929, 944-946.

For a summary for this entire complex of subjects; cf. supra, in volume 3-1, p. 920; cf. pp. 899-900.

As a logical consequence of points a) - d) we may, in my opinion, therefore, conclude the following:

that the copies of this statue of Hadrian, dedicated in Rome (and represented on the coins here Fig. 129, above; Fig. 129, below, left; Fig. 129, below, right), for example, in my opinion, his portrait-statue from Hierapydna (here Fig. 29) could only have been commissioned after the original statue of Hadrian in Rome had been dedicated. As already mentioned, Annalina Calò Levi (1948, 30-31, 38 with n. 38) had dated this statue of Hadrian in Rome, following Strack's (1933, 138) suggestion, to `after AD 134´.

Fortunately we have those coins (here Fig. 129, above; Fig. 129, below, left; und Fig. 129, below, right), on which this statue of Hadrian in Rome is represented. All four coins with the representation of this iconography on their reverses, owned by the British Museum, London, are dated in the catalogues of this museum as follows: "AD 130-138". For the list of those four coins;

cf. <https://fortvna-research.org/FORTVNA/FP3/Hadrian_Ehrenstatue_in_Rom.html>.

Hadrian's coins (here Fig. 129, above; Fig. 129, below, left; und Fig. 129, below, right) carry the inscription "HADRIANVS AVG COS III PP"; according to Peter Franz Mittag (2010, 48), Hadrian's coins with this inscription were minted: "vor 132(?)-138(?) n. Chr.". To my own dating of those coins: `AD 136´, I will come back below (cf. infra, in Post Scriptum, at point 3.)).

I am, therefore, wondering, why Karanastasi (2012/2013) has suggested this `early dating´ of the portrait of Hadrian from Hierapydna (and of its replicas) at all: that is to say: `shortly after AD 117´, since she herself, as we have just seen, writes the following (on p. 353):

"Die enge Verbindung des statuarischen Schemas der zuletzt genannten Figur [= Hadrian's portrait from Hierapydna; here Fig. 29] mit Ägypten wird durch eine in die Spätzeit Hadrians datierte stadtrömische Prägung noch deutlicher (Abb. 7 [= here Fig. 129, below, right]): der Kaiser, der in einer zum Verwechseln ähnlichen Pose und mit den gleichen Attributen wie die Statue aus Hierapytna dargestellt ist, setzt den Fuß auf das Zeichen von Ägypten, das Krokodil [with n. 178]".

As already said, all four coins, issued by Hadrian with this iconography on the reverses (cf. here Fig. 129, above; Fig. 129, below, left; Fig. 129, below, right), which are owned by the British Museum, are dated in the catalogues of this museum to `AD 130-138´. One of those four coins, illustrated by Karanastasi (2012/2013, 356, n. 191) as her Fig. 7 (= here Fig. 129, below, right), she herself dates, as already mentioned above: "zwischen 128 und 138" n. Chr. (`between AD 128-138) (!).

Karanastasi (2012/2013, 353) writes in her note 178: "Zum Münzbild und zu dessen Deutung s. u. Anm. 191".

Karanastasi (2012/2013, 356) writes in her note 191: "Sesterz (AR) London, Brit. Mus. Inv. 1972,0711.4 [= here Fig. 129, below, right]: Strack 1933, 138 Nr. 291 Taf. IV; BMCRE III (1936) S. cIxxxii; 475 Nr. 1552. 1553 Taf. 89, 2; 485 Nr. 167 Taf. 91, 3; Levi 1948. Aufgrund der Legende PP (pater patriae) ist die Prägung zwischen 128 und 138 zu datieren. Dass hier Hadrian als König von Ägypten, Inkarnation des Horus und Überwinder feindlicher Kräfte, die das Krokodil verkörpert, dargestellt ist, wurde treffend durch Levi (1948, 36 f.) dargelegt. Vgl. [vergleiche] La Rocca 1995, 231 und Laubscher 1996, 236 mit Anm. 54, der zu Recht hervorhebt, dass römische Betrachter das Bild auch ohne Kenntnis des ägyptischen Hintergrunds verstehen konnten [my emphasis]".

To this I will come back below (cf. infra, in Post Scriptum, at point 5.)).

Karanastasi (2012/2013) does not consider the contributions by Egyptologists to the discussion of the `archaic oriental victor pose´ of Hadrian's portrait-statue from Hierapydna (here Fig. 29). As already said, Hadrian appears also on the reverses of his coins in this iconography (cf. here Fig. 129, above; Fig. 129, below, left; Fig. 129, below, right).

For the contributions by Egyptologists to the discussion of this iconography; cf. supra, in volume 3-1, pp. 29-30, 909-911, 915-923; and above, in Appendix II.

When Karanastasi's article (2012/2013) appeared, the results of Sam Heijnen's (2020) research on the decoration of Hadrian's cuirass of his portrait-statue from Hierapydna (here Fig. 29), and of its replicas, were not yet known. My thanks are due to Hans Rupprecht Goette, who was kind enough to send me Sam Heijnen's publication; cf. supra, in volume 3-1, pp. 927-929, at The observations concerning Hadrian's portrait-statue from Hierapydna by Sam Heijnen (2020); cf. p. 943.

Heijnen ("Living up to expectations. Hadrian's military representation in freestanding sculpture", 2020, 200-204) refers to Hadrian's cuirassed portrait-statue from Hierapydna (and to its replicas; cf. here Fig. 29) as to the "eastern breastplate type".

Heijnen (2020) describes the iconography of Hadrian's cuirass (cf. here Fig. 29), especially the central figure of an "Athena/Palladion/Virtus", as he refers to it, who, standing on the lupa romana, is crowned by two winged Victories, and calls this iconography "trophy-type".

Contrary to all previous scholars, who have studied the iconography of Hadrian's cuirass of his portrait-statue from Hierapydna (here Fig. 29; and of its replicas) so far, Heijnen is able to demonstrate that these specific "trophy-types" are very similar of representations on cuirasses, that had been created for the Flavian emperors to honour them for their victories in the Great Jewish War (AD 66-73 n. Chr.), and in Germania. At the end of his discussion of Hadrian's "eastern breastplate type" (here Fig. 29), Heijnen (2020, 204) comes to the following, in my opinion very convincing, conclusion:

"The choice to use the `trophy-type´ [on the cuirasses of this series of portraits of Hadrian; cf. here Fig. 29] as an anchor might have been influenced by the fact that this type has been used before to commemorate the conquest of Judaea under the Flavians [my emphasis]".

In addition to this, Karanastasi, when writing her article (2012/2013), could not as yet consider the results of Lorenzo Cigaina's research (2020), whom I myself have followed above, in volume 3-1. My thanks are due to Peter Herz, who had alerted me to Lorenzo Cigaina's research on Crete.

In the following, I will, therefore, repeat some text-passages from supra, volume 3-1, where I have summarized Cigaina's research (2020) on Hadrian's cuirassed portraits in Crete, inter alia his portrait from Hierapydna (here Fig. 29). Cf. supra, in volume 3-1, p. 929:

``The observations concerning Hadrian's portrait-statue from Hierapydna by Lorenzo Cigaina (2020)

Lorenzo Cigaina (Creta nel Mediterraneo greco-romano: identità regionale e istituzioni federali, 2020, 122-124) discusses the well-known, but at the same time remarkable fact that in Crete were found five (or six?) copies of `Hadrian's portrait series´, to which the statue from Hierapydna (here Fig. 29) belongs.

Cigaina is first to connect this fact with Hadrian's improvement of a major road that connected the western part of Crete with its eastern part. We know three Hadrianic milestones of this road, which, as Cigaina (2020, 219) is able to demonstrate, are datable between AD 133-136. He, therefore, convincingly suggests that Hadrian used this road to guarantee the transportation of soldiers and supplies that he needed for his suppression of the Bar Kokhba Revolt in Judaea´´.

See also above, in volume 3-1, pp. 933-934:

``Cigaina (2020, 221-222, § IV.6) discusses Hadrian's road in Crete, known through those milestones, its possible connection with the Bar Kokhba Revolt and with Hadrian's statues of his `tipo Hierapytna´ (cf. here Fig. 29); the fact that, in his opinion, the replicas of this statue-type are datable to AD 132-138; and that the replicas, found in Crete, therefore, commemorated Hadrian's suppression of the Bar Kokhba Revolt:

"... [page 934] L'unica guerra impegnativa durante il suo [i.e., Hadrian's] regno è rappresentata dalla repressione della rivolta di Bar Kochba ed è verosimile che proprio a questo evento militare facciano riferimento le statue cretesi con corazza del `tipo Hierapytna´ [my emphasis]"´´.

That the representations on the reverses of Hadrian's coins (here Figs. 129, above; Fig. 129, below, left; Fig. 129, below, right), and consequently the portrait-statue of Hadrian from Hierapydna (here Fig. 29), which shows the emperor with an elaborate laurel crown, celebrate a military victory, is, in addition to this laurel crown, proven by the following facts: represented standing, wearing a cuirass and armed with a spear and a parazonium, Hadrian is shown in the already mentioned `archaic oriental victor pose´.

See also Karanastasi (2012/2013, 329): "An den Statuen aus Olympia und Hierapytna (8 Taf. 4, 3. 4; 12 Taf. 6, 3 - 5 [= cf. here Fig. 29]) ist der Kaiser [i.e., Hadrian] mit einem doppelreihigen Lorbeerkranz und Medaillon über der Stirnmitte porträtiert und dadurch als siegreicher Imperator gekennzeichnet [with n. 40]; my emphasis". In her note 40, Karanastasi writes: "... Zum Lorbeerkranz s.[iehe] zuletzt Bergmann 2010b [= here B. BERGMANN 2010a], 51-58".

Sam Heijnen's analysis (2020) of the iconography of the representations on Hadrian's cuirass (here Fig. 29) sounds like a repetition of the content of an honorary inscription (CIL VI 974 = 40524; here Fig. 29.1), dedicated to Hadrian in AD 134-136 by the Senate and the Roman People to commemorate his suppression of the Bar Kokhba Revolt. Cf. supra, in volume 3-1, pp. 927, 928, 929, 945, 943.

The honorary statue, to which the fragmentary inscription (CIL VI 974 = 40524; here Fig. 29.1) once belonged, had been dedicated to Hadrian between AD 134-136 by the Senate and the Roman People in honour of his suppression of the Bar Kokhba Revolt (AD 132-135 or 136).

Not by chance, this honorary statue for Hadrian had been erected within the Temple of Divus Vespasianus at the Forum Romanum in Rome, or else immediately in front of this temple (cf. here Fig. 58, labels: FORUM ROMANUM; TEMPLUM: DIVUS VESPASIANUS). Because in the pertaining inscription (here Fig. 29.1), Hadrian's victories, for which he had been honoured with this statue, are expressis verbis compared with the victories of the `imperatores maximi´ (meaning Vespasian's and Titus's victories in the Great Jewish War, AD 66-73; cf. supra, in volume 3-1, pp. 30, 738, 770, 921, 922, 924, 935, 940-941, 943), that had been fought by Vespasian and Titus in the same area of the Imperium Romanum. Note that in this inscription (here Fig. 29.1), it is stressed that Hadrian, with his victories, had even surpassed those of Vespasian und Titus (!).

With my suggestion that the honorary statue for Hadrian, to which the fragmentary inscription (CIL VI 974 = 40524; cf. here Fig. 29.1) once belonged, was erected within the Temple of Divus Vespasianus, I have followed Geza Alföldy (at: CIL VI 40524, who suggested that this honorary statue of Hadrian stood in the cella of the Temple of Divus Vespasianus), and Michaela Fuchs (2014, 130); cf. supra, in volume 3-1, p. 738.

On 31st October 2014, John Pollini was kind enough to write me by E-mail the following comment on this statement, and on 4th November 2024, John has written me the permission to publish his comment here:

"The statue set up in the Temple of Divus Vespasianus, would not have been placed within the cella but in the porch of the temple, because Hadrian was not deified. This is a tradition going back to the Pantheon, when Agrippa wanted to place a statue of Augustus in the cella, but Augustus forbade this. Under Tiberius, he did not permit a statue of himself to be set up in one of the temples in Spain, he only allowed it to be an ornamentum - undoubtedly, therefore, in the porch. That was the function of the statues of Agrippa and Augustus in the porch of the Pantheon. There are other examples [my emphasis]".

Already Annalina Calò Levi (1948, 30-33, 35, 37-38) and Cornelius Vermeule (1981, 25) had realized that on the reverses of the coins, issued by Hadrian in Rome (here Fig. 129, above; Fig, 129, below, left; Fig. 129, below, right), appears a cuirassed portrait-statue of Hadrian that follows exactly the same iconography as Hadrian's portrait-statue from Hierapydna (here Fig. 29).

As mentioned above, Annalina Calò Levi (1948, 30-31, 38 with n. 36) had added to this the suggestion that - after AD 134 - this statue of Hadrian, which is represented on the reverses of those coins (here Fig. 129, above; Fig, 129, below, left; Fig. 129, below, right), had been dedicated in Rome; she obviously assumed this, because Hadrian had minted those coins in Rome.

And we have also seen above that Vermeule (1981, 25; quoted verbatim supra, in volume 3-1, p. 918) had been first to suggest that the portrait-statue of Hadrian from Hierapydna had been dedicated in order to honour the emperor for his suppression of the Bar Kokhba Revolt, arguing inter alia with the fact that this statue shows Hadrian with a "mature portrait" (cf. here Fig. 29).

Interestingly, Claudio Parisi Presicce (2000), who knew only altogether 15 copies of this statue-type of Hadrian from Hierapydna (here Fig. 29), had already observed the strange fact that those statues had been created in great haste - as he himself interpreted the fact that most of those statues, which he knew, seemed to be unfinished.

In the case of the statue from Hierapydna (here Fig. 29), the face has not received its final finish, and both of its ears are still only roughened out; compare for those facts also the observations by Birgit Bergmann (2010b, 210-211, Abb. 2a.c-d); and Pavlina Karanastasi (2012/ 2013, 334 with n. 57, p. 335).

But I have a problem with this hypothesis: why was, according to this scenario, the head of this portrait-statue of Hadrian sculpted last? In theory, an artist, specializing in portraits, could, of course, have done this job only after the rest of the sculpture had already been finished by another sculptor - especially, provided of this portrait of Hadrian had been created a whole series of copies.

My thanks are, therefore, due to Hans Rupprecht Goette for telling me by E-mail on 7th November 2024 that he is in the course of studying the following questions: whether the portrait-statue of Hadrian from Hierapydna (here Fig. 29) was renewed as part of a repair, and, if that should have been the case, why and when this could have happened. To this I will come back below (cf. infra, in Post Scriptum, at point 4.)).

Parisi Presicce (2000, 29) writes: "L'esecuzione, benché attribuita a una o più officine greche, è nella maggior parte dei casi rapida, poco raffinata ed è il frutto evidente dell'esigenza di rispondere in tempi brevi alla forte domanda delle città e dei magistrati desiderosi di mostrare la loro adulazione per l'imperatore, forse subito dopo la sua divinizzazione [my emphasis]".

Concerning the represented age of Hadrian in his portrait-statue from Hierapydna, I agree with Vermeule (1981, 25).

First of all because of Hadrian's coins (here Fig. 129, above; Fig. 129, below, left; Fig. 129, below, right), on which, in my opinion, on the reverses the prototype of the statue from Hierapydna (Fig. 29) appears, and on the obverses portraits of the clearly elderly Hadrian. All those coins are dated in the catalogues of the British Museum to AD 130-138, and by Peter Franz Mittag (2010, 48): "vor 132(?)-138(?) n. Chr.". As we shall see below (in Post Scriptum, at point 3.)), I myself date those coins of Hadrian to: `AD 136´.

See also the photos of Hadrian's head of his portrait-statue from Hierapydna, published by Karanastasi (2012/2013, 387, Taf. 6,3-5 [= here Fig. 29]), and compare those with Hadrian's portrait on an aureus, which is one of the earliest coins, issued by the Emperor Hadrian in AD 117 in Rome (here Fig. 142). As mentioned above, according to Karanastasi (2012/2013, 381), the portrait-statue of Hadrian from Hierapydna (here Fig. 29, and its replicas) were commissioned `shortly after AD 117´.

For a discussion of the coin (here Fig. 142); cf. <https://fortvna-research.org/FORTVNA/FP3/Konstantin_Hadrian_Koloss_09.html>.

Because of all that information, which has been summarized above, I myself have suggested that Hadrian's cuirassed statue from Hierapydna (here Fig. 29, and its replicas), are copies of that honorary statue of Hadrian, which the Senate and the Roman People had erected within the Temple of Divus Vespasianus at the Forum Romanum in Rome, or immediately in front of this temple (cf. here Fig. 58, labels: FORUM ROMANUM; TEMPLUM: DIVUS VESPASIANUS), and to which the fragmentary inscription (CIL VI 974 = 40524; here Fig. 29.1) had once belonged;

cf. supra, in volume 3-1, p. 724 ff., at A Study on the colossal portrait of Hadrian (now Constantine the Great) in the courtyard of the Palazzo dei Conservatori at Rome (cf. here Fig. 11); p. 728 ff., at Part I. The statue of Hadrian (now Constantine the Great) in the courtyard of the Palazzo dei Conservatori (cf. here Fig. 11), the inscription (CIL VI 974 = 40524; cf. here Fig. 29.1), and the cult-statue of Divus Vespasianus. With The Contribution by Hans Rupprecht Goette on the reworking of the portrait of Hadrian (now Constantine the Great); and p. 899 ff., at A Study on Hadrian's portrait-statue from Hierapydna (cf. here Fig. 29).

To this we may now add a fact that was not as yet addressed by the above-mentioned scholars, who have so far studied Hadrian's coins (here Fig. 129, above; Fig. 129, below, left; Fig. 129, below, right): on the obverses of those coins appear the laureate portraits of Hadrian. My thanks are due to Franz Xaver Schütz for discussing this point with me.

Compare the iconography of the IVDAEA CAPTA-coins of Vespasian and Titus (here Figs. 130; 131a, 131b; 131c), that is in this detail identical, showing on the obverses the laureate portraits of Vespasian and of Titus. Add to this the iconography that was chosen for the reverses of those coins, issued by Hadrian: it is almost identical with the representations of Vespasian and Titus, who likewise appear in an `archaic oriental victor pose´ on the reverses of their IVDAEA CAPTA-coins (here Figs. 130; 131a; 131b).

That the iconography on the reverses of Hadrian's coins (here Fig. 129, above; 129, below, left; 129, below, right) had been copied after Vespasian's IVDAEA CAPTA-sestertii (here Fig. 130) had first been observed by Cornelius Vermeule (1981, 24-25; quoted verbatim supra, in volume 3-1, p. 918).

For the IVDAEA CAPTA-sestertii, issued by Vespasian and Titus (here Figs. 130; 131a; 131b; 131c); cf. <https://fortvna-research.org/FORTVNA/FP3/Hadrian_Ehrenstatue_in_Rom.html>.

Considering those remarkable parallels of the iconography of Hadrian's coins (here Fig. 129, above; 129, below, left; 129, below, right) with Vespasian's and Titus's IVDAEA CAPTA-sestertii (here Figs. 130; 131a; 131b; 131c) we should ask, why and when Hadrian could have made such a proud statement about any of his own achievements.

I believe the fact that Hadrian, by ordering that on his coins (here Fig. 129, above; Fig. 129, below, left; Fig. 129, below, right) should be copied those iconographic details of Vespasian's and Titus's IVDAEA CAPTA-coins (here Figs. 130; 131a; 131b; 131c) - especially that his portraits on the obverses of his coins should likewise be represented laureate - may be explained with the following results of the suppression of the Bar Kokhba Revolt that have been commented upon by Evan Haley (2005).

Evan Haley (2005, 976, n. 29) writes:

"[Hadrian's] conferment of the ornamenta triumphalia on Sex. Iulius Severus, Publicius Marcellus, and Haterius Nepos, in addition to the insertion of `Imperator II´ in Hadrian's titulature [my emphasis]";

cf. Evan Haley (2005, 976, n. 29), quoting for all that: "See now W. Eck, The Bar Kokhba Revolt : The Roman Point of View in JRS 89, 1999 [= here W. ECK 1999d], p. 76-89, esp. 82-87".

As we shall see below (in Post Scriptum, at point 3.)), my just-formulated assumption that Hadrian may have ordered to be represented laureate on the obverses of his coins (here Fig. 129, above; Fig. 129, below, left; Fig. 129, below, right), because he had accepted in AD 136 his second imperatorial acclamation, is actually based on facts.

See also W. Eck ("Kaiserliche Imperatorenakklamation und ornamenta triumphalia", 1999c). I thank Peter Herz for sending me this publication, discussed in his third Contribution to this book: Der Übergang von Trajan auf Hadrian und das erste Regierungsjahr Hadrians (cf. supra, in volume 3-1, pp. 68, 1274-1283).

Werner Eck (1999c, 225) writes:

"Die letzten ornamenta triumphalia wurden unter Hadrian vergeben ... Seit langem bekannt waren die ornamenta für Sex. Iulius Severus, der sie nach der Niederzwingung des Bar Kochba-Aufstandes erhielt. [With n. 21]. Hadrian hatte aus diesem Anlaß zum einzigen Mal während seiner Regierungszeit eine Akklamation als imperator akzeptiert. Seit Anfang 136 führte er in seiner Titulatur die Bezeichnung imperator II [my emphasis]".

Cf. Dietmar Kienast, Werner Eck and Matthäus Heil (2017, 123): "Hadrian (11. Aug.[ust] 117-10. Juli 138) ...

Anfang 136 Annahme der Akklamation als imp.[erator] II".

Cf. Werner Eck (1999c, 227):

"Somit dürfte erwiesen sein, daß seit augusteischer Zeit und gerade wegen des augusteischen Beispiels Triumphalinsignien dann vergeben wurden, wenn der Herrscher wegen eines Sieges seine eigene Akklamation als imperator zugelassen und damit kundgetan hatte, daß der Sieg mit einem Triumph gefeiert werden könnte ... Der eigentlich siegreiche senatorische Feldherr konnte immer dann die Abzeichen des Triumphes erhalten, wenn der Kaiser durch einen Triumph oder durch eine Akklamation den Sieg als triumphwürdig anerkannt hatte. [With n. 33, with further discussion; my emphasis]".

In his note 21, Eck writes: "CIL III 2830+9891 = D. 1056; AE 1904,9".

Cf. E. Haley, "Hadrian as Romulus or the Self-Representation of a Roman Emperor", Latomus 64 (2005) 969-980. I thank Franz Xaver Schütz for providing me with this publication.

That the reverses of Hadrian's coins (here Fig, 129, above; Fig. 129, below, left; Fig. 129, below, right) commemorate a military victory of the emperor, is, in addition, indicated by still another iconographic detail, the meaning of which has so far not been discussed here (to this I will come back below).

On 15th October 2024, Lorenzo Cigaina, whom I had likewise sent the Link to the Preview of FORTVNA PAPERS volume III-2 on the "Ehrenstatue Hadrians in Rom für die Niederschlagung des Bar Kochba-Aufstandes", was kind enough to alert me to Karanastasi's most recent publication (2024) on Hadrian's portrait-statue from Hierapydna (here Fig. 29).

Cf. P. Karanastasi, "Political upheavals and the Roman army: looking for traces of the Roman army in Crete", in: J.E. Francis and M.J. Curtis (eds.), Contextualizing Imperial Disruption and Upheavals and their Associated Research Challenges (= Cretan Studies: New Approaches and Perspectives in the Study of Hellenistic, Roman and Early Byzantine Crete, Volume 1), Oxford and Philadelphia: Oxbow Books, 2024, pp. 43-56.

Pavlina Karanastasi (2024, 50) writes:

"Finally, the numerous statues of Hadrian on the island [i.e., Crete] exclusively in the cuirass type and especially in the so-called eastern or Hierapytna type [cf. here Fig. 29] with a captive barbarian at the Emperor's feet, must, as I have already pointed out, be probably related to the role that Crete was called upon to play in the events of AD 116/117 (Karanastasi 2012-2013).

In the case of the statue of Hadrian from Hierapytna (Fig. 5.12 and 5.13; Bergmann 2010 [= here B. BERGMANN 2010b], 206-20; Figs. 1-4; Karanastasi 2012-2013, 362-63, pl. 6), with his foot on the back of a prostrate female personification, commonly identified with Parthia, a composite bow strapped to a quiver is shown on the support of the statue. This weapon, has been associated with the enemy Parthia (Bergmann 2010 [= here B. BERGMANN 2010b], 247-48), but should rather be seen as referencing Crete, its archers and their contribution to suppressing the revolt of the Jews (Karanastasi 2012-2013, 348; Cigaina 2016, 324, with n. 70) [my emphasis]".

Cf. L. Cigaina, "Der Kaiserkult bei den Kretern in Bezug auf ihre Teilhabe am Militärwesen des römischen Reiches", in A. Kolb and M. VitaIe (eds.), Kaiserkult in den Provinzen des Römischen Reiches: Organisation, Kommunikation und Repräsentation (Akten der Tagung, Zürich, 25.-27. September 2014), Berlin and Boston: De Gruyter, pp. 309-936.

As Karanastasi (2024, 50) herself in the just-quoted passage of her text states, she has repeated in this publication several of her assumptions already published in her article of 2012/2013.

Interestingly, Karanastasi (2024, 50) quotes from the article of Lorenzo Cigaina (2016), but although she also quotes Cigaina's book (2020) in her bibliography, she does not discuss the fact that Cigaina (2020, 221-222, § IV.6, quoted verbatim supra) dates the portrait of Hadrian from Hierapydna (here Fig. 29) and all the 5 (or six?) replicas of this statue, found in Crete, differently than she herself does, namely to `AD 132-138´.

Nor does Karanastasi (2024, 50) mention the fact that Cigaina (2020) also explains the dedication of those portrait-statues of Hadrian in Crete (cf. here Fig. 29, and its replicas) differently than she herself does, namely with Hadrian's suppression of the Bar Kokhba Revolt (AD 132-135 or 136).

And exactly as in her earlier publication, Karanastasi (2024, 50) does not mention the fact that Cornelius Vermeule (1981, 25, quoted verbatim supra, in volume 3-1, p. 918) had interpreted the vanquished figure, on which Hadrian (here Fig. 29) sets his left foot, as a "Jewish boy".

My thanks are due to John Pollini, who wrote me by E-mail on 31st October 2024 the following comment on this statement; on 4th November 2024, he has written me the permission to publish his comment here:

"And clearly the downtrodden figure under Hadrian's foot was not a Jew but a Jewess, personifying Judea, as her female hairdo makes clear".

As I should only realize later, Birgit Bergmann (2010b, 209-210 with n. 10, Abb. 3a-c) is able to show that the head of this barbarian figure does not belong; cf. Pavlina Karanastasi (2012/2013, 362, at cat. no. 12).

Concerning this figure, on which Hadrian (here Fig. 29) sets his left foot, Cigaina (2020), has added an observation, made by Birgit Bergmann (2010b, 254-258). Cigaina (2020, 222, n. 599; the relevant passage is quoted in more detail supra, in volume 3-1, on pp. 933-935) writes:

"Sulla figura secondaria del barbaro sottomesso (inginocchiato o steso a terra) che accompagna tutte le statue cretesi eccetto quella di Cnosso, vd. [vedi] Bergmann 2010 [= here B. BERGMANN 2010b], 242-248 ... Il barbaro di Hierapytna [cf. here Fig. 29] è stato identificato come Parto ... Sulla probabile allusione dei barbari orientali alla rivolta di Bar Kochba, vd. [vedi] Bergmann 2010 [= here B. BERGMANN 2010b], 254-258: l’evento fu percepito come una seria minaccia per la sicurezza dell’Impero anche a causa di una possibile offensiva partica nell’Oriente divenuto instabile [my emphasis]".

What then is the above-mentioned iconographic detail, the meaning of which has so far not been addressed here, that proves as well that the reverses of those coins, issued by Hadrian (here Fig. 129, above; Fig. 129, below, left; Fig. 129, below, right), commemorate a military victory of the emperor ?

It is Hadrian's spear (hasta), pointed down !

My thanks are due to John Pollini, with whom I could discuss this matter in an E-mail correspondence from 17th-22nd October 2024. I had asked John for advice, after having found his relevant remark in his book (From Republic to Empire: Rhetoric, Religion, and Power in the Visual Culture of Ancient Rome 2012, 190).

In his discussion of the bronze statue of Germanicus at Amelia, kept in the Archaeological Museum there (his plate XIV, with n. 130, providing references), John Pollini (2012, 190) writes:

"Germanicus' bronze spear is held with its point facing down ...The spear pointed down is also found on a denarius of Vespasian (fig. IV.25) showing him wearing a cuirass ... [with n. 131]. For the Romans, the inversion of the spear point in this manner signified peace. A late Republican-early Augustan painting shows Aeneas' son Iulus and the Etruscan king Mezentius making a peace treaty, with their two spears planted point-down in the ground as a symbol of making peace [with n. 132; my emphasis]".

In his note 131, Pollini writes: "BMCRE II,8 (no. 47), pl. 1.15; Kent (1978) 288 (no. 225), pl. 64 ...".

Cf. J.P.C. Kent, Roman Coins (New York: Abrams 1978).

In his note 132, Pollini writes: "La Regina (1998) 54 with color photo (two figures on the far left)".

Cf. A. La Regina (ed.) 1998, Museo Nazionale Romano, Palazzo Massimo alle Terme (Milano: Electa 1998).

The caption of Pollini's "fig. IV.25" reads: "Fig. IV.25. Denarius (rev.[erse]: cuirassed Vespasian holding spear point down), 69-70 C.E. After Kent (1978) pl. 64.288".

John Pollini answered my question by E-mail of 19th October 2024, and on 22nd October, he has kindly allowed me to quote here the relevant passage from this E-mail:

"The spear pointed down is not just a symbol of peace, but of peace through victory. That is the whole point of the spear point-down ... no pun intended. See also, Mezentius and Ascanius making a peace treaty in the painted wall frescoes from the Family tomb of Statilius Taurus on the Esquiline Hill. Their spears are stuck point-down in the ground. See also the Germanicus statue from Amelia with his spear pointed down. There is also coin evidence of Vespasian, with spear pointed down, as well as a coin of Antoninus Pius showing Mars Ultor holding his spear pointed down. It is based on simple logic !".

In addition to this, John Pollini was kind enough to send me his article on this bronze statue of Germanicus in Amelia, in which he adds further information concerning the meaning of this spear.

Cf. John Pollini, "The Bronze Statue of Germanicus from Ameria (Amelia)", AJA 121, Number 3, July 2017, pp. 425–437.

Pollini (2017, 428) writes: "In his left arm, the Amelia Germanicus cradles a spear (hasta), symbolic of his legal military command (imperium). The point of the spear is turned downward to signify peace through victory (see figs. 2, 4a), as in the case of a coin image of the emperor Vespasian carrying a spear with the point down and the butt end (sauroter) turned up. [With n. 18; my emphasis]".

In his note 18, Pollini writes: "For the significance of the downward-pointed spear with reference to the image of Vespasian on the coin, the bronze statue of Germanicus, and the statue of Augustus from Prima Porta, see Pollini 2012, 190, fig. 4.25 ... [quoted in part verbatim supra]".

Interestingly, Pollini (2017, 428) calls Germanicus' `spear´ a "hasta", a Latin term that in German is usually not translated as `Speer´ (as in English), but instead as `Lanze´. My thanks are due to Peter Herz for discussing this point with me in a telephone conversation on 23rd October 2014.

To this, Pollini (2017, 428) adds, that this "spear (hasta) [is] symbolic of his [i.e., Germanicus'] legal military command (imperium)".

Let's now apply John Pollini's (2017, 428) findings concerning a spear with its point turned downwards to Hadrian's coins, discussed here (Fig. 129, above; Fig. 129, below, left; Fig. 129, below, right):

Hadrian, holding this spear (hasta) means:

a) that he had in the war, to which this coin-image refers, "the legal military command (imperium)", as Pollini (2017, 428) writes; and because -

b) the point of Hadrian's spear is turned downwards, this means that the emperor has ended the relevant war victoriously, or in other words, that Hadrian has established `peace through victory´ in the area in question, as John Pollini (2017, 428) writes.

We have already heard that the iconography, chosen for the reverses of Hadrian's coins (here Fig. 129, above; Fig. 129, below, left; Fig. 129, below, right), appears also on the coins of other emperors:

"Lorenzo Cigaina (2020, 267, Anm. 801) stellt fest, dass die für Hadrian auf dem Sesterz (hier Fig. 129, above) gewählte Darstellung auch auf Münzen anderer römischer Kaiser, wie z.B. Caracalla, wiederkehrt, und kommt zu folgender Bewertung dieser Ikonographie: ``L’imperatore è sempre in abito militare e armato. Il tipo viene interpretato perlopiù in riferimento alla repressione di disordini ... [my emphasis]´´"; cf. <https://fortvna-research.org/FORTVNA/FP3/Hadrian_Ehrenstatue_in_Rom.html>.

I, therefore, suggest that, on the reverses of Hadrian's coins (here Fig. 129, above; Fig. 129, below, left; Fig. 129, below, right), by means of the crocodile, which is similarly represented as in the iconography `Horus killing the crocodile´ (cf. here Fig. 129.1), and by means of Hadrian's downwards pointed spear, `we are told the whole story´.

Hadrian's stepping with his left foot on this crocodile, defines the great problem, the emperor had to face: the Bar Kokhba Revolt (AD 132-135 or 136) in the Roman province of Judaea; whereas Hadrian, holding with his right hand his spear with its point turned downwards, shows the fortunate outcome: the emperor has ended this war victoriously, re-establishing peace in this province.

Whereas on all of Hadrian's coins, illustrated here (Fig. 129, above; Fig. 129, below, left; Fig. 129, below, right) the downwards held point of his spear is clearly visible, this is not the case (probably not any more: as we shall see below, this is actually true) on Vespasian's and Titus' IVDAEA CAPTA-sestertii, shown here on Figs. 130; 131a; 131b.

But because the reverses of Hadrian's coins were copied after the reverses of Vespasian's sestertii (cf. here Fig. 130), as already Cornelius Vermeule had observed (1981, 25, quoted verbatim supra, in volume 3-1, p. 918) - see also the identical iconography on the reverse of Titus' IVDAEA CAPTA-sestertius (here Fig. 131a), and the likewise identical iconography on the IVDAEA CAPTA-sestertius, issued by Vespasian, but representing Titus (here Fig. 131b) - we can now conclude with confidence the following (we shall see below that this is actually the case):

that points a) and b) had originally also been true for those IVDAEA CAPTA-coins of Vespasian and Titus (here Figs. 130; 131a; 131b): by means of their spears, also Vespasian and Titus were thus characterized on the reverses of their coins as those, who, in the represented war, had "the legal military command (imperium)" (cf. J. POLLINI 2017, 428), and - most importantly - because Vespasian and Titus hold on those coins their spears with their points facing down: they too had ended the relevant war victoriously, and had both established `peace through victory´ in the Roman province of Judaea (cf. J. POLLINI 2017, 428).

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

My above-made assumption that Vespasian, on his IVDAEA CAPTA- sestertius (here Fig. 130), originally held his spear with its visible point turned downwards, is indeed true. John Pollini was kind enough to send me on 31st October 2024 a jpeg-file and the Link to a copy of this coin, which is owned by the American Numismatic Society: "RIC II, Part 1 (second edition) Vespasian 167), BMC 543".

I also thank Franz Xaver Schütz, who, on the same day, found out in a special research on the Internet, that this is the only known copy of this coin, on which the point of Vespasian's spear, which is turned downwards, is actually visible, and that very well (!);

cf. <https://numismatics.org/collection/1944.100.39981> ; and here Fig. 130 .

My thanks are also due to the following colleagues and friends, whom I sent in October-November 2024 the Link to the Preview of the "Ehrenstatue Hadrians in Rom für die Niederschlagung des Bar Kochba-Aufstandes", as well as this text, for writing me their corrections and comments: to Hans Rupprecht Goette; to Lorenzo Cigaina, who was also kind enough to alert me to the article by Pavlina Karanastasi (2024); to Eberhard Thomas, to Peter Herz; to Eric M. Moormann; and to John Pollini.

POST SCRIPTUM

To the above-discussed subjects I wish to add some more information, which I only found out after having finished writing this text (as I erroneously believed !) on 4th November 2024.

1.) concerning the meaning of Hadrian's spear (hasta), with its point turned downwards, which is visible on the coins (here Fig. 129, above; Fig. 129, below, left; Fig. 129, below, right).

When writing my relevant text-passage, I had overlooked that already Birgit Bergmann (2010b) knew the meaning of this gesture. Bergmann's observations were quoted by Pavlina Karanastasi (2012/2013), whose account I happened to find first (on 4th November 2024); in the following, I will quote both.

Karanastasi (2012/2013, 323-324) writes:

"Der ideologische Abstand dieser Bildnisstatue [of the portrait-statue of Hadrian from Hierapydna; here Fig. 29] zu der etwa 140 Jahre früher entstandenen Panzerstatue des Augustus von Prima Porta ist trotz des ebenso reichen Bildschmucks unverkennbar [with n. 3, providing references for this statue of Augustus]. Während die Augustusfigur das Grundschema und die kontrapostisch ruhige Bewegung klassischer Werke wie des Doryphoros des Polyklet widerspiegelt und sich mit in die [page 324] Ferne gerichtetem Blick deutlich vom Betrachter absetzt, schaut Hadrian ihm düster und direkt in die Augen und macht so seine Entschiedenheit, den erniedrigten Gegner zu vernichten, mehr als deutlich. Die einst vorhandene, mit der seitlich erhobenen Rechten in den Boden gestemmte Lanze wird die Absicht des Imperators zusätzlich unterstrichen haben (vgl. [vergleiche] Abb. 7) [with n. 4; my emphasis]".

In her note 4, Karanastasi writes: "Zum Münzbild [i.e., her Abb. 7 = here Fig. 129, below, right] s. u. [siehe unten] mit Anm. 191 [which is quoted verbatim supra]. Zur verkehrt herum in den Boden gestemmten Lanze und ihrer Bedeutung für den Dargestellten [i.e., Hadrian] als Befrieder der Welt s. [siehe] Bergmann 2010a [= here B. BERGMANN 2010b], 257 mit Anm. 137 ... [my emphasis]".

Birgit Bergmann (2010b, 256-257, in her Section: "Bar Kochba") writes:

"Unter dem Eindruck der Unsicherheit infolge des erneuten Judenaufstandes [i.e., of the Bar Kokhba Revolt, cf. p. 254 with n. 126, providing references], der als massive Bedrohung der Sicherheit und des Bestandes des Imperium Romanum begriffen wurde, errichtete man in Hierapytna eine Kopie einer bekannten Statue, die zum einen die Zughörigkeit zu diesem Imperium, zum anderen seine Unangreifbarkeit und absolute Überlegenheit plakativ zum Ausdruck brachte. Hadrian, gepanzert mit dem Panhellenionpanzer, der die Einheit des Reiches durch Beteiligung der östlichen Gebiete und gleichzeitig die unangefochtene römische Oberhoheit zum Ausdruck bringt, tritt einen nicht genauer definierten östlichen Barbaren kampf- und mühelos zu Boden, der ihm allein schon durch seine geringe Größe und seine Waffenlosigkeit hoffnungslos unterlegen ist. Durch diesen Sieg über den Barbaren, der in der ursprünglich erhöhten Aufstellung der Skulptur in der Antike um einiges eindrucksvoller gewirkt haben muß, bringt und garantiert der Kaiser dem Reich Frieden. [page 257]

Dieser friedliche Aspekt der Istanbuler Statue bzw. [beziehungsweise] der Statue `Piräus-Hierapytna´ ist in der Forschung bisher vollkommen vernachlässigt worden. Nicht zuletzt sicherlich deswegen, weil gerade das diese Botschaft vermittlelnde ikonographische Detail heute verloren ist. Angesichts des eng begrenzten Repertoires römischer Statuenschemata zur Herrscherrepräsentation ist die Haltung des rechten Arms Hadrians jedoch mit Sicherheit zu rekonstruieren: Der Kaiser stützte sich mit annähernd rechtwinklig erhobenem Arm auf einen stabartigen Gegenstand [with n. 134]. Da das Szepter beim gepanzerten Kaiser nicht vor dem 3. Jh. [Jahrhundert] n. Chr. nachzuweisen ist [with n. 135], dürfte es sich dabei um eine Lanze gehandelt haben.

Die Haltung dieser Lanze läßt sich allerdings noch weiter präzisieren. Ein Vergleich mit Münzen, die den Kaiser in ganz ähnlichen Haltungsschemata zeigen [with n. 136], legt nämlich nahe, daß Hadrian sie verkehrt herum, gehalten haben dürfte, wie es auch für Mars in seiner Eigenschaft als Garant des Friedens belegt ist [with n. 137; my emphasis]".

In her notes 134 and 135, Bergmann provides references and further discussion.

In her note 136, she writes: "Vgl. z. B. [vergleiche zum Beispiel] BMCRE III (1936) 268-269 Nr. 237-241 Taf. 51,7; 307 Nr.*; 338 Nr.*; 475 Nr. 1552-1553 Taf. 89,2; 485 Nr. 1617 Taf. 91,3".

In her note 137, she writes: " Vgl. z. B. [vergleiche zum Beispiel] die Statue des Mars Ultor vom Augustusforum (vgl. [vergleiche] S. Hobbold, Das Bild des Mars [Diss. Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität Bonn 1994] 19 Abb. 2) oder Münzen des Commodus mit der Lgende MART ^.PAC oder MART ^.PACAT (vgl. [vergleiche] BMCRE IV [1940] 738 Nr. 266 Taf. 97,14; 819-820 Nr. 625-627 Taf. 108,5; 823, Nr. 636 Taf. 108,10).

Zwar läßt sich die exakte Haltung der zu rekonstruierenden Lanze natürlich nicht mehr mit absoluter Sicherheit beweisen, doch gibt es drei Indizien, die zusammengenommen den Schluß unausweichlich machen, daß Hadrian sie verkehrt herum gehalten haben muß: 1. Hadrianische Münzen zeigen den Kaiser in allen direkt vergleichbaren Typen (also gepanzert und mit annähernd rechtwinklig erhobenem Arm auf einen stabartigen Gegenstand gestützt) ausnahmslos mit einer verkehrt herum gehaltenen Lanze (vgl. [vergleiche] BMCRE III [1936] 268-269 Nr. 237-241 Taf. 51,7; 307 Nr. *; 338 Nr. *; 475 Nr. 1552-1553 Taf. 89,2; 485 Nr. 1617 Taf. 91,3). 2. Traian erscheint auf einem Sesterz in einem ikonographisch mit der Statue aus Hierapytna identischen, lediglich spiegelverkehrten Haltungsschema, nämlich wie er mit seinem rechten Fuß auf einen Daker tritt und in seiner auf dem rechten Oberschenkel aufgelegten Hand ein Schwert hält. Auch er stützt sich dabei mit rechtwinklig erhobenem Arm auf eine verkehrt herum gehaltene Lanze (vgl. [vergleiche] hier [p. 244 with n. 91,] Abb. 19 sowie BMCRE III [1936] 65 Nr. 242-243 Taf. 13,13; 173-174 Nr. 822-824 Taf. 30,3). 3. Auf hadrianischen Münzen weist die Lanzenspitze bei allen stehenden, mit rechtwinklig erhobenem Arm auf eine Lanze gestützten Figuren wie z.B. Virtus, Roma, Minerva oder Mars - sofern sich dieses Detail erkennen läßt - ausschließlich nach unten [my emphasis]".

For Trajan's coin, mentioned by Bergmann in her note 137, at her point 2., in which Trajan appears in the same iconographic scheme as Hadrian in his portrait-statue from Hierapydna (here Fig. 29); cf. also Eugenio La Rocca (1994, 5, 6-7, Fig. 3), quoted verbatim supra, in volume 3-1, pp. 911, 917, who has likewise compared this coin of Trajan with Hadrian's portrait-statue from Hierapydna.

For a discussion of Trajan's coin; cf. also Pavlina Karanastasi (2012/2013, 355-356 with n. 189). To all this I will come back below, at point 5.).

To Bergmann's (2010b, 256-257) above-quoted text-passage, I should like to add some comments

Bergmann (2010b, 257, n. 137) is certainly right with her interpretation of the fact that in Hadrian's portrait-statue from Hierapydna the point of his hasta (translated in English as `spear´ and in German as `Lanze´), which the emperor obviously held in his right hand, was turned downwards.

But the coins discussed here (cf. Fig. 129, above; Fig. 129, below, left; Fig. 129, below, right; the latter two coins are kept at the British Museum) -

- and the additional two coins with this iconography kept at the British Museum, on which Hadrian also holds with his right hand his spear with its point turned downwards (for a discussion of all those coins; cf. <https://fortvna-research.org/FORTVNA/FP3/Hadrian_Ehrenstatue_in_Rom.html> ) -

- are missing in Bergmann's list (2010b, 257, n. 36) of coins in the British Museum, issued by Hadrian, on the reverses of which the emperor is represented holding a spear with its point turned downwards.

Those coins (here Fig. 129, above; Fig. 129, below, left; Fig. 129, below, right, and the further two in the British Museum) have been minted by Hadrian in Rome in `AD 130-138´, as suggested in the catalogues of the British Museum, or else "vor 132(?)-138(?) n. Chr.", as believed by Peter Franz Mittag (2010, 48). I myself suggest the date `AD 136´ for those coins; cf. infra, at point 3.).

And because Bergmann (2010b), in addition to this, has overlooked the discussion of those coins of Hadrian by Annalina Calò Levi (1948) and Cornelius Vermeule (1981), Bergmann is -

a) unaware of the observations of Levi (1948) and Vermeule (1981) that those coins of Hadrian show a statue of Hadrian, which follows exactly the same iconography as Hadrian's portrait-statue from Hierapydna (here Fig. 29); and -

b) of Levi's further hypothesis - which I am likewise following here - that this statue of Hadrian, visible on Hadrian's coins, was dedicated in Rome. Nor does Bergmann know -

c) Vermeule's (1981) comparison of Hadrian's portrait-statue from Hierapydna (here Fig. 29, and of its replicas), and of Hadrian's coins (here Fig. 129, above; Fig. 129, below, left; Fig. 129, below, right) with Vespasian's IVDAEA CAPTA-sestertii (here Fig. 130); nor could Bergmann (2010b) already know -

d) the results of Sam Heijnen's (2020) research on the representations on the cuirass of Hadrian's portrait-statue from Hierapydna (here Fig. 29, and on the cuirasses of the replicas of this statue). As Heijnen is able to show, Hadrian's cuirasses of the so-called `Hadrian's eastern breastplate type´ were modelled on Heijnen's `trophy-type´ - and that in its turn had been created to honour the Flavian emperors for their victories in the Great Jewish Revolt or War (AD 66-73) and for their victories in Germania.

To conclude the discussion of Birgit Bergmann's (2010b, 256-257) above-quoted text-passage:

because of the arguments, listed in points a)-d), and for further reasons, mentioned above in my text, I myself believe that the prototype of Hadrian's cuirassed portrait-statue from Hierapydna (here Fig. 29; and of its replicas) was an honorary statue in Rome, dedicated to Hadrian by the Senate and the Roman People to commemorate his suppression of the Bar Kokhba Revolt (AD 132-135 or 136).

We only know of the existence of this honorary statue for Hadrian in Rome, because its fragmentary inscription (CIL VI 974 = 40520; here Fig. 29.1) has survived, which has been dated to `AD 134-136´. As the findspot and the content of this inscription imply, this honorary statue for Hadrian had been erected within the Temple of Divus Vespasianus at the Forum Romanum in Rome, or immediately in front of this temple.

Cécile Evers (1991) has instead attributed the inscription (here Fig. 29.1) to the colossal portrait of Hadrian (now Constantine the Great) in the Palazzo dei Conservatori at Rome (here Figs. 11; 11.1; 156).

For a discussion; cf. <https://fortvna-research.org/FORTVNA/FP3/Konstantin_Hadrian_Koloss_01.html>.

Of the many other scholars, who, in addition to this, have studied this inscription (CIL VI 974 = 40520; here Fig. 29.1), none has aired an opinion, which portrait-type of Hadrian could have belonged to it.

For a discussion; cf. <https://fortvna-research.org/FORTVNA/FP3/Hadrian_Ehrenstatue_in_Rom.html>.

I myself have now suggested (cf. supra, in vol. 3-1, p. 899 ff.) that Hadrian's cuirassed portrait-statue from Hierapydna (here Fig. 29, and its replicas, all of which, according to Lorenzo Cigaina (2020, 221-222, § IV.6), are datable to AD 132-138, should be regarded as copies of this honorary statue, dedicated to Hadrian in Rome for his suppression of the Bar Kokhba Revolt, of which unfortunately only its fragmentary inscription (here Fig. 29.1) has survived.

The `archaic oriental victor pose´ of this cuirassed honorary statue of Hadrian in Rome, as shown on Hadrian's coins (here Fig. 129, above; Fig. 129, below, left; Fig. 129, below, right), and almost all its other iconographic details, were intentionally and faithfully copied after the representations of Vespasian and Titus on their IVDAEA CAPTA-sestertii, issued (almost all) in Rome in AD 71, 72 and 80/81 (here Figs. 130; 131a; 131b; 131c). Those coins possibly show honorary statues in Rome, erected for Vespasian and Titus to commemorate their victories in the Great Jewish War (AD 66-73).

For a discussion; cf. <https://fortvna-research.org/FORTVNA/FP3/Hadrian_Ehrenstatue_in_Rom.html>.

To what was already said in this Preview "Ehrenstatue", we must now also add Sam Heijnen's (2020) observations that Hadrian's cuirasses of the so-called `Hadrian's eastern breastplate type´ (here Fig. 29) were modelled on Heijnen's `trophy-type´ - and that in its turn had been created to honour the Flavian emperors for their victories in the Great Jewish Revolt or War (AD 66-73) and in Germania.

I myself believe that Hadrian's portrait-statue from Hierapydna (here Fig. 29, and its replicas) are datable by Hadrian's coins (here Fig. 129, above; Fig. 129, below, left; Fig. 129, below, right), on which, in my opinion, the prototype of Hadrian's portrait-statue from Hierapydna (here Fig. 29, and of its replicas) appear.

The reason being that Hadrian had ordered to be represented laureate on the obverses of those coins (Fig. 129, above; Fig. 129, below, left; Fig. 129, below, right). And this iconographic detail, in its turn, provides the precise date of those coins, since we know that Hadrian had accepted in AD 136 his second imperatorial acclamation for his suppression of the Bar Kokhba Revolt (cf. infra, at point 3.)).

Because of all this, I do not follow Birgit Bergmann's (2010b, 256) above-quoted assertion that Hadrian, in his portrait-statue from Hierapydna (here Fig. 29), is "gepanzert mit dem Panhellenionpanzer".

2 .) concerning the so-called `Hadrianic eastern breastplate type´ (here Fig. 29).

As mentioned above, at point 1.), I follow Annalina Calò Levi (1948) and Cornelius Vermeule (1981), who have observed that on coins, issued by Hadrian in Rome (here Fig. 129, above, Fig. 129, below, left; Fig. 129, below, right), appears a statue of Hadrian that follows exactly the same iconography as Hadrian's portrait-statue from Hierapydna (here Fig. 29).

According to the catalogues of the British Museum, those coins are datable to `AD 130-138´, whereas Peter Franz Mittag (2010, 48) dates them: "vor 132(?)-138(?) n. Chr.". I myself suggest that those coins are datable to `AD 136´ (cf. infra, at point 3.)).

And because I follow Levi (1948) in believing that those coins represent a statue of Hadrian, erected in Rome, I follow also Eric M. Moormann, who has, therefore, suggested to me in a telephone-conversation on 28th October 2024, that we should not refer to those portraits as to copies of `Hadrian's eastern breastplate type´ any more. My thanks are due to Eric M. Moormann who, by E-mail of 10th November 2024, has kindly allowed me to mention this here.

For the term `eastern breastplate type´; cf. Richard A. Gergel (2004, 371-409); Pavlina Karanastasi (2012/2013, 324 with n. 8); and Sam Heijnen (2020, 200, n. 45).

Note that Richard A. Gergel (2004), contrary to most other scholars mentioned here so far, has actually discussed the publication by Cornelius Vermeule (1981) in his article (!).

3.) concerning the question, whether Hadrian's coins (here Fig. 129, above; Fig. 129, below, left ; Fig. 129, below, right) may be dated to AD 136 - arguing that on the obverses of those coins Hadrian's portraits are represented laureate, and that this laurel wreath may be explained with Hadrian's acceptance in AD 136 of a second imperatorial acclamation for his suppression of the Bar Kokhba Revolt.

We have already learned above, in my text, that Hadrian, in AD 136, had accepted a second imperatorial acclamation for his suppression of the Bar Kokhba Revolt. The fact that Hadrian's portrait appears on the obverses of those coins laureate has, to my knowledge, so far not been addressed by the scholars discussed here, who have published those coins.

The following observations can help us to answer this question positively:

a) Hadrian is wearing on the obverses of his coins (here Figs. 129, below, left; Fig. 129, below, right) the laurel wreath, which was worn by a Roman triumphator during his triumphal procession.

For this laurel crown; cf. Birgit Bergmann (2010a, 51-58, Section: "Die corona laurea").

This is also true for the IVDAEA CAPTA-sestertii of Vespasian and Titus (here Figs. 130; 131a; 131b; 131c), on the obverses of which the portraits of Vespasian and Titus are wearing exactly the same kind of laurel wreaths, like triumphatores in a triumphal procession.

As I only realize now, Vespasian had not as yet issued his IVDAEA CAPTA-coin (here Fig. 130) in AD 70, when Titus had actually won his great victory in Jerusalem, but only in AD 71, that is to say, after the Senate had granted Vespasian, Titus and Domitian three separate triumphs - Vespasian and Titus for their victories in Judaea - but all three of them had decided to celebrate only one triumph, together; cf. supra, in volume 3-1, p. 576;

b) the inscriptions on Hadrian's coins read: HADRIANVS AVG COS III PP. According to Peter Franz Mittag (2010, 48), those coins are, therefore, datable to "vor 132(?)-138(?) n. Chr.";

c) from Peter Franz Mittag's (2010, 48) discussion of the inscriptions on Hadrian's coins it is, in addition to this, clear that something like "IMP II" for Hadrian's second imperatorial acclamation does not appear in the inscriptions of his coins;

d) from the below-quoted publications by Michaela Fuchs (2014, 126) and Gunnar Seelentag (2016, 177, 201) we learn that Hadrian, although accepting a second imperatorial acclamation for the suppression of the Bar Kokhba Revolt, which entitled him to celebrate a triumph in Rome, the emperor did not do this.

Seelentag (2016, 177, 201) adds that Hadrian has never celebrated any of his military victories with a triumph. Both Seelentag (2016, 199), and Werner Eck (1999d, 185, likewise quoted verbatim below), stress the fact that Hadrian, already before AD 136, had won several military victories, for which he could have celebrated triumphs or could have accepted imperial acclamations, but that Hadrian had never done this;

e) from Gunnar Seelentag (2016, 178, 199, 201) we learn, in addition to this, that Hadrian never accepted a "Siegerbeinamen" (`victory title´) for his military victories.

Nor do we find on Hadrian's coins (here Fig. 129, above; Fig. 129, below, left; Fig. 129, below, right) any explanatory inscriptions on their reverses, for example: `IVDAEA CAPTA´, as on the coins of Vespasian and Titus (here Figs. 130; 131a; 131b; 131c), although the latter coins, as has been pointed out above in my text, have intentionally been copied by Hadrian's coins in almost all their iconographical details.

CONCLUSIONS

Considering, what was said above, in points a)-e), I maintain my above-made suggestion: it is, in my opinion, reasonable to assume that Hadrian, in AD 136, minted in Rome the coins (here Fig. 129, above; Fig. 129, below, left; Fig. 129, below, right), on the occasion of his acceptance of his second imperatorial acclamation for the suppression of the Bar Kokhba Revolt.

Interestingly, some time before, the Senate and the Roman People must have commissioned an honorary statue for Hadrian to commemorate his suppression of the Bar Kokhba Revolt, which, therefore, Hadrian could order his artists to represent on the reverses of his coins (here Fig. 129, above; Fig. 129, below, left; Fig. 129, below, right); of this statue of Hadrian we known now almost 30 copies, the most famous one being the portrait-statue of Hadrian from Hierapydna (here Fig. 29).

As pointed out above, in my text, and in point 1.), this conclusion is based on the following assumptions:

f) this honorary statue for Hadrian, commissioned by the Senate and the Roman People, is only known from the honorary inscription (CIL VI 974 = 40524; here Fig. 29.1). This inscription has been dated to AD 134-136; its findspot allows the conclusion that the pertaining honorary statue had been erected within the Temple of Divus Vespasianus at the Forum Romanum in Rome, or immediately in front of this temple;

g) I have followed Annalina Calò Levi (1948) and Cornelius Vermeule (1981), who observed that on Hadrian's coins, issued in Rome (here Fig. 129, above; Fig. 129, below, left; Fig. 129, below, right), there appears a statue of Hadrian, which shows exactly the same iconography as Hadrian's portrait-statue from Hierapydna (here Fig. 29); and Levi (1948), who has suggested that, therefore, this statue of Hadrian, represented on Hadrian's coins, had been erected in Rome;

h) I have followed Lorenzo Cigaina (2020), who dates Hadrian's portrait-statue from Hierapydna (and all its replicas) to AD 132-138;

i ) I have followed Paul Leberecht Strack (1933, 138), followed by Annalina Calò Levi (1948, 31), that Hadrian's coins (here Fig. 129, above; Fig. 129, below, left; Fig. 129, below, right ) "to be not earlier than A.D. 134".

Based on those points f)-i), I myself have suggested that the honorary statue for Hadrian, dedicated by the Senate and the Roman People in Rome to commemorate Hadrian's suppression of the Bar Kokhba Revolt (AD 132-135 or 136) may be identified as the prototype of Hadrian's portrait-statue from Hierapydna (here Fig. 29, and of its replicas), which, in its turn, is represented on Hadrian's coins (here Fig. 129, above; Fig. 129, below, left; Fig. 129, below, right). Cf. supra, in volume 3-1, pp. 899-959.

For a summary; cf. <https://fortvna-research.org/FORTVNA/FP3/Hadrian_Ehrenstatue_in_Rom.html>.

To this we may now add the new finding that has resulted from the additional research, presented above, in my text:

j) Hadrian, by ordering his artists to represent his portraits on the obverses of those coins (here Fig. 129, above; Fig. 129, below, left; Fig. 129, below, right) laureate, added to the iconographies of those coins a very clear date: because all his contemporaries knew, of course, that Hadrian, throughout his reign until AD 136, had never celebrated a triumph, nor that he had ever accepted until that time an imperatorial acclamation for any of his military victories.

Adding to this the facts that -

k) the iconographies of both, the obverses and the reverses of Hadrian's coins, are faithful copies of the iconographies that characterize Vespasian's and Titus's IVDAEA CAPTA-sestertii (here Figs. 130; 131a; 131b; 131c); and -

l) that the iconography of Hadrian's cuirass of his portrait-statue from Hierapydna (the prototype of which is represented on Hadrian's coins) intentionally repeats Sam Heijnen's (2020) `trophy-type´ that had been invented for the Flavian emperors to celebrate their victories in the Great Jewish Revolt (AD 66-73) and in Germania -

- it becomes clear, why the reverses of Hadrian's coins (here Fig. 129, above; Fig. 129, below, left; Fig. 129, below, right) do not comprise any additional inscription (for example something like: IVDAEA CAPTA).

In the following are listed the verbatim quotations, which are mentioned above, in points a)-e):

From Michaela Fuchs (2014, 126) we learn that Hadrian, in AD 136, accepted a second imperatorial acclamation for his suppression of the Bar Kokhba Revolt, but that he did not celebrate a triumph:

"Die Forschung geht inzwischen davon aus, dass Hadrian ganz am Ende des Jahres 135 oder eher Anfang 136 n. Chr. von den siegreichen Truppen in Iudaea zum imperator iterum akklamiert wurde [with n. 8]. Obwohl es an Anlässen nicht gefehlt hatte, war dies das einzige Mal, dass er eine Ausrufung als Imperator akzeptierte. Er erachtete demnach den Sieg im Krieg gegen Bar Kochba als triumphwürdig, auch wenn er selbst keinen Triumphzug in Rom durchführte [my emphasis]".

In her note 8, Fuchs writes: "ECK 1999b [= here W. ECK and G. FOERSTER 1999], 301-302; ECK 1999d [= here W. ECK 1999c], 223-227, hierzu 225 [quoted in part verbatim supra]".

Gunnar Seelentag (2016, 177) states that Hadrian never celebrated a triumph in Rome at all, and that he accepted only one imperatorial acclamation (for the suppression of the Bar Kokhba Revolt):

"Abstract: In the first two centuries AD we see remarkable dynamics in how the emperors displayed their personal victoriousness by way of staging triumphs, assuming victory titles and accepting imperatorial acclamations: After very few triumphs in the decades leading up to the Flavians, Domitian and Trajan celebrated their images of capable military commanders and triumphant generals in ways previously unknown. After them, Hadrian and Antoninus Pius performed no triumphs at all and accepted but one imperatorial acclamation each [my emphasis]".

Cf. G. Seelentag, "Die Dynamik von Herrschaftsdarstellung und Triumphideologie im ausgehenden 1. und frühen 2. Jh.", in: F. Goldbeck and J. Wienand (eds.), Der Römische Triumph in Prinzipat und Spätantike (Berlin; Boston: Walter de Gruyter GmbH, 2016), pp.177-214.

I thank Franz Xaver Schütz for providing me with this publication.

Gunnar Seelentag (2016, 178, 199) observes that Hadrian did not accept "Siegerbeinamen" (`victory titles´) for his victories, and that he accepted an imperatorial acclamation only once, after the suppression of the Bar Kokhba Revolt:

"Diese Entwicklung korrespondiert mit der Dynamik anderer Manifestationen kaiserlicher Sieghaftigkeit. Denn auch in der Annahme imperatorischer Akklamationen und Siegerbeinamen beobachten wir eine Inflation unter Domitian und Trajan, unter Hadrian und Antoninus Pius dann einen jahrzehntelangen äußerst zurückhaltenden Umgang mit dieser Praxis [my emphasis]"; cf. p. 199: "Dieser Befund der Siegerbeinamen und anderer Bestandteile der kaiserlichen Titulatur korrespondiert damit, dass sich Hadrian nur ein einziges Mal zum Imperator ausrufen ließ. An Gelegenheiten fehlte es nicht, denn der Princeps führte eine ganze Reihe von militärischen Expeditionen an den Grenzen des Reiches durch. Gekämpft wurde etwa in Britannien, Mauretanien, an der mittleren Donau und in Dakien. [With n. 55] Die Nichtannahme von Imperatorentiteln war also eine bewusste Entscheidung. Allein nach dem großen Krieg in Iudaea und der Niederschlagung des Bar-Kochba Aufstandes akzeptierte Hadrian 135 oder - und dies ist eher wahrscheinlich - 136 eine imperatorische Akklamation [my emphasis]".

In his note 55, Seelentag provides references and further discussion.

Werner Eck (1999d, 182-186) discusses triumphs and ornamenta triumphalia, and characterizes Hadrian's attitudes towards triumphs, imperatorial acclamations, and ornamenta triumphalia:

"The ornamenta triumphalia were a substitute for the triumph of Republican times - the ultimate wish of every provincial governor and the greatest reward for commanding a field army. From the early years of Augustus' reign it was no longer possible for anyone except for the Princeps to be hailed as imperator and be voted a triumph. The emperor's legates who commanded armies in the provinces under the emperor's auspices were compensated with the lesser ornamenta triumphalia. However, these in turn were eagerly sought after"; cf. p. 185: "Before the Bar Kokhba revolt Hadrian exercised restraint not only in the matter of bestowing the ornamenta triumphalia on his generals; he himself, unlike many of his predecessors, did not advertise his virtus imperatoria by accepting the title imperator from his victorious soldiers. Although there were several opportunities to do so in the course of his reign, Hadrian did not allow himself to be acclaimed imperator. The exception was the conclusion of the Bar Kokhba revolt: only then did his titulature start displaying between the tribunicia potestas and cos. III the phrase imperator iterum ... It is precisely because Hadrian accepted imperator II after the Bar Kokhba revolt, thereby making it clear that this victory was worthy a triumph, that he could honour his generals in this war with ornamenta triumphalia. The Emperor was legally and politically the victor, and his generals could participate in his glory ... Antoninus Pius, like his adoptive father [i.e., Hadrian] accepted an imperatorial acclamation only once ... [my emphasis]; cf. p. 86: "Hadrian now [after the conclusion of the Bar Kokhba Revolt] abandoned his former attitude towards the display of military glory. He accepted an acclamation as imperator by the Roman troops and inserted imperator II into his titulature. As an acclaimed imperator he could now bestow the ornamenta triumphalia on three of his victorious generals, not only on Sex. Iulius Severus. [With n. 86; my emphasis]".

In his note 86, Eck provides references and further discussion.

Gunnar Seelentag (2016, 201) stresses the fact that in Rome no public building was erected to celebrate Hadrian's suppression of the Bar Kokhba Revolt. The only exception being the honorary statue of Hadrian, discussed here, to which the inscription (CIL VI 974 = 40524; here Fig. 29.1) belongs, and which, in my opinion, became the prototype of Hadrian's portrait-statue from Hierapydna (here Fig. 29, and of its replicas):

"Und doch verzichtete Hadrian auf eine solche Ausschlachtung seiner militärischen Erfolge in Rom, wie seine Vorgänger es etabliert hatten. Er feierte keinen Triumph und nahm keinen Siegerbeinamen an. Der jüdische Sieg fand keine nennenswerte Aufnahme in das monumentale Gedächtnis der Hauptstadt ... so gibt es doch kein einziges Monument Hadrians, dessen Errichtung dem stadtrömischen Publikum als das glorreiche Resultat der siegreichen Kämpfe des Kaisers in Iudaea präsentiert wurde. [With n. 60; my emphasis]".

In his note 60, Seelentag writes: "Eine Ausnahme bildete jenes hadrianische Monument, das in unmittelbarer Nähe des Tempels des Divus Vespasianus errichtet war, mit seinem Inschriftenträger von bloßen 2 Metern Breite aber nur bescheidene Ausmaße hatte. Ob es sich um einen Bogen oder nicht eher eine Statuenbasis handelte, ist unklar. Hierzu s.[iehe] Eck 2006: 579–585, hier 581, sowie Eck 2014: 220–226 zu CIL VI 974 = 40524 [= here Fig. 29.1; my emphasis]".

For a discussion of the different scholarly opinions concerning the inscription CIL VI 974 = 40524 (= here Fig. 29.1), the monument, to which this inscription once belonged, and concerning the location of this monument; cf. supra, in volume 3-1, pp. 899-943.

For a summary; cf. <https://fortvna-research.org/FORTVNA/FP3/Hadrian_Ehrenstatue_in_Rom.html>.

Cf. W. Eck, "Rom und das jüdische Volk. Orte der Niederlagen und triumphale Erinnerung". in: E. Stein-Hölkeskamp & K.-J. Hölkeskamp (eds.), Erinnerungsorte der Antike: Die römische Welt (München 2006), pp. 570‒585.

Cf. W. Eck, "Hadrian, the Bar Kokhba Revolt, and the Epigraphic Transmission". in: W. Eck (ed.), Judäa - Syria Palästina: Die Auseinandersetzung einer Provinz mit römischer Politik und Kultur (Tübingen 2014), pp. 212–228 (first published in: P. Schäfer (ed.), The Bar Kokhba War Reconsidered: New Perspectives on the Second Jewish Revolt against Rome, Tübingen 2003, 153‒170 [= here W. ECK 2003]).

4.) concerning the questions, whether the (seemingly) unfinished head of Hadrian's portrait-statue from Hierapydna (here Fig. 29), or the choice of Hadrian's portrait-type `Stazione Termini´ for this statue, may be used as arguments for its `early´ date.

Those subjects have been discussed by Birgit Bergmann (2010b, 220, Section: "Das Porträt"), who comes to the following, in my opinion, convincing conclusions concerning both points:

"Für die Datierung der Statue aus Hierapytna [here Fig. 29] hilft diese Analyse des Porträttypus leider nicht weiter. Denn aus der Datierung des Typus `Stazione Termini´ als Regierungsantrittstypus, der allerdings noch lange kopiert wurde [with n. 35], läßt sich für die von der Statue aus Hierapytna wiederholte `östliche Variante´ lediglich ein terminus ante quem non von 117 n. Chr. ableiten [with n. 36]. Und auch die fehlende Augenbohrung des Hadrianporträts [cf. here Fig. 29] kann angesichts der Unfertigkeit des Kopfes nicht als Argument für eine Frühdatierung der Skulptur herangezogen werden [my emphasis]".

In her notes 34 and 35, Bergmann provides references and further discussion.

5.) concerning the question, where the prototype of Hadrian's portrait-statue from Hierapydna (here Fig. 29) had originally been erected.

Birgit Bergmann (2010b) believes that the prototype of this portrait-statue of Hadrian stood at Athens.

Bergmann (2010b, 234-235, Section: "Das Panzerrelief"), after describing the great differences between the various copies of this statue-type, writes that they nevertheless derive from a common prototype, which, in her opinion, must have stood at Athens, arguing a) with the great number of replicas, found in this area (see her map Abb. 11 on p. 234); and b) because of the allusion to Athens in the representation on Hadrian's cuirass (here Fig. 29), thus referring to the Palladion, which is standing on the Lupa romana. Interestingly, Bergmann believes that not this statue-type as such was what people at the time were interested in, and which made them dedicate so many copies of it, but only the relief on its cuirass:

"Aufgrund dieser Unterschiede ist davon auszugehen, daß die Panzer [i.e., the replicas of Hadrian's portrait-statue from Hierapydna; here Fig. 29] nicht von einer Werkstatt und angesichts ihrer unterschiedlichen Fundorte dann vermutlich auch nicht an einem Ort, sondern jeweils lokal gefertigt wurden [with n. 58].

Dennoch muß man wegen der engen ikonographischen und chronologischen Zusammengehörigkeit der Gruppe sowie der jeweils gleichen Figurentypen und Größenrelationen von einer gemeinsamen Vorlage ausgehen. Diese dürfte in Athen entstanden sein, wofür sowohl [page 235] die Verbreitung der Reliefs [thus referring to the representations on the cuirasses of those statues of Hadrian] (vgl. [vergleiche] Abb. 11) [with n. 59] als auch die zentrale Rolle Athens auf dem Panzer spricht ... In Athen wird eine an einem prominenten Ort aufgestellte Statue Ausgangspunkt der Überlieferung gewesen sein, für die das Relief [on the cuirass of this statue] extra entworfen wurde ... Da sich die Statuen, die den Panzer`Hierapytna´ rezipieren, sowohl in ihren Haltungsmotiven als auch der Trageweise des Paludaments und ihren Attributen unterscheiden ... [with n. 60], wurde die zu postulierende Athener Statue allerdings ganz offensichtlich nicht als opus nobile kopiert; vielmehr war nur der Panzer interessant [my emphasis]".

In her notes 58-60, Bergmann provides references and further discussion.

In her note 59, she writes: "In Athen sind drei ..., vielleicht fünf ... Exemplare belegt ... [my emphasis]".

In the English abstract of her article, Birgit Bergmann (2010b, 289) mentions some additional facts concerning the portrait-statue of Hadrian from Hierapydna (here Fig. 29) that have so far not been discussed here:

"Bar Kokhba and the Panhellenion. The statue of Hadrian wearing armour from Hierapytna/Crete (Istanbul Archaeological Museum Inv. No. 50) and the cuirassed torso Inv. No. 8097 in the Piraeus Archaeological Museum

Abstract: After the establishment of the Panhellenion, a statue was erected for Hadrian in Athens; its ornamented cuirass bore a relief depiction which combined the Lupa Romana with the Palladium and was thus a vivid illustration of the quintessence of this union ... 17 copies of this cuirass relief have come to light in this region ... Another peculiarity of this group of cuirass sculptures is the conspicuously frequent occurrence of subjugated barbarians as secondary figures at the Emperor's feet ... In three cases, Hadrian is shown trampling the barbarian under foot, an unusually drastic iconography which has not survived in any other large-format sculpture. The fact that barbarian figures so frequently accompany an otherwise most unmartial emperor in statues that were created in the east of the Roman Empire after the establishment of the Panhellenion in 131/132 A. D., suggest a connection with the Bar Kokhba revolt, which broke out in 132 A.D. One of the statues erected in this context became so well known as an opus nobile that it was immediately copied several times, as the statue of Hadrian from Hierapytna in the Istanbul museum and the scarcely published torso in the Archaeological Museum of Piraeus, Athens testify. These two works are the point of departure for the article presented here [my emphasis]".

Pavlina Karanastasi (2012/2012) wonders, why in Rome and in the West copies of the portrait-statue of Hadrian from Hierapydna (here Fig. 29) seem to be missing.

She regards this fact as remarkable, considering that in Rome the iconography, represented in this statue-type, was well known. She illustrates for this assumption the coin (here Fig. 129, below, right), which Hadrian issued in Rome. Karanastasi ignores the fact that, based on A.C. Levi's (1948) observations, whom I myself follow here, it is possible to conclude, that it is these coins of Hadrian, which prove that the prototype of Hadrian's portrait-statue from Hierapydna (here Fig. 29) actually stood in Rome.

Karanastasi (2012/2012, 355-356, Section: "Der Westen", a text passage, that was in part already quoted above, in my text) writes:

"Dass jedoch der Westen und insbesondere Rom mit solchen Bildern schon vor der kretischen Statue (12 Taf. 6, 1 [= here Fig. 29]) und ihren Pendants (4 Taf. 2, 4 – 7 sowie 23 Taf. 9; 24 Taf. 10, 1) vertraut war, ist mehrfach hervorgehoben worden und konnte anhand von domitianischen und in der Folge auch trajanischen Münzbildern, auf denen der Kaiser jeweils mit dem Fuß auf personifizierte Länder oder Völkerschaften tritt, nachgewiesen werden [with n. 188, providing references]. Besonders bezeichnend sind stadtrömische Münzen von 104 bis 111 n. Chr., auf denen Trajan den Fuß auf den Kopf eines Dakers setzt, die als mögliche Abbilder einer öffentlich aufgestellten Bildnis- [page 356] statue des Princeps angesehen worden sind [with n. 189] ... In der Folge dieser imperialen Münzrepräsentation ist schließlich das bereits erwähnte stadtrömische Münzbild zu sehen (Abb. 7 [= here Fig. 129, below, right]), auf dem Hadrian ganz im Schema der ›Variante Hierapytna‹ (12 Taf. 6, 1 [= here Fig. 29]) und ihrer Pendants (4 Taf. 2, 4; 23 Taf. 9; 24 Taf. 10, 1) erscheint, den Fuß allerdings nicht auf einen personifizierten Feind, sondern auf ein Krokodil setzt, das wohl in eine ähnliche Richtung gedeutet werden kann [with n. 191, quoted verbatim supra]. Über den Anlass und den Sinn dieser hadrianischen Prägung [= here Fig. 129, below, right] sind wir nicht genauer informiert; wie die Statuen [i.e., Hadrian's portrait-statue from Hierapydna and its replicas; here Fig. 29] verbildlichte sie jedoch eine anschauliche Kombination von griechischem, römischem und ägyptischem bzw. [beziehungsweise] orientalischem Kulturgut. In Anbetracht all dieser den römischen Betrachtern durchaus vertrauten Münzbilder wird das bisherige Fehlen von entsprechenden monumentalen Beispielen in Rom und überhaupt im Westen des Reiches umso auffälliger, was sicherlich nicht nur dem Zufall zugeschrieben werden kann [my emphasis]".

In her note 189, Karanastasi writes: "BMCRE III (1936) 65 Nr. 242 f. Taf. 13, 13; 173 f. Nr. 822‒824 Taf. 30, 3. s.[iehe] ferner La Rocca 1994, 4-7 Abb. 3; Bergmann 2010a [= here B. BERGMANN 2010b], 244‒247 Abb. 19. – Zum postulierten Standbild s.[iehe] Levi, 1952, 16-18; Beschi 1974, 225; Bergmann 2010a [= here B. BERGMANN 2010b], 247 [my emphasis]".

Cf. A.C. Levi, Barbarians on Roman Imperial Coins and Sculpture, Numismatic Notes and Monographs (New York 1952). I thank Franz Xaver Schütz for providing me with this publication; L. Beschi, "Adriano e Creta", in: Antichità Cretesi. Studi in onore di Doro Levi II, CronA 13, 1974, 219-226 Taf. 30. 31.

To Pavlina Karanastasi's (2012/2013, 355-356) above-quoted text-passage, I should like to add some comments.

I agree, of course, with Karanastasi's statement at the beginning of this passage:

"Dass jedoch der Westen und insbesondere Rom mit solchen Bildern schon vor der kretischen Statue (12 Taf. 6, 1 [= here Fig. 29]) und ihren Pendants (4 Taf. 2, 4 – 7 sowie 23 Taf. 9; 24 Taf. 10, 1) vertraut war, ist mehrfach hervorgehoben worden".

Karanastasi then mentions Annalina Calò Levi's (1952, 16-18) suggestion that coins, issued by Trajan in Rome, represented an honorary statue, erected for Trajan in Rome.

Levi (1952, 16-18, Pl. VI,3) discusses those coins of Trajan, which show on their reverses the emperor "with his foot on a Dacian" (p. 16), and suggests that they represented an existing statue of Trajan. She comes to this conclusion because of the similarities of the figure of Trajan on those coins with Hadrian's portrait-statue from Hierapydna (here Fig. 29), which Levi (1952, 17-18 with n. 17, providing references, Pl. VI,1) discusses as well. Levi does not mention in her note 17 that she had written in 1948 an article about the coins here (Fig. 129, above; Fig. 129, below, left; Fig. 129, below, right), issued by Hadrian in Rome. In this article, Levi (1948) had suggested that those coins show Hadrian in the same iconography as his portrait-statue from Hierapydna, and that, in her opinion, those coins represented a statue of Hadrian that had been erected in Rome.