locating the imperial box in the flavian amphitheatre: the

Locating the Imperial Box in the FlavianAmphitheatre: the Numismatic Evidence*

NATHAN T. ELKINS

fPLATES 19-20]

The great Flavian amphitheatre, the Colosseum, is the best-known monument ofancient Rome and, as one might expect, has attracted an immense body ofscholarship. Nevertheless, certain questions about it remain unanswered, becauseof its sheer complexity. For decades scholars have more or less assumed that theimperial box1 in the Colosseum was located on the southern side, an assumptionthat has never been substantiated and is problematic. However, by usingnumismatic evidence that shows the emperor sitting on the northern side of theFlavian amphitheatre, which has never been recognized before, and by makingsome observations on the literary sources, I aim to demonstrate that the northernside of the short axis was the location of the imperial box.

There were four special entrances to the Colosseum, one at each terminus ofthe two axes. The entrances on the eastern and western sides of the long axis wereclearly portals used for the pompa, the procession of gladiators and otherparticipants in the spectacles, since they lead directly into the arena. The onlyother entrances that would have served any special function would be those onthe north-south short axis, which lead directly to platforms on the irna cavea

' I first delivered a version of this paper as part of the City of Rome course for post-graduatestudents at the British School in Rome, where Robert Coates-Stephens. Roger Wilson, and JosephineCrawley-Quinn suggested improvements. I am also grateful to Janet Delaine. Ray Laurence, and JohnCreighton of the University of Reading's Centre for Roman Studies for commenting on early drafts.Ian Carradice provided me with the results of his provisional die study of Flavian Colosseum sestertii,which was a most valuable resource. I would like to thank Jonathan Williams of the British Museumfor allowing me to consult their collection and for discussing some of my ideas. Finally, RichardAshton and the anonymous referees of NC and JRA provided helpful comments. During my research1 corresponded with other scholars whose contributions are acknowledged in the appropriate places.Any errors of fact and all conclusions are my own. The following abbreviations are used for worksnot listed in NC: Gnecchi = F. Gnecchi. / medaglioni romani. v. 2. (Milan. 1912): Grueber = H.A.Grueber. Catalogue of Roman Medallions in the British Museum (London, 1874); IICC = A.S.Robertson. Roman Imperial Coins in the Hunter Coin Cabinet, v. L, Augustus to Nerva (London.Glasgow and New York. 1962): LTUR = F.M. Sleinby (ed.) Lexicon Topographicum Urhis Romae(6 vols, Rome, 1993-2000).

1 The term pulvinar has been used by some authors to mean the imperial box. In fact, it meant acouch where images of the gods were placed at banquets and at spectacles. For detailed discussion ofthe term see J.H. Humphrey, Roman Circuses (London. 1986). pp. 78-83.

148 NATHAN T. ELKINS

where there were reserved boxes of which no traces remain.2 The imperial boxmust have been located on cither the north or south platform because of theircentral location with a prime viewing area and because the entrances on thenorth-south axis lead directly to these platforms, allowing the emperor and hisentourage to enter and exit quickly. It is presumed that the other box would haveaccommodated other magistrates or officials.3 Only the northern entrancesurvives and it shows signs of monumentalization. It was not numbered like otherentrances, had a small portico protruding from it, and was surmounted by aquadriga: the entrance on the opposite side would also have been unnumberedand presumably would have had the same features as the northern entrance.4

PROBLEMS WITH A SOUTHERN IMPERIAL BOX

Most scholars accept a southern location for the imperial box because it is theside nearest the Palatine and because of the 'Cryptoporticus of Commodus* onthe southern side of the Colosseum, partly excavated by Irene Iacopi. Thecryptoporticus is named from a passage of Cassius Dio (72, 4) recording thatCommodus was attacked in a dark tunnel. As it was richly decorated with marbleand high-quality stucco work, it has been interpreted as an underground entrancefor the emperor leading to the platform on the southern side of the amphitheatre.5The construction of this cryptoporticus has been dated between the end of the firstcentury AD and the first half of the second on the basis of brick stamps datingfrom the last decade of Domitian's reign through the time of Hadrian.6 Anotherreason for thinking that the southern side would be the location of the imperialbox is that it may have received more shade from the velarium?

These arguments in favour of a southern imperial box fail to convince. Firstly,the excavated course of the ''Cryptoporticus of Commodus' does not veer offtowards the Palatine, but curiously makes a sharp left, outside the area of the outerwall, towards the Caelian Hill (lie. 1), and has been excavated as far as the modern

1 R. Rea, 'Reccnti osserva/ioni sulla struttura dell'Anfiteatro'. in Anfiteatro jlavio: immagine.testimonialize, spettacoli (Rome. 1988). p. 15.

3 For differing suggestions concerning those who sat in the other box see below nn 30-8.1 R. Rea. 'Le antiche rafligura/ioni deH*Anlileatro'. in Anfiteatrojlavio: immagine, testimonialize,

spettacoli (Rome 1988). pp. 37-40.5 On the decoration see especially lacopi. 'II passaggio sotterraneo cosiddelto di Commodo'. in A.

La Regina (ed.) Sangue e Arena(Rome. 2001). pp. 82-87; R. Rea. "TheArchitecture and Function ofthe Colosseum", in A. Gabucci (cd.) The Colosseum (trans. M. Becker: Los Angeles, 2001).pp. 138-140. On the location of the box: Iacopi. Ml passaggio'. pp. 79-87: R Colagrossi. L'Anfiteatrofiavio (Rome and Florence. 1913). p. 64: Rea. "Architecture and Function', pp. 134. 138-9: L.Richardson Jr. A New Topographical Dictionary of Ancient Rome (Baltimore and London. 1992).p. 10: J.-C. Golvin. L'Amphitheatre Romain (Paris. 1988). p. 178. Golvin states that the imperial boxand cryptoporticus were on the northern side, but clearly meant the southern: even the compass on hisplates of the Colosseum points in the wrong direction (plates 36 and 37).

6 Iacopi. 'II passaggio'. pp. 81. 87 n. 7.7 I am grateful to L. Lancaster for pointing this out to me.

Xh-

O

LOCATING THE IMPERIAL BOX IN THE FLAVIAN AMPHITHEATRE 149

u


road between the Colosseum and the Temple of Claudius. After consulting some19th century court documents regarding the acquisition of some land between theColosseum and the Temple of Claudius. Iacopi hypothesized that the tunnel mayhave had some sort of cult purpose and may have communicated with a largequadrangular building between the Colosseum and the Temple of Claudius.sFurthermore, she could not exclude the possibility that this cryptoporticus mayhave joined a tunnel which extends from the eastern side of the amphitheatre onthe long axis and connects the Colosseum and the Ludus Magnus.9 A branch of theLucius Magnus tunnel veers south seemingly following the perimeter of the outerwall of the Colosseum (fig.I). This creates an obvious problem: why would thiscryptoporticus lead towards the Caelian and possibly even connect with otherservice tunnels, if it was exclusively for imperial use? It would surely be easier forthe emperor and his entourage to enter the amphitheatre on the ground floorescorted by his guards rather than to travel to some location on the Caelian to gothrough a dark tunnel to enter the Colosseum from below. The richness of thestuccos and decoration certainly suggest that it was reserved for some specialfunction, perhaps for some sort of cult, as Iacopi once suggested.

It has also been suggested that the two tunnels beneath both sides of the shortaxis, about which little is known, served as entrances,10 in which case the northern

side could have equally been the location of the imperial seat. However, it seemsunlikely to me that these in fact served as underground entrances for the platformssince there is no evidence that they easily communicated with the platforms, andthey in fact join directly to the tunnels immediately beneath the arena in whichattendants, gladiators, and animals were present."

The possibility that the awning may have provided better shade for spectatorson the southern side of the amphitheatre is of little consequence. The imperial boxwould almost certainly have had its own covering to protect the emperor from thesun and from objects thrown down from the upper levels by spectators. On anaureus of Septimius Severus depicting the Stadium of Domitian on the reverse(PI. 19, 1; BMCRE319). the seated figure at the right end of the arena has beenidentified as the emperor, on the basis of his gesturing and the position of honoursignified by the canopy over his head.12 This canopy must be the awning over theimperial box. The imperial box itself may have resembled the one depicted on thebase of the obelisk erected in Constantinople's Hippodrome around ad 390; herethe emperor and his entourage are shown in a covered enclosure while viewingthe names (PI. 20, 6).

8 lacopi. 'il passagio', pp. 79. 87 n. 3: ef. S.B. Plainer and T. Ashby. A Topographical DictionaryofRome (London, 1926). p. 10.

9 Iacopi. 'II passaggio'. pp. 79. 87 n. 4.10 A. Claridge. Rome (Oxford and New York. 1998). p. 281." I am grateful to Maria Pia Malve//i of the BritishSchool in Rome for arranginga special permit

to allow me to examine the Colosseum's substructures and these two tunnels in the summer of 2003.

12 B. Damsky. 'The stadium aureus of SeptimiusSeverus'. AJN2 (1990). p. 101.


Finally, it has been assumed that the emperor sat on the southern side simplybecause it is nearer the imperial residence on the Palatine. This is hardlyconclusive. Moreover, neither Vespasian, who commissioned the Colosseum(Suet. Vesp. 9,1), nor Titus, who dedicated it (Suet. Titus. 7,3), lived on thePalatine for any great length of time. Vespasian preferred to live in the Gardensof Sallust (Dio 65.10, 4-5) and Titus may have lived in the Oppian wing of theDomus Aurea." If Titus indeed did live on the Oppian, he could return to hisresidence after a day at the games more quickly from a northern than from asouthern box. Moreover, any sacrifices before the games in which the emperormay have participated could have been held on the Capitoline or in the Forum, sothat the emperor's approach to the Colosseum would have been from the westwith access to northern and southern platforms equally easy. Indeed, theColosseum coin types of Severus Alexander show a sacrifice to the west of theamphitheatre (PL 19, 2; BMCRE 156).

ARGUMENTS FOR A NORTHERN IMPERIAL BOX

The assumption that the emperor sat on the southern side of the amphitheatre isthus based on dubious evidence. I will now set forth the reasons why I believe theimperial box was located on the northern side, and propose an alternative use forthe 'Cryptoporticus of Commodus,' since the latter is implausible as an imperialentrance. The evidence for placing the emperor's seat on the northern side isprimarily numismatic.

Platner and Ashby believed that the imperial seat was on the northern side, butdid not substantiate the claim.1'1 Rossella Rea. one of the leading scholars on theColosseum, once believed that the imperial box was on the northern side,15 butnow thinks it was on the southern because of the emperor's presumed use of thecryptoporticus}6 In herdescription and reconstruction in 1988 of various aspectsof the Colosseum, based on ancient, mostly numismatic, representations, sheintegrated the archaeological and iconographic evidence to reconstruct theentrances on the short axis, but did not recognize the potential of the numismaticevidence to indicate the location of the imperial box.17 When one examines therelevant coins, it is however quite clear that they depict the Colosseum as viewedfrom the south and show the interior of the northern side, in which the emperorcan be seen in his box. Two Flavian coin issues, sestertii of Titus and sestertii of

13 One reason why some believe that Titus lived on the Oppian is that the famous Laiicoon statue,which was found in the area of the Domus Aurea in 1506. was recorded by Pliny. Nil 36.37. as beinglocated in the house of Titus. However, it is possible that the Laocoon was moved subsequently to theBaths of Trajan and that may be why it was found in that region.

14 Platner and Ashby. A Topographical Dictionary, p. 10.15 R. Rea. Anfiteatrojlavio (Rome. 1986). p. 2."' Ibid., p. 128: she also alluded to the idea indirectly in 'Architecture and Function', pp. 138f.17 Rea. 'Le antiche rafligura/.ioni'. pp. 23-46.


Divus Titus produced under Domitian, and an issue of bronze medallions ofGordian III, illustrate the point.18

The sestertii minted by Titus in AD 80u (PI. 19, 3; BMCRE 190) depict bothinterior and exterior of the Colosseum, flanked by the Mela Sudanson the left andthe porticus of the Baths of Titus on the right.20 In the interior, one can see asemicircular box with a pellet inside, identified by most authors as the emperor.Donaldson did not believe that this figure could be the emperor and thought that hemust be the Praefectus Ludorum since the boxwas shownhalf way up the caveatrather than in the una cavea, where the box must have been situated, for an imperialseat higher up in the cavea would have been too much of a security risk.Donaldson's argumenttakes no accountof the artistic license which must have beentaken when the die was carved, for the arena, not far above which the box was

located, is not depicted on this coin. Furthermore, by elevating the imperial box tothe middle of the cavea, the artist made it the focal point of the interior of theColosseum and underlined the emperor's importance. The sestertii of Divus Titusminted by Domitian depict thesamescene (PI. 19,4; ANS 1954.203.170).22

,s Severus Alexander minted sestertii (BMCRE 156, 157) and asses (BMCRE 158) and possibly adenarius (Cohen 247; BMCREVI, pp. 54. 129) depicting the Colosseum, but they do not show anyone,let alone the emperor, sitting in the amphitheatre and so are not relevant lo the presentdiscussion.

'" For the chronology see BMCRE II. p. Ixxi.:" However. Ian Carradice points out to me that two known examples, both from the same reverse

die (Lanz Munich 94 (1999). 354 = Leu 10 (1974). 113; Glendining 2/4/1952 (Ryan V) 2392 =Miin/.handlung Basel 3 (1935). 272). have the Meta Sudans on the right and the portico on the left.Since most of Titus' sestertii have the Meta Sudans on the left and the portico on the right and thesame arrangement is adopted in the Divus Titus type, as well as on the Colosseum coin types ofSevcrus Alexander and the medallions of Gordian III. I suggest that the variant reverse die of Tituswas simply a mistake and withdrawn from use when the error was spotted.

:| T.L. Donaldson. ArchitecturaNumismatica (Chicago, 1966) (repr. of IS59 edn. London), p. 296.22 The authenticity of some examples of this very rare Divus Titus coin type has been questioned.

A plaster cast in the British Museum of one example (provenance unknown) is listed as 'subject tosome doubt' (BMCRE. Domitian. p. 356). Two examples in Paris arc questioned by Giard who listsone as an 'exemplaire douteux' and the other as false (J.-B. Giard. Monnaiesde iEmpire romaine III(Paris. 1998). p. 311. 543. and p. 345, 44). BN 543 is. however, from the same dies as ANS1954.203.170 and a specimen in Glasgow (HCC, Divus Titus 1). the authenticity of which has neverbeen impugned, and otherexamples of the issue (e.g. Glendining 30/11/1937 (Campion). 205= ArsClassica XIII (1928). 1201: J. Schulman 5/3/1923 (Vierordt). 1077 = J. Hirsch XXX (1911. Barron).940) have also remained unquestioned. It is well known that Domitian continued other coin types ofTitus, and. whatever the status of individual coins of the Divus Titus Colosseum issue, it seemslegitimate to use the type itself as evidence in the present study. Even if the type itself turns out to befabricated, the main planks of my argument still stand.

Rea detecled a few subtle changes in the Divus Tims type, most notably the presence of garlands onthe interiorof theuppermost storiesand theabsence of a pelletfromthesemicircularbox:sheenvisionedtheamphitheatre bedecked infunerary garlands andtheimperial box left emptyintribute tothedeceasedTitus (Rea. 'Le antiche raffigurazioni'. p. 24: id. 'Emperor Titus' Coin', in A. Gabucci (ed.) TheColosseum (trans.M. Becker: Los Angeles. 2001), p. 168; for the garlands. R. Luciani. // Colosseo(Milan, 1993), p. 245). However, although some specimens of Titus lack the garlands and have a pelletin the imperial box.othersdo havegarlands and lack the pellet, e.g. BN 189whose reversedie is clearlythe same as that used for the Divus Titus specimens in New York, Paris, and Glasgow (ANS1954.203.170: BN 543: HCC. Divus Titus 1). Whatever the significance, if any. of these variations (thisis a subject to which 1hope to return), the identification of the imperial box is not in question. I amgrateful to Ian Carradice, Richard Abdy. Richard Ashton. andCurtisClayfordiscussion of these issues.


The Meta Sudans is thus shown on the left of the Colosseum on the coins of

both Titus and Divus Titus. On the right of the Colosseum is the porticus of theBaths of Titus. Although the identification of the Mela Sudans on these coins haslong been accepted, that of the porticus of the Baths of Titus has not. Earlywriters speculated that the porticus shown might be part of the Domus Aurea ofNero or chose not to speculate at all.23 Price and Trell first identified the structureon the right as the Baths of Titus.24 More recently, Rea has expanded on theidentification and argued convincingly that the porticus can be securely identifiedas that of the Baths of Titus, since the Colosseum and the Baths were dedicatedtogether (Dio 66.1. Suet., Titus 7.3), and Lanciani's excavations have turned upwhat seemed to be pillars of a porticus of the Baths of Titus that stretched towardsthe Colosseum.25 This makes sense since the Flavian regime consistently tried todistance itself from Nero's principate. The Colosseum was built on a large portionof Nero's Domus Aurea, and it would hardly be in line with Flavian policy todepict part of that property in the background. It would be much more fitting toshow the Colosseum with the Meta Sudans and the Baths of Titus, which were all

Flavian buildings. As Rea observed, the coin depicting all three of the Flavianbuildings signified the restoration of Rome to the people.26

With the Mela Sudans on the left and the Baths of Titus on the right, one cannow see that it is the southern facade of the Colosseum which is shown, drawn as

if the viewer were standing on the podium or on the porticoes of the podium ofthe Temple of Divus Claudius (see fig. 2). The representation of the imperial boxon the northern side cannot be attributed to artistic license since to change theviewpoint the engraver could simply have switched the Meta Sudans and theBaths of Titus. Hence, the interior portion of the cavea shown on the coin, alongwith the imperial box, is that of the northern side.

The medallion of Gordian III (PI. 19, 5; Grueber 13) also shows the emperorsitting on the northern side of the Colosseum. Here the Meta Sudans and a largestatue, usually identified as the Colossus, are shown on the left, and on the rightis a single-storeyed portico,27 which must be the porticus of the Baths of Titus. AsRea pointed out, in 238 the Baths of Titus and part of the Colosseum wererestored (SHA, Maxim, et Bulb. 1, 3-4), and it would be natural for the Baths tobe represented just as they were on the Flavian coins: the Gordianic medallioncelebrates the restoration not just of the Colosseum but of the whole complexincludinsz the Baths of Titus.28 Hence, on the Gordianic medallion the Colosseum

a See Cohen 399. 400: RIC. Titus 190: BMCRE. Titus 190. 191;HCC, Divus Titus I.24 M. Price and B. Trell. Coins and their Cities (London. 1977). p. 61.25 Rea. 'Le antiche rafligurazioni'. p. 34: R. Lanciani, 'Gli scavi del Colosseo e le Terme di Tito',

Bulletino deltacommissione archeologica comunale di Roma (1895), pp. 110-115."'' Rea. 'Le antiche rafligurazioni'. p. 34.:7 Gnecchi. Gordiano Pio 22. referred to the portico on the right as an unidentified temple;

Gruebcr. Gordian III 13. simply described it as a porch with a pediment.28 Rea. 'Le antiche rafligurazioni'. p. 39.


BATHS OF TITUS

LUDUS MAGNUS

TEMPLE OF CLAUDIUS

FIG 2. The Colosseum and Associated Monuments.


is shown from the same perspective as it was on the Flavian coins. Even if onedoes not accept the identification of the structure on the right as the Baths ofTitus, the view must be from the south, since the Meta Sudans and Colossus,clearly identifiable on the left, serve as reference points: the Mela Sudansappearsin front of the Colossus as it would when viewed from the southern side.

On the interior of the northern side of the Colosseum on the medallion, a largefigure is seated in the midst of the spectators where the imperial box was locatedon the Flavian coins. Grueber suggested that the figure was the Prefect of theGames,29 but this suggestion can easily be discarded. Firstly, a medallioncelebrating the emperor's restoration of this complex would probably show theemperor himself and not the Prefect of the Games, as on the Flavian coinage.Secondly, the legend on the reverse reads Munificentia Gordiuni Aug (themunificence of Gordian Augustus) so that one would expect to see the emperorpresiding over the games and not some other magistrate.

AN ALTERNATIVE USE FOR THE "CRYPTOPORTICUS OF

COMMODUS' AND THE SOUTHERN PLATFORM

In addition to the common assumption that the emperor sat on the southern sideof the Colosseum, various conflicting suggestions have been made about who saton the opposite platform. Golvin thought that the other box would have beenreserved for the Vestal Virgins, the empress, the editorand the consuls."' Claridgesimply said that the Vestals would have sat opposite the emperor.31 Richardsonbelieved that the other box would have been for magistrates and the Vestals.32Luciani assumed that some magistrates or delegates sat there.33 Lugli suggestedthat the Vestals and Consuls sat near the emperor and that the Prefect of the Citytogether with other magistrates and priests sat on the platform opposite.34 Platnerand Ashby hypothesized that the opposite box was for the Prefect of the Cityalone.35 However, it does not seem necessary to assume that any human being satthere at all. I suggest that the pulvinar, the area set up for images of deities to'watch' the games, was located there.

There is no evidence for a pulvinar in the Colosseum in the literary sources,but we know that there was one in the Circus and that statues were set up in thetheatres. In the theatres, curule chairs were placed in honour of Germanicus andwed°es of seats were named after him (Tac. Ann. 2.83). After the death of

2g Grucber. Gordian III. 13.}0 Golvin. L'Amphitheatre Roniain, p. 178.31 Claridge. Rome. pp. 278f.3: Richardson Jr.. A New Topographical Dictionary, p. 10." R. Luciani. // Colosseo (Milan. 1993). p. 79.54 G. Lugli, Roma antica, il centra monumentale (Rome, 1946). p. 330: id. L'Anfiteatro jlavio

(Rome, 1961), pp. 23-5.15 Platner and Ashby. A Topographical Dictionary,p, 10.


Marcellus. Augustus said that during the ludi Romani a golden statue ofMarcellus, along with a gold crown and curule chair, should be taken into theTheatre of Marcellus and placed among the magistrates (Dio 53.30.6). The senateonce decreed that a bronze statue of Sejanus should be set up in the Theatre ofPompey (Seneca, Marc. 224; Dio 57.21.3).

In ad 80, the year in which Titus' Colosseum coin type was produced, a seriesof 'pulvinaria type' coins was struck, which depicted couches of the gods. It wasgenerally assumed in the past that the couches were voted by the Senate and thecoins issued in the wake of the disastrous eruption of Vesuvius and the fire whichdamaged much of Rome (Suet., Titus 8; Dio 66.24.2; Aur.Vict., De Cues. 9),36 butDamsky has suggested instead that the couches were voted and the coin typesissued in conjunction with the inaugural games of the Colosseum.37 We do notknow where these couches for the gods were set up. but it would not beimplausible to suggest that they were placed in the newly dedicated Flavianamphitheatre, just as the Circus Maximus hosted images of the gods, especiallyif Damsky's suggestion is correct.

In the Circus Maximus, the pulvinar was an area with a prime view of theraces, which is probably one of the reasons why Augustus chose to watch themfrom there (Suet., Aug. 45.1).38 It was first monumentalized by Augustus (RG 19)and was probably rebuilt by Trajan during his rebuilding of the CircusMaximus.39 The Circus' pulvinar had substructures, with monumental entrances,so that when the images of deities were brought in during the procession, theycould be carried up from the arena to their place on the pulvinar.40 If the emperorchose not to sit in the pulvinar, he would have sat in the finishing box, which isdirectly opposite the pulvinar, and had steps leading out to the arena, so that theemperor or magistrate could crown the victorious charioteer. This arrangement inthe Circus Maximus with a large box for the emperor or magistrate opposite thepulvinar for religious images might be taken as the prototype for the arrangementof imperial box opposite pulvinar in the Colosseum which is suggested here. Theonly difference is that in the Colosseum, and given the nature of the spectaclesheld there, the views from the imperial box and the pulvinar would be equallygood, so that there would be no need for the emperor to watch spectacles fromthe pulvinar as he often did in the Circus.

As far as we can judge, the arena floorof the Colosseum, unlike that of the Circus,did not have entrances to the podium of seating, clearly a security precaution. Howthen would the statues have been brought to their place on the southern platform? Itwould not have been necessary to parade the images as in the Circus since in the

"• BMCRE II. p. Ixxii." B. Damsky. 'The throne and curule chair types of Titus and Domitian'. SNR 74 (1995).

pp. 59-70.M Humphrey. Roman Circuses, p. 79.59 Ibid, pp. 80. 103.40 Ibid. p. 81.


Colosseum they would have been visible on the southern platform at all times by allspectators. As we have seen, the 'Cryptoporticus of Commodus', whichhas so oftenbeen assumed to have an imperial function, does not seem to have communicatedwith the Palatine at all, but instead leads off in the direction of the Temple ofClaudius, which is a Flavian structure.41 Iacopi once believed that the tunnel mighthave communicated with a quadrangular structure between the Colosseum and theTemple of Claudiusand might have hadsome sort of cultic function.421 suggest thatthis was indeed the case and that the tunnel was used to transport the images ofdeities from where they were kept, perhaps an aedes on the Caelian Hill, to thepulvinar on the southern platform, opposite the emperor on the north side. Thequadrangular structure, with which this tunnel may have communicated, may havebeen connected with the Augustales on the basis of inscriptions.43 The fact thatAugustales were often associated with spectacles is attested by the sheer number ofinscriptions recording them as benefactors of the games.44

Finally one might speculate that the pulvinar of the Colosseum would havehosted not only images of traditional deities but also images of deified emperors,particularly Claudius, whom the Flavians honoured and with whom theyidentified themselves.45 This would not be unprecedented for we know that therewas an image of Julius Caesar in the pulvinarof the Circus Maximus (Suet., ////.76,1) and the pulvinaria coin types of Titus not only depict seats for traditionaldeities but also curule chairs with a wreath on them, symbolizing the divi.46

KEY TO PLATES 19-20

1. Stadium Aureus of Septimius Severus (BMCRE 319)2. Colosseum Sestertius of Severus Alexander (BMCRE 156)

3. Colosseum Sestertius of Titus (BMCRE 190)4. Colosseum Sestertius of Divus Titus by Domitian (ANS 1954.203.170)5. Colosseum Medallion of Gordian III (Grueber 13)6. Detail of the imperial box on the obelisk base of Theodosius from the

Hippodrome in Constantinople (photograph courtesy of Marcus Rautman)

Fig. 1. Plan of the Colosseum tunnels (author)Fig. 2. Map of the Colosseum and its associated monuments (author)

41 I must admit that i( is still possible that this tunnel connected with the eastern tunnel extendingtowards the Ludus Magnus, as lacopi mentioned. However it seems more likely to me it extends tothe Caelian. since its excavated course extends to the modern road between the Temple of Claudiuson the Caelian and the Colosseum. More excavation is needed.

a Iacopi. 'II passaggio'. pp. 79. 87 n. 3.41 C. Buz/.etti. Templum Divus Claudius.' in LTUR v. I. p. 277; cf. CILVI 1984-1988.44 For a more detailed discussion of the Augustales and the games see F. Mourlot. Essai stir

Thistoire de TAugustalite dans I'EmpireRomain (Paris. 1895). pp. 94-5.45 I am currently researching the associations between the Colosseum and the imperial cult.

particularly that of Divus Claudius."' RIC II (Titus) 25a. 25b.

locating the imperial box in the flavian amphitheatre: the

Documents