Summary

The publication presented here is primarily divided into three sections of various lengths, firstly dealing with the architectural amphitheatre terminology (pp. 21 ff Figs. 6; 7), then with the features pertaining to this type of construction preserved in Augusta Raurica/Augst (pp. 57 ff Figs. 8-166) and lastly with general thoughts on the potential uses and functions of Roman amphitheatres (pp. 197 ff Figs. 175-290; 294). The information is supplemented by two excursuses, one on the significance of the monumental complex of Augst-Schönbühl (pp. 175 ff Figs. 167-174), the other dealing with the interpretation of the paintings found on the podium wall of the amphitheatre in Pompeii (pp. 259 ff Figs. 291-293). The appendix includes two special scientific analyses. Noémie Frésard and Michel Fuchs comment on the fragments of painted plaster from the podium walls of the Augst amphitheatres ([vol. 43/2] Figs. 295-314; plates 9-16), while Philippe Rentzel has studied the well-preserved sand layers on the floor of the arena in the amphitheatre of Augst-Neun Türme from a geoarchaeological viewpoint ([vol. 43/2] Figs. 315-325).

Terminology

The analysis of 43 architectural technical terms commonly used for describing the various components of amphitheatres (pp. 21 ff Figs. 6; 7) and their mention in literary and epigraphic sources has shown that not all of these special terms were used as consistently in Roman times as modern specialist literature would suggest. Some of the technical terms such as «porta pompae» or «porta triumphalis», often encountered in the relevant specialist literature, have even been shown to be new creations or inapplicable transferences on the part of modern authors. Basically, it has been revealed that clearly defined names for the architectural components did not really exist in Antiquity. Some of the terms, however, appear to have been generally established and regularly used names, for instance the word maeniana, which derived from the Roman censor C. Maenius and was used for wooden stands and seating tiers in stone-built theatres (pp. 36 f.).

Other (technical) terms, on the other hand, arose from purely linguistic pragmatics, which put into words the associative imagery that was evoked when looking at the architectural components. Examples of this would be «precinct» (praecinctio) or «belt» (balteus) for the terrace that ran around the theatre between the tiers of seating (pp. 25; 46 f.), «pulpit» (pulpitum) for the grandstand that protruded like a stage from the seating tiers (pp. 47 f.), «cones» (cunei) for the wedge-shaped sections of seating (pp. 30 f.), «veils» (vela) for the sun awnings made of fabric (pp. 52 f.) or the simple word «sand» ([h]arena) for the ring in the middle of the edifice (pp. 24 f.). Similar pragmatics were also at play with regard to the seemingly quite clearly defined technical term for the type of edifice itself, a term which became commonplace from the Augustan period onwards. While before the reign of Augustus, amphitheatres were still defined as «places of (visual) events» (spectacula) (pp. 49 f.), this type of construction was given a new name from the beginning of the Common Era onwards, which was created especially, but was still rooted in Roman visual language (pp. 22 f.). The new type of construction literally consisted of double the already known theatron/theatrum so that from a pragmatic point of view, it was simply a «double theatre» or «all-round theatre» (amphi-theatron/-theatrum). The people of Antiquity, however, did not take the term as a concept of construction typology but adhered to its semantic basic meaning, which is illustrated by the fact that in the east of the Roman Empire, the ancient stadia were often also called «double theatres» (amphitheatron). Another technical term very obviously derived from the visual impression was the «spewer» (vomitorium), known only from a single text passage dating from the early 5^th century (p. 55). According to the author Macrobius, this term appears to have been used at the time for the access corridors in theatre buildings. The term was probably not commonly used before Late Antiquity, whereas Vitruvius and 2^nd century AD inscriptions still used the more general term «access» (ascensus, aditus, ianua). The term carcer (pp. 26 f.), which some of the modern experts would interpret rather restrictively as «animal cage» has turned out to be fraught with problems. Basically, the term denotes any kind of «closed off area» and does not refer specifically to animal cages. There was, however, a special Latin term, which was specifically used for movable cages: these were called cavea (literally «cave/encasement»). In the context of amphitheatres, the term is not known to have been used in Antiquity.

A true technical term linked with amphitheatre architecture, on the other hand, was the word porta postic(i)a (pp. 43 ff). According to written sources this seems to have referred to portals recessed into the podium wall at the sides of the arena, through which animals were released into the ring and people also entered and exited the arena. In terms of the combat zone itself, these lateral portals were «back doors» (postica/portae posticae) for entering and exiting. The terms «door of death» (porta libitinensis) and «door of life» (porta sanavivaria) were quite rarely mentioned by the sources and strictly limited to the context of amphitheatres, which suggests that the architecture in these edifices had a strong symbolic character (pp. 42 f.; 45). Unfortunately not often used, the terms are known from two different literary sources, one of which contained the «door of life», while the other mentioned the «door of death». As part of a deliberate antagonism, however, the mention of either term implies the existence of the other, which is why we regard the evidence of this arrangement of portals and the symbolism linked with it as confirmed by two independent sources. These names probably referred to the two main 3.5-4.5 m wide gates located opposite each other on the longitudinal axis of the arena, which carriages could usually be driven through.

The Augst amphitheatres - features and reconstructions

The main focus of the second part of the work is placed on the two amphitheatres in Augusta Raurica. By way of an introduction, a brief overview of the excavation and research history is given, which differs strongly for each of the two edifices (pp. 57 ff Figs. 8-12). This is followed by a detailed description of the features of the later amphitheatre of Augst-Sichelengraben (pp. 61 ff Figs. 13-128; Supplements 1; 2; 21-35), with particular emphasis on the constructional elements and their interpretation. Rather than publishing an analysis of the excavation, the aim of the study was to provide a reconstruction and evaluation of the amphitheatre in terms of its architecture and use. Geological and architectural features dating from the period before the amphitheatre was built as well as the events that took place after the destruction of the edifice (pp. 61 f.) are thus only presented in summary. The presentation of the features and their discussion and interpretation is arranged by architectural sections, all of which possess an identical internal structure. This arrangement includes the zones of the arena and podium wall (pp. 62 ff Figs. 13-25), the cavea area and revetment wall (pp. 69 ff Figs. 26-38), the eastern access to the arena (pp. 82 ff Figs. 39-63), the western access to the arena (pp. 97 ff Figs. 64-93), the northern carcer (pp. 110 ff Figs. 94-116), the southern carcer (pp. 116 ff Figs. 117-123) and the western carcer (sacellum? pp. 119 ff Figs. 124-128). The analysis of these architectural components revealed evidence of smaller architectural changes in various zones most likely linked with a phase of renovation work (pp. 139 f. Fig. 141). In this context, one of probably two portals originally in both the northern and southern carcers was bricked up, which may suggest a change in its function, which cannot, however, be defined more clearly (pp. 112; 116 Figs. 112; 117-123). Alterations were also carried out at the thresholds to vomitoria 1 and 2 at the western entrance (p. 104 Fig. 92). Probably at the same time, repair work to the eastern access of the arena also took place, where the threshold on the arena side of access corridor 2 was renewed (p. 89 Figs. 53; 56) and parts of the vault construction above access corridor 1 and the northern adjacent vomitorium 3 also had to be replaced (p. 88 Supplement 24). In the northern carcer and in the area of the arena, the floor levels were also renewed or raised and levelled (Supplements 21; 22).

The stratigraphic features uncovered in the gravel layers of the northern slope of the Sichelengraben ditch allow us with a large degree of probability to reconstruct the cavea with tiers of seats made of (mottled sand)stone (pp. 79 ff Fig. 38; Supplement 5). Individual walls as well as intrusions into the course of the gravel layers also provide us with information about the probable locations of praecinctiones, which divided the spectator areas horizontally (pp. 72 ff Figs. 31-36; Supplement 5). There is no evidence of a porticus having existed on the top seats so that it is believed that there was a simple enclosure wall with an ambulatory in front of it. A rampart-like gravel embankment overlying earlier structural features dating from the period before the amphitheatre was built was quite remarkable (pp. 74 ff Fig. 37; Supplements 5; 22; 23). This gravel rampart appears to have been of Roman origin and seems to have been linked with the construction of the outer revetment wall. The revetment thus consisted of a c. 2 m high rampart with a simple crowning wall approximately 3 m high but with only a weak foundation (Supplement 5). The top two thirds of the gravel rampart had eroded in post-Roman times, and had probably also been levelled off, which may explain why the excavations of the 1960s and 1980s did not yield any masonry structures as part of the revetment. The stands for the honorary guests, the so-called pulpita, were located in the area of the transverse axis of the edifice, in the zone of the podium above the northern carcer (proven) and the southern carcer (presumed, based on comparisons) (pp. 113 f.; 117 f. Figs. 112-114; 121-123). Adjacent to the pulpita and the podium stood the approximately 3 m high podium wall, which separated the arena from the spectator area. In order to enhance its appearance, this wall was painted with a multicoloured décor in Antiquity, which, however, could not be reconstructed (pp. 64 ff Figs. 17-23; contribution Frésard/Fuchs [vol. 43/2]). The only thing that can be stated with certainty is that some parts were made to look like coloured marble. A total of three «service rooms» were linked to the arena, two on the transverse axis in the north and south (northern and southern carcer) and one at the western access point to the arena, in the area of the longitudinal axis (western carcer), which was probably an arena shrine (sacellum) (pp. 121 f. Figs. 127; 128).

The architectural evaluation of the constructional remains allowed us to reconstruct the edifice, which revealed that three quarters of the amphitheatre must have been dug into the depression in the terrain of the Sichelengraben (p. 143 Fig. 142; Supplements 16-18). Viewed from the Sichelen plateau, the architectural features, which in this location would have consisted only of the embankment and the crowning wall, were not particularly impressive. The situation was different in the east and west, in the valley itself. There, load-bearing and statically well thought-out vaulted constructions had to be built, which were encased by 12 to 17 m high façades supported by pillars (pp. 93 ff; 106 ff.; 144 f. Figs. 142; 143; Supplements 9; 14; 16; 17). Vaulted corridors led from there into the interior of the building and vaulted arches gave the façades a representative appearance. The western façade, oriented towards the Grienmatt plain and thus visible from afar, was particularly striking in its monumental appearance and its representative characteristics. With the building materials chosen and the formal vocabulary used in constructing this façade, it represents a local interpretation of «classic Roman» monumental architecture (p. 145).

From the point of view of construction typology, the amphitheatre of Augst-Sichelengraben is a solid construction with a simple rampart (a so-called «structure pleine supportée par des remblais continus» after J.-C. Golvin). However, in the area of the valley, where the cavea was supported by vaulted constructions, elements of hollow construction were also added (so-called «structure creuse» after J.-C. Golvin) (p. 146 Fig. 148).

As shown by the metrological analysis of the edifice, the construction of the amphitheatre of Augst-Sichelengraben was based on an architectural design with a rigid structure centred around the design module (mod.) of 4 pedes drusiani (pD) (pp. 129 ff Supplements 36; 37). The size of the arena can be estimated at 38 mod. by 25 mod. (152 pD by 100 pD = 50.66 m by 33.33 m) and the entire edifice at 75 mod. by 62 mod. (300 pD by 248 pD = 99.99 m by 82.65 m).

Assuming that seats would have been 40 cm wide and based on the reconstruction suggested, the entire edifice would have had the capacity to seat 13,000 spectators (pp. 149 f.). These seats would have been accessed mainly from the Sichelen plateau via flights of stairs (scalaria) arranged at regular intervals and leading through the funnel of the cavea, thus linking the podium with the entrances located in the enclosure wall that crowned the edifice (pp. 151 f. Figs. 153; 154). Only the podium itself and the two adjacent pulpita were also accessible from the valley through four vomitoria. In order to maintain an optimal degree of dispersal, the outlets of these vomitoria opened up onto square-like areas so that the flow of traffic was kept moving in this part of the edifice which was reserved for dignitaries (p. 147 Fig. 145). These platforms may have also served as locations for statues of gods and emperors that were paraded in a solemn procession (pompa) which preceded the games.

As the detailed analysis of the features of the earlier amphitheatre of Augst-Neun Türme will follow elsewhere, a summary of the current state of research based on the most recent work is given here, so that it is possible to make comparisons between the two amphitheatres in Augst in the context of the chronological and historical evaluation (pp. 157 ff.). Basically, the earlier of the two edifices in Augst can be interpreted today as a so-called «semi-amphitheatre» with arena dimensions of 148 pD by 108 pD (49.33 m by 36.00 m), with the entire complex extending over an area of 300 pD by 212 pD (99.99 m by 70.66 m). As was shown by the most recent excavations, the building had a timber-built cavea in its first phase, which was then changed to a stone construction during its lifespan; remains of seating tiers fashioned in mottled sandstone have survived to this day in the eastern half of the edifice. Remarkable components of this amphitheatre, from the point of view of its use, were triple portals connecting the «carceres» in the east and west with the arena (Fig. 189-191). Another room adjacent to the arena in the south, may have served as a sacellum, as is suggested by its once high-quality paintings. Paintings were also found on the podium wall. In this case, the fragments recovered even allowed researchers to attempt a reconstruction of at least one section of the wall, which consisted of a lacunar décor with floral motifs painted on a white background above a base of imitation marble (p. 158; contribution Frésard/Fuchs [vol. 43/2]). The suggested reconstruction of the architecture of the building includes a series of vomitoria accessed from an ambulatory which ran parallel to the revetment (Supplements 43; 44). Again, as seen in the case of the amphitheatre of Augst-Sichelengraben, access to the podium was provided by special vomitoria, thus maintaining the social division in the access areas. By reducing the western half of the cavea to the width of the podium, a west-facing façade was created to the north and south of the seating area, which is highly likely to have been fitted with blind arches (Supplement 44).

Despite the fact that only a small number of well stratified and chronologically significant finds were recovered, the study of the chronology of the two edifices suggests that over the course of their construction history one of the amphitheatres probably replaced the other. The initial construction of the new amphitheatre of Augst-Sichelengraben around AD 170 probably started a few years before the earlier monument of Augst-Neun Türme was actually demolished, which meant that the town was not without a theatre building at any stage (pp. 162 ff). The abandonment of this edifice occurred approximately 100 years later, around AD 270/280, and the monument probably served as a source of building materials for the fortification of Augst-Kastelen (p. 165).

The time of construction of the earlier amphitheatre of Augst-Neun Türme can be dated with some degree of certainty to the period around AD 110, which fits in remarkably well with other edifices throughout modern-day Switzerland, and even with amphitheatres in Germania and Gallia Belgica (pp. 165 f. Figs. 163; 164). The noticeable concentration of amphitheatres dating from the Trajan period throughout this geographical area has been tentatively linked with Trajan's victory celebrations following the conquest of Dacia in AD 107-110. The hypothesis is that the presence of Trajan as governor and supreme military commander in Germania immediately before his rise to princeps may have led to a certain bond with the region, and that this may have given the impetus to stage games in honour of the victory over the Dacians in edifices that had yet to be built (p. 169). This hypothesis is supported by the probable dedicatory inscription of the amphitheatre of Iulia Equestris/Nyon, which dates from AD 111. Based on the painted décor, the renovation of the amphitheatre of Augst-Neun Türme can be dated to approximately AD 130/140 (p. 165; contribution Frésard/Fuchs [vol. 43/2]).

The town planning context shows that neither amphitheatre can be viewed as an independent building for leisure activities but that both were closely linked with neighbouring sanctuaries (pp. 171 ff Figs. 165; 166). While the amphitheatre of Augst-Neun Türme was built as an axially linked annex to the important monumental complex of Augst-Schönbühl, the theatre in Augst-Sichelengraben formed an additional element in the large sacred zone on the southwestern edge of the town. Its location in a depression in the terrain of the Sichelengraben gave the building additional significance from a town planning point of view in that its architecture acted as a link between the two sacred areas of Augst-Grienmatt and Augst-Sichelen, which had previously been separate from each other (p. 174 Fig. 166,6).

Based on comparisons, the total construction costs for the two Augst amphitheatres probably amounted to approximately 400'000 to 500'000 sesterces (HS) for each of the buildings; these funds were probably accrued by euergetism, be it from individual benefactors or more likely from small groups of patrons (pp. 191 ff).

An excursus on the architectural complex of Augst-Schönbühl analyses the architectural association between the sacred complex on the Schönbühl hill and the theatre buildings on the opposite side in more detail (pp. 175 ff). All three of the theatre buildings that replaced each other were Gallo-Roman types of construction, which showed an open architectural design on the sides facing the temple. The physical link between the theatres and the temple consisted of an almost 20 m wide monumental stairway leading up the slope to the sanctuary. As illustrated by the choice of building materials, the temple, constructed partly in imported marble and with a portico running around it, formed the focal point of the sacred district, while the theatre edifices were entirely built in local stone and must be viewed as annex buildings to the sanctuary (pp. 176 f. Figs. 168-170). Reflections on the significance of the monumental complex point most strongly towards an imperial cult, possibly with the inclusion of the entire civitas (pp. 177 ff), while the cult of Jupiter Optimus Maximus can be assumed in relation to the forum temple (pp. 185 ff Figs. 171-174).

Functionality

The third part of the publication attempts to place the constructional components of the Augst amphitheatres in a general context and to evaluate these in terms of functional aspects (pp. 197 ff). In a second step, the focus moves away from Augst and the question of functionality is discussed in relation to examples of edifices from all over the Roman Empire (pp. 239 ff). The term functionality is expanded beyond purely architectural features and applied to political and religious aspects as well.

The considerations start off with the most important zone of any amphitheatre, the arena, whose form was adapted to ideally suit its function. Its oval shape facilitated the development of a certain degree of dynamic movement while at the same time affording the best possible view to each of the spectators (pp. 198 f. Figs. 177-181). The sandy ground was suitable for humans and animals to walk on and could very easily be restored when installations needed for the events had to be assembled and dismantled (pp. 200 ff Figs. 182-184; contribution Rentzel [vol. 43/2]). A detailed study of the annexes built next to the arena, generally known as «carceres», showed that these were highly multifunctional zones that were never just used for a single purpose (pp. 202 ff Figs. 185-195). At various times throughout the course of a munus, various protagonists were located in the «carceres». During munera, these provided the gladiators and their helpers (ministri) with a place to pass the time before going into combat (pp. 203; 214), while during venationes, animals could be held in cages (caveae) in the «carcer» and released from there into the arena (pp. 204; 214); also, venatores being pursued by wild animals, and also other personnel could find refuge in these rooms, and animal fighters could suddenly burst into the arena from there to give a hunting game a new twist. Some amphitheatres, for instance those in Maktar/Tunisia and Lepcis Magna/Libya, contained additional rooms or cage boxes geared specifically towards holding animals for short periods of time, with vertical sliding doors opening directly onto the arena (p. 215 Figs. 217-220). Many of the «carceres» had two or even three doors opening onto the arena, thus enabling a variety of uses, which also included a «choreographed» entrance of several people simultaneously (pp. 206 ff Figs. 189-196). Stairways connecting the carceres with the podium, and sometimes the arena with the podium, in most cases allowed for a direct communication between the combat zone and the pulpitum (pp. 209 f. Figs. 198-200). This meant that the victorious gladiator could quickly reach the grandstand in order to receive his prize or a servant of the editor could bring the prize money down to the arena (p. 210 Fig. 294). In essence, the architecture mirrors the intention of organising the connecting pathways to and around the arena as ideally as possible so that the lines of communication could remain open. Important architectural components in this context were ambulatories around the arena situated immediately behind the podium wall (pp. 210 ff), radial service corridors leading from the periphery to the arena (pp. 208 f. Fig. 197), and access corridors located at each side of the main access routes to the arena (pp. 212 ff Figs. 201-214). The latter, together with the appropriately positioned portae posticae, resulted in an arrangement of doors that was perfectly suited to driving wild animals into the arena in a controlled manner (pp. 212 f.; 248 f. Figs. 283-285). In general, the portae posticae were probably quite important for the course of the games. As individual pictorial sources show, these portals, usually fitted with peepholes, were specially highlighted in the décor of the podium walls (pp. 214 ff Figs. 216-223).

Moreover, the examples in Cividate Camuno/I and Carnuntum/A provide evidence that in some amphitheatres animal boxes were built behind each other into the lateral access corridors, which could be bolted with horizontally sliding beams (pp. 213 f. Figs. 206-213). Based on the dimensions and the similarity of timber tunnels in modern «Plazas de Toro», one may assume that these boxes were installations used to hold bulls (p. 213 Figs. 204; 205).

Although no such features were unearthed in the Augst amphitheatres, an analysis of basements is also a significant part of the publication (pp. 219 ff Figs. 227-269). Edifices that had basements only comprise a small segment in the entire body of known amphitheatres, but they provide an interesting contrast to the monuments that did not have such a luxurious element. High-quality productions were also possible without basements. However, once an arena went beyond a certain size, it was definitely more convenient to be able to transport some of the animals into its centre in the most direct way possible. The much-quoted effect of amazing landscape décors suddenly appearing out of (or disappearing into) the ground was an element of production that was only possible in a very limited number of edifices in Italy and the South of France, and possibly on a reduced scale in Spain and North Africa (p. 220 Figs. 236; 237). The installations necessary to achieve this were technically complex facilities carrying high acquisition costs and as a result required a lot of effort to run and maintain (pp. 222 ff Figs. 244-246; 252-262). Consequently, they were only used in high-priced top performances. The same was probably true for the elevator systems in the large edifices in Rome, Pozzuoli and Capua/I. In cases like the large amphitheatre of Capua, where the preserved features have provided evidence of over 100 exit windows, it is unlikely that all the openings were used at the same time (p. 221 Figs. 233; 237). It is even questionable whether they were all fitted with elevator systems or whether the elevators were not just installed after the «choreography» of the munus had been decided on, and it was clear which of the exit windows were going to be needed for the performance.

Based on the architectural features of the amphitheatre in Pozzuoli/I, new hypotheses are presented as to how these elevator installations may have worked; these hypotheses show that the elevators, mainly used for transporting animals, could have been operated by rope winches (pp. 228 ff Figs. 265-269). The technical systems of the elevators were based on complex winch constructions that allowed for the cages to be hauled upwards by means of special interlocking mechanisms. While a cage was being raised, the cover of the hatch was also opened so that the cage could emerge at any time without any preparation in the arena itself (p. 230 Fig. 265,12). The lowering of the cage worked the same way.

Substantial technical installations were also needed for the «stage pits» set into the longitudinal axis of the arena; in this form, however, these have been found mainly in the monumental amphitheatres of Italy (p. 223 Figs. 252-259). The evidence that has survived in the architectural features has led to two different suggested reconstructions as to how the ground could be opened so that the décor elements could be brought into position. In accordance with the examinations pursued by Heinz-Jürgen Beste in the Amphitheatrum Flavium in Rome, we assume that there was a system of sloping ramps which made it possible to move the platforms with the arena décor across the wooden manhole coverings (pp. 223 f. Figs. 252-254). In the case of the Flavian amphitheatre of Pozzuoli, on the other hand, the evidence suggests that the wooden covering of the «stage pit» could be moved apart in the area of the longitudinal axis and that the wooden platforms with the landscape décor fitted onto them were raised vertically into the arena (p. 225 Figs. 255-258).

An essential component of many amphitheatres was the sacellum, a sanctuary with altars, statuary of gods and relief depictions of venerated deities, which was directly linked with the arena (pp. 233 ff Figs. 270-272). Entirely in keeping with the concept of a multifunctional arena, such sacella were not chapels exclusively devoted to cult and sacrifices, but usually actual «carceres», fitted with additional altars and other installations so that religious activities could be performed (p. 234 Fig. 270). Besides a series of other deities ranging from Hercules to various demons of the underworld, the goddesses Nemesis and Diana were often worshipped in such arena sanctuaries (p. 235 Fig. 271). In any case, only cults revolving around deities with clearly chthonic aspects have been identified, and generally the entire arena obviously encompassed a zone that was closely connected with the underworld (p. 236). In that sense, the arena was probably a location between the worlds of the living and of the dead, which is ultimately illustrated also by the symbolism of the porta libitinensis and the porta sanavivaria (p. 266).

Summary chapters deal with the main productions that took place in the arena, i.e. gladiatorial combat (munera) and the animal and hunting games (venationes). For the venationes, a division into seven categories is suggested, ranging from the relatively harmless showing of rare and exotic animals to mythically embellished executions to actual hunting performances in naturally set landscape décors (pp. 239 ff Figs. 281-289). In the context of the munera, a short synopsis of the course of a fight is outlined, which followed strict rules enforced by referees and thus guaranteed that both gladiators had an equal chance of victory. These duels involved a degree of showmanship, culminating in the choice between the missio (sparing) and iugulatio (killing) of the defeated gladiator and celebrated a range of values which were fundamental to Roman society and manifested themselves in the demonstration of virtus, exercitatio and disciplina (p. 252 Figs. 290; 293).

In keeping with the liberal interpretation of the term functionality, the political significance of amphitheatre performances is also dealt with (pp. 266 ff). What appears on the surface to have been merely a mechanism of entertainment, was in reality a potent instrument of power, which underlined the imperial claim to power made by the Roman people and its emperor, by demonstrating Roman ideals of virtue and values, and by continuously celebrating an ideology of victory (p. 269). The arena was a mirror image of the Roman world where its enemies were constantly defeated and killed, but could survive and even win Roman acceptance if they showed virtus (pp. 267 ff). The cavea, on the other hand, was a mirror image of the Roman people, whose society was strongly tiered according to social status, and who watched the spectacle in the arena together with their gods and goddesses (p. 267).

This idea is also supported by the painted décor on the podium wall of the amphitheatre at Pompeii, which is the subject of the second excursus (pp. 259 ff Figs. 291-293; Supplement 50). The remarkable fresco cycle that is missing today and only survives in a series of watercolours, was much more than mere decorative painting. The wall, which faced the arena and could be seen by the entire audience, was painted on one hand with illustrative scenes of animal and gladiatorial combat, and on the other hand with repetitive and at first glance rather unpretentious décor elements such as herms, victorias and candelabras with shield busts (pp. 262 ff Figs. 293; Supplement 50). On closer inspection, however, it becomes clear that the paintwork primarily depicts a celebration of victory, since all these decorative elements are also known as commonly used motifs in Roman victory symbolism (p. 266). At the same time, however, each of these decorative elements also included an allusion to death as its flipside so to speak, so that this is a further clear reference to the antagonism between victory and defeat, which in the arena ultimately corresponded with the difference between life and death.

The analysis of the painted plaster fragments from the podium walls of the Augst amphitheatres by Noémie Frésard and Michel Fuchs in the appendix revealed that this particular wall was highlighted with a special décor in both edifices (contribution Frésard/Fuchs [vol. 43/2]). Moreover, the reconstruction suggested for a section of the podium wall in the amphitheatre at Augst-Neun Türme is one of only a few examples that show how such a wall might have been decorated. While décors with scenes of gladiatorial and animal combat as well as imitations of marble have been known before, the Augst specimen is the first to provide evidence of an ornamental décor with carpet-like pattern (net décor).

The second contribution in the appendix by Philippe Rentzel gives a summary of the results of the geoarchaeological analysis of the arena floor in the amphitheatre of Augst-Neun Türme (contribution Rentzel [vol. 43/2]). Based on thin sections obtained from profile samples soaked in resin, the characteristics and composition of the sandy arena sediments could be studied in detail. Clearly visible phosphate efflorescences came from faecal matter and urine seeped into the arena sand, and remnants of coprolites in the same layer confirm the presence of animals that had perished in the arena. Various indications such as traces of compaction at the top edge of the layer suggest that a crust was formed as is characteristic for unsheltered sandy-loamy outdoor surfaces. Traces of shifting in the sandy gravel of the arena layer also prove that the sand floor was regularly raked, as is sometimes mentioned in literary sources.

Translation: Sandy Hämmerle