Ara Pacis - South Wall

South Wall

The South Wall has seen a great deal of scholarship and the greatest number of academic debates. Unlike the North Wall, where most of the heads are new (not authentic ancient heads, but modern creations), the heads of the figures on the South Wall are mostly original. Some half dozen figures are recognizable from looking at other surviving statues of members of the imperial family. Nevertheless, much debate has taken place over many of these figures, including Augustus, Agrippa, Tiberius, Julia, and Antonia.

Augustus - The figure of Augustus was not discovered until the 1903 excavation, and his head was damaged by the cornerstone of the Renaissance palazzo built on top of the original Ara Pacis site. Today Augustus is better recognized by his hair style than his face. He was identified in 1903 immediately.

Agrippa - In the absence of the panel including Augustus, early scholars debated whether this figure was Augustus or Agrippa or Lepidus. In the same 1907 article mentioned above, Sieveking proposed that this figure was Lepidus, the Pontifex Maximus. Sieveking later reversed himself with a series of peculiar suggestions. In 1926 Loewy compared the Louvre Agrippa and that in Copenhagen (and others) to the Ara Pacis to show icongographic similarity. Aside from a very small minority of scholars (most vehemently defending Lepidus in Rom. Mitt in the 1930s was Ludwig Curtius), the rest of the academy agreed this figure is Agrippa.

Julia (Livia) - many scholars continue to see the Julia figure as Livia under the reasoning that Livia has to be on the Ara Pacis. Indeed Livia does appear somewhere (she could hardly be excluded), but by 13 BC Julia had politically eclipsed Livia, as has been understood and explained by many scholars. Furthermore, Livia has no bond to Agrippa, whereas Julia was his wife and expected to be the unofficial empress of Rome for decades, during and beyond Augustus' lifetime. Julia also better personified Augustus' new pro-natalism program, having already given birth to four surviving children. Nevertheless, a majority of scholars in 2000 preferred to see this figure as Livia.

Tiberius - This figure was Tiberius as early as 1891 by Milani, an identification that was rarely questioned until the 1940s. Moretti, in making the glass museum for the Ara Pacis at Mussolini's command, guessed that the two consuls (Tiberius and Varus) of 13 flank Augustus, so he saw this figure as M. Valerius Messalla. V.H. von Poulsen proposed Iullus Antonius. But as has been well established, Augustus is flanked by priests, and this figure is Tiberius. Boschung and Bonanno have both matched the face to early period Tiberius statuary.

Antonia, Drusus, and Germanicus - In 1880 H. Dütschke proposed the correct identity for Antonia and Drusus, but saw the toddler as Claudius (incorrectly). A. von Domaszewski amended this family identification and correctly saw the child as Germanicus. He also suggested that the Ara Pacis is arranged in family groups. He also correctly determined that the two-year old child could only be Germancius, whose exact birth in 24 May 15 BC is known. This helps prove that the ceremony is an event in 13, although a few scholars continued to argue the ceremony was that of 9 BC.

The Domitii Ahenobarbi - In the same 1903 article, von Domaszewski also proposed that the last family on the South Wall is that of the father of the emperor Nero (born Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus). This identification remains widespread today. However, there are some dissenters from this theory. Stern claims that these figures cannot possibly be the Domitii Ahenobarbi, on the basis of the belief that Gnaeus Domitius Ahenobarbus, whom von Domaszewski saw as the boy of the family, was not born until after the monument's completion. Syme claims that it is just the identification of the children that is incorrect, preferring to identify the boy figure as an otherwise unknown elder son and the girl figure as an otherwise unknown elder daughter of Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus and Antonia Major. In defence of the identification of the group as the Domitii Ahenobarbi and of the boy as Gnaeus, Pollini has pointed out that Suetonius specifically mentions that Nero's father went "to the East on the staff of the young Gaius Caesar". This campaign is known to have begun in 2 BC, which means that Gnaeus Ahenobarbus must have already been of a mature age by that year. Pollini reasons that the subsequent career delay of Ahenobarbus is likely due to his documented unpleasant character, and points out that the careers of other members of the family were also affected by their display of undesirable traits, notably Augustus' youngest grandson, Agrippa Postumus, and Germanicus' brother, the later emperor, Claudius.