The Arch of
Photos by Bill Storage and Laura Maish
Email us about this page
See also: Deep Zoom gigapixel image.
Details of the life of
According to the Vita
Constantina, written by Eusebius shortly after Constantine's death, Constantine
was born in Moesia (Serbia) in about 272, based on his having begun his reign
at the age Alexander the Great was at death, reigning almost 32 years, and
being over 60 years old when he died.
But virtually all dates in
Lactantius, tutor of
Traditional histories therefore hold that this event was the beginning
Even after the time of his reported conversion, he seemed to
have maintained interest in Sol Invictus and Hercules; and some degree of
syncretization is plausible.
On April 1, 326,
Despite the preceding example of legislation, it is
inaccurate to say that
No ancient sources mention the Arch of Constantine or any arch where it now stands. It appears in 16th century engravings by Du Prac, and in later engravings by Piranesi, Rossini, Lauro and others. In modern literature, Rodolfo Lanciani (1892) discussed the arch, specifying its location as the intersection of the via Sacra and via Triumphalis, adjacent to the Colosseum. Platner's Topographical Dictionary of Ancient Rome (1920s) described the arch in detail, noting that there is no historical basis for the name, via Triumphalis. He also wrote that the date of its completion is fixed at 315-316, based on the mention of the decennalia on the inscriptions of the side arches. Of course, the arch need not be the same age as the inscriptions, and the inscriptions only imply the decennalia on the basis of the inscription, votis X. Nevertheless the above date is accepted by all modern writers. Votis XX also appears in a nearby inscription. As on coins, this seems to be an ancient equivalent of many happy returns, foretelling the emperor's vicennalia ten years in the future. Scholars have long speculated that the arch itself originated in the time of Domitian or Hadrian. This idea lost favor in the 1930s, and was then rejuvenated in the 1990s by Alessandra Melucco Vaccaro. But the whole arch, with possible exception of part of its base, has recently been firmly dated to the fourth century by sound, scientific means, closing the popular issue introduced by Arthur Frothingham in 1912.
View from the northeast as recorded
by Du Prac around 1500
View from the southeast as recorded
by Rossini in the early 1800s
While certain portions of the sculpture that adorns the arch were carved specifically for
Identical inscriptions on both sides read and translate as follows:
PIO FELICI AVGVSTO SENATVS POPVLVSQVE ROMANVS
QVOD INSTINCTV DIVINITATIS MENTIS
MAGNITVDINE CVM EXERCITV SVO
TAM DE TYRANNO QVAM DE OMNI EIVS
FACTIONE VNO TEMPORE IVSTIS
REMPVBLICAM VLTVS EST ARMIS
ARCVM TRIVMPHIS INSIGNEM DICAVIT
The phrase INSTINCTV DIVINITATIS, which does not occur in any extant literature prior to construction of the arch, has been the source of considerable debate. Suggested meanings include being inspired or prompted by a Divinity (Christian or pagan), or being inspired by divinity (e.g. "beauty is divine"). A close parallel to this wording, instinctus divinus, is found in Cicero's De divinatione, where it refers to foreknowledge of coming events, a meaning perfectly suited to the context of the inscription on the arch. Cicero's usage does not differentiate between root causes for such foreknowledge. Constantine knew of this piece by Cicero and quoted from it in his speech, Ad sanctorum coetum. It is likely that Constantine's usage (or, more accurately, the Senate's usage on Constantine's behalf) includes a nod to the god of the Christians and the god(s) of the pagans. But to a greater degree, it reflects Constantine's boasting that he had known that the Maxentius problem would have to be addressed sooner or later, and that he was justified in having taken swift action to remedy this problem. Interestingly, in the speech where Constantine cites Cicero, he does so to argue for a Christian interpretation of a pagan Sibylline prophecy. 
The marble blocks into which this inscription was set, along with those facing the rest of the arch, vary irregularly in type and color (fig. 6). This fact alone strongly supports a fourth century date for the arch. Such variation is not seen on any early imperial monuments. Likewise, the poor fit of pre-carved components seen on the Arch of Constantine, notes Mark Jones, would have been unthinkable on any Hadrianic or Domitianic monument. A vivid example of misfit pieces is seen in the discontinuities in the decoration of the entablature where blocks adjoin (fig. 7).
The eight Dacian captives,
standing proud and handsome across cornices around the attic (figs. 16-19), may have come
from Trajan's Forum, which was bounded by a large frieze discussed below. The
statues undoubtedly date from the period from Domitian to Trajan, since they
clearly portray Dacians. Carved in pavonazzetto marble, similar statues have
been found in Trajan's Forum, including one on display in the
Most scholars agree that the eight rectangular relief panels in the attic are from an earlier monument dedicated to Marcus Aurelius. Whether the panels were ever set in place on such a monument is unknown; there is no numismatic or literary evidence for its existence. Frothingham concluded that at least two different arches had been the source of these panels; and that one of them had been dedicated to Lucius Verus, who was co-emperor of Marcus Aurelius for part of his reign. Frothingham saw two distinct styles in the panels, one more Hellenistic, the other he described as Roman style. Max Wegner reached a similar conclusion about their styles, using the terms klassischer Meister and barocker Meister. In arguing for a Verus origin, Frothingham noted that the rightmost panel of the north side (North face, panel 4 - fig. 11), a standard bears two portraits (fig. 13), whereas in South 4 (fig. 15), the standard shows only one portrait. He saw the two-portrait standard as evidence of his Verus hypothesis. He saw Verus, not Marcus, in the panel with the single-portrait standard because Verus, whose arch stood on the Vai Appia, was the key ruler in the Parthian war. He also sites as evidence the fact that there are two distinctly different styles of frames on the panels as well; and thought this could only result from their having originated on two different arches, ignoring the possibility that certain frame dimensions were not specified to separate teams of sculptors who produced the panels. Frothingham's work points out the difficulties encountered by past scholars, and the tendency, in the midst of exciting archeological discoveries, to leap to conclusions.
While his conclusions were hasty and poorly defended, Frothingham did make a number of original and useful observations that have been employed by later scholars. His argument for Verus as the subject of the single-standard panel was tortured, but its elimination does not rule out two monuments of Marcus Aurelius as panel sources, one of which was more accommodating of his slightly less than equal partner. Against such an argument, all the panels appear to have the same external dimensions. This would be an odd coincidence if they were built for two different arches. Recent scholars acknowledge different styles among the panels, but attribute them simply to variations between contributing sculptors styles.
Commodus was also at least once
suggested as the subject of the original panels.
This also seems unlikely, based on evidence of his removal from one of them, the
liberalitas scene discussed below. Whoever
were the original subjects of the eight panels, they are now all
Art historians have written lengthy arguments on the exact dates of the attic panels on the basis of stylistic elements and their content. They agree on the reign of Marcus Aurelius, but on little else. Determinations of exact dates for ancient works, or even judgments of relative age on the basis of sculpture style seem to me vastly overconfident, failing to address differences in artistic technique between several artists commissioned to work on the same piece. Most scholars date the panels as a group somewhere between 176 and 180.
and others maintained that the attic panels were intended to be read in order,
and that they wrap around the arch in the same direction as the continuous
Scholars now more or less agree on the following general categories for the panels:
|North face, panel 1||adventus|
|N panel 2||profectio|
|N panel 3||liberalitas (largitio/congiarium)|
|N panel 4||clementia (submissio/justice)|
|South face, panel 1||Rex Datus|
|S panel 2||Prisoners brought before the emperor|
|S panel 3||adlocutio|
|S panel 4||
The adventus panel (fig. 10) is generally agreed to represent the return of
Marcus Aurelius from battle after his successful campaign against the Germans
and Sarmatians in 176. P. G. Hamberg
referred to this scene as "allegorical", a term that did not sit at all well
with Karl Lehmann. Hamberg's basis was that Marcus is the only mortal character in it, although it
seems to represent a real location, the Temple of Fortuna Redux on the Via Latia
in the Campus Martius. Its primary focus is the interaction between Marcus and
on the right side. Mars stands behind the emperor; the war is over. Victory
flies over Marcus's head, above two lesser deities or personifications in the
The adventus is paired with a profectio scene (fig. 10), indicating that it represents Marcus's departure for battle in 169. The emperor wears a traditional short tunic and mantle, the heel of his right foot lifted to signal impending motion. A reclining personification of the road Via Flaminia in the case bids him farewell. The identification of the personified road is certain; earlier coins depict parallel scenes and include labels for the relevant roads. Virtus, dressed for travel as compared to the nearly identical Roma, who usually bears one breast, will presumably accompany the emperor into battle. A genius senatus, bearded and wearing a toga, stands behind Marcus. A man, usually agreed to be Claudius Pompeianus, Marcus Aureliuss son-in-law and advisor, stands to his left, barely visible in this relief. Earlier scholars, such as Stuart Jones and Eugenie Sellers Strong, identified this assistant as Bassaeus Rufus instead of Pompeianus, who seems to be generally accepted today. Wegner considered this relief to be in the klassischer style, however the treatment of soldiers and horses does not seem to fit that description. L'Orange identified the structure in this scene as the Arch of Domitian in the Campus Martius. Note that the arch is crowned with a chariot drawn by elephants.
In third position on the north
face of the arch (fig. 11) is a scene of public largess, most likely associated with the liberalitas of 177, centered upon Marcus
Aurelius and his son Commodus after their joint victory of 176. Pompeianus is
again present, but Commodus is not. A conspicuous void in the relief probably
reveals where he once sat on a sella
curulis like his father. A fragment, likely the remains of his foot appears
on the podium (yellow arrow in fig. 12). Further evidence of recarving of this
part of the relief is the fact that the bottom half of the toga of the man
standing on the step is carved in lower relief than that of his upper half, and
that this difference is not easily explained by differential weathering of the
panel. Several of the heads are restorations. The head of a boy riding
piggyback on his fathers shoulders is missing. The surface finish of the
recarved area is also noticeably rougher than that seen in the rest of the
relief. Commodus, subject of a damnatio
memoriae, also appears to have been
removed from one of the panels on display in the
The south face attic begins with a Rex Datus scene, wherein a vassal king is either crowned before or introduced to the Roman soldiers. The event indicates that a peace treaty has been signed and that a former enemy is now an ally. Early scholar Giovanni Bellori, who examined the piece in 1690, also saw it as showing coronation of a vassal king, although he concluded that the emperor was Trajan. Frothingham concluded that the original emperor was Lucius Verus, on the grounds that no coins of Marcus Aurelius depict a Rex Datus, whereas several coin types of Verus do, including legends such as rex armeniis datus. One minor peculiarity of the scene is the lack of the kings subjects, who would have witnessed such a ceremony, possibly omitted simply due to space constraints. The head of the king is a modern restoration.
South face panel two (fig 14) depicts enemy soldiers dragged before the emperor in the field, as indicated by the tree on the right side of the image. One of the captives is still resisting while the other has accepted the futility of doing so. The emperor wears a tunic, a paludamentum and leggings. Once again, Pompeianus, similarly dressed, stands beside him. The panel has been broken in two and repaired.
The adlocutio scene (fig 15) depicts a typical episode of the emperor motivating his troops at the beginning of a military campaign. His left hand, now missing, probably held a lance. His right hand is raised in gesticulation. Seven soldiers, each in different types of uniforms, including scale armor and chain mail, listen intently to their leaders words. The top part of the panel, including the tops of the standards, is a restoration.
Lustratio is a celebration with the army at the beginning of a
military campaign, probably originally referring to ritual purification before
battle. The emperor presides over the ceremony, using a portable tripod-mounted
altar. A bull, sheep, and pig will be sacrificed in a rite called the suovetaurilia, in which Mars would be
expected to purify the land. Soldiers with flags and ensigns stand behind a
musician and an incense bearer (camillus).
Pompeianus appears behind Marcus/Constantine, with his head above that of the
bull. The upper quarter of the panel, showing tops of the wreaths and the eagle
atop the standard, is a restoration. The portrait in the imago on the left is too weathered to support identification of its
subject. Art historians frequently debate the style of the lustratio scene. Most agree that it represents a more modern
departure from the styles of the other seven panels on the arch.
Many scholars agree that the four large reliefs, each in two panels about three meters high, originated in a 30 meter long frieze in the Forum of Trajan. Two are on the short sides of the attic(figs. 21, 22), and two more the most interesting and best preserved are within the central arch, nearly at ground level. Most authorities agree that they originally depicted Trajan and date to early Hadrianic times. Others have concluded that Domitian was the subject of the reliefs in the central arch, and that they somehow, like the Cancelleria reliefs, escaped mutilation during the two short periods of Domitian's damnatio. One objection to their originating in the Forum of Trajan is that it was reported to be still intact in the time of Theodoric, long after the Arch of Constantine was built.
The relief on the west (figs. 23,
side shows Trajan, on horseback, with his mantle billowing in the wind, above a
fallen Dacian who cowers below. Another Dacian faces the emperor, on his knees,
begging for the clemency that we viewers know will be granted. To Trajans left
is an armored Roman, who seems to be on the verge of slashing his victims
throat. Trajan's participation in the battle is presumably symbolic; he is not
wearing a helmet. Similar portrayals of equestrian emperors, without helmet, in
the middle of battle scenes, appear fairly often, such as the 3rd
century battle scene on the Ludovisi sarcophagus.The inscription
above the scene reads Liberatori Urbis (liberator of the city).
The relief on the other side of the central bay (fig. 25) is unusual because it combines two scenes that are separated by time and space. Trajan stands between Roma (or Virtus) and Victory, who is about to place a wreath on his head. Immediately behind Victory, Roman soldiers on horseback trample and defeat wavy-haired Dacians. Diana Kleiner notes that this conflation of adventus and battle is not seen in earlier imperial art, although it does appear in contemporary art of this and earlier periods, thus this relief marks a turning point in state art. The inscription Fundatori quietis (founder of peace) appears above the relief.
The Trajanic reliefs on the ends
of the arch, at attic level, both depict battle scenes from the series of Dacian
wars that ended in 106. The one on the east side includes
buglers, Romans on horseback, and several falling or fallen Dacians. The
western relief is of an ambush, showing that the crude weapons of the Dacians
are futile against the advanced weaponry and armor of the Romans.
Eight circular frames, each about
2.4 meters in diameter, enclose hunting scenes on the north and south faces of
the arch. Each roundel (tondo) has a
flattened bottom, apparently resulting from an attempt by the builders of the
arch to achieve a more harmonious fit on the face the arch, providing adequate
spacing between the tops of the roundels and the inscriptions above them. This
reasoning, of course, presumes that the roundels were not built specifically
for the arch. Mark Wilson Jones suggests that the distortion of the roundels
also shows that a structural proportion scheme took precedence over artistic
This may be the case, but a calculation or measurement error stemming from a
hasty engineering effort could have produced the same result regardless of
A facing in porphyry marble, a
material not used on early imperial monuments, still surrounds a pair of
roundels (figs. 27, 28). Near the roundels where the porphyry is missing,
one can easily see that the backing masonry has been chopped away. This is seen
by some as evidence that the arch was repurposed in Constantinian times. However,
this condition really indicates merely that the roundels were initially not
designed to be in their current position. Their use may have not been initially
planned at all, or their desired location or even projection from the
structure of the arch may have changed during construction of the arch.
Early twentieth century scholars, such as Sieveking and Stuart Jones concluded that the roundels originated in the Flavian period, possibly from the Gens Flavia, and that some of them were subsequently recarved under Claudius Gothicus. Their reasoning was complex, and was revealed to be overly so when Occam's razor appeared in the form of the identification of Antinous on one of the tondi, along with acknowledgment of Hadrian's fondness for hunting. The earlier scholars also saw the roundels on the south face to be carved by a different sculptor than those on the north side. This notion was dispelled by Margarete Beieber, who noted that the north and south faces of many other monuments show equivalent differences due to weathering and mold growth.
Most now agree that the original
heads of the protagonist of the roundels was Hadrian. Weathering and other
damage prevents identification of the head that replaced Hadrian's, however.
The first roundel on the north
face (fig. 26) shows a boar hunt. The figure at top left appears to be Antinous,
although in atypical clothing. The recarved emperor's head in this scene is
easily identified as
The first roundel on the south side noting that their current order may be unrelated to the order in which they appeared on an earlier monument depicts a departure for a hunt (fig. 29). Roundel 2 shows a sacrifice to Silvanus (fig. 30). Roundel 3 (fig. 31) shows the action of a bear hunt, with number 4 (fig. 32) showing sacrifice to Diana.
The two roundels on the short sides (figs. 33, 34) of the arch are substantially different from those on the north and south faces. Their circular bottom edges have not been reworked; and their style and content is different. Art historians in the early 20th century were quick to point out the poor quality of these roundels in comparison to the earlier sculptures. Modern critics acknowledge that the Constantinian artists had a less realistic style, but there is little value in assigning quality ratings to the works. Associating a decline in artistic quality with hard times in the empire is a flawed approach, as is seen by the impressionistic and veristic portraiture of the mid third century. Associating a decline in structural workmanship with hard times, on the other hand, appears to be valid.
The image on the east face
depicts Sol in his quadriga, a
four-horse chariot. The east end roundel shows Luna in her biga, a two-horse chariot. The moon image is above a section of the
giant frieze of
Despite the reference to
The frieze wraps around the lower
arch above the side passageways, highlighting significant and pivotal moment in
starts on the west side, adjacent to the Palatine Hill. This section depicts
story moves from left to right, continuing on the south side with the siege of
a city, probably
next scene (fig. 42) shows the climactic battle of the
short eastern side, now heavily damaged, shows the triumphant emperor's entry into
north side frieze begins with
Details of the Rostra and its
surroundings are clearly identifiable. The Basilica Julia can be seen on its
left side (fig. 48), with the Arch of Septimius Severus on its right. Five columns appear
directly behind the Rostra. Diana Kleiner identifies these as belonging to the
The last scene (figs. 51-53) recalls Marcus
Aurelius in the liberalitas attic
panel, overseeing the distribution of gifts to the public. Again
The spandrels above the central and side arches both contain reliefs that were carved into the already-erected arch. Four images of Victory (e.g. figs. 57, 58), each with a different seasonal genius adorn the main bay. The spandrels of the side bays have different views of the river god.
The socles are also decorated with fairly typical themes including captives being lead by Roman soldiers and Victories standing about captive enemy soldiers (figs. 63-68). LOrange was able to link the pedestal scenes to specific enemy armies. Weathering damage, mold, and the protective fencing that now encloses the arch prevent easy viewing of the details.
Structural Proportion Models
The affects of fondness for numbers on the architecture and literature of the ancient world is understated in modern analyses. Notwithstanding the fact that some of those dedicated to studying dimensional proportions in ancient monuments have a propensity to find relationships whether or not they were intended by designers, some degree of proportional sophistication has been found in the Arch of Constantine.
Mark Wilson Jones, who analyzed its
dimensions in great detail in several papers, notes for example, that the
column height is equal to the axial width of the flanks, the height of the main
passageways imposts, and the intercolumniation of the central fornix, within
the tolerance of dimensions for like features. In other words, the variation
between heights of two columns is similar to that between a column and the
height of the central passages imposts. Other primary dimensions occur in
ratios of two to one, three to one, and three to four. For example, the base of
the columns is one half their height above the ground. The height of the
entablature is one half the length of the monument. The column height is one
third of its length. The width of the lateral fornix is two thirds of the width
of the central fornix. All of the above ratios are accurate to a tolerance of
about one percent. Readers interested in a thorough analysis of arithmetic
ratios and geometrical schemes proposed for this monument should consult recent
works by Mark Wilson Jones.
Some proportion ratios found in the structure
Readers interested in the life of
and Eusebius (1981)
by Timothy D. Barnes
by H. A. Drake (2002)
(Note that Drake and Barnes have reached very different conclusions)
by Samuel N. C. Lieu (Editor), Dominic Montserrat (Editor) (2005)
of Constantine (Vita Constantina)
(Clarendon Ancient History Series)
by Eusebius, with introduction by Averil Cameron and Stuart Hall
An extremely useful reference to
ancient texts that deal with Constantine is the
prolegomena of Ernest Cushing
Richardson's 1890 translation of Vita Constantina. It is available online
at the Christian Classics Ethereal Library.
Many books on Roman ruins and history of art discuss the Arch of Constantine. Several of these appear in the footnotes for this page. Be aware that many of the classics that deal with Roman art history contain outdated information on the arch. Two current books that I recommend highly are:
Sculpture (Yale Publications in the History of Art) (1994)
by Diana E. E. Kleiner
(This is by far the best and most complete guide to Roman sculpture in existence, and does not suffer at all from the obtuse language plaguing much of the art history world.)
and Transformation: Damnatio Memoriae and Roman Imperial Portraiture (2004)
by Eric R Varner
Recommended online sources:
Rene Seindal's Photo Archive
 Eusebius, Vita Constantini 1.8 and 4.53
 Zonaras, Compendium of History 12.33
 Whether wife or mistress is disputed, and is the subject of many modern papers.
 Panegyrici Latini 6 (ed. Baehrens, Mynors)
 Eusebius, Vita Constantina 1. 28-29
Rubenstein (When Jesus Became God
Harcourt Inc. 1999, p.70) expresses this well: A good emperor would find
himself compelled to choose between losing heaven and losing power
 I am not citing pagan imagery on coinage as a basis for this. Baynes (Constantine the Great and the Christian Church, 1972, ISBN-13: 978-0197256725) and others have shown that coin imagery is not a reliable indicator of the emperor's beliefs.
G. Elliott "The Language of
 Manicheanism is specifically addressed as being banned in the Codex Theodosianus, although in chapters attributed to Valentinian and Valens.
 H. A.
Drake. Book Review:
 H. A.
Constantine and the Bishops: The
Politics of Intolerance,
 See Michele
R. Salzman's "'Superstitio' in the Codex Theodosianus and the Persecution of
Pagans" (Vigiliae Christianae, Vol. 41, No. 2. Jun., 1987, pp. 172-188) for a
discussion of apologetics/polemics and the gradual transition under
Barnes. Constantine and
 Eunapius, as brought forth by Zosimus, Historia Nova
"The Last Days of
 Conversio Constantini in the Actus Sylvestr. The book, Il battesimo di Costantino il Grande. Storia di una scomoda eredit by Marilena Amerise, (Hermes Zeitschrift fr klassische Philologie, Einzel-schriften, Heft 95) examines this at length. Timothy Barnes gives this book a very negative review on the basis of poor scholarship. Jan Willem Drijvers is less negative, but finds its main argument unconvincing. Both reviewers agree that the topic warrants more investigation.
 While it is inaccurate to say that there was no distinction between religion and politics in late imperial times, it is worth noting that the boundary was less solid and drawn differently than today's separation from church and state in modern government.
Lanciani Pagan and Christian Rome,
Houghton, Mifflin and Company,
 H. P. L'Orange; A. von Gerkan. Der Spatantike Bildschmuck des Konstantinsbogens 1939. ISBN: 3110022494
 Linda Jones Hall reads the same evidence as indicating intentional ambiguity: "Cicero's instinctu divino and Constantine's instinctu divinitatis : The Evidence of the Arch of Constantine for the Senatorial View of the "Vision" of Constantine". Journal of Early Christian Studies 6.4 (1998) pp. 647-671.
 Wegner, M. Archologischer Anzeige,. 1938 col. 155.
 A. L.
Frothingham. "Who Built the Arch of
Cagiano de Azevedo citation in Eric. R. Varner: Mutilation and Transformation.
Damnatio Memoriae and Roman Imperial Portraiture.
 Sydney Dean, Editor. Journal of American Archaeology. July-December, 1920. Archaeological News reports that in Bulletino della Commissione archeologica comunale di Roma, C. Gradara published an excerpt for the diary of Pietro Bracci in which Bracci states that he carved new heads for the emperors and other figures in the attic reliefs, along with new heads and hands for seven of the Dacian captives and one completely new Dacian.
 As reported by Platner in his topic on Arcus Constantini.
 Inez Scott Ryberg. Panel Reliefs of Marcus Aurelius (Monographs on archaeology and the fine arts, 14) 1967. ASIN: B0006BQ1JW
Per Gustaf Hamberg
Studies in Roman Imperial Art Almquist,
 Karl Lehmann Review of Studies in Roman Imperial Art, in The Art Bulletin, Vol. 29, No. 2. (Jun., 1947), pp. 136-139.
Toynbee maintains that this god is Virtus, not Roma, on the basis that Roma
Stuart Jones. Notes on Roman Historical Sculptures
Papers of the
Sellers Strong (Mrs. Arthur Strong)
Sculpture from Augustus to Constantine, Duckworth and Co.
Eric Varner. Mutilation and Transformation. Damnatio Memoriae and Roman Imperial
Bellori Veteres Arcus Augustorum Triumphis Insignes Ex reliquiis quae Romae
adhuc supersunt cum imaginibus triumphalibus restituti.
Mark Wilson Jones. "Genesis and Mimesis:
The Design of the Arch of
Stuart Jones "The Relief Medallions of the Arch of
Claudius Gothicus did have a number of Flavian sculptures recut in his
 M Bieber. Mitteilungen des Deutshen Archaeologischen Instituts, Roemische Abteilung. 1911, p. 214.
 See for example Richard Brilliant's bizarre proposal for a geometric design scheme for the Arch of Septimius Severus, which involves dozens of intersecting arcs.
Wilson Jones. See note 43. Also:
"Principles of Design in Roman Architecture: the setting out of centralized
Papers of the
1/18/2007 - Originally posted on www.bstorage.com
3/16/08 - Moved to rome101.com with minor edits
10/31/08 - Minor punctuation changes, typos corrected.