Imperial Representation in Rome and Persia

The key theme of this workshop concerned the phenomenon of imperial representation, a topic as relevant today as in antiquity. In any empire, the ruler needed to represent and legitimise his power in a visual language. This visualisation had to be distinct from anyone else and simultaneously still be comprehensible to large groups of people who all had different ideas of rulership and its signifiers.

The following topics were discussed during the workshop:

Ian MacGregor Morris (Innsbruck) argued that Achaemenid royal inscriptions of Darius I and Xerxes I strategically balanced multiple audiences by framing royal authority through the rejection of falsehood and openness to interpretation, later influencing Jewish and Greek receptions.

Raphael Szeider (Innsbruck) argued that Hadrian maintained his position as princeps by continuously shaping policies to secure and expand support among key groups, thereby protecting his rule and legacy.

Clemens Steinwender (Innsbruck) showed that Sasanian royal imagery across media combined Zoroastrian religious symbolism and the cosmology of the “seven climes” to portray the Shah as a divinely sanctioned, universal ruler at the centre of the world.

Jehan Hillen (Innsbruck) argued that Justinian I stood at a turning point between fading Roman traditions and emerging Christian imagery, with the decisive Christian transformation of the Byzantine imperial image occurring only after his reign.

Olivier Hekster (Radboud) argued that Roman imperial representations are often over-rationalised by historians, obscuring their potentially arbitrary nature as expressions of brutal autocratic power and their lived experience as propaganda similar to modern repressive regimes.