Arch of Titus

Here's an assignment I did about the Arch of Titus (for a class on the ancient history of Jerusalem):

    The Arch of Titus in Rome is an example of ancient ideas and questions of geopolitics regarding Jerusalem that subsist in today’s era. It also problematizes the question of perspective and the gaze onto Jerusalem, both internal and external. Built in c. 81 AD, the arch honors the Roman Emperor Titus’s deification as well as his victory over the Jewish Rebellion in Judea. Its panels depict the events of the procession following the victory. Notably, it is one of the few contemporary depictions of artifacts from Herod’s Temple, in particular the menorah, which would go on to serve as the model for the one used as the emblem of the state of Israel. The arch is particularly interesting because it is still standing.

    To look at the Arch of Titus is to look at a symbol: a symbol first of the prowess of the Roman Empire, of the deification of an Emperor, then as a model for many subsequent triumphal arches (such as the Arc de Triomphe in Paris), then as a symbol of the Jewish diaspora, and finally a symbol, when considering its menorah as model for the Israeli national emblem, of a Jewish hope to return to Judea from exile, but also of how this hope realizes itself in the world of today in the context of an Israeli government.

    To see many symbols in one object is the responsibility of trying to understand them all, as well as negotiate and eventually reconcile them. For instance, one might consider its representation of the greatness of the Roman Empire with the monuments that it inspired. The Arch of Titus offers a representation of an empire that was mighty and powerful. Arches inspired by it, however, represent a certain national independence, as in the Arc de Triomphe (evoking the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic wars) or the Washington Square Arch (evoking the inauguration of George Washington and, by extension, the American Revolution). That the Arch of Titus was more or less anachronistically adapted to these ends naturally raises a certain irony: firstly, that the original arch was about empire rather than independence, and secondly, that the city which it depicts is today contested and by many perspectives not considered “independent” or “free.” The arch reveals much about the way that the perception of Jerusalem has changed over time, and can inform the way we think about the city today.

    We must also consider the Arch in its religious symbols: originally as one of the deification of a Roman Emperor, then of the Jewish diaspora. Originally, many Jewish customs were intended to function only in Jerusalem. As Jerusalem became more Christian, Judaism was forced to spread outside of the city, so as not to be entirely eradicated. After the Roman conquest, all jews were forbidden residence within the city. This emphasized the need for Jewish faith and loyalty to God to remain strong, even outside of Jerusalem. Because Jerusalem is so special, it is often othered. Its relevance today is in the Jewish diaspora. 

    Looking at the Arch today, we consider the many wars that took place in Jerusalem. We also think about nationalism: at the time, a certain Roman nationalism, now an Israeli nationalism. It shows Jerusalem gaining a relevancy not just religiously, but politically. Why would an arch in Rome implement ‘Jewish’ symbols, such as the menorah? For the Roman Empire, the event was significant not only because of religious disagreement but because, at that point, it was seen as a strong political victory.  

    Its symbols were taken out of context, adapted. What it initially represented is no longer the case. Even fundamentally, as viewers from a so-called modern world, the might of the Empire it depicts appears small compared to the world of today: though we may attempt to appropriate a contemporaneous view to the artifacts we examine, our biases (historical or otherwise) are inexorable from interpretation. We can think about this decontextualization in terms of what this monument represents in terms of its depiction of a location other than where it stands. A representation that positions Jerusalem as distant from Rome. 

    Finally, the Arch of Titus should be considered in its respect as a historical artifact aside from the details of its existence. Looking at a historical artifact highlights the distance between (or perhaps proximity) its time and that of the beholder. When we look at a historical artifact today, it automatically becomes symbolic; meaningful in a grander perspective of a narrative we struggle to write in an attempt to document and understand all which preceded us. By virtue of time, to look at an artifact today is not to look at this same object in its contemporary time; in a sense, it is no longer the same object at all. The issue becomes, then, how to fit an artifact into this narrative and, at the same time, allow it to exist independently of it. Perhaps this is a question that can be evoked in greater discussions about the contest of Jerusalem, which often tirelessly concern themselves with historical examples without reaching adequate conclusions. 

    Jerusalem has been throughout history and remains one of the most contested cities in the world. To me, this arch  tells a different story: it proves that Jerusalem belongs to everyone, and that it is impossible to take ownership over a holy city, and a place of such historical importance. 

It complicates our understanding of Jerusalem and its history. It is yet another artifact that can uncover some truth about Jerusalem, but was also certainly made through a certain perspective and with its own biases.