demonstrate that the double flute played by the tibicenmust have been the most
important instrument of Roman cult. They also show that the sacrifice itself was closely
linked – both temporally and spatially – to the musical accompaniment. This fact is
strengthened by literary sources. Here flute-players are mentioned time and again in
context with sacrifices of wine and incense; the musician is standing behind or next
to the altar. In order to describe this, Pliny uses in his Naturalis historia(22.11)
the formula that is fixed in Roman literature:.. .immolasse ad tibicinem foculo posito.
The imagery is at the same time universal and specific. If it appears on an altar,
consecrated in the sanctuary of a god, there is no doubt that the sequence depicted
was part of the ritual honoring the specific god. The specific meaning was gained
either through the inscription or through the context of installation. The image itself,
however, was multi-functional; it could adequately represent the ritual in different
circumstances. The sacrifice on the altar itself was a ritual necessity, while proces-
sions and feasts could be performed with different degrees of extravagance or not
performed at all. Altar, sacrificing togatus capite velato, and tibicenare therefore the
most basic, universally valid image of ritual action. They could be used to represent
all religious rituals containing the sacrifice at the altar as a central element. At the
same time, this depiction doubtless underlines the importance of music in the form
of flute-playing in this phase of the ritual (Suet. Tiberius70.6). The musician is even
part of this reduced imagery of religious action. A sacrificial ritual without music was
unimaginable to the ancient creator or beholder of these images.
More detailed depictions of ritual action are possible. A pre-sacrifice was to be
performed at more elaborate animal sacrifices. In its ritual sequence it corresponds
to the libation, the pouring of liquids. Thus, their visual representation is the same.
By the inclusion of cult personnel, sacrificial animals, and other elements the altar
scene is stretched out into the phase of the actual animal sacrifice. Because of this
combination of non-synchronous ritual sequences, such universal images become the
characteristic representations of Roman rituals. The peculiarities of visual art made
it necessary to amalgamate non-synchronous moments of a coherent sequence into
one unified scene. The contemporary beholder was able to relate the elements to the
ritual sequence familiar to him. Thus, unlike modern viewers, he was not tempted
to view these images as documentation of an actual performance of the ritual.
What was the function of the flute-player? One has once more to resort to liter-
ary sources: Pliny (Nat.28.11) assigned the ability of drowning out all disturbing
noise by his play to the tibicen. Thereby the function of the flute-player could cor-
respond to the function of the herald, requiring silence at the beginning of the sacrifice.
Besides the fact that, apparently, the flute-player did not play during the whole time
of the ritual, as is confirmed by images uniting non-synchronous moments of the
cult, there is another problem in the tradition.
Flute-playing was said to have been introduced during the early Roman royal period,
a time beyond written record. Pliny, however, explains this element of the ritual five
hundred years later. Is Pliny’s explanation valid for the time of origin or can it serve
as a general model for all those five hundred years?
In any case, Pliny offered an explanation plausible for his time. Such a procedure
is well attested for authors of the late republic or early Roman empire, who, with
258 Friederike Fless and Katja Moede