oa Short-Term Phenomena and Long-Lasting Places: The Altars of the Lares Augusti and the Compita in the Streets of Ancient Rome

References

1. Andrews, M. M. and H. I. Flower. 2015. ‘Mercury on the Esquiline: A Reconsideration of a Local Shrine Restored by Augustus’, American Journal of Archaeology, 119: 47–67.
   [Google Scholar]
2. Appadurai, A. (ed.). 1986. The Social Life of Things: Commodities in Cultural Perspective, Cambridge Studies in Social and Cultural Anthropology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
   [Google Scholar]
3. Batty, M. 2012. ‘Building a Science of Cities’, Cities, 29: 9–16.
   [Google Scholar]
4. Binford, L. R. 1968. ‘Some Comments on Historical versus Processual Archaeology’, Southwestern Journal of Anthropology, 24: 267–75.
   [Google Scholar]
5. Boschung, D. 1987. Antike Grabaltäre aus den Nekropolen Roms (Bern: Stämpfli).
   [Google Scholar]
6. Boschung, D.. 1993. Die Bildnisse des Augustus, Das römische Herscherbild, 1 (Berlin: Mann).
   [Google Scholar]
7. Buxton, B. A. 2014. ‘New Reading of the Belvedere Altar’, American Journal of Archaeology, 118: 91–111.
   [Google Scholar]
8. Callon, M. 1980. ‘Struggles and Negotiations to Define What Is Problematic and What Is Not: The Sociology of Translation’, in K. D. Knorr, R. Krohn, and R. D. Whitley (eds), The Social Process of Scientific Investigation, Sociology of the Sciences Yearbook, 4 (Dordrecht: Reidel), pp. 197–219.
   [Google Scholar]
9. Callon, M. and B. Latour. 1981. ‘Unscrewing the Big Leviathan; or How Actors Macro-structure Reality, and How Sociologists Help Them to Do So’, in K. Knorr-Cetina and A. V. Cicourel (eds), Advances in Social Theory and Methodology (London: Routledge), pp. 277–303.
   [Google Scholar]
10. Cante, M. 2013. ‘Meta Sudans Augustea: Note per uns sua ricostruzione’, Thiasos, 2: 21–37.
    [Google Scholar]
11. Colini, A. M. 1961–1962. ‘Compitum Acili’, Bullettino della Commissione archeologica comunale di Roma, 78: 147–57.
    [Google Scholar]
12. Colini, A. M.. 1970–1971. ‘Ara dedicata alla Concordia Augusta nel Foro Boario’, Pontificia accademia romana di archeologia, 43: 55–70.
    [Google Scholar]
13. Cressedi, G. 1984. ‘Il Foro Boario e il Velabro’, Bullettino della Commissione archeologica comunale di Roma, 89: 249–96.
    [Google Scholar]
14. De Angeli, S. 2001. ‘L’annua stips e i pretiosissima deorum simulacra di Augusto. Un caso di rinnovo dei luoghi e delle immagini di culto a Roma in età augustea’, Daidalos, 3: 185–208.
    [Google Scholar]
15. Dondin-Payre, M. 1987. ‘Topographie et propagande gentilice: le compitum Acilium et l’origine des Acilii Glabriones’, in École française de Rome (ed.), L’Urbs: espace urbain et histoire (ier siècle av. J.-C. – iiie siècle ap. J.-C.); actes du colloque international de Rome (8–12 mai 1985), Collection de l’École française de Rome, 98 (Rome: École française de Rome), pp. 87–109.
    [Google Scholar]
16. Flambard, J.-M. 1981. ‘Collegia Compitalicia. Phénomène associatif, cadres territoriaux et cadres civiques dans le monde romain à l’époque républicaine’, Ktèma, 6: 143–66.
    [Google Scholar]
17. Flower, H. 2017. The Dancing Lares and the Serpent in the Garden: Religion at the Roman Street Corner (Princeton: Princeton University Press).
    [Google Scholar]
18. Galinsky, K. 1996. Augustan Culture: An Interpretive Introduction (Princeton: Princeton University Press).
    [Google Scholar]
19. Gatti, G. 1888a. ‘Di un sacello compitale dell’antichissima regione Esquilina’, Bullettino della Commissione archeologica comunale di Roma, 16: 221–39.
    [Google Scholar]
20. Gatti, G.. 1888b. ‘Scoperte recentissime’, Bullettino della Commissione archeologica comunale di Roma, 16: 327–34.
    [Google Scholar]
21. Gatti, G.. 1889. ‘L’Ara marmorea del vicus Aesculeti’, Bullettino della Commissione archeologica comunale di Roma, 17: 69–72.
    [Google Scholar]
22. Gatti, G.. 1906. ‘Ara marmoreal del Vicus Statae Matris’, Bullettino della Commissione archeologica comunale di Roma, 34: 186–208.
    [Google Scholar]
23. Gell, A. 1986. ‘Newcomers to the World of Goods: Consumption among the Muria Gonds’, in A. Appadurai (ed.), The Social Life of Things: Commodities in Cultural Perspective, Cambridge Studies in Social and Cultural Anthropology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), pp. 110–38.
    [Google Scholar]
24. Gell, A.. 1998. Art and Agency: An Anthropological Theory (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
    [Google Scholar]
25. Gesemann, B. 1998. ‘Die vici Luccei. Ein Beitrag zur Topographie von Rom’, Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Römische Abteilung, 105: 391–401.
    [Google Scholar]
26. Gosden, C. and Y. Marshall. 1999. ‘The Cultural Biography of Objects’, World Archaeology, 31: 169–78.
    [Google Scholar]
27. Gruterus, J., J. J. Scaliger, and M. Welser (eds). 1602. Inscriptiones antiquae totius orbis Romani in corpus absolutissimum redactae (Strasbourg: Commelin).
    [Google Scholar]
28. Hahn, H.-P. 2015. ‘Vom Eigensinn der Dinge – Einleitung’, in H.-P. Hahn (ed.), Vom Eigensinn der Dinge: Für eine neue Perspektive auf die Welt des Materiellen (Berlin: Neofelis), pp. 1–55.
    [Google Scholar]
29. Hahn, H.-P. and H. Weiss. 2013. ‘Introduction: Biographies, Travels and Itineraries of Things’, in H.-P. Hahn and H. Weiss (eds), Mobility, Meaning and Transformation of Things: Shifting Contexts of Material Culture through Time and Space (Oxford: Oxbow), pp. 1–14.
    [Google Scholar]
30. Hano, M. 1986. ‘A l’origine du culte imperial: les autels des Lares Augusti. Recherches sur les thèmes iconographiques et leur signification’, in W. Haase and H. Temporini (eds), Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt, ii 16.3 (Berlin: De Gruyter), pp. 2333–81.
    [Google Scholar]
31. Hodder, I. 2012. Entangled: An Archaeology of the Relationships between Humans and Things (Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell).
    [Google Scholar]
32. Hofmann, K. P. 2016. ‘Dinge als historische Quellen in Revision: Materialität, Spuren und Geschichten’, in K. P. Hofmann and et al. (eds), Massendinghaltung in der Archäologie: Der Material Turn und die Ur- und Frühgeschichte (Leiden: Sidestone), pp. 283–307.
    [Google Scholar]
33. Hofmann, K. P. and S. Schreiber. 2011. ‘Mit Lanzette durch den practical turn. Zum Wechselspiel zwischen Mensch und Ding aus archäologischer Perspektive’, Ethnographisch-Archäologische Zeitschrift, 52.2: 163–87.
    [Google Scholar]
34. Hölscher, T. 1984. ‘Beobachtungen zu römischen historischen Denkmälern II. 4. Ein Larenaltar von Frauen’, Archäologischer Anzeiger, 1984: 281–94.
    [Google Scholar]
35. Hölscher, T.. 1988. ‘Altäre für die Lares Augusti’, in W. D. Heilmeyer, E. La Rocca, and H. G. Martin (eds), Kaiser Augustus und die verlorene Republik: Eine Ausstellung im Martin-Gropius-Bau, Berlin 7. Juni-14. August 1988 (Mainz: Von Zabern), pp. 390–96.
    [Google Scholar]
36. Holtorf, C. 1998. ‘The Life History of Megaliths in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern (Germany)’, World Archaeology, 30: 23–38.
    [Google Scholar]
37. Hoskins, J. 2006. ‘Agency, Biography and Objects’, in C. Tilley and et al. (eds), Handbook of Material Culture (London: Sage), pp. 74–84.
    [Google Scholar]
38. Hülsen, C. 1889. ‘Jahresbericht über Neue Funde und Forschungen zur Topographie der Stadt Rom 1887–1889’, Römische Mitteilungen, 4: 227–91.
    [Google Scholar]
39. Ingold, T. 2010. Bringing Things to Life: Creative Entanglements in a World of Materials, NCRM Working Paper Series, Realities/Morgan Centre for Research Methods, 15 (Manchester: University of Manchester) <http://eprints.ncrm.ac.uk/1306/1/0510_creative_entanglements.pdf> [accessed 28 June 2018].
    [Google Scholar]
40. Joy, J. 2009. ‘Reinvigorating Object Biography: Reproducing the Drama of Object Lives’, World Archaeology, 41: 540–56.
    [Google Scholar]
41. Jung, M. 2012. ‘“Objektbiographie” oder “Verwirklichung objektiver Möglichkeiten”? Zur Nutzung und Umnutzung eines Steinbeiles aus der Côte d’Ivoire’, in H. Lasch and B. Ramminger (eds), Hunde – Menschen – Artefakte: Gedenkschrift für Gretel Gallay, Internationale Archäologie: Studia honoraria, 3 (Rahden: Leidorf), pp. 375–83.
    [Google Scholar]
42. Jung, M.. 2015. ‘Das Konzept der Objektbiographie im Lichte einer Hermeneutik materieller Kultur’, in D. Boschung, P. A. Kreuz, and T. Kienlin (eds), Biography of Objects: Aspekte eines kulturhistorischen Konzepts (Paderborn: Fink), pp. 35–65.
    [Google Scholar]
43. Kopytoff, I. 1986. ‘The Cultural Biography of Things: Commoditization as Process’, in A. Appadurai (ed.), The Social Life of Things: Commodities in Cultural Perspective, Cambridge Studies in Social and Cultural Anthropology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), pp. 64–91.
    [Google Scholar]
44. Latour, B. 1999. ‘On Recalling ANT’, in J. Law and J. Hassard (eds), Actor Network Theory and After (Oxford: Blackwell), pp. 1–26.
    [Google Scholar]
45. Latour, B.. 2007. ‘The Recall of Modernity’, Cultural Studies Review, 13: 11–30.
    [Google Scholar]
46. Leone, A. and D. Palombi. 2008. ‘Mercurio Sobrio tra Africa e Roma’, Archeologia classica, 59: 409–33.
    [Google Scholar]
47. Lott, J. B. 2004. The Neighborhoods of Augustan Rome (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
    [Google Scholar]
48. Malmberg, S. 2009. ‘Finding your Way in the Subura’, in M. Driessen and et al. (eds), TRAC 2008: Proceedings of the Eighteenth Annual Theoretical Roman Archaeology Conference, Amsterdam 2008 (Oxford: Oxbow), pp. 39–51.
    [Google Scholar]
49. Mancini, G. 1935. ‘Fasti consolari e censorii ed elenco di vicomagistri rinvenuti in Via Marmorata’, Bullettino della Commissione archeologica comunale di Roma, 63: 35–79.
    [Google Scholar]
50. Miller, D. 1998. Material Cultures: Why Some Things Matter (London: UCL Press).
    [Google Scholar]
51. Mitchell, W. J. T. 2005. What Do Pictures Want? The Lives and Loves of Images (Chicago: University of Chicago Press).
    [Google Scholar]
52. Modonesi, D. 1995. Museo Maffeiano: iscrizioni e rilievi sacri latini, Studia Archaeologica, 75 (Rome: L’Erma di Bretschneider).
    [Google Scholar]
53. Moede, K. 2007. ‘Relief: Public and Private’, in J. Rüpke (ed.), A Companion to Roman Religion (Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell), pp. 164–75.
    [Google Scholar]
54. Panciera, S. 1980. ‘Nuovi luoghi di culto a Roma dalla testimonianze epigrafiche’, in S. Quilici Gigli (ed.), Archeologia Laziale, iii: terzo incontro di studi del Comitato per l’archeologia laziale (Rome: Consiglio nazionale delle ricerche), pp. 202–13.
    [Google Scholar]
55. Panciera, S.. 1987. ‘Ancora tra epigrafia e topografia’, in École française de Rome (ed.), L’Urbs: espace urbain et histoire (i^er siècle av. J.-C. – iii^e siècle ap. J.-C.): actes du colloque international de Rome (8–12 mai 1985), Collection de l’École française de Rome, 98 (Rome: École française de Rome), pp. 161–86.
    [Google Scholar]
56. Panciera, S.. 2006. Epigrafi, epigrafia, epigrafisti: scritti vari editi e inediti (1956–2005) con note complementari e indici (Rome: Quasar).
    [Google Scholar]
57. Plattner, S. 1929. Topographical Dictionary of Ancient Rome (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
    [Google Scholar]
58. Polito, E. 2012. ‘L’Arte augustea negli studi attuali: una nota’, in M. Castiglione and A. Poggio (eds), Arte-Potere: forme artistiche, istituzioni, paradigmi interpretative: atti del convegno di studio tenuto a Pisa, Scuola Normale Superiore, 25–27 Novembre 2010 (Milan: Edizioni Universitarie di Lettere Economia Diritto), pp. 339–41.
    [Google Scholar]
59. Pollini, J. 1987. The Portraiture of Lucius and Gaius Caesar (New York: Fordham University Press).
    [Google Scholar]
60. Pollini, J.. 2012. From Republic to Empire: Rhetoric, Religion, and Power in the Visual Vulture of Ancient Rome (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press).
    [Google Scholar]
61. Renfrew, C., M. J. Rowlands, and B. A. Segraves (eds). 1982. Theory and Explanation in Archaeology: The Southampton Conference (New York: Academic Press).
    [Google Scholar]
62. Rieger, A.-K. 2016. ‘Waste Matters: Life Cycle and Agency of Pottery Employed in Greco-Roman Sacred Spaces’, Religion in the Roman Empire, 2: 307–39.
    [Google Scholar]
63. Rieger, A.-K.. 2018. ‘Imagining the Absent and Perceiving the Present: An Interpretation of Material Remains of Divinities from the Rock Sanctuary at Caesarea Philippi (Gaulanitis)’, in M. Arnhold, H. O. Maier, and J. Rüpke (eds), Seeing the God: Image, Space, Performance, and Vision in the Religion of the Roman Empire (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck), pp. 27–58.
    [Google Scholar]
64. Rowlands, M. J. 1982. ‘Processual Archaeology as Historical Social Science’, in C. Renfrew, M. J. Rowlands, and B. Segraves (eds), Theory and Explanation in Archaeology: The Southampton Conference (New York: Academic Press), pp. 155–74.
    [Google Scholar]
65. Rüpke, J. 1998. ‘Les archives de petits collèges: le cas des vicomagistri’, in C. Moatti (ed.), La mémoire perdue: recherches sur l’administration romaine (Rome: École française de Rome), pp. 27–44.
    [Google Scholar]
66. Rüpke, J.. 2005. Fasti sacerdotium: Die Mitglieder der Priesterschaften und das sakrale Funktionspersonal römischer, griechischer, orientalischer und jüdisch-christlicher Kulte in der Stadt Rom von 300 v. Chr. bis 499 n. Chr. (Stuttgart: Steiner).
    [Google Scholar]
67. Rüpke, J.. 2014. ‘Historicizing Religion: Varro’s Antiquitates and History of Religion in the Late Roman Republic’, History of Religions, 53: 246–68.
    [Google Scholar]
68. Scheid, J. 2005. ‘Augustus and Roman Religion: Continuity, Conservatism, and Innovation’, in K. Galinsky (ed.), Cambridge Companion to the Age of Augustus (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), pp. 175–96.
    [Google Scholar]
69. Schraudolph, E. 1993. Römische Götterweihungen mit Reliefschmuck aus Italien (Heidelberg: Verlag Archäologie und Geschichte).
    [Google Scholar]
70. Severy, B. 2003. Augustus and the Family at the Birth of the Roman Empire (London: Routledge).
    [Google Scholar]
71. Stek, T. D. 2008. ‘A Roman Cult in the Italian Countryside: The Compitalia and the Shrines of the Lares Compitales’, BABESCH: Annual Papers on Mediterranean Archaeology, 83: 111–32.
    [Google Scholar]
72. Tamassia, A. M. 1961–1962. ‘Iscrizioni del compitum Acili’, Bullettino della Commissione archeologica comunale di Roma, 78: 158–63.
    [Google Scholar]
73. Tarpin, M. 2002. Vici et pagi dans l’Occident romain, Collection de l’École française de Rome, 299 (Rome: École française de Rome).
    [Google Scholar]
74. Wallace-Hadrill, A. 2003a. ‘Domus and Insulae in Rome: Families and Housefuls’, in D. L. Balch and C. Osiek (eds), Early Christian Families in Context: An Interdisciplinary Dialogue (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans), pp. 3–18.
    [Google Scholar]
75. Wallace-Hadrill, A.. 2003b. ‘The Streets of Rome’, in L. de Blois and et al. (eds), The Representation and Perception of Imperial Power: Proceedings of the Third Workshop of the International Network Impact of Empire, Netherlands Institute in Rome, March 2002 (Amsterdam: Gieben), pp. 189–206.
    [Google Scholar]
76. Zanker, P. 1969. ‘Der Larenaltar im Belvedere des Vaticans’, Römische Mitteilungen, 76: 205–18.
    [Google Scholar]
77. Zanker, P.. 1970–1971. ‘Über die Werkstätten augusteischer. Larenaltäre und damit zusammenhängende. Probleme der Interpretation’, Bullettino della Commissione archeologica comunale di Roma, 82: 147–55.
    [Google Scholar]
78. Zanker, P.. 1987. Augustus und die Macht der Bilder (Munich: Beck).
    [Google Scholar]
79. Zeggio, S. and G. Pardini. 2007. ‘Roma – Meta Sudans. I monumenti. Lo scavo. La storia’, The Journal of Fasti Online <http://www.fastionline.org/docs/FOLDER-it-2007-99.pdf> [accessed 28 June 2018].
    [Google Scholar]