MyTH, History AND CULTURE IN REPUBLICAN ROME Studies in honour of TP Wiseman edited by David Braund & Christopher Gill udu EXETER PRESS2 Remoria FILIPPO COARELLI Why Remus? To ask the question is pethaps already to begin to answer it. However, in the first monograph dedicated to the younger of the twins Peter Wiseman (1995) has proceeded far beyond a beginning: now that we have his work it will no longer be possible to read again with the same eyes as before the traditional story of the foundation of Rome. One point in particular, and of the first importance, seems to me to have been established (thanks to Wiseman’s ic critical re-examination of the sources), namely the relatively late chronology of the introduction of Remus. Wiseman has also given us the political explanation of such ‘invention’, connecting it with the definitive victory of the plebs between the end of the fourth century and early years of the third century BC. No doubt, there will be cause in future to return to one or another part of this analysis, but here I would like to restrict myself to a particular issue which, given its essentially topographical character, is perhaps closer both to my interests and, more important, to my sphere of competence. Starting from the hypothesis of an identification which is different from that of Wiseman, it seems to me, indeed, that one might develop further the argument which, in my view, constitutes one of the most notable parts of Wiseman's book, namely his discussion of the mirror depicting the wolf and the twins, entailing an old and neglected hypothesis of Schwegler, recently taken up again by TJ. Cornell.! 1. Schwegler 1853, 434-5; Comell 1975. On the mirror, Adam and Briquel 1982: but I do not see why this must be a product of Praenestine craftmanship, and not Roman, given also its imagery. The case of the 1 Ficoroni remains irrelevant.Filippo Coarelli 04234 5678 910k vy Ae raat vA tai! > % Fels * Ardea Figure 2.1 The ager Romanus antiguus according to Alféldi 1965Remoria B Figure 2.2 Location of the sanctuary at Magliana (from Scheid 1990) Wiseman’s identification of Remoria with the Sacred Mount rests on an argument which is ingenious and entirely in line with the political explan- ation which lies at the very heart of the whole book.? For if Remus represents the plebs, it is logical to connect him with places with which the plebs is closely linked, from the archaic secessions onwards. Indeed, one of the sites where Remoria comes to be located is in fact the Aventine.’ Therefore it seems immediately plausible to identify Remoria with the Sacred Mount. However, for all that, and although plausible in principle, such a solution faces an obstacle, to my mind decisive, in the information furnished by ancient authors on the localization of the place: that is, its distance of five miles from Rome! and its proximity to the Tibet’ The Sacred Mount has neither of these characteristics. Attempts to resolve the impasse prove forced 2. Wiseman 19953, 114-17; comera, Caran 3. Fest. 344L. (Paul. 345 L.); Plut. Rom 9.4. 4. OGR 23.1. According to DH. 1.85.6, at 30 stades: as Wiseman shows, it is a much-repeated error, For Strabo 5.3.2, the place @fjoTot is at 30 stades (if it corresponds with the sanctuary of Magliana, as | believe, it is in reality a matter of five miles). D-H. 8.36.3 locates at 30 stades a place thar for Liv. 2.39.5 is at five miles. 5. DH. 1.86.6; Ined, Vat., FGrH 839 G 1,5. 1997a, 445, n. 8.44 Filippo Coarelli TEMPLE OF DEA DIA. circus ? Figure 2.3 Location of the sanctuary of Dea Dia at Magliana (from Scheid 1990) and do not convince, partly because it is not the case, pace Wiseman (1995a, 116), that we have no other available solutions. Indeed the distance of five miles does not seem to be a casual detail: as we know, it takes us to a boundary which coincides precisely with the border of the archaic Roman territory—the ager Romanus antiquus*—and which thus seems significant on the level of Roman ‘spatial imagination’. Therefore we can fix, as a hypothesis, the position of Remoria at the intersection of an important route and the border of the archaic ager near the Tiber. Such a location can be found only in a few places: to the north of Rome, along the via Flaminia or via Salaria; or to the south along the via Ostiensis or the via Campana (Fig. 2.1). However the fifth milestone of the Salaria is definitely out of the question because it lies outside the territory of archaic Rome, and in any case coincides with the site of Fidenae. The same may be said of the via Flaminia: its fifth milestone corresponds with Tor di Quinto, in an area a little to the south of the Cremera, which forms part of the territory of Veii. The south is more encouraging: while at the fifth milestone 6. Alfoldi 1965, 296-304; Alfiildi 1962; Scheid 19873.Remoria 45 of the via Ostiensis there is nothing to suggest an ancient settlement, the situation on the via Campana is different. Here, at the fifth milestone, is located the famous grove of the goddess Dia (lucus deae Diae), presided over by the Arval Brethren? and, a little further, one of the two temples of Fors Fortuna’ (Fig. 2.2). The sanctuary of dea Dia is situated on the far slopes of a hill very close to the via Campana and to the Tiber (Fig. 2.3): a place in any case ideal for a protohistoric settlement. All the circumstances needed for Remoria are found together here; the distance from Rome, proximity to the Tiber and the presence of a hill suitable for habitation. Moreover, the modern name of the hill, ‘Colle delle Piche’, may reproduce an ancient name: a ‘Hill of Magpies’ surely suggests a connection with birds of augury. Something similar may be found not far away from here, on the Janiculum, where we have evidence of a sanctuary of dina Comisca, whose link with the practice of augury seems secure.” A neglected lemma of Festus may confirm the possible augural function of the ‘Colle delle Piche’!®: ‘Obscum has two distinct and contrary meanings . . . but by the same name is also called a place in the ager of Veii, which the Roman augurs are said to have been in the habit of using’ (Obscum duas diversas et contrarias significationes habet . .. sed eodem etiam nomine appellatur locus in agro Veienti, quo frui soliti produntur augures Romani). This part of the ager of Veii must of necessity be located inside the territory of Rome, if the augurs could go there in performance of their formal duties; the isolated nature of Festus’ notice tends to suggest a very early period. Consequently, it seems beyond doubt that we have here that specific area in the ager of Veii embraced within the ager Romanus antiquus, in which was also situated the sanctuary of Magliana, near which the Obscum mentioned by Festus ought to be located: the ‘Colle delle Piche’ seems to be a very good candidate to be the latter. Bur what could be the duties of the augurs which were carried out at this site? The only reasonable possibility, given the topographic situation, seems to be taking the auspices (auspicatio) of the ager, which was in fact one of the principal tasks of the college of augurs.'! That is to say, the place in question was located at the boundary of archaic Roman territory and, as such, constituted, in ritual terms, a crucial point of such a boundary. It seems hard to doubr the identification of this site with the sanctuary of Magliana. 7. Scheid 1990. 8. Champeaux 1982, 199-247. 9, The magpie appears in the text of the Iguvine Tables as an augural bird (Prosdocimi 1978, 644) On the Diuae Comiscae, Coarelli 1996, 23-5. 10, Fest. 204 L. 11, Mommsen 1887, 284fi; Magdelain 1968; Catalano 1978, 491-506.46 Filippo Coarelli Further, the ceremony of the Ambarualia conducted by the pontifices, according to Strabo,!? would have taken place in a location on the boundary of the more ancient territory of Rome, termed ¢fjotot. So, in this case too it is not a question of just any point on the boundary, but of a point particularly marked by the fact that it should formally represent all the other key points located along the boundary of the ager. This was the point at which took place the more significant part of the ceremonies connected with that boundary, and thus, as well as the Ambarualia, probably also the auspicatio of the ager. Again, we are taken back to the sanctuary of Dea Dia. Everything, therefore, seems to confirm the old hypothesis, today generally rejected, which holds that the locality termed fjotot is to be identified with the sanctuary of Magliana. Let us pause over Strabo's term: it is evidently a transliteration into Greek of a Latin toponym. In cases such as this the difficulties of accurate textual transmission spiral into infinity: accordingly it is probable that Strabo’s text is corrupt at this juncture, which might explain our difficulty in finding the corresponding term in Latin." Now, if our hypothesis is valid, we have the opportunity of finding that term in the word obscum in Festus, perhaps by reconstituting it in a plural form (by analogy with many comparable toponyms): obsci. We have here a toponym which, by a completely independent route, we have taken to designate the sanctuary of Magliana, or perhaps rather the ‘Colle delle Piche’ which rises above it. A transliteration into Greek would give something like 6PoKot whose conversion to dfjotot does not raise significant difficul 5 If that were so, we would be on the way to identifying the location mentioned by Festus, and thus the place appointed for the celebration of the Ambarualia,'® with the sanctuary of Magliana. As for the possible meaning of obsci, we might consider an etymological link with oscen(-inis) (from occino), the adjective which characterizes birds in augury which have a ‘singing’ nature, which could include the magpie, pica.!? The rationale for choosing the sanctuary of Dea Dia as a key location on the boundary, appointed for the auspicatio agri and the Ambarualia, is perhaps to be linked with the ordo mibuum,'® that is, with the sequence in which the tribes presented themselves in voting in the comitia. After the four urban tribes, from the Suburana to the Palatina, the rural tribes followed, beginning 12. Strabo 5. 13. eg. Scheid 1990, 442 14. Scheid 1990, 98-100. 15. We do not have a full apparatus criticus for the text of Strabo. 16. Contra, Scheid 1990, 442-51. 17. On the oscines, Fest. 214 L.; RE 2, 23324. (Wissowa); Emout and Meillet 1959, 470. 18. Cie. leg. agr. 2.79; Taylor 1960, 69%,Remoria 47 with the Romilia and concluding with the Arnensis. Accordingly the sequence was anti-clockwise: it began with the tribe located immediately across the Tiber, the Romilia, which was indeed referred to as the ‘fifth tribe’.'? We do not know the date at which this tribe was established. The fact that its name is of a gentilician origin ought normally to mean a date rather late in the course of the fifth century BC,?° but its situation within the ager Romanus Antiquus and its precedence among the rural tribes would tend to suggest, rather, an early date, indeed in the regal period. Its role as a kind of para-urban tribe, joined to the four Servian tribes, might also have kept it outside the sphere of the ‘Five on this side and across Tiber’ (Quinqueuiri cis et uls Tiberim).?! Moreover, it should also be noted that its priority with regard to the other rural tribes applied also in the census: ‘the tribe called Romilia, because they figured in the census as from the land which Romulus had taken from the people of Veii’ (Romilia tribus dicta, quod ex eo agro censebantur, quem Romulus ceperat ex Veientibus).*? Accordingly it is under- standable that the auspicatio agri and the ritual lustration of the ager Romanus (the Ambarualia) began with the Romilia. L.R. Taylor?? rook the view that the primacy of the Romilia was based on the fact that the sanctuary of the Arvals, which she considered the starting point of the Ambarualia, was located in its territory. In my view, the arguments set out above confirm such an hypothesis. All this demonstrates that the sanctuary originally enjoyed a role which went far beyond the simple duties of the Arval Brethren, at least insofar as those are attested after their Augustan restoration. Accordingly the absence in the recorded Acts of the Arvals of reference: we have been considering can no longer serve as a conclusive argument against the traditional hypothesis, which connects the sanctuary with the Ambarualia.*4 Indeed, it is probable that such ceremonies were no longer conducted at the end of the Republic:?> in any case, even if Augustus had reintroduced them, their performance would have remained outside the duties of the Arval Brethren, as seems to follow from Strabo, who evidently speaks of priests, pontifi to the ceremonies which 19, Var. LL. 5.56: ‘From this, four parts of the city also were used as names of tribes, the Suburan, the Palatine, the Esquiline, the Colline from the places; the fifth, because it was sub Roma Cheneath the walls of Rome’) was called Romilian? (ab hoc, partes quospue quattuor arbis tribes dictae, ab locis Subwrana, Palatina, Esguiina, Collin; quinta quot sub Roma, Romi), 20. Cels-Saint’ Hilaire 1995, 1294. 21. In 186 BC: Liv. 39.14.10; Pompon., Dig. 1.2.2.31-2; Pailler 1985; Sablayrolles 1996, 1621. 22. Fest. (Paul.), 331 L. 23. Taylor 1960, 75. 24. See Scheid 1990, 264, 44261. 25. Sufficient to demonstrate the point is the only available text of the Republican perio: Var. LL 5.84, with the comment of Scheid 1990, 13-17.48 Filippo Coarelli However, our particular concern is the possible identification of Remoria with the ‘Colle delle Piche’ and on that issue further help may be found in the possible link that has been established with the sanctuary of Dea Dia. In the first place, the connection between Romulus and the tribe Romilia, though the gens of that name, as suggested by Schulze,’ becomes less speculative as soon as we are in a position to link the tribe to Remoria in topographical terms. On the level of myth, the place is identified as a site of the auspicatio of the second twin, at odds with that of Romulus, which another tradition (probably later) locates on the Aventine. The present discussion allows us to understand the ritual basis (which was, certainly, there from the first) on which the myth of the two sets of concurrent auspices was constructed at the time when Remus was ‘invented’ (that is, on Wiseman’s view, around the end of the fourth century BC). In fact, a double auspicatio formed a neces- sary part of the ritual of foundation, evidently grounded in historical reality, namely that of the urbs, urban core, and that of the ager, its rural territory. The first was attributed to Romulus, the second—we may infer from the possible identification of Remoria—given to Remus. In effect, Remus is linked with the rural territory, and is accordingly external to the urban core, as is clearly expressed in the famous episode of his infraction of the first furrow, sulcus primigenius, which was to cost him his life. So with regard to the line of the ritual boundary, pomerium, Romulus is inside, Remus outside.?? The aetiological myth seems to recall a binary ritual, namely the double auspicatio of the urbs and the ager, both connected with the foundation of the city. An essential clue, pointing in the same direction, comes from another passage of Festus, albeit only available to us in Paul’s summary:?* ‘those sacrifical victims are called Ambaruales which used to be sacrificed for the fields by the two brethren’ (Ambaruales hostiae appellantur, quae pro aruis a duobus fratribus sacrificabantur). The celebration of the Ambarualia by only two fratves has naturally provoked emendations, twelve (duodecim), or radical improvement by deletion of the text: yet those who prefer to retain the transmitted text are correct to do so,” not least in view of the fact that perhaps the fratres Aruales were not in charge of the sacrifice, at least in the Principate. One might also take the view that originally the number of Arvals was smaller, as occurred elsewhere with better-known colleges, such as the augurs or the Fifteen for the performance of sacred rites, Quindecemuiri sacris faciundis.*° In any case, given the upshot of the present discussion, 6. Schulze 1904, 579-81. 7. Briquel 1980, 294 8. Fest. (Paul.) 5 L. of play in Scheid 1990, 26-35. 30. The augurs, as we know, developed from three members to sixteen. The origi Performance of Sacred Rites became thereafter Ten and finally Fifteen. | Two for the50 Filippo Coarelli seems to me that, at least at the level of myth, it would be hard not to see in these two fratres the very founders of Rome, who, again, are to be placed at the origin of a rite connected with the ager, and this also with the sanctuary of Magliana.*! Having reached this stage we are ready to tackle the famous foundation- myth of the college, which sets out inter alia the reason why the Arvals are the only Roman priests to be called fratres, or ‘brothers’. The story goes that originally there were twelve sons of Acca Larentia, one of whom died and was replaced by Romulus.*? After all that has been discussed above, it seems to me hard to maintain the radical undervaluation of this myth, which has been regarded from Mommsen onwards as an invention of the late annalists.* While there is no doubt that, in the form in which it has come down to us, the myth is a relatively recent version, it also displays within it a complex stratigraphy, whose lowest level certainly reaches down to a distinctly earlier period. Following Wiseman, a later element is the very presence of Remus, which could not be earlier than about 300 BC. Perhaps later still is the presence of Romulus alone, with no Remus, beside the twelve Arvals. If there were originally two Arvals, we may suppose that in a first phase of the myth there was a double substitution, namely that of Romulus and Remus for two sons of Acca Larentia. Now, such a double adoption looks exactly like an operation designed to bring into an earlier myth, centred on Acca Larentia and her two sons, a later myth which replaces the latter with two adoptive sons, namely Romulus and Remus. The date of that amalgamation may now be placed around 300 BC, so that the earlier phase can only be anterior to that date, and probably belongs to the archaic period. The third version of the myth, which is the one that has come down to us, in which Romulus replaces one of the twelve sons of Acca Larentia, is therefore still more recent and constitutes in effect a reworking of the late annalistic tradition, as we know: The whole process seems strongly indicative of the mechanisms by which the traditional narratives of the birth of Rome were formed and developed. They were never one-off, arbitrary, ‘inventions’ that would be completely incompatible with Roman patterns of thought. Those permitted invention only through reinvention and a recycling of elements which already existed, while keeping faith, at least formally, with the immutable and authority-laden ‘examples of the ancestors’ (exempla maiorum). It remains now to identify and examine the ‘original elements’ which, as we have seen, coincide with a myth centred upon ‘Acca Larentia and her 31. Alfildi 1965, 299 n. 1. 32. Scheid 1990, 2524f, 33. Gell. 7.7.8 ( from Masurius Sabinus): Plin, NH 18.6. 34. Mommsen 1879, 1-20. Cf. Scheid 1990, 186Remoria 51 sons’, for whom Romulus and Remus were later substituted. But who are the ‘sons of Acca Larentia’? The answer is not particularly problematic and has been given, in a completely convincing way, by W. Otto and E. Tabeling:* the sons of Acca Larentia are the Lares, for Acca Larentia means precisely mater Larum, ‘Mother of the Lares’. That Acca equals mater is, in linguistic terms, established fact. As for Larentia, it is an adjectival form of particular antiquity, standing for the genitive of Lares.*° To insist that we have here a mother of the Larentes does not affect the point: these Larentes would in fact be Lares in their turn (according to Kretschmer, the ‘young Lares’). Further the presence of the Mater Larum is attested in the Arval acta, moreover in the context of a particular ceremony of a distinctly chthonic character.*? To separate this deity, attested in the rite, from the foundation- story, the aition of the college, centred upon Acca Larentia, seems to me to be an unjustified excess of hypercriticism, especially with a myth whose antiquity, in the form anterior to the presence of a lone Romulus, seems to me to be established. Therefore, Acca Larentia and Mater Lanum are to be identified not only in linguistic terms, but also in terms of our particular concern here, namely the mythico-ritual structure. It is worth noting that the identity of Acca Larentia—besides that of other, probably later, mythical figures, which seem to derive from her—is closely bound up with the consti- tution of the ager Romanus, through the inheritance left to Romulus.’ This part of our argument dovetails with the recent study which Wiseman has made of the mirror bearing a representation of the she-wolf and twins” (Fig. 2.4). This study leads him to propose the identification of the latter not with Romulus and Remus but with the Lares Praestites, on the grounds that four figures are present which seem to represent Hermes (Mercury) and Tacita at the top and Pan Lycaeus (that is, Faunus) and Quirinus below, evidently alluding to the myth of the birth of the Lares Praestites.4! Wiseman adds (1995a, 71): ‘This reconstruction is of course hypothetical . .. If it is right, then the mirror is no help for Remus and Romulus—or rather, it is only negative help, as providing a terminus post quem. For if the twins suckled by the she-wolf could be recognised about 340 BC as the Lares Praestites, then it is hard to imagine that the Remus and Romulus story yet existed.” 35. Onto 1913; Tabeling 1932, 39 ff. Contra, Momigliano 1969, 36. Kretschmer 1925; Tabeling 1932, 44f 37. Scheid 1990, 587-604 (whose radical scepticism on the link with Acca Larentia Ido not share), 38. Cf, most recently, Coarelli 1997, 139-48. 39. Wiseman 1995a, 65-71; Wiseman 1993; Wiseman 1995b. 40. Cappelli, 1994, 148, n. 84 prefers the identification with Latinus (followed by Carandini 1996 and Carandini 1997a, 179-81). 41. For the view which identifies the founders of Rome with the Lares Pruestites ef. n. 1 above.52 Filippo Coarelli Wiseman, pursuing his own thesis, is concerned to show that the mirror has no links with the traditional foundation-legend. My concern, however, is to explain the rather disturbing fact that the Lares Praestites come to be represented with the same iconography as would subsequently become standard for Romulus and Remus.*? In fact, it seems to me beyond doubt that, if we follow this interpretation, we must infer that from a particular moment (fixed by Wiseman around 300 BC) the founder-twins took the place of the Lares Praestites; further, that ultimately we must see in these last the original founders of the city. Consequently it is possible to project the data concerning the myth of Romulus and Remus on to the backcloth constituted by our evidence on the Lares Praestites. More generally, we have seen already, in the case of the foundation aition of the Arvals, how such a procedure allows us to explain the motives which would lead to the substitution of Romulus for one of the sons of Acca Larentia, and how indeed it may be supposed that the sub- stitution involved, at a first stage, both the twins. The Lares Praestites became in fact identified with the sons of Acca Larentia, the Mater Larum. The fact that Acca Larentia is a ‘she-wolf? has been explained by Tabeling?® through her role as a companion of the ‘wolf-god’, Faunus (who actually appears on the mirror).*# On this interpretation too, the iconography of the she-wolf which suckled the twins is seen to be an illustration of Acca Larentia (= Mater Larum), who suckled her own sons, that is the Lares Praestites. The latter's replacement by Romulus and Remus matches, in iconographical terms, the tradition which introduces the adoption of the twins by Acca: the need for such an adoption—perfectly symmetrical with that of Romulus alone in the foundation-myth of the Arvals—thus becomes entirely apparent. We have a picture of the ‘birth of Rome’ that is perfectly clear and linear and in which all the original elements fall into place. We can scrutinize, against this fundamental reference-grid, the whole of the available mythical and topographical evidence and make these data play against each other. In what sense can the Lares Praestites be the ‘founders of Rome’? The chthonic nature of the Lares,* though contested by the ‘philological’ strand of Roman religious history (and especially by Wissowa 1904 and his 42. So rendering understandable Carandini’s objection, 1996. Cf. Wiseman 1997 and again randini 1997b, 43. Tabeling 1932, 52f; 64-8, 44. The figure on the left. The beast beneath might be a wolf, not a lion, as Wiseman thinks: Carandini 1997, 180. 45. Esp. D.H. 1.79.10: Acca Larentia had given birth and her baby, having died, was replaced by the twins. 46. On which esp. Samter 1901, 105-23; Samrer 1907, 368-92; further, Orto 1913; Tabeling 1932; Mastrocinque 1993, 137-56.Remoria 53 followers), seems completely beyond doubt, as much on the grounds of the evidence furnished by ancient tradition itself as on the grounds of historico- religious comparative study. The old theory of E. Samter, which sees the Lares as ‘forbears’, has been conclusively confirmed by the discovery of the boundary-stone of Tor Tignosa, bearing the dedication lave Aenia ('... Lar Aeneas’).#7 Doubts and disputes notwithstanding, the reading seems today to have been conclusively established. In consequence, the Lares Praestites, as Lares publici, may be characterized as the ‘forbears’ of the Roman people. As such, they become protectors and defenders of the city (as their name praestites, indicates), taking up positions at the nodal points which define the urban area and the rural territory. To the principal corner of the Romulean pomerium, where their appointed cult-place was situated (together with Acca Larentia),*” corresponds accordingly the principal sanctuary of the ager, that of the Magliana, thereby confirming, inter alia, that this is the territory of the eighth century BC.°° The presence of Acca Larentia—Mater Larum—in the myth and in the rite of the latter corresponds, again, to the role of the duo fratres (‘two brethren’) who sacrifice ‘for the fields’, pro aruis, in the ceremony of the Ambarualia. Indeed, in these last, behind the probable original priests, we can see the Lares Praestites, replaced thereafter by their adoptive brothers, Romulus and Remus. The accuracy of this reconstruction is confirmed conclusively by the evidence of the earliest document of the brotherhood, which opens with the famous invocation “Help us, Lares!” (enos Lases innate)! The initial, hierarchically dominant position of the Lares, before even Mars, can only be explained in terms of their preeminence in the ceremony, directed not only towards the protection of the boundaries but, above all, to the propitiation of the fertility of the fields, the arua. That is a duty which, in all agrarian societies, beside the matter of human reproduction, is invariably the concern of the deified forbears.*? 47. Weinstock 1960, 114-18. 48. Guarducct 1956-8; Guarducet 1971: against the absurd reading of Kolbe 1970; Schilling 1988, 6-9. The reading is to my mind secure: Coatelli 1973, 321. D. Nonnis has reached the same conclusion, having recently re-examined the inscription with S. Panciera. Lam grateful to him for valuable information on this matter. 49. Coarelli 1983, 261-82. 50. Against the unsustainable dating of AlfSldi 1964, 296-304, see Colonna 1986, 93; Coarelli 1988a, 135, 51. Ch, most recently Scheid 1990, 616-23 (644-6 for bibliography) 52. The bibliography is vast: sce for example Propp 1978, 43-60 and the instances of an ethnological character collected in Lanternari 1976.54 Filippo Coarell Bibliography Adam, R. and Briquel, D. 1982: ‘Le miroir prénestin de l'Antiquatio Comunale de Rome et la légende des jumeaux divins en milieu latin & la fin du IVe sigcle av. JC." Mélanges de Ecole Francaise de Rome. Antiquité 94: 33-65, Alfoldi, A. 1962, ‘Ager Romanus antiquus’, Hermes 90: 187-210. Alfoldi, A. 1964, Barly Rome and the Latms, Ann Arbor. Alfoldi, A. 1965, Early Rome and the Latins, Ann. Atbor Bloch, R. 1980, ed., Recherches str les religions de Uantiquité classique, Paris. Briquel, D, 1980, "Trois études sur Romulus’, in Bloch 1980: 267-346. Cappelli, R. 1994, ‘Gemelli divini a confronto: lipogeo di Aguzzano’, in Nista 1994: 129-150. Carandini, A. 1996, ‘Rango, ritualita e il mito dei latini’, Ostraka 5: 215-22. Carandini, A. 1997a, La nascita di Roma, Turin. Carandini, A. 1997b, ‘Sullo specchio con lupa, Romolo ¢ Remo (di nuovo a proposito di TR Wiseman)’, Ostraka 6: 445-6. Catalano, P1978, ‘Aspetti spaziali del sistema giuridico-religioso romano’, in Haase, W. and ‘Temporini, H. eds, Augticg und Niedergang der Rimischen Welt, vol. 2.16.1, Berlin: 440-53 Cels-Saint’ Hilaire, J. 1995, La république des tribus, Toulouse. Champeaux, J. 1982, Fortuna: Le culte de la Fortune @ Rome et dans le monde romain, vol. 1, Rome Coarelli, E1973, ed., Roma medio-repubblicana, Rome Coarelli, F. 1983, Il Foro Romano: Periodo arcaico, Rome. Coarelli, E1982, ‘I santuari, il iume, gli empor’, in Coarelli, 1988b: 127-51. Coarelli, F 1988b, Storia di Roma, vol. 1: Roma in Italia, Turin. Coarelli, F, 1996, ‘Il Gianicolo nellantichita: Tra mito ¢ storia’, in Steinby 1996: 13-27. Coarelli, F. 1997, fl Campo Marzio. dalle origin alla fine della Repubblica, Rome. Colonna, G. 1986, ‘Il Tevere e gli Ecruschi’, Il Tevere e le alire vie d'acqua del Lazio antico, Archeologia Laziale, vol. 7.2, Rome, 90-7. Cornell, TJ. 1975, ‘Aeneas and the Twins: the Development of the Roman Foundation Legend’, Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society, n.s. 21: 1-32. Emout, A. and Meillet, A. 1959, Dictionnaire érymologique de la langue latine, Paris. Guarducci, M. 1956-8, ‘Cippo latino arcaico con dedica ad Enea’, Bullectino Comunale 76, Appendices 3-13. Guarducci, M. 1971, ‘Enea e Vesta’, Romische Mitteilungen 78: 73-89. Kolbe, H.G. 1970, ‘Lare Aineia!”, Rimische Mitteitungen 77: 1-9. Kretschmer, P1925, ‘Das nt-Sutfix’, Glotta 14: 84-106. Lanternani, V. 1976, La grande festa, 2nd edn, Rome. Magdelain, A. 1968, Imperium, Paris Mastrocingue, A. 1993, Romolo, Este. Momigliano, A. 1969, Quarto contribute alla storia degli studi classici ¢ del mondo antico, Rome. Morumsen, T. 1879, Romische Forschingen, Berlin. Mommsen, T. 1887, Romisches Staatsrecht, 3rd edn, Leipzig. Nista, L. 1994, ed., Castores: Limmagine dei Dioscuri a Roma, Rome. Ou, W. 1913, ‘Rimische Sagen IIL. Larentalia und Acca Larentia’, Wiener Studien 35: 62-74. Pailler, JM. 1985, ‘Rome au cing régions?", Melanges de I'Ecole Frangaise de Rome 97: 785-97. Propp, V. 1978, Feste agrarie russe, Bari. Prosdocimi, A.L. 1978, Popoli e Civilea dell’ alia Antica V1, Rome Sablayrolles, R. 1996, Libertinus miles: Les cohortes des vigiles, Rome. Samter, E. 1901, Familienfeste der Griecher und Romer, Berlin. Samter, E. 1907, ‘Der Ursprung des Larenkultes’, Archiv fiér Religionswissenschaft 10: Scheid, J. 1987a, ‘Les sanctuaires de confins dans la Rome antique’, in Scheid, 1987] 368-92. : 583-95,Remoria 55 Scheid, J. 1987b, LUrbs: Espace urbain et histoire, Rome. Scheid, J. 1990, Romulus ct ses frdves, Rome. Schilling, R. 1988, Dans le silage de Rome, Pa Schulze, W. 1904, Zur Geschichte lateinischer Eigennamen, Berlin. Schwegler, H. 1853, Rimische Geschichte, vol. [, Tabingen. Steinby, M. 1996, ed., laniculum-Gianicolo: Storia, topografia, monument, leggende dall’ antichita, Rome, Tabeling, E. 1932, Mater Larum, Frankfurt am Main. Taylor, LR. 1960, The Voting Districts of the Roman Republic, Rome. Weinstock, $. 1960, “Two archaic inscriptions from Latium’, Journal of Roman Studies 50: 112-18, Wiseman TP. 1993, ‘The She-Wolf Mirror. An Interpretation’, Papers of the British School at Rome 61: 1-6. Wiseman, TR 19950, Remus: a Roman Myth, Cambridge. Wiseman, TP. 1995b: “The God of the Lupercal’, Joumal of Roman Studies 85: 1-22. Wiseman, TR 1997, “The She-Wolf Mirror (Again)', Ostrakat 6: 441-3. Wissowa, G. 1904, ‘Die Anfiinge des rémischen Larenkultes’, Archiv fdr Religionswissenschaft 7: 42-57.