This paper discusses the survey evidence from the Orientalizing and Archaic settlement and funerary sites at Nepi (ancient Nepet), one of the first Latin colonies outside Latium adiectum. The comparison of its pre-Roman, pre-colonial developments to the Roman patterns from the Nepi Survey Project and the trends from other Latin colonies in southern Etruria allows the examination of the local effects of Roman colonialism. The evidence shows that Nepi seemed to develop as an independent city state in the Orientalizing period, peaked in the Archaic period and weakened before the capture of Veii in 396 bc, making it easier to defeat. Rural settlement all but disappeared afterwards with similar hiatus apparent at the sister colony at Sutri as well. In the third century bc the first few villas near the town appeared as a sign of the establishment of a Roman settlement pattern. The extensive ‘rural colonization’ at Nepi, similarly to Sutri and Cosa, started only in the second century bc when all southern Etruria had entered a colonial phase and could develop alongside Rome. Thus, Latin colonization disrupted earlier patterns and the colonies appear to have been originally outposts set up to secure new territory.

This study forms part of my work as Rome Scholar in Architecture, 1913, and was undertaken in accordance with the Memorandum of the Faculty of Architecture of the British School at Rome.

In collecting and arranging material and in writing these notes I have been helped by my wife who, as holder of the Mary Ewart Travelling Studentship from Newnham College, Cambridge, has collaborated with me throughout. To her I owe many ideas and suggestions of archaeological importance in my scheme for restoration.

Further, I am greatly indebted to Mr. Ernest Prestwich, M.A., A.R.I.B.A. In 1911 Mr. Prestwich made a survey of the existing antiquities of Palestrina with a view to making a restoration. As he was unable to carry out this plan he very kindly put the material he had collected at my disposal. This has been very valuable to me throughout.

Ephemeral architecture was the antithesis of the permanent buildings typical of the ‘Fascism of stone’, and yet many architects took advantage of this paradox to create an imaginary Rome. A widespread use of ephemeral structures was made around 1938, during the Mostra Augustea della Romanità and Hitler's state visit to Italy, in order to support a political programme that marked the totalitarian turn in the Fascist regime after the foundation of the empire and aimed at strengthening the alliance between Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany. Relying on methodologies of particular relevance to Roman art history and on various sources unknown to date, this paper investigates the relationships between ephemeral architecture and romanità. The case study is a monumental tribune built in via dei Trionfi that inevitably suffered a damnatio memoriae: a combination of classicizing and futuristic decorations, it looked back at ancient Rome and, at the same time, highlighted the Fascist regime's aspirations to might and modernity.

Of late years it would appear that the subject of Papal Iconography has been singularly neglected; nor as far as we are aware has the subject been at all exhaustively treated in any monograph. Yet if its claim to importance calls for justification, it should suffice to quote the following passage in which J. A. Symonds records the impression made upon him by the busts of the Popes (Fig. I) which adorn the walls of the Duomo of Siena:

The Colosseum is well understood as a dynastic monument that was key to the Flavian building programme and to Flavian ideology. From this point of view it has been approached as the fulfilment of Augustus's ambition for a large-scale amphitheatre, as serving to diminish Nero's memory as it was constructed on the atrium of his dismantled Golden House, and as a victory monument built with the spoils of the Jewish War. One important political aspect of this dynastic monument has been largely overlooked: its connection with emperor worship. Outside Rome, it is well known that amphitheatres served as a venue for the procession and placement of imperial cult images; in Rome, the Circus Maximus and the theatres were venues for the display of imperial images and attributes brought in during their respective pompae. Through the deployment of textual, topographical and visual evidence, this article demonstrates that the Colosseum also had a pulvinar that displayed images and attributes of the gods and divi brought in during the pompa. The location of the pulvinar and the mechanisms by which it was serviced are explored, as are the ideological implications of cultic activity in the Colosseum.

Nonostante le visite di Tiberio a Capri siano state documentate estensivamente dagli autori antichi, e molti siti romani siano ancora visitabili sull'isola, la sua storia imperiale dopo Tiberio rimane largamente sconosciuta. Molta attenzione è stata riservata alle dodici ville che si suppone siano state costruite dall'imperatore, delle quali solo una manciata è stata identificata con sicurezza; ma nessuna fase principale di costruzione è stata attribuita ad un periodo più tardo della tradizionale fase augusteatiberiana. Allo stesso modo, nessun'altra visita da parte di altri imperatori è stata ricordata dalle fonti letterarie, nonostante l'esilio della moglie di Commodo e della sorella dall'imperatore stesso indichi almeno che l'isola rimase un possesso imperiale. Inoltre essa continuò ad essere associata esclusivamente a Tiberio dagli studiosi antichi fino al V secolo d.C. Per dare un senso ai dati frammentari pertinenti al destino di Capri dopo la morte di Tiberio, questo articolo considera le fonti epigrafiche riguardanti l'attivita imperiale sull'isola. L'esistenza di un'unica informazione su un gruppo di schiavi imperiali che una volta servivano sull'isola offrono una prospettiva su un evento eccezionale nell'organizzazione della casa imperiale, probabilmente da datarsi alla prima parte del regno di Claudio, che influenzò l'ulteriore storia imperiale dell'isola.

The major source for the vows and sacrifices made annually on 3 January for the safety of a Roman emperor and his family, and on some other occasions in special circumstances, is in the Acta of the Arval Brothers which preserve, for a number of years in the first, second and third centuries A.D., accounts of these ceremonies as conducted by the Arvals, including the formulae of their prayers. There is literary evidence to show that similar ceremonies took place throughout the Empire, but for their form outside Rome nothing very detailed. Pliny reports their observance in his province in terms which reflect very summarily the general tenour of the prayers; and the Feriale Duranum, col. I lists the sacrifices to be made on the 3rd of January by a military unit in the early third century.

The construction date of the ‘Servian’ wall and its layout in the riverside area between the Aventine and the Capitol are the two main questions addressed in this article. The interlocking topographical problems were addressed in 1988 by Filippo Coarelli, whose interpretation has become the generally accepted orthodoxy. But not all the difficulties have been solved, and with Coarelli's recent return to the subject a fresh examination of the evidence may be helpful. Careful attention is given here to stories of early Rome that involve the walls and gates, as reported in Livy, Dionysius and Plutarch; they are not, of course, taken as authentic evidence for the time of the alleged events, but as indicating what was taken for granted when the stories were first composed. New suggestions are made about a revision of the line of the city wall in 212 BC and the consequent restructuring of two important gates, the Porta Carmentalis and the Porta Trigemina; the mysterious ‘Porta Triumphalis’ is discussed separately in an appendix.

In my earlier paper on the ‘Stanze di Venere’ (written in 1973), I referred to the progressive deterioration of the stucco and other decorations in the Roman remains at Baia. The following pages are an attempt to provide a full record of the Baian stucco-work not covered in the first article. The idea of compiling this record originated with Dottssa. Maria Elena Bertoldi and received the full support of Prof. Alfonso De Franciscis; while the actual drawings were begun in 1973 by Miss Shelagh Rixon and completed, with further visits to the site for checking in 1974 and 1975, by Dr. Lesley A. Ling. To all of these and to our sponsors (the University of Manchester and the Faculty of Classics in the University of Cambridge) I am deeply indebted. Since the drawings were completed, the task of studying stucco decoration in Roman Italy has been greatly simplified by the pioneer-work of Dr. Harald Mielsch of the German Archaeological Institute in Rome, who has compiled a major corpus of surviving material and attempted to establish a detailed chronology. It only remains for me to provide a commentary on the drawings, to discuss the architectural contexts, and to enlarge upon or modify Dr. Mielsch's conclusions regarding the Baian stucco-work. The various decorations will be dealt with one by one, and the positions of all but two of them are shown on Fig. 1, which has been adapted, by kind permission of Dottssa. Bertoldi, from one of the plans executed for her volume in the Forma Italiae series.

The two Anglican churches in Rome by the distinguished nineteenth-century English architect George Edmund Street — St Paul's Within-the-Walls (1872–6), Via Nazionale, and All Saints’ (1880–7), Via del Babuino — are notable examples of High Victorian design. Yet little scholarly attention has been afforded either church, especially All Saints’. This article considers both these buildings not so much as works of architecture but as markers of cultural intent in an environment (and age) fraught with political and religious tension and conflict. It seeks to understand them in the difficult and often fluid context of Risorgimento Italy out of which they emerged, including the city of Rome immediately following its capture by Italian national forces on 20 September 1870. The aim is to establish an interpretation of the two buildings that pays due attention to their political and religious agency. In so doing this article considers closely how architecture was understood as a mediating force in the struggle over politics and identity in the late nineteenth century. In taking a fresh look at the extant archival documentation, alternative possibilities are offered (and revealed) as to how we might further decode the significance of these beguiling if still largely misunderstood works of architecture.

The history of the monuments and works of art of the classical period, which were in existence in Rome during the Renaissance, is of importance to us for many reasons. We may learn what were the materials which were at the disposal of the great masters in architecture, painting, and sculpture, and see in their drawings and sketches, as well as in the works which they actually executed, what use they made of the models which they had before their eyes, and what interested them in a greater or less degree. We may trace the growth of that antiquarianism out of which the science of archaeology was in process of time to develop. We may also obtain valuable information concerning much that has been destroyed or lost, or has, at least, come down to us in a very different state to that in which it was in their day.

This article is the result of a survey of Cumanin Cami'i carried out in the summer of 1953 during the writer's tenure of the Fellowship of the British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara. That the survey took place is due in large measure to encouragement from the Director of the Institute, Mr. Seton Lloyd, and to the Turkish Antiquities Department, who readily gave the necessary permission. Further thanks are due to Mr. J. B. Ward Perkins for help in the solution of various problems connected with the work, to Mr. D. E. Strong for advice on the dating of the mouldings, and to Bayan Sabahat Öǧretmenoǧlu, then Director of the Antalya Museum, for her interest and support.

Cumanin Cami'i, otherwise known as Korkut Cami'i or more recently simply as Kesik Minare (the Broken Minaret), stands in the southern part of the old walled town of Antalya, the ancient Attaleia, in Pamphylia, its roofless minaret forming one of the most prominent marks on the horizon as seen from the region of the Konak, on the north side of the harbour.

The object of this paper is neither to discuss the artistic significance of the reliefs which adorn the Column of Trajan, nor to solve the problem raised by the inscription on its base, but solely to treat the sculptures as embodying an historical narrative in stone, and to present certain conclusions differing from those of earlier interpreters. These conclusions were originally formed during my residence in Rome as Director of the British school; they were first tentatively expressed at a meeting of the School held on April 4, 1906 (when I had ceased to hold the office of Director) and developed with greater detail in a paper read before the Oxford Philological Society on March 15, 1907 (see Class. Rev. 1907, p. 125) and finally in a communication made to the International Historical Congress at Berlin on August 8, 1908. It is unnecessary to say that the great publication of Cichorius (and the incisive criticisms of that work by Petersen) have brought the question here to be discussed into the foreground of archaeological debate; the views since put forward by von Domaszewski and Weber appear to me (as will presently be shewn) to betoken a retrogression in the direction of theories which should have been recognised as put definitely out of court by the researches of Cichorius and Petersen.