Roman Spatial Conceptions

Bird, Andrew J.Imagining the Urbs and Castra: Roman Spatial Conceptualizations

Dr. Langford Independent Study – Spring 2009

The Roman conceptualization of spaces is a complex and

interesting subject that ties together various aspects of Roman

society throughout their history. Roman spatial conceptualization

deals with a variety of subjects pertinent to Roman studies. The

most prominent focus in this regard is with cities, but also

includes such topics like the Roman frontier, religion,

architecture, and more. Although cities (particularly Rome)

garner much of the focus in scholarship, there exists a crucial

link in Roman spatial conceptualization between Roman military

camps and these cities. To illustrate this link between the two,

this paper will examine their similarities in terminology,

concepts, and other aspects that determine and define their

spaces. Additionally, the paper will explore the following

questions, which will demonstrate this conceptual link. First,

what terms do ancient authors employ to describe both the cities

and the camps, and what do these similarities imply? Second, what

religious practices and rules are congruent to both the city and

the camp in regards to their foundation and consecration?

1



Finally, do the religious and physical spatial correlations of

the city and the camp inform us of a deeper understanding of how

the Romans conceptualized all their important spaces? Overall,

the main argument this paper makes is that although camps

represent the physical city of Rome in microcosm, the Roman

religious conceptualization of the city also carries over to the

camps.

The primary historical scope of this paper is from the

founding of Rome to the Claudian extension of the pomerium in 49

CE. The reason being that during this time frame, the religious

rules and associations concerning the sacred spaces of Rome (the

pomerium) retain their importance. From Claudius' extension of

the pomerium onwards, the ‘rules’ seem to increasingly become

less important, as foreign cults and imperial preference incur on

them. The pomerium of Rome before Claudius, for instance,

excludes the Aventine and the Campus Martius, primarily because

these regions contain aspects that traditionally are always

supposed to be extra pomerium. These aspects include foreign cult

2



temples and shrines, military shrines, tombs and mausoleums, and

other ‘unclean’ places that violate the traditional rules

regulating what is permitted within the sacred boundary.1

The pomerium of Rome is the starting point for any

conversation regarding Roman sacred spatial conceptions for

cities (and by extension, the camps). Within Rome, the pomerium

defines the bounds of the consecrated city proper. Varro (Ling.

5.143) describes the ritual involved in creating the pomerium of

the city as Etruscan in origin. First, it takes place on an

auspicious day, and involves leading a bull and cow attached to a

plow around the intended site to create a furrow.2 The resulting

ditch is representative of the fossa and the upturned earthen

mound is the murus. Both the ditch and the wall together were

‘symbolic fortifications’3 that symbolize a city’s connection to

the army because of their military association. Livy (1.44.4)

1 L. Richardson, Jr., A New Topographical Dictionary of Ancient Rome (Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 1992), 294.

2 Tac. 12.24 also gives a brief description of this ritual before describing the bounds of the pomerium.

3 Richardson 1992, 293.3



describes the pomerium as “the tract on both sides of the wall,

the space which the Etruscans used formerly to consecrate with

augural ceremonies, where they proposed to erect their wall,

establishing definite limits on either side of it.”4 He continues

by saying that the rule for the pomerium was to keep it free and

clear of any buildings and human uses (i.e. habitation or

cultivation) because the gods forbid it.5 Considering this

description, it is easy to see why the Romans considered not just

the boundary zone to be sacred space, but also the walls.

Overall, the Roman concept of the pomerium is a zone that

represents the dividing line between military and civilian

space.6

4 All translations of Livy from B. O. Foster’s “Livy.” In the Loeb (Cambridge:Harvard University Press, 1988). See also Roger Antaya, “The Etymology of the Pomerium,” AJPhil. 101.2 (1980), 184-89 for a discussion regarding whether or not the pomerium was a strip of land on one side of the walls as described by Livy, or both to include the walls. Antaya argues for the latter, and this paper agrees with Livy’s assessment.

5 Livy 1.44.4-5.

6 Ruben Taylor, “Watching the Skies: Janus, Auspication, and the Shrine in theRoman Forum,” Amer. Acad. Rome 45 (2000): 24. See also OCD², 154 and Pierre Grimal, Roman Cities: Les villes romaines, ed. and trans. G. Michael Woloch (Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press, 1983), 30.

4



The pomerium of Rome includes a number of various religious-

based rules regarding its use and definition. As stated above,

the pomerium is to be free of any structures, and nothing

pertaining to human use is to be within either, including burials

and plantings. Another pomerial ‘rule’ is that within these

consecrated bounds are no ‘foreign’ temples or shrines - only

temples dedicated to Roman gods. This last ‘rule,’ however, is

not as cut and dry as it may seem. For instance, the temple to

Hercules Ara Maxima is, according to Tacitus, within the

pomerium; yet from its very name, one is able to tell that it was

not ‘Roman’ in origin.7 It is also important to keep in mind,

however, that the origin of even the typical ‘Roman’ deities like

the Capitoline Triad, for instance, are not entirely ‘Roman’ in

origin. Many of these gods came from the Etruscans and the

Greeks. Even so, these deities essentially, and thoroughly,

7 Tac. Ann. 12.24. See also Eric M. Orlin, “Foreign Cults in Republican Rome: Rethinking the Pomerial Rule,” Amer. Acad. Rome 47 (2002): 5-7, where he provides a discussion on the placement of various foreign-originated Romanizeddeities within the pomerium.

5



become ‘Romanized’ over time.8 A recent scholar suggests that the

rule regarding foreign cults never existed in Republican Rome,

and argues that many of these foreign cult temples and shrines

are on the Aventine because that is where the foreigners mostly

lived in Rome. Their placement on the Aventine is only reflective

of the “Roman ideology of openness and Rome’s ability to

incorporate foreigners into the res publica.”9 Even considering

this, that the majority of all foreign cult temples and shrines

are in fact extra pomerium (being primarily on the Aventine or in

the Campus Martius) is not a definitive counter to the existence

of the pomerial rules. Whether or not such a rule existed, though,

is not the focus here. The fact that most of these foreign cult

temples and shrines were typically extra pomerium is suggestive of,

if not a ‘rule,’ at least a tradition of keeping them outside the

pomerial bounds. Similarly, the same placement of foreign cult

shrines to the outside of a military camp’s perimeter in favor of8 See Grimal 1983, 15 for a statement on the Etruscan origin of the CapitolineTriad. See also Orlin 2002, 2-4 for a discussion on the Etruscan and Greek origination of many Roman deities. See also Grimal 1983, 15 for a statement onthe Etruscan origin of the Capitoline Triad.

9 Orlin 2002, 26



the traditional Roman deities is further supportive of the

existence of a pomerial rule, as will be shown below.

There is one rule of the pomerium that is definitely at odds

with the military connection, and deserves some discussion here.

Quite simply, no military presence is ever to be within the

bounds of the pomerium, as this is sacrilegious to the Romans.

The best illustration of this rule is with the various accounts

of returning generals to Rome. Before gaining entrance into the

city to celebrate a triumph, the general and his men had to first

assemble in the Campus Martius before crossing the pomerium

through the porta triumphalis.10 If a general even places one foot

within the pomerium before the Senate decrees that he is able, he

instantly forfeits his imperium and any chance for a triumph.11

Once the Senate grants permission for a triumph, the entire army

assembles in the Campus Martius extra pomerium to perform

sacrifices and purification rituals. Once the extra pomerium

rituals conclude, the next act of purification was to lead the 10 Grimal 1983, 80.

11 Peter J. Holliday, The Origins of Roman Historical Commemoration in the Visual Arts (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), 23. See also Grimal 1983, 5.

7



entire procession through the porta triumphalis that was only open

for such an occasion. For the final act of purification, the

general leads the procession in a counter-clockwise lustration

around the sacred boundary intra pomerium.12 Additionally, a passage

from Festus (104 L: 117 M) explains that the soldiers also must

carry laurels with them because the procession passes over the

pomerium.13 The likely reason for this is found with a passage

from Pliny (NH 15.40.138), who says that laurels are specifically

used in purification rituals. Considering all this, the entire

triumph is an elaborate ritual steeped with religious

significance. The purification rites and sacrifices to the gods

show how important the sacred space of the pomerium is to the

Romans, and the triumphal parade is representative of the sacred

ties between the army and the city.

This last rule prohibiting a military presence within the

confines of Rome’s sacred space is not contrary to the main

argument of this paper, as the triumphal association above shows.

12 Ibid., 24. See also Taylor 2000, 10.

13 Reference to Festus found in Holliday 2002, 24.8



The military connection to the Roman pomerium is most, however,

conspicuous in the last rule regarding the expansion of the

bounds of the pomerium. Several ancient authors speak of the rule

that a general that holds imperium who expanded the boundaries of

the empire through conquest can only expand the pomerium.14 Since

military conquest is the means by which the pomerium also is

permitted to expand, then it makes sense that this rule alone

exemplifies the strong tie between the two.

Within the city of Rome, the space confined by the bounds of

the pomerium is consecrated space that creates a templum.15 Varro

(Ling. 7.8) describes the templum as “a place set aside and

limited by certain formulaic words for the purpose of augury or

the taking of auspices.”16 In other words, the religious purpose

14 Sen. Dial. 10.13.8; Gell. NA 13.14.3; Tac. Ann. 12.23

15 See Platner-Ashby, 329.

16 All translations of Varro from Roland G. Kent’s “Varro: On the Latin Language.” In the Loeb (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1977). Interestingly enough, Varro also includes in this passage the formulaic verse augurs use in creating their templa. See also Joseph Rykwert, The Idea of a Town: The Anthropology of Urban Form in Rome, Italy and the Ancient World (Cambridge: The MIT Press, 1988), 45-49 for a discussion on the Roman concept of the templum and its symbolic use in the foundation of cities.

9



of any templum is to establish the sanctioned space of the gods,

or to define where the gods are present. The sanctity and

consecration of such a space is important to the Romans not just

in their urban centers, but also in the camps of the military.

The establishment of any templum requires a ritual that only an

augur employs to read the auspices. They take the auspices during

the founding of any new city, and within the pomerial bounds of

the city of Rome for a variety of reasons, but most significantly

in regards to the initiation of military campaigns. Outside of

Rome, the augurs must establish their templum any time they wish

to take auspices. Within Rome, the permanent place for public

augury is the Auguraculum in the Arx on the Capitoline, which is

an open space with a small hut or tent in it.17

The Auguraculum of Rome has a direct parallel to a similar

structure within Roman military camps. Every praetorium in Roman

army camps has a small tent or enclosure (an auguratorium) where

the general or camp priests take auspices for the army, a

17 Taylor 2000, 11-12. See also Platner-Ashby, 61; Richardson 1992, 45.10



necessity during any military campaign.18 The entire military

camp, like a city, is also likely a consecrated space as well,

and because the definition of the templum is any enclosed sacred

space, so too can a camp be a templum.19 Both Polybius and Pseudo-

Hyginus’ descriptions of the Roman camp are quite similar to how

an augur establishes his templum. First, both the camp and the

augural templum have an enclosed space, and second both are

divided and oriented similarly.20 The essential point here is

that any place an augur (which a general often was, and if not

had one in the camp) sets up to take the auspices is a templum,

which includes military camps in addition to the sacred boundary

of cities. This correspondence of ritual space within the camps

and in the cities thus provides another crucial link between the

two in regards to Roman religious spatial conceptualization.

18 See Ps.-Hyginus De Munitionibus Castrorum, 11; Joseph. BJ 3.5.2 describes the praetorium of the Roman camps as resembling ‘small temples;’ See also Taylor 2000, 13.

19 Rykwert 1988, 46.

20 Polyb. 6.27.2, 41.3-8; Ps.-Hyginus De Munitionibus Castrorum 11; Rykwert 1988, 68.

11



As indicated above, the augur’s rituals are very important

to the Romans in many respects, and it is now necessary to

examine these during the foundation of a new city. The procedure

for founding of a new city and setting up a camp provide some

interesting parallels that help illustrate the connection between

the two in regards to spatial conceptualization. The surveyors of

a new Roman town or city combined religious concepts with their

practical art, including augury. The religious aspect for them

first is in how the chosen site is oriented, where alignment to

the cardinal directions is ideal. Although this is not always

practical in every instance depending on terrain, they seem to

accommodate this orientation as closely as possible.21 The augur

or surveyor begins by standing in the center of the proposed site

and draws a diagram with his staff (a lituus), dividing it into

four parts by two intersecting lines determined from the shadows

cast by the staff.22 These two perpendicular lines are the cardo

21 Peter Woodward and Ann Woodward, “Dedicating the Town: Urban Foundation Deposits in Roman Britain,” The Object of Dedication: World Archaeology 36.1 (2004), 68-69.

22 Rykwert 1988, 45.12



(N-S line) and the decumanis (E-W line), and at the center point

an altar is likely placed.23 The quartered space within the

diagram is a consecrated templum, and correlates to the four

augural regions of the sky that Varro describes.24 This division

into four quarters is also apparent within the original city of

Rome and within every army camp.

The setup of any Roman camp as the sources describe is

almost quite a ritualistic affair itself. When the army arrives

to their place of encampment, surveyors draw out the camp in a

manner very similar to the foundation of a city. Military

surveyors use a similar technique as city surveyors with the use

of an instrument, called a groma, which determines the

orientation of the camp and the main axes (the cardo and

decumanus).25 Additionally, the central placement of the groma in

23 Grimal and Woloch 1983, 11. See also Woodward and Woodward 2004, 82; Rykwert 1988, 50, postulates that the lituus may have had an attachment that works like the surveyor’s groma.

24 Varro Ling. 7.6ff; Rykwert 1988, 46-48 and 48 Fig 6; Woodward and Woodward 2004, 68-69.

25 The groma is used by both urban and military surveyors; See Rykwert 1988, 50 and 51 Figs 11-12; Grimal and Woloch 1983, 11; Woodward and Woodward 2004, 83.

13



the camp is also the placement of the camp altar (the ara) that

sits in front of the praetorium. Polybius says that when the army

surveyors arrive at the intended site, they mark out the center

of the camp with a white flag, which is where the praetorium and

the auguraculum.26 The only thing missing from the sources is any

augural ritual dedicating or consecrating the site of the camp.

Although this piece is missing from the puzzle, because of the

close similarity between the camp and the city as templa, it is

suggestive that such a ritual might also exist for setting up the

camps. If such a ritual exists for camps, though, it is likely

not as flamboyant as a city dedication for purposes of

practicality. Another indication of the similarity between the

city and the camp, at least physically, is the frequent reference

to military camps looking like cities.27

Once the city or the camp is completely setup, it is

necessary for the Romans to purify it. This purification ritual 26 Polyb. 6.27.2, 6.41.6-7; Cf. Ps.-Hyginus De Munitionibus Castrorum 11-12, and Veg. Mil. 3.8; See also Rykwert 1988, 48 and 68.

27 Polyb. 6.31.10 and 6.41.10-12; Joseph. BJ 3.5.2; See also Rykwert 1988, 68 where he states that the Roman military camp is “a diagrammatic evocation of the city of Rome.”

14



is one that does not occur only once, and it repeats to maintain

purification or to re-purify the site. The primary feature of any

purification ritual for the Romans is the lustration. This ritual

act of circumambulation is apparent in a number of various rites

that is in connection with not only Rome’s sacred boundary, but

also in the purification of Roman camps. The first instance of

this in the city is again with the description regarding the

triumph, where the general leads the troops around the pomerium

counter-clockwise in a lustration. The purpose of the lustration

being to purify the army from the taints of warfare, and possibly

to purify the Roman state too, as the army represents the state

in battle.28 This action is apparent in several other important

religious acts in Rome, but mostly in the Lupercalia, the

Lustrum, and the Amburbium.

The Lupercalia is an ancient festival that ritually purifies

the entire city of Rome that supposedly includes a lustration

around the old pomerial line around the Palatine. Every 15th of

28 Holliday 2002, 24; See also Larissa Bonfante Warren, “Roman Triumphs and Etruscan Kings: The Changing Face of the Triumph,” JRS 60 (1970), 53-55.

15



February, the Luperci priests run around the Palatine naked and

ritually strike young women with strips of goatskin to promote

fertility.29 The important aspect of the ritual is the lustration

around the Palatine that serves to purify the people of the city.

Although it is not the only ritual in Roman religious practice

that involves lustration, it serves as a prime example of a major

purification festival that involves the pomerium.

Another purification act that involves the pomerium is the

Amburbium, which is a ritual the Romans perform typically during

a time of impending danger or bad portent. Lucan (1.592-95)

describes it best, where sacrificial victims, the pontifices, the

Vestals, and other priests lustrate around Rome in order to

purify it after a series of bad omens. The same ritual is also

referenced by Apuleius (Met. 3.2), where Lucius is “led in a

procession round every corner of the city, like one of those

victims that are paraded from place to place before being

29 Plut. Rom. 21.3-5; Plut. Quaest. Rom. 68; Varro 6.34; See also Rykwert 1988, 93-96.

16



sacrificed to expiate some threatening portent.”30 Although both

these references imply a human sacrifice, it is more likely that

the ritual involves animal sacrifice, as the Amburbium is also an

annual festival held every 2 February.31

The next purification act does not involve the pomerium of

Rome, but it does involve both the people of Rome and the

military. The Lustrum is the ritual where the citizen body

assembles on the Campus Martius like an army. Priests then lead

three sacrificial animals, a sheep, a pig, and a bull (called a

suovetaurilia), in a lustration around them all in order to purify

them. Although purification is the religious aspect of this

particular ritual, it also serves a practical aspect in that it

concludes the census.32 Bothe the Amburbium and the Lustrum involve

a ritual sacrifice after the lustration. The former is around the

city, and the latter around the people of the city, and both

30 All translations of Apuleius from E. J. Kenney’s Apuleius: The Golden Ass or Metamorphoses (London: Penguin Books, 2004).

31 Rykwert 1988, 126.

32 Livy 1.44.2; Varro Rust. 2.1.10; See also Rykwert 1988, 126, who says this ritual is connected to the sacred boundary, although there is not any direct reference for this statement.

17



likely include the suovetaurilia as the victims. The suovetaurilia is an

important ritual for purifying camps as well. The best evidence

for this is not textual, but monumental. Trajan’s Column depicts

the suovetaurilia and lustration around a camp to purify it after it

has been constructed in three different scenes.33 This provides

not only a crucial link between the purification of cities and

camps through lustration, but it also further supports the idea

that the camp is consecrated space (i.e. a templum).

Now it is necessary to discuss the physical similarities

between the camp and the city in order to strengthen the basis

for making comparative claims for parallel sacred space. That

cities and towns are sacred to the Romans is already established;

however, the focus here is to argue that the Roman army camps

also carry the same meanings and significance in the Roman

religious spatial conceptualization. As stated above, the camp

and the city in layout are very similar in appearance, in

addition to both containing similar structures like the

33 Rykwert 1988, 131 Fig 103; See also Yann Le Bohec, The Imperial Roman Army, trans. Raphael Bate (London: Routledge, 2001), 50, 238-39 and plate XI 14.7, 37, 77-78.

18



auguraculum. Out of all the similarities, though, the most

significant and telling are the three primary structures that

define a camp’s boundaries: the intervallum, vallum, and fossa.

Before considering all these together as a unit, it is necessary

to examine the parts individually in regards to any symbolic or

religious meaning.

Walls are important to both cities and camps as physical

barriers against attack, but they also hold symbolic and

religious significance in representing the barrier between the

‘civilized’ and ‘uncivilized.’ A sense of this religious

significance for Roman city walls is evident in a number of

ancient accounts, but the most revealing of these is with the

legend of Romulus and Remus. In this story, Remus leaps over

Romulus’ new walls in apparent mockery of their size. Romulus

becomes angry with his brother and declares that anyone who jumps

over his walls will die and has Remus killed.34 Furthermore, that

the walls are within the bounds of the pomerium, further points

34 Livy 1.7.2; Plut. Rom. 10.1; Plut. Quaest. Rom. 27; See also Rykwert 1988, 28, who says that the Romulus and Remus story is likely “an allusion to a forgotten ritual.”

19



to their holiness.35 These sources account for the sanctity of

the city walls, but there is evidence for the consideration of

the inviolability of camp walls. Justinian provides the support

for the holiness of the walls of the camp, where there is a law

that sentences to death anyone who scales the vallum.36

The sanctity of city and camp walls to the Romans is only

one piece to a larger puzzle. Walls and fossae are boundaries that

surround consecrated and holy spaces, and this spatial

conceptualization is what is of importance. Justinian’s law also

provides evidence to the sanctity of the fossa of the camp. He

states that any person who jumps over the camp’s fossa is to

suffer immediate expulsion from the army.37 The sources, as shown

above, well attest to the holiness of the fossa, especially in the

descriptions of the pomerium, where the plowing of the furrow

(fossa) is the action that initially defines the boundary.38

35 Livy 1.44.4-5; Plut. Rom. 11.3

36 Justinian Dig. 49.16.3.17.

37 Ibid., 49.16.3.18.

38 Varro Ling. 5.143; Livy 1.44.4; Plut. Rom. 11.3; Plut. Quaest. Rom. 27.20



Justinian’s law regarding the fossa and the vallum suggests that

the camp boundaries hold the same religious significance.

As shown above, one of the pomerium ‘rules’ is to keep the

strips of land on both sides of the walls free and clear from any

structure or from human use.39 Within the camps, a similar

feature is apparent with the space known as the intervallum.

According to Polybius, the intervallum of the camp is 200 feet in

width, and is devoid of any structures. Although it is unclear

whether or not this space holds any religious significance to the

Romans, it certainly has several practical uses. First, it allows

for the easy assembly and movement of the troops within the

walls. Second, it provides a useful space for the storage of

booty and plunder. Third, and most important, is it provides some

protection from incoming missile fire.40 This practical

description of the camp intervallum might suggest one of the

original practical applications of the pomerium. It is reasonable

39 Livy 1.44.4-5.

40 Polyb. 6.31.11-14; Cf. Ps.-Hyginus De Munitionibus Castrorum 14, who says this space is 60 feet wide. Regardless of the width, though, it is always open space.

21



to assume that since the Romans took much of their spatial

conceptualizations from the Etruscans (including their camp

designs) the pomerium perhaps evolved from an old intervallum of

Rome. An open space before and after a wall allows for an easier

defense of it, where buildings and other structures makes

defending the wall especially difficult. This practical

application, if true for the pomerium, did not last forever as

the physical city quickly outgrew the bounds of the sacred space.

The Roman camps, ever practical in nature, likely embody both the

religious aspects and the physical advantages of the arrangement,

long after such practicalities left the pomerium of Rome.41

The pomerium is the strip of land on either side of, and

including, the city walls. The individual parts of the boundaries

of the camps is shown above to also carry religious significance,

but so far a strip of land outside the camp’s vallum needs

evidence for its sanctity. The most important piece of evidence,

therefore, that ties all the parts together in religious

importance comes from Pseudo-Hyginus. The passage describes a

41 Antaya 1980, 189.22



kind of military parallel to the city’s pomerium, which indicates

the strip of land outside the walls is likely sacred space. When

describing the construction of the camp’s vallum, he includes an

almost cryptic line: “Similiter ante portas ad titulum, ut ad

fossa, vallum; causa instructionis sanctum est cognominatum.”42

This is describing an additional rampart that essentially is a

small wall in front of the gates at the titulus. In the passage

before this, Pseudo-Hyginus describes the titulus as being a small

ditch 60 feet in front of the gates.43 This fortification feature

is evident in a variety of different camps, as it is easy to

construct and is useful for impeding attacks.44 Pseudo-Hyginus

says that its placement makes it sacred, indicating that the zone

where it stands (which also includes the fossa) is, like the

city’s pomerium, sacred space. This passage thus shows that a

strip of land outside the walls is also likely hallowed ground

42 Ps.-Hyginus De Munitionibus Castrorum 50.

43 Ibid., 49, the titulus is farther out than the main fossa.

44 A. A. R. Henderson and L. J. F. Keppie, “Titulus or Titulum?” Britannia 18 (1987), 281-84.

23



and, in considering the above well, it shows that so are the

walls and the intervallum.

Roman religious spatial conceptualization proves to be a

complex web of interconnecting strands of ideas and terms that

stretch through their society. The city of Rome inherently

embodies many concepts that the Roman camps represent not only

physically, but also religiously and symbolically. This intricate

web of meaning ties into the spatial conceptualization embodied

in the city of Rome and reflected in the camps represents a

larger scheme that extends to the Roman perception of their

entire worldview. Similarly and for instance, the frontiers of

the High Empire is a complex system of interconnecting boundary

zones that divide the ‘civilized’ Roman world from the

‘barbarian’ outside world.45 This echoes in the Roman idea of the

pomerium that reflects to camp boundaries as this paper shows, in

that they spatially separate Roman civilization from the outside

‘un-civilized’ world. This connection between the borders of the

45 See Hugh Elton, Frontiers of the Roman Empire (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1996), for a complete discussion on this subject of the frontier.

24



Empire and the concept of a sacred boundary is most evident in

the pomerium extension rule discussed above. All this ties

together the Roman spatial conceptualization both temporally and

religiously.

In regards to the camp-city connection, it is worth

mentioning again that the Roman camp essentially is a microcosm

of the city of Rome. This paper demonstrates that this is not

just a physical reflection, but a religious and symbolic one too.

Through these camps, then, other Roman concepts and ideas

proliferate wherever they are. The camps become centers of

transmission for Romanization and, in some cases, even evolve to

become the kernels to cities.46 It is no surprise, then, that

Roman spatial conceptualizations radiate out from the city of

Rome, and through the military camps, to the rest of the Empire.

Overall, the analysis above illustrates that the camps parallel

and reflect many of the religious spatial conceptualizations that

the city, particularly Rome, also embodies.

46 Thomas H. Watkins, “Roman Legionary Fortresses and the Cities of Modern Europe,” Military Affairs 47.1 (1983), 15-17; Ray Laurence, “The Image of the RomanCity,” Cambridge Archaeological Journal 10.2 (2000), 348.

25



Ancient Source Translations

Apuleius. The Golden Ass or Metamorphoses. Edited and translated by E.J. Kenney. London: Penguin Books, 2004.

Livy. History of Rome. Edited and translated by B. O. Foster. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge: Harvard University Press,1988.

Varro. On the Latin Language. Edited and translated by Roland G. Kent. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1977.

Secondary Sources

Antaya, Roger. “The Etymology of the Pomerium.” AJPhil 101.2 (1980): 184-89.

Bohec, Yann Le. The Imperial Roman Army. Translated by Raphael Bate.London: Routledge, 2001.

Elton, Hugh. Frontiers of the Roman Empire. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1996

Grimal, Pierre and G. Michael Woloch. Roman Cities: Les villes romaines; Together with a Descriptive Catalogue of Roman Cities. Translated and edited by G. Michael Woloch. Madison: University ofWisconsin Press, 1983.

Hammond, N. G. L. and H. H. Scullard, eds. The Oxford Classical Dictionary. 2nd ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1970.

Henderson, A. A. R. and L. J. F. Keppie. “Titulus or Titulum?” Britannia 18 (1987): 281-84.

26



Holliday, Peter J. The Origins of Roman Historical Commemoration in the VisualArts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002.

Laurence, Ray. “The Image of the Roman City.” Cambridge Archaeological Journal 10.2 (2000): 346-48.

Orlin, Eric M. “Foreign Cults in Republican Rome: Rethinking the Pomerial Rule.” Amer. Acad. Rome 47 (2002): 1-18.

Platner, S. B. and T. Ashby. A Topographical Dictionary of Ancient Rome. London: Oxford University Press, 1929.

Richardson, L. Jr. A New Topographical Dictionary of Ancient Rome. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 1992.

Robinson, O. F. Ancient Rome: City Planning and Administration. London:

Routledge, 1992.

Rykwert, Joseph. The Idea of a Town: The Anthropology of Urban Form in Rome, Italy and the Ancient World. Cambridge: The MIT Press, 1988.

Taylor, Ruben. “Watching the Skies: Janus, Auspication, and the Shrine in the Roman Forum.” Amer. Acad. Rome 45 (2000): 1-40.

Warren, Larissa Bonfante. “Roman Triumphs and Etruscan Kings: TheChanging Face of the Triumph.” JRS 60 (1970): 49-66.

Woodward, Peter and Ann Woodward. “Dedicating the Town: Urban Foundation Deposits in Roman Britain.” The Object of Dedication: World Archaeology 36.1 (2004): 68-86.

Watkins, Thomas H. “Roman Legionary Fortresses and the Cities of Modern Europe.” Military Affairs 47.1 (1983): 15-25.

27

Roman Spatial Conceptions

Documents

Transcript of Roman Spatial Conceptions