1

Anchoring Innovations in Rome from the 4th-6th Century:

The Case of the Basilica of St. Peter1

By Christina Videbech

Introduction

The Late Antique fora of Rome were, as centres of both the city itself and of the Roman

Empire, important for shaping Roman identity. However, during the Late Empire, churches

appeared as alternatives to earlier public places in Rome.2 They became the new civic and

political focal points, and dedications, self-representation and the like could now be

performed there. This was also the case for the Basilica of St. Peter, which took over political

and ideological functions, occasionally even becoming a part of the imperial adventus and

triumphal representation, seemingly rivalling the fora.3 Additionally, imperial decrees were

announced here and the aristocracy increasingly used the church for their self-representation.

Based on archaeological, epigraphic and literary evidence this case study will examine the

basilica, focusing on the transition of political and social functions from the fora of Rome to

the church, using the Forum Romanum and the Forum Traiani as examples.4 These transfers

were made possible by intentional and unintentional manipulation of Roman collective

memory through the process of anchoring. The basilica will be examined as a place of

collective memory and Roman identity: a place for continuing the traditions previously

upheld in the fora, but also a place of innovations.

Transferring traditional functions from the fora to the Basilica of St. Peter

Sible de Blaauw has written extensively on the Christian liturgy celebrated in the Basilica of

St. Peter from the 4th to the 6th century, documenting the different ceremonies and their

influence on the shape of the basilica.5 There is thus no doubt that Christian liturgy was

celebrated in the basilica, though the sources on the 4th century are scarce.6 However, the

basilica had other functions besides the purely religious:7 Comparing the different aspects of

the fora and the basilica, there was a surprising number of social and political functions in the

basilica, especially compared to the overtly Christian functions:

Meetings between bishop and emperor (after 4th century)

Meetings between Senate and Clergy (after 4th century)

1 I would like to thank prof. dr. Olivier Hekster for his thoughtful comments on my paper. A first version of this

paper was presented at the PhD Master Class Anchoring Sanctity held in Amsterdam, 1 June 2017. 2 Bjornlie, Politics and Tradition Between Rome, Ravenna and Constantinople, 9; Brands, “Die Spätantike Stadt

und ihre Christianisierung,” 9, 13 & 58; Hoepfner, “Das Ende der Agora,” 149–50; Humphries, “The West (1):

Italy, Gaul, and Spain,” 290; Leone, The End of the Pagan City, 30; Machado, “Building the Past: Monuments

and Memory in the Forum Romanum,” 157; Marazzi, “Ostrogothic Cities,” 101; Potter, Towns in Late

Antiquity, 73 & 88; Saradi, The Byzantine City in the Sixth Century, 403–5; Saradi-Mendelovici, “Christian

Attitudes toward Pagan Monuments in Late Antiquity and Their Legacy in Later Byzantine Centuries,” 386;

Wataghin, “Christian Topography in the Late Antique Town: Recent Results and Open Questions,” 243. 3 Cooper, Leyser, and Hillner, “Dark Age Rome: Towards an Interactive Topography,” 322; Liverani, “Saint

Peter’s and the City of Rome between Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages,” 33. 4 For this study, I take into account the surrounding area of both the basilica and the Forum Romanum to avoid

detaching them from their context. The Forum Traiani, being a much more confined space is considered

separately. 5 De Blaauw, Cultus et Decor. Liturgia e Architettura nella Roma Tardoantica e Medievale: Basilica Salvatoris,

Sanctae Mariae, Sancti Petri. 6 De Blaauw, 498. 7 De Blaauw, 453–56.

2

The lack of evidence of Christian use (Evidence from the 5th and 6th century is much

more numerous than evidence dating to the 4th century. One exception is a nun taking

the veil in 354)

Ceremonies/rituals (not specifically Christian – e.g. the adventus)

Publishing of poems/art/music

Publication of decrees and laws (after 4th century).8

Research indicated a transfer of several of the actions that you would expect to be performed

in the fora to the basilica. In fact, the fora and the basilica shared 14 core activities in Late

Antiquity:

1. Schools

2. Judicial audiences/Law courts

3. Trade

4. Burials (Forum Romanum, not Forum Traiani)

5. Funerary purposes (Forum Romanum, not Forum Traiani)

6. Meetings of the Senate

7. Euergetism/Self-representation

8. Imperial use/Making the emperor visible

9. Rituals and ceremonies (e.g. adventus)

10. Sanctuary

11. Publications of decrees/laws/edicts/imperial letters/etc.

12. Grave of a mythical founder (Romulus/Peter/Trajan)

13. Place of memory/(museum)

14. Poetry readings (Forum Traiani, not Forum Romanum).9

The number of activities the locations had in common seem to have outnumbered the

differences. Among these differences are, for instance, the absence from a jail in the basilica

(it is highly unlikely that there was one) against the presence of a jail in the vicinity of the

Forum Romanum. We have no evidence suggesting that the praefectus urbi would hold

meetings in the basilica either, though it is likely he was present at the area of the two fora.

Similarly, in the fora, it is highly unlikely that core Christian activities such as baptism,

Christian pilgrimage, and oaths to the bishop took place during at least most of the period

considered here. We do, however, have evidence of Christians trying to mythically linking

8 The activities have been detected in a thorough examination of the literary, epigraphical and/or archaeological

sources, an examination, which is still in process. Some of the actions are visible in several of the sources and

some are only visibly in one of them. Furthermore, the actions can be divided into 1: actions, that certainly took

place in the basilica, covered by several sources, 2: actions, that are likely to have occurred at the location (This

is actions were the evidence is collected from similar locations outside of Rome or from uncertain sources, e.g.

literary sources that are known to be not credible or archaeological sources that are ambiguous) 3: actions,

which is mentioned in the scholarly literature, but without the primary sources to back up. For a more extensive

discussion about the results and underlying data, see Videbech, C., “The Forum of St. Peter? A Comparative

Study of the Basilica of St. Peter and the Forum Romanum and Forum Traiani” (forthcoming). A selected

sample of literature highlighting some of these actions taking place in churches, especially the Basilica of St.

Peter, are: Brandenburg, Ancient Churches of Rome, 98; Coates-Stephens, “Byzantine Building Patronage in

Post-Reconquest Rome,” 155; Deliyannis, “Urban Life and Culture,” 248; Forsyth Jr., “The Transept of Old St.

Peter’s at Rome,” 66; Humphries, “Liturgy and Laity in Late-Antique Rome: Problems, Sources, and Social

Dynamics,” 179 & 184; Krautheimer, St. Peter’s and Medieval Rome, 17–18; Liverani, “Saint Peter’s and the

City of Rome between Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages,” 28–30; Sessa, “The Roman Church and Its

Bishops,” 431 & 437; Schumacher, “Das Baptisterium von Alt-St. Peter und seine Probleme: Mit einem Beitrag

von Thomas Barth,” 223–24. 9 See note 8.

3

themselves with the area of the Forum Romanum by accounts of Peter and Paul praying and

fighting against Simon Magus here and Bishop Silvester allegedly fighting a dragon, which

lived under the Temple of Vesta.10 Christians are therefore, at least mythically, attested in and

around Forum Romanum, but repeated Christian rituals do not occur here before churches

were introduced to the area (likely in the late 6th century).11

Furthermore, burials are also rare in the fora, with only a few near Forum Romanum and

none (except Trajan) in the Forum Traiani. We do, however, have one incident of a funerary

procession in the honour of a bishop taking place here at the beginning of the 5th century.12

The list of actions that might have taken place in both the basilica and the fora, although I

cannot prove it at present, are as follows: It is quite likely that the basilica, like a forum,

functioned as a meeting place for people and that both speeches and non-Christian

administration could take place there, given the other functions of the church. Furthermore, it

is possible that meetings between the senate and the clergy/bishop could take place in the

fora, just as these spaces would be suited for the distribution of alms and charity because of

their open spaces. Additionally, it is quite likely that calendars would be on display in the

fora, though I have not yet encountered any evidence for this practice either.13

Collective memory and the concept of anchoring

As suggested above, several key functions of a forum were present in and around the basilica.

Consequently, a church in Late Antiquity seems to have had an important political and civic

role. Since the fora and the Basilica of St. Peter were very different spaces, e.g. in terms of

layout and accessibility, it might seem strange that it was possible to move these traditional

actions, heavy with historical meaning, from the fora to the basilica.

In my view, the basilica worked as a place of collective memory and this made the transfer

possible. Although the theory of collective memory is not unproblematic to use in a Roman

context, since it was developed for the modern period,14 it does highlight some aspects which

are useful and thought provoking when studying Roman society:15 The theory suggests that

just as memory can be tied to an individual, it can also be tied to a group of persons.16 As

time passes by, both group and memory will evolve in an interdependent, social process.17

Scholars such as Pierre Nora and Jan and Aleida Assmann further developed the theory by

elaborating the idea, that group memory could be stored in, among other things, rituals, texts,

monuments, and social spaces.18 These memory vessels would, when encountered by people,

remind them of the past, hereby revitalizing and strengthening the memory.19

10 Kalas, Restoration of the Roman Forum in Late Antiquity, 125, 161 & 163. 11 Kalas, 20. 12 Bauer, Stadt, Platz und Denkmal in der Spätantike, 111. 13 See note 8. 14 Connerton, How Societies Remember, 1; Diefenbach, “Urbs und Ecclesia - Bezugspunkte Kollektiver

Heiligenerinnerung im Rom des Bischofs Damasus (366-384),” 194; Russell, “Collective Memory Before and

After Halbwachs,” 793; Wertsch, “Collective Memory,” 118–19. 15 I discuss this thoroughly in my article ”Debating the Application of Collective Memory in

Late Roman Archaeology” (forthcoming). 16 Alcock and Van Dyke, “Archaeologies of Memory: An Introduction,” 2; Assmann, Cultural Memory and

Early Civilization, 21; Halbwachs, The Collective Memory, 23, 26–27, 33 & 51; Halbwachs, On Collective

Memory, 43; Olick, “From ‘Collective Memory: The Two Cultures,’” 225. 17 Alcock, Archaeologies of the Greek Past, 1, 16 & 22; Assmann, “Kollektives Gedächtnis und Kulturelle

Identität,” 10–11; Assmann, Cultural Memory and Early Civilization, 23; Connerton, How Societies Remember,

1; Halbwachs, The Collective Memory, 25–26 & 118–19; Halbwachs, La Mémoire Collective, chap. 3; Nora,

“General Introduction: Between Memory and History,” 3. 18 Assmann, “Collective Memory and Cultural Identity,” 129; Assmann, “Communicative and Cultural

Memory,” 111; Assmann, Cultural Memory and Early Civilization, 37–38, 42–44, 74 & 119–20; Assmann,

4

The stored memory would evolve over time, while, both intentionally and unintentionally,

new memories were added, irrelevant memories were removed, and often, if not always, it

would be highly heterogeneous in nature.20 That the memory was kept alive was ensured by

the active effort of the group in the shape of traditions and rituals activating the memory

vessels.21

In connection with the theory of collective memory, the concept of anchoring is a helpful tool

too with a great potential to improve and clarify the approach of memory studies. It is a

concept, that helps illuminate some of the fuzziness that memory studies suffer from and a

more sufficient way to put words on some of these processes. It is therefore highly relevant

for analyzing the transfer of activities from the fora to the basilica and I think it can take us a

step further than the theory of collective memory can by itself. Below, I hope to demonstrate

this through my work on the Basilica of St. Peter.

Anchoring is a tool for investigating how people cope with “newness” and change and a label

for the different ways in which people connect new innovations to the traditional and

familiar, making people feel that they understand and recognize innovation.22 Thus an anchor

is, as Ineke Sluiter writes, “the concrete phenomena or concept that are perceived or

experienced as the stable basis for innovation.”23 Consequently, anchoring shares a lot of

common ground with memory studies. However, it is important to remember that neither the

process of anchoring, nor the intentional or unintentional use of memory, had the purpose of

explaining the past, but to serve the concerns of the present:24 The parts of the past that could

“Memory and Culture,” 332; Hölkeskamp, Senatus Populusque Romanus: Die Politische Kultur Der Republik -

Dimensionen Und Deutungen, 142 & 170; Hughes, “Memory and the Roman Viewer: Looking at the Arch of

Constantine,” 109; Ng, “Monuments, Memory, and Statues Recognition in Roman Asia Minor,” 238; Nora,

“General Introduction: Between Memory and History,” 1 & 6–7; Morcillo, Richardson, and Santangelo, “Ruin

or Renewal? Place, Monuments and Memories in Ancient Rome,” 13–14; Rutledge, Ancient Rome as a

Museum, 18. 19 Assmann, “Kollektives Gedächtnis und Kulturelle Identität,” 11; Assmann, “Communicative and Cultural

Memory,” 111; Assmann, Cultural Memory and Early Civilization, 36–37; Assmann, “Memory and Culture,”

331–34; Goffart, “Does the Distant Past Impinge on the Invasion Age Germans?,” 92; Jones, Memory and

Material Culture, 3, 6, 22, 26, 34 & 225. 20 Alcock, Archaeologies of the Greek Past, 17; Alcock and Van Dyke, “Archaeologies of Memory: An

Introduction,” 3; Assmann, Cultural Memory and Early Civilization, 54; Assmann, “Memory and Culture”;

Brilliant, “Rome, the Site of Reverberating Memories,” 23; Castelli, Martyrdom and Memory, 13, 17 & 186;

Connerton, How Societies Remember, 14–15; Galinsky, “Introduction,” 2016b, 6; Goff, History and Memory,

98; Halbwachs, The Collective Memory, 82; Halbwachs, On Collective Memory, 86; Hobsbawm, “From

‘Introduction: Inventing Traditions,’” 271; Marlowe, “The Multivalence of Memory: The Tetrachs, the Senate,

and the Vicennalia Monument in the Roman Forum,” 246–47; Nora, “General Introduction: Between Memory

and History,” 3; Olick, “From Usable Pasts to the Return of the Repressed,” 20. 21 Alcock, Archaeologies of the Greek Past, 18–19; Assmann, “Kollektives Gedächtnis und Kulturelle

Identität,” 12; Assmann, Cultural Memory and Early Civilization, 48 & 72–74; Assmann, “Memory and

Culture,” 341; Connerton, How Societies Remember, 3–4, 40 & 44; Halbwachs, The Collective Memory, 31–32;

Haug, “Constituting the Past - Forming the Present,” 120; Pennebaker and Gonzales, “Making History: Social

and Psychological Processes Underlying Collective Memory,” 174; Roediger III, Zaromb, and Butler, “The

Role of Repeated Retrieval in Shaping Collective Memory,” 148; Rowlands, “The Role of Memory in the

Transmission of Culture,” 795–96; Wickham and Fentress, Social Memory, 47. 22 Halbwachs, On Collective Memory, 86; Hekster, “Anchoring Religious Change,” 10 & 24–25; Sluiter,

“Anchoring Innovation,” 23 & 32–33. 23 Sluiter, “Anchoring Innovation,” 32. 24 Sluiter, “Ancient Etymology: A Tool for Thinking,” 900.

5

be used, where chosen and preserved, while the parts, that did not fit the present concern

were discarded.25

In the Roman Empire change and innovation was not appreciated. On the contrary, continuity

and tradition were highly valued.26 Still, innovation did occur and therefore had to be

implemented in a way that was generally acceptable. Anchoring explains this process, which

allowed Roman citizens to experience continuity of traditions in a period, which really

introduced much change.27 It made the Late Antique Roman feel an unbroken sense of self

and identity, group cohesion, and cultural belonging by linking novelties with what was

perceived familiar. Thus, the feeling of an unbroken "Roman-ness" persisted. This was a

process, which had been used with great success also before Late Antiquity.28

Anchoring and the use of collective memory in this process could be expressed in many

different media, such as for example etymology,29 but also in the way that the Romans,

shaped their immediate surroundings. By manipulating the monuments of their cities,

intentionally or unintentionally incorporating the past in new buildings and repairs, it was

ensured that the city, though changing, was perceived familiar and safe.30 This connection

between memory and monuments are traceable in several antique literary sources, such as

Cicero, Pliny, and Augustine.31

Anchoring in the Basilica of St. Peter – Euergetism As the public functions of the churches in the Empire grew, so did the tendency to use them

for euergetism, the action of doing a good deed for one’s city, highlighting oneself in the

process. This tendency in a Christian context is visible both in the archaeological and the

literary sources: Christians used gifts and the building of churches to improve their

relationship with God, but also to make sure that they were remembered in posterity.32

I have tried to trace acts of euergetism in literary, epigraphic, and archaeological sources

from the Basilica of St. Peter and the Forum Romanum.33

In my study, I excluded graves, tombs, and mausoleums of the basilica since they seem to be

a different group from the other dedications, where death is not involved. However, if we

added them to the dedications, they would further underline the results. I have also not

included acts of charity, such as alms and funerary dinners. This is not because I find them

25 Connerton, How Modernity Forgets, 29; Kalas, Restoration of the Roman Forum in Late Antiquity, 125. 26 McCormack, Art and Ceremony in Late Antiquity, 268. 27 Hekster, “Anchoring Religious Change,” 1, 10 & 24–25. 28 Hekster, “Anchoring Religious Change.” 29 Sluiter, “Ancient Etymology: A Tool for Thinking,” 918 & 921. 30 Alcock, “The Reconfiguration of Memory in the Eastern Roman Empire,” 325; Day et al., “Introduction:

Spaces in Late Antiquity - Cultural, Theological and Archaeological Perspectives,” 3–4; Lowenthal, “Past Time,

Present Place: Landscape and Memory,” 6; Woolf, “Monumental Writing and the Expansion of Roman Society

in the Early Empire,” 31. 31 Examples of literary sources concerned with memory: Augustine, De Natura et Origine Animae, IV.Vii, 9 –

CSEL 60, 389, 7-19; Augustine, De Cura, 6; Augustine, Conf. 10.18; Cicero, Partitiones Oratoriae, 26; Cicero,

De Oratore, II, 86-87; Cicero, De Fin., 5.2; Cassiodorus, Institutiones, II.3.17; Cod.Theod.15.14.9; Horace,

Odes, III.30.1-9; Jerome, Commentarii in Hiezechielem XII, on Ezek., 40.4 – CCSL 75, 554,177-182; Pliny, Ep.

3.5.4; Pliny, Ep. VI.10.3-5; Quintilian, Institutio Oratoria, vol. 4, book 11, 2.20, Tacitus, Ann. 4.38 and the

anonymous author of the “Rhetorica ad Herennium”. An example of epigraphy: CIL VI.1783. 32 Neil, “Crisis in the Letters of Gelasius I (492-96): A New Model of Crisis Management?,” 158. 33 See note 7. Unfortunately, I have not yet had the time to make a similar study of the euergetism in the Forum

Traiani, which will consequently not figure in this part of the study.

6

insignificant as good opportunities to communicate memory, but because they usually do not

have a monument to commemorate them.

Even without the grave- and charity-related dedications, the Basilica of St. Peter was the

focus of the euergetism of the elite. A growing number of aristocrats, bishops, and rulers

became patrons of the church by donating mosaics, fixtures, decorating, remodeling, and

repairing the basilica, even adding completely new buildings. As on the Forum Romanum,

rulers were responsible for many of the dedications in the basilica. However, unlike the

forum, a strong presence of the bishops is detectable, eventually making them responsible for

most of the dedications.34

Though not all sources are equally reliable and dateable, the tendencies of the practice of

euergetism in the basilica in this period can be proven: In the 4th and 5th century the Forum

Romanum was the preferred place for dedications of the two. However, during the 4th to the

6th century, the dedications in the forum were waning, while they were rising in the basilica,

resulting in the number of dedications in the basilica area being larger than in the forum in

the 6th century. This might have been due to the fact that the churches were the new city

centres. It may also be a sign that the anchoring process had indeed been successful.

Furthermore, the process of anchoring probably became self-perpetuating rather quickly,

when each dedication would further normalize the euergetism, consequently attracting more

dedicators. Another contributing factor might also have been that the space of the Forum

Romanum was already crowded with older dedications, leaving limited space for anything

new.

Anchoring in the Basilica of St. Peter – Spolia

Architecture was also used as a way of anchoring the basilica in the past:35 Spolia, being the

reuse of older building parts in new contexts, is a phenomenon we see all over the world

throughout history, but with the Constantinian basilicas the practice became far more

systematic.36

Exactly to what extent is debated, but most scholars agree that spolia were used as an

important building component in the Basilica of St. Peter.37 Though unconfirmed, some

sources even claim that the basilica was made exclusively from spolia.38

When first entering the atrium, the Late-Roman visitor would immediately have spotted the

pigna, which was part of the fountain in the middle of the forecourt. Made in the 1st century,

but not mentioned in the sources before the 8th, it is possible that the pigna could have been in

34 See note 8. I presented these findings during my presentation “Collective Memory at the Forum Romanum

and the St. Peter's in the 4th-6th Century - A Comparative Study” at the Colloquium in Kiel: Urbanscapes in

Transition, 20.-22.10.2016. 35 For a more extensive discussion about the results and underlying data, see Videbech, C., “The Spoils of

Eternity - Spolia as Collective Memory in the Basilica of St. Peter during the 4th century AD (forthcoming in the

proceedings for the session “Tonight will be a memory too – Memory and Landscape”, Kiel International Open

Workshop 2017, 20-24th March 2017). 36 Brandenburg, “Die Verwendung von Spolien und Originalen Werkstücken in der Spätantiken Architektur,”

30. 37 Both visible and non-visible spolia was used in the basilica. However, the non-visible will not be treated

further in this context since it would not have been relevant in a memory-context. Rather it demonstrates how

spolia in different context can have different meanings, as has often been discussed by scholars. I discuss this

more thorough in my aforementioned article on spolia. Blaauw, Cultus et Decor. Liturgia E Architettura Nella

Roma Tardoantica E Medievale: Basilica Salvatoris, Sanctae Mariae, Sancti Petri, 460 & 475–76;

Brandenburg, “Die Verwendung von Spolien und Originalen Werkstücken in der Spätantiken Architektur,” 19;

Machado, “Roman Aristocrats and the Christianization of Rome,” 513. 38 Bosman, The Power of Tradition, 32–38; Bosman, “Spolia in the Fourth-Century Basilica,” 66–67.

7

the atrium as early as the reign of Constantine, but it is far from proven.39 Continuing into the

nave of the basilica, the visitor would discover that the columns here, considered as spolia by

most scholars, were different from each other in both colour, size, and material, most likely

marking them out as spolia.

At the high altar and presbytery, he would have seen the six twisted columns, probably dated

between the 2nd or 3rd century AD, that Constantine collected from Greece.40

There have been various suggestions of how to interpret both spolia in general, and the

extensive use of spolia in the basilica in particular.41 Generally, the reused material is

interpreted as either a practical solution, an expression of a new aesthetic or ideology, or a

combination of these options. More than once has the use of spolia been connected with a

general decline in the later Roman Empire.42 However, I would like

to put forth the interpretation that spolia visible to the visitor of the basilica

were consciously used as architectural references to the past. As such it

gave the Roman viewer a feeling of connection with the past and of being a part of a greater

whole.43 It was a visualization of a shared Roman identity, based on a glorious past and gave

the basilica an air of auctoritas thus legitimizing the transfer of the traditional activities to

this new type of space. It anchored them.

This interpretation of spolia has been suggested by scholars before, but only rarely discussed

in depth.44 The main argument against such an interpretation is that the Roman viewer of Late

Antiquity might not have been able to recognize spolia as such and identify from where they

came.45 Can we expect he/she, not necessarily well educated, to have the necessary

knowledge of styles, architecture, and origin of the reused materials to understand the link to

the past?46 We know almost certainly that we cannot, considering that even well-educated

Roman historians were sometimes mistaken about monuments.47 However, even if this

necessary knowledge cannot be taken for granted, I would argue that spolia could still work

39 Kinney, “Spolia. Damnatio and Renovatio Memoriae,” 31–32; Krautheimer, Rome, 28. 40 Kinney, “Spolia,” 30; Toynbee and Ward-Perkins, The Shrine of St. Peter and the Vatican Excavations, 205. 41 Bosman, The Power of Tradition, 53 & 141; Bosman, “Spolia in the Fourth-Century Basilica,” 77;

Brandenburg, “Die Verwendung von Spolien und Originalen Werkstücken in der Spätantiken Architektur,” 11;

Brandenburg, Ancient Churches of Rome, 36, 97 & 254; Brandenburg, “The Use of Older Elements in the

Architecture of Fourth- and Fifth-Century Rome: A Contribution to the Evaluation of Spolia,” 56, 61 & 68;

Brenk, “Spolien und ihre Wirkung auf die Ästhetik der Varietas. Zum Problem Alternierender Kapitelltypen,”

50, 54–56 & 75–76; Coates-Stephens, “Attitudes to Spolia in Some Late Antique Texts,” 348–49; Greenhalgh,

“Spolia: A Definition in Ruins,” 77–78; Hughes, “Memory and the Roman Viewer: Looking at the Arch of

Constantine,” 103 & 106; Kinney, “Making Mute Stones Speak: Reading Columns in S. Nicola in Carcere and

S. Maria in Aracoeli,” 53 & 86; Lavan, “Late Antique Urban Topography: From Architecture to Human Space,”

176; Lavan, “Distinctive Field Methods for Late Antiquity: Some Suggestions,” 78; Papalexandrou, “Memory

Tattered and Torn: Spolia in the Heartland of Byzantine Hellenism,” 57 & 61; Sande, “Old and New in Old and

New Rome,” 108; Saradi, The Byzantine City in the Sixth Century, 366–67. 42 Brandenburg, “Die Verwendung von Spolien und Originalen Werkstücken in der Spätantiken Architektur,”

17–18. 43 Alchermes, “Spolia in Roman Cities of the Late Empire,” 170; Papalexandrou, “Memory Tattered and Torn:

Spolia in the Heartland of Byzantine Hellenism,” 56. 44 Brandenburg, “Die Verwendung von Spolien und Originalen Werkstücken in der Spätantiken Architektur,”

20–21; Kalas, Restoration of the Roman Forum in Late Antiquity, 50. 45 Coates-Stephens, “Attitudes to Spolia in Some Late Antique Texts,” 342; Lavan, “Distinctive Field Methods

for Late Antiquity: Some Suggestions,” 79; Liverani, “Reading Spolia in Late Antiquity and Contemporary

Perception,” 46. 46 Hughes, “Memory and the Roman Viewer: Looking at the Arch of Constantine,” 108; Kinney, “Rape or

Restitution of the Past? Interpreting Spolia,” 57. 47 Edwards, Writing Rome, 23; Galinsky, “Introduction,” 2016a, 8; Morcillo, Richardson, and Santangelo, “Ruin

or Renewal? Place, Monuments and Memories in Ancient Rome,” 12–14.

8

as a powerful anchor: The Roman viewer would, well-educated or not, when entering the

basilica notice that the columns of the nave were very different from each other in both

colour, size, and material, likely marking them out as spolia. It was not necessary to be able

to identify different architectural styles or to date the individual parts of the basilica precisely

to realize this. Nor did the viewer had to know exactly where the spolia came from. He/she

only had to recognize it as looking old. The viewer would have the existent old buildings in

the fora as points of reference. If we accept this argument, the heterogeneous appearance,

encountered by the Late Roman in the basilica, could have been interpreted as a visualization

of the greatness of the Roman Empire and a clear connection to the past, a strong visual

anchor indeed.

Cui bono

The basilica did not suddenly end up like a space of collective memory. It was a more or less

conscious development, begun by the emperor who built the basilica and continued by the

people, who had something to gain from this.

The beneficiaries of this process seem to have been many: For the benefactors, it generated

status and ensured that their memory would live on through the dedications and improved

their relationship to God. As time went by their contribution went from being containers of

their personal memory to being containers of Roman collective memory.

Christianity as a religion also benefitted from the continuation of these traditions. As a

relatively new religion, it still had to prove its worth. To be able to demonstrate old traditions

and a mythic past was therefore very important. The anchoring process was legitimizing

Christianity as a religion and a part of the old idea of Roma Aeterna. By changing the

appearance of the basilica, the memory of the church was shaped collectively. The

aristocracy, rulers, and clergy were investing their memory in the basilica, consequently

legitimizing Christianity as a religion.48 By using architectural forms, which were easily

recognisable and provided the feeling of historical pride in the viewer, and by revitalizing old

traditions in the new surroundings, it was clearly illustrated how Christianity was not a break

with the Roman past, but a natural continuation. The same process had been going on for

hundreds of years in the Forum Romanum and Forum Traiani. Now the money and the

commitment were used on Roma Cristiana instead, consequently causing a reduction of

stress in a time of transition. This was a process that would need continual care through the

centuries to come, an argument that would go on, as Late Antiquity gradually transformed, at

least in the eyes of modern scholars, into the Middle Ages.49 The city of Rome, her old

monuments, and her churches was an important part of this argument of anchoring,

visualizing continuity with her architecture, spolia, and grand, old traditions.50

Conclusion

I would argue that the transfers of the traditional Roman practices in the Basilica of St. Peter

were made possible by using classical public architecture for the church, incorporating spolia

and encouraging the continuation of euergetism in a Christian context. The innovations of the

church were anchored firmly in Roman tradition and collective memory. This gave an

impression of continuity, reducing stress in a time of transition and was a way to cope with

the novelty of Christianity among the cultural and political elite. However, even though this

process was probably begun consciously, once it had been set in motion, it developed its own

48 Cochran, “Projecting Power in Sixth-Century Rome: The Church of Santi Cosma E Damiano in the Late

Antique Forum Romanum,” 6; Sande, “Old and New in Old and New Rome,” 108. 49 Fried, “Imperium Romanum - Das Römische Reich und der Mittelalterliche Reichsgedanke,” 158–84. 50 Fried, 174–75; Woolf, “Monumental Writing and the Expansion of Roman Society in the Early Empire,” 27.

9

life and soon became self-perpetuating. By manipulating Roman collective memory and

cleverly anchoring the basilica, the bishops, rulers, and Christian aristocracy were moving the

political centre of the city from the fora to the churches and rewriting the story of Roma

Aeterna as Roma Christiana.51

The moving of these actions to the basilica was therefore not a break with the past, but on the

contrary a continuation of the Roman collective memory and traditions. Or, at least, that was

how it was presented to the Late Antique viewer through the process of anchoring.

Bibliography

Alchermes, Joseph. “Spolia in Roman Cities of the Late Empire: Legislative Rationales and

Architectural Reuse.” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 48 (1994): 167–78.

https://doi.org/10.2307/1291726.

Alcock, Susan E. Archaeologies of the Greek Past: Landscape, Monuments, and Memories.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002.

———. “The Reconfiguration of Memory in the Eastern Roman Empire.” In Empires:

Perspectives from Archaeology and History, edited by Susan E. Alcock, Terence N.

D’Altroy, Kathleen D. Morrison, and Carla M. Sinopoli, 323–50. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press, 2001.

Alcock, Susan L., and Ruth M. Van Dyke. “Archaeologies of Memory: An Introduction.” In

Archaeologies of Memory, edited by Ruth M. Van Dyke and Susan L. Alcock, 1–14.

Malden, MA: John Wiley & Sons, 2003.

Assmann, Jan. “Collective Memory and Cultural Identity.” Translated by John Czaplicka.

New German Critique, no. 65 (1995): 125–33.

———. “Communicative and Cultural Memory.” In A Companion to Cultural Memory

Studies, edited by Astrid Erll and Ansgar Nünning, 109–18. Berlin ; New York: De

Gruyter, 2010.

———. Cultural Memory and Early Civilization. Cambridge ; New York: Cambridge

University Press, 2011.

———. “Kollektives Gedächtnis und Kulturelle Identität.” In Kultur und Gedächtnis, edited

by Jan Assmann and Tonio Hölscher, 9–19. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 1988.

———. “Memory and Culture.” In Memory: A History, edited by Dmitri Nikulin, 1 edition.

New York: OUP USA, 2015.

Bauer, Franz Alto. Stadt, Platz und Denkmal in der Spätantike. Mainz am Rhein: P. von

Zabern, 1996.

Bjornlie, M. Shane. Politics and Tradition Between Rome, Ravenna and Constantinople. 1

edition. Cambridge University Press, 2012.

Blaauw, Sible de. Cultus et Decor. Liturgia E Architettura Nella Roma Tardoantica E

Medievale: Basilica Salvatoris, Sanctae Mariae, Sancti Petri. Città delVaticano,

1994.

Bosman, Lex. “Spolia in the Fourth-Century Basilica.” In Old Saint Peter’s, Rome, edited by

Rosamond McKitterick, John Osborne, Carol M. Richardson, and Joanna Story, 65–

80. Cambridge ; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2014.

———. The Power of Tradition: Spolia in the Architecture of St. Peter’s in the Vatican.

Uitgeverij Verloren, 2004.

Brandenburg, Hugo. Ancient Churches of Rome: From the Fourth to the Seventh Century.

Turnhout, Belgium: Brepols Publishers, 2005.

51 Fried, “Imperium Romanum - Das Römische Reich und der Mittelalterliche Reichsgedanke,” 156; Fuhrmann,

“Die Romidee Der Spätantike,” 91; Krautheimer, Rome, 42; Lançon, Rome in Late Antiquity, 160–61.

10

———. “Die Verwendung von Spolien und Originalen Werkstücken in der Spätantiken

Architektur.” In Antike Spolien in der Architektur des Mittelalters und der

Renaissance, edited by Joachim Poeschke, 11–48. München: Hirmer, 1996.

———. “The Use of Older Elements in the Architecture of Fourth- and Fifth-Century Rome:

A Contribution to the Evaluation of Spolia.” In Reuse Value: Spolia and

Appropriation in Art and Architecture from Constantine to Sherrie Levine, edited by

Richard Brilliant and Dale Kinney, 1 edition., 53–73. Great Britain: Routledge, 2011.

Brands, Gunnar. “Die Spätantike Stadt und ihre Christianisierung.” In Die Spätantike Stadt

und ihre Christianisierung, edited by Gunnar Brands and Hans-Georg Severin, 1–26.

Wiesbaden: Reichert, L, 2003.

Brenk, Beat. “Spolien und ihre Wirkung auf die Ästhetik der Varietas. Zum Problem

Alternierender Kapitelltypen.” In Antike Spolien in der Architektur des Mittelalters

und der Renaissance, edited by Joachim Poeschke, 49–92. München: Hirmer, 1996.

Brilliant, Richard. “Rome, the Site of Reverberating Memories.” Edited by Turid Karlsen

Seim and Marina Prusac. Acta Ad Aechaeologiam et Artium Historiam Pertinentia

XXV (2012): 11–28.

Castelli, Elizabeth. Martyrdom and Memory: Early Christian Culture Making. New Ed

edition. New York: Columbia University Press, 2004.

Coates-Stephens, Robert. “Attitudes to Spolia in Some Late Antique Texts.” In Theory and

Practice in Late Antique Archaeology, edited by Luke Lavan and William Bowden,

341–58. Leiden ; Boston: BRILL, 2003.

———. “Byzantine Building Patronage in Post-Reconquest Rome.” In Cité de l’Italie tardo-

antique (IVe-VIe siècle) : institutions, économie, société, culture et religion, edited by

Massimiliano Ghilardi, Christophe J. Goddard, and Pierfrancesco Porena, 149–66.

Collection de L’École Française de Rome 369. Rome, Italy: Ecole Française de

Rome, 2006.

Cochran, Daniel Chesley. “Projecting Power in Sixth-Century Rome: The Church of Santi

Cosma E Damiano in the Late Antique Forum Romanum.” Journal of History and

Cultures, no. 3 (2013).

Connerton, Paul. How Modernity Forgets. 1 edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press, 2009.

———. How Societies Remember. First Edition edition. Cambridge England ; New York:

Cambridge University Press, 1996.

Cooper, Kate, Conrad Leyser, and Julia Hillner. “Dark Age Rome: Towards an Interactive

Topography.” In Social and Political Life in Late Antiquity, edited by William

Bowden, Adam Gutteridge, and Carlos Machado, 311–37. Leiden ; Boston: BRILL,

2006.

Day, Juliette, Raimo Hakola, Maijastina Kahlos, and Ulla Tervahauta. “Introduction: Spaces

in Late Antiquity - Cultural, Theological and Archaeological Perspectives.” In Spaces

in Late Antiquity: Cultural, Theological and Archaeological Perspectives, edited by

Juliette Day, Raimo Hakola, Maijastina Kahlos, and Ulla Tervahauta, 1 edition., 1–7.

New York: Routledge, 2016.

Deliyannis, Deborah M. “Urban Life and Culture.” In A Companion to Ostrogothic Italy,

edited by Jonathan Arnold, M. Shane Bjornlie, and Kristina Sessa, 234–62. Leiden:

BRILL, 2016.

Diefenbach, Steffen. “Urbs und Ecclesia - Bezugspunkte Kollektiver Heiligenerinnerung im

Rom des Bischofs Damasus (366-384).” In Rom in der Spätantike: Historische

Erinnerung im Städtischen Raum, edited by Ralf Behrwald and Christian Witschel, 1.

Auflage 2012., 193–249. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 2012.

11

Edwards, Catharine. Writing Rome: Textual Approaches To The City. Cambridge ; New

York: Cambridge University Press, 1996.

Forsyth Jr., George H. “The Transept of Old St. Peter’s at Rome.” In Late Classical and

Mediaeval Studies in Honor of Albert Mathias Friend, Jr., edited by Kurt Weitzmann,

56–70. Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press, 1955.

Fried, Johannes. “Imperium Romanum - Das Römische Reich und der Mittelalterliche

Reichsgedanke.” In Erinnerungsorte der Antike: Die Römische Welt, edited by Karl-

Joachim Hölkeskamp and Elke Stein-Hölkeskamp, 156–84. München: Beck C. H.,

2006.

Fuhrmann, Manfred. “Die Romidee Der Spätantike.” In Rom Als Idee, edited by Bernhard

Kytzler, 86–123. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1993.

Galinsky, Karl. “Introduction.” In Cultural Memories in the Roman Empire, edited by Karl

Galinsky and Kenneth Lapatin, 1–22. Los Angeles: Yale University Press, 2016b.

———. “Introduction.” In Memory in Ancient Rome and Early Christianity, edited by Karl

Galinsky, 1 edition., 1–39. Oxford, United Kingdom ; New York: Oxford University

Press, 2016a.

Goff, Jacques Le. History and Memory. Translated by Steven Rendall and Elizabeth Claman.

New Ed edition. New York: Columbia University Press, 1992.

Goffart, Walter. “Does the Distant Past Impinge on the Invasion Age Germans?” In From

Roman Provinces to Medieval Kingdoms, edited by Thomas F. X. Noble, New Ed

edition., 91–109. New York: Routledge, 2006.

Greenhalgh, Michael. “Spolia: A Definition in Ruins.” In Reuse Value: Spolia and

Appropriation in Art and Architecture from Constantine to Sherrie Levine, edited by

Richard Brilliant and Dale Kinney, 1 edition., 75–95. Great Britain: Routledge, 2011.

Halbwachs, Maurice. La Mémoire Collective. Nouv. ed. rev. et augm edition. Paris: Albin

Michel, 1997.

———. On Collective Memory. Translated by Lewis A. Coser. Chicago: University of

Chicago Press, 1992.

———. The Collective Memory. 1st ed edition. New York: Harper & Row, 1980.

Haug, Annette. “Constituting the Past - Forming the Present.” Journal of the History of

Collections 13, no. 2 (2001): 111–23.

Hekster, Olivier. “Anchoring Religious Change: Faces of Power and Problems of

Communication.” Accessed May 10, 2017.

https://www.academia.edu/24058331/Anchoring_religious_change_Faces_of_power_

and_problems_of_communication.

Hobsbawm, Eric. “From ‘Introduction: Inventing Traditions.’” In The Collective Memory

Reader, edited by Jeffrey K. Olick, Vered Vinitzky-Seroussi, and Daniel Levy, 271–

74. New York: Oxford University Press, U.S.A., 2011.

Hoepfner, Wolfram. “Das Ende der Agora.” In Die Spätantike Stadt und ihre

Christianisierung, edited by Gunnar Brands and Hans-Georg Severin, 145–50.

Wiesbaden: Reichert, L, 2003.

Hölkeskamp, Karl-Joachim. Senatus Populusque Romanus: Die Politische Kultur Der

Republik - Dimensionen Und Deutungen. Stuttgart, 2004.

Hughes, Jessica. “Memory and the Roman Viewer: Looking at the Arch of Constantine.” In

Memoria Romana: Memory in Rome and Rome in Memory, edited by Karl Galinsky,

103–15. Ann Arbor, Michigan: University of Michigan Press, 2014.

Humphries, Mark. “Liturgy and Laity in Late-Antique Rome: Problems, Sources, and Social

Dynamics.” Studia Patristica 71 (2014): 171–86.

12

———. “The West (1): Italy, Gaul, and Spain.” In The Oxford Handbook of Early Christian

Studies, edited by Susan Ashbrook Harvey and David G. Hunter, 283–301. Oxford ;

New York: OUP Oxford, 2008.

Jones, Andrew. Memory and Material Culture. 1 edition. New York: Cambridge University

Press, 2007.

Kalas, Gregor. Restoration of the Roman Forum in Late Antiquity: Transforming Public

Space. Austin: University of Texas Press, 2015.

Kinney. “Spolia.” In St. Peter’s in the Vatican, edited by William Tronzo, 1 edition., 16–47.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005.

Kinney, Dale. “Making Mute Stones Speak: Reading Columns in S. Nicola in Carcere and S.

Maria in Aracoeli.” In Architectural Studies in Memory of Richard Krautheimer,

edited by Cecil L. Striker, 83–86. Mainz: von Zabern Mainz, 1996.

———. “Rape or Restitution of the Past? Interpreting Spolia.” In The Art of Interpreting,

edited by Susan C. Scott, 53–67. Papers in Art History from Pensylvania State

University 9. University Park, Penn: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1996.

———. “Spolia. Damnatio and Renovatio Memoriae.” Memoirs of the American Academy in

Rome 42 (1997): 117–48. https://doi.org/10.2307/4238749.

Krautheimer, Richard. Rome: Profile of a City, 312-1308. With a New foreword by Marvin

Trachtenberg edition. Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press, 1980.

———. St. Peter’s and Medieval Rome. Rome: Unione internazionale degli istituti di

archeologia, storia e storia dell’arte in Roma, 1985.

Lançon, Bertrand. Rome in Late Antiquity: AD 312 - 609. New York: Routledge, 2000.

Lavan, Luke. “Distinctive Field Methods for Late Antiquity: Some Suggestions.” In Field

Methods and Post-Excavation Techniques in Late Antique Archaeology, edited by

Luke Lavan and Michael Mulryan, Expanded edition., 51–90. Leiden: BRILL, 2015.

———. “Late Antique Urban Topography: From Architecture to Human Space.” In Theory

and Practice in Late Antique Archaeology, edited by William Bowden and Luke

Lavan, 171–95. Leiden ; Boston: BRILL, 2003.

Leone, Anna. The End of the Pagan City: Religion, Economy, and Urbanism in Late Antique

North Africa. Oxford, United Kingdom: OUP Oxford, 2013.

Liverani, Paolo. “Reading Spolia in Late Antiquity and Contemporary Perception.” In Reuse

Value: Spolia and Appropriation in Art and Architecture from Constantine to Sherrie

Levine, edited by Richard Brilliant and Dale Kinney, 1 edition., 33–51. Great Britain:

Routledge, 2011.

———. “Saint Peter’s and the City of Rome between Late Antiquity and the Early Middle

Ages.” In Old Saint Peter’s, Rome, edited by Rosamond McKitterick, John Osborne,

Carol M. Richardson, and Joanna Story, 21–34. Cambridge ; New York: Cambridge

University Press, 2014.

Lowenthal, David. “Past Time, Present Place: Landscape and Memory.” Geographical

Review 65, no. 1 (1975): 1–36.

Machado, Carlos. “Building the Past: Monuments and Memory in the Forum Romanum.” In

Social and Political Life in Late Antiquity, edited by William Bowden, Adam

Gutteridge, and Carlos Machado, 157–92. Leiden ; Boston: Brill, 2006.

———. “Roman Aristocrats and the Christianization of Rome.” In Pagans and Christians in

the Roman Empire: The Breaking of a Dialogue (IVth-VIth Century A.D.), edited by

Peter Brown and Rita Lizzi Testa, Mul edition., 493–517. Wien: Lit Verlag, 2011.

Marazzi, Federico. “Ostrogothic Cities.” In A Companion to Ostrogothic Italy, edited by

Jonathan Arnold, Shane Bjornlie, and Kristina Sessa, 98–120. Leiden: BRILL, 2016.

Marlowe, Elizabeth. “The Multivalence of Memory: The Tetrachs, the Senate, and the

Vicennalia Monument in the Roman Forum.” In Cultural Memories in the Roman

13

Empire, edited by Karl Galinsky and Kenneth Lapatin, 240–63. Los Angeles: Yale

University Press, 2016b.

McCormack, Sabine G. Art and Ceremony in Late Antiquity. Berkeley: University of

California Press, 1981.

Morcillo, Marta Garcia, James H. Richardson, and Federico Santangelo. “Ruin or Renewal?

Place, Monuments and Memories in Ancient Rome.” In Ruin or Renewal? Places and

Transformation of Memory in the City of Rome, edited by Marta Garcia Morcillo,

James H. Richardson, and Federico Santangelo, 9–26. Rome, 2016.

Neil, Bronwen. “Crisis in the Letters of Gelasius I (492-96): A New Model of Crisis

Management?” In The Bishop of Rome in Late Antiquity, edited by Geoffrey D. Dunn,

New edition edition., 155–74. Farnham Surrey, England : Burlington, VT: Routledge,

2015.

Ng, Diana Y. “Monuments, Memory, and Statues Recognition in Roman Asia Minor.” In

Memory in Ancient Rome and Early Christianity, edited by Karl Galinsky, 1 edition.,

235–60. Oxford, United Kingdom ; New York: Oxford University Press, 2016a.

Nora, Pierre. “General Introduction: Between Memory and History.” In Realms of Memory:

Conflicts and Divisions v. 1: The Construction of the French Past, edited by Pierre

Nora, translated by Arthur Goldhammer, Subsequent edition., 1–20. New York:

Columbia University Press, 1996.

Olick, Jeffrey K. “From ‘Collective Memory: The Two Cultures.’” In The Collective Memory

Reader, edited by Jeffrey K. Olick, Vered Vinitzky-Seroussi, and Daniel Levy, 225–

28. New York: Oxford University Press, U.S.A., 2011.

———. “From Usable Pasts to the Return of the Repressed.” The Hedgehog Review 9, no. 2

(2007): 19–31.

Papalexandrou, Amy. “Memory Tattered and Torn: Spolia in the Heartland of Byzantine

Hellenism.” In Archaeologies of Memory, edited by Ruth M. Van Dyke and Susan L.

Alcock, 56–80. Malden, MA: John Wiley & Sons, 2003.

Pennebaker, James W., and Amy L. Gonzales. “Making History: Social and Psychological

Processes Underlying Collective Memory.” In Memory in Mind and Culture, edited

by Pascal Boyer and James V. Wertsch, 1 edition., 171–93. New York: Cambridge

University Press, 2009.

Potter, T. W. Towns in Late Antiquity. Sheiffield: Ian Sanders Memorial Fund, 1995.

Roediger III, Henry L., Franklin M. Zaromb, and Andrew C. Butler. “The Role of Repeated

Retrieval in Shaping Collective Memory.” In Memory in Mind and Culture, edited by

Pascal Boyer and James V. Wertsch, 1 edition., 138–70. New York: Cambridge

University Press, 2009.

Rowlands, Michael. “The Role of Memory in the Transmission of Culture.” World

Archaeology 25, no. 2 (1993): 141–51.

Russell, Nicolas. “Collective Memory Before and After Halbwachs.” The French Review 79,

no. 4 (2006): 792–804.

Rutledge, Steven. Ancient Rome as a Museum: Power, Identity, and the Culture of

Collecting. Oxford: OUP Oxford, 2012.

Sande, Siri. “Old and New in Old and New Rome.” In Acta ad Archaeologiam et Artivm

Historiam Pertinetia: Rome AD 300-800. Power and Symbol. Image and Reality.,

edited by Olof Brandt, Olaf Steen, Lasse Hodne, and Siri Sande, XVII:101–14. Roma:

Bardi Editore, 2003.

Saradi, Helen G. The Byzantine City in the Sixth Century: Literary Images and Historical

Reality. Athens, 2006.

14

Saradi-Mendelovici, Helen. “Christian Attitudes toward Pagan Monuments in Late Antiquity

and Their Legacy in Later Byzantine Centuries.” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 44 (1990):

47–61. https://doi.org/10.2307/1291617.

Schumacher, Walter Nikolaus. “Das Baptisterium von Alt-St. Peter und seine Probleme: Mit

einem Beitrag von Thomas Barth.” In Studien zur spätantiken und byzantinischen

Kunst: Friedrich Wilhelm Deichmann gewidmet, Teil 1, edited by Otto Feld and Urs

Peschlow, 215–33. Bonn: Habelt, R, 1986.

Sessa, Kristina. “The Roman Church and Its Bishops.” In A Companion to Ostrogothic Italy,

edited by Jonathan Arnold, M. Shane Bjornlie, and Kristina Sessa, 425–50. Leiden:

BRILL, 2016.

Sluiter, Ineke. “Anchoring Innovation: A Classical Research Agenda.” European Review 25,

no. 1 (2016): 20–38. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1062798716000442.

———. “Ancient Etymology: A Tool for Thinking.” In Brill’s Companion to Ancient Greek

Scholarship, edited by Franco Montanari, Stephanos Matthaios, and Antonios

Rengakos, 2:896–922. Leiden: Brill, 2015.

Toynbee, J. M. C., and John Ward-Perkins. The Shrine of St. Peter and the Vatican

Excavations. Great Britain, 1956.

Wataghin, Gisella Cantino. “Christian Topography in the Late Antique Town: Recent Results

and Open Questions.” In Theory and Practice in Late Antique Archaeology, edited by

Luke Lavan and William Bowden, 224–56. Leiden ; Boston: BRILL, 2003.

Wertsch, James V. “Collective Memory.” In Memory in Mind and Culture, edited by Pascal

Boyer and James V. Wertsch, 1 edition., 117–37. New York: Cambridge University

Press, 2009.

Wickham, Chris, and James J. Fentress. Social Memory. New York, N.Y.: ACLS Humanities

E-Book, 1992.

Woolf, Greg. “Monumental Writing and the Expansion of Roman Society in the Early

Empire.” The Journal of Roman Studies 86 (1996): 22–39.

https://doi.org/10.2307/300421.