Especially immovable cult images – as temple buildings (Favro 1996: 150 – 5) and
interiors (Mattern 2001) – were subject to a general tendency toward increased
luxury and monumentalization. The replacing of small-sized archaic wooden and
terracotta images with imposing marble-and-gold ivory statues was justified with a
religio-aesthetic argument: precious materials (gold, ivory, variegated marble) and
colossal dimensions lent expression to the gravity, the power, and the “beauty” of
the deity. To enhance the aesthetic value, statues by renowned Greek artists seized
in war were often re-used as cult images in Roman temples. The group of statues
in the Palatine temple of Apollo are an instance of this (see the section below on
the sanctuary of Apollo Palatinus).
The “furnishings,” on the other hand, constitute the functional equipment of the
cult precinct and temple buildings – water basins and wells, kitchens, benches and
tables, wooden cabinets and shelved niches. In addition to the permanent fixtures
there are movable pieces of furniture and instruments such as crockery, lamps,
cushions, and sun sails, which could be brought as needed. Representative temple
architecture in particular, however, makes it difficult to separate the functional
furnishings from “decorative” elements such as wall paintings, mosaics, marble
paneling – since both functions are often combined. Colorfully woven curtains and
temple doors adorned with metal fittings could be intended as eye-catchers and at
the same time serve as boundary markers, floor tiles of variegated marble could be
both embellishment and insulation, statues were placed in the cellaas votive gifts
but also displayed as works of art.
The religious ordering principle – the separation between sacred and profane ground
as well as the ideal west–east orientation of all temples (Vitr. 4.5.1) – was in prac-
tice often compromised by pragmatic interests and spatial constraints. For instance,
the Fortuna sanctuary at Pompeii (see the section below on the temple of Fortuna
Augusta), which was integrated into an existing urban structure, had to follow the
street pattern and the borders of adjoining private properties. In the course of the
comprehensive restoration and reorganization of Rome’s vast urban space, Augustus
introduced for every district a local cult for the laresand the Geniusof the princeps,
whose modest shrines (compita) were found at crossroads (Favro 1996: 135 – 40).
Spatial Order and Functionality
Archaeological research has often neglected the documentation of cult realia (see,
e.g., Baldassare 1996: 35 – 41) in favor of architectural and stylistic analysis. The less
than spectacular, minimal solutions of practicing religions are recorded only in excep-
tional cases: perhaps one place of worship was indicated simply by a statuette in a
wall niche, or a wall painting on a street corner (Bakker 1994). An outdoor altar
could at any time be erected from dug-out patches of grass, and a modest sacrificial
meal could be prepared with the help of a portable brazier, earthen crockery, and
knives: the water necessary for cleaning could be taken from a public running well
or the cistern of a neighboring house or grave-owner. A former cult place may there-
fore at times be identified only from paint residue on the plastering, a burnt layer,Roman Cult Sites 207