regal period and were productive of the remarkable edifice which is the republic and
its historiography.
Here again, the development of the city and the impact on religion are vitally import-
ant. The relationship between the king and the priests, between different orders of
priests, and the significance of the citizen community as object of the gods’ protec-
tion and active partner in securing the gods’ favor, are all parts of the story we must
tell to explain Rome’s political development. It is absolutely core to the understanding
of the rise of the plebeian movement which sought to break patrician monopolies
of power that the language in which they frame their own self-image is profoundly
religious; the alternative triad of Ceres, Liber, and Libera, with connections to Greek
cult (Spaeth 1996), the development of the plebeian games, the sacrosanctity of the
plebeian tribunes all arise at the very beginning of the republic and evolve from the
world of regal Rome. The study of archaic Roman religion is now more open and
more exciting than ever before.FURTHER READINGThe standard introduction is Beard et al. (1998: 1.1–72), but see also Scheid (2003) for an
excellent overview, and on Etruscan religion, see Jannot (1998) and de Grummond and Simon
(2006). On all issues relating to the history of early Rome, Cornell (1995) is indispensable;
see also Grandazzi (1997) and C. Smith (2006). For the historiography of early Rome and
its myths see Fox (1996) and Jason Davies (2004: 1–142).
For the archaeology of early Rome and Latium, see C. Smith (1996a, 2005), Bietti-Sestieri
(1992), and Carandini (2000). For individual sites, see as follows: the Forum Boarium, Coarelli
(1988); Lavinium, Torelli (1984); Osteria dell’Osa, Bietti-Sestieri (1992); Satricum, C. Smith
(1999) with full references. For votive deposits see Bouma (1996). There is a challenging and
problematic account of early Rome in Carandini (1997), on which see Wiseman (2001).
Dumézil (1970) is a remarkable work, but there are also challenging and valuable con-
tributions in Dumézil (1968 –73, 1975). For a devastating critique see Wiseman (1995a: 25–30).
On Roman mythology see Preller (1883) and, more recently, a controversial but fascinating
attempt to establish the political and dramatic context of Roman myth-making in Wiseman
(2004). For the Roman calendar see Michels (1967), Scullard (1981), Rüpke (1995a, 2006c),
and Beard et al. (1998: 2.60 –77). For Roman priesthoods, Wissowa (1912) and Latte (1960)
are again vital, but see more recently Vanggaard (1988) on the flaminate, and on the auspicia
and the roles of the augurs Linderski (1986). There is no reliable English treatment of the
pontificate.
For the development of the city of Rome and the consequences for Roman religion and
history, see Raaflaub (1986); Momigliano returned repeatedly to this subject and his thoughts
are collected in his Contributi(Momigliano 1955 – 92).42 Christopher Smith