In dealing with the vast amount of material evidence available for the study of ancient religion, an approach that is interested in religion in the making can
Lived religion 77 draw on several recent developments in archaeology in addition to religious studies (Raja and Riipke 2015; Chidester 2018). ‘Visible’ and 'material religion’ take the aesthetic side far beyond (reconstructed) ritual performances or literary texts (Kippenberg 1990; Estienne 2008; Boivin 2009; Belayche and Pirenne-Delforge 2015). Fundamental to these approaches is the notion that the very construction of gods as super-symbols, as well as communication with them in a whole range of related religious practices, not only involves using but is also shaped by the very material and sensory basis of these activities. In the course of thinking about the social conditions of individual agency and the networks in which individuals act, the analogical concept of ‘the agency of things’ has been developed and then introduced into the study of religion (Latour 1993, 2005; Droogan 2013, 151). The architecture of a sacralized site must now be seen from many perspectives: as a material thing with all its constructive and economic details; as a social agent inviting people to visit or make a detour (and having been entangled with various people right from its first moment); as a prop for ideological claims to the primacy of a certain deity (or its pious followers); and as an object figuring in very different biographical, historical, or mythical narratives (see Droogan 2013, 166; also Hodder 2011). Consequently, things are no longer seen as being determined by stable meaning (even if it is perhaps unavailable to the researcher) but as elements which are culturally and situationally activated: by being visible they elicit response (Morgan 2010, 2011; Gaskell 2011, 40).
Graffiti serve as a clear example of the latter. If graffiti were welcome in the ancient home, as representative of an emphatic reaction on the part of invited guests, then this minimalized but durable form of linguistic communication may also have played a role within the precincts of temples. This was demonstrably the case at Dura-Europos in the east of the Roman Empire. There, in the temples and assembly buildings of Jews, as well as worshippers of Christ and Mithras, creators of graffiti endeavoured to perpetuate themselves by placing their requests to be remembered or blessed as close as possible to the focus of religious communication, either close to the cult image, on mural paintings, or in corridors leading to these focal points (Stern 2014, esp. 146; on houses see Scheibelreiter-Gail 2012, 161). In this way they also appropriated the great two- or three-dimensional signifiers of religious communication that belonged to others.
The architecture itself was a more visible and more effective factor for the multiplication of religion. If the lived religion perspective concurs in asking for the ongoing use and appropriation even of public sanctuaries by means of visiting, singing, picnicking, depositing, and engraving graffiti, then attention must also be paid to the process of building (instead of just classifying a site according to the principal deity addressed there). By collaborating with the architect, those who commissioned temples could express and communicate their desires as to external size and shape and the internal design in terms of spatial effect and decoration, as well as specifying details concerning the image of the god, its size, and its positioning in the inner room (e.g. Davies
2012). In Rome, this is especially evident in the choice of unusual forms, such as the round temple.
A few years after 146 все (the confirmed date of the first marble temple to be built in Rome), a merchant named Marcus Octavius Herennus, who had once been employed as a flautist, built a round temple on the Tiber and dedicated it to Hercules Victor after the successful foiling of a pirate attack. In so doing, and as confirmed by Masurius Sabinus in the early 1st century ce, he linked Hercules’ general association with successful commerce with his personal interpretation of his own specific experience (Macrobius, Saturnalia 3.6.11; for details see Arnhold and Riipke 2016). It is possible that he was supported by the prominent architect Hermodorus, who was active during this period. The structure, which 1 take to be the round temple still visible on the Forum Boarium, was unusual in many ways. It had neither a podium nor a clearly defined frontal aspect. The twenty columns stood so close together that they entirely obstructed the view of the core structure, the cella, and from a distance also obscured the entrance with its two flanking windows. It was only from close up, with the door and windows open, that the statue standing at the centre would have been well lit and visible. The foundations were built out of the widely used Grotta Oscura tufa stone, but the structure above it emphasized innovation and high aesthetics. The interior walls were built out of the new but local travertine, and the almost ten-and-a-half-metres-high slender columns were fashioned from Pentelic marble from Attica. This was surely a demonstration of superior wealth and appreciation of Greek culture, as was visible at multiple locations around the city, in cultural contexts, in the form of plunder, in its institutions, and in its theatre.
It was probably a few decades later that Quintus Lutatius Catulus continued the experiment with round temples by building a temple of ‘Fortuna of the present day’ (Fortuna huiusce diei) on the Field of Mars, today to be admired as Temple В on the Largo Argentina. The importance that the consul of 102 все assigned to religious communication is shown not only by this temple, built in the following year, but also by the fact that, the consul himself probably being without priestly office, he succeeded in having his son co-opted by the pontiffs in the following decade. This son in his own turn became celebrated for completing in lavish fashion the restoration begun by Sulla of the Capitoline Temple of Jupiter. Quite unlike Herennus, Catulus set his round structure on a podium two-and-a-half metres high, and surrounded it with eighteen more substantial pillars, also on Attic bases and with Corinthian capitals, to an overall height approaching eleven metres. The builder gave this structure, one of the series of temples on this square on the Field of Mars, a clear orientation and frontal aspect. A broad stairway leads onto the podium, and the entrance lies on the same axis behind a widened inter-columnium. Catulus had the cult image placed in such a way that it faced the visitor, standing on a colossal scale and in living colour at the opposite side of the internal space, its visible body parts carved from white marble (perhaps with a painted surface) while the rest may have consisted of bronze body
Lived religion 79 armour. With the entrance open, at a height of some eight metres this spacefilling deity was visible from a great distance. Catulus also refers back to the tradition of ‘Fortuna’, the force of fate, linking her with a radically personal twist of fate as a visible, even insistent presence: she is the power who helped him at a particular moment. His purpose is entirely polemical. Here, Catulus is celebrating as his own victory the defeat over the Cimbri at Vercellae (June, 101 BCE) won by him together with Gaius Marius, the already celebrated commander: an assertion to which the construction of the temple gives monumental relevance. We must not forget that he is doing this in a context in which the presentation of votive objects was still a widespread form of popular ritual practice. The marble structure gleams in contrast to the clay objects left on benches and in pits.4 But this itself makes it clear that the temple is not just a building: it is a representation and perpetuation of a specific religious communication aimed at higher authorities, at special agents.
We have to consider that such enormous architectural (and, of course, financial) investments were not the entrepreneurial actions of religious organizations. Rather, as a rule they relied on the initiative of individuals wishing through the initiation of such projects to give proof of their exceptional gratitude to and intimacy with a deity. For all the wrangling over building sites, and the support required from such authorities as city councils, it was the decisions of individuals to donate their no less exceptional war plunder or other gains in this way, their decisions in favour of a particular architectural form and a particular deity, that thus established the religious infrastructure, and defined both the ease of accessibility of particular gods and the form to be taken by the cult. As in other cases, of course we must wonder about the social rules that, in the flux of history, drove the use of particular forms of communication: to whom were these available? Even from a lived ancient religion perspective it is clear that the broad range of religious practices reviewed offered a field of action in which individuals could obtain success, authority, respect, or even simply a living that was not available to them in other areas of social, political, or merely domestic activity.
Just as lived religion as a new research perspective started off on the streets, so too does ancient lived religion need to be looked for in the same place. For many living in the great imperial era cities and metropolises, the street as a ‘house’ comprising different rooms constituted the primary living space. However, the few home occupiers, the owners of villas, who were able actively to configure the architectural features and furniture of their homes created an ‘infrastructure’, that is, walls which could also be used by others in a multitude of ways. Graffiti abounded, lamps could be kindled, deities engraved, statuettes set in place. These were activities beyond any central form of control. but they were not without perceptions of and influence on the prominent shrines and images and practices in the large spaces and houses, because they were permanently appropriating and changing a tradition that was reproduced in new forms by these very acts. These activities were religion in the making.
80 Lived religion
Andreani, Claudia, del Moro, Maria Paola, and de Nuccio, Marilda 2005. ‘Contesti e material! votivi dell’ “area sacra” di Largo Argentina’, in Annamaria Cornelia and Sebastiana Mele (eds.), Depositi Votivi e Culti dell’Italia Antica dall’Età Arcaica a Quella Tardo-Repubblicana - Atti del Convegno di Studi Perugia. 1-4 giugno 2000 (Bibliotheca archaeologica; Bd. 16). Bari: Edipuglia. 111-125.
Arnhold, Marlis and Riipke, Jörg 2016. ‘Appropriating and Shaping Religious Practices in the Roman Republic’, in Matthias Haake and Ann-Cathrin Harders (eds.). Politische Kultur und soziale Struktur der Römischen Republik: Bilanzen und Perspektiven, Stuttgart: Steiner. 413 428.
Ashmore, Richard D., Deaux, Kay, and McLaughlin-Volpe, Tracy 2004. ‘An Organizing Framework for Collective Identity: Articulation and Significance of Multidimensionality', Psychological Bulletin 130 (1). 80-114.
Barton, Tamsyn 1994. Ancient Astrology, London: Routledge.
Beard. Mary 1986. ‘Cicero and Divination: The Formation of a Latin Discourse’, JRS 76. 33 46.
Beard. Mary 1987. ‘A Complex of Times: No More Sheep on Romulus' Birthday’, Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society 33. 1-15.
Beard. Mary 1991. ‘Writing and Religion: Ancient Literacy and the Function of the Written Word in Roman Religion', Literacy in the Roman World, Ann Arbor. MI: Journal of Roman Archaeology. 35-58.
Belayche, Nicole and Pirenne-Delforge, Vinciane (eds.) 2015. Fabriquer du divin: Constructions et ajustements de la représentation des dieux dans l’antiquité (Collection Religions: Comparatisme - Histoire - Anthropologie 5), Liège: Presses Universitaires de Liège.
Belayche, Nicole, Rosenberger, Veit. Rüpke, Jörg, Bendlin, Andreas, and Vigourt, Annie 2005. ‘Divination romaine’, Thesaurus cultus et rituum antiquorum 3. 79-104.
Bell. Catherine 1992. Ritual Theory. Ritual Practice, New York: Oxford University Press. Bellah, Robert N. 1985. Habits of the Heart: Individualism and Commitment in American Life, Berkeley: University of California Press.
Bender, Courtney 2016. ‘How and Why to Study Up: Frank Lloyd Wright’s Broadacre City and the Study of Lived Religion', Nordic Journal of Religion and Society 29 (2). 100-116.
Benoist. Stéphane, Dagout-Gagey, Anne, Hoet-van Cauwenberghe, Christine, and Lefebvre, Sabine (eds.) 2009. Mémoires partagées, mémoires disputées: Ecriture et réécriture de l'histoire (Centre Régional Universitaire Lorrain d’Histoire, Site de Metz 39), Metz: Université de Lorraine.
Boivin. Nicole 2009. ‘Grasping the Elusive and Unknowable: Material Culture in Ritual Practice’, Material Religion 5. 266-287.
Certeau, Michelde 2007. Arts de faire, ed. Luce Giard, Paris: Gallimard.
Chidester, David 2018. Religion: Material Dynamics (Religion), Berkeley: University of California Press.
Connerton, Paul 1989. How Societies Remember, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cramer, Fredrick H. 1954. Astrology in Roman Law and Politics (Memoirs of the American Philosophical Society 37), Philadelphia. PA: American Philosophical Society.
Cubitt, Geoffrey 2007. History and Memory (Historical Approaches), Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Cusamano, Nicola, Gasparini. Valentino, Mastrocinque, Attilio, and Rüpke, Jörg (eds.) 2013. Memory and Religious Experience in the Graeco-Roman World (Potsdamer altertumswissenschaftliche Beiträge 45), Stuttgart: Steiner.
Davies, Penelope J. E. 2012. ‘On the Introduction of Stone Entablatures in Republican Temples in Rome’, in Michael L. Thomas and Gretchen E. Meyers (eds.), Mon-umentality in Etruscan and Early Roman Architecture: Ideology and Innovation, Austin: University of Texas Press. 139-165.
Dignas, Beate and Smith. R. R. R. 2012. ‘Introduction’, in Beate Dignas and R. R. R. Smith (eds.). Historical and Religious Memory in the Ancient World, Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1-11.
Droogan, Julian 2013. Religion. Material Culture and Archaeology (Bloomsbury Advances in Religious Studies), London: Bloomsbury.
Eliasoph, Nina and Lichterman. Paul 2003. ‘Culture in Interaction', American Journal of Sociology 108 (4). 735-794.
Erll, Astrid 2011. Memory in Culture, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Estienne, Sylvia (ed.) 2008. Image et Religion dans ¡’Antiquité Gréco-Romaine: Actes du colloque de Rome, 1-13 décembre 2003 (Collection du Centre Jean Bérard 28), Naples: Centre Jean Bérard.
Feeney, Denis 1998. Literature and Religion al Rome: Cultures, Contexts, and Beliefs, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Flower, Harriet 2003. “’Memories” of Marcellus: History and Memory in Roman Republican Culture’, in Ulrich Eigier (ed.), Formen römischer Geschichtsschreibung von den Anfängen bis Livius: Gattungen, Autoren. Kontexte, Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. 39-52.
Fuchs. Martin 2015. ‘Processes of Religious Individualization: Stocktaking and Issues for the Future’, Religion 45 (3). 330-343.
Fuchs. Martin and Rüpke. Jörg 2015. ‘Religious Individualization in Historical Perspective’, Religion 45 (3). 323-329.
Gaskell, Ivan 2011. ‘Display’, Material Religion 7. 34-40.
Gasparini, Valentino, Patzelt. Maik, Raja, Rubina. Rieger, Anna-Katharina. Rüpke. Jörg, and Urciuoli, Emiliano Rubens (eds.) 2020. Lived Religion in the Ancient Mediterranean World: Approaching Religious Transformations from Archaeology, History and Classics, Berlin: de Gruyter.
Geertz, Clifford 1973. The Interpretation of Culture, New York: Basic Books.
Geertz, Clifford 1984. ‘“From the Native’s Point of View”: On the Nature of Anthropological Understanding’, in Richard A. Shweder and Robert A. LeVine (eds.). Culture Theory: Essays on Mind, Self, and Emotion, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 123-136.
Gordon, Richard 2010. ‘Magian Lessons in Natural History: Unique Animals in Graeco-Roman Natural Magic’, in Jitse Dijkstra, Justin Kroesen, and Yme Kuiper (eds.). Myths, Martyrs, and Modernity: Studies in the History of Religions in Honour of Jan N. Bremmer, Leiden: Brill. 249-269.
Gordon, Richard 2013a. 'The Religious Anthropology of Late-Antique "High" Magical Practice’, in Jörg Rüpke (ed.). The Individual in the Religions of the Ancient Mediterranean, Oxford: Oxford University Press. 163-186.
Gordon, Richard 2013b. ’Cosmology, Astrology, and Magic: Discourse, Schemes, Power, and Literacy’, in Laurent Bricault and Corinne Bonnet (eds.), Panthee: Religious Transformations in the Graeco-Roman Empire (Religions in the Graeco-Roman World 177). Leiden: Brill. 85-111.
Habinek, Thomas 1998. The Politics of Latin Literature: Writing, Identity, and Empire in Ancient Rome, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Haines-Eitzen, Kim 2012. The Gendered Palimpsest: Women, Writing, and Representation in Early Christianity, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Halbwachs, Maurice 1992. On Collective Memory, trans. Lewis A. Coser, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Hall. David D. 1997. ’Introduction’, in David D. Hall (ed.). Lived Religion in America. Toward a History of Practice. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, vii-xiii.
Hodder, Ian 2011. ‘Human-Thing Entanglement: Towards an Integrated Archaeological Perspective’, Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 17 (1). 154-177.
Iser, Wolfgang 1994. Der Akt des Lesens: Theorie ästhetischer Wirkung, Munich: Fink. Kindt, Julia 2016. Revisiting Delphi: Religion and Storytelling in Ancient Greece (Cambridge Classical Studies), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kippenberg, H. G. 1990. ‘Introduction’, Visible Religion 7. vii-xix.
Latour. Bruno 1993. We Have Never Been Modern, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Latour. Bruno 2005. Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Le Golf, Jacques 1992. History and Memory, New York: Columbia University Press.
Lichterman, Paul 2012. ‘Religion in Public Action: From Actors to Settings’, Sociological Theory 30 (1). 15-36.
Lichterman, Paul 2013. ‘Studying Public Religion: Beyond the Beliefs-Driven Actor’, in Courtney Bender, Wendy Cadge, Peggy Levitt, andDavid Smilde (eds.). Religion on the Edge: De-Centering and Re-Centering the Sociology of Religion, Oxford: Oxford University Press. 32-35, 115-123.
Lichterman, Paul and Eliasoph, Nina 2014. ‘Civic Action’, American Journal of Sociology 120 (3). 798-863.
Lichterman, Paul, Raja, Rubina. Rieger, Anna-Katharina, and Rüpke. Jörg 2017. ‘Grouping Together in Lived Ancient Religion: Individual Interacting and the Formation of Groups', Religion in the Roman Empire 3 (1). 3-10.
McGuire, Meredith B. 2008. Lived Religion: Faith and Practice in Everyday Life, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Morgan, David (ed.) 2010. Religion and Material Culture: The Matter of Belief London: Routledge.
Morgan, David (ed.) 2011. ‘Thing’, Material Religion7. 140-146.
Oesterle, Günter (ed.) 2005. Erinnerung. Gedächtnis. Wissen: Studien zur kulturwissenschaftlichen Gedächtnisforschung (Formen der Erinnerung 26). Göttingen: Van-denhoeck & Ruprecht.
Orsi, Robert A. 1997. ’Everyday Miracles: The Study of Lived Religion’, in David D. Hall (ed.). Lived Religion in America: Toward a History of Practice, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. 3-21.
Orsi, Robert A. 1999. Gods of the City: Religion and the American Urban Landscape (Religion in North America), Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Orsi, Robert A. 2010. The Madonna of 115th Street. Faith and Community in Italian Harlem. 1880-1950 (3rd edn.), New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Raja, Rubina and Rüpke, Jörg 2015. Archaeology of Religion. Material Religion, and the Ancient World’, in Rubina Raja and Jörg Rüpke (eds.), A Companion to the Archaeology of Religion in the Ancient World, Malden. MA: Wiley. 1-25.
Rebillard. Eric 2012. Christians and Their Many Identities in Late Antiquity. North Africa, 200-450 CE, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Rüpke, Jörg 2010. 'Representation or Presence? Picturing the Divine in Ancient Rome’, Archiv für Religionsgeschichte 12. 183-196.
Rüpke, Jörg 2012a. Religion in Republican Rome: Rationalization and Ritual Change, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Rüpke, Jörg 2012b. 'Lived Ancient Religion: Questioning “Cults” and "Polis Religion’”, Mythos 5 (2011). 191-204.
Rüpke, Jörg 2015. 'The “Connected Reader” as a Window into Lived Ancient Religion: A Case Study of Ovid’s Libri fastorum', Religion in the Roman Empire 1(1). 95-113.
Rüpke, Jörg 2018. Pantheon: A New History of Roman Religion, trans. David M. B. Richardson. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Santangelo, Federico 2013. Divination, Prediction and the End of the Republic, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Scheibelreiter-Gail. Veronika 2012. 'Inscriptions in the Late Antique Private House: Some Thoughts About Their Function and Distribution’, in Stine Birk and Birte Poulsen (eds.), Patrons and Viewers in Late Antiquity, Aarhus: Aarhus University Press. 135-165.
Stern, Karen B. 2014. ‘Inscription as Religious Competition in Third-Century Syria’, in Jordan D. Rosenblum. Lily C. Vuong, and Nathaniel P. DesRosiers (eds.). Religious Competition in the Third Century CE. Jews, Christians, and the Greco-Roman World (Journal of Ancient Judaism, suppl. 15). Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. 141-152.
Tajfel. Henri 1974. ‘Social Identity and Intergroup Behaviour', Social Science Information 13 (2). 65-93.
Weiss, Lara 2019. ‘Immortality as the Response of Others’, in Nico Staring, Huw Twiston Davies, and Lara Weiss (eds.). Perspectives on Lived Religion: Practices -Transmission - Landscape (PALMA 21), Leiden: Lang Zullen We Lezen. 59-71.