Destinations in Mind Portraying Places On The Roman Empires Souvenirs Kimberly Cassibry Full Chapter

Destinations in Mind: Portraying Places
on the Roman Empire's Souvenirs

Kimberly Cassibry
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmass.com/product/destinations-in-mind-portraying-places-on-the-roman-
empires-souvenirs-kimberly-cassibry/
Destinations in Mind
Destinations in Mind
Portraying Places on the Roman Empire’s Souvenirs
K I M B E R LY C A S S I B RY
1
1
Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers
the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education
by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University
Press in the UK and certain other countries.
Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press

198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America.
© Oxford University Press 2021
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in

a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the
prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted
by law, by license, or under terms agreed with the appropriate reproduction
rights organization. Inquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the
above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the
address above.
You must not circulate this work in any other form

and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Names: Cassibry, Kimberly, author.
Title: Destinations in mind : portraying places on
the Roman Empire’s souvenirs / Kimberly Cassibry.
Other titles: Portraying places on the Roman Empire’s souvenirs
Description: New York : Oxford University Press, [2021] |
Includes bibliographical references and index. |
Identifiers: LCCN 2020055654 (print) | LCCN 2020055655 (ebook) |
ISBN 9780190921897 (hardback) | ISBN 9780190921910 (epub) |
ISBN 9780190921927
Subjects: LCSH: Rome—Antiquities. | Souvenirs (Keepsakes)—Rome—History.
| Rome—In art. | Material culture—Rome—History. | Social archaeology—Rome.
Classification: LCC DG77 .C35 2021 (print) | LCC DG77 (ebook) |
DDC 937—dc23
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020055654
LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020055655
DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780190921897.001.0001
1 3 5 7 9 8 6 4 2
Printed by Integrated Books International, United States of America
For my mother
CONTENTS
List of Figures ix
Preface and Acknowledgments xv
Abbreviations xvii
Introduction: En Route to the Roman Empire 1
PLACES IN A GLOBAL EMPIRE 3
MATERIAL CULTURE AND MULTI-SENSORY EXPERIENCE 11
DESTINATIONS IN MIND: A USER’S GUIDE 13
1. On the Road: From Gades to Rome on the Itinerary Cups 17
THE ITINERARY CUPS AS ARTIFACTS 21
SETTINGS FOR TRAVELERS: ROMAN ROADS 35
SILVER CUPS WITH ITINERARIES 44
WORD MAPS 46
WORDS (ALMOST) BEREFT OF IMAGES 55
ITINERANT PATRONS: WHO WAS ON THE ROAD? 57

CONCLUSION 61
2. At the Games: Charioteers and Gladiators on the Spectacle Cups 63
THE SPECTACLE CUPS AS ARTIFACTS 65

SETTINGS FOR CHARIOTEERS AND GLADIATORS 76
GLASS CUPS WITH SPORTS STORIES 88
WORD GAMES 91
IMAGES IN VIRTUAL REALITY 99
PROVINCIAL PURCHASES 105
CONCLUSION 109
viii Contents
3. Along the Border: Hadrian’s Wall on the Fort Pans 111
THE FORT PANS AS ARTIFACTS 113
A SETTING FOR SOLDIERS: HADRIAN’S WALL 120
ENAMELING THE FORT PANS 124
LETTERS, LANGUAGES, AND LITERACY 126
MESMERIZING MOTIFS, PAST AND PRESENT 130
TO WHOM DID HADRIAN’S WALL MATTER? 142

CONCLUSION 143
4. By the Sea: Baiae and Puteoli on the Bay Bottles 146
THE BAY BOTTLES AS ARTIFACTS 148
SETTINGS FOR REVELRY AND COMMERCE 166
GLASSWARE ON THE MARKET 177
LABELS FOR BUILDINGS AND WISHES FOR READERS 181
BUILDING STORIES 185
THE BAY BOTTLES ABROAD 197
CONCLUSION 206
Conclusion: Not All Roads Lead to Rome 207
THEMATIC CONNECTIONS 207
ART HISTORY AND MATERIAL CULTURE 212
WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE? 216
Notes 219
Bibliography 255
Index 273
FIGURES
Figure 1.1. Map of key sites mentioned in the book. 18

Figure 1.2. View of Itinerary Cups 1 to 4. 19
Figure 1.3. Itinerary of Cup 1. 22
Figure 1.7a–d. Four views of Itinerary Cup 1. 26
Figure 1.8. Drawing of Itinerary Cup 1. 27
Figure 1.15. View of the road leading to the hilltop settlement at Ambrussum,
France. 37
Figure 1.16. View of the remains of the Roman bridge, now called the Pont
Ambroix, at Ambrussum, France. 37
Figure 1.17. Milestone marking mile 26 on a road north of Seville,
Spain. 38
Figure 1.18. View of the amphitheater at Tarragona, Spain. 39
Figure 1.19. View of the Mausoleum of the Julii and arch monument at
Glanum, France. 40
Figure 1.20. View of the bridge erected by Augustus and Tiberius at Rimini,
Italy. 41
Figure 1.21. View of the arch monument for Augustus at Rimini, Italy. 41
Figure 1.22. View of the Porta Augusta at Nîmes, France. 42
Figure 1.23. View of the amphitheater at Nîmes, France. 43
ix
x List of Figures
Figure 1.24. Cups (from Boscoreale, Italy) with skeletons and the words of
Greek sages. 46
Figure 1.25. Drawing of a fragment from the itinerary monument at Autun,
France. 48
Figure 1.26. View of the itinerary monument at Tongeren, Belgium. 49
Figure 1.27. View of the arch monument that Marcus Julius Cottius set up in
honor of Augustus at Susa, Italy. 50
Figure 1.28. Reverse of a Hadrianic aureus depicting Hercules
Gaditanus. 52
Figure 1.29. View of the theater at Cádiz, Spain. 53
Figure 1.30. View of Glanum’s main street with the Alpilles mountains in the
background. 53
Figure 1.31. Metal vessels recovered from the spring at Vicarello, Italy. 60
Figure 2.1. Drawings of the best-preserved Circus Cups: a) Colchester Cup,
b) Couvin Cup, c) Mainz Cup, and d) the Trouville Cup, with
losses restored from the Schönecken Cup. 66
Figure 2.2. Two views of the Colchester Cup. 67
Figure 2.3. Six views of the Couvin Cup. 68
Figure 2.4. Three views of the restored Mainz Cup. 69
Figure 2.5. View of the Schönecken Cup. 70
Figure 2.6. View of the Trouville Cup. 70
Figure 2.7. Drawings of the best-preserved Gladiatorial Cups: a) the
Chavagnes Cup and b) the Montagnole Cup. 71
Figure 2.8. View of the Montagnole Cup. 72
Figure 2.9. Direct and oblique views of the Sopron Jar and Chavagnes
Cup. 73
Figure 2.10. View of the Rome Jar. 74
Figure 2.11. Modern three-part mold used to produce historical replicas of
the Montagnole Cup. 75
Figure 2.12. Oblique views of the Mainz Cup and the Chavagnes Cup. 76
Figure 2.13. Terracotta plaque representing a charioteer and a scout on
horseback. 77
Figure 2.14. Terracotta plaque representing a wrecked chariot. 78
Figure 2.15. Mosaic (from Lyon, France) showing a chariot race in a
circus. 79
Figure 2.16. View of the Circus Maximus, Rome, Italy. 79
Figure 2.17. Model of ancient Rome, with a focus on the Circus
Maximus. 80
Figure 2.18. View of the obelisk previously in the Circus Maximus, now in
the Piazza del Popolo, Rome, Italy. 81
Figure 2.19. Lamp representing a chariot race. 82
List of Figures xi
Figure 2.20. Silver cup (from Pompeii, Italy) representing a chariot race
between cupids and psyches. 83
Figure 2.21. Lamp representing gladiatorial combat. 85
Figure 2.22. Lamp representing gladiatorial weaponry. 86
Figure 2.23. Oblique view of a mold-blown glass cup signed by Ennion. 90
Figure 2.24. Oblique views of two mold-blown glass cups with Greek
phrases. 90
Figure 2.25. View of a mold-blown glass cup showing Neptune on a statue
base. 91
Figure 2.26. Drawing of a graffito (from Pompeii, Italy) representing a
gladiatorial match. 96
Figure 2.27. View of a fragmentary mold-blown cup (from Lyon, France)
depicting gladiatorial combat. 98
Figure 2.28. Casts of relief sculptures (from Rome, Italy) showing discrepant
scale of figures and setting. 100
Figure 2.29. Oblique views of the Chavagnes Cup and Rod. 104
Figure 2.30. Oblique views of the Montagnole Cup. 105
Figure 2.31. View of the early amphitheater at Lyon, France. 106
Figure 3.1. View of the Rudge Cup. 114
Figure 3.2. View of the Amiens Patera. 114
Figure 3.3. View of the Ilam Pan. 115
Figure 3.4. View of the Hildburgh Fragment. 117
Figure 3.5. View of the Bath Patera. 117
Figure 3.6. View of the Basildon Fragment. 118
Figure 3.7. Drawing of the Beadlam Pan. 119
Figure 3.8. Map of Hadrian’s Wall. 121
Figure 3.9. Remains of Hadrian’s Wall between the River Tyne and
Chesters, England. 122
Figure 3.10. Funerary monument for Regina (from South Shields, England)
with inscriptions in Latin and Palmyrene. 123
Figure 3.11. The Battersea Shield from the River Thames, England. 131
Figure 3.12. Dragonesque brooch with enameling, England. 132
Figure 3.13. Helmet with triskels, Amfreville, France. 133
Figure 3.14. Fob with triskel, Wales. 134
Figure 3.15. Disk brooch with triskel and preserved enamel, Wales. 135
Figure 3.16. The Crowle Pan with triskels and traces of enamel. 135
Figure 3.17. The Winterton Pan with checkerboard pattern and preserved
enamel. 137
Figure 3.18. The Eastrington Pan with checkerboard pattern, handle, and
preserved enamel. 138
Figure 3.19. View of a floor mosaic with turreted wall motif, Fishbourne
Palace, England. 139
xii List of Figures
Figure 3.20. Monument for Brigantia (from Birrens, Scotland) shown with a
mural crown. 140
Figure 3.21. Side view of the funerary monument for Quintus Sulpicius
Celsus, with a mural crown, Rome, Italy. 141
Figure 3.22. View of the Ribchester Helmet, with a mural diadem across the
forehead. 142
Figure 4.1. Model showing the ancient shoreline of the northwestern Bay of
Naples, Italy. 147
Figure 4.2. Drawings of the bottles depicting Puteoli: a) Mérida Bottle, b)
Prague Bottle, c) Odemira Bottle, d) Pilkington Bottle. 149
Figure 4.3. Drawings of the fragments depicting Puteoli: a) Ostia Fragment,
b) Cologne Fragments, c) Gorga Fragments. 150
Figure 4.4. Drawings of the bottles depicting Puteoli and/or Baiae: a)
Populonia Bottle, b) Ampurias Bottle, c) Astorga Fragment, d)
Warsaw Bottle. 151
Figure 4.5. Four views of the Mérida Bottle. 152
Figure 4.6. View of the Prague Bottle. 154
Figure 4.7. View of the Pilkington Bottle. 158
Figure 4.8. Three views of the Populonia Bottle. 160
Figure 4.9. Four views of the Warsaw Bottle. 163
Figure 4.10. Drawing of the Brescia Fragments. 164
Figure 4.11. View from the Archaeological Park at Baia, Italy. 169
Figure 4.12. View of the Villa San Gallo, Baia, Italy. 170
Figure 4.13. View of Pozzuoli, Italy, from a boat departing Baia’s harbor. 172
Figure 4.14. View of the Macellum, Pozzuoli, Italy. 174
Figure 4.15. View of the amphitheater’s subterranean corridors, Pozzuoli,
Italy. 175
Figure 4.16. View of the Augustan temple, Rione Terra, Pozzuoli, Italy. 176
Figure 4.17. Bottle (from Zülpich, Germany) enameled with charioteers and
the phrase Gallia Belgica. 179
Figure 4.18. Drawing of the Pesaro Fragment depicting a circus scene. 180
Figure 4.19. Gold-glass fragments (from Cologne, Germany) depicting an
unidentified cityscape. 181
Figure 4.20. View of a cage cup (from Cologne, Germany) with a Greek
exhortation. 185
Figure 4.21. Relief sculpture depicting a port city, Portus, Italy. 186
Figure 4.22. Fresco depicting a port city, Villa San Marco, Stabiae, Italy. 187
Figure 4.23. Fresco depicting a port city, Bay of Naples, Italy. 188
Figure 4.24. Engraving depicting a lost fresco (from Rome, Italy) depicting a
port city. 189
Figure 4.25. Lamp depicting a port and fishermen, perhaps Carthage,
Tunisia. 190
List of Figures xiii
Figure 4.26. Lamp depicting a port and pier, perhaps Carthage, Tunisia. 191
Figure 4.27. View of a fresco depicting cupids in a harbor with three central
figures, from the house beneath the Church of Saints John and
Paul, Rome, Italy. 192
Figure 4.28. Sarcophagus depicting a port city, Ostia, Italy. 192
Figure 4.29. View of a mosaic depicting cupids in a harbor surrounded
by porticoed buildings, Villa del Casale, Piazza Armerina,
Italy. 194
Figure 4.30. View of a mosaic depicting a lighthouse, Forum of the
Corporations, Ostia, Italy. 195
Figure 4.31. View of a glass jug (from Ptuj, Slovenia) depicting the lighthouse
at Alexandria, Egypt. 196
Figure 4.32. View of the bridge at Mérida, Spain. 202
Figure 4.33. View of the theater at Mérida, Spain. 203
Figure 4.34. View of the portico with alternating shields and caryatids,
Mérida, Spain. 204
Figure 4.35. Detail of a mosaic showing Ocean, Pharus, Euphrates, and
Nile personified, from the House of the Mithraeum, Mérida,
Spain. 205
P R E FA C E A N D A C K N O W L E D G M E N TS
Haec autem nec sunt nec fieri possunt nec fuerunt.

And such things neither are, nor can be, nor have been.
—Vitruvius, On Architecture, 7, 5, 4
This line is my favorite in Latin literature. I love the terse phrasing and resolute re-
jection of the new. For Vitruvius, the new in question was a fantastical style of wall
painting full of metamorphosing monsters and impossible buildings. For me, the
words describe what would have happened to this book without the support of
colleagues, friends, and family: neither existing, nor taking off into the future, nor
ever undertaken at all.
The ideas for this book developed during two life-changing fellowships. The first
allowed me to participate in a three-year traveling seminar entitled “The Arts of
Rome’s Provinces,” co-directed by Natalie Kampen and Susan Alcock as part of the
Getty Foundation’s Connecting Art Histories project. Spending a few weeks each
year with leading specialists sharpened my thinking about how art functions in pro-
vincial contexts. The group’s rain-soaked hike along Hadrian’s Wall was also pivotal
to my understanding of that site, featured in Chapter 3. My second opportunity was
provided by the Pat O’Connell Memorial Fellowship, which allowed me to spend
a sabbatical year at the Metropolitan Museum of Art. My understanding of glass-
ware and enamelware deepened because I could consult objects in galleries on a
daily basis. I was lucky to have my office located in the museum’s superb research
library, where I had direct access to the stacks. I am indebted to the institution’s
registrars and librarians, and especially my curatorial sponsor Melanie Holcomb.
In my Romano-Byzantine cohort, Anne Hunnell Chen, Alice Lynn McMichael,
and Erin Peters prompted me to pitch ideas whenever they occurred, whether lit-
erally at the water cooler or in the staff cafeteria. These fellowships offered far more
than funding: they connected me to a community of scholars who challenged and
enriched my way of thinking.
I have been fortunate to work with exceptionally generous curators. Ralph
Jackson (British Museum), Christopher Lightfoot (Metropolitan Museum),
xv
xvi Preface and Acknowledgments
Alexandra Ruggiero (Corning Museum of Glass), and Katherine Larson (Corning

Museum of Glass) made time to discuss their collections with me, pulled objects off
view for photography and close study, and made available archival documents, re-
cent publications, and new measurements. My analysis of the glassware and enamel-
ware in this book would not have been possible without their collegial engagement.
From my home institution, Wellesley College, I benefited from research funds
for travel, which allowed me to retrace the paths of some of the book’s artifacts.
With departmental funding, I was able to hire excellent research assistants. Maya
Nandakumar, Hana Sugioka, and Corinne Muller tirelessly proofed early drafts
of the manuscript, managed the ever-growing bibliography, and provided much-
needed moral support. The Interlibrary Loan department of Clapp Library worked
miracles, while research librarians Brooke Henderson and Jeanne Hablanian helped
process an endless stream of book loans and purchases. Jordan Tynes and Shane
Cox of the Knapp Technology Center scanned and digitally modeled replicas of the
Spectacle Cups featured in Chapter 2, and these models were instrumental to my
understanding of how the fragile originals were manipulated and read.
In the end, no one has listened to me complain about this book more than
my mother, who is indefatigable and accompanied me on several memorable re-
search trips. In the Bay of Naples, I displayed an astonishing lack of filial piety when
I suggested that we hike along the edge of a two-lane highway after we missed a bus
connection. It is thanks to her grit and determination that we made it to Baia in time
for our reserved underwater boat tour of the harbor’s submerged villas. In Spain, we
more successfully navigated the trains and buses that took us to Tarragona (where
we toured the amphitheater without umbrellas during a downpour), Cádiz (where
we lingered over the local wine), Italica (which we had to ourselves), and Seville
(where the unending archaeological museum finally broke my mother’s spirit of ad-
venture, and she opted to wait for me at the exit). I treasure all of our misadventures.
When I am asked what I like best about being a Roman art historian, I always
say the travel. For students and colleagues, I happily transform into a travel agent
for the Roman empire as I dispense advice about archaeological sites and museums
(and nearby gelaterias, trattorias, and enotecas). I hope that this book’s readers will
likewise be inspired to seek out the empire’s many mesmerizing destinations and
their souvenirs.
A B B R E V I AT I O N S
CIL Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum

CSIR Corpus Signorum Imperii Romani
DMLBS Dictionary of Medieval Latin from British Sources
ILS Inscriptiones Latinae Selectae
LTUR Lexicon Topographicum Urbis Romae
OED Oxford English Dictionary
OLD Oxford Latin Dictionary
PAS Portable Antiquities Scheme
RIB Roman Inscriptions of Britain
RIC Roman Imperial Coinage
Unless otherwise noted, references to primary sources are based on those in the
digital Loeb Classical Library (https://www.loebclassics.com/), and translations
are my own.
xvii
Introduction
En Route to the Roman Empire
When the Colosseum opened in the 80s ce, the poet Martial compared the new
amphitheater favorably to five world wonders: the Memphis pyramids, Assyrian
Babylon, the Ionian temple for Artemis, the Delian horned altar, and the Carian
Mausoleum, all in the eastern Mediterranean or Mesopotamia.1 The poet was cer-
tainly a well-traveled respondent, with a successful career in Rome framed by a
childhood and retirement in Spain. Yet there is no indication that he visited the
buildings to which he relates the Colosseum. Celebrated as they were in literature,
these sites could be conjured from afar.2 His words reveal a connoisseurship of
places not just seen, but also imagined.
Place means more than defined space. As a flexible concept, place can denote
a mapped location, a setting for social interaction, or a site made memorable by
emotional connections and multi-sensory experiences.3 Places are therefore never
static and passive, but ever-changing in their material and mental constructions.
Understood in this way, place becomes fundamental to comprehending the Roman
empire’s character and extent. The empire, for instance, was a place distinct from
others due to the connectivity fostered by its standardized road system and secured
shipping lanes. This is the context in which a Spanish poet might see Rome’s
Colosseum in person and acquire knowledge of other sites indirectly through oral
histories, circulating manuscripts, or mobile material culture. In his poem, Martial
evokes nuanced notions of place on a number of scales, from the empire as an ex-
pansive setting with inherited cultural wonders, to the city of Rome as a site of archi-
tectural innovation, to the Colosseum as a new venue for wonderment.4
Alluring portrayals of place survive in Roman literature and art and—somewhere
in between these two categories—on the objects that inspired this book. Scholars
refer to them as souvenirs, and this class of artifact is just beginning to receive the
serious analysis it deserves in Roman studies. This is one point that Ernst Künzl
and Gerhard Koeppel make in their groundbreaking survey of souvenirs dating
from antiquity to the present day.5 They argue that the Romans invented the genre.
Destinations in Mind. Kimberly Cassibry, Oxford University Press. © Oxford University Press 2021.
DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780190921897.003.0001
2 INTRODUCTION
More recently, Maggie Popkin has built on their work and interpreted the objects
in relation to urbanism and cultural memory.6 She also engages with the sociolog-
ical field of souvenir studies. In the same vein, this book was supposed to be about
memories made miniature. Yet a souvenir, strictly defined, should perpetuate per-
sonal memories, and I became frustrated trying to find those in the archaeological
record.7 I could tell which objects had the potential to bear such cognitive invest-
ment, but not whether they ever actually had. Meanwhile, the global, material, and
sensory discourses in Roman studies began to suggest new lenses of analysis, ones
that allowed me to see conceptions of place in a global empire and processes of
portrayal in a multicultural one, both mediated by lived experiences of settings and
materials. Approached in this way, material that had previously been mute began to
speak. So I set aside questions of memory and focused on vessels bearing words and
images that allowed the site represented to be identified with certainty. I now think
of them as portable portrayals of place.
What surprised me most about the artifacts in my study was their relative
rarity: four series of vessels most clearly met my criteria. I call them the Itinerary
Cups, the Spectacle Cups, the Fort Pans, and the Bay Bottles. They are considered in
turn in the book’s four chapters, described more fully at the end of the Introduction.
The material’s allure, however, merits a bit of foreshadowing here. The first series is
made of lustrous silver engraved with itineraries connecting Spain to Rome: each
cup bears a slightly different list of about a hundred stops. They conjure the Roman
road system and its journeys and in doing so raise the book’s fundamental ques-
tion: how did residents compare places when not all were described in literature
and when so few were represented on circulating objects? The second case study
addresses colorful mold-blown cups depicting and naming either charioteers in
Rome’s Circus Maximus or gladiators in an undefined arena. This discrepancy in
setting will be the second chapter’s chief focus because it illuminates how craftsmen
responded to the empire’s entertainment venues. Picking up the surviving cups
and considering them in motion reveals how experiences of these spaces were
miniaturized and recreated in translucent glass. The third chapter takes us to the
Celtic borderland marked by Hadrian’s Wall in England. Small cast bronze pans, ex-
quisitely enameled, name a select sequence of forts along the wall. The place names
are glossed with either fortified wall motifs or Celtic emblems. These vessels invite
us to consider the aesthetics of place in a multicultural empire. The Bay Bottles, in
turn, take us back to Italy, to the Bay of Naples. A series of fine glass bottles bear
depictions of the buildings at Baiae, the empire’s preeminent spa, and neighboring
Puteoli, a major international port. In this case, labeled cityscapes come into focus
for the first time as subjects for collectible vessels. Altogether, the case studies illus-
trate explorations of place on several scales, from sports venues, to seaside cities, to
a fortified frontier, to an imperial road system. They also contextualize the city of
Rome as one destination among many.
Int roduc tion 3
Previously, these artifacts have been mined for the information they preserve
about particular sites. Yet their portrayals reward deeper analysis. The vessels’ con-
tinuous curved surfaces, for instance, offered more expansive canvases than did
coins (the empire’s primary medium of propaganda). Their functional shapes invited
more regular handling and perusal than did scrolls or relief sculptures (the dominant
media for historical narratives). Vessels could and still can be picked up, turned,
and read. Doing so reveals that their materials inflected legibility and meaning
more acutely than did other supports for words and images, whether papyrus or
stone. Their long-distance dispersal, moreover, circulated place-based knowledge in
ways that can still be assessed. We may never know, for instance, whether anyone in
Emerita Augusta (modern Mérida) learned of Rome and its Colosseum by reading
Martial’s poetry, because so few ephemeral manuscripts survive. We may, however,
reasonably assume that at least one of its residents knew of Puteoli, because a Bay
Bottle portraying that Italian cityscape has been excavated in that colony. That some
of the buildings depicted and labeled—not least the amphitheater—appeared in
both cities gave residents opportunities to compare urban amenities. In these and
many other ways, portable portrayals could bring distant places into dialogue in
their beholders’ minds. I wrote Destinations in Mind in order to understand this im-
perial phenomenon and the role that mobile material culture played in producing it.
Part of the artifacts’ value lies in their defiance of the categories scholars have
established to organize the Roman empire’s study. They are simultaneously mate-
rial texts and portable works of art. They are handheld objects that depict large-
scale buildings, cities, frontiers, and roads. They are Roman, Italian, and provincial
in their sites of production and use. A deeper analysis therefore requires knowledge
of diverse regions, as well as the methodologies of archaeology, art history, an-
cient history, and philology. In confounding boundaries—categorical, geographic,
and disciplinary—the portable portrayals become ideal tools for seeking new
understandings of a global empire defined by its places.
Notions of the global, and of places within it, merit elaboration, as do theories
of materiality and sensory experience. The subsequent two sections locate my in-
terdisciplinary analysis more fully within these research trajectories. An orientation
and user’s guide to the book’s chapters then follows.
Places in a Global Empire

Globalization has been assessed within the Roman empire for several decades and
has become an established area of study. Place, on the other hand, has been explored
in more discrete fashion and has, curiously, been of limited interest to those con-
cerned with globalization. The portable portrayals require both discourses to be
in play.
4 INTRODUCTION
Approaching Place
For the past several decades, scholars in the field of geography have sketched useful
contours around a concept that is widely used, but rarely defined. These definitions
prompt us to look beyond the physical evidence and to think more holistically
about interconnected places in a global empire.
As Tim Cresswell and others have noted, there are several ways in which place
might be invoked: as a location (a site that can be mapped), a locale (a material set-
ting for social life), or a sensibility (a sense of place, with emotional and subjective
investment).8 To apply these definitions to a Roman example, the Colosseum was
certainly a location that could be mapped in relation to the city’s other buildings, as
it was on the ancient marble plan of Rome (Forma Urbis Romae, c. 200 ce).9 In this
locale, spectators sat together to observe staged combat, which Martial reports in
great detail in his suite of epigrams about the Colosseum’s spectacles.10 These events
associated the building with violence, a sense of place that endures even though
ritualized bloodshed has not darkened the arena since late antiquity. Recognizing
these aspects of place will help us observe new nuances in the portable portrayals’
communication.
Many geographers caution against approaching place as a static entity. They in-
stead find notions of place in dynamic negotiations subject to external factors and
informed by multiple internal identities and histories. Championing this approach,
Doreen Massey has argued that social networks and routes, rather than roots and
borders, should be central to knowing places, which can be introverted or extro-
verted in a global context.11 To return to Martial’s book of poems about the Flavian
amphitheater, one epigram describes Nero’s self-centered pleasure villa and lake,
the place that the Colosseum literally replaced for the broader benefit of the Roman
people, in what could be read as the site’s dynamic transition from introversion to
extroversion.12 A further poem lists all of the distant peoples, including Ethiopians
and Arabs, who came to be spectators. In Martial’s evocation, the Colosseum
becomes a central node in a network of far-reaching paths, or an even more extro-
verted place, to use Massey’s term again.13
Geographers have also addressed the impact that colonization and globalization
have had on place-making. In what has become a classic essay about an Alaskan ghost
town attached to an abandoned mine, William Cronon highlights imported notions
of place, especially foreign ideas of ownership and the far-reaching supply chains
that can feed or starve a remote site.14 Cronon addresses land that US prospectors
seized from Native Americans, and his observations remind us to be attentive to the
imposition of Roman administrative notions of place. Regions redefined as Roman
provinces gained new roads and boundaries, cadastral surveys apportioned land to
colonists, and distances measured in miles and announced on milestones abetted
martial as well as commercial movement. Yet many conquered lands had already
been measured, and pre-Roman units of length persisted in use, specifically Gallic
Int roduc tion 5
leagues and Greek stades.15 Roman roads, moreover, often standardized pathways
of long use. It bears reiterating that conquest rarely brought about a first encounter
between “Romans and natives.” It instead marked a culmination of contact, which
sometimes stretched back for centuries and almost always involved third parties.
As we follow the movement of the portable portrayals, keeping track of their place
in time will matter. By 100 ce, many regions had been under Roman rule for a cen-
tury or more but had been involved in Mediterranean-wide trade for far longer.
Discerning what registered as familiar or foreign at any given site can be a challenge.
To that end, geographers have also pondered placelessness, a topic that gains ur-
gency in any era of globalization, as sites come to resemble one another in their
heterogeneity.16 We, for instance, may now enjoy (or lament) finding a Starbucks
on every corner, wherein a selection of coffee varietals from distant continents
are ground, brewed, and then served in cups with a standard logo. In comparison,
residents roaming the western Roman empire could expect to find a forum (a plaza
with key civic and religious buildings) in most towns, with affluence displayed
in the diversity of stones selected from the cross-continental marble market.17
In the past, such sites have been described through the contested dialectic of
Romanization (e.g., the forum) and localization (e.g., usage of local stones), with
one prioritized over the other according to the scholar’s proclivity for seeking sim-
ilarity or difference in the material record.18 Again, globalization complicates this
scenario in part by highlighting third terms (e.g., stones quarried in locations that
were neither local, nor in Italy, but instead in Tunisia, Turkey, or Greece). As we
consider what might make a place in a global empire distinct, the environment it-
self matters. The amphitheaters at Puteoli and Mérida, for instance, may have had
in common building types, gladiatorial events, and even latitudinal positions on
the globe, but their materials differed, as did their urban terrain and longitudinal
locations. These environmental factors had profound implications for views, day-
light, and weather, as well as residents’ implicit biases about how places were sup-
posed to be. Environment therefore should be one of the factors considered when
discrepant experiences of empire are assessed. Portable portrayals offer an oppor-
tunity to pursue this question further, through the geographic networks created by
their subjects and findspots.
Roman Places
English usage of the word “place” informs the studies described in the previous sec-
tion, so it would be fair to ask if Romans had a similar term.19 They did, though
curiously not the term from which “place” derives. “Place” has roots in the Greek
plateia and the Latin platea.20 Referring to a broad street or avenue, the original
sense survives more clearly in the modern usage of piazza or plaza.21 It was in-
stead the Latin word locus that possessed the range of associations that “place” does
now.22 Locus was therefore much broader in its original semantics than its modern
6 INTRODUCTION
derivatives “location” and “locale” would suggest.23 Tellingly, locus also featured in
the phrase genius loci, meaning the spirit of a place.24 For the empire’s polytheists, a
place could be propitiated through its spirit, and the related concept could operate
on a supernatural register as well.
References to meaningful places permeate the empire’s culture, whether in or-
atory, spectacle, literature, science, or art. Ann Vasaly, for instance, has shown how
Cicero made his speeches more persuasive by invoking places dear to his audi-
ence.25 Similarly, Popkin has pointed out that triumphal processions in Rome pro-
grammatically passed sites crucial to cultural memory in order to connect past and
present achievements.26 Immense paintings of conquered places featured in these
processions, and then were displayed in victory temples and public porticoes, as
Peter Holliday has shown.27 Place was also the central focus of several well-studied
genres of literature. Pausanias’ travelogue of his Greek homeland combines phys-
ical descriptions of sites, such as the Athenian acropolis, with historical anecdotes.28
Strabo’s Geography described the lands, peoples, and customs of the known world,
whereas Ptolemy’s Geography compiled systematic measurements of latitude
and longitude for all major cities.29 In addition to these anecdotal and scientific
engagements with particular places, types of places could also be invoked. Villas,
for instance, were the subject of detailed literary description (ekphrasis), as well as
generic fresco paintings.30 The latter recur on the walls of Pompeii’s townhouses,
where they conjured the experience of cultivated leisure (otium) far from the urban
spaces of business (negotium).31 Although the scholarship surveyed here does not
necessarily engage with geography’s discourse on place, it is nonetheless sympa-
thetic in revealing ancient interest in locations (e.g., Ptolemy’s Geography), locales
(e.g., triumphal routes), and senses of place (e.g., luxurious villas).
A more direct focus on place-making is emerging. In the edited volume Making
Roman Places, Past and Present, for instance, the authors look beyond the phys-
ical features of sites to consider the meanings created by diachronic use.32 Yet each
essay defines place differently, and some use the word to denote space (which has
a distinct historiography).33 What unifies the essays instead is their constructivist
approach, the contention that meanings are not inherent but created, and that is
a commitment that this book shares.34 Darrell Rohl’s recent essay “Place Theory,
Genealogy, and the Cultural Biography of Roman Monuments” is more explicit in
building connections to the concepts developed in geography. His essay makes an
important contribution by synthesizing the discourse for an archaeological audi-
ence, then applying it to Roman sites and their management as cultural heritage.35
The present book joins Rohl’s study in drawing on geography’s theories of place.
Before we turn to the scholarship related to the vessels’ other aspects, two charac-
teristics of ancient approaches to place need to be set out.
First, describing the known world, as well as Rome’s dominion of it, required
strategies that compressed time and space between places. One approach was
to focus on highlights, as Martial did.36 Rather than stating outright that the
Int roduc tion 7
Colosseum was the greatest architectural undertaking the world had ever seen, he
compared the amphitheater to wondrous constructions of the past, in a list of sites
that could be read in seconds, but which would have required months, if not years,
to visit in person. A comparable approach is evident in Hadrian’s Villa at Tivoli,
just a day’s journey from Rome.37 During an afternoon’s stroll across the grounds,
one could experience recreations of the emperor’s favorite places, from the Knidian
Temple of Aphrodite to the Egyptianizing shrine for his beloved Antinous, who
had drowned while swimming in the Nile. If the desire was instead to represent
all of Rome’s conquered lands and peoples, then they could be made manifest in
personifications, such as those featured on coin issues or in stone relief sculptures,
including those in Rome’s Temple to the Divine Hadrian (the Hadrianeum) and in a
sanctuary (the Sebasteion) at Aphrodisias.38 Globes could be mobilized, too. Roman
authors often equated the empire’s territory with the orbis terrarum (literally the
“orb of lands,” often translated as “the world”).39 In art, when personified victories
touch their feet to miniature spheres, they communicate global dominance. Those
in the spandrels of Rome’s Arch for Titus are a good example. Such verbal and visual
conventions rhetorically recast the empire’s limits, for Rome’s reach did not in truth
extend to all of the lands then known. Juvenal, for instance, denotes these larger
bounds when he opens his tenth satire with the phrase, “in all the lands from Gades,
to the dawn and the Ganges.”40 Spanish Gades signaled the world’s western edge,
whereas the Indian Ganges referred to an eastern one. Rome claimed the former,
but not the latter. Like Martial, Juvenal trusted his readers to fill in the space be-
tween the places that he juxtaposed with great economy. This trust is all the more
remarkable at a time when integrated maps as we know them—with locations
plotted and labeled, land contours visualized and rendered to scale, and integrated
routes through them identified and measured—were seldom used, if they existed at
all.41 Ancient mentalities about mapping informed the readership that the portable
portrayals anticipated in their verbal and visual contractions, and will be explored
in Chapter 1.
Second, given that notions of place draw upon actions, experience, and hearsay,
as much as setting, it should not be surprising that portrayals did not strictly pri-
oritize factual accuracy. Depictions of architecture, in particular, deviate substan-
tially from known facts. In images of complex cityscapes, for instance, buildings
are typically angled so that their most recognizable sides (often their fronts) are
visible, rather than being shown as they appeared altogether from a single point of
view.42 Moreover, key details of distinctive buildings, say the round temple of Vesta
in the Roman Forum, could change across different media and in varied scenes,
as Melanie Grunow Sobocinski has shown. These alterations include numbers of
columns, which scholars had previously thought were essential to identification,
but which can vary if other identifiers are present, such as a legend or a recogniz-
able cult statue.43 With accuracy subordinate to other factors, parsing a building’s
rhetorical function in a composition becomes paramount. This is especially true of
8 INTRODUCTION
construction scenes, such as those on the Column for Trajan in Rome, as Elizabeth
Wolfram Thill has argued. In these (stone) relief sculptures, the Roman army builds
consistently in stone, coded as more civilized, and the Dacian enemy in wood,
characterized as less advanced.44 The materials portrayed signaled a sense of Dacia as
a primitive place, and consequently supported the sculptures’ visual argument about
Rome’s mission to civilize “barbarians,” while misrepresenting the historical realities
of particular buildings constructed and encountered on campaigns. In this context,
we should not expect portable portrayals to offer precisely accurate renderings,
but instead to reveal an imaging process negotiated through visual conventions,
the support’s material and shape, and the rhetoric driving the creative act. All these
factors impacted how a notion of a particular place might be communicated.
A Global Empire
The ancient authors cited thus far reveal the breadth and depth of literary talent in
an empire that stretched across three continents. The paths and origins of even this
small group are illuminating. Whereas Martial journeyed from Spain to Rome and
back again, Strabo hailed from the empire’s eastern sector.45 This Greek geographer
grew up in Pontus, along the southern shore of the Black Sea, and pursued a career
that took him back and forth to Rome.46 Pausanias spent much of his adult life trav-
eling around mainland Greece, but his wanderings did not neglect Rome.47 Strabo
and Pausanias were both inveterate travelers: each sailed up the Nile and marveled
at its wonders along the way.48 Unlike these visitors, the Greek astronomer Ptolemy
called Egypt home: he lived and worked in Alexandria.49 Of this group, only the
Latin humorist Juvenal is associated primarily with Italy, though verifiable details
about his life are scarce.50 Such diversity complicates the homogeneity implied by
“Roman” or “Greek.” These terms of convenience always have the potential to mis-
lead. The journeys of Martial, Strabo, and Pausanias, moreover, illustrate the degree
of movement possible across the empire.
Such mobility is a hallmark of globalization. This term denotes the expansion
and intensification of social, political, economic, and cultural connections across re-
gions, with implications for the experience of space and time and the understanding
of one’s place in the world.51 The “globe” in globalization can be misleading: modern
theorists have focused on practices and subjectivities as much as geographic extent.
Paul James, for instance, identifies four modes of globalism, all of which relate to
the present study and its goals.52 The first is embodied, or the movement of people
(such as the ancient authors mentioned earlier). The second is object-extended, the
movement of commodities and other materials (such as the portable portrayals).
The third is agency-extended, in which institutional representatives (such as pro-
vincial governors) circulate. The fourth is disembodied, a reference to the move-
ment of immaterial things, such as electronic financial transactions and digitized
images and publications (such as those organized by online databases upon which
Int roduc tion 9
scholarly discourse now depends). Though these and other criteria have been de-
fined by scholars of the modern world, they have proved valuable in reshaping study
of the Roman empire.
Globalization offers a framework for reconsidering the city of Rome’s hegemony,
a task that remains urgent for a field shaped by modern imperialism. In the nine-
teenth century, many European archaeologists and historians—often sponsored by
imperial regimes—were keen to glorify Rome’s unilateral dominion over its terri-
tories in the excavations that they undertook and in the histories that they wrote.
This fundamental work has had lasting consequences for the surviving evidence
and modern perceptions of it. Globalization’s emphasis on multilateral movement
offers something akin to a reset button for interpreting the evidence. Yet Richard
Hingley’s Globalizing Roman Culture reminds us that this concept informs modern
values in the same way that imperialism did in the nineteenth century.53 He rightly
cautions that critical vigilance remains necessary if we are not to remake the Roman
world into a new ideal.
Globalization has nonetheless appealed to scholars frustrated both by the persis-
tent Romanization paradigm and by the localizing discourses that have countered it,
as Martin Pitts and Miguel John Versluys note in their introduction to Globalisation
and the Roman World.54 That volume’s essays contribute new studies of mobility,
networks, and consumption, as well as discourse critique. Issues of visual represen-
tation are, however, mostly absent. The one exception is Miguel Versluys’ use of
the concept koine, denoting a shared language, to consider the Mediterranean-wide
popularity of certain images.55 Otherwise, the volume highlights that globalization
remains of primary concern to archaeologists and historians of the Roman world,
more so than for its art historians. The portable portrayals offer an opportunity to
push this discourse in a new direction, with methodologies developed in the field
of art history.
While Roman art historians have rarely engaged with concepts of globalization,
those specializing in later eras have taken the lead in analyzing acts of cultural cre-
ation in a global context. A subdiscipline—global art history—has emerged from
their efforts.56 The University of Heidelberg’s research group has articulated a clear
and helpful set of tenets for this new endeavor. They call upon scholars to acknowl-
edge biases in existing categories of analysis.
The epithet “global” is understood not as an expansive frame to include

“the world”; rather it draws on a transcultural perspective to question the
taxonomies and values that have been built into the discipline of art his-
tory since its inception and that have been taken as universal.57
Global, in this sense, is an analytical stance. The group also advocates

deconstructing “disciplinary models within art history which have marginalized
the experiences and practices of entanglement.” Global art history thus aims
10 INTRODUCTION
to reimagine the field from the ground up, in order to “reconstitute our units
of analysis and to replace fixed regions with mobile contact zones with shifting
frontiers.” Rather than assuming that lack of contact and exchange was the norm,
connectivity is placed at the heart of the enterprise. The creative process is viewed
as “polycentric and multivocal,” which further requires us to “historicize differ-
ence without essentialising it.” Crucial here is finding language to describe differ-
ence without establishing false norms. In light of these guidelines, the inherited
categories “Roman,” “provincial,” “Greek,” “Celtic,” and others create a potential
minefield of misunderstanding that will have to be traversed with great care over
the course of this book.
Because globalization is both a process that can be studied and a process that
has informed how studies are conducted, notions of the global often prove provoc-
ative in cross-disciplinary discussions. Two key reservations about the concept’s
aptness for the Roman empire merit acknowledgment. The first is that the empire
was not in fact global. Yet we have seen that aspirations to global dominion drove
Roman imperial rhetoric, and many modern theories of globalization allow for the
phenomenon to be scaled according to the understandings of particular times and
regions.58 The second, more substantive objection is that studies of the Roman em-
pire, even if globalized, are still essentially Western-centric analyses of a European
city’s imperial dominion. From this perspective, globalization studies should cri-
tique and move beyond Western hegemonies, rather than reinforce them. To that
end, the field of classical reception has made a valuable contribution by addressing
non-Western responses to the classical art and literature introduced by European
imperialists abroad.59 Yet to deny the value of a globalized approach to ancient
Rome itself is to overlook the diversity of the empire’s peoples and the importance
of recovering their perspectives. It is to risk accepting the homogenizing vision
of the empire promoted by the imperialists who established the Roman empire’s
modern study. It is telling, for instance, that the city of Rome is still overrepresented
in Roman art history in the same way that Europe has been overrepresented in the
West’s broader histories of the world. By offering strategies for bringing the broader
tapestry of the empire’s visual and textual cultures into sharper focus, globalization
still provides a compelling model for new scholarship on the Roman empire.
As previously noted, globalization entails the expansion and intensification of so-
cial, political, economic, and cultural connections across regions, with implications
for the experience of space and time and the understanding of one’s place in the
world. The portable portrayals preserve evidence for such developments in their
diverse modes of communication: their languages, alphabets, imagery, and aes-
thetics. They also do so in their subjects, which highlight a broad range of places
in metamorphosis within an interconnected empire. Furthermore, the artifacts
instrumentalized globalization through their long-distance circulation, which can
be assessed through their findspots far from the sites so creatively represented. In
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
R569739.
The Brute man. By P. R. C. Pictures, Inc. 6 reels. © 13Oct46; L684.
National Telefilm Associates, Inc. (PWH); 30Jan74; R569739.
R569740.
Gashouse kids. By P. R. C. Pictures, Inc. 7 reels. © 7Oct46; L685.
R569741.
Don Ricardo returns. By P. R. C. Pictures, Inc. 7 reels. © 5Nov46;
L686. National Telefilm Associates, Inc. (PWH); 30Jan74; R569741.
R569742.
Tumbleweed trail. By P. R. C. Pictures, Inc. 6 reels. © 28Oct46;
R569743.
Wild West. By P. R. C. Pictures, Inc. 8 reels. © 1Dec46; L712.
R569744.
Lady chaser. By P. R. C. Pictures, Inc. 6 reels. © 25Nov46; L715.
R569745.
Stars over Texas. By P. R. C. Pictures, Inc. 6 reels. © 18Nov46;
R569926.
Paramount news. No. 42. By Paramount Pictures, Inc. 1 reel. ©
22Jan47; M1645. Major News Library (PWH); 5Feb74; R569926.
R569927.
R569928.
R569929.
1Feb47; M1726. Major News Library (PWH); 5Feb74; R569929.
R570066.
Double danger. By Columbia Pictures Corporation. 2 reels. (Son of
the guardsman, chap. 11) © 2Jan47; L800. Columbia Pictures
Industries, Inc. (PWH); 7Feb74; R570066.
R570067.
The Secret of the treasure. By Columbia Pictures Corporation. 2
reels. (Son of the guardsman, chap. 12) © 9Jan47; L811. Columbia
Pictures Industries, Inc. (PWH); 7Feb74; R570067.
R570068.
Into the depths. By Columbia Pictures Corporation. 2 reels. (Son of
the guardsman, chap. 13) © 16Jan47; L824. Columbia Pictures
R570069.
The Lost heritage. By Columbia Pictures Corporation. 2 reels. (Son
of the guardsman, chap. 14) © 23Jan47; L834. Columbia Pictures
R570070.
South of the Chisholm Trail. By Columbia Pictures Corporation. 6
reels. © 30Jan47; L837. Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. (PWH);
7Feb74; R570070.
R570071.
Free men triumph. By Columbia Pictures Corporation. 2 reels.
(Son of the guardsman, chap. 15) © 30Jan47; L850. Columbia
Pictures Industries, Inc. (PWH); 7Feb74; R570071.
R570072.
The Lone wolf in Mexico. By Columbia Pictures Corporation. 7
reels. © 16Jan47; L851. Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. (PWH);
7Feb74; R570072.
R570073.
Half wits holiday. By Columbia Pictures Corporation. 2 reels. ©
9Jan47; L918. Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. (PWH); 7Feb74;
R570073.
R570074.
Loco Lobo. By Screen Gems, Inc. 1 reel. © 9Jan47; L966.
Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. (PWH); 7Feb74; R570074.
R570075.
Fowl brawl. By Screen Gems, Inc. 1 reel. © 9Jan47; L991.
Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. (PWH); 7Feb74; R570075.
R570076.
Meet Mister Mischief. By Columbia Pictures Corporation. 2 reels.
© 23Jan47; L994. Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. (PWH);
7Feb74; R570076.
R570077.
Community sing. Ser. 11, no. 5. By Columbia Pictures Corporation.
1 reel. © 23Jan47; M1877. Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc.
(PWH); 7Feb74; R570077.
R570078.
Thrills of music. Ser. 1, no. 5. By Columbia Pictures Corporation. 1
reel. © 23Jan47; M1918. Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. (PWH);
7Feb74; R570078.
R570079.
Polo. By Columbia Pictures Corporation. 1 reel. (The World of
sports) © 30Jan47; M1970. Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc.
(PWH); 7Feb74; R570079.
R570080.
Screen snapshots. Ser. 26, no. 5. By Columbia Pictures
Corporation. 1 reel. © 23Jan47; M1974. Columbia Pictures
R570212.
Arnelo affair. By Loew’s, Inc. 9 reels. © 30Jan47; L816. Metro
Goldwyn Mayer, Inc. (PWH); 4Feb74; R570212.
R570213.
What’s your I. Q.? By Loew’s, Inc. 1 reel. (Early sports quiz, no. 13)
© 29Jan47; M1637. Metro Goldwyn Mayer, Inc. (PWH); 4Feb74;
R570213.
R570310.
Without reservations. 12 reels. © 3Jun46; L433. Jesse L. Lasky
Productions, Inc. (PWH); 11Feb74; R570310.
R570311.
Vacation in Reno. By RKO Radio Pictures, Inc. 7 reels. © 16Oct46;
L691. RKO General, Inc. (PWH); 11Feb74; R570311.
R570312.
Child of divorce. By RKO Radio Pictures, Inc. 7 reels. © 30Oct46;
R570313.
The Locket. By RKO Radio Pictures, Inc. 10 reels. © 31Dec46;
R570314.
Sinbad the Sailor. By RKO Radio Pictures, Inc. 12 reels. ©
31Dec46; L847. RKO General, Inc. (PWH); 11Feb74; R570314.
R570315.
Nocturne. By RKO Radio Pictures, Inc. 10 reels. © 2Jan47; L866.
RKO General, Inc. (PWH); 11Feb74; R570315.
R570316.
San Quentin. By RKO Radio Pictures, Inc. 7 reels. © 4Dec46;
R570317.
The Falcon’s adventure. By RKO Radio Pictures, Inc. 6 reels. ©
2Jan47; L891. RKO General, Inc. (PWH); 11Feb74; R570317.
R570389.
Universal newsreel. Vol. 19, no. 568. By Universal Pictures
Company, Inc. 1 reel. © 2Jan47; M1524. Universal Pictures (PWH);
7Feb74; R570389.
R570390.
Universal newsreel. Vol. 20, no. 3. By Universal Pictures Company,
Inc. 1 reel. © 14Jan47; M1613. Universal Pictures (PWH); 7Feb74;
R570390.
R570391.
R570391.
R570392.
R570392.
R570393.
R570393.
R570394.
R570394.
R570395.
R570395.
R570396.
R570396.
R570397.
Company, Inc. 1 reel. © 30Jan47; M1799. Universal Pictures (PWH);
7Feb74; R570397.
R570398.
Swell guy. By Universal Pictures Company, Inc. 9 reels. ©
18Dec46; L740. Universal Pictures (PWH); 10Jan74; R570398.
R570399.
Melody maestro. By Universal Pictures Company, Inc. 2 reels. ©
18Dec46; L741. Universal Pictures (PWH); 10Jan74; R570399.
R570400.
Tex Beneke and the Glenn Miller Orchestra. By Universal Pictures
Company, Inc. 2 reels. © 18Dec46; L756. Universal Pictures (PWH);
10Jan74; R570400.
R570401.
Company, Inc. 1 reel. © 3Dec46; M1450. Universal Pictures (PWH);
10Jan74; R570401.
R570402.
10Jan74; R570402.
R570403.
Jungle gangster. By Universal Pictures Company, Inc. 1 reel. ©
9Dec46; M1485. Universal Pictures (PWH); 10Jan74; R570403.
R570404.
Company, Inc. 1 reel. © 10Dec46; M1488. Universal Pictures
(PWH); 10Jan74; R570404.
R570405.
10Jan74; R570405.
R570406.
10Jan74; R570406.
R570407.
10Jan74; R570407.
R570408.
10Jan74; R570408.
R570409.
10Jan74; R570409.
R570410.
10Jan74; R570410.
R570411.
The Singing barbers. By Universal Pictures Company, Inc. 1 reel.
© 9Dec46; M1612. Universal Pictures (PWH); 10Jan74; R570411.
R570412.
Storm warning. By Universal Pictures Company, Inc. 1 reel. ©
31Dec46; M2325. Universal Pictures (PWH); 10Jan74; R570412.
R570415.
Company, Inc. 1 reel. © 29Oct46; M1331. Universal Pictures (PWH);
17Jan74; R570415.
R570416.
So goes my love. 10 reels. © 21Mar46; L456. Skirball Manning
Productions, Inc. (PWH); 11Feb74; R570416.
R570429.
News of the day. Vol. 18, issue no. 233. By Hearst Metrotone News,
Inc. 1 reel. © 1Jan47; M1597. Hearst Metrotone News, a division of
The Hearst Corporation (PWH); 11Feb74; R570429.
R570430.
R570431.
R570432.
R570433.
R570434.
News of the day. Vol. 18, issue no. 238. By Hearst Metrotone
News, Inc. 1 reel. © 17Jan47; M1660. Hearst Metrotone News, a
division of The Hearst Corporation (PWH); 11Feb74; R570434.
R570435.
R570436.
R570437.
R570438.
R570569.
Night in paradise. By Universal Pictures Company, Inc. 10 reels. ©
11Apr46; L288. Leo A. Gutman, Inc. (PWH); 15Feb74; R570569.
R570570.
R570571.
R570573.
R570574.
Bedelia. By Eagle Lion Films, Inc. 85 min. © 15Feb47; L829.
Raymond Rohauer (PWH); 20Feb74; R570574.
R570576.
Paramount news. No. 49. By Paramount Pictures. Inc. 1 reel. ©
R570577.
Paramount news. No. 50. By Paramount Pictures. Inc. 1 reel. ©
R570603.
Cat fishin’. By Loew’s, Inc. 1 reel. © 12Feb47; L831. Metro
Goldwyn Mayer, Inc. (PWH); 15Feb74; R570603.
R570604.
It happened in Brooklyn. By Loew’s, Inc. 11 reels. © 12Feb47;
L848. Metro Goldwyn Mayer, Inc. (PWH); 15Feb74; R570604.
R570608.
Mighty Mouse in My old Kentucky home. By Terrytoons, Inc. 1
reel. © 29Mar46; L439. Viacom International, Inc. (PWH); 15Feb74;
R570608.
R570609.
Mighty Mouse in The Wicked wolf. By Terrytoons, Inc. 1 reel. ©
8Mar46; L532. Viacom International, Inc. (PWH); 15Feb74;
R570609.
R570610.
Gandy Goose in It’s all in the stars. By Terrytoons, Inc. 1 reel. ©
12Apr46; L634. Viacom International, Inc. (PWH); 15Feb74;
R570610.
R570686.
Clown of the jungle. 1 reel. © 31Dec46; L1131. Walt Disney
Productions (PWH); 4Feb74; R570686.
R571260.
Wanted for murder. 10 reels. © 1Nov46; L727. Twentieth Century
Fox Film Corporation (PWH); 10Jan74; R571260.
R571439.
Undercover Maisie. By Loew’s, Inc. 9 reels. © 20Feb47; L863.
Metro Goldwyn Mayer, Inc. (PWH); 25Feb74; R571439.
R571689.
The Man I love. By Warner Brothers Pictures, Inc. 10 reels. ©
11Jan47; L776. United Artists Television, Inc. (PWH); 27Feb74;
R571689.
R571690.
Humoresque. By Warner Brothers Pictures, Inc. 10 reels. ©
25Jan47; L793. United Artists Television, Inc. (PWH); 27Feb74;
R571690.
R571691.
The Beast with five fingers. By Warner Brothers Pictures, Inc. 10
reels. © 8Feb47; L819. United Artists Television, Inc. (PWH);
27Feb74; R571691.
R571692.
Nora Prentiss. By Warner Brothers Pictures, Inc. 11 reels. ©
22Feb47; L845. United Artists Television, Inc. (PWH); 27Feb74;
R571692.
R571693.
One meat brawl. By The Vitaphone Corporation. 1 reel. © 9Jan47;
M1548. United Artists Television, Inc. (PWH); 27Feb74; R571693.
R571694.
Let’s go swimming. By Vitaphone Corporation. 1 reel. © 25Jan47;
R571695.
Melody of youth. By Vitaphone Corporation. 1 reel. © 27Jan47;
R571696.
Circus horse. By Vitaphone Corporation. 1 reel. © 21Jan47;
R572004.
13 Rue Madeleine. 10 reels. © 15Jan47; L942. Twentieth Century
Fox Film Corporation (PWH); 1Mar74; R572004.
R572005.
Monkey tone news. 1 reel. © 17Jan47; L944. Twentieth Century
Fox Film Corporation (PWH); 1Mar74; R572005.
R572006.
Fantasy of Siam. 1 reel. © 3Jan47; M1642. Twentieth Century Fox
Film Corporation (PWH); 1Mar74; R572006.
R572007.
Michigan Kid. By Universal Pictures Company, Inc. 8 reels. ©
18Feb47; L877. Universal Pictures (PWH); 1Mar74; R572007.
R572008.
Song of Scheherazade. By Universal Pictures Company, Inc. 12
reels. © 18Feb47; L878. Universal Pictures (PWH); 1Mar74;
R572008.
R572009.
I’ll be yours. By Universal Pictures Company, Inc. 93 min. ©
18Feb47; L879. Universal Pictures (PWH); 1Mar74; R572009.
R572010.
Inc. 1 reel. © 4Feb47; M1800. Universal Pictures (PWH); 1Mar74;
R572010.
R572011.
Company, Inc. 1 reel. © 6Feb47; M1801. Universal Pictures (PWH);
1Mar74; R572011.
R572012.
1Mar74; R572012.
R572013.
1Mar74; R572013.
R572014.
1Mar74; R572014.
R572015.
1Mar74; R572015.
R572016.
Pelican pranks. By Universal Pictures Company, Inc. 1 reel. ©
18Feb47; M1884. Universal Pictures (PWH); 1Mar74; R572016.
R572017.
Rhumba holiday. By Universal Pictures Company, Inc. 1 reel. ©
R572018.
Wild West chimp. By Universal Pictures Company, Inc. 1 reel. ©
R572019.
1Mar74; R572019.
R572020.
1Mar74; R572020.
R572096.
Neighbor pests. By Loew’s, Inc. 1 reel. © 26Feb47; L931. Metro
Goldwyn Mayer, Inc. (PWH); 1Mar74; R572096.
R572097.
Calling on Costa Rica. By Loew’s, Inc. 1 reel. © 26Feb47; M1795.
Metro Goldwyn Mayer, Inc. (PWH); 1Mar74; R572097.
B572099.
Gandy Goose in Peace time football. By Terrytoons, Inc. 1 reel. ©
19Jul46; L612. Viacom International, Inc. (PWH); 14Mar74;
R572099.
R572100.
Mighty Mouse in The Jail break. By Terrytoons, Inc. 1 reel. ©
20Sep46: L613. Viacom International, Inc. (PWH); 14Mar74;
R572100.
R572101.
Gandy Goose in The Golden hen. By Terrytoons, Inc. 1 reel. ©
24May46; L614. Viacom International, Inc. (PWH); 14Mar74;
R572101.
R572102.
Mighty Mouse in The Johnstown Flood. By Terrytoons, Inc. 1 reel.
© 28Jun46; L615. Viacom International, Inc. (PWH); 14Mar74;
R572102.
R572103.
Mighty Mouse in The Trojan horse. By Terrytoons, Inc. 1 reel. ©
26Jul46; L616. Viacom International, Inc. (PWH); 14Mar74;
R572103.
R572104.
The Tortoise wins again. By Terrytoons, Inc. 1 reel. © 30Aug46:
L617. Viacom International, Inc. (PWH); 14Mar74; R572104.
R572105.
Mighty Mouse in The Electronic mouse trap. By Terrytoons, Inc. 1
reel. © 6Sep46; L618. Viacom International, Inc. (PWH); 14Mar74;
R572105.
R572106.
Mighty Mouse in Winning the West. By Terrytoons, Inc. 1 reel. ©
16Aug46; L635. Viacom International, Inc. (PWH); 14Mar74;
R572106.
R572107.
Dinky finds a home. By Terrytoons, Inc. 1 reel. © 7Jun46; L637.
Viacom International, Inc. (PWH); 14Mar74; R572107.
R572108.
Mighty Mouse in Throwing the bull. By Terrytoons, Inc. 1 reel. ©
3May46: L752. Viacom International, Inc. (PWH); 14Mar74;
R572108.
R572109.
The Housing problem. By Terrytoons, Inc. 1 reel. © 25Oct46;
L772. Viacom International, Inc. (PWH); 14Mar74; R572109.
R572110.
The Snow man. By Terrytoons, Inc. 1 reel. © 11Oct46; L773.
R572111.
Mighty Mouse in The Crackpot king. By Terrytoons, Inc. 1 reel. ©
15Nov46; L814. Viacom International, Inc. (PWH); 14Mar74;
R572111.
R572112.
Heckle and Jeckle the Talking Magpies in The Uninvited pests. By
Terrytoons, Inc. 1 reel. © 29Nov46; L815. Viacom International, Inc.
(PWH); 14Mar74; R572112.
R572113.
Mighty Mouse and the hep cat. By Terrytoons, Inc. 1 reel. ©
6Dec46; L884. Viacom International, Inc. (PWH); 14Mar74;
R572113.
R572114.
Beanstalk Jack. By Terrytoons, Inc. 1 reel. © 20Dec46; L885.
R572115.
Mighty Mouse in Crying “wolf.” By Terrytoons, Inc. 1 reel. ©
10Jan47; L941. Viacom International, Inc. (PWH); 14Mar74;
R572115.
R572286.
26Feb47; M1812. Major News Library (PWH); 5Mar74; R572286.
R572287.
1Mar47; M1823. Major News Library (PWH); 5Mar74; R572287.
R572325.
Mister District Attorney. By Columbia Pictures Corporation. 9
reels. © 19Feb47; L835. Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. (PWH);
15Mar74; R572325.
R572326.
Johnny O’Clock. By Columbia Pictures Corporation. 10 reels. ©
20Feb47; L836. Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. (PWH); 15Mar74;
R572326.
R572327.
Cigarette girl. By Columbia Pictures Corporation. 7 reels. ©
R572327.
R572328.
Dead reckoning. By Columbia Pictures Corporation. 11 reels. ©
R572328.
R572329.
Mystery of the cosmic ray. By Columbia Pictures Corporation. 3
reels. (Jack Armstrong, chap. 1) © 6Feb47; L854. Columbia Pictures
Industries, Inc. (PWH); 15Mar74; R572329.
R572330.
Blind spot. By Columbia Pictures Corporation. 7 reels. © 6Feb47;
L855. Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. (PWH); 15Mar74; R572330.
R572331.
The Far world. By Columbia Pictures Corporation. 2 reels. (Jack
Armstrong, chap. no. 2) © 13Feb47; L861. Columbia Pictures

Destinations in Mind Portraying Places On The Roman Empires Souvenirs Kimberly Cassibry Full Chapter

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Destinations in Mind Portraying Places On The Roman Empires Souvenirs Kimberly Cassibry Full Chapter

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Destinations in Mind Portraying Places On The Roman Empires Souvenirs Kimberly Cassibry Full Chapter

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Destinations in Mind: Portraying Places

on the Roman Empire's Souvenirs

Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press

© Oxford University Press 2021

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in

You must not circulate this work in any other form

Library of Congress Cataloging-​in-​Publication Data

Introduction: En Route to the Roman Empire 1

PLACES IN A GLOBAL EMPIRE 3

MATERIAL CULTURE AND MULTI-​SENSORY EXPERIENCE 11

DESTINATIONS IN MIND: A USER’S GUIDE 13

1. On the Road: From Gades to Rome on the Itinerary Cups 17

THE ITINERARY CUPS AS ARTIFACTS 21

SETTINGS FOR TRAVELERS: ROMAN ROADS 35

SILVER CUPS WITH ITINERARIES 44

WORDS (ALMOST) BEREFT OF IMAGES 55

ITINERANT PATRONS: WHO WAS ON THE ROAD? 57

2. At the Games: Charioteers and Gladiators on the Spectacle Cups 63

THE SPECTACLE CUPS AS ARTIFACTS 65

GLASS CUPS WITH SPORTS STORIES 88

IMAGES IN VIRTUAL REALITY 99

PROVINCIAL PURCHASES 105

3. Along the Border: Hadrian’s Wall on the Fort Pans 111

THE FORT PANS AS ARTIFACTS 113

A SETTING FOR SOLDIERS: HADRIAN’S WALL 120

ENAMELING THE FORT PANS 124

LETTERS, LANGUAGES, AND LITERACY 126

MESMERIZING MOTIFS, PAST AND PRESENT 130

TO WHOM DID HADRIAN’S WALL MATTER? 142

4. By the Sea: Baiae and Puteoli on the Bay Bottles 146

THE BAY BOTTLES AS ARTIFACTS 148

SETTINGS FOR REVELRY AND COMMERCE 166

GLASSWARE ON THE MARKET 177

LABELS FOR BUILDINGS AND WISHES FOR READERS 181

BUILDING STORIES 185

THE BAY BOTTLES ABROAD 197

Conclusion: Not All Roads Lead to Rome 207

THEMATIC CONNECTIONS 207

ART HISTORY AND MATERIAL CULTURE 212

WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE? 216

Figure 1.1. Map of key sites mentioned in the book. 18

Haec autem nec sunt nec fieri possunt nec fuerunt.

Alexandra Ruggiero (Corning Museum of Glass), and Katherine Larson (Corning

CIL Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum

Places in a Global Empire

The epithet “global” is understood not as an expansive frame to include

Global, in this sense, is an analytical stance. The group also advocates

You might also like

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

MATERIAL CULTURE AND MULTI-SENSORY EXPERIENCE 11