5 thoughts on “The marble map of Rome”

  1. I found this disappointing. There’s no sense of anything but hundreds of tiny bits. No view across the piece, that I could see.

    It’s like asking to see an oak tree and being shown a list of leaves.

  2. Part of the problem, of course, lies in the material. Looking at the bibliography, AG 1980 and PM 1960 are your best bets for a “complete” reconstruction. Fortunately they have put up the plates from PM 1960 with high resolution versions available:
    http://formaurbis.stanford.edu/plate.php?plateindex=61 (“plate 62 (a-b) is Gatti’s schematic reconstruction of the marble slabs in situ with drawings of the identified fragments (both existing and known only from Renaissance drawings) superimposed onto the wall.”)
    As you can see, it’s an extremely fragmentary resource.

  3. Thank you! That link took me to a list of records first time, which is odd; but worked second time. It WAS good to see the put the .jpg there and made it directly linkable; easier to work with.

    So the problem is really that, if you want to see whether (e.g.) the temple of Sol Invictus is shown, you probably can’t, because even if it’s in the extant fragments, you won’t be able to find it?

    UPDATE: Ah; at the bottom of the plate 61 page is a list of places. And if you download the jpg of 61, and look at it full size and move around, you can see what sort of things are there. I looked for the Septizodium, and the page on this fragment is very good. (I still haven’t much of an idea what the building looked like, tho)

Leave a Reply