Errata for Rome: An Oxford Archaeological Guide, Amanda Claridge, Oxford University Press 1998 Flash Sheridan http://flash-sheridan.name 20 June 2003, minor revisions 10 February 2009 Picture URLs are no longer valid. • Page 3, Figure A: The lines indicating the conjectured Republican walls are insufficiently distinct, both from those indicating known walls, and from streams. • 4 (or possibly 6 or 9): The list of related early sites omits some important ones recommended by the Blue Guide: Rome (2003, page 92), e.g. Lapis Niger and the Regia. • 36: Claudian and his no-longer-extant statue are mentioned, but missing from the index. • 38: "literally" is misused. • 56: "Houses" (heading) s/b "Homes", since apartments are included. • 115: "New Basilica" (heading) should also mention Maxentius and Constantine, since that's how it's commonly known. • 115 The New Basilica section should provide more detail on what actually still exists, e.g., the white stone near the top of the northeastern interior. • 116: The Arch of Titus lacks a map reference. • 146, figure 60.1: The Republican city gates are actually on the other side of the island in Largo Magnanopoli. shows their absence from where figure 60 says they are (which would be visible from within Trajan's Markets). and < http://flash-sheridan.name/Rome/ Set427_03.jpg> show where they actually are. (The index was particularly unhelpful in trying to track down whether their location is described anywhere in more detail: There's no reference at all to Largo Magnanopoli, and none of the references under "Gates, city" seemed to apply.) • 156: (Colonacce) "Phrygian purple marble". Perhaps it's my color vision, but these don't look purple to me. See . • 158: Forum of Augustus: "whole of the SE exhedra", and figure 60.10. There only seems to be half of it still present; cp. Blue Guide p. 130 and my photograph at . • 158-9: "great wall of grey peperino". It's worth mentioning the roof outlines visible on the wall, presumably of the Temple of Mars. (Photograph at , I hope.) • 170: Markets of Trajan, "the building now hosts the Museum of the Imperial Forums." It no longer does; it's also worth mentioning that the building currently appears to be marked solely as an exhibit of modern photography, with no exterior mention of anything of classical interest. • 171, figure 76: North is not marked. • 171 figure 76: via Biberatica is not marked; cp. figure 60 on page 146. • 171: Reference to "(76: 3)". More is accessible from this now, e.g. Tor Milizie. • 234: Aracoeli. Considering the likely interests of your intended audience, I think it's worth mentioning Gibbon here. • 272: "faction" in the translation is on the wrong line • 272: "great" s/b "greatness of" • The index should list structures by proper names as well as type; it seems to be constructed as though lack of redundancy were the highest good, rather than a weakness in an index. And it's not done consistently; e.g., reasoning a priori, I first looked for "Hall, Domitianic" rather than "Domitianic Hall." Some cases where this is more than merely an inconvenience: • What you refer to as the "Arch of Janus" (page 60, figure 1.8) is elsewhere referred to (e.g., The Blue Guide, page 94) as the "Temple of Janus." If your index had an entry for "Janus," this would not be a problem. Since it doesn't, the user finds only a reference to a completely different structure, on page 249. • Similarly, there should be an index reference to Aracoeli, since that's the associated piazza's name (e.g., figure 106, page 230). • The end-of-section reference to simply "S. Stefano Rotondo" on page 29 requires the user to guess that he should look in the index under "Churches". Since the context up to that point has been largely pagan, this is something of a leap. This page: http://flash-sheridan.name/errata/Errata_for_Rome_an_Oxford_Archaeological_Guide.txt