Censorinus, D.N. zz.6:
apud Albanos Martius est sex et triginta, Maius viginti et duum, Sextilis duodeviginti, September sedecim; Tusculanorum Quintilis dies habet XXXVI, October XXXII, idem October apud Aricinos XXXVIIII.
March has thirty-six days among the people of Alba, May twenty-two, Sextilis eighteen, September sixteen, Quintilis of the people of Tusculum has thirty-six days, October thirty-two, yet October among the people of Aricia has thirty-nine.
Macrob. Sat. i.i 5.18:
ut autem omnes Idus Iovi, ita omnes Kalendas Iunoni tributas et Varronis et pontificalis adfirmat auctoritas. quod etiam Laurentes patriis religionibus servant, qui et cognomen deae ex caerimoniis addiderunt, Kalendarem Iunonem vocantes...
The authority both of Varro and of the pontifices confirms that just as all the Ides are dedicated to Jupiter, so all the Kalends are dedicated to Juno. The Laurentes even preserve this fact in their ancestral cults, since they have actually adopted the name of the goddess from their liturgies, calling the day of the Kalends Juno ...
(Censorinus and Macrobius are clearly in error in supposing that the customs in question survived to their own day.) Varro, Ling, vi.14:
Quinquatrus... ut ab Tusculanis post diem sextum Idus similiter vocatur Sexatrus et post diem septimum Septimatrus, sic hie quod erat post diem quintum Idus Quinquatrus.
Quinquatrus... Just as the sixth day after the Ides is called Sexatrus by the Tusculani on the same principle and the seventh day Septimatrus, so here Quinquatrus (was used) because it was the fifth day after the Ides.
Festus 304-6 class="underline"
Quinquatrus... forma autem vocabuli eius exemplo multorum populorum Italicorum enuntiata est, quod post diem quintum Iduum est is dies festus, ut apud Tusculanos Triatrus et Sexatrus et Septematrus et Faliscos Decimatrus.
Quinquatrus... But the form of that word is adopted on the model of many Italic peoples, because it is a feast day the fifth day after the Ides, just as Triatrus and Sexatrus and Septematrus exist among the people of Tusculum and Decimatrus among the Falisci.
See in particular C. Ampolo, CR 38 (1988) 117-20, reviewing M. Torelli, Lavinio e Roma, Rome, 1984.
V. VOTIVE DEPOSITS
There is a general overall account by M. Fenelli, ArchClass 27 (1975) 206-52, 'Contributo per lo studio del votivo anatomico: i votivi anatomici di Lavinio': 'la diffusione di questa consuetudine si ĉ avuta sopratutto dal IV al sec a.C.'
See A]A 1974, 25 = Forma Italiae 111, 2, no. 19 for:
Volceii (San Mauro) - 200 down to 7 5—5 о b.c. (there is no reason to blame the revolt of Spartacus; the site was converted to secular purposes in the first century a.d.).
See M. Torelli, e 130, 105 n. 49 for:
Veii (Porta Caere) - down to 50—40 B.C.
Gabii - down to 50-40 в.с. (see now M. A. Aubet, Cuadernos 14 (1980) 75122, 'Catalogo preliminar de las terracottas de Gabii').
See A. La Regina, in P. Zanker (ed.) (e 141), 219—54, 'II Sannio', at 237, for:
Schiavi d' Abruzzo - third century в.с. down to a miserable end some time after the Social War.
Sее Sannio, Rome, 1980, 249—50 for:
Capracotta - down to the middle of the first century a.d.
See ibid., 269-81 for a site that almost dies at the end of the first century в.с. and then revives:
San Giovanni in Galdo.
The sanctuary of Mefitis in the Valle d'Ansanto is very imperfectly known; part of the votive deposit was discovered in circumstances which are for all practical purposes undocumented and was meticulously published by A. Bottini et al., NSc 1976, 359-524, 'Valle d'Ansanto. И deposito votivo del santuario de Mefite'; and part of the sanctuary was well excavated and published by I. Rainini, II santuario di Mefite in Valle d'Ansanto, Rome, 1985. No more than a generic relationship can be established between the two sets of finds. That part of the votive deposit which is known just struggles down to the end of the Republic; and there was some building in the first half of the second century a.d. in the area of the sanctuary, which was thereafter abandoned until used for other purposes in the fourth century a.d.
VI. EPICHORIC FUNERARY PRACTICES
M. W. Frederiksen (n. 63), identified a group of Campanian funerary stelae with one or more full-length figures in an aedicula and dated it to the late Republic, say Г50-50 B.C.; the stelae were replaced by cippi or mausolea. Apart from Capua, the stelae come from her dependency Atella (CIL x 3 744, 3752); Caiatia (CIL x 4605); Sinuessa (EE viii 563); Cales(Frederiksen, 103 n. 100: Vetter, no. 73, two Oscan stelae; Frederiksen, 100: CILx 4696; EEv in 540,543,551,553,555,557; CIL x 4680, is uncertain); Teanum (Frederiksen, 102 n. 97: Vetter, nos. 123a, i23b + d (R. Antonini, in Popoli e civilta delt Italia antica vi, Rome, 1978, 825— 912, 'L'Osco', at 874, 'Teano'), 123c, three Oscan stelae; Vetter, no. 12зе = NSc 1913, 408, an Oscan stela; Frederiksen, 100, seven Latin stelae; A. Maiuri, Passeggiate сатрапе3, Florence, 1957, 182-4, a stela of a single woman brought from Teano to Casale di Carinola and intended for the Museo Provinciale
Campano); an example from Isola di Sora (EE viii 609) has probably been transported there in modern times.
M. Eckert, Capuanische Grabsteine (Oxford: BAR, 1988), dates the stelae between 100 b.c. and a.d. 25; but his work is for all practical purposes unusable, since he is unaware that Atella is inseparable from Capua and he makes no attempt to relate his more limited corpus to that of Frederiksen; at no. 84, he randomly includes an Oscan stela from Teanum, which is a mis-read version of Poccetti, no. 137. Poccetti, nos. 137—8, are in fact two further examples of stelae in Oscan from Teanum.
H. Solin, in id. and M Kajava (eds.), Roman Eastern Policy and Other Studies, Helsinki, 1990, 151—62, 'Republican Capua', at 160—1, dates the stelae between 50 в.с. and a.d. 50, claiming that the letter forms, onomastic formulae and literary style are imperial; no support whatever is offered for these assertions, which ignore the much wider range of arguments adduced by Frederiksen; and note that Solin's assignation to the Empire of a substantial body of inscriptions of freedmen without cognomina has been disproved by M. Cebeillac-Gervasoni, Annates Latini Montium Arvernorum 16 (1989) 89-193 'Le cognomen des affranchis'.