Editing Tabularium (section)

==Modern scholarship==
Nicholas Purcell's article "[[Atrium Libertatis]]" is aligned with the view of contemporary historians regarding the [[Epigraphy|epigraphic]] evidence once present within the Tabularium. In his detailed analysis of the now-lost inscriptions, Purcell makes clear that these inscriptions have compounded our misunderstanding of one of the largest, oldest and best-preserved buildings of the Roman Republic.<ref name="Purcell 1993">{{cite journal |first=Nicholas |last=Purcell |jstor=40344494 |title=Atrium Libertatis |journal=Papers of the British School at Rome |volume=61 |year=1993|pages=125–155 |doi=10.1017/S006824620000996X |s2cid=204712328 }}</ref>{{rp|135}}

The generic terms {{lang|la|probatio}} of a {{lang|la|substructio}} and a Tabularium were recorded by an early Renaissance antiquarian in that order. It is arguable that the identification of the so-called "Tabularium" is incorrect. Purcell draws our attention to the lack of archaeological and epigraphic knowledge on {{lang|la|tabularia}}, suggesting that these inscriptions were not intended to be grandiose in scope, nor did they name the building,<ref name="Purcell 1993"/>{{rp|140}} which further reflects the prevailing credulity of the structure in question. Purcell's reference to the archaeological research conducted by [[Theodor Mommsen]] aligns with his argument and likely indicates that historians must set aside such misunderstandings reflected in the literary sources. As Mommsen stated quite rightly, that Tabularium may refer to any structure associated with administration.<ref name="Purcell 1993"/> Therefore, it is likely that the Tabularium in question, despite the sheer size fronting the Capitoline Hill, was one of many structures built for the purpose of holding records.

Purcell's assessment of the epigraphic evidence once found within the structure in question reaffirms the following view, long held by academics, that the Tabularium is insufficiently documented and the product of scholarly inertia. This, unfortunately, has further compounded our understanding of the Capitoline substructure and, as a result, we are no closer to identifying the extent of its function, let alone its name.

An article by Pier Luigi Tucci (2005) radically changed the way historians and archaeologists alike would view the Tabularium, questioning the very identification of the structure and its function. Exploring the history of archaeology at the site, Tucci makes clear that the identification of the so-called Tabularium is hinged solely upon an inscription long lost (CIL VI 1314, 31597), with no ancient evidence from the period directly correlating to the site. As such, it is arguable that the word "Tabularium" itself has been used incorrectly in modern scholarship with reference to the building. Instead, Tucci argues that the substructure, which provides the foundations for the entire building, was itself likely a Tabularium, being one of many offices housed within Roman buildings and temples for the purpose of holding records. As such, Tucci disputes the idea that a sole Tabularium or mass archive of Rome ever existed. In alignment with this argument, Tucci subsequently seeks to identify the structure in occupation of the space above the Tabularium substructure. In examining the architectural link between the rooms of the substructure and that of a south-western building, Tucci, in accordance with historians before him, could identify the remnants of an extension of the {{lang|la|[[aerarium]]}}, or treasury, which was housed in the Temple of Saturn. Subsequently, in correlation with the accounts of Livy (7.28.4–6), Ovid (Fasti 6.183–185) and Cicero (De domo 38.101), Tucci draws attention to a clear association between the location of this mint, and that of the Temple of Juno Moneta. With reference to the archaeological research of Giannelli and his identification of concrete remains in the Aracoeli Garden in the forum, Tucci argues for the foundations of Giannelli's supposed Temple of Juno Moneta to date back to the 4th century BC, thus indicating a relocation. Tucci's argument thus is fulfilled as he concludes that in circa 78 BC, the Temple of Juno Moneta was rededicated atop the substructure of the Tabularium, in a complex which included the extended {{lang|la|aerarium}}, and that this relocation likely occurred after the fire of 83 BC. As a result, Tucci called into question both the identification and function of the so-called Tabularium, in his attempt to overturn a theory that had been taken for historical fact since the 15th century AD.<ref>{{cite journal|last=Tucci|first=P. L.|year=2005|title=Where High Moneta leads her steps sublime: The 'Tabularium' and the Temple of Juno Moneta |journal=Journal of Roman Archaeology|volume=18|pages=6–33|doi=10.1017/S1047759400007194|s2cid=193180616}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |author=G. Giannelli |year=1978 |title=La Leggenda dei 'Mirabilia' e l'antica topografia dell'Arce Capitolina |journal=StRom |volume=26 |pages=60–71 |postscript=, as cited in P. L. Tucci (2005).}}</ref>

Fillipo Coarelli (2010) uses the arguments and findings of Nicholas Purcell (1993), Henner von Hesberg (1995) and Pier Luigi Tucci (2005) to propose an alternative understanding of the function of the Tabularium. These works are characterised by their ability to provide alternative understandings when questioning the function of the Tabularium. It is important to note that prior these studies, research and scholarship of the Tabularium was primarily saturated by the Richard Delbrück's {{lang|de|Hellenistische Bauten in Latium}}, published in 1875. It was Delbrück's findings that rendered the conclusion that the Tabularium served as a house of public records. However, writing in 2010, Coarelli has had access to a wider range of both archaeological and written sources that probe a deeper inquest in to traditional discourses that cloud our conception of the function and meaning of the Tabularium.

Within {{lang|la|Substructio et tabularium}}, Coarelli fundamentally purports that "the so-called Tabularium is not the archive of the Roman State, known by this name, and the rejection of this long held but incorrect hypothesis permits us to study the monument afresh". He goes on to state that "[the Tabularium] represents in fact the foundations (substructio) of a large temple of the Sullan period, restored by Domitian after the fire of 80 AD". Throughout his work, Coarelli uses the findings of Purcell, von Hesberg and Tucci as a roadmap that forms the basis of his argument. He begins with Purcell's epigraphic discoveries that connotes the classification of the Tabularium as a records building: {{lang|la|Populi tabularia ubi publici continentur}} ({{lang|la|tabularia}} of the [Roman] people where the public [documents] are housed). Moving to von Hesberg, Coarelli highlights the study of the dimensions of architectural pieces from the Tabularium that suggest "the second floor of the building must have been significantly wider than the arched lower floor", proposing that there was a temple structure within the Tabularium. Finally, Coarelli's inclusion of Tucci's findings builds upon von Hesberg's assertion, serving as a sounding board for Coarelli's initial thesis, that the Tabularium served as the basement of a proposed temple.

Coarelli tracks the structural changes that took place within the Tabularium, and ultimately concludes that it is challenging for historians to ascertain the absolute meaning of this structure due to the "complexity of [it]". He points out that only until recently have we been able to understand that the Tabularium actually existed due to the emergence of from six military diplomas, with dates ranging from &nbsp;85–88 AD. Further, these diplomas refer the location of the Tabularium publicum to the {{lang|la|[[Capitolium]]}}. Here, the location is extremely significant. Coarelli states that the Tabularium "must have been situated in the immediate environs of the area Capitolina, where the military diplomas were displayed until 90 AD". Thus, it is clear that the Tabularium was a multifaceted building that pertained to the political and religious culture of the Roman Empire. 
	
Thus, by expanding upon the arguments of Purcell, von Hesberg and Tucci, Coarelli positions himself to further execute his overarching thesis with increased clarity. Fundamentally, by galvanising the "deep-rooted biases" that obfuscate the understanding of the Tabularium, Coarelli is able to suggest that the Tabularium is rather a multifaceted structure that pertained to the political and religious centre of the Roman world.