This thesis examines the changing form and function of non-funerary cult buildings in early Latial and Etruscan settlements in order to better describe and understand the advent of monumental temples in the archaeological record. It draws on a significant quantity of material excavated in the past forty years and developments in relevant theoretical frameworks to reconstruct the changing appearance of cult buildings from huts to shrines and temples (Chapters 2 to 4), and to place monumental examples within wider religious, topographical, and functional contexts (Chapters 5 to 7). This broader perspective allows a more accurate assessment of the extent to which monumental temples represent continuity and discontinuity with earlier religious architecture, and furthermore clarifies the respective roles of Latium and Etruria in the transformation of cult buildings into distinctive, prominent parts of the built environment. Although it is possible to find many different accounts of religious monumentalisation in existing scholarship, this thesis holds that traditional narratives no longer accurately reflect the archaeological evidence. It sets out a sequence of developments in which early religious architecture was a dynamic, rather than conservative, phenomenon. It demonstrates that temples were not the inevitable product of a natural progression from open-air votive deposition to monumentality, or simply an imported concept, but rather a deliberate response to the opportunities offered by an increasingly mobile Mediterranean population. It also contends that Latium played a more important role in formulating the characteristic components and functions of central Italic temples than previously thought. This thesis consequently offers a new account of early religious architecture in western central Italy as well as an alternative interpretation of its monumentalisation.

Seit der zweiten Hälfte des 20. Jahrhunderts wächst das Interesse in der Klassischen Archäologie an einer wissenschaftsgeschichtlichen Beschäftigung mit dem eigenen Fach. Standen zunächst die Arbeiten und Biographien einzelner herausragender Forscherpersönlichkeiten im Fokus, so trat bald die Frage nach der Genese archäologischer Techniken oder Begrifflichkeiten neben diese. In der Klassischen Archäologie, wie auch in den Nachbardisziplinen Althistorie und Altphilologie, entstanden in der Folge einige Arbeiten zu diesen Fragestellungen. Zumeist wurde die Wissenschaftsgeschichte der Archäologie im Allgemeinen oder der Klassischen Archäologie im Besonderen behandelt, einzelne Abhandlungen befassen sich auch mit den Epochenbegriffen Klassik oder Hellenismus. Nur verhältnismäßig wenige Arbeiten thematisieren wissenschaftsgeschichtlich die Begriffe „archaisch“ / „Archaik“ und in diesen wird überwiegend auf allgemeinere kulturhistorische Aspekte abgehoben. Eine gründliche Untersuchung der Entwicklung des vielschichtigen Begriffs Archaik in der Klassischen Archäologie stellt bislang ein Desiderat der Forschung dar. Die allmähliche Einengung des Begriffs „archaisch“ auf einen Stilbegriff für die frühgriechischen Kunstwerke der Zeit von ca. 700 bis 480 v. Chr. im Wissenschaftsdiskurs der Zeit sowie die Rezeption der archaischen Denkmäler durch die jeweiligen Forscher wird daher eingehend betrachtet. Die Untersuchung erfolgt vor der Folie der fortlaufenden Entdeckung und Erforschung der archaisch-griechischen Kunst von den Anfängen bis in das letzte Drittel des 19. Jahrhunderts. Dabei wird das zeitliche Verhältnis der Herausbildung des Stilbegriffs „archaisch“ im Sinne von „alt“, „ursprünglich“, frei von einer pejorativen Konnotation und schließlich des Epochenbegriffs dargelegt, wobei „Epoche“ hier nicht nur eine Zeitperiode, sondern eine zeitlich umrissene Kulturstufe bedeutet. / Since the second half of the 20th century the interest grows in the classical archaeology in a science-historical employment of own field. If the works and biographies of single important researcher’s personalities stood first in the focus, the question soon stepped after the genesis of archaeological technologies or concepts beside this. In the classical archeology, as well as in the neighbouring disciplines old history and classics, some works originated subsequently to these questions. Mostly the science history of the archeology was treated generally or the classical archeology in particular, single treatises also deal with the epoch concepts Classical period or Hellenism. Only relatively few works pick out as a central theme science-historically the concepts “archaically” / “Archaic” and in this it is removed predominantly on more general cultural-historical aspects. A thorough investigation of the development of the multilayered concept Archaic in the classical archeology shows up to now a desiderat of the research. Hence, the gradual constriction of the concept “archaically” on a style concept for the early-greek pieces of art of the time of approx. 700 to 480 B. C. in the science discourse of the time as well as the adoption of the archaic monuments by the respective researchers is looked thoroughly. The investigation occurs against the backdrop of the sequential discovery and investigation of the archaic-greek art from the beginnings till the last third of the 19th century. Besides, the temporal relation of the formation of the style concept is demonstrated “archaically” in terms of “old”, “originally”, freely by a pejorative connotation and, finally, of the epoch concept and “epoch” means here not only a time period, but a chronologically outlined cultural step.