Roman Temples

While the Romans did not have museums, practices of collecting and display were fully developed in Rome. Romans used collections of objects to substantiate, reinforce, and broadcast particular views of the world. This chapter shows how current work in museum studies opens new avenues of research into Roman art. It draws on recent scholarship on collecting that explores debates over cultural property, questions of viewing, and the role of collections in the construction of personal and imperial identities. It is herewith the appropriation of patrimony, with the creation of art, and with ideas of a universal artistic heritage-that we find ancient analogs of modern museums.

In Kleinasien und Syrien gibt es zahlreiche Tempel, deren Architektur Hinweise auf eine Kultausübung auf dem Dach gibt. Dabei handelt es sich zum einen um Treppenhäuser, die zum Tempeldach emporführen, zum anderen um Türöffnungen in den Giebelfeldern von Tempeln. Beide Eigenschaften treten bisweilen auch an ein und demselben Tempel auf, so dass zunächst ein Zusammenhang zwischen diesen beiden Eigenschaften naheliegend erscheint. Im folgenden soll jedoch gezeigt werden, dass Treppenhäuser und Giebeltüren unterschiedlichen Kulttraditionen und Funktionen dienten. Die Treppenhäuser entstammen der religiösen Tradition Mesopotamiens und Syriens und führen auf Flachdächer oder Terrassen auf den Tempeln, auf denen Opfer und andere Rituale stattfanden. Die Herkunft der Giebeltüren liegt dagegen in Anatolien. Hier wurde die Epiphanie der jeweiligen Gottheit durch Schauspieler aufgeführt, der Tempelgiebel wurde dabei zur Bühne eines rituellen Dramas. Die Verbreitung beider Architekturformen und damit Kulttraditionen fand in hellenistischer Zeit statt und ist Ausdruck der seleukidischen Religionspolitik.

Greek and Roman temples are often very similar in both appearance and function and yet at other times they can be vastly different. This essay compares Greek and Roman temples in both their architectural and functional capacities. It then focuses on two particular temples, the Metroon in the Athenian Agora and the Temple of Cybele on the Palatine Hill in Rome. While both of these temples are dedicated to the same deity and are situated in prominent civic positions, they are nevertheless very different, architecturally and functionally.

In the Res Gestae, out of 82 temples he renovated, Augustus mentions by name only these belonging to deities with whom he wished to be associated, paving the way for his future deification: Apollo, Augustus’ guardian, was beloved by young people and venerated along with Diana. The deified Iulius Caesar was his stepfather and role model. Pan was identified with Faunus, both patrons of women’s fertility. Special mention is made of the first (Iuppiter, Mars, Quirinus) and the second (Iuppiter, Iuno, Minerva) triads of the Roman religion, whose worship he expanded from the Capitoline hill’s elite to the Aventine hill’s lower classes. He also mentions Lares et Penates, associated both with the private cult and with the state’s protection. The series is concluded with Iuventas, the protector of the youth and Magna Mater who protected foreigners. Moreover, he transformed his own house into a triple temple, of Vesta, Apollo and himself, and he became associated with abstract divinities, which highlighted his virtues. He tried to cover all categories of citizens, regardless of social rank, wealth, age, sex, residence, and origin, in order to enjoy lifetime support. His dealing with the Roman religion was manifold: he revived forgotten cults, his name was included in the Carmen Saliare, he obtained sacrosanctitas, he became member of many priesthoods ascending to the office of the Pontifex Maximus, and eventually he was deified after death.

The Final Pagan Generation shows how the generation of Romans born in the 310s adapted to their changing religious and political environments.  The included chapter introduces the religious landscape of the Roman world of the early fourth century and sets the stage for their story.

Vitruvius III.2.6: Hermogenes, Menesthes, and the Pseudodipteros Temple of Apollo (?)

Roman architect Vitruvius’ “De architectura libri decem” mirrors architectural-engineering history and
theories of the Classical Ages of the Mediterranean Basin that reached the present day and it has definitely taken
its place in the literature as the most comprehensive study. Vitruvius mentions Hermogenes in his work for the
first time in the 3rd book where that chapter subjects to temple plans and their examples (III. 2.6): “huius exemplar
Romae non est sed│Magnesiae (aedis) Dianae Hermogenis, Alabandis etiam Apollinis a Menesthe facta ”. He
quoted Hermogenes’ name when he was talking about pseudodipteros temples plans that did not exist in Rome
and counted merely two of it. One of these temples is the Temple of Artemis, mentioned in the chapter where
Hermogenes’ name is quoted. The temple is referred as his work in later chapters. Vitruvius states that the
second pseudodipteros temple is dedicated to Apollo. Chapter III.2.6 of his book is one of the most significant
chapters that carry the problematic of Hermogenes to the current literature. Outside of Rome, it is futile to discuss
the presence of two pseudodipteros temples on the text which Vitruvius knew and reported. However, he
mentioned the names of Alabanda (?) and Menesthes (?) that brings a significant discussion and some questions with
it: Where is Hermogenes from? Apart from the Temple of Artemis, where is the Temple of Apollo, the second
pseudodipteros temple? Who built it? This study brings a new perspective by evaluating all previous discussions
and interpretations until the present day.

Belief in the presence of malevolent spirits residing in the
ruins of abandoned cult buildings is an enduring theme in religious history. This short magazine article provides an introduction to the architectural, structural and sociological aspects of temple destruction and conversion in the late antique period.

"The period between the mid-second century BC and the start of the Augustan Principate is characterised by an apparent lack of large-scale narrative decorative programs on religious structures. The gods, heroes and monsters adorning temples in earlier periods seem to disappear, while at the same time the dimensions of some religious structures increase dramatically. This phenomenon can be explained by the fact that narrative architectural decoration must, first and foremost, be interpreted as a symbolic product. The images from the mythical or legendary world allude to the real world. If the message being conveyed is to be understood correctly, the viewer needs to have a clear idea about the references the images make. Lacking a well-defined and clear consensus about such symbolic references, the overall absence of elaborate narrative decorative programs on religious architecture during the final age of the Republic can be explained by the breakdown of political consensus in Rome itself. A new situation developed that required new and different images."

During excavations conducted on the southern half of the Forum in Ostia in the first half of the 20th century, some
architectural terracottas were found. They were only briefly described in "Architectural Terracottas from Etrusco-Italic Temples" from 1940 and in "Scavi di Ostia I, Topografia Generale" from 1953, where they were dated to the 3rd century BCE. They were analysed once again in 1980 and re-dated to the 5th century BCE. Based on this research, a discussion of a settlement in Ostia prior to the Castrum appeared. This article will analyse the same fragments, but they will be integrated and compared to material that has been made available since 1980, which will lead to a discussion whether there is a temple on the later Forum of Ostia, which is to be dated to the late 6th or 5th century BCE.

At the end of the Republic, the Romans regarded Triumph as the most magnificent ceremony and the status of the triumphant general as the highest attainable. This rite, officially awarded by the Senate, permitted the general to make a processional entry into the city of Rome and glorify his prestigious victory in front of his fellowcitizens. However, the critical analysis of sources reveals that the data related to Triumphs are unreliable. The first Triumph of Romulus was reconstructed by Augustus for ideological reasons : to emphasize the paralell between himself and the founder of the Urbs. Moreover, during the third century BC, families made up fake Triumps which were then integrated into annal and epigraphs. Such inventions mostly concern the period 322 BC -291BC  -because it was at this point in time that Triumphs became highly political as the Romans adopted the Theology of victory current in the hellenistic world. Military victory was what the nobilitas, the emerging Roman aristocraty, valued most and its celebration, the Triumph, became the occasion for asserting the hereditary dimension of victory and power. In the third century BC, the desire for Triumph intensified, which led the Senate to impose stricter rules and conditions. The resulting conflicts between the senate and the generals explains the emergence of new ceremonies such as the Ovatio and the Triumph on Mount Alban. Triumphant generals had a variety of ways of commemorating their victories and reminding the Romans of them, especially at election time. But the most efficient way was the building of temples financed by spoils of war. The adoption of new cults enabled them to celebrate divine protection, under which they fell, but also to integrate the memory of their victories in both the history and architecture of Rome. Indeed, close historical examination often reveals an interesting ‘coincidence’ between the dates of the consecration of temples and those of the Triumphs.

This study was conducted as a result of the identification of the temples of the Corinthian order built in the Anatolian geography and the examination and evaluation of these structures. The topic covered in the study is divided into two main headings.
In the first chapter; representation and identification of the individual temples while emphasizing the common properties with the other temples is tried by the means of location, planning-infrastructure, architectural ratios, dating criteria and cult basis.
In the “Comparison-Analysis” named second chapter, all temples which are included in the case are analysed with the common properties and the differring properties also considering the outer Anatolian Doric Temples. By the means of gathered data in theaforimentioned chapter, some sorts of consequences are revealed by commenting in the subchapters location, planning-infrastructure, architectural ratios, choronological order and cults. These consequences are represented as statistical data with the help of tables and graphs to achieve a deeper comprehension.

Bu çalışmada, Anadolu coğrafyasında inşa edilmiş Korinth Düzenine sahip tapınaklar tespit edilmiş olup, bu yapılar çalışma içerisinde incelenip değerlendirilerek aktarılmıştır. Çalışmanın konusu ise iki ana başlık altında toplanmıştır.
Birinci bölümde, her tapınak kendi içinde konum, plan-altyapı, oranlar, tarihleyici kriterler ve kültler bazında ele alınıp, önceden yapılmış çalınmalardan da yararlanılmış ve başka yapılarla benzeyen özellikler ön plana çıkarılıp, bu tapınaklar tanıtılıp tanımlanmaya çalışılmıştır.
Çalınmanın ikinci bölümünü oluşturan “Karşılaştırmalı Değerlendirme” kısmında ise, çalışmadaki bütün yapıların ortak özellik gösteren yönleri ve birbirlerinden ayrılan özellikleri, Anadolu dışındaki örnekler de göz önünde bulundurularak incelenmiştir. Önceki bölümde elde edilen verilerin, ikinci kısımda yayılım alanları, konum, altyapı, plan, düzen, kullanılan malzemeler, inşa tarihleri ve kültler gibi çeşitli alt başlıklar altında yorumlanması ile bir takım sonuçlara ulaşılmış, bu sonuçlar ise çalınmanın daha sağlıklı kavranılması adına, istatistiki veriler halinde tablolar ve grafikler ile birlikte sunulmuştur.