- Ingrid Edlund-Berry –
urban, with one or more temples, other buildings, a number of altars, areas for votive
offerings (as documented at, for example, Pyrgi, the Portonaccio temple at Veii, and
Campo della Fiera at Orvieto). In some cases, there were a number of sacred spaces other
than temples (for example, at Gravisca), but usually the sanctuary was identifi ed by its
main architectural feature, the temple.^21
Our appreciation of Etruscan temples is usually determined by Vitruvius’s description
of the ideal features of a Tuscan temple. Only when we realize that what Vitruvius describes
is an abstract image of what he saw in his own time (during the reign of Augustus) and
what might have existed some fi ve hundred years earlier, hence the use of Tuscanicus,
which refers to something “Tuscan-like,” not actually Tuscan or Etruscan.^22
Regarded as houses for the deities, temples were a common but not required part
of an Etruscan sanctuary. Like other markers of sacred activity such as altars or votive
deposits they were located within the setting of nature or in relation to a habitation
(urban, extramural, extra-urban etc.), but are unfortunately often studied out of context.
As described by Vitruvius, the Tuscan temple was a squarish building (with the
proportions 6:5 in length and width, de arch. 4.7) with one or more rooms (cellae) for the
cult statues of the deities in the back, and a colonnade towards the front. The rooms could
consist of a central wider cella, with a narrower room or open wing (ala) on either side.
The number of columns varied, both at the front and along the sides, and sometimes also
the back. The temple was placed on a podium resting on the below ground foundations,
and was accessed by steps at the front.
Although it seems to be every archaeologist’s dream to unearth a temple that fi ts all
the criteria proposed by Vitruvius, the truth is that Vitruvius himself provides a caveat to
his ideal plan by stating that temples be designed according to the rituals of each deity
(de arch. 4.8.6). Furthermore, as can be expected, even during the peak of Etruscan culture
in the seventh-early fi fth centuries bc no two buildings are identical, and even by the
time Etruscan and Roman architectural traditions had merged in the third century bc
and later, local variations were the norm.
A brief overview of reasonably well-preserved temples from Etruria proper shows
much variety in plan and execution. The late Archaic Portonaccio temple at Veii, famous
for its terracotta roof statues of Apollo and other deities, has a square fl oor plan and is
usually reconstructed with three cellae, whereas the slightly earlier temple B at Pyrgi (510
bc) is peripteral and with only one main cella. The main urban temple at Vulci (early^
fi fth century bc) also has one cella, whereas the later temple A at Pyrgi (470–460 bc)
is tripartite, like the temple at Fontanile di Legnisina (fi fth-fourth century bc) and the
Belvedere temple at Orvieto (fi fth century bc). Some temples were remodeled, such as
the monumental Ara della Regina temple at Tarquinia, which was expanded and the fl oor
plan changed during the many phases of its history (sixth-third centuries bc) with rooms
added to the original interior. Others such as the temple at Fiesole (fourth-third century
bc) maintained their original plan with one cella and fl anking alae. Although Vitruvius
described podia, many Etruscan temples were placed fairly close to the ground, with
some notable exceptions such as the Ara della Regina temple at Tarquinia.^23
When viewed in an urban context or as part of large extramural or extra-urban
sanctuaries rather than as isolated buildings, Etruscan temples play an integral role in
the rituals connected with the deity or deities worshipped. As Vitruvius points out, the
temples should be oriented in such as way that worshippers be able to view the cult statue
with the eastern sky as a backdrop (de arch. 4.5), and the columns spaced in such a way