storerooms for objects, particularly those of value, offered to
the gods.
ETRURIA. In the beginning, cult practice was performed in
the open air. The earliest shrines, dating back to the seventh
century BCE, had the same plan as residential houses, and
they could also be incorporated into a larger palace. By the
end of the seventh century BCE, temples consisted of a sim-
ple, rectangular cella with the opening on a short side. This
new plan was still similar to contemporary domestic architec-
ture. The traditional Etruscan temple was defined in the sec-
ond half of the sixth century BCE. The building was set on
a high podium and was accessible only by flights of steps or
ramps on the main front. It had a quadrangular or rectangu-
lar plan and was always articulated in two areas: a deep open
pronaos with two or three rows of widely spaced columns
(front), and one or three cellas—depending on the number
of divinities worshipped—which were generally flanked by
outer passages. The rear of the temple was closed, and there
was no peristyle on all four sides, as in Greek temples. Again,
the houses of the elite provided the model for this plan. Tem-
ples were differentiated from residential architecture by their
position on top of high podia. For the columns a new order
was introduced, called Tuscanic after Vitruvius: the shaft was
unfluted, but the capital was similar to the Doric. The eleva-
tion of these temples looked sturdy to later, Roman writers,
and this impression was certainly suggested by the short col-
umns, the wide eaves of the roof, and the heavy external ter-
racotta decoration. Ancient literary sources link the defini-
tion of the Etruscan temple with the monumentalization of
Rome under the rule of the Etruscan family of the Tarquinii.
In fact, the largest Etruscan temple known to us is the three-
cella temple dedicated in 509 BCE, under Tarquinius Super-
bus, to the triad Jupiter Optimus Maximus, Juno, and Mi-
nerva on the Capitoline Hill in Rome. Other monumental
temples were built in Etruria between the end of the sixth
and the beginning of fifth century BCE, and they all con-
formed to the same basic type. The same can be said of tem-
ples built in the first half of the fifth century BCE, when the
erection of temples was most intense in the history of Etrus-
can cities, and of temples built or rebuilt during the fourth
century BCE.
What is characteristic of the Etruscan temple is the deep
pronaos, the podium, and the great emphasis on the front.
This strict frontality also dictated the axial planning of the
areas and altars in front of the temples, and would remain
characteristic of Roman religious architecture. Most likely,
this disposition, as well as the orientation of the temples—
generally to the south—strongly depended on cult practice
and religious beliefs. We know that the Etruscans had rules
for the placing of altars and sacred areas, and that the augurs
played a significant role. This might have also been the case
for the temple. The cella of the Etruscan temple housed the
cult statue of the god, and most likely, in this culture, as in
Greece and in the ancient Near East, the temple served as
his or her house. However, in consideration of the position-
ing of the temple on a high podium, and of the restriction
of the access to the stairs on the front, admission to the tem-
ple must have been very limited, unlike in Greek temples.
ROME. Roman temples inherited the strictly frontal empha-
sis and high bases of Etruscan temples. Early Roman temples
were built in the Etruscan manner, but little survives from
this period. It is unlikely, however, that there were any signif-
icant improvements in design or construction before the Sec-
ond Punic War at the end of the third century BCE, when
the first temples made entirely of stone were erected. There-
after, Rome was increasingly involved in the affairs of the
Hellenistic East, and Roman buildings were influenced by
Hellenistic forms, particularly the Corinthian order, though
temples still retained the essential Etruscan arrangement with
high bases and steps only at the facade. Plans were conserva-
tive, with columns across the facade only, or, if extended
along the sides, terminating in front of a wall across the back.
Occasionally the Romans adopted the full surrounding col-
onnades of Greek temples. Although temples were commis-
sioned by a variety of individuals during the republic, under
the empire, patronage was mainly under the imperial family.
Under Augustus and the Julio-Claudian emperors (27 BCE–
68 CE), temples in Rome changed their appearance. Marbles
of various types were introduced for the internal and external
decoration, and the Corinthian order became canonical for
both columns and entablature. In the years immediately after
the Julio-Claudian dynasty, temples did not play a primary
role in the general layout of sanctuaries, and were also scaled
down. However, a revival of temple architecture took place
in the period at the end of the second and the beginning of
the third century CE. To this period date major enterprises
in the city of Rome, such as the Pantheon (see below); the
construction of many new temples in North Africa, such as
the one in the honor of the Severan family in Leptis Magna
(216 CE); and, finally, the completion of ambitious projects
in the Roman East, such as the sanctuary at Baalbek (see
below). By contrast, between the second half of the third and
the beginning of the fourth century CE, the temple endured
a crisis that culminated with the erection of the new Chris-
tian basilicas during the Constantinian period (306–337 CE).
In essence, the Roman temple functioned like the Greek
as the house of the god and the storeroom of his or her offer-
ings. It could also serve for the cult of the emperor and his
family. Burnt sacrifices were made at an altar, which was usu-
ally placed immediately in front of the temple at the bottom
of the steps so that worshipers faced the altar (and the tem-
ple) rather than surrounding it. Where possible, the temple
stood in a colonnaded precinct, which also emphasized the
axial symmetry. Roman temples, however, showed greater
concern than the Greek for the use of the cella as a room.
The Roman cella often occupied a greater portion of the total
area, was wider, and was invariably freed from encumbering
internal supports for the roof, a consequence of better car-
pentry techniques and the availability of better timber. This
enhancement of the cella does not signify congregational use
in the full sense, but the temples were certainly used for gath-9064 TEMPLE: ANCIENT NEAR EASTERN AND MEDITERRANEAN TEMPLES