subfeature of Forum (Romanum or Magnum)
Alternate Representations of the Facade
Coins dating from 36 BC and AD 125-8 (see Claridge, p. 98, figs. 33, 34) depict the temple and provided some evidence for the rostrate front construction.
(Level of certainty: medium)
Building the Approach
Because there is so little secure archaeological data there are a number of possible solutions to the temple rostra configuration that fit within the evidence. A single functional solution was chosen. Claridge (1998) p. 99 thinks that the order was Corinthian, not Ionic, as shown here (cf. Platner-Ashby); but her evidence is admittedly based on a pilaster capital. The committee agreed upon references and basic configuration of access stairs, rostra and temple and then discussed the need for a critical apparatus to differentiate the hypothetical nature of the temple reconstruction.
(Level of certainty: high)
Reconstructing from Proportion
Basic Roman architectural principles and proportions as given by Vitruvius, and the specific site requirements as observed by the Scientific Committee guided the hypothetical reconstruction.
(Level of certainty: medium)
Reconstructing from Textual Sources
Mention of its pycnostyle front porch by Vitruvius 3.3.2 influenced the reconstruction.
(Level of certainty: high)
Overall construction (Level of certainty: high)
1 Foundation (Level of certainty: high)
Concrete rubble core, tufa faced.
2 Façade-main (Level of certainty: high)
2.1 Fabric of building (Level of certainty: high)
Brick with rubble infill
2.2 Surface covering (Level of certainty: high)
Ashlar pattern plaster work (with embedded marble chips) with crisp beveled, white color. Generic white marble panels cover the lower portion of the elevation.
2.3 Decorative elements (Level of certainty: high)
White marble base moulding in situ at exterior of foundation. Most other decorative elements were destroyed and have been reconstructed on the basis of Roman architectural norms. Precinct area in front of temple is still delineated and contains large marble block which suggest an altar. Pediment is reconstructed based on the architecture of the Temple of Vespasian with relief insinuated with a faint image.
3 Façade-side 2 (Level of certainty: high)
See façade - main
4. Façade-side 3 (Level of certainty: high)
See façade - main
5 Façade-side 4 (Level of certainty: high)
See façade - main
6 Floor (Level of certainty: high)
6.1 Bedding (Level of certainty: high)
Mortar on concrete
6.2 Pavement (Level of certainty: high)
No evidence remains of the porch floor which in the model is constructed of marbles of neutral white colors.
6.3 Doorway(s) (Level of certainty: high)
Marble surround frame, bronze doors. Main door is based on the surviving Curia door.
7. Main level (Level of certainty: low)
Nothing remains of the interior of the temple and it was not reconstructed.
7.1 Wall (Level of certainty: low)
NA
7.2 Base moulding (Level of certainty: low)
NA
7.3 Surface cover (Level of certainty: high)
NA
7.4 Decorative elements (Level of certainty: low)
NA
7.5 Window(s) (Level of certainty: high)
NA
7.6 Ceiling (Level of certainty: high)
7.6.1 Coffering (Level of certainty: high)
Porch coffering is white marble based on Roman architectural norms
7.6.2 Rafters (Level of certainty: high)
Simple wood truss
8 Roof (Level of certainty: high)
Clay tile
|
|
