This three-in-one temple to “Jupiter Best and Greatest,” Juno, and Minerva was central in ancient Roman religion.

A temple on a hill

Like the Etruscans and Greeks before them, the Romans are known for having constructed monumental temples in highly visible locations. Situated atop the Capitoline Hill in the heart of the ancient city of Rome, the Temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus represented this tradition well (today the site is occupied by a piazza designed by the Renaissance artist Michelangelo, see photo below). Unfortunately, neglect, spoliation, and eventual site adaptation means that very little of the Temple of Jupiter remains for us to study. Despite its absence, however, the lasting impact of the Temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus can be observed in the many Roman temples that emulated it, making it perhaps the most important of all Roman temples in terms of its cultural influence and design. (Watch this video to see where the Temple stood in the ancient city.)

Current State and Original Appearance(s)

Remains of the temple include portions of the tuff foundation and podium (see photo below), as well as some marble and terracotta architectural elements. Most of the structural remains can be viewed in situ (in their original setting) on the grounds of the Palazzo Caffarelli (today part of the Capitoline Museums), and surviving fragments are located within the Capitoline Museums.

Based on the surviving portions of the archaic foundation, the podium for the temple likely measured approximately 50m x 60m. Those dimensions are somewhat speculative, however, as there is no scholarly consensus on the precise measurements. The current best guess is that the temple was quite similar in plan to that of late-archaic Etruscan temples like the Temple of Minerva at Veii (also called the Portonaccio temple)—a high podium (platform) with a single frontal staircase leading to a three-column deep pronaos (porch) fronted by a hexastyle (six columns across) arrangement of columns. One of the defining features of the Temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus was its three-part (tripartite) interior with three adjacent cellae (rooms) for the three major deities honored within (Jupiter, Juno, and Minerva).

The earliest phase of the temple featured terracotta elements, including acroteria (sculptures on the roofline) and a large terracotta statue of Jupiter driving a quadriga (four-horse chariot). Inside the temple was another image of Jupiter—the cult statue reportedly sculpted by the famed archaic sculptor Vulca of Veii. This statue was painted red and served as the basis for the tradition of painting the faces of Roman generals during officially sanctioned triumphs.

In contrast with the modest terracotta (baked clay) that was used to adorn the earliest versions of the temple, several Roman sources note that the later reconstructions made during the period of the Roman empire featured much more extravagant materials. Ancient authors, including Plutarch, Cassius Dio, Suetonius, and Ammianus described the temple as outstanding in its quality and appearance, with a superstructure of Pentelic marble, gilded roof tiles, gold-plated doors, and elaborate pedimental relief sculpture.

History and Dedication

Although primarily dedicated to Jupiter Optimus Maximus, the temple also included spaces for the worship of Juno and Minerva. Together, the three deities comprised what is known as the Capitoline Triad—a divine group significant to the Roman state religion. Jupiter, the Roman equivalent of Zeus, was the most significant of these deities. This is supported by the specific aspect of his worship noted in the full title of the cult—Iuppiter Optimus Maximus, Latin for “Jupiter, Best and Greatest.”

An important date for Rome

The temple was reportedly completed around 509 B.C.E.—the date itself is significant as it marks the purported year during which the Romans overthrew the monarchy (which was Etruscan, not Roman) and established a republican system of government. Thus, not only was the temple located in a prominent geographical location, it was also a lasting reminder of the moment when the Romans asserted their independence. This historical proximity of the founding of the Republic with the construction of the Temple of Jupiter may have also helped to lend support to its central role in Roman religion and to architectural design practice.

Destroyed and rebuilt

The building itself was destroyed and rebuilt several times in the Republican and Imperial periods, and benefitted from several restorations along the way. First destroyed in 83 B.C.E. during the civil wars of Sulla, the temple was rededicated and rebuilt during the 60s B.C.E. Augustus claimed to have restored the temple, most likely as part of his enormous building program that began during his rise to power in the first century B.C.E. The temple was again destroyed in 69 C.E., during the tumultuous “year of the four emperors.” Although rebuilt by the emperor Vespasian in the 70s C.E., the temple once more burned during a fire in 80 C.E. The emperor Domitian enacted the final major reconstruction of the temple during his reign, between 81 and 96 C.E.. The fact the temple was never neglected for very long is a testament to its perceived importance.

After the first century C.E., the temple seems to have retained its structural integrity until the emperor Theodosius eliminated public funds for the upkeep of pagan temples in 392 C.E. (Christianity had become the official state religion of the Roman Empire). Following this, the temple was spoliated several times in the Late Antique and Medieval eras. Eventually a grand residence, the Palazzo Caffarelli, was built on the site in the sixteenth century C.E.

Public Function

The Temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus was more than simply a standard religious building. From its earliest phases, the temple also seems to have been a repository for objects of ritual, cultural, and political significance. For example, the Sibylline Oracles (books containing the prophecy of the Sibyls) were kept at the site, as were some spoils of war, like the Carthaginian general Hasdrubal’s shield. In addition, the temple served as the end point for triumphs, a meeting place for the senate, a location for combined religious and political pageantry, an archive for public records, and a physical symbol of Rome’s supremacy and divine agency.

Sacrifice Panel of the Lost Arch of Marcus Aurelius

Perhaps the best depiction of the Temple of Jupiter Capitolinus can be seen on the Sacrifice Panel from a now lost arch of the emperor Marcus Aurelius (above and detail, left). In this relief, Marcus Aurelius is shown in his role as Pontifex Maximus (chief priest) offering a sacrifice to Jupiter amidst a crowd of attendants. A temple with three doors, presumably the Temple of Jupiter Capitolinus, is portrayed in the background.

In this rendering, the temple is tetrastyle (four columns across the front—likely a truncated artistic representation due to the size of the panel) and of the Corinthian order.  The pediment features Jupiter enthroned in the center while flanked by other deities; an intricately sculpted raking (sloping) cornice, surmounted at the apex by a quadriga (four-horse chariot), frames the scene.

Lasting Influence

Although the Temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus was built in an Etruscan style and involved Etruscan craftsmen, it nevertheless serves as the origin point for the development of Roman temple-building tradition, which often incorporated local elements into a more broadly Roman template.

In terms of architectural history, the lasting significance of the Temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus can be best recognized by its influence on Roman temple building from the last two centuries B.C.E up until the third century C.E. Imperial temples across the empire—including the Temple of Portunus at Rome (see photo above)—the Maison Carrée in France, and the many Capitolia (Temples dedicated to Jupiter, Juno, and Minerva) of Roman colonies established in north Africa demonstrate an obvious visual connection to the Capitoline temple with a shared frontality, deep front porch, and rich sculptural adornment (some characteristics of which are shared by the Temple of Baalshamin at Palmyra). Yet, the influence of the Temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus can also be seen in the overall Roman approach to designing architecture—monumental scale, urban setting, lavish decoration, and imposing elevation. Together, these elements are hallmarks of Roman temples and suggest that the Temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus was an origin point for what would become a commonly understood architectural mark of Roman sovereignty over the Mediterranean world.

Additional resources:

The Temple of Capitoline Jupiter (Capitoline Museums)

Temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus (The Institute for Advanced Technology in the Humanities/Rome Reborn)

Stefano De Angeli, “Iuppiter Optimus Maximus Capitolinus, Aedes, Templum (Fasi Tardo-Repubblicane e di età Imperiale” in Lexicon Topographicum Urbis Romae, volume 3, edited by Eva Margareta Steinby (Rome: Edizioni Quasar, 1995), pp. 148-153.

Ellen Perry, “The Same, But Different: The Temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus through Time,” in Architecture of the Sacred: Space, Ritual, and Experience from Classical Greece to Byzantium, edited by Bonna Wescoat and Robert Ousterhout (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012), pp. 175-200.

Samuel Ball Platner, “Iuppiter Optimus Maximus Capitolinus” in A Topographical Dictionary of Ancient Rome, edited by Samuel Ball Platner and Thomas Ashby (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1929), pp. 297-302.

Frank Sear, Roman Architecture (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1983).

Anna Mura Sommella, “Le recenti scoperte sul Campidoglio e la fondazione del tempio di Giove Capitolino.” Rendiconti della Pontificia Accademia Romana 70 (2000), pp. 57-80.

John Stamper, The Architecture of Roman Temples: The Republic to the Middle Empire (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005).

Gianluca Tagliamonte, “Iuppiter Optimus Maximus Capitolinus, Aedes, Templum (Fino All’ A. 83 a.C.)” in Lexicon Topographicum Urbis Romae, volume 3, edited by Eva Margareta Steinby (Rome: Edizioni Quasar, 1995), pp. 144-148.

J.B. Ward-Perkins, Roman Imperial Architecture (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1992).

Once identified as the founder of the Roman Republic, debate over this figure’s true identity rages on.

Capitoline Brutus, 4th-3rd century B.C.E. bronze, 69 cm (Capitoline Museums, Rome)

Backstory

We know that the Capitoline Brutus was found somewhere in Rome during the sixteenth century, but there is no recorded findspot for this sculpture. In 1564 it was officially bequeathed to the city of Rome by Cardinal Rodolfo Pio da Carpi, an Italian scholar and collector who owned a large trove of ancient artifacts, but there is no known evidence of its original provenance.

In the sixteenth century, at the time of Pio da Carpi’s bequest, this sculpture was already known among antiquarians as Lucius Junius Brutus (who founded the Roman Republic in the 6th century B.C.E.), and this belief continued through the centuries. The bust eventually became a touchstone of revolutionary sentiment: after Napoleon’s invasion of northern Italy in the late 1790s, he staged a triumphal procession across Paris that conspicuously displayed his “art loot” from the campaign. “Rome is no more in Rome. It is now in Paris,” was the chorus of a song that accompanied the march. For Napoleon, the cultural and political meanings associated with ancient Roman art—and particularly the Capitoline Brutus—were key to shoring up his image as the leader of the new capital of Europe. According to art historian Patricia Mainardi, the Brutus was “carried at the end of the march and ceremonially placed on a pedestal before the Altar of the Fatherland,” with a plaque stating “Rome was first governed by kings: / Junius Brutus gave it liberty and the Republic.”

The sculpture was returned to Rome in 1814-15, after Napoleon’s defeat, but its interpretation as the portrait of Brutus lived on. As they did with the Portrait Bust of a Flavian Woman, art historians throughout the nineteenth century debated the identity of the sitter based on its resemblance to other portraits, such as those found on coins. (These objects selected for comparison are called “comparanda.”) However, without a sure archeological findspot, we have no way of knowing who this sculpture actually represents. The mystery of the Capitoline Brutus demonstrates how myths about particular objects can grow into stories that become larger than the objects themselves—but these stories are not necessarily grounded in archeological facts.

There is still a need not only for proper archeological excavation and documentation of ancient objects, but also for properly-documented objects to be prioritized within the canon of the history of visual culture. Though the Capitoline Brutus is aesthetically pleasing and in good condition, the most we can do is guess about its original history. Other objects—those with recorded findspots—can help us learn much more about the cultures and artists that produced them, even if they may be less overtly enticing to the eyes.

Backstory by Dr. Naraelle Hohensee

Additional resources:

This work at the Capitoline Museums

Peter Holliday, “Capitoline Brutus,” in An Encyclopedia of the History of Classical Archaeology, ed. Nancy Thomson de Grummond (New York: Routledge, 1997), n.p.

Patricia Mainardi, “Assuring the Empire of the Future: The 1798 Fête de la Liberté,” Art Journal vol. 48, no. 2 (Summer 1989), pages 155-163.

Even in death, great Roman families were concerned with reinforcing and projecting their status.

Image and status

The latter days of the Roman Republican period witnessed socio-economic upheaval, and a long-established social order found itself threatened by newcomers who were wealthy but lacking in illustrious social pedigrees. Roman aristocrats in the patrician class (those threatened by this socio-economic upheaval) linked their ancestors to the founders of the Roman state, and projected an image of themselves as aged and wise as a measure of their experience and acumen (see Head of a Roman Patrician).

Since image and status are frequently linked, these aristocrats had long relied on display as part of cultivating their status. Whether this was the display of the images of illustrious family members in the atrium of their houses (so-called imagines), or the constructions of tombs or other patronage projects, material culture mattered in maintaining status. The Late Republican period (the late 2nd and 1st centuries B.C.E.) witnessed several significant examples of this attempt to maintain status in a changing world.

The family of the Cornelii Scipiones

The Cornelii Scipiones were among the most famous Romans of all. Their ancestors had won many victories—including those of Lucius Cornelius Scipio Barbatus (who died c. 280 B.C.E.) and Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus (who died c. 183 B.C.E.), the victor in the Second Punic War. The family tomb of the Cornelii Scipiones, located along the Via Appia leading south from the city of Rome, was first rediscovered in 1614. Its remains constitute one of the most important examples of Late Republican funerary culture at Rome and demonstrate how an illustrious family worked to maintain its image in a changing world.

The Tomb

The Tomb of the Scipios is a subterranean, rock-cut tomb (hypogeum) composed of irregular chambers and connecting corridors that provide niches for burials (see plan and interior view below).

The tomb was begun in the early years of the third century B.C.E. and continued in use until the first century C.E. The family’s patriarch, Lucius Cornelius Scipio Barbatus, who served as consul in 298 B.C.E. is the most prominent occupant of the tomb. Barbatus was buried in a monumental stone sarcophagus with a Latin inscription (see below). Other family members occupy other parts of the tomb, in many cases with inscriptions identifying the individuals and charting their public careers.

As the tomb faced an important roadway, it came to have an elaborate façade in its later phases. This façade likely dates to c. 150 B.C.E. or later when the family renovated and expanded the tomb. In addition to the architectural elements of the façade, a fresco depicting a processional scene—perhaps of famous members of the Cornelii Scipiones—adorned the tomb.

The Sarcophagus of Barbatus

Scipio Barbatus was deposited in an elaborately carved sarcophagus (today the original is in the Vatican Museums—image below, and a plaster cast is in situ—image here). The façade of the sarcophagus is decorated with a Doric frieze and volute scrolls adorn the lid (watch a video about the classical orders). It included an elaborate Latin epitaph that was modified in antiquity, with some earlier text being erased. The Scipios were always keen to maintain family ties and support their ancestry at any cost. The extant text of the Barbatus epitaph records civic career achievements (Barbatus served as consul, censor, and aedile) and military achievements. In the latter category Barbatus was famous in Rome’s third century B.C.E. wars with the Samnites; the epitaph tells the reader that he captured Taurasia and Cisauna in Samnium, in addition to subduing the region of Lucania (Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum VI, 1285).

Conclusion

The Tomb of the Scipios is an important monument that demonstrates Roman methods of using images to reinforce and project status. The competition to maintain social rank and position was fierce, and latter day members of the Cornelian family (gens Cornelia) were indeed trading on the names and reputations of their more famous ancestors as they themselves struggled for traction in the tumultuous period at the end of the Roman Republic.

Below is a Google photosphere, showing a Late Republican columbarium (for storage of funerary urns), adjacent to the Tomb of the Scipios that was used for cremation burials and, together with the elite Tomb of the Scipios, was located within a large necropolis located along the Via Appia exiting the city of Rome from the south:

Additional resources:

Roman Funerary Rituals (Smarthistory essay)

Filippo Coarelli, Il sepolcro degli Scipioni a Roma (Rome: Fratelli Palombi, 1988).

Filippo Coarelli, Rome and environs: an archaeological guide, trans. J. J. Clauss and D. Harmon (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2007).

Janos Fedak, Monumental tombs of the Hellenistic age: a study of selected tombs from the pre-classical to the early imperial era (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1990).

Harriet Flower, Ancestor Masks and Aristocratic Power in Roman Culture (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996).

Peter J. Holliday, The origins of Roman historical commemoration in the visual arts (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002).

Andrew Wallace-Hadrill, “Housing the Dead: the tomb as house in Roman Italy”, in L. Brink and D. A. Green (eds.) Commemorating the Dead. Texts and Artifacts in Context (Berlin, New York: de Gruyter) 39-77.

Platner and Ashby (1929) SEP. SCIPIONUM

Sepolcro degli Scipioni (Italian)

With age comes experience, and sculptors in the Roman Republic highlighted seniority—warts and all.

Veristic male portrait (similar to Head of a Roman Patrician), early 1st Century B.C.E., marble, life size (Vatican Museums, Rome)

Additional resources:

Roman Portrait Sculpture: The Stylistic Cycle on the Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History

Marble bust of a man at The Metropolitan Museum of Art

D. Jackson, “Verism and the Ancestral Portrait,” Greece & Rome 34.1 (1987):32-47.

D. E. E. Kleiner, Roman Sculpture (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1994).

G. M. A. Richter, “The Origin of Verism in Roman Portraits,” Journal of Roman Studies 45.1-2 (1955):39-46.

This small temple is a rare surviving example from the Roman Republic. It is both innovative and traditional.

The Temple of Portunus is a well preserved late second or early first century B.C.E. rectangular temple in Rome, Italy. Its dedication to the God Portunus—a divinity associated with livestock, keys, and harbors—is fitting given the building’s topographical position near the ancient river harbor of the city of Rome.

The city of Rome during its Republican phase was characterized, in part, by monumental architectural dedications made by leading, elite citizens, often in connection with key political or military accomplishments. Temples were a particularly popular choice in this category given their visibility and their utility for public events both sacred and secular.

The Temple of Portunus is located adjacent to a circular temple of the Corinthian order, now attributed to Herakles Victor. The assignation of the Temple of Portunus has been debated by scholars, with some referring to the temple as belonging to Fortuna Virilis (an aspect of the God Fortuna). This is now a minority view. The festival in honor of Portunus (the Portunalia) was celebrated on 17 August.

The Temple’s plan and construction

The temple has a rectangular footprint, measuring roughly 10.5 x 19 meters (36 x 62 Roman feet). Its plan may be referred to as pseudoperipteral, instead of a having a free-standing colonnade, or row of columns, on all four sides, the temple instead only has free-standing columns on its facade with engaged columns on its flanks and rear.

The pronoas  (porch) of the temple supports an Ionic colonnade measuring four columns across by two columns deep, with the columns carved from travertine. The Ionic order can be most easily seen in the scroll-shaped capitals.There are five engaged columns on each side, and four across the back.

Overall the building has a composite structure, with both travertine and tufa being used for the superstructure (tufa is a type of stone consisting of consolidated volcanic ash, and travertine is a form of limestone). A stucco coating would have been applied to the tufa, giving it an appearance closer to that of the travertine.

The temple’s design incorporates elements from several architectural traditions. From the Italic tradition it takes its high podium (one ascends stairs to enter the pronaos), and strong frontality. From Hellenistic architecture comes the Ionic order columns, the engaged pilasters and columns. The use of permanent building materials, stone (as opposed to the Italic custom of superstructures in wood, terracotta, and mudbrick), also reflects changing practices. The temple itself represents the changing realities and shifting cultural landscape of the Mediterranean world at the close of the first millennium B.C.E.

The temple of Portunus resides on the Forum Boarium, a public space that was the site of the primary harbor of Rome. While the temple of Portunus is a bit smaller than other temples in the Forum Boarium and the adjacent Forum Holitorium, it fits into a general typology of Late Republican temple building.

The temple of Portunus finds perhaps its closest contemporary parallel in the Temple of the Sibyl at Tibur (modern Tivoli) which dates c. 150-125 B.C.E. The temple type embodied by the Temple of Portunus may also be found in Iulio-Claudian temple buildings such as the Maison Carrée at Nîmes in southern France.

Preservation and current state

The Temple of Portunus is obviously in an excellent state of preservation. In 872 C.E. the ancient temple was re-dedicated as a Christian shrine sacred to Santa Maria Egyziaca (Saint Mary of Egypt), leading to the preservation of the structure. The architecture has inspired many artists and architects over the centuries, including Andrea Palladio who studied the structure in the sixteenth century.

Neo-Classical architects were inspired by the form of the Temple of Portunus and it led to the construction of the Temple of Harmony, a folly in Somerset, England, dating to 1767 (below).

The Temple of Portunus is important not only for its well preserved architecture and the inspiration that architecture has fostered, but also as a reminder of what the built landscape of Rome was once like – dotted with temples large and small that became foci of a great deal of activity in the life of the city. Those temples that survive are reminders of that vibrancy as well as of the architectural traditions of the Romans themselves.

Backstory

The Temple of Portunus was put on the World Monuments Watch list in 2006. Overseen by the World Monuments Fund, this list highlights “cultural heritage sites around the world that are at risk from the forces of nature or the impact of social, political, and economic change,” providing them with “an opportunity to attract visibility, raise public awareness, foster local engagement in their protection, leverage new resources for conservation, advance innovation, and demonstrate effective solutions.”

Together with the Soprintendenza Archeologica di Roma and grants from private funders, the World Monuments Fund sponsored a restoration of the Temple of Portunus beginning in 2000. The temple had been partially restored and conservation measures put in place in the 1920s, but the activities undertaken in the last two decades utilized the latest technologies to complete a full restoration of the interior and exterior of the building. This included the cleaning and conservation of the frescoes, replacement of the roof (incorporating ancient roof tiles), anti-seismic measures, and the cleaning and restoration of the pediment, columns, and exterior walls. The newly-restored temple opened to the public in 2014.

The Temple of Portunus is one of the best-preserved examples of Roman Republican architecture, and efforts like those of the World Monuments Fund are ensuring that it continues to survive intact.

Backstory by Dr. Naraelle Hohensee

A triple tier of arches rises 160 feet above the rushing river. Once, the top level of the structure carried its own flow of water, but now, the water channel remains dry. Today, the bridge transports only tourists and hikers from one side of the Gard River to the other as heavy arches soar high above their heads.

The Pont du Gard is one of the greatest public works projects spearheaded in the Augustan age. The French toponym Pont du Gard means “bridge of Gard” because it spans the Gard River near Nîmes, France.

History

Since the 4th century B.C.E, the ancient Romans constructed aqueducts, like the Pont du Gard, to carry water from further away sources, like mountains and springs, to provide sufficient clean water to urban populations. This first began in the city of Rome, but as Roman hegemony expanded, so, too, did the use of aqueducts in other cities and territories across the Mediterranean.

Gallia or Gaul (modern-day France) was conquered by Augustus’ adopted father Julius Caesar during the Roman-Gallic Wars of 58–50 B.C.E. After that time, many Roman military veterans began to settle in colonial cities like ancient Nemausus (modern day Nîmes), because they were given plots of land as thanks for their participation in the war. Within a few decades, the population of Nimes had boomed to around 30,000 people. Much of this population boom can also be credited to Augustus, who undertook a number of construction projects in the city. A large population requires a large amount of potable (drinkable) water, necessitating the construction of an aqueduct.

However, the aqueduct served a greater purpose than as just a water conduit; it was also a testament to the power and prosperity of the Augustan Age. Through structures like this, Augustus could emphasize the extent of his reach in all areas of the empire, united under his sole control, and garner widespread public favor. The Pax Augusta, or Peace of Augustus, was considered a golden age of Rome, one which brought peace to the empire after the turbulent end of the Roman Republic and which ushered in a new period of wealth, abundance, and civic pride. The Pont du Gard was one of many projects designed to enhance the lives of people throughout the empire, from aqueducts to a new public forum in the heart of Rome. Other buildings constructed in Nemausus during the Augustan age include a city wall with gates and bastions, the temple known today as the Maison Carrée, and a nymphaeum (grotto or shrine) erroneously labeled the Temple of Diana.

A Roman feat of engineering

Construction began in 20 B.C.E. under the guidance of Marcus Agrippa, a close ally and soon-to-be son-in-law of the emperor Augustus, who was also responsible for the construction of the Maison Carrée. Today, the Pont du Gard is only a portion of what was once a 31-mile long (50 km) aqueduct that carried fresh water from distant springs to the city of Nemausus (modern day Nîmes).

A true testament to the ingenuity and skill of Roman engineering, the water was predominantly carried that long distance by gravity. This meant that the architects and engineers needed to calculate how to very gradually lower the slope within the aqueduct water channel. In addition, they also needed to bridge areas where the terrain changed, like the river, and still keep the water channel at the appropriate height.

The limestone used at the Pont du Gard was extracted from a nearby quarry. In total, 50,400 tons of rock, individually numbered, were transported by boat down the river to the construction site to create the span. [1] Once complete, the aqueduct supplied enough water to provide all 30,000 residents of Nemausus with 100 gallons of water each per day and kept all bath complexes, fountains, and other structures throughout the city well supplied.

The Pont du Gard is constructed with three tiers of arches placed atop one another. The largest of the arches has a length of 82 feet. This particular arch bridges the river itself as none of the piers, or large supports, actually stand in the water. The bottom and middle tiers feature arches of equal widths, but the third tier, which holds the actual water channel, features a series of smaller arches that are each 15 feet wide. Together, the tiers are approximately 160 feet tall.

Constructing an arch

Although arch construction first developed in the 2nd millennium B.C.E. in Mesopotamia, it was the ancient Romans who refined and popularized it as a construction technique after they realized the true potential of arch construction—such as allowing for taller structures and wider spans.

To build a stone arch, first the Romans needed to construct a frame built out of wood in the shape of an arch connecting two piers. Then, wedge-shaped stones known as voussoirs would be placed over the frame. Due to the immense weight of these stones, the Romans used wooden cranes to lift them and set them into place.

The very last stone to be placed was the one in the center known as the keystone, which was quite literally the key to holding the arch together. Without the keystone, once the wooden frame was removed, the arch would fall apart. The keystone is essential to arch construction because the thrust of the weight of the stone construction moves from the keystone in the center outwards to the rest of the arch. This is what keeps the stones in place. In fact, this is such an effective construction method that no mortar was required between the stones. The weight of the stones would then be distributed downward into the piers on either side of the arch.

Maintaining the aqueduct

Roman aqueducts did require periodic maintenance. For this reason, water channels were usually around a height of 6 feet to allow someone to enter the channel and repair them. At the Pont du Gard, part of that maintenance included scraping away calcium carbonate deposits that would appear on the stone walls within the channel (the limestone used for the aqueduct had a large calcium carbonate concentration). Someone would also need to enter the channel if there were blockages or if vegetation started growing between the gaps in the stone. Stone blocks projecting from the otherwise flat surface of the aqueduct, which were used to support the wooden frames and scaffolding used during construction, were left in place to support scaffolding for future structural maintenance.

By the 4th century C.E., the power of the Roman empire declined, particularly in western Europe, and eventually, the aqueduct was no longer maintained and cleaned. Parts of it fell completely into disuse. Luckily, the Pont du Gard survived due to its dual purpose of also acting as a bridge across the river, even as other nearby ancient structures were quarried for their stone.

Today, the Pont du Gard is a UNESCO World Heritage Site, open for visitors to explore. Unfortunately, according to UNESCO, the Pont du Gard is tilting a few millimeters each year and may eventually collapse. [2]

This well-preserved building in modern-day France is a textbook example of a Vitruvian temple.

The so-called Maison Carrée or “square house” is an ancient Roman temple located in Nîmes in southern France. Nîmes was founded as a Roman colony (Colonia Nemausus) during the first century B.C.E. The Maison Carrée is an extremely well preserved ancient Roman building and represents a nearly textbook example of a Roman temple as described by the architectural writer Vitruvius.

Design and Plan

The frontal temple is a classic example of the Tuscan style temple as described by Vitruvius (who wrote On Architecture in the first century B.C.E.). This means that the building has a single cella (cult room), a deep porch, a frontal, axial orientation, and sits atop a high podium. The podium of the Maison Carrée rises to a height of 2.85 meters; the footprint of the temple measures 26.42 by 13.54 meters at the base.

The building is executed in the Corinthian order (easily identified by the acanthus leaf motifs on the capital) and is hexastyle in its plan (meaning it has six columns across the façade); twenty engaged columns line the flanks, yielding a pseudoperipteral arrangement (the front columns are free-standing but the columns on the sides and back are engaged, that is, attached to the wall).

The temple has a very deep pronaos (porch). The superstructure is decorated with egg-and-dart motifs, with the architrave divided into three zones. The deep porch which puts an emphasis on the temple front and the pseudoperipteral arrangement clearly differentiate this from an ancient Greek temple.

The temple once carried a dedicatory inscription that was removed in the Middle Ages. Following the reconstruction of the inscription in 1758, scholars believe that the dedication of the building honored Augustus’ grandsons and intended heirs, Caius and Lucius Caesar. The dedicatory inscription read, in translation, “To Gaius Caesar, son of Augustus, Consul; to Lucius Caesar, son of Augustus, Consul designate; to the princes of youth” (CIL XII, 3156). While not especially common within Italy during the time of the Iulio-Claudians, the worship of the emperor and the imperial family was more commonplace in the provinces of the Roman empire.

The late first century B.C.E. Temple of Augustus and Livia in located in Vienne, France (an ancient settlement of the Allobroges that received a Roman colony) is very similar in plan to the Maison Carrée. This temple was originally dedicated to Augustus alone, but in 41 C.E. the emperor Claudius re-dedicated the building to include Livia, his grandmother (and the wife of Augustus). Taken together these temples show us not only well preserved examples of early Imperial architecture but they also show the degree to which local elites would invest in monumental construction in order to celebrate the emperor and his family members. Just as honorific temples at Rome were sponsored by elites, construction in the provinces also often relied on elite members of the community to fill the role of artistic patron.