How To Draw A Roman Temple

by E. C. Price FRICS

roman temple

Roman temple exhibit circa 1979 by Bill Burwood


the temple - reconstruction drawing - period 2	silver mask from the Temple F. 19,F. 9 phase 1V, V (click on image for greater detail)

Plan Size . Determined by measurement from the 1978 excavations.

Ground Floor Height

It is not possible to apply Vitruvian proportions of 1:5 to these foundations since the site falls in two directions, resulting in differing foundation depths and the foundations on the east and south sides barely penetrated down into the underlying chalk marl. The wall height of 3m as drawn is considered the minimum if too squat an appearance is to be avoided; also in relation to the proportions of the porch.

Quoins

The superstructure seems unlikely to have been timber-framed as no trace of wattle and daub was found and all mortar rendering was clearly from a masonry structure. In this district masonry means flint. So brick tile bonding at the quoins would have been essential for stability. The drawing shows these brick quoins set forward to master the face of the external wall plaster, since not one of the many pieces of external wall plaster unearthed was found with an arris.

Porch.

The discovery of two large post holes, opposite the doorway and ~ the period three podium, suggests supports for a porch in Period Two. The width and projection from the main wall are fixed by the position of these post holes which were large enough to receive timber columns of the diameter drawn. o

Pediment.

A cut piece of chalkstone suggests it was from the left-hand bottom corner of a pediment, since projections of the line of the chamfered margin and of the fair edge of the stone meet at an angle of 35⁰. Unless from a gable-end pediment, no other location for this stone seems evident. Given the existence of a porch, a pediment of some sort would have been probable and the tympanum would probably have had a panel motif as shown. A half-round ridge tile with one end cut to splay, unearthed from the site, could have come from the abutment of the ridge of the porch roof against the ambulatory roof.

Cella Upper Level

The cella is shown as having a tower carried up above the ambulatory roof for three reasons. Firstly, the Period Two foundations of the cella were thicker than those of the ambulatory, presumably to carry extra weight. Secondly, clerestorey windows would have been essential to provide direct daylight to the cella itself and, thirdly, if there was no tower, the building would have required a pyramidal or single-span roof and this would have created structural problems unlikely to be readily soluble at that time and place. Given a tower, its height has been determined by aesthetic considerations only.

Roofs

The size and course spacing of the tiles reflect the actual measurement of tile fragments found. A 35⁰ roof pitch has been shown in keeping with the slope adopted for the porch pediment. This angle is used for this type of tile to the present day. A pyramidal roof over the cella has been drawn but this roof could have been gabled on the east and west elevations.

Windows.

The number. position and size of these are determined solely by aesthetic considerations.Grilles are shown to the ground floor windows as some means of preventing entry would probably have been necessary, though no evidence for grilles has been found.

Podium

The size of the podium around the porch is as revealed by excavation.

temple