Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T04:06:40.674Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Date of the Temple of Sulis Minerva at Bath

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 November 2011

T. F. C. Blagg
T. F. C. Blagg
Affiliation:
University of Kent, Canterbury
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Since the first discovery of its remains in 1790, or rather since Samuel Lysons published his exceptionally fine reconstruction-drawing of it in 1802, the Temple of Sulis Minerva at Bath has remained outstanding among the monuments of Roman Britain that are known to have been built and decorated in the classical style. It has, however, proved difficult to establish its date. There are two available sources for this, in the absence of any inscription: the archaeological evidence, and the ornament of the temple's architecture. Cunliffe has summarized what little can be said of the former: although the precinct wall appears to post-date the wall of the reservoir of the baths, the temple itself may well have been built before its precinct was enclosed; since it is likely that the baths and the temple were planned together, the late first-century date indicated for the baths renders probable a first- or early second-century date for the other buildings. The arguments depend on circumstantial evidence. Unless excavations in the future produce more closely-datable archaeological material, it would seem that we are not on very strong ground here.

Type
Articles
Information
Britannia , Volume 10 , November 1979 , pp. 101 - 107
Copyright
Copyright © T. F. C. Blagg 1979. Exclusive Licence to Publish: The Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Lysons, S., Reliquiae Britannico-Romanae i (London 1802), pl. v.Google Scholar

2 Cunliffe 1969, 38.

3 Richmond and Toynbee 1955.

4 Cunliffe 1969, 12.

6 Kähler 1939, Beil. 6, Nos. 2 and 7 (theatres at Vaison and Orange); Strong, D. E. and Perkins, J. B. Ward, ‘The Temple of Castor in the Forum Romanum,’ PBSR xxx (1962), 1–30.Google Scholar

6 Kähler 1939; his Form C., das stark akanthisier te Kapitell.

7 Richmond and Toynbee 1955, 98. For a brief discussion of the type, see Blagg, T. F. C., in Munby, J. and Henig, M. (eds), Roman Life and Art in Britain, British Archaeological Reports xli (1977), 64–7Google Scholar.

8 Kähler 1939, 16 and Abb. 3.

9 ibid. 24–5, 28; Quilling, F., Die Juppitersäule des Samus und Severus (Leipzig 1918), 53.Google Scholar

10 Kähler 1939, Beil. i, No. 6; p. 19, Abb. 4. Richmond and Toynbee noted (1955, p. 98, n. 14) that Kähler's capital M1 (Taf. xi) has these tendrils, but this seems mistaken. The central rosette on the abacus has a very twisted stem, but there are no tendrils on the side of the abacus itself.

11 Strong, D. E. in Cunliffe, B., Excavations at Fishbourne 1961–1969, Research Report xxvii of the Society of Antiquaries of London, ii, (Leeds, 1971), 13.Google Scholar

12 Strong, D. E. in Cunliffe, B. W., Richborough v, Research Report xxiii of the Society of Antiquaries of London (Oxford, 1968), 57.Google Scholar

13 Cunliffe 1969, 184, Nos. 1.9–1.19.

14 Strong, D. E., JRS liii (1963), 73–84.Google Scholar

15 Richmond and Toynbee 1955, 98.

16 Cunliffe 1969, 13 and 184, No. 1.19.

17 Blagg, T. F. C., Britannia vii (1976), 155.Google Scholar

18 Cunliffe 1969, 184, No. 1.16. Professor Cunliffe informs me that in the course of the work in taking down and re-displaying the pediment in 1978, it was observed that those blocks also had been thinned by sawing the back off.

19 The recent observation of a Bath stonemason to Professor Cunliffe.

20 Quilling, op. cit. (note 9), plate on p. 40.

21 Espérandieu, E., Receuil Générate des Bas-reliefs, etc. de la Gaule Romaine (Paris 1907–1966), iv, 2996.Google Scholar

22 Massow, W. von, Die Grabmäler von Neumagen, ii (Berlin and Leipzig 1932)Google Scholar, Taf. xi, No. 9, b3.

23 Kähler 1939, 72, Abb. 13 a and b.

24 ibid. Abb. 13 c; von Massow, op. cit. (note 22), i, 75, Abb. 48.

25 Leon, C. F., Die Bauornamentik des Trajansforums (Vienna, Cologne, Graz 1971), Taf. xxxix, xli.Google Scholar

26 Strong, D. E., PBSR xxi (1953)Google Scholar, pls. xxxi, b and xxxii, a.

27 Cunliffe 1969, 37–8.