Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-fvjsw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-13T23:58:24.379Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Enclosed Ambulatories in Romano-Celtic Temples in Britain

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 November 2011

K. W. Muckelroy
K. W. Muckelroy
Affiliation:
53, Hartley Down, Purley, Surrey
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Recent decades have seen many Romano-Celtic temples excavated in Britain, as a consequence of which evidence has accumulated which challenges the present consensus that they generally had surrounding porticos open to the weather. This interpretation is presented in most standard works on Roman Britain; for example, Professor S. S. Frere has written in Britannia: ‘In the civil zone, the majority [of cults] had much smaller temples of the Romano-Celtic type, where the small square shrine is surrounded by a square portico or cloister’. The same opinion can be traced back through the writings of Sir Ian Richmond and R. G. Collingwood to those of Haverfield. It stems ultimately from nineteenth-century studies in France and Germany, such as those of Fontenay, which anticipated the full presentation of the theory in Lehner's classic survey of Gallo-Roman temples. So far as English studies were concerned, the definitive statement was made in 1928 by the then Dr. Mortimer Wheeler. Among subsequent writers, only Penn and Goodchild and Kirk have expressed strong reservations. This paper seeks to review all the evidence available from Britain on this subject, as a result of which it is suggested that, contrary to previous opinions, the great majority of such temples had enclosed surrounding ambulatories. In the early stages of the discussion, only material from Britain has been considered. This has involved omitting any evidence from pictorial representations or upstanding structures, since neither category of evidence is represented in this province; discussion is focused entirely on the interpretation of excavated remains rarely exceeding a metre in height.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Britannia , Volume 7 , November 1976, pp. 173 - 191
Copyright
Copyright © K. W. Muckelroy 1976. 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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

1 Frere, S. S., Britannia (1967), 329.

2 Richmond, I. A., Roman Britain (1955), 136 and 192.

3 Collingwood, R. G. and Myres, J. N. L., Roman Britain and the English Settlements (1936), 267.

4 Haverfield, F., The Romanization of Roman Britain (1915), 36–7.

5 Fontenay, Autun (1889).

6 Lehiier, H., Bonner Jahrb. 125 (1919), 74–162.Google Scholar

7 Wheeler, R. E. M., Antiq. Journ. viii (1928), 300–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

8 Penn, W. S., Arch. Cantiana lxxvii (1962), 110–32.Google Scholar

9 Goodchild, R. G. and Kirk, J. R., Oxoniensia xix (1954), 15–37.Google Scholar

10 Since this convention was not followed by earlier writers, care must be taken to avoid assuming it when considering their conclusions.

11 Lewis, M. J. T., Temples in Roman Britain (1966), especially pp. 1–56, figs. 1–55 and pl. 1; hereafter referred to as ‘Lewis, Temples’.

12 Ibid., 22.

13 Ibid., 24.

14 Ibid., 23.

15 Ibid., 14.

16 Baddeley, St. C., Trans. Bristol & Glos. Arch. Soc. lii (1930), 255–64; Boon, G. C., Roman Silchester (1957), 119–21.Google Scholar

17 Lewis, op. cit. (note 11), 19 and 21.

18 The standard references for the sites below will not be repeated here; they can be found readily in Lewis, op. cit. (note 11), 156–58. For the basic descriptions of the sites, see Ibid., 1–4, 17–21, and 30–32.

19 JRS lvii (1967), 240.Google Scholar

20 Penn, op. cit. (note 8), 114–15.

21 Goodchild and Kirk, op. cit. (note 9), 26.

22 ApSimon, A. M., Proc. Univ. Bristol Spelaeol. Soc. x (1964), 195–258.Google Scholar

23 Bradford, J. S. P. and Goodchild, R. G., Oxoniensia iv (1939), 1–71.Google Scholar

24 JRS liii (1963), 138; lv (1965), 214; and lvi (1966), 210.Google Scholar

25 Wheeler, op. cit. (note 7), 300–26.

26 JRS lvii (1967), 242.Google Scholar

27 Britannia ii (1971), 271–2Google Scholar; Essex Archaeol. and History iv (1972), 3–29; Current Archaeology No. 41 (1974).Google Scholar

28 Britannia iii (1972), 349.Google Scholar

29 Not included in this list are temples which were probably not Romano-Celtic, such as Brigstock or Thistleton, or inferred examples, such as the one at South Cadbury.

30 JRS lviii (1968), 198.Google Scholar

31 Britannia i (1970), 304; Kent Archaeol. Review No. 18, 9.Google Scholar

32 JRS lvii (1967), 241Google Scholar; Arch. Journ. cxxii, 52 ff.Google Scholar

33 Proc. Soc. Ant. Scot, xcviii (1964–1966), 320–21Google Scholar; JRS lvi (1966), 199.Google Scholar

34 Britannia iii (1972), 320.Google Scholar

35 JRS lviii (1968), 201.Google Scholar

36 Britannia ii (1971), 288 and iii (1972), 351.Google Scholar

37 JRS (1965), 216.

38 JRS lvii (1967), 241. But see now W. Rodwell and T. Rowley (eds.), Small Towns of Roman Britain (1975), 200.Google Scholar

39 Wheeler, R. E. M., Maiden Castle (Report Res. Comm. of Soc. Antiq. xii), 135.

40 Bradford & Goodchild, op. cit. (note 23).

41 Weycock, Bruton, Chelmsford, and Winchester.

43 The most useful and comprehensive discussion is still that of Lehner (see note 6).

43 Lewis, op. cit. (note n), fig. 45.

44 Lehner, op. cit. (note 6).

45 Lewis, op. cit. (note 11), fig. 44.

46 JRS lvii (1967), 240.Google Scholar

47 Duval, P. M. and Quoniam, P., Gallia xxi (1963), 155–89; Lewis, op. cit. (note n), 12, 25–27, figs. 42 and 43 and pl. 1a.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

48 Boon, op. cit. (note 16), 120.

49 Lewis, op. cit. (note n), fig. 42.

50 Grenier, A., Manuel d'Archéologie Gallo-Romaine iii, map on page 458.

51 Ibid., 440–47.

52 Ibid., 449–57.

53 Lewis, op. cit. (note 11), 9.

54 Ibid., 22.

55 Ibid., fig. 49, after Mylius.

56 Grenier, A., Comptes Rendues de l'Academie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres iv, 2, 763 ff.Google Scholar

57 Grenier, op. cit. (note 50), 567; Wheeler, op. cit. (note 7), 322.

58 Wheeler, op. cit. (note 7), 321.

59 Oelmann, F., Germania xvii (1933), 169–81.Google Scholar

60 Lehner, op. cit. (note 6).

61 Lehner, H., Bonner Jahrb. 119 (1910).Google Scholar

62 Lehner, op. cit. (note 6).

63 Oelmann, op. cit. (note 59).

64 Wheeler, R. E. M., Lydney Park (Report Res. Comm. of Soc. Antiq. ix, 1932), 22–62.Google Scholar

65 Ibid., 35–37.

66 Lewis, op. cit. (note 11), 90.

67 Ibid., 91.

68 Ibid., 91.

69 Richmond, I. A. and Collingwood, R. G., Archaeology of Roman Britain (1969), 157.

70 Ashby, , Hudd, , and King, , Archaeologia lxii (1911), 4 ff.Google Scholar

71 Frere, S. S., Britannia (1967), 329; JRS lvii (1967), 241.Google Scholar

72 Lewis, op. cit. (note 11), 24.

73 Lewis (Ibid., 24) also denies this equation.

74 Ibid., 24.

75 Penn, op. cit (note 8), 115.

78 Grimes, W. F., Archaeology i (1948), 74 ff.Google Scholar

77 Lewis, op. cit. (note 11), 49–55, especially Table 6.

78 Ibid., 23.

79 Oelmann, op. cit. (note 59), 179–81.

80 Lewis, op. cit. (note 11), 7–8.

81 JRS lvii (1967), 241.Google Scholar

82 Wheeler, op. cit. (note 39), 135.

83 Lewis, op. cit. (note 11), 8.

84 JRS lvii (1967), 241.Google Scholar

85 These conclusions differ significantly from those recently presented by Mr. D. R. Wilson in a discussion published subsequent to the completion of the present paper, principally because he does not consider the possibility of different traditions of temple architecture in different provinces, and because he is prepared to assume that ‘where the partitions went was a matter of convenience rather than ordained by sacred custom’ (p. 14). See Journ. Brit. Arch. Assoc. (3rd series) xxxviii (1975), 3–27.Google Scholar