Plan de análisis estadístico

The temple of Empel is mostly reconstructed by looking at the robber trenches, but those traces are

hardly visible in some places, due to the land consolidation in 1949–1955 and due to modern farming

activities (Roymans and Derks 1994, 40-41). This is shown in Figure 2 and Appendix 93. It is rather

difficult to determine the exact width of the walls based on the reconstruction of the robber trenches,

since these trenches are always bigger than the wall themselves

A more accurate measurement of the

width of the wall can be attained by looking at the foundation layers (Houten 2011, 19). However, these

foundation layers are not visible in Empel, because the traces were not deep enough and were mostly

destroyed in 1949–1955 (Roymans and Derks 1994, 40-41).

From the size of the robber trenches, it can be concluded that the cella must have been about 12

by 12 by 9 meters, with robber trenches of about 1.75 meter wide. The porticus is about 18 by 21 meters,

with robber trenches of about 0.90 – 1 meter in width. The main hall is circa 13 by 15 meters, with

robber trenches ranging from 0.6 to 2 meters in width. The building material was found broken in the

robber trenches (Roymans and Derks 1994, 40-41), and as the material was shattered it made it hard to

reconstruct the original sizes of various elements of the temple complex. Moreover, the archaeologists

only collected the most recognisable pieces of building material. To collect everything would have been

too much work and would not fit in the depot available (Lotte and Norde 2009, 5). This means that

information may have been lost. From the collected building material, the only recognisable elements

are inventoried under numbers 13650, 13649, 4568, 13647, 13646, and 13648 (Figure 9 -Figure 12).

This all led to the reconstruction of a Gallo-Roman temple, which is shown in Figure 13.

43

Figure 9: Stone building fragment from Kapital (picture made by author).

Figure 11: Glass fragments (picture made by author). Figure 12: Large glass fragment (picture made by author).

44

In the publication of Roymans and Derks the temple of Empel was reconstructed on the

descriptions by the ancient author Vitruvius (Roymans and Derks 1994, 40). The main question about

this reconstruction is whether the writings of Vitruvius can actually be used for a reconstruction of a

Gallo-Roman temple. Vitruvius writes about temples in modern day Italy and Greece, and states that the

width of the cella is twice its length (Vitr.4.4.1, Figure 15). The robber trenches in Empel form a square

cella. Roymans and Derks therefore reconstructed a square cella, while which is not possible by using

the writings of Vitruvius. In Additionally, in the temple complexes in Altbachtal, Cuijk, Domburg, Elst,

Gournay-sur-Aronde, Kessel-Lith, Nijmegen and Velzeke, square cellae were found (Bogaers 1955;

Driessen 2007, 158; Enkevoort and Thijssen 2005; Hondius-Crone 1955).

Besides the dimensions of the cella, there are other differences between the descriptions by

Vitruvius and the temple complex in Empel. In his book, Vitruvius stated that a temple needs to be

oriented from east to the west, because “This enables those who approach the altar with offerings or

sacrifices to face the direction of the sunrise when facing the statuette in the temple, and thus those who

are undertaking vows look towards the quarter from which the sun comes forth, and likewise the

statuettes themselves appear to be coming forth out of the east to look upon them as they pray and

sacrifice” (Vitr. 4.5.1.). However, the temple in Empel is oriented from the west to the east. Also,

Vitruvius states that if a temple is built alongside of a river, the cult statuette must overlook the river

(Vitr. 4.5.1.). This is not the case in Empel, where the door of the cella is pointed away from the river

and where the cult statuette was not placed in view of the river.

Bruneaux describes the temple at Gournay-Sur-Aronde in Gaul, where a lot of research has been

performed on this temple complex. This location contained a prehistoric cult place, which later became

a Roman cult place (Bruneaux 1985, 48). This is the same situation as in Empel (Roymans and Derks

1994, 23). In the pre-Roman period in Gournay-Sur-Aronde, it was an open-air cult place, but with a

central square structure in the middle (Brunaux 1985, 49). In the Roman period, the Romans took this

square structure as their cella, rather than the more typical rectangular shape (Brunaux 1985, 74-75). In

Figure 15 a drawing of a traditional temple complexes derived from Vitruvius is shown, and in Figure

14 the temple complex at Velzeke has been drawn. In figures 14 and 15 the differences in the size of the

cellae are clearly visible. To explain the difference in the size of the cellae in Germania Inferior, scholars

have used the theory of Brunaux to claim that these square cellae are of a prehistoric heritage nature in

cult places in Gaul and Germania Inferior (Bruneaux 1985, 75; Houten 2011, 20). For this reason, the

temple at Gournay-Sur-Aronde is a better source for the virtual reconstruction of the temple at Empel

than the works of Vitruvius, because Bruneaux’s theory better fits the idea of how a cult place could

transform into a Roman cult place, after the Roman conquest.

Houten further explains the differences between the temples that Vitruvius described and the

temples found in Germania Inferior. He claims that signs of the Romanisation could not be found in

45

every element of local culture. This means that the temples became a blend of Roman and non-Roman

architecture (Houten 2011, 20-21). Irrespective of the reasons, the temple of Empel does not fit the

model of Vitruvius. Moreover, Vitruvius might not have recognised the temple of Empel as a typical

Roman temple.

Thus, the question remains: what did the temple at Empel look like? This is rather difficult to

answer, because only pieces of building material and robber trenches were found at the Empel site.

Moreover, the archaeologists did not collect all the materials (Roymans and Derks 1994, 40-41).

However, the information available does show that the temple complex had a temenos wall and a square

cella. The appearance of the temple of Empel is similar to other temples found in Germania Inferior

which fits in the idea of blending local elements with Roman elements to create a temple complex

(Bogaers 1955; Driessen 2007, 158; Enkevoort and Thijssen 2005; Hondius-Crone 1955). The structure

of the temple complex in Empel is not too dissimilar from other temple structures found in and around

Germania Inferior.