Portunus, Aedes

The well-preserved Ionic temple between the *Tiber and the *Forum Bovarium, formerly attributed to Fortuna Virilis, is now widely agreed to be that of Portunus (Coarelli 115-16; Ziolkowski 138; Buzzetti LTUR IV; hesitant: Richardson), a divinity whose temple was near the *Portus Tiberinus (Varro, Ling. 6.19: aedes in portu Tiberino) and whose festival, held on the same day as the temple’s foundation day (Varro loc. cit.), was celebrated ‘at the *Pons Aemilius’ (PORTVNO AD PONTEM AEMILIVM, Fast. Allif. and Amit.: Degrassi, Inscr. Ital. 13.2, 181, 191). The structure attests to two phases (see fig. 14): the earlier dates to the late 4th- or early 3rd-c. B.C., had a 6-m-tall podium of Grotta Oscura blocks, and was fronted by a tall, arched passageway (H. 6 m, also in Grotta Oscura tufa) at its N-facing façade. The current temple was built on the same podium around 80/70 B.C. (Ruggiero 265-67, 282; contra, Coarelli 1988, 147, who suggests an early 2nd-c. B.C. date; for the temple substructures: Colini and Buzzetti esp. 16-20 figs. 11-18); the new building was surrounded by much higher terrain (probably a result of the artificial elevation of the area in the early 2nd c. B.C., see below), and it kept, though at a slightly different angle, the unusual N orientation towards both the viaduct leading to the *Pons Aemilius and, more importantly, the Portus Tiberinus which was just N of this street. Tetrastyle and pseudoperipteral in its arrangement, the temple is essentially built of Anio tufa, with special elements articulated in travertine (Adam, Ruggiero 266-76). In the immediate vicinity stood two identical travertine bases erected for C. and L. Caesar (found in the Renaissance: CIL VI 897-98=ILS 131-32) which may have flanked the temple or the nearby “Fornix Augusti”. The temple precinct is of special interest as it is an important, early testament for the spatial presentation of a temple, foreshadowing those of the Imperial Fora (Ruggiero 279; see fig. 14). The precinct was defined by Anio tufa walls, two of which survive (Colini and Buzzetti, esp. 9 fig. 1; Ruggiero 279): one flush with the rear of the temple, and the second, a substantial E lateral wall (over 30 m long) buttressed by projections on its inner face and aligned with the axis of the original 4th- or 3rd-c. temple podium. While the rear wall is contemporaneous with the 1st-c. B.C. temple (Ruggiero 276), the orientation of the E wall and the fact that it abuts, but does not join, the rear wall indicate that it pre-dates the late-Republican temple (Ruggeiro 277; opus latericium piers were added at a later date, probably after the Augustan period). While the frontal arched passageway provided access to the temple itself, a 3-m-wide entrance in the rear wall offered access to the lower level of the temple precinct. A similar rear wall once existed W of the podium (Ruggiero 268, 276-77), so that the temple was presented against a symmetrical, space-defining backdrop. The E precinct wall offers crucial evidence for the much-disputed course of Rome’s Republican city wall in the area of the Forum Bovarium (s.v. *Muri: Forum Bovarium-Tiberis). Ruggiero’s (277, 280-82) detailed re-examination of its remains has brought a new level of clarity to a previously vague treatment (Coarelli 39; Colini and Buzzetti 8). This solid 30-m-long E lateral wall (W. 1.30-1.40 m, enhanced by buttresses projecting 1.20 m), which certainly predates the early 1st-c. B.C. temple, may in fact date to the late 2nd c. B.C.; a sondage in 1947-48 revealed predominantly Grotta Oscura foundations, with some Anio tufa (Colini and Buzzetti 8, 19 fig. 15, indicating a depth of 3-4 m below the precinct level; Ruggiero 280). Since the Grotta Oscura quarries at Veii are thought to have been exhausted by the end of the 2nd c. B.C., when Anio tufa started to be used in great quantity, the substructures should (though perhaps only slightly) predate the 1st c. B.C. Further, the E wall’s Anio tufa superstructure was already in place when the rear wall was built in the early 1st c. B.C. (as attested by their juncture). Thus, a late 2nd-c. B.C. date for the E lateral wall seems most appropriate. Further, the E wall is continued on exactly the same axis some 50 m N by a stretch of wall incorporated by Trajanic warehouses of the Portus Tiberinus (Coarelli 39; Ruggiero 280); like the E lateral wall, the N wall segment is built, in its visible parts, of Anio tufa and has a width of c. 2.40 m (about equal to the total width of the buttressed wall; Ruggiero 280). Hence, a substantial, late-2nd c. B.C. wall over 80 m in length appears to have divided the area between the Forum Bovarium and Tiber (Ruggiero 281). If not actually serving as a (comparatively weak) part of the Republican city wall (hypothesized by Coarelli 104-5 fig. 20; cautiously considered by Ruggiero 282; for further discussion, s.v. Muri: Forum Bovarium-Tiberis), this massive wall secured the higher terrain of the Forum Bovarium (c. 9-10 m above the Tiber) against the significantly lower precinct level of the temple (for details, Coarelli 38 fig. 4, 153 fig. 26; Colini and Buzzetti 18 fig. 14). At present, it is unknown whether a predecessor wall existed (or was built) in the early 2nd c. B.C. when the level of the central Forum Bovarium was elevated in a major building operation, which also may have been connected to the construction of the massive Tiber embankment wall (s.v. Muri: Forum Bovarium-Tiberis; *Tiberis: Grand Embankment).