¹ The archetypal model of a cult centre of the Roman emperor occurs at Ancyra, where the provincial sanctuary includes a precinct dominated by the temple of Roma and Augustus, a public place for the celebration of festivals, and a hippodrome for entertainment: Hänlein-Schäfer, H., Veneratio Augusti. Eine Studie zu den Tempeln des ersten römischen Kaisers, Archaelogica 39 (1985), 25, 40f., 184-90, 289f.Google Scholar On the background see now in general Gimeno, J., ‘Plinio, Nat. Hist. III, 3, 21: reflexiones acerca la capitalidad de Hispania Citerior’, Latomus liii (1994), 39–79Google Scholar , at 70, nn. 89-91 with refs. Similar arrangements can be identified in the Latin West most clearly at Tarraco but the same scheme occurs at Lugdunum and Narbo, apparently also at Sarmizegetusa. At Emerita, Corduba, and elsewhere the precise area that may have been used for provincial purposes remains debatable, as does the status of associated structures; these centres are best restricted to a subordinate role for present purposes. For an overview and synthesis of current scholarship see ‘The Provincial Centre’ in D. Fishwick, The Imperial Cult in the Latin West. Studies in the Ruler Cull of the Western Provinces of the Roman Empire (hereafter ICLW), Vol. III, 1 (forthcoming). The thesis that there was no provincial enclave at any of the three Spanish provincial capitals is argued by W. Trillmich, ‘“Foro provincial” und “Foro municipal” in den Hauptstädten der drei hispanischen Provinzen: eine Fiktion’, in Ciudad y Comunidad civica en Hispania. Siglos II-III d. C, Coloquio Madrid 1990, Collection de la Casa de Velázquez XL (1993), 115-24, noting that the term ‘provincial forum’ or ‘forum Provinciae Hispaniae Citerioris’ does not exist in the ancient sources; cf. P. Le Roux, ‘L'Évolution du culte impérial dans les provinces occidentales d'Auguste à Domitien’, in Les Années Domitien, Pallas (1994), 397-411 , at 410, n. 55, rejecting the existence of a provincial sanctuary at Narbo also. For a reply see D. Fishwick, ‘“Provincial forum” and “municipal forum”: fiction or fact?’, Anas 8/9 (1997), forthcoming.

² For earlier discussion see Fishwick, D., ‘Templum Divo Claudio constitutum’, Britannia iii (1972), 164–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar , at 180; ICLW, Vol. I, 2 (1987), 195–218Google Scholar , at 218. See further idem, ‘Tacitean usage and the temple of divus Claudius’, Britannia iv (1973), 264f.Google Scholar ; ‘Seneca and the temple of Divus Claudius’, Britannia xxii (1991), 137–41Google Scholar ; ‘The temple of Divus Claudius at Camulodunum’, Britannia xxvi (1995), 11–27.Google Scholar

³ The fundamental discussion of the archaeological evidence remains that of Drury, P. J., ‘The temple of Claudius at Colchester reconsidered’, Britannia xv (1984), 7–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁴ TED'A (Taller Escola d'Arqueologia de Tarragona), ‘El foro provincial de Tarraco, un complejo arquitectónico de época flavia’, AEspA lxii (1989), 141–91Google Scholar , at 151-7; cf. eidem, Un Abocador del Segle V D. C. en el Fòrum provincial de Tàrraco, Memoriés d'Excavació 2 (1989), 435, 437–40Google Scholar ; Raventós, X. Dupré i, ‘Un gran complejo provincial de epoca Flavia en Tarragona: Aspectos cronologicos’, in Trillmich, W. and Zanker, P., Stadtbild und Ideologie, Bayer. Akad. d. Wiss. Phil.-hist. Klasse Abh. n. F. 103 (1990), 319–25.Google Scholar For detailed measurements of the provincial complex see R. Cortés, ‘Los Foros de Tarraco’, in Los Foros Romanos de las Provincìas Occidentales (1987), 9-24, at 10-13. For a helpful outline see now X. Aquilué, Xavier Dupré, Jaume Massó and Joaquín Ruiz de Arbulo, Tarraco. Guide Archéologique (1993), 62-70 ; X. Dupré i Raventos, J. M Carreté i Nadal et al, La ‘Antiga Audiència’: Un acceso al foro provincial de Tarraco (1993), 9-11 ; Raventos, X. Dupré i, ‘New evidence for the study of the urbanism of Tarraco’, PBA 86 (1995), 355–69, at 361ff.Google Scholar

⁵ For the general background see the introduction by Richmond, I.A. to Hull, M.R., Roman Colchester, Rep. Research Comm. Soc. Antiq. London xx (1958), xxvff.Google Scholar ; R. Stillwell (ed.), The Princeton Encyclopedia of Classical Sites (PECS) (1976), 190f. (Hull) ; Crummy, P., ‘Colchester: the Roman fortress and the development of the colonia’, Britannia viii (1977), 65–105 with figs 1, 3, 12, 21f.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁶ Hauschild, Th., ‘Tarraco en la epoca augustea’, in Ciudades Augusteas de Hispania, Bimilenario de la Colonia Caesaraugusta, Universidad de ZaragozaGoogle Scholar : Dept. de prehistoria y arqueologia, Vol. I (1976), 213–18Google Scholar ; cf. Vol. II, 261-3; idem, ‘Römische Konstruktionen auf der oberen Stadtterrasse des antiken Tarraco’, AEspA xlv/xlvii (1972-1974), 3–44, at 8f.Google Scholar ; TED'A, op. cit. (note 4, ‘El foro’), 148f. with refs; Aquilué et al, op. cit. (note 4), 62; Bayona, J. Ruiz de Arbulo, ‘El foro de Tarraco’, Cypsela viii (1990), 119–38, at 121f.Google Scholar

⁷ For details of the locality see A. Audin, Essai sur la topographie de Lugdunum (1956), 149-52 ; Pelletier, A. and Rossiaud, J. (eds), Histoirede Lyon des origines à nos jours. Antiquité et Moyen-Age, Vol. 1 (1990), 15f.,43f., 121-4.Google Scholar

⁸ Étienne, R., Piso, I. and Diaconescu, A., ‘Les deux forums de la Colonia Ulpia Traiana Augusta Dacica Sarmizegetusa’, REA xcii (1990), 273–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar , at 297f. with fig. 2; eidem, ‘Les propylées du forum civil de Sarmizegetusa (Roumanie)’, CRAI (1990), 91-113 at 93f with fig. 2.; cf. Fishwick, , ICLW, Vol. I, 2 (1987), 301f.Google Scholar

⁹ Strictly speaking, the provincial area at Camulodunum might be considered outside the city, which was not defined by defensive walls; cf. Hull in Stillwell, op. cit. (note 5); Drury, op. cit. (note 3), 23f.

¹⁰ Crummy, op. cit. (note 5), 85-7 with fig. 12 ; Drury, op. cit. (note 3), 21ff. with fig. 11, cf. fig. 1.

¹¹ Hull, op. cit. (note 5), xxvii, 162-8 ; Drury, op. cit. (note 3), 24f.

¹² Hull, op. cit. (note 5), xxvi ; Drury, op. cit. (note 3).

¹³ Drury, op. cit. (note 3), 25ff. , cf. 8. In the wake of the revolt pro-active involvement on the part of the Roman authorities is surely to be inferred, in contradiction to F. Millar's hypothesis of an essentially passive, reactive emperor: The Emperor in the Roman World, 31 B.C.-a.d. 337 (1977).

¹⁴ Hull, op. cit. (note 5), 189-91 with fig. 96.

¹⁵ At Emerita the cardo maximus was evidently interrupted at the arbitrarily named ‘Arco de Trajano’, where this monumental entrance gave access to an enclosed plaza, usually thought to be the site of the provincial enclave as opposed to the civic forum by the ‘Temple of Diana’. See in detail J.M. Alvarez Martinez, ‘El foro de Augusta Emerita’, in Homenaje a Sáenz de Buruaga (1982), 53-68 , at 58ff. with earlier bibl.; J.L. Jimenez Salvador, Arquitectura forense en la Hispania romana (1987), 52ff. W. Trillmich, ‘Los tres foros de Augusta Emerita y el caso de Corduba’, in P. Léon (ed.), Colonia Patricia Corduba. Una reflexion arqueológica, Córduba 1993 (1996), 175-95 , at 175, argues that the public area to which the arch gives access will have belonged to the city plan from the moment of foundation. For reiteration of his view that this cannot have been the ‘provincial forum’, distinct from the ‘municipal forum’, see ibid. 181-3.

¹⁶ ICLW, Vol. I, 1 (1987), 151f. with n. 8 and pl. XXVII; TED'A, op. cit. (note 4, ‘El foro’), 153f; Aquilué et al., op. cit. (note 4), 20. See now Gimeno, op. cit. (note 1), 61ff. , arguing in favour of two emissions, neither corresponding to an existing temple; further Burnett, A., Amandry, M., Ripollès, P. Pau, Roman Provincial Coinage (1992), Vol. I, Part. I, 104f.Google Scholar , nos 219,222, 224, 226 (pl. 16).

¹⁷ For the time taken to construct a temple see Fishwick, op. cit. (note 2, 1995), 12f. ; idem, ‘Four temples at Tarraco’, in Small, A.M. (ed.), Subject and Ruler: The Cult of the Ruling Power in Classical Antiquity, JRA Suppl. 17 (1996), 165–84, at 180.Google Scholar

¹⁸ TED'A, op. cit. (note 4, ‘El foro’), 158-60, 179-81; Dupré, op. cit. (note 4); J. Ruiz de Arbulo, ‘Edificios piiblicos, poder imperial y evolutión de las élites urbanas en Tarraco (s. II-IV d. C.)’, in Ciudady Comunidad, op. cit. (note 1), 93-113, at 98ff., noting the enormous costs of the project. For a helpful summary with recent bibliography see J. L. Jimenéz Salvador, ‘El templo romano de la calle Claudio Marcelo en Córdoba y su importancia dentro del programa monumental de Colonia Patricia durante el alto imperio’, XIV Congreso Internacional de Arqueologia Classica, Tarragona 1993 (1995), 141-6, at 142 with nn. 27-9.

¹⁹ See variously E.M. Koppel, ‘Relieves arquitectonicos de Tarragona’ in Trillmich-Zanker, op. cit. (note 4), 327-40, at 336ff. with n. 52; J. Gimeno, Estudios de arquitéctura y urbanismo en las ciudades romanas del nordeste de Hispania (1991), 291-9 ; Pensabene, P., ‘La decorazione architettonica dei monumenti provinciali di Tarraco’, in Mar, R. (ed.), Els monuments provincials de Tarraco. Noves aportacions al seu coneixement, Documents d'Arqueologia Classica 1 (1993), 33–105.Google Scholar For the difficulties of dating on the basis of architectonic decoration without a secure archaeological context see J. L. Jiménez Salvador, ‘El templo roman o de la calle Claudio Marcelo en Corduba: aspectos cronológicos, urbanisticos y funcionales’, in Léon, op. cit. (note 15), 143.

²⁰ Ruiz de Arbulo, op. cit. (note 6), 124, 132 ; idem, op. cit. (note 18), 98, n. 20; TED'A, op. cit. (note 4, Abocador), 439f. with refs; X. Dupré i Raventós, ‘Forum Provinciae Hispaniae Citerioris’, in Los Foros Romanos, op. cit. (note 4), 25-30 , at 28 with bibl., n. 11.; Aquilué et al., op. cit. (note 4), 58, noting that archaeology can document considerable activity in the region of the city forum under Augustus and Tacitus. Construction at the provincial centre, in contrast, has been thought to be restricted to the Flavian period.

²¹ Comparison with the permission sought by a delegation from Baetica to set up a provincial temple in a.d. 25 (Tac, Ann. IV.37.1; cf. IV.15.4) strongly supports the view that the temple allowed in a.d. 15 will have been provincial. Conversely we have n o report of embassies in the case of other municipal temples in Spain, notably those at Carthago Nova, Emerita, Barcino, Evora, Caesaraugusta, and Conimbriga.

²² For the possibility that such a view need not necessarily conflict with the stratigraphic evidence see Fishwick, op. cit. (note 17), 181 ; idem, ‘The “Temple of Augustus” at Tarraco’, Latomus 57 (1998).Google Scholar Only soundings in the temple cella could conceivably settle the issue, a procedure impossible in the present case since the exact location of the temple is unknown. See in general Gimeno, op. cit. (note 1), 68ff. , especially 71. It is worth noting that precisely such stratigraphic data from the fill of the foundation below the cella of the (municipal?) temple in the calle Marcelo Claudio at Córdob a have now lowered the beginning of construction to the Julio-Claudian period. How long it took to complete the building with its plaza and surrounding portico is unknown: Jiménez, op. cit. (note 19), 141-3 , cf. idem, op. cit. (note 18), 141. Further precedent for the suggested development is provided by the dedication of the temple of Venus Genetrix on 26 September 46 B.C. with completion of the associated Forum Iulium deferred until the reign of Augustus (RG xx.3); cf. S. Weinstock, Divus Iulius (1971), 80-2 with pl. 7.

²³ Hull, op. cit. (note 5), 183 with n. 4, cf. xxvii; Drury, op. cit. (note 3), 27.

²⁴ Hull, op. cit. (note 5), xxviii, 171, 181f ; Drury, op. cit. (note 3), 26 , cf. 15, citing M. Hebditch, ‘Excavations on the south side of the temple precinct at Colchester, 1964’, Trans. Essex Arch. Soc.³ iii (1971), 115-30.Google Scholar

²⁵ Du Mége, ‘Sur l'amphithéâtre de Narbonne’, Mém. Soc. Arch, du Midi de la France iv (1840-1841), 401-8Google Scholar with precise figures; cf. M. Gayraud, Narbonne antique des origines à la fin du Hie siècle, RAN Suppl. 8 (1981), 384ff.Google Scholar See earlier C. Jullian, Histoire de la Gaule², Vol. IV (1964), 429,Google Scholar n. 3; A. Grenier, Manuel d'archéologie gallo-romaine, Vol. III, 1(1958), 139.Google Scholar

²⁶ Similarly the ‘Arco di Trajano’ at Emerita gave entrance to a separate area, evidently defined by a portico, as well as direct access to marble steps which connected — perhaps via two flights and an intermediary platform — with a large temple (below, n. 30). Part of the wall enclosing the temenos came to light in 1987.1 am much indebted to Dr J.M. Alvarez Martinez for an illuminating letter on the latest archaeological findings. See further Trillmich, op. cit. (note 15), 175, n. 4 and a forthcoming monograph by J.L. de la Barrera Antón, a copy of which the author kindly forwarded. For traces of a portico within the enclosure see J.M. Alvarez Martinez, ‘La ciudad romana de Mérida’, Cuadernos de Arte Espanol vi (1992), 21.Google Scholar

²⁷ Hänlein-Schäfer, op. cit. (note 1), 233f.; J.L. Jiménez Salvador, Arquiteclura forense en la Hispania romana (1987), 37, 41-5. For a detailed picture see X. Dupré i Raventós and J.M. Carreté í Nadal, ‘“Portae et fenestrae” al förum provincial de Tarragona’, Empúriés xlviii–l (1986–1989), 290-9Google Scholar ; TED'A, op. cit. (note 4, ‘El foro’), 167-82, 187-91; (note 4, Abocador), 435-7, 441-6; Dupré i Raventos, op. cit. (note 4, 1990), 320ff. A helpful summary is now provided by Aquilue et al., op. cit. (note 4), 62-80; Dupré i Raventos et al., op. cit. (note 4, 1993); Dupré i Raventos, op. cit. (note 4, 1995), 361.

²⁸ Similarly at Emerìta the post of provincial tabularius, held by a freedman (CIL II.4851"., cf. 3235) points to a corresponding office, while at Lugdunu m official premises must surely also be associated with such functionaries as iudex / adlectus arcae Galliarum (CIL XIII.1686, 1707f., 1688, 1709), inquisitor Galliarum (CIL XIII.1690, 1695, 1697, 1703, 3528), or slave tabularius of Tres Galliae (CIL XIII.1725). Cf. J. Deininger, Die Provinziallandtage der römischen Kaiserzeit von Augustus bis zum Ende des dritten Jahrhunderts n. Chr., Vestigia 6(1965), 102-4.

²⁹ Hull, op. cit. (note 5), xxvi, 162-8; Drury, op. cit. (note 3), 24f.

³⁰ Only Emerita may have produced comparable evidence, though at the present time excavation of the podium recently identified at the end of Calle de Holguin (nos 35/37) is too little advanced to tell much beyond the bare fact that its proportions suggest a pseudoperipteral plan with transverse cella. To judge from its overall dimensions and some surviving drums of marble columns which reach 1.50 m in diameter, this huge edifice will have been considerably larger than the well-preserved municipal ‘Temple of Diana’. See in detail J.M. Alvarez Martinez, ‘Excavaciones en Augusta Emerita’, in Arqueologia de las Ciudades modernas superpuestas a las antiguas (1983), 37-53, at 42. I am indebted for details to the monograph of J.L. de la Barerra (note 26). On the dating of its architectonic marble decoration to the late-Augustan or Tiberian period see Jimenez, op. cit. (note 18), 142, n. 33, citing J.L. de la Barrera, La decoratión arquitectónica de los foros de Augusta Emerita, Tesis doctoral inedita, Universidad de Extremadura (1994), n. 31. On the ‘Temple of Diana’ see now R. Étienne, ‘Du nouveau sur les débuts du cult impérial municipal dans la péninsule ibérique’, in Small, op. cit. (note 17), 153-63. For comparison of the Mérida temple with that of Concordia in Rome see J.M. Alvarez Martínez, Historia de la Baja Extremadura, Vol. II (1986), 156.Google Scholar That the temple in Calle de Holguín could be the provincial temple of Lusitania looks a promising possibility which remains to be proved; whether it conformed with the (projected?) tetrastyle temple known from local coins is too early to say. Further discussion in Fishwick, ICLW, Vol. I, 1 (1987), 156, nn. 44f. with refs and pl. xxxvi; O. Gil Farrés, La Moneda Hispánica en la Edad Antigua (1966), 441, 446, 468, 470; cf. A. Beltran, ‘Los monumentos en las monedas hispano-romanas’, AEspA xxvi (1953), 39-66, at 54f.Google Scholar ; idem, ‘Las monedas romanas de Mérida’, in Augusta Emerita. Actas del Simposio International Conmemorativo del Bimilenario de Mérida (1976), 93-105, at 97, 102f.; Gimeno, op. cit. (note 1), 67, noting that the Emerita coins derive from the Tarraco dupondii issued probably a little earlier. See further Burnett et ai, op. cit. (note 16), 72f., nos 29, 47f.

³¹ TED'A, op. cit. (note 4, ‘El foro’), 155f.’; (note 4, Abocador), 438f.; Dupré i Raventós, op. cit. (note 4, 1990), 319f. For the view that the temple will have been integrated in the north portico see recently R. Mar, ‘El precinto de culto imperial de Tarraco y la arquitectura flavia’, in Mar, op. cit. (note 19), 107-56.

³² On the temple itself see Hull, op. cit. (note 5), 162-8 with fig. 82; P. Crummy, ‘The temples of Roman Colchester’, in W. Rodwell (ed.), Temples, Churches and Religion: Recent Research in Roman Britain, BAR 77, i (1980), 243-8; Drury, op. cit. (note 3), 27f., 34f. For earlier treatment see M.J.T. Lewis, Temples in Roman Britain (1966), 61f.

³³ At Corduba possible evidence for a provincial temple is limited to a single monumental capital more than 1 m high, now entombed beneath a modern casing of concrete and conjecturally associated with a second forum of the colony: A.U. Stylow, ‘Apuntes sobre el urbanismo de la Corduba romana’, in Trillmich-Zanker, op. cit. (note 4), 259-82, at 271, 274 with Abb. 75; Jiménez, op. cit. (note 27), 57f.; idem, op. cit. (note 18), 142f.; idem, ‘La multiplication de plazas públicas en la ciudad hispanoromana’, forthcoming in Cypsela.

³⁴ A similar location looks established for the Emerita temple (above, note 30), which was placed on the axis of the car do maximus and stood at the centre of an enclosure on the model of the Augustan complex at Aries: De la Barerra, op. cit. (note 26), 445, n. 9, citing Gros, P., ‘Un programme augustéen: le centre monumental de la colonie d'Arles’, JDAI cii (1987), 339–63, at 345ff.Google Scholar

³⁵ F. Coarelli, Roma. Guide archeologiche Laterza (1983), 110ff., at 119f.; Étienne, R., ‘Un complexe monumental du culte impérial à Avenches’, Pro Aventico xxix (1985), 5–26Google Scholar ; Mar, op. cit. (note 31); Fishwick, op. cit. (note 17), 178-9; (note 22, 1998).

³⁶ Audin, op. cit. (note 7), 154; Coarelli, op. cit. (note 35), 62f. Cf. the similar interpretation of the Merida temple by Alvarez, op. cit. (note 30, 1986).

³⁷ For detailed discussion see ICLW, Vol. I, 1 (1987), 102-30, with Audin, A. and Fishwick, D., ‘L'autel lyonnais de Rom e et d' Auguste’, Latomus xlix (1990), 658–62Google Scholar ; further Fishwick, D., ‘The dedication of the Ara Trium Galliarum’, Latomus 55 (1996), 87–100, a t 92ff.Google Scholar

³⁸ Audin, op. cit. (note 7), 154; ICLW, Vol. I, 2 (1987), 308-16.

³⁹ Étienne, op. cit. (note 8).

⁴⁰ Hull, op. cit. (note 5), xxviii, 175f.; Drury, op. cit. (note 3), 15, 27.

⁴¹ Hull, op. cit. (note 5), 191f. with fig. 97.

⁴² For the altar of Augustus at Tarraco see ICLW, Vol. I, 1 (1987), 171-9.

⁴³ Hull, op. cit. (note 5), 176f., cf. xxviii; Drury, op. cit. (note 3). The pedestals are numbered 142 and 143 by Drury (ng. 7).

⁴⁴ For the point that simulacrum would be the appropriate term for a statue of Victory in a religious context and that Tacitus’ language by n o means rules ou t the presence of two such statues as at Lugdunu m see Fishwick, op. cit. (note 2, 1995), 24f.

⁴⁵ cf. Lewis, op. cit. (note 32), 62 with fig. 59. For equestrian statues at the Lugdunum sanctuary see 1CLW, Vol. I, 2 (1987), 318 with n. 10 ad CIL xiii.1680 = ILS 1390.

⁴⁶ With all the uncertainties of the archaeological evidence, the possibility might also be considered that the original Victories were later replaced by equestrian statues. Drury, op. cit. (note 3), supposes a n eventual arrangement of multiple statues.

⁴⁷ Verzàr, M., Aventicum II Un temple du culte impérial, Cahiers d'Archéologie Romande 12 (1977), 38ff.Google Scholar , noting the influence of Aries as an artistic centre that gave a provincial stamp to a motif originating in Rome; Budischovsky, M.C., ‘Jupiter-Ammon et Méduse dans les forums du nord de l'Adriatique’, Aquileia Nostra xliv (1973), 201–20Google Scholar ; Simón, F. Marco, ‘Iconografia y propaganda ideológica. Jupiter Amón y Medusa en los foros imperiales’, in Croisille, J.M. (ed.), Neronia IV. Alejandro Magno, modelo de los emperadores romanos, Coll. Latomus 209 (1990), 143ff.Google Scholar ; G. Fischer, Das römische Pola, Bayer.Akad.d.Wiss.Phil.-hist.Klasse Abh.n.F 110 (1996), 19 with refs. For a list of clipei see the catalogue of Leclant-Clerq in H.C. Ackermann and J.-R. Gisler (eds), Lexicon Iconographicum Mylhologiae Classicae, Vol. I (1981), 666-89. Sundry traces of the head of Jupiter Ammon used as a decorative motif in Britain are collected by E. and Harris, J.R., The Oriental Cults in Roman Britain, EPRO 5 (1965), 83f.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ A. Garcia y Bellido, Esculturas Romanas de España y Portugal (1949), p. 415, no. 417; W. Trillmich, ‘Colonia Augusta Emerita, die Haupstadt von Lusitanien’, in Trillmich-Zanker, op. cit. (note 4), 299-318, at 310ff.; idem, ‘Hispanien und Rom aus der Sicht Roms und Hispaniens’, in W. Trillmich et al., Hispania Antiqua. Denkmäler der Römerzeit (1993), 41-69, at 50ff.; idem, op. cit. (note 15), 183-5, noting fragments of comparable clipei at Corduba (unpublished) and a caryatid at Santiponce near Seville; idem, ‘Gestalt und Ausstattung des “Marmor-forums” in Mérida. Kenntnisstand und Perspektiven’, MDAI(M) 36 (1995), 269-91 with Abb. 1 (p. 170) showing the centre of Mérida. The plan erroneously indicates that the cardo maximus stretched under the Arco de Trajano; cf. above, notes 15, 26.

⁴⁹ TED'A, op. cit. (note 4, ‘El foro’), 160-6 with figs 8-11; Koppel, op. cit. (note 19), 332ff. with n. 32, especially 336, 340; Aquilué et al., op. cit. (note 4), 65.

⁵⁰ Hauschild, op. cit. (note 6, 1972-4), 38 with Ab. 28. For the relationship of the attic to the interior of the portico see H. Bauer, ‘Nuove ricerche sul Foro di Augusto’, in L'Urbs. Espace urbain et histoire (ler siècle av. J.-C. - IIIe siècle ap. J.C.), Coll. de l'Ecole Franç, de Rome 98 (1987), 763-70; further idem, ‘Augustusforum, Hallen und Exedren’, in Kaiser Augustus und die verlorene Republik (1988), 184-91.

⁵¹ Verzàr, op. cit. (note 47), 34-6 with refs; TED'A, op. cit. (note 4, ‘El foro’), 165. See now in general Marco, op. cit. (note 47), 144-62.

⁵² Drury, op. cit. (note 3), 25, 29.

⁵³ For the existence of a British counterpart to the concilium known in other provinces see Beard, M., ‘A British dedication from the City of Rome’, Britannia xi (1980), 313f.CrossRefGoogle Scholar with n. 1, citing the original publication of the inscription by H. Solin, Epigraphische Untersuchungen in Rom und Umgebung (1975), no. 3, 6-8.

⁵⁴ Audin, A. and Reynaud, J.-F., ‘Le mur des bords de Saône et ses inscriptions antiques’, Bull. Mus. et Mon. Lyonnais vi (1977-1981), 457–79Google Scholar (= AE 1980, 634).

⁵⁵ The only physical evidence that might be compared occurs at Emerita, where an old ground plan sketched by A. de Laborde in 1813 records vestiges of a rectangular building: idem, Voyage pittoresque et historique de l'Espagne, Vol. I, 2 (1813), 110, lám. CXLV, cf. lám. CXLVI, where his simplified plan of the city indicates the location of a ‘Temple of Jupiter’ with the letter G. For an earlier plan of Mérida by Coello, showing the same emplacement of the building, see Alvarez, op. cit. (note 15), 59 fig. 5, cf. 60, noting that ruins were later located in the same place by Ivo de la Cortina y Pulido. Despite the deficiencies of Laborde's reconstruction it seems clear that the building was octostyle and perpipteral, faced by four rows of columns, and perhaps enclosed by a court (FIG. 8). While Laborde and others have thought in terms of a temple of Jupiter or Mars, Alvarez has recently concluded in favour of a basilica-like structure in an area where other public buildings have left significant traces. If located on the site of the provincial enclave, it is conceivable that this could have served as the assembly hall (curia) of the provincial council — very much like the basilica at Camulodunum therefore.

⁵⁶ Alföldy, G., Flamines Provinciae Hispaniae Citerioris, Anejos de Archivo Español de Arqueologia 6 (1973), 4–10;Google Scholar idem, RE Suppl. XV (1978), 570ff, at 597, 604, 619 with refs s.v. Tarraco; cf. idem, ‘Tarraco’, Forum viii (1991), 43f.; Hänlein-Schäfer, op. cit. (note 1), 233f.; ICLW, Vol. I, 2 (1987), 277; Ruiz de Arbulo, op. cit. (note 6), 134.

⁵⁷ ICLW, Vol. I, 1 (1987), 136 with n. 267; Pelletier-Rossiaud, op. cit. (note 7), 54 with n. 37. For the Greek background see in detail F. Richard, ‘Une nouvelle inscription lyonnaise d'un Sacerdos Sénon des Trois Gaules: Sextus Iulius Thermianus’ CRAI(1992), 489-509, at 505-7.

⁵⁸ For priests of the Three Gauls see L. Maurin, Saintes antique (1978), 181ff., especially 203f.; idem, ‘Gaulois et Lyonnais’, REA lxxxviii (1986), 109-24, at 115f.; Richard, op. cit. (note 57).

⁵⁹ Fishwick, ICLW, Vol. I, 2 (1987), 278 with n. 47; Trillmich, op. cit. (note 1), 117-22.

⁶⁰ Gayraud, op. cit. (note 25), 397-408.

⁶¹ Stylow, op. cit. (note 33), especially 279-82; Trillmich, op. cit. (note 1), 122-4; idem, op. cit. (note 15), 183; Jiménez, op. cit. (note 19), 145-7; Fishwick, op. cit. (note 1, 1997).

⁶² Drury, op. cit. (note 3), 37-9 with fig. 14, cf. 27.

⁶³ For the place of imperial festivals in the ruler cult see Fishwick, ICLW, Vol. II, 1 (1991), 501-18.

⁶⁴ For processions see ICLW, Vol. II, 1 (1991), 550-66.

⁶⁵ On the amphitheatre at Lugdunum see J.-C. Golvin, L'Amphithéâtre romain, Publ. du Centre Pierre Paris 18 (1988), 117f., 197, 357 with extensive bibliography; Pelletier-Rossiaud, op. cit. (note 7), 48-53; ICLW, Vol.1, 1 (1987), 133-5; Vol. I, 2(1987), 314f. Archaeological exploration of the monument dates essentially from 1956.

⁶⁶ On the amphitheatre at Tarraco see Ruiz de Arbulo, op. cit. (note 18), 100ff.; Aquilue et al., op. cit. (note 4), 80-6.

⁶⁷ Drury, op. cit. (note 3), 30 with n. 112, citing Crummy, P., ‘The Roman theatre at Colchester’, Britannia xiii (1982), 299–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁶⁸ On the place of the theatre in the rites and ceremonies of the imperial cult see ICLW, Vol. II (1991), 582-4; Salvador, J.L. Jiménez, ‘Teatro y desarrollo monumental urbano en Hispania’, Teatros romanos de Hispania, Cuadernos de arquitectura romana 2 (1993), 225-38, at 226, 237.Google Scholar

⁶⁹ Hull, op. cit. (note 5), xxviii with n. 4. Similarly at Lucca the amphitheatre has become a curving row of houses.

⁷⁰ Drury, op. cit. (note 3), 29ff.

⁷¹ Supposed epigraphical evidence is ambiguous at best. For the point that Anencletus (RIB 21: London) was not necessarily employed by the provincial council of Britain see Fishwick, D., ‘The Imperial Cult in Roman Britain’, Phoenix xv (1961), 159–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar , at 165f.; cf. OLD 1506 s.v. provincialis. On the difficulties raised by the uncertain transcript reproduced in RIB 5 (London) see Fishwick, ICLW, Vol. II, 1 (1991), 409f., noting that a dedication numini Caesaris Augusti would be unparalleled; cf. idem, ‘Le numen impérial en Afrique romaine’, in Afrique du Nord antique et mediévale, spectacles, vie portuaire, religions: Actes du Ve Colloque International, 115e Congr. nat. Soc. sav. Avignon, 9–13 avril, 1990 (1992), 83-94. Contra P. Salway, Roman Britain (1981), 533. No other provincial council, it might be added, is recorded to have made a dedication to the imperial numen, though such a formula is conjecturally restored in CIL XIII. 1671.

⁷² Deininger, op. cit. (note 28), 143f., noting that the provincial centre of Pannonia Superior seems to have been at Savaria, not Carnuntum, and that the council of the Three Gauls met not in Lugdunum but nearby, at the confluence of the Rhône and the Saône. On the other hand, the focal point of the cult of Pannonia Inferior now looks to have been at Aquincum, not Gorsium as held by J. Fitz, followed by Fishwick, ICLW, Vol. I, 2 (1987), 303-7 with refs. On new epigraphical evidence adduced by G. Alföldy, the centre at Gorsium served not the provincial cult but the Di Magni: ‘Die Grossen Gotter von Gorsium’, ACD (forthcoming).

⁷³ Ruiz de Arbulo, op. cit. (note 18), 106ff., noting that in Gaul and Spain the provincial élite who had supported Albinus lost their wealth in the confiscations that followed the Severan victory (SHA, Sev. 12). For the contrasting development at Lugdunum see Fishwick, ICLW, Vol. I, 2 (1987), 317-50.

⁷⁴ TED'A, op. cit. (note 4, ‘El foro’), 191; op. cit. (note 4, Abocador), 446-8; Ruiz de Arbulo, op. cit. (note 18), 111–13, stressing the re-use of old monuments from the last quarter of the third century; Aquilué et al, op. cit. (note 4), 30f.