À L’ENTOUR DU TEMPLE en Gaule romaine. Bâti, espaces, limites

Resume

The ancient place of worship cannot be reduced to the temple alone, whether in Roman Gaul or elsewhere. A wide range of built and unbuilt features are associated with it: courtyards and terraces, altars and basins, ancillary buildings and porticoes, enclosure walls and their gateways, among others.

Moreover, the temple itself rarely stands in isolation. Particularly in the north-western provinces of the Roman Empire, there is a marked tendency for multiple cult buildings of varying sizes and forms to coexist within the same religious complex. Rather than referring to such a complex as a sanctuary—a concept that has only recently come to designate the place of worship as a whole, despite its original meaning being quite different—we prefer here to speak of the surroundings of the temple. In Gaul, the boundaries of this area were very often, though not invariably, physically defined. It is the attractive force of the temple or temples, their status within the civitas, and often the site's long history of occupation and development, that together create the place of worship and the coalescence of the various elements that compose it.

The fourteen contributions brought together in this volume, authored by twenty-five scholars, provide an overview of these diverse configurations. The volume is divided into two sections. The first, “Equipping the Place of Worship”, focuses on the temple itself as the core of the religious site, its architectural setting, the various installations associated with places of worship within a given region, small cult structures of different sizes and functions, basins, reception buildings, and the archaeologically identifiable boundaries of the cult complex. The second section, “Contextualising the Place of Worship”, combines regional syntheses with detailed case studies devoted to individual religious sites, exploring the various ways in which they were embedded within their topographical and territorial setting, as well as their development over the longue durée.

Authors

Vivien Barrière : Maître de conférences, CY Cergy Paris Université, UMR 9022 - Héritages : Culture/s Patrimoine/s Création/s
Séverine Blin : Chercheur CNRS, UMR 8546 - AOrOc
Olivier de Cazanove : Université Paris 1, UMR 7041 - ArScAn, équipe GAMMA
Christian Cribellier : Ministère de la Culture, UMR 7041 - ArScAn, équipe GAMMA
Aurélie Ducreux : Archeodunum SAS
Isabelle Fauduet : Chercheuse associée, UMR 7041 - ArScAn, équipe GAMMA
Sophie Féret : INRAP, UMR 7041 - ArScAn, équipe GAMMA
Audrey Ferlut : Chercheuse associée, UMR 5189 - HiSoMA
Sylvain Foucras : Archeodunum SAS
Magali Garcia : UMR 8546 - AOROC ENS Paris
Raphaël Golosetti : Maître de conférences, Sorbonne Université, UMR 8167 - Orient et Méditerranée
Alexandre Gouverneur : ATER, Université Paris Nanterre, UMR 7041 - ArScAN, équipe GAMMA
Laetitia Huguet : Université de Bourgogne, UMR 6898 - ArTeHiS
Sacha Kacki : UMR 5199 - PACEA, équipe A3P
Marion Legagneux : Archeodunum SAS
Alexia Morel : Inrap
Jean-Michel Morin : Service d’Archéologie Préventive du Département du Loiret, UMR 7041 - ArScAn, équipe GAMMA
Pascal Neaud : Inrap, UMR 7041 - ArScAn, équipe GAMMA
Pierre Nouvel : Professeur des Universités, Université de Bourgogne, UMR 6298 - ArTeHiS
Michel Passelac : CNRS, UMR 5140 - Archéologie des Sociétés Méditerranéennes
Fabien Pilon : UMR 7041 - ArScAn, équipe GAMMA, association La Riobé
Mathieu Ribolet : Maître de conférences, Université de Pau et des Pays de l’Adour, IRAA - CNRS UAR 3155
Simon Ritz : Responsable d’opération, Inrap Grand Est, UMR 6298 - ArTeHiS
Gabriel Rocque : Service d’Archéologie Préventive du Département de l’Allier
Sonja Willems : Inrap, UMR 7041 - ArScAn, équipe GAMMA