Greek temples had stairs on all sides and didn’t really have an interior, at least not a public one.
Roman temples had stairs on one side that led to the entrance.
GreekRoman
But the columns are Ionic, it uses a post and lintel method, the entablature is not Etruscan and the front room could well be a cella.
At the same time it is true that the peristyle colonnade is not there, which matches some Etruscan styled temples (just columns on front), though both the Temple of Athena and the Erechtheion don’t have a peristyle colonnade.
For what steps are regarded, some temples only had crepidoma across the front façade, like the Lycosura temple, which would both match the frontal colonnade with no perimeter and the frontal crepidoma that doesn’t have sterobates around the temple (like is common).
So while unorthodox, I don’t see why this would be Etruscan or “Roman”.
Why? (Honest question)
Greek temples had stairs on all sides and didn’t really have an interior, at least not a public one. Roman temples had stairs on one side that led to the entrance. Greek Roman
But the columns are Ionic, it uses a post and lintel method, the entablature is not Etruscan and the front room could well be a cella.
At the same time it is true that the peristyle colonnade is not there, which matches some Etruscan styled temples (just columns on front), though both the Temple of Athena and the Erechtheion don’t have a peristyle colonnade.
For what steps are regarded, some temples only had crepidoma across the front façade, like the Lycosura temple, which would both match the frontal colonnade with no perimeter and the frontal crepidoma that doesn’t have sterobates around the temple (like is common).
So while unorthodox, I don’t see why this would be Etruscan or “Roman”.
Fuck if I know, but it looks a lot like the Temple of Portunus…
Capitel and colums are in greek style, maybe the stairs give it away?
That’s a great observation, after all that temple is a hybrid between Etruscan and Greek. (And the columns indeed are Ionic).