660 ANNUAL REPORT SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION, 1909. 
modifications (except perhaps the form of its elevated podium), by 
the absence of any marble, and by its being mainly built of tufa, 
travertine being used in a very sparing way, though much care and 
labor have evidently been spent on the construction and decoration 
of the building.” The temple is a very small one, pseudo-peripteral 
with a prostyle portico, and of the Ionic order. It was stuccoed all 
over with marble-dust cement, in which all the moldings and orna- 
ments were finished. The moldings were cut in the stone, but in 
the cornice, at any rate, the finished cement moldings differ in several 
respects from the stone ones. The proportions of the plan are Greek, 
the length being just twice the width. But the ornaments of the 
frieze, garlands hung from candelabra and ox skulls, are essentially 
Roman. The attached columns are only half columns. The strong- 
est items of evidence for early date are the Greek simplicity of the 
moldings, the absence of marble, and the proportions of the building, 
with regard to which the Romans, a little later on, were not in the 
least particular. The sparing use of travertine proves nothing; as 
a matter of fact it was more sparingly used in many later buildings. 
The principal evidence for the exact date when the Tabularium was 
erected is an inscription discovered in the building in 1450, now only 
known from a quotation and which Doctor Middleton describes as 
very vague and puzzling. But its purport is that substructures and 
a tabularium were erected by Quintus Lutatius Catulus, who was 
Consul in 78 B. C., and Doctor Middleton’s hesitation about it seems 
to rest mainly on the fact that, while many tabularia, or record offices, 
existed in Rome, this is not known to be one of them. It is not, 
however, known to have been anything else; it appears to be suited 
by position and arrangement to such a purpose; it has extensive and 
conspicuous substructures; the character of the masonry shows it to 
be of early date; and, finally, Doctor Middleton himself points out ® a 
very interesting fact which appears to prove conclusively that the 
substructures, at any rate, were built between 121 B. C. and about 
6 A. D.—that is, during the existence of the second Temple of Concord. 
He says that the only part of the facing of the tabularium wall not 
neatly dressed is that which was concealed by that temple, which can 
hardly mean anything but that the wall was built up against it. 
Altogether the evidence of date is nearly conclusive, and far better 
than in the case of the Temple of Fortuna or any other conspicuous 
building except tombs supposed to be of the Republican period. I 
have already described the vaulting. The walls and arches are all of 
very neatly wrought masonry, with fine joints, mostly of the native 
tufa (probably the rock that was cut away to make room for it), faced 
with the harder peperino, in which the arches are of travertine. The 
4 Remains, I, 366. 6 Tbid., I, 336. 
