It is all too tempting to use Vitruvius’ De architectura to reconstruct the walls and columns of Etruscan temples now missing from the archaeological record. The Roman treatise contains a clear formula for the ground plan of a temple designed in accordance with the tuscanicae dispositiones, but that plan differs from those of many Etruscan cult buildings reconstructed on the basis of archaeological evidence. This article explores the resulting debate about what Vitruvius was actually describing and by extension his relevance for the study of Etruscan architecture. It shows that while Vitruvius should not be regarded as an authoritative source of information about Etruscan plans, this is less a consequence of his measurements than the way in which they are often interpreted. If the discrepancies between the literary and archaeological data are regarded not as errors but as signs of the intended function of the tuscanicae dispositiones, then it is possible to reconcile the divergent evidence for the arrangement of temple walls and columns in a manner consistent with modern architectural theory.
