CHAPTER 18
Votives in their Larger Religious Context

Helen Nagy

1. Introduction ¹

Livy claimed that the Etruscans were “…a people more than any other dedicated to religion, the more as they excelled in practicing it” (Livy 5.1.6). Although the historian may be exaggerating a bit, other Roman sources also stress the Etruscans’ preoccupation with foretelling the future and with ritual. The libri rituales of the Etruscans are now gone (van der Meer 2011: 78–81). Only a few longer texts – the third- to second-century mummy wrapping from Zagreb (the liber linteus), the fifth-century clay Capua Tile, and the Brontoscopic Calendar – written in Etruscan or translated from the original – survive to give a flavor of these famous books.² The three are essentially religious calendars. The Capua tile and the liber linteus specify rituals to be performed on any given day of the year, whereas the Brontoscopic calendar, a sixth-century CE Byzantine translation by “John the Lydian” of a lost Latin translation from the Etruscan by Figulus, is a divinatory calendar intended to aid priests in interpreting thunder (Turfa 2012: 3–16).

The Capua tile and the liber linteus also name numerous gods, but neither specifies the location of the rituals to be performed. Nevertheless, the liber linteus prescribes specific sacrifices, such as animal sacrifice and food offerings, and provides instructions for the proper performance of cultic activities, including the time of day (morning) for burned offering to Veiovis (Rix 1997: 391–398; Turfa 2012: 23–25). It names several types of priests and specifies the sacred acts and the places where rituals were to take place (van der Meer 2007: 80; Belfiore 2010: 53). Nowhere does it indicate anything regarding the handling or disposition of votive objects. The closest specification in the liber linteus may be, “prepare the incense, offer with the ceremonial vessel these breads” (Turfa 2012: 24).

Much has been written about the famous bronze model of a sheep’s liver, discovered in 1877 near Piacenza (van der Meer 1987; de Grummond 2013: 542). The surface is divided into 40 compartments containing names of divinities. The object seems to have served as a learning tool for a would-be haruspex. While of exceptional importance for the understanding of Etruscan haruspicy, the Piacenza liver is not a ritual text, per se.

The written sources suggest that offerings during ceremonies needed to be blood or burned offerings, incense, food (such as bread), and, probably, liquid. These offerings would be presented by the proper priests and attendants and accompanied by prescribed gestures and words and by music. Evidence for these activities survives in the decorations on a small number of Etruscan mirrors as well as in wall paintings and relief sculptures. This chapter highlights the place of votive offerings within the religious rites of the Etruscans with special emphasis on the role of votives in sanctuaries.

2. The Votive Offering

A votive object is a physical (in most cases durable) reminder of a pact between the divine and the person (or group) making the offering, or a memento of a sacrifice performed (van Straten 1981: 69). A votive, then, is essentially the materialized form of a prayer, a petition for aid or thanks for a wish granted. The offering is frequently preceded by a formal vow, especially if it is of a public nature, such as the erection of a temple, like the one made by Thefarie Velianas, the ruler of Caere mentioned in the Pyrgi gold plaques (see below). Far more common are the smaller, tangible gifts offered by individuals or family groups. This second category is the primary subject of this chapter. Votive objects come in many materials, forms and sizes. They may be made for the votive purpose, or be a treasured personal object. They may be inscribed, although this is less frequent in Etruscan than in Greek and Roman practice. They are found in a variety of sacred locales, including temple complexes, near altars, but just as often in caves, by springs, and in groves (Edlund 1987; Edlund-Berry 2013: 557–565). Votive objects have also been discovered in “deposits” containing ritual material, remains of sacrifices and various dedications. These include those formed as part of the foundation or re-foundation of a building or precinct, propitiation deposits, and obliteration deposits (Bonghi Jovino 2006: 31–46; Glinister 2006: 54–70). The very number of Etruscan votives, especially the less costly varieties made of terracotta, is daunting.

Types of Votive Offerings

A large category of votives consists of perishable materials and therefore survives only in literary sources or in artistic depictions. These include animals, food, liquids, wax, and even human hair. Evidence for the latter occurs in ancient Greece (van Straten 1981: 90–91), but has yet to be found in Etruria. Animals were sacrificed at the time of communal worship, and liquids were also mainly used in this context. The Pian di Civita excavations at Tarquinia, for example, have revealed vegetable and animal offerings including turtles, dogs, and carved deer antlers (Bonghi Jovino 2010: 7–16). There is also evidence for votives made of quasi-perishable materials, such as wooden figures and objects,³ as well as for fabrics (Meyers 2013, and see also Chapter 21). Even more frequently deposited were the tools used in the production of textile products that functioned in the context of cult (Gleba 2009: 64–84). Bronze, terracotta, and ceramic objects make up the bulk of extant votive materials, but personal gifts may also include luxury items, such as jewelry of gold and silver (see Chapter 19), and objects made of ivory and amber.

Costly gifts include large-scale sculptures of bronze. The famous Chimera from Arezzo, inscribed as a gift of (to) Tinia (Zeus), is one of the few that survive (Turfa 2006: 92). Less costly bronzes include figurines (Scarpellini 2013: 1027–1040), vessels, thymiateria (incense burners) and other items, such as an incense shovel in New York (De Puma 2013: 160, no. 5.22).

Thymiateria, incense shovels, certain textiles, and numerous types of vessels belong to a category of votive objects that have (or had) a function in the performance of the cult before becoming a divine “gift.” Among finds of this type discovered thus far, the most impressive example of a ritual dedication of ceremonial objects is the votive deposit excavated in front of Building beta in the monumental sacred area of the Civita at Tarquinia. (Bonghi Jovino and Chiaramonte Treré 1987: 59–70; Bagnasco Gianni 2013: 594–599, and Chapter 7). The deposit dates to the early seventh century and was offered to the goddess Uni. Three impressive items, a bronze axe-head, a decorated ceremonial shield and a ceremonial (or war) lituus trumpet were buried in alignment with the entrance. The trumpet and the shield were ritually made useless by being folded over several times. The high quality of the objects and their aristocratic associations indicate that the offering was made by a person of the highest rank. The skeleton of a child, around eight years old, was buried in line with the ditch containing the bronzes. That Building beta, an “altar temple,” was dedicated with great ceremony by a “king” on a very early sacred site is further supported by a child’s burial that dates back to the ninth century. The buried bronzes, a foundation deposit, thus attest to the importance of the ruler’s participation in the re-foundation of the sacred structure. A later foundation deposit was discovered at area alpha of the Civita at Tarquinia (Chiesa 2005: 327–330; Chapter 7).

Jewelry, personal objects and certain types of vessels also had former “lives” before being dedicated to the gods. Inscriptions frequently emphasize the transition of the object to its new status/purpose, as can be seen on the large early fifth-century Greek kylix discovered in the San Antonio sanctuary of Caere, attributed to Onesimos and Euphronios. An inscription in Etruscan on the foot of the vase indicates that at some point after its arrival in Etruria, it was dedicated to Hercle (unfortunately, the name of the dedicant is now missing) (Maggiani and Rizzo 2005: 150–152). Numerous well-crafted and sumptuous Greek vases have also been found in Etruscan votive contexts (Osborne 2001: 277–295). Three such items were recovered at the Portonaccio sanctuary at Veii in the obliteration deposit of material from the temple itself. This context implies that the vessels were kept in the temple as prized objects for use in the cult and displayed as costly votives (Baglione 2011: 95–101).

Greek and Etruscan vases make up an important category of votives in Etruscan sanctuaries (Gran-Aymerich 1997; Maggiani 1997). Certain types, such as vessels used for libation rituals (pateras, oinochoai, and other containers of liquid or pouring vases), may have been manufactured specifically for cultic use. But many examples of service wares, plates, cups, etc., used for meals need not have been made specifically for a ritual function.

Most votives, however, were manufactured purely to serve as gifts to the gods. They are made of bronze or clay and range from fruits and other food products to animals, small building models and altars, and human figurines demonstrating a great variety of iconographic types. Offerings were presented on various occasions and to numerous divinities, especially those concerned with fertility (of the earth as well as of human beings), health, healing, and events associated with passage – coming of age, marriage, death/memory.

Anatomical votives, mainly of terracotta, are the most numerous of any category (Turfa 2004: 359–368; Recke 2013: 1068–1085). They were popular from the fourth century onward. Most sanctuaries accommodated some aspect of healing and care, especially in the later periods. Interpretations of their functions include the apparent pathological one, but few anatomical votives exhibit signs of disease. Kourotrophic and healing aspects such as thanks for being healed and petitions for fertility or for the safety of infants are among the major functions of these ex-votos. Recently, Recke has suggested that votive torsos with open body cavities may have literally referred to surgical interventions. Another theory connects votives of certain body parts with the action toward or from the divine. For instance, ears may have indicated that the divinity heard the petitioner, or that the offrant was asking to be heard; eyes indicated a need to be seen by the divinity, while hands could indicate prayer (Recke 2013: 1076–1078).

Another significant sub-category of figural votives were the terracotta heads and busts (Figure 18.1) that often approach life-size proportions (Carpino 2013: 1012–1016). Generic representations of youthful male and female heads were often serially manufactured and derivative generations with variations in adornment, hair style and even some facial features could be produced just before firing (Nagy 2013: 994, 996, fig. 54.6). Numerous heads and busts, however, exhibit portrait-like features clearly intended to reflect the unique features of an individual (Carpino 2013: 1013, fig. 81). The large quantity of votive heads in deposits from the fourth to second centuries indicates that worshippers sought to leave visual reminders of themselves, whether generically or as individuals.

Image described by caption. — **Figure 18.1** Fragments of votive heads, fourth – second centuries BCE. Terracotta. From the Manganello Sanctuary, Caere.
Photo: By permission of V. Bellelli.

In addition, offerings could be given as petitions do-ut-des (“I give so you may give”), a primary concept in the relationship between the worshipper and the divine in Etruria, as in much of the ancient Mediterranean world. Very often the votive object is a reminder of a gift already given or the expression of a formal vow (votum), as seen in the famous gold plaques from Pyrgi which commemorate a gift of gratitude to Uni/Astarte dedicated by Thefarie Velianas, king of Caere (Turfa 2012: 24–25).

Votive Offerings with Inscriptions

Public votive of thanks

Three gold plaques were discovered in 1964 in area C at Pyrgi near Temple B (c.500) in a special enclosure made in the third century for the purpose of their deposition (see Figure 14.2). They were carefully folded along with the nails once used to affix them, perhaps to the Temple of Uni/Astarte (Temple B) (Colonna 1970). Of the three tablets, two are in Etruscan and one in Phoenician. The two long inscriptions (Etruscan and Phoenician) provide the name of the donor, Thefarie Velianas, ruler of Caere, who established a temple and/or statue in gratitude to Uni/Astarte for her support during the third year of his reign. Both close with the vow “… may the years [of the statue?] be as many as the stars” (Bonfante and Bonfante 1985: 74–78). While the long Etruscan inscription is less specific on the exact dates of the gift and of the event that precipitates it, the religious activities that took place in giving thanks to the goddess are carefully described. The shorter Etruscan inscription also refers to specific rituals that are to take place annually to purify the temple.

The Pyrgi plaques not only provide important information regarding the connection between a major votive gift and ritual, but they also highlight the importance of the proper timing and recurrence of the religious routines that must be maintained as part of the votive process. In other words, a votive gift of this magnitude was not a one-time gift, but it became part of an ongoing ritual activity. Temples and cult statues are the most costly of the public votives and the most closely tied to ritual practices. As Turfa (2012: 25) remarks, “They [the plaques] represent the most lavish version of the votive dedication, the rarely preserved offerings of a ruler.”

Private gifts

Inscriptions on private votive objects may include information on the donor, his/her family, the occasion of the gift, and the recipient divinity of the offering. Some represent thank offerings and others functioned as petitions, but the majority did not specify the occasion for the votive. They range from expensive to very humble objects, but even the most insignificant pottery fragment, when inscribed, speaks eloquently of someone’s belief in and respect for the efficacy of the votive transaction. Dedicatory inscriptions usually follow a formula using the verbs mulvani- or tur- (Maras 2009; Chapter 14).

An elegant statue base of considerable proportions was recently discovered in the “quadrangular structure” at the Campo della Fiera at Orvieto (Stopponi 2011: 37–42; Stopponi 2013: 637–638). An inscription along its upper edges proclaims the following: “Kanuta, freedwoman (?) of the gens Larecena, wife of Aranθ Pinie, gave to the Tlusχva of the Marveθ (of the seat/residence) in the Faliaθere/Faliaθera [in the celestial (place)]” (Stopponi 2011: 42). This base proudly displays the name of the donor, Kanuta, her family name, Laracena, and the fact that she is a freedwoman married to Aranθ Pinie. It is clear that Kanuta was very proud of her expensive gift to the Tlusχva divinities. The top surface of the base retains holes for lead dowels to support a statue (now lost). It was probably made of bronze and could have been inscribed with the name of the divinity receiving the gift. Smaller, uninscribed bases with multiple fittings for figurines were also discovered at the same time (see below). Kanuta’s gift is the largest among these and she made sure that everyone in her community knew who had given it. Had Kanuta held a religious office at the sanctuary, she would surely have noted it. Unfortunately, the reason for her gift, be it a petition or thanks, is not addressed.

Bronze objects are more likely to be inscribed than less costly clay or terracotta ones. The inscriptions frequently indicate the name of the person making the dedication and the name of the recipient divinity. Some, as the one on the statue base discussed above, provide the family name and, in the case of some women, their husband’s name. In more than one case, a person dedicated the object on behalf of a family member (see below examples of dedications by mothers on behalf of their offspring).

Figurines are often inscribed on parts of their bodies, or on the base to which they were attached. Often, as in the case of Kanuta’s base, it is impossible to connect a figure with its support. In other instances, a statuette could be cast in one piece with its rectangular base. This is the case with an athlete (c.400–350) from Sarteano; the inscription, incised on the upper surface of the base, reads, “Vel Sapu gave this to Selvans” (Bonfante 1990: 47). The figure may represent a generic athlete, or Vel Sapu himself. A female figurine, identified as a dedicant by her gesture, is also accompanied by an inscription on her rectangular base, “Titne Alpa dedicated. Of the divinities, to Thufltha” (Cristofani 1985: 272, no. 61). While it is possible that the statuette represents Titne Alpa in the act of offering, it is impossible to know for sure.

Although figurines of divinities can be recognized by their attributes, inscriptions often name them as well as the person who dedicated them. Two well-preserved bronze figurines from Cortona illustrate this point. They resemble one another in pose, proportions and the boots they are wearing, but one, Culsans (perhaps a proto-Janus), has two faces and bears the inscription on his left thigh, “Vel Quinto of Arntia dedicated the gift(?) to Culsans” (Cristofani 1985: 285–286 no. 104). Selvans has a normal head and wears a feline headdress. The inscription on his left thigh is nearly identical to that on Culsans’s, except that it names Selvans (Silvanus) as the recipient of the gift (Cristofani 1985: 286, no. 105). The same person dedicated both statuettes, which were made by the same artist. Because the two were discovered together, they must have been offered at shrines close to one another.

Two modest clay pots offered by L. Tolonios at Veii present a slightly different situation. Tolonios dedicated a small olpe to Menerva at the Portonaccio sanctuary in the late fourth century. An inscription incised on the shoulder of the vase reads “L. Tolonio(s) ded. (et) Menerva” (Tolonios dedicated to Menerva) (Nagy 2011: 116–7). Its counterpart was discovered in a pit containing a votive deposit at the Campetti sanctuary. The nearly identical inscription, this time incised prior to firing, reads “Crere L. Tolonio d” or “dedicated to Ceres” (Torelli 2000: 630, no. 298). Clearly, Tolonios frequented both sanctuaries and perhaps wanted to record the fact that he had participated in a libation ritual at both. The objects are both single-handled pouring vessels, ones connected with this type of ritual.

Devotees are mostly depicted as generic male and female figures. They fall into two major categories, dedicants and orantes (praying) figures, but some can be identified more specifically as having held religious office. A bronze statuette of a haruspex in the Vatican Museums (Cristofani 1985: 272, no. 60), for example, wears the typical costume of this office: it consists of a conical hat tied under the chin, a tunic, and a mantle over the left shoulder, brought around to the right and fastened with a fibula over the chest. The inscription on the garment over the left leg identifies Vel Sveitus as the donor of the object that probably represents him.

Offerings by devoted mothers tend to specify that their gifts were made on behalf of their children. A group of third century bronzes discovered at Montecchio in 1746, for example, includes a thymiaterion and a large statuette of a pudgy boy holding a duck, both inscribed as dedications to Thufltha, a divinity connected with fertility and care (Cristofani 1985: 299–300, no. 128; Scarpellini 2013: 1032, fig. 57.8). The inscription on the right leg of the child reads, in rough translation: “given by Velia Fanacnal to Thufltha, a gift offered on behalf of the son- from the community of (?) Tlenache” (TLE 652; Maras 2009: 84–86). A statuette of a young Aplu (Apollo) in the Louvre displays a similar inscription on its left leg, “I am the statue (dedicated to) Spulare Artemis (that) Fasti, (wife) of Ruifri gave on behalf of her son, well deserving” (Bonfante and Bonfante 1985: 157, no. 37; Cristofani 1985: 284, no. 100). The dedication is to Artimi (Artemis), but the figure obviously depicts Aplu wearing a laurel wreath, not the deserving son. An easy explanation is that the gift was on behalf of the son, therefore the statue represented the brother of the goddess

Most anatomical votives are made of terracotta, a material that allows for easy reproduction. Asking for a cure or giving thanks for the same is a personal act. For the most part these objects are not inscribed, but there are some notable exceptions. These include the offering of a knee by Vel Tiples at the sanctuary of the Ara della Regina at Tarquinia (Comella 1982: no. D₉Fr. 1, 115, pl. 77^c), and the votive uteri from the Fontanile de Lagnisina sanctuary at Vulci, inscribed with “Vei,” the name of the Etruscan version of Demeter, a goddess associated with fertility (Turfa 2006: 101). The inscription on Vel Tiples’s knee (alce: vel: tiples) appears along the upper edge of the piece and was incised prior to firing. This makes it unique unless the dedicant intended to offer identical votives more than once. The intention, nevertheless, is clear: Vel Tiples had a bad knee and was probably asking for help. Let’s hope he found a cure.

Large numbers of inscribed pottery and pottery fragments have come to light in excavations of sanctuaries. It is sometimes problematical to distinguish votive objects from vessels used in religious cult. Here the context of the find can be of help. For example, a fragment of an open vessel, inscribed “Unial” (of Uni (Juno)) was discovered near Temple B at Pyrgi (Agostiniani 2013: 465–466, fig. 22.10). Even though the inscription identifies the object as belonging to a goddess, its find spot suggests that it was part of the sanctuary’s service rather than a votive dedication. Agostiniani (2013: 464–466) offers further examples of inscribed dedications on vases.

Finally, an unusual inscribed votive object, a weight measure from the fourth century deserves mention. It was discovered in the sacred area of S. Antonio at Caere, a sanctuary dedicated to Hercle (Moretti Sgubini 2001: II.B.5.2, 153). The oval-shaped object is made of bronze with a lead center and has a ring on top for suspension. Ten lines of inscription run vertically around it. The complex text has resulted in at least two transcriptions, but it is possible to decipher its basic content. The dedication is to Turms (Hermes), god of commerce, and the gift was given by Vel Uc(u)s, son of Luvχumes, who performed the dedication in the city in the Masan(?) of Hercle. The item is identified and even its weight seems to be given (IIc = 286.5 grams: Becker 2013: 356), followed by two names and ending in the specific date of the offering “in the year of the zilath (magistrate) Larθ Nulaθe.” Vel Ucus makes it clear that the object was offered to Turms in the shrine of Hercle and emphasizes the weight of the measure and the exact date of its dedication. The occasion for the gift is not specified, but the object is a symbol of Vel Ucus’s occupation, suggesting that he was grateful for the success of his business.

While Etruscan votive inscriptions may not be as numerous, nor as informative as their Greek counterparts, they provide valuable information about both dedicants and recipients, as well as to why such offerings were made in the first place.

Representations of Ritual Activities

Many votives serve as “silent texts” on aspects of ritual activities. Among these are figurines of attendants (e.g., musicians and participants bearing libations vessels and or items used in certain rituals), representations of divinities sacrificing, scenes of sacrifice, divinities in shrines with or without attendants, and small votive altars (arulae) (Nagy 2000: 3–22).

Examples from the Vignaccia sanctuary at Caere illustrate all of these types. A votive terracotta relief now in Siena (Nagy 1994: 216, fig. 19.7) depicts two identical female figures enclosed in a naiskos (shrine). They are flanked by two small musicians, one playing the auloi (double flutes), the other a small lyre. They indicate a ritual event or the presence of a divinity. Musicians of the types shown in the Siena relief also occur in Greece and in the Near East (Nagy 1994: 214, 216). The instruments in such contexts are always the same and may stand for the “voice” of the divinity (Bittel 1963: 20). The musicians on the Siena relief are rendered on a smaller scale than the female figures, who should be interpreted as divinities, or a duplicated divinity, perhaps in the form of statues in a temple. In any case, the musicians appear in their service. Another relief plaque from the Vignaccia, now in Boston (Figure 18.2), represents a scene of sacrifice. Fragments of identical compositions now in Berkeley (Nagy 1994: 211–212) show that this composition was also framed by architectural elements. It shows a sacrifice taking place at an altar in front of a fruit-bearing tree. On the right a draped female proffers a patera over the altar, as if to indicate that she is pouring a sacrificial libation. To emphasize this idea, a horned quadruped lurks behind the woman. On the left a smaller figure plays the auloi, indicating another element of the ritual. A scene of sacrifice depicted on a Praenestine mirror, now in Florence (Pieraccini 2011: 130, fig. 5), also depicts a sacrifice performed by a priest. In both representations, all of the essential elements of the real life ritual are present: location, priest or priestess, altar, attendant, sacrificial animal, and libation.

Various elements of this formula, such as musicians alone or in pairs, small votive altars, priests, priestesses, or the divine recipients, animals, and the ubiquitous figures offering libations are meant to recall and stress the idea of the ritual. The specifics vary according to the cult. For example, female figures bearing small piglets or torches suggest a chthonic cult, as do miniature pig figurines. And in some sanctuaries, such as the Vignaccia, examples of all types have been discovered (Nagy 1988).

Archaeological Contexts

Very few votive objects have been discovered in their original contexts except for foundation deposits, such as the one from area alpha at Tarquinia (Chiesa 2001: 327; Chiesa 2005: 327–330; Bonghi Jovino 2006: 36; and Chapter 7) which contained two impasto olpai which had probably served in the ritual and then were subsequently buried in the foundation of the wall. Even foundation deposits can be secondary, if they mark the re-founding of a sacred area, such as the deposit discovered inside the core of the altar at Veii (Nagy 2011: 115).

Depending on the evidence from a given site, votives can provide some information on aspects of cult. For instance, the large number (c.3000 pieces) of imported Greek oil lamps at the sanctuary of Gravisca, the port of Tarquinia, point to nocturnal rites to a chthonic divinity, perhaps Demeter (Colonna 1985: 143–144, 7.2D). The number of vessels inscribed in Greek with the name of Hera from the excavation at Caere led Mengarelli and subsequent scholars to identify the site with that goddess. Furthermore, the fact that all of the inscriptions give the name of Hera in the nominative suggests that the items were not ordinary votives, but vessels used specifically in the cult itself (Gentili 2004: 309–39).

In 1869, a large cache of votive and other material was discovered in a deep cavity on the Vitalini Marini property at Caere (Luce 1920: 27–28; Nardi 1989: 55). The votive objects were mixed with architectural revetments and antefixes that were in a very good condition. Given the quality of the architectural terracottas, the temple at this site must have been quite important. However, nothing remains of its structure. The architectural elements suggest that it prospered from the sixth through the fourth centuries and that it had undergone at least one major renovation. In its fourth-century phase, large, vividly painted female and satyr head antefixes looked down on the visitors to this imposing shrine. The votives are mostly of terracotta and later in date, but it is very difficult to determine where and how they had been displayed originally. All of the material from this important find was sold and is now scattered in museums in Europe and the United States. It is now impossible to guess the composition of the votive types and their original number. Situations such as this one are, unfortunately, common (see further, Chapter 30), making it very difficult to determine the rituals practiced at such sites. How did the objects end up in the cavity and why? The Vitalini Marini find is typical of an obliteration deposit where architectural and votive material is removed from a temple about to be destroyed or “deconsecrated” and is hidden in a cave, a disused well, or a hole dug for the purpose (Bonghi Jovino 2006: 31–46; Chapter 12). There is at least one ritual we know that occurred at sites such as the Vitalini-Marini, the obliteration deposit of the sacred material. One can imagine this ritual accompanied by prayers, liquid, and perhaps even blood sacrifice and music and chanting.

Although many sanctuaries shared the fate of the Vitalini Marini temple, fortunately there are sacred compounds that are better preserved and that can provide contexts for votive objects. The Portonaccio sanctuary at Veii functioned as an extramural sanctuary of long duration that served a major city. Built near a city gate, it included a major temple, a shrine, several altars, a large pool, a cistern and water channels (Nagy 2011: 114–116; Chapter 12). The site yielded a rich variety of votive objects, including bronze and terracotta figurines, large terracotta votive sculptures, pottery and some small objects. Many of the votives bear inscribed dedications that include the names of donors, some famous. We can visualize the Portonaccio sanctuary by the gate on a major road, dominated by a temple with large acroterial sculptures, a shining pool of water on its flank, altars and channels connecting to an earlier shrine and a cistern and probably smaller altars and large votive sculptures dotting the open spaces. Along comes a citizen of Veii, about to leave the city, who stops in to offer a prayer and a gift, perhaps asking for safe return, or success in a military engagement. He leaves a little memento of his prayer, a small terracotta statuette of a warrior. Similar figurines, which number close to 100, have been found at the site and are now kept in the storeroom of the Villa Giulia Museum (Vagnetti 1971: 180; Nagy 2013: 998–999).

A re-foundation deposit inside the core of the sanctuary’s large altar contained very early material, suggesting that these humble, venerable objects like the “enthroned hunter” were worthy of rededication (Nagy 2011: 115, fig. 3). The area around the large altar also yielded a variety of later votive objects (Colonna 2002), while the cistern was filled with votive and other material as part of an obliteration deposit. Its contents included a variety of votive materials, bronzes, pottery, 194 spindle whorls, and even an enigmatic circular terracotta object surmounted by figurines of two elephants and a representation of Cerberos (Ambrosini 2005: 189–207).

The temple area produced the largest number of votive and architectural terracottas in three zones: as fill in the large pool by the temple, across the Roman road, and in the Cannetaccio zone below the temple, where they fell in a collapse of the temple’s supporting platform. The context for this material is difficult to assess, but the pool and the deposit across the Roman road indicate that the dismantled material from the temple had been handled with care.

The votive gifts at the Portonaccio number in the thousands. None was found in its original location; they were mixed with fill or were deposited in wells or ditches dug for the purpose. They are excellent indicators of the composition of foundation and obliteration deposits and illuminate a ritual process that served to preserve these sacred objects.

Recent excavations at the site of Campo della Fiera near Orvieto may shed additional light as to the display of bronze figurines in a sanctuary context. This site is thought by some scholars to be the location of the Fanum Voltumnae, the famed gathering place of the 12 Etruscan federations mentioned by Livy (4.23.5). The walled precinct of Temple A (Stopponi 2013: 632–50) includes structures in addition to the temple itself. Although plundered in 264, the area was rebuilt several times. Remains of altars, obliteration deposits and an intact treasury, as well as an offering table with holes for the attachment of statuary, provide evidence for the extensive quantity, quality and variety of votive offerings at the site. Inside a quadrangular structure built during the late Republican period as a depository for earlier votives (Stopponi 2011: 33–35) were several molded altars, blocks and bases with holes in their surfaces for the attachment of bronze statuettes. One of these still preserves three of the eight figurines it had supported (see Figure 18.3). They are rugged little things, but two are clearly shown in the act of praying or worshipping (e.g., in the adorans position) with their arms stretched open. The central figure is wrapped in a mantle and perhaps represents the object of veneration, a statue of an earlier period that may have been displayed in the sanctuary (Stopponi 2011: 34–35). This find suggests that bronze figurines, at least, could be arranged to represent an actual act of worship.

Another site that offers evidence about aspects of cultic activity is Area C, a sacellum or “little sanctuary,” in the northern precinct of Pyrgi (Colonna 1970: 587–600; Baglione and Belelli Marchesini 2013). It is located in the enclosure for Temple B and shares a foundation wall with it. The ritual demolition of the area occurred in the third century, after the founding of the Roman colony on the site. This is where the famous gold tablets, discussed above, were deposited in a specially made enclosure attached to sacellum C. The enclosure was made of fragments of architectural elements from the dismantled Temple B. The deposition of the gold plaques was part of a larger obliteration ritual at Area C that included filling a deep well (pozzo) with architectural remains, pottery fragments as well as debris from sacrifices that included bones of animals associated with chthonic divinities (Colonna 1970: 594–595). As Baglione and Belelli Marchesini (2013: 112) remark, “Here the construction of the new precinct for the golden tablets is highly meaningful, because it marks the reiteration of the sacred use of this specific and restricted area within the Pyrgi sanctuary.”

The votive deposits associated with the altars of the Southern sanctuary of Pyrgi include evidence for foundation, consecration, and obliteration rituals (Colonna 2006:132–142; Baglione 2013: 621–626; Baglione and Belelli Marchesini 2013: 113–126). Two foundation deposits that are connected with altars ν and λ point to a cult of Demeter, related to those in Magna Graecia. Deposit ρ of Altar ν contained a late Attic black figure amphora surrounded by 44 Attic vases of types used in libation rituals. These were arranged in circles according to specific ritual functions. Votive deposit κ, connected with altar λ, included, among other votives, some female busts and bronze and iron leaves pierced for being bound together, suggestive of oracular activities associated with mystery cults. Two Attic kraters, one inscribed mi fuflunusura (I am of Dionysos), support this aspect of the cult at this location. The votives in both cases are essential in identifying the origin and nature of the cults connected with the altars.

3. Conclusion

This chapter treats a single category of object that, in highly significant ways, bears witness to the intense religiosity of the Etruscans. By focusing on a few specific aspects of material evidence pertaining to votive offerings, it highlights the deeply religious significance inherent in what are often humble objects. A survey of a selection of certain Etruscan votive types associated with ritual imagery and inscriptions connected with votive figures or their bases confirms that many Etruscans liked to identify themselves as donors, often providing their family affiliations as extra support, and that they usually named the recipient divinity. Unlike lengthy Greek inscriptions, the specific reasons for their pleas are usually not explicitly expressed in writing, but often can be deduced from the nature of the objects themselves (e.g. a figurine of a swaddled baby). Generally the motivations for offering gifts to divinities are common to many cultures, but evidence, especially in the archaeological context, suggests that the Etruscans connected votives with rituals not only while the objects were in use, but also by creating special obliteration deposits to ensure their efficacy. Often, these deposits were closely connected to the focus of a cult, as in the case of the Pyrgi gold tablets and the altar deposits at Veii. It is evident that for the Etruscans once an object was placed in a sacred context, it was considered to be divinely imbued and had to be offered the rituals proper to its disposition.

REFERENCES

Agostiniani, L. 2013. “The Etruscan Language.” In J. M. Turfa, ed., 457–477.
Ambrosini, L. 2005. “Il donario con Cerbero ed elefanti e gli altri material della cisterna Santangelo nel santuario del Portonaccio a Veio.” In G. Camporeale and O. Paoletti, eds., 135–146.
Baglione, M. P. 2011. “Funzione dei grandi donari attici di Veio Portonaccio.” In D. F. Maras, ed., 95–101.
Baglione, M. P. 2013. “The Sanctuary of Pyrgi.” In J. M. Turfa, ed., 613–631.
Baglione, M. P. and B. Belelli Marchesini. 2013. “Altars at Pyrgi.” Etruscan Studies 16: 106–126.
Bagnasco Gianni, G. 2013. “Tarquinia, Sacred Areas and Sanctuaries on the Civita Plateau and on the Coast: ‘Monumental Complex,’ Ara della Regina, Gravisca.” In J. M. Turfa, ed., 594–612.
Becker, H. W. 2013. “Political Systems and Laws.” In J. M. Turfa, ed., 351–372.
Belfiore, V. 2010. Il Liber Linteus di Zagrabia. Testualità e Contenuto. (Biblioteca di Studi Etruschi 50.) Pisa.
Bittel, K. 1963. “Phrygisches Kultbild aus Boğazköy.” Antike Plastik 2: 7–21.
Bonfante, G. and L. Bonfante. 1985. Lingua e cultura degli Etruschi. Rome.
Bonfante, L. 1990. Etruscan. Berkeley, CA.
Bonghi Jovino, M. 2006. “Mini mulvanice-mini turuce. Depositi votive e sacralità: dall’analisi del ritual alla lettura interpretative delle forme di religiosità.” In A. Comella and S. Mele, eds., 31–46.
Bonghi Jovino, M. 2010. “Tarquinia. Types of Offerings, Etruscan Divinities and Attributes in the Archaeological Record.” In L. B. van der Meer, ed., 5–16.
Bonghi Jovino, M. and C. Chiaramonte Treré, eds. 1997. Tarquinia. Scavi sistematici nell’abitato. Campagne 1982–1989 = Tarchna 1. Rome.
Camporeale, G. and O. Paoletti, eds. 2005. Dinamiche di sviluppo delle città nell’Etruria Meridionale: Veio, Caere, Tarquinia, Vulci. Atti del XIII Convegno di Studi Etruschi ed Italici. Roma, Veio, Cerveteri/Pyrgi, Tarquinia, Tuscania, Vulci, Viterbo, 1–6 ottobre 2001. 2 vols. Pisa.
Carpino, A. 2013. “Portraiture.” In J. M. Turfa, ed., 1007–1016.
Chiesa, M. 2005. “Tarquinia. Un deposito di fondazione e altri rinvenimenti nell’Area Alpha.” In G. Camporeale and O. Paoletti, eds., 327–330.
Colonna, G. 1970. “L’area sacra C.” In Pyrgi, 587–600.
Colonna, G., ed. 1985. Santuari d’Etruria. Milan.
Colonna, G. 2002. Il santuario di Portonaccio a Veio 1. Gli scavi di Massimo Pallottino alla zona dell’altare (1939–1940). (Monumenti Antichi, serie miscellanea, vol. 6:3.) Rome.
Colonna, G. 2004. “I greci di Caere.” Annali della Fondazione per il Museo “Claudio Faina” 11: 69–94.
Colonna, G. 2006. “Sacred Architecture and the Religion of the Etruscans.” In N. de Grummond and E. Simon, eds., 132–168.
Comella, A. 1982. Il deposito votivo presso l’Ara della Regina. Rome.
Comella, A. and S. Mele, eds. 2006. Depositi votivi e culti dell’Italia antica dall’età arcaica a quella tardo-repubblicana. Bari.
Cristofani, M. 1985. I bronzi degli Etruschi. Novara.
De Grummond, N. T. 2006. “Prophets and Priests.” In N. de Grummond and E. Simon, eds., 27–44.
De Grummond, N. T. 2013. “Haruspicy and Augury: Sources and Procedures.” In J. M. Turfa, ed., 539–556.
De Grummond, N. T. and E. Simon, eds. 2006. The Religion of the Etruscans. Austin, TX.
De Grummond, N. T. and I. Edlund-Berry, eds. 2011. The Archaeology of Sanctuaries and Ritual in Etruria. (Journal of Roman Archaeology Supplementary series 81.) Portsmouth, RI.
De Puma, R. D. 2013. Etruscan Art in the Metropolitan Museum of Art. New Haven, CT.
De Puma, R. D. and J. P. Small, eds. 1994. Murlo and the Etruscans. Art and Society in Ancient Etruria. Madison, WI.
Dickison, S. and J. P. Hallett, eds. 2000. Rome and Her Monuments. Essays on the City and Literature of Rome in Honor of Katherine A. Geffcken. Wauconda, IL.
Edlund, I. 1987. The Gods and the Place: Location and Function of Sanctuaries in the Countryside of Etruria and Magna Graecia (700–400 B.C.). Stockholm.
Edlund-Berry, I. 2013. “Religion: the Gods and the Places.” In J. M. Turfa, ed., 557–565.
Gaultier, F. and D. Briquel, eds. 1997. Les Étrusques, les plus religieux des hommes: État de la recherche sur la religion étrusque. Actes du colloque international Galeries nationales du Grand Palais, 17–18–19 novembre 1992. (Rencontres de l’École du Louvre 12.) Paris.
Gentili, M. D. 2004. “Osservazioni sulle iscrizioni greche dal “Tempio di Hera” a Cerveteri.” Annali della Fondazione per il Museo “Claudio Faina” [I Greci in Etruria: Atti del XI Convegno Internazionale di Studi sulla Storia e l’Archeologia dell’Etruria] 11: 309–339.
Gleba, M. 2009. “Textile Tools in Ancient Italian Votive Contexts: Evidence of Dedications or Production?” In M. Gleba and H. Becker, eds., 64–84.
Gleba, M. and H. Becker, eds. 2009. Votives, Places and Rituals in Etruscan Religion: Studies in Honor of Jean MacIntosh Turfa. Leiden.
Glinister, F. 2006. “Sacred Rubbish.” In C. E. Schulze and P. B. Harvey, eds., 54–70.
Gran-Aymerich, J. 1997. “Les vases céramiques et la place du bucchero dans les depots votifs et les sanctuaires.” In F. Gaultier and D. Briquel, eds., 117–136.
Luce, S. 1920. “Archaic Antefixes from Cerveteri in the University Museum, Philadelphia, PA.” American Journal of Archaeology 24: 27–36.
Maggiani, A. 1997. Vasi attici figurati con dediche a divinità etrusche. (Rivista di Archeologia Supplement 18.) Rome.
Maggiani, A., ed. 2011. Corollari. Scritti di Antichità etrusche e italiche in Omaggio all’Opera si Giovanni Colonna. (Studia Erudita 14.) Pisa.
Maggiani, A. and M. A. Rizzo. 2005. “Cerveteri. Le campagnedi scavo in loc. Vigna Parrocchiale e S. Antonio.” In G. Camporeale and O. Paoletti, eds., 175–183.
Maras, D. F. 2009. Il dono votivo. Gli dei e il sacro nelle iscrizioni etrusche di culto. (Biblioteca di Studi Etruschi 46.) Pisa.
Maras, D. F., ed. 2011. Corollari: scritti di antichità etrusche e italiche in omaggio all'opera di Giovanni Colonna. Studia erudita 14. Pisa.
Meyers, G. 2013. “Women and the Production of Ceremonial Textiles.” American Journal of Archaeology 117: 247–274.
Moretti Sgubini, A. M. 2001. Veio, Cerveteri, Vulci: città d’Etruria a confronto. Rome.
Nagy, H. 1988. Votive Terracottas from the ‘Vignaccia’, Cerveteri, in the Lowie Museum of Anthropology. Rome.
Nagy, H. 1994. “Divinities in the Context of Sacrifice and Cult on Caeretan Votive Terracottas.” In R. D. De Puma and J. P. Small, eds., 211–223.
Nagy, H. 2000. “Miniature Votive Altars in the Collection of the American Academy in Rome.” In S. Dickison and J. P. Hallett, eds., 3–22.
Nagy, H. 2011. “Etruscan Votive Terracottas and their Archaeological Contexts: Preliminary Comments on Veii and Cerveteri.” In N. de Grummond and I. Edlund Berry, eds., 113–125.
Nagy, H . 2013. “Etruscan Terracotta Figurines.” In J. M. Turfa, ed., 993–1006.
Nardi, G. 1989. “Appunti sui santuari urbani.” In Miscellanea Ceretana I. Quaderni del Centro di Studio per l’Archeologia Etrusco-Italica 17: 51–68. Rome.
Osborne, R. 2001. “Why did the Athenian Pots Appeal to the Etruscans?” World Archaeology 33: 277–295.
Pieraccini, L. 2011. “The Wonders of Wine in Etruria.” In N. de Grummond and I. Edlund-Berry, eds., 127–137.
Pyrgi. Scavi del Santuario etrusco (1959–1967). 1970. (Notizie degli scavi di antichità Supplement 2, Volume 24.) Rome.
Recke, M. 2013. “Science as Art: Etruscan Anatomical Votives.” In J. M. Turfa, ed., 1068–1085.
Rix, H. 1997. “Les prières du Liber Linteus de Zagreb.” In F. Gaultier and D. Briquel, eds., 391–398.
Scarpellini, M. G. 2013. “The Tradition of Votive Bronzes in Etruria.” In J. M. Turfa, ed., 1026–1040.
Schulze, C. E., and P. B. Harvey, eds. 2006. Religion in Republican Italy. Cambridge.
Stopponi, S. 2011. “Campo della Fiera at Orvieto: New Discoveries.” In N. de Grummond and I. Edlund-Berry, eds., 16–43.
Stopponi, S. 2013. “Orvieto, Campo della Fiera – Fanum Voltumnae.” In J. M. Turfa, ed., 632–654.
Torelli, M., ed. 2000. Gli Etruschi. Milan.
Turfa, J. M. 2004. “Etruscan Religion at the Watershed: Before and After the Fourth Century BCE.” In C. E. Schulze and P. B. Harvey, eds., 62–85.
Turfa, J. M. 2006. “Votive Offerings in Etruscan Religion.” In N. de Grummond and E. Simon, eds., 90–115.
Turfa, J. M. 2012. Divining the Etruscan World. The Brontoscopic Calendar and Religious Practice. Cambridge.
Turfa, J. M. 2013. The Etruscan World. London.
Vagnetti, L. 1971. Il deposito votive di Campetti a Veio. Florence.
Van der Meer, L. B. 1987. The Bronze Liver of Piacenza. Analysis of a Polytheistic Culture. Amsterdam.
Van der Meer, L. B. 2007. Liber Linteus Zagrabiensis. The Linen Book of Zagreb. A Comment on the Longest Etruscan Text. Leuven.
Van der Meer, L. B., ed. 2010. Material Aspects of Etruscan Religion. Proceedings of the International Colloquium. Leiden, May 29 and 30, 2008. Leuven.
Van der Meer, L. B. 2011. Etruscu Ritu. Case Studies in Etruscan Ritual Behaviour. Leuven.
Van Straten, F. T. 1981. “Gifts for the Gods.” In H. S. Versnel, ed., 64–151.
Versnel, H. S., ed. 1981. Faith, Hope and Worship. Aspects of Religious Mentality in the Ancient World. Leiden.

GUIDE TO FURTHER READING

De Grummond and Simon 2006 include essays on major aspects of Etruscan religion; most relevant to the topic of votives is the chapter by Turfa 2006, an accessible assessment for first-time readers on the subject. De Grummond and Edlund-Berry 2011 is recommended as a good collection of recent articles on the context of votive material and of the current status of some major excavations. The Etruscan World (Turfa 2013) is a large volume that contains 63 articles by respected Etruscan scholars. Many of these address topics related to this subject. While the articles are brief, they touch on the most recent state of scholarship and provide up-to-date bibliographies. Somewhat more specialized, but recommended, are the volumes by L. B. van der Meer (2010, 2011). Turfa 2012 is a fine assessment of the primary sources on Etruscan divination, especially of the Brontoscopic calendar. The bibliography attached to this chapter contains many good sources in languages other than English. The sources listed above include extensive bibliographies for the highly motivated scholar.