Man and animal in antiquity: votive fi gures in central ... · Man and animal in antiquity: votive...

18
Man and animal in antiquity: votive figures in central Italy from the 4 th to 1 st centuries B.C. t t PECUS. Man and animal in antiquity. Proceedings of the conference at the Swedish Institute in Rome, September 9-12, 2002. Ed. Barbro Santillo Frizell (The Swedish Institute in Rome. Projects and Seminars, 1), Rome 2004. www.svenska-institutet-rom.org/pecus by Martin Söderlind Abstract: Human and animal votive figures in terracotta frequently appear together in the same votive deposits in central Italy. Using a catalogue of ninetythree sites, the relationship between man and animal from the 4 th to the 1 st centuries B.C. is being studied. The find combinations t t suggest that animal figurines formed an integrated part in the use of human figures, such as heads, statues, statuettes and anatomicals, in the towns and countryside alike. Apparently, man and animal were in several respects given similar religious attention. Three main aspects are discussed: fertility, human/veterinary medicine and sacrifice. The religious concern for the procreation of man as well as for his livestock was given a similar kind of expression, as suggested by the votive imagery. Concerning health, the votive figures may partly reflect an ancient past where the distinctions between human and veterinary medicine far from always were clear. Regarding sacrifice, man and animal formed opposite roles but possibly mutual objects of identifica- tion as well. Various types of human and animal votive figures appear frequently in association with different kinds of cult places and sanctuaries in pre Roman and Roman central Italy. 1 Though existing already in the Archaic age, they become very common from the fourth to the first centu- ries B.C. During this period, they are mostly mouldmade in terracotta but sometimes they appear in bronze as well. The human figures show a large variety, compris- ing statues and heads of natural or almost natural size, small statuettes and anatomical figures, i e representa- tions of various internal or external parts of the human body. The animal figures, on the other hand, are almost exclusively represented by small scale figurines and, less frequently, by parts of animals in natural or almost natural size. Cows, pigs and horses are most commonly represented, followed by wild boars and pigeons. 2 Several other species are represented as well, albeit in comparatively small numbers (Table 1). In many cases, the moulds used for the manufacture of these terracottas are very worn. Concerning the hu- man heads and statuettes, the resulting lack of details often makes it difficult to determine whether they are male or female. As to the animal figures, the features that remain after a heavy wear may show the shape of a quadrupede, without leaving any details revealing what particular kind of animal is being represented. Together, these various kinds of terracottas form the typical content of the so called etrusco-latial-campanian type of votive deposit. 3 The type appears most frequently in the western part of central Italy, comprising Etruria, Latium and Campania. In spite of the larger variations of forms of the hu- man representations, compared with the animal ones, Fig. 1. The diagram presents how often (% of number of sites) various kinds of figurative and anatomical votives appear together with animal figu- rines (horisontal hatches) and in all sites with anatomical votives (vertical hatches).

Transcript of Man and animal in antiquity: votive fi gures in central ... · Man and animal in antiquity: votive...

Man and animal in antiquity: votive fi gures in central Italy from the 4th to 1st centuries B.C.st centuries B.C.st

PECUS. Man and animal in antiquity. Proceedings of the conference at the Swedish Institute in Rome, September 9-12, 2002.Ed. Barbro Santillo Frizell (The Swedish Institute in Rome. Projects and Seminars, 1), Rome 2004. www.svenska-institutet-rom.org/pecus

by

Martin Söderlind

Abstract:Human and animal votive fi gures in terracotta frequently appear together in the same votive deposits in central Italy. Using a catalogue of ninetythree sites, the relationship between man and animal from the 4th to the 1st centuries B.C. is being studied. The fi nd combinations st centuries B.C. is being studied. The fi nd combinations st

suggest that animal fi gurines formed an integrated part in the use of human fi gures, such as heads, statues, statuettes and anatomicals, in the towns and countryside alike. Apparently, man and animal were in several respects given similar religious attention. Three main aspects are discussed: fertility, human/veterinary medicine and sacrifi ce. The religious concern for the procreation of man as well as for his livestock was given a similar kind of expression, as suggested by the votive imagery. Concerning health, the votive fi gures may partly refl ect an ancient past where the distinctions between human and veterinary medicine far from always were clear. Regarding sacrifi ce, man and animal formed opposite roles but possibly mutual objects of identifi ca-tion as well.

Various types of human and animal votive fi gures appear frequently in association with different kinds of cult places and sanctuaries in pre Roman and Roman central Italy.1 Though existing already in the Archaic age, they become very common from the fourth to the fi rst centu-ries B.C. During this period, they are mostly mouldmade in terracotta but sometimes they appear in bronze as well. The human fi gures show a large variety, compris-ing statues and heads of natural or almost natural size,

small statuettes and anatomical fi gures, i e representa-tions of various internal or external parts of the human body. The animal fi gures, on the other hand, are almost exclusively represented by small scale fi gurines and, less frequently, by parts of animals in natural or almost natural size. Cows, pigs and horses are most commonly represented, followed by wild boars and pigeons.2

Several other species are represented as well, albeit in comparatively small numbers (Table 1).

In many cases, the moulds used for the manufacture of these terracottas are very worn. Concerning the hu-man heads and statuettes, the resulting lack of details often makes it diffi cult to determine whether they are male or female. As to the animal fi gures, the features that remain after a heavy wear may show the shape of a quadrupede, without leaving any details revealing what particular kind of animal is being represented.

Together, these various kinds of terracottas form the typical content of the so called etrusco-latial-campanian type of votive deposit.3 The type appears most frequently in the western part of central Italy, comprising Etruria, Latium and Campania.

In spite of the larger variations of forms of the hu-man representations, compared with the animal ones,

Fig. 1. The diagram presents how often (% of number of sites) various kinds of fi gurative and anatomical votives appear together with animal fi gu-rines (horisontal hatches) and in all sites with anatomical votives (vertical hatches).

278

temple of Minerva Medica on the Esquiline (No. 60), a hoove of a horse is rendered. Apart from feet, other parts may occasionally be represented, such as the head or the tongue of a cow.7

Because of the many similarities, I intend to discuss further the relationship between man and animal as seen in this fi gurative votive repertory. As a point of departure will be used a catalogue of sites with animal fi gurines appearing together with human fi gures in central Italy (Table 2).8 A number of aspects will be considered, starting with the fi nd contexts where human and animal fi gures have been found together. Is it possible to see any particular fi nd combinations when animal fi gurines are present which do not occur when they are absent?

Find context

As already mentioned, animal fi gurines occur mostly together with other kinds of fi gurative terracottas. Still, apparently, it does not seem that they can be associ-ated with any particular kind of votive offering more than others. In Fig. 1, it is shown how often (% of total number of sites) various kinds of fi gurative and anatomi-cal votives appear together with animal fi gurines, com-pared with how often these votives occur in all sites with any kind of anatomical votive. It can be seen, that most offerings show a pattern of distribution with regard to the animal fi gurines which is very similar to the pattern they show in general. In other words, the use of animal fi gurines seems to form an integrated part of the general use of (human) fi gurative votive offerings.

Summing up the results so far, not only the distribu-tion (occurring regularly in the same votive deposits in central Italy), execution (mouldmade terracottas in large quantities, frequently made by worn moulds) and the way of representation (full fi gures as well as partial rep-resentations) appear to be similar for human and animal fi gures. The consumptional pattern of both kinds of fi g-ures seem to be parallel as well. Animals appear always to have been a human concern, always important enough to be an object in the communication with the gods.

It is now time to look at the orientation of the cult places and sanctuaries where the fi nds have been made in order to discern if there were any preferences as to the orientation where animal fi gurines could form part of the ritual.

Orientation

As can be seen in Table 2, comprising ninetythree sites, these kinds of votives are very common in central Italy. As far as can be seen from the sites with a known orientation, urban fi nds (41,2%), are more frequent than rural ones (35,3%) and almost twice as common as extra urban ones (23,5%). Apparently, animal fi gurines were used as often in urban sanctuaries as in rural ones (Fig. 2).

This may seem surprising at fi rst, since cows, pigs and sheep, all frequently represented, would foremost

Martin Söderlind

Table 1. Frequency (number of sites) by which various species appear in the votive imagery, starting with the most frequent. The fi gures are drawn from Table 2.

both kinds of fi gures show several parallels. Appearing frequently together in the same votive deposits and in the same sanctuaries, they seem to suggest that man and animal may have been devoted a similar kind of reli-gious attention. In many cases they were, for instance, probably dedicated to the same deities. Although inscrip-tions are very rare on terracotta votive fi gures, in several cases, theonymes (not rarely appearing in pairs or triads) are otherwise known from the sanctuaries where they were offered. The deiteis are Apollo, Apollo Medicus, Diana, Apollo and Diana, Ceres, Liber, Ceres and Liber, Jupiter, Juno, Minerva, Jupiter together with Juno and Minerva, Hercules, Mater Matuta, Mars Ultor, Vesta, Aesculapius, Aphrodite/Venus, Turan, Castor and Pol-lux, Vesperna, Feronia, Dea Marica, Mercury, Lares, Vertumnus, Bacchus, Leda, Thesan, Tinia, Suris and Magna Mater.4 Of course, we cannot be certain that the animal fi gurines were dedicated to all these deities, since several gods could be worshipped at a single sanctuary. Most frequent are Diana, Apollo, Hercules, Juno and Ve-nus. The frequent association with Diana is hardly sur-prising, considering her close association with animals. Various kinds of wild animals are often represented at the sanctuaries where her presence is indicated.5

A further similarity between the two kinds of fi gu-rines seems to be that both comprise full fi gure as well as partial representations. As to the human fi gures, both statues and statuettes have been mentioned as well as various kinds of anatomical votives. Regarding the animal fi gures, partial representations of animals are not common. However, although the list of sites with representations of animals presented in Table 1 comprises only 9 sites with such parts,6 it may not be complete, given the lack of information as to the precise content of many votive deposits. In most cases, feet are represented, mostly of cows. In one case, at the so called

Species Number of fi ndspots

Bovine animals 44

Pigs 20

Horses 18

Wild boars 15

Pigeons 11

Sheep 8

Goats 8

Dogs 7

Lions 6

Birds 4

Elephants 2

Deer 1

Owl 1

Seal 1

Swan 1

279

be a rural concern. However, the relationship between urban and rural religion pertain a variety of aspects and considerations, suggesting anything but two separated spheres of religious life, each with a distinctive char-acter of its own. In fact, anatomical votives found in towns may also show the concerns of a rural popula-tion, as suggested by Pensabene regarding fi nds from Rome. These may have been given by people from the country visiting the city, for instance, for the elections.9

If so, animal as well as human fi gures could have been dedicated at such occasions. Furthermore, food produc-tion, which in many different ways involved the most frequently represented animals (bovine animal and pig), was probably carried out in the vicinities of many towns, and partly within them as well, being a concern for large parts of the urban populations.

As pointed out by North, there was probably several circumstances that linked town and countryside together. If we may assume that there was a fl ow of immigrants from the countryside, increasing as time went by, a substantial number of the urban population would have been brought up in the country. This may have been the situation at any moment, given the death rates that could be anticipated for the immigrants living under primitive sanitary conditions.10 Even in the city of Rome, some part of the urban population probably farmed land in the vicinity, walking out in the fi elds every morning.11 If this was the situation in Rome, it could most certainly be found in other smaller towns as well, not to mention the pagi and vici.

To these points, made by North, I may add the Ro-man colonization as an important factor in uniting town culture with that of the countryside. Indeed, colonization can hardly be ignored when discussing the fi gurative votive terracottas of the Etrusco-latial-campanian type of votive deposit, since such fi nds are often considered to have been a concern not the least in the colonies.12 Dur-ing the last centuries B.C., which are our main concern from the point of view of the fi gurative votive terracot-tas, all over central Italy colonies were founded either as new towns or in already existing ones with the newcom-ers living within them as well as outside.13 Of the two main categories of populations which are usually con-sidered to have been recruited as colonists, proletarians from Rome and landless poor, the former group would

Man and animal in antiquity

Fig. 2. Amount (%) of urban (41,2%), extra urban (23,5 %) and rural (35,3%) sites with animal fi gurines. Approximately another 40 % of the sites listed below could not be identifi ed with certainty as to the character.

Fig. 3. Female terracotta statuette. From Reggiani Massarini 1988, fi g. 24.

have represented the transformation of people from city to smaller town, village or countryside.14 Furthermore, viritane assignations represented the distribution of land plots to individual farming families who did not form part of a larger colonization project. These probably lived in villae rusticae in the countryside as well.

To sum up the discussion so far, we have seen that not only the distribution, execution, the way of repre-sentation and the consumptional pattern of human and animal fi gures are similar. After the discussion of the orientation of the sites, it appears that man and animal lived everywhere side by side, in the towns as well as in the countryside. Wherever man went to perform sacred rituals, the animals, following in his path, remained an important religious concern.

Function

Having thus considered a number of similarities between the two kinds of fi gures, it is time to turn to the ques-tion as to their function. If we look at the human fi gures, two main different ways of interpretation are usually considered, the one not necessarily excluding the other. On the one hand, it has been assumed that statues, heads, statuettes and male and female genitals may have been offereded for the sake of fertiliy and procreation (Fig. offereded for the sake of fertiliy and procreation (Fig. offereded for the sake of fertiliy and procreation (3). The female kourotrophoi statuettes and the swad-dled babies could indirectly be related to this sphere as well.15 On the other hand, the large numbers of anatomi-cal votives of both internal and external organs, would

280

suggest a therapeutical, medical concern (Fig. 4suggest a therapeutical, medical concern (Fig. 4suggest a therapeutical, medical concern ( ). In several cases, these two ways of interpretation coincide, for instance regarding human fertility and the well being of the offspring.

If we turn to the animal fi gurines, we may see that both ways of interpretation just mentioned could be ap-plied to them as well. On the one hand, the procreation of the live-stock must have been of great importance for agricultural economy at any level. On the other, the well being of the existing animals must have been of equal importance. A veterinarian medicine is known from liter-ary sources such as Cato, Columella and Varro. Thus, a medical/veterinarian function would represent a second possible function for the animal fi gurines. To these two possible functions, a third should be added: the fi gures could represent animal sacrifi ces, either as substitutes or commemorating rituals that actually had been carried out.

Considering the number of parallels between the two kinds of fi gures, observed above, it may not seem surprising that their function may have been similar as well. It is only in the possibility of associating the animal fi gurines with sacrifi ce that a difference may be discerned. Although human fi gures frequently can be related to such a ritual as well, they probably in most cases represent the performing part.16 I intend to discuss below the three possible interpretations each at a time, starting with fertility.

Fertility and procreation

Starting with a brief discussion on the human fi gures, we shall look at the heads and statues. Since they often represent youths or young men and women, they have been associated with the initiation into manhood and marriage respectively, a rite de passage. In Rome, this transformation took place, as far as the young men were concerned, at the Liberalia, when they acquired the du-ties and rights of a Roman citizen.17 Among the latter, the right to marry and have children were one of the most

important, for the individual as well as for the commu-nity as a whole.

The Liberalia is often considered to have originated from an ancient fertility feast held in Lavinium, dur-ing which a phallos was carried around on a cart in the countryside. It was held in honour of Liber and Libera, the former presiding over the male seed and the latter over the female.18 The feast originally concerned the procreation of the entire peasant community, the plants, the men as well as their animals.19

For the girls, the corresponding initiation took place at the feast in honour of Anna Perenna, with the consid-erable difference that no other rights were bestowed on the young woman than to marry and beget children.20

In Lavinium, Liber was worshipped for a whole month. At the East sanctuary, large numbers of male and female heads and statues have been associated with the initiation of young men and women at the Liberalia and the feast in honour of Anna Perenna respectively.21

Of course, votive male and female genitals could be associated with fertility as well, whether in association to the rites de passages or not. As to the uteri, small balls made of fi red clay have been found inside, made visible by x-ray photography.22 Since the ancient medical sci-ence does not appear to have comprised the knowledge of the female egg, but rather to have considered two kinds of semen, a male and a female, it seems reasonable to assume that the clay balls, given their comparatively large size, were representing the embryo. The reason for adding these invisible renderings would, as the most likely explanation, have been to express a wish to get pregnant or, possibly, to have a successful pregnancy.23

Concerning the animal fi gurines, it is, fi rst of all, a reasonable assumption that several were given in order to promote new generations (Fig. 5to promote new generations (Fig. 5to promote new generations ( ). We can probably exclude some represented wild species from such a func-tion, for instance, wild boars or birds. The procreation of the live-stock, on the other hand, must have been one of the most important concerns in the agricultural food production. In his treatise On Agriculture, Varro, writing when the votive terracotta fi gures still may have been in use, mentions four important points to observe after the purchase of livestock, pasturage, breeding, feeding and health.24 It is interesting that breeding is considered second in importance only to the pasturage. In the vo-

Martin Söderlind

Fig. 4. Votive arms in terracotta. From Castagnoli et al., fi g. 359.

Fig. 5. Terracotta fi gurine of bovine animal. From Reggiani Massarini 1988, fi g. 112.

281

tive deposit at Muracci di Crepadosso in Artena, cow fi gurines were found, made from very worn moulds and therefore lacking details. At the place where their genitals ought to have been located, on two of them, a cross was incised.25 This improvement was not visible unless the fi gurine was thoroughly examined. Therefore, it would seem unlikely that it was made by the crafts-man in order to improve the general appearance and thereby to get a better prize. Instead, it would seem more reasonable that the location of the genitals were marked in order to emphasize the message and intention of the gift. Furthermore, some fi gurines of sows were rendered with distended udders, which could express a wish for healthy and reproductive animals.26

As with the human fi gures, it is uncertain what was the character of the dedication of the gift. This problem is relevant whatever function it may have had. It could have been intended as a thank offering, an offering as an exhange or as an act of prayer for divine support not yet received. In either case, the fi gurine should be consid-ered as a personifi cation of the same upon which the offerer whishes to bring divine protection.27

A (veterinary) medical/therapeutical function

Looking at the second possibility, a medical function, I shall start with the human fi gures. They have been given a comparatively large amount of consideration in previ-ous studies and will therefore receive a brief treatment here.28 Whereas there is a variety of possible interpreta-tions concerning statues, statuettes and heads, by far the most important signifi cance of the anatomical votives, internal organs, limbs and other parts of the human body, would seem to have been a medical concern. They may have represented a gratitude for a cure already received, or expressed a prayer for a healing or recovery, either on behalf of the votary himself or for a relative or friend. Although pathological signs are very rare on the anatom-ical votives, this may have more to do with the fact, al-ready mentioned, that they were mouldmade. Still, signs of phimosis may have been observed on some votive male genitals, and the presence of small knobs on some uteri have been interpreted as fi broid tumours.29 Alterna-tive interpretations are sometimes mentioned, such as feet representing a journey, hands the gesture of prayer, and genitals representing fertility.30 Such functions can be far from excluded, but a medical/therapeutical func-tion still remains the most important one.

Turning to the animal fi gurines, a medical/therapeuti-cal function is clearly suggested by the archaeological evidence. For instance, several animal fi gurines were dedicated to the so called sanctuary of Minerva Medica in Rome, including a representation of a hoove of a horse.31 It would hardly have made sense to honour the assumed goddess with a sacrifi ce represented solely by the foot of an animal. Nor could it, of course, have served the purpose to promote the animal’s fertility. The only remaining reasonable explanation is that it was of-fered for veterinary/therapeutical reasons.

However, such a fi nding tells us nothing about the character of the ancient veterinary medicine. Of the writ-ten cources concerning the Roman tradition during the period we are dealing with, Cato is, no doubt, the most relevant one. Native from Tusculum in Latium and liv-ing between 234 and 149 B.C. his work De Agriculturadiscusses farming as it was practiced in central Italy dur-ing a period when the popularity of the fi gurative votive terracottas may have reached its peak. Still, the question as to the relevance of this evidence for a discussion on the animal votive fi gurines must fi rst be discussed.

Although we may probably assume that the proprietor of a farm like Catos’ did not concern himself with mass produced votive fi gurines, it should be kept in mind that the slave run type of farm was a novelty. On the other hand, the practical, veterinary, medical and religious advise that Cato gives probably goes back on a tradition much older than the farm type. No doubt, everything is not old, but the medical considerations that we are inter-ested in most likely are, considering their partly magical character, as will be seen below. Therefore, for the many smallholders that still existed in Catos’ days and who probably stood for a large part of the mass consumption of votive terracottas, the partly magical medical/veteri-nary remedies and rustic religious cult practice delivered in the book (in De Agricultura) were probably a concern of theirs as well. In fact, oddly enough, the Preface makes reference to the type of colonus, the peasant farmer working on his farm, although the book itself discusses a larger farm.32 Maybe it refl ects the possibility that some of the information given in the treatise went back on the agriculture as practiced on the traditional smaller Roman farm. To sum up, it would seem that the information conerning the ancient Roman veterinary medicine given in De Agricultura could be relevant for our discussion.

Possibly, one of the reasons for the dedication of cows’ feet is revealed in a passage concerning a remedy for keeping the oxen from wearing their hoofs out: the bottom should be smeared with liquid pitch before they were driven anywhere on the road (Fig. 6).33 In fact, Cato’s priorities when it comes to treating animals are partly similar to those concerns that appear from the vo-tive repertory. In altogether six different chapters, Cato discusses veterinary medicine.34 In no less than fi ve of these, the oxen are the sole concern. Various potions are

Man and animal in antiquity

Fig. 6. Terracotta feet of bovine animals. From Castagnoli et al., fi g. 403.

282

proposed for them. Superstitious or magical considera-tions are mentioned. For instance, the man who gives the potion is repeatedly instructed to stand upright, as must the oxen as well.35 In Chapter 102, the ingredients in a liquid mixture against snakebites is discussed, which should be inhailed in the nostrils. The same remedy is recommended for a man, if necessary. Of course impos-sible to prove but reasonable to assume, snakebites may have been one of the causes for the dedications of some of the votive representations of cows’ feet.

The persistent concern with the well being of the oxen seems understandable, since they were used in the fi elds and therefore needed in the vegetal food produc-tion as well as for any kind of transport. The single in-stance when Cato discusses veterinary medicine without mentioning the oxen, is when a treatment is proposed for keeping sheep from getting the scab.36 There was even a feast held by the occasion of the oxen resting day.37

Possibly, there is reason to believe that the representa-tions of cows’ feet were often intended to be the feet of oxen rather than any kind of bovine animal, since any injury on the former would seriously have hampered the agricultural work. Maybe, this circumstance contributed also to the large number of fi gurines representing bovine animals,38 being the most popular votive fi gure.

On the other hand, it should be kept in mind that the agrigultural work carried out at Cato’s farm does not give a complete picture of the agricultural food produc-tion. In fact, despite its title, it deals only with some aspects. For instance, since cows or their milk are never mentioned, it has been assumed that the oxen were bred somewhere else.39 The horse does not seem to have been important on Cato’s farm, although the building of a stable is mentioned.40 Probably, it was used only by the landowner. Another interesting similarity between Cato’s writings and the use of votive fi gures is the mutual disin-terest in animals such as asses, mules and poultry.

As can be seen from the above discussion, Cato offers examples of an identical medical/veterinary treatment of man and animal. There can hardly be any doubt that the main reason for this similar treatment is that a slave in all likelihood is being intended. If slaves and domes-ticated animals were given the same medical treatment, the most obvious reason would probably be that both were the property of the owner and their deaths would have meant economic loss.41 But Cato offers medical ad-vise directly to the reader as well, adressing him in third person singularis.42 Considering the old fashioned, partly magical character of the remedies, it is tempting to sug-gest that the equal treatment of man and animal not alto-gether may have been a result of the economic thinking associated with the new slave run farm. To some extent, it could have been a part of the old rural veterinary tradi-tion. This tradition would cleary have antedated the ra-tional use of slave labour in Italian farming, suggesting that the parallel treatment could have had ancient roots as well. As can be seen in the paper by Santillo Frizell in this volume, veterinary and human medicine may even have had a common origin within the religious sphere of early healing cults associated with water springs. The

parallel use of anatomical human and animal votive ter-racottas could in that case partly mirror an ancient folk medicine where the distinctions between the treatments of men and animals far from always were clear.

Sacrifi ce

In the two previous functions of the votive fi gures, dis-cussed above, man and animal seem to have been treated similarly in many respects. As to the third possible function, sacrifi ce, the situation appears to be somewhat different.43 Now, they appear to have obtained opposite roles with the man carrying out the animal sacrifi ce.Starting with the man’ s role, for reasons already men-tioned, human fi gures such as heads and statues, have been associated with the initiation into manhood at the Liberalia, when the youth acquired the duties and rights of a Roman citizen. For young women, the correspond-ing initiation concerned marriage. At least for the men, one of the most important rights acquired concerned the performance of sacrifi ces. As a part of the initiation rite, the initiand carried out his fi rst sacrifi ce, dressed in the toga virilis capite velato. Indeed, the fi gures frequently represent the votaries capite velato,44 apparently in the act of sacrifi cing or praying, according to the Roman tradition.45

In this context, it may seem fi t to draw attention to a possible original signifi cance of the velatio capi-tis, as suggested by Freier. According to this view, the velum signifi ed the skin of a previous sacrifi ced ani-mal. Thereby, the person who carried out the sacrifi ce may have identifi ed himself with the victim.46 If so, the practice would seem to correspond to a particular ritual signifi cance wich has been called vicarious association. It has been recognized as a world wide phenomenon in sacrifi cial practice especially when associated with rites of passage. The sacrifi cial victim plays the part of the initiate, but since the victim has fi rst been identifi ed with the donor of sacrifi ce, the donor is by vicarious associa-tion also purifi ed and initiated into a new ritual status.47

Rather than polarizing man and animal into opposite roles, the animal sacrifi ce would in that case in a para-doxical sense seem to bring the parts together.

That votive fi gures in general were given as substi-tutes for a kind of object or creature it represented seems reasonable considering, for instance the terracotta repre-sentations of various kinds of fruit, which were offered as well.48 The large number of fi gurines representing pigs found at the sanctuary of S. Nicola di Albanella at Paestum appear most likely to have represented animal sacrifi ces, since this kind of sacrifi ce was particularly associated with Demeter.49 Some human fi gurines represent votaries carrying the sacrifi cial animal.50 The fact that the remains (bones) of sacrifi cial animals found in association to a sanctuary correspond to the species represented in the votive imagery may occasionally be used as evidence, for instance at Norba, where fi guries of cows and bones of cattle were found in the same deposit.51 Sacrifi cial bones and animal statuettes do not often appear together in the same votive deposit, which

Martin Söderlind

283

could indicate that real and substitute sacrifi ces were not combined. However, the kinds of animals that were preferred as sacrifi ces in a region probably had impor-tant roles in the rural economies. Therefore, the fi gurines could represent a particular concern for the fertility and health of these species as well. In other words, the cor-respondence of the animals that are represented in the votive imagery with those that were sacrifi ced, does not necessarily indicate substitute sacrifi ce.52 There seems, for instance, to be little evidence for substitute sacrifi ce of the suovetaurilia. Although this seems to have been a widespread practice, fi gurines of pigs, sheep and cattle in combination seem to appear only in a few cases in northern Latium.53

Conclusions

Above, human and animal votive fi gures have been con-sidered as parallel phenomena. The point of departure for the discussion has been a catalogue of ninetythree sites where both kinds of fi gures appear together. They suggest that man and animal were given a very similar religious attention in town and countryside alike. Func-tion and signifi cance were therefore in all likelihood in several respects similar. Both can probably be associated with a procreative as well as a medical/therapeutical sphere. The view that animals and men were treated on an equal footing in the latter sphere may be indicated by the literary evidence provided by Catos’ De Agricul-tura, though the reason for this may to a large part have been that the men were slaves. As to the animal repre-sentations, a third signifi cance should be considered: they may have been substitutes for animal sacrifi ces or, possibly, dedicated as commemoratives of sacrifi ces already carried out. Some human votive fi gures probably represent votaries performing animal sacrifi ces, whether or not the velatio capitis originally may have substituted the skin of a previously slaughtered animal, which by vi-carious association may have served to purify the votary. As regards the medical and the procreative sphere, they seem partly to have overlapped each other. Associated with fertility was the hope for a successful deliverance of men and animals alike, a concern which also would seem to be related to the medical/therapeutical sphere. Put together, the votive imagery in Central Italy may refl ect old traditions regarding medical and veterinary concerns in early cult practice.

Martin SöderlindLund UniversityDept of Archaeology and Ancient HistorySölvegatan 2S-223 62 [email protected] 11 01

1 Much of the discussion in this article is based on a list of sites with animal fi gurines presented in Table 2. It derives from a catalogue comprising approximately 250 sites with anatomical votives which will be presented in a forthcoming publication of the votive anatomical and fi gurative terracottas from Tessennano, housed in the Museum of Mediterranean and Near Eastern Antiquities at Stockholm. The present list is hardly complete, but the fi nds included probably constitute a substantial and, in all likelihood, representative number. No doubt, there probably exists some fi nds of animal fi gurines appearing without any association with human fi gures. Although I have not searched for such fi nds, there is reason to believe that the number of sites is not large. Votive fi gures, including the animal ones, occur mostly in deposits and less frequently as sporadic, single fi nds.2 The information concerning the species represented in the votive repertory is based on published reports of excavated fi nds. These reports are often brief and hardly exhaustive. In many cases, votive animals are mentioned without any specifi cation as to which species. Therefore, the various kinds of animals and the number of locations where they have been found, listed in Table 1, are most likely far from complete either. However, there may be some reason to believe that the proportions are representative. Studying the fi nds from Museo Provinicale Campano at Capua, Pesetti (1994, 32) found the same order of frequency, beginning with cows, followed by pigs and horses. Discussing votive deposits in Latium Vetus, Bouma (1996, Vol. I, 239) obtained approximately the same results, cattle being the most frequently represented kind of animal, followed by sheep and pigs. However, the conclusion that horses are comparatively rarely represented in Latium is not supported by the presented data. Within a total of 36 latial sites with animal fi gurines, horses occur in 15 cases, whereas sheep appear only at 9 sites (Bouma, ibid.). Considering that pigeons and wild boars are not discussed, the representativity of animals in the votive imagery seems to be the same in Latium as in the rest of Central Italy. 3 Comella 1981.4Apollo (no. 27, 52, 56 and 83), Apollo Medicus (nos. 10 and 78), Diana (nos. 49, 52, 56, 61, 65, 72 and 74)), Apollo and Diana (no. 3), Ceres (no. 39, 81), Liber (no. 39), Ceres and Liber (no. 4), Jupiter (no. 17, 28 and 49), Juno (no. 28, 33, 34, 38 and 71), Minerva (no. 41, 49, 61 and 65), Jupiter, Juno and Minerva (nos. 9 and 68), Hercules (no. 26, 28, 61, 70 and 74), Mater Matuta (nos. 26 and 65), Mars Ultor (no. 28), Vesta (no. 28), Aesculapius (nos. 32 and 62), Aphrodite/Venus ( nos. 37, 49, 52, 56 and 61), Turan (37), Castor and Pollux (no. 39), Vesperna (no. 39), Feronia (no. 43), Dea Marica (no. 46), Mercury (nos. 49 and 65), Lares (no. 49), Vertumnus (no. 49), Bacchus (no. 49 and 81), Leda (no. 52), Thesan (no. 57), Tinia (no. 57), Suris (no. 57), Magna Mater (no. 60). 5 Pigeon, dolphin and mask of a lion (no. 28); elephant and deer (no. 48); Hoove, possibly of a deer (no. 55); wild boar (no. 60); pigeons, 1 wild boar, 1 lion, wild boars (no. 64); Pigeon (no. 67); wild boar (no. 73); Birds (no. 80). See also Bevan 1986. 6 No 8 Anagni; No 24 Cerveteri Manganello; No 38 Lavinium Thirteen Altars; No. 60 Rome Minerva Medica; No. 75 Tarquinia; No. 77 Tessennano; No 82 Veii Portonaccio; No. 87 Via Tuscolana; No. 88 Velletri Soleluna.7 For heads, see Mazzolani 1975, E223-224, fi g. 403. D403-405,303, fi g. 379. 8 See note 1. 6 Pensabene 1979, 221f. For an opposite view, see Ödegård 1997, 134f. 9 North 1995, 139.

Man and animal in antiquity

284 Martin Söderlind

10 North 1995, 139.11 Pensabene 1979. Comella 1981, 717. Torelli 1999, 121. 12 See for instance, the situation at Cosa in Etruria, which is the best known colony from an archaeological point of view. See Brown 1980.13 Salmon 1971, 28. Càssola 1988, 7.14 For instance, in association to the sanctuary of Graviscae, large numbers of uteri and swaddled babies were found, Comella 1978; Comella 1986.15 However, the possibility that human statuettes in some cases may have served as substitutes for human sacrifi ce has been considered (Girardon 1995, 37).16 Néraudau 1979. Torelli 1984, 23-32. D’Ercole 1990. 297. 17 Scullard 1981, 91f. 18 For Liber presiding over human, animal as well as vegetal seed, see Pailler 1988, 564f. 19 Torelli 1984, 27f.20 For the most thorough discussion, see Torelli 1984, where the fi nds from the East sanctuary at Lavinium is being discussed, including male and female heads and statues. Fot the association of votive heads and statues to initiation, see also D’Ercole 1990. See also Söderlind 1997 for a discussion on a female type of votive head. 21 Baggieri 2000, 85, fi gs. 8-9.22 Turfa 1986, 230.23 Alterae partes quttor sunt, cum iam emeris, observandae, de pastione, de fetura, de nutricatu, de sanitate. Varro De Agr II, De Agr II, De Agr1, 1624 I observed these improvements when examining the fi nds from the deposit at Muracci di Crepadosso myself at the local museum in Artena. I thank the museum’s director Dott. Angelo Lutazzi who kindly allowed and assisted me when examining the fi nds. These fi nds are still unpublished and briefl y discussed in Cassieri & Lutazzi 1985.25 Costantini 1995, 64. 26 Girardon 1995, 64.27 See, for instance, Sarchioni 1959, Tabanelli 1960 and 1962, Fenelli 1975, Costantini 1995, 76-78.28 For signs of phimosis on the male genitals, Fenelli 1975, 217f. and Comella 1982, 133. For the uteri, e. g. Comella 1982, 140. Costantini 1995, 75.29 For feet and hands, see Turfa 1986. For genitals, see below. See also Girardon 1995, 72-79.

30 Lo Guzzo 1976.31 Astin 1978, 190.32 Cato De Agr 72.De Agr 72.De Agr33 Cato De Agr 70, 71, 72, 96, 102, 103.De Agr 70, 71, 72, 96, 102, 103.De Agr34 Cato De Agr 71, 72.De Agr 71, 72.De Agr35 Cato De Agr 96.De Agr 96.De Agr36 There were no corresponding feasts for mules, horses or asses, Cato De Agr 138.37 Or oxen. In most cases, the distinction is not possible to make owing to the wear of the moulds or possibly for the reason that no distinction were intended. All fi gurines of cattle were certainly not oxen. In some cases, it is clear that a bull is being represented, for instance Costantini 1995, Tav. 27, f.38 Brehaut 1933, xxxi.39 Cato De Agr 14. 40 The same economic way of reasoning is shown by Varro.41 Ubi uoles cibum concoquere et lotium facere, hinc bibito quantum uoles sine periculo. Cato De Agr 127.42 For a discussion on the character of sacrifi ce, see van Straten 1981.43 This interpretation is very widespread. See, for instance, Breitenstein 1941, nos. 788 and 83, fi g. 98; Phillips 1965, 527; La Regina 1975; Lo Guzzo 1976; Marinucci 1976; Cristofani 1978, 195; Pensabene 1979, 218f.; Comella 1981, 793; Comella 1982, 32-40; Hofter 1985, 121; Potter 1989, 49; D’Ercole 1990, 24; Comella 1993, 420; Costantini 1995, 23 and Carafa 1996.44 The velum was used not only by priests but also by laymen and women (see Freier 1965, 74f., 83, 102-119). There is no reason for Hofter’s view that only the rims of male votive heads represent the velum (see Hofter 1985, 121). Women covered their heads as well (see Freier 1965, 118).45 Freier 1965, 45, 74, 103. 46 Leach 1976, 84.47 See, for instance, Castagnoli et al. 1975. Votive statues frequently hold fruits in their hands, apparently in the act of bringing them to the deity. See Costantini 1995, Tav. 48 Cipriani 1989.49 See, for instance, Torelli 2000, cat. No. 297, 630.50 Bouma 1996, Vol. I, 238, note 107.51 This is, however, suggested by Bouma (1996, Vol. I, 239).52 Bouma 1996, Vol. I, 2340.

Bibliography

Almagro Gorbea 1982 M. Almagro-Gorbea, El santuario de Juno en Gabii. Excavationes 1956–1969, Roma 1982.

Astin 1978 A.E. Astin, Cato the Censor, Oxford 1978.

Baggieri 2000 G. Baggieri (ed.), Mater Incanto e disincanto d’amore, Roma 2000.

Baglione 1976 M.P. Baglione, Il territorio di Bomarzo (Ricognizioni Archeologiche in Etruria), Roma 1976.

Bartoccini 1961 R. Bartoccini, ‘Colonia Julia Felix Feroniae’, in Atti del VII Congresso Internazionale di Archeologia

Classica 2, Roma 249-256.

Bartoloni 1972 G. Bartoloni, Le tombe da Poggio Buco nel Museo Archeologico di Firenze (Monumenti Etruschi 3,

Museo topografi co dell’Etruria 2) Firenze 1972.

Bedello 1975 M. Bedello, Capua preromana-Terrecotte votive. 3, Testine e busti, Firenze 1975.

Bevan 1986 E. Bevan, Representations of Animals in Sanctuaries of Artemis and other Olympian Deities, Oxford

1986.

Bianchi Bandinelli 1929 R. Bianchi Bandinelli, Sovana, Firenze 1929.

Biddittu 1985 I. Biddittu, ‘Anagni. Recente scoperte archeologiche’, Latium 2, 1985, 5-11.

285Man and animal in antiquity

Biditu & Galuzzi 1985 I. Bidittu & A. Galuzzi, ‘Esempi di plastica fi gurativa protostorica ed etrusca ad Alatri e Frosinone, in

Latium 2, 1985, 13-21.

Blagg 1993 T.F.C. Blagg, ‘Le mobilier archéologique du sanctuaire de Diane Nemorensis’, in Cazanove & Scheid

1993, 103-109.

Bonghi Jovino 1965 M. Bonghi Jovino, Capua preromana, Terrecotte votive. Catalogo del Museo Provinciale Campano. I.

Teste isolate e mezze teste, Firenze 1965.

Bonghi Jovino 1971 M. Bonghi Jovino, Le statue, Firenze 1971.

Bonghi Jovino 1976 M. Bonghi Jovino, Depositi votivi d’Etruria, Milano 1976.

Bouma 1996 J.W. Bouma, Religio Votiva: the archaeology of Latial votive religion. The 5th–3rd c. BC votive deposit rd c. BC votive deposit rd

west of the main temple at Satricum Borgo Le Ferriere I-III, Groningen 1996.

Brehaut 1933 E. Brehaut (transl), Cato the Censor. On Farming, New York 1933.

Brown 1980 F.E. Brown, Cosa The making of a Roman Town, Ann Arbor 1980.

Bruhl 1953 C. Bruhl, Liber Pater, Paris 1953.

Brunetti Nardi 1981 G. Brunetti Nardi, Repertorio degli scavi e delle scoperte archeologiche nell’Etruria meridionale III

(1971-1975), Roma 1981.

Cagiano de Azevedo 1949 M. Cagiano de Azevedo, Aquinum (Aquino) (Italia Romana: Municipi e colonie 1.9), Roma 1949.

Cancellieri 1976-1977 M. Cancellieri, ‘Contributo per una carta archeologica della media valle del Liri, Bollettino dell’Istituto di

Storia e di Arte del Lazio meridionale 9, 1976-1977, 55-89.

Carettoni 1940 G.F. Carettoni – Casinum (Italia Romana: Municipi e colonie 1.3)

Cassieri & Lutazzi 1985 N. Cassieri & A. Luttazzi, ‘Note di topografi a sul territorio tra Segni e Paliano’, Archeologia Laziale 7

(QuadAEI 9), Roma 1985, 202-209.

Càssola 1988 F. Càssola, ‘Aspetti sociali e politici della colonizzazione’, DialArch 6, 1988, 5-17.

Castagnoli et al. 1975 F. Castagnoli et al., Lavinium II, Le tredici are, Roma 1975.

Cazanove & Scheid 1993 O. De Cazanove & J. Scheid, Les bois sacrés: actes du colloque és: actes du colloque é

International organisé par le Centre Jean Bérard et l’Érard et l’Érard et l’ cole Pratique des Hautes Études (Ve section),

Naples, 23 - 25 Novembre 1989, 9, 9 Bonn 1993.

Ciaghi 1993 S. Ciaghi, Le terrecotte fi gurate da Cales del Museo nazionale di Napoli, Roma 1993.

Chiarucci 1993 P. Ciarucchi, ‘Una stipe votiva di età republicana in Albano’, Archeologia Laziale 9, 2 (QarchEtr 21),

Roma 1993, 271-276.

Cioncoloni 1986-87 R. Cioncoloni, I materiali votivi del santuario de Veio-Portonaccio: I materiali votivi del santuario di

Veio-Portonaccio: fi gurine stanti-fi gurine sdraiate su kline-coppie sedute in trono-bambini- ex voto e

maschere anatomiche-animali-frammenti di statue, Roma 1986-87.

Cipriani 1989 M. Cipriani, S. Nicola di Albanella Scavo di un santuario campestre nel territorio dei Poseidonia-

Paestum (Corpus delle stipi Votive in Italia IV), Roma 1989.

Coarelli 1989 F. Coarelli, Minturnae, Roma 1989.

Colasanti 1906 G. Colasanti, Fregellae. Storia e topografi a (Biblioteca di Geografi a Storica pubblicata sotto la Direzione

di Giulio Beloch 1), Roma 1906.

Comella 1978 A. Comella, Il materiale votivo tardo di Gravisca, Roma 1978.

Comella 1981 A. Comella, ‘Tipologia e diffusione dei complessi votivi in Italia in epoca medio- e tardo-repubblicana.

Contributo alla storia dell’artigianato antico’, MEFRA 93, 1981, 717-803.

Comella 1982 A. Comella, Il deposito votivo presso L’ara della Regina (Archaeologica, 22), Roma 1982.

Comella 1986 A. Comella, I materiali votivi di Falerii (Corpus delle stipi votive in Italia I, Regio VII, 1), Roma 1986.

Comella & Stefani 1990 A. Comella & G. Stefani, Materiali votivi del santuario di Campetti a Veio (Corpus delle stipi votive in

Italia I, Regio VII, 2), Roma 1990.

Costantini 1995 S. Costantini, Il deposito votivo del santuario campestre di Tessennano (Corpus delle stipi votive in Italia

VIII, Regio VII, 4), Roma 1995.

286 Martin Söderlind

Crescenzi & Tortorici 1983 L. Crescenzi, E. Tortorici, ‘Scavi ad Ardea’, Archeologia Laziale 5 (QuadAEI 7), Roma 1979, 38-47.

D’Alessio 1998 M. T. D’Alessio, ‘Il santuario del tempio dorico’ a Pompei. Nuovi materiali votivi.’, in Docter &

Moormann 1998, 134-136.

D’Ambrosio & Boriello 1990 A. d’Ambrosio, M. Borriello, Le terrecotte fi gurate di Pompei, Roma 1990.

D’Ercole 1990 C. D’Ercole, La stipe votiva di Belvedere, Roma 1990.

Dal Maso & Vighi 1975 L.B Dal Maso & R. Vighi, Lazio Archeologico, Florence 1975.

Dalby 1998 A. Dalby (transl), Cato On Farming, Devon 1998.

De Rossi 1979 G. M. De Rossi, ‘Bovillae‘ (Forma Italiae‘ (Forma Italiae‘ ( , Regio I, 15), Roma 1979.

Delbrück 1903 R. Delbrück, Das Capitolium von Signia, Roma 1903.

Della Seta 1918 A. Della Seta, Il Museo di Villa Giulia, Roma 1918.

Docter & Moormann 1998 R. F. Docter, E. M. Moormann, Proceedings of the XVth

International Congress of Classical Archaeology, Amsterdam, July 12-17, 1998, Amsterdam 1998.

Enea nel Lazio 1981 Enea nel Lazio. Archeologia e Mito (Exhibition catalogue, 22 September – 31 September 1981), Roma

1981.

Fenelli 1975 M. Fenelli, ‘Contributo per lo studio del votivo anatomico’, ArchCl 27, 1975, 206–252.

Ferrea 1979 L. Ferrea, ‘Teste votive di Fregellae, in Archeologia Laziale 2 (QArchEtr 3), Roma 1979, 207-208.

Ferrea & Pinna 1986 L. Ferrea & A. Pinna (con i contributi di D. Degrassi e M. Verzar Bass), ‘Il deposito votivo’, in F. Coarelli

(ed.), Fregellae II. Il santuario di Esculapio, Roma 1986.

Freier 1965 H. Freier, Caput velare, Tübingen 1965.

Gatti 1997 S. Gatti, ‘Contributo per la conoscenza dello sviluppo urbano di Anagnia’, in Nardi et al. 1997, 345-370.

Gatti Lo Guzzo 1978 L. Gatti Lo Guzzo, Il deposito votivo dall’Esquilino, detto di Minerva Medica, Firenze 1978.

Giannetti 1970 A. Giannetti, ‘Il santuario di Nettuno nell’agro di Fregellae’, in Lazio ieri e oggi 14, 1978, 190.

Giannetti 1973 A. Giannetti, ‘Testimonianze archeologiche provenienti dalla località Mèfete di Aquino’, RendLinc s. 8,

28, 1973, 51-61.

Giannetti & Berardi 1970 A. Giannetti & P. Berardi, Città scomparse della Ciociaria, Casamari 1970.

Ginge 1996 B. Ginge, Excavations at Satricum (Borgo Le Ferriere) 1907-1910: Northwest Necropolis, Southwest

sanctuary and Acropolis, Amsterdam 1996.

Girardon 1995 Girardon, S. P., Italic votive terracotta heads from the British Museum: a stylistic appraisal in their

religious and historical settings, London 1995.

Grossi 1907 E. Grossi, Aquinum, Roma 1907.

Haynes 1985 S. Haynes, Etruscan Bronzes, London 1985.

Lambrechts 1983 R. Lambrechts, Artena 1. Rapports et études, Brussel-Roma 1983.

Leach 1976 E.R. Leach, Culture and Communication: The Logic by which Symbols Are Connected, Cambridge 1976.Culture and Communication: The Logic by which Symbols Are Connected, Cambridge 1976.Culture and Communication: The Logic by which Symbols Are Connected

Maetzke 1955/56 G. Maetzke, ‘Il nuovo tempio tuscanico di Fiesole’, StEtr 24, 1955/56, 227-253.StEtr 24, 1955/56, 227-253.StEtr

Marinucci 1976 A. Marinucci, Stipe Votiva di Carsoli. Teste fi ttili, Roma 1976.

Mazzolani 1966 M. Mazzolani, ‘Anagni’, in QITA 2, 1966, 49-60.

Mazzolani 1969 M. Mazzolani, Anagnia (Forma Italiae Regio I.6), Roma 1969.

Melis & Quilici Gigli 1982 F. Melis & St. Quilici Gigli, ‘Luoghi di culto nel territorio di Ardea’, ArchCl 34, 1982, 1-37.

Melis & Quilici Gigli 1983 F. Melis & St. Quilici ‘Votivi e luoghi di culto nella campagna di Velletri’, ArchCl 35, 1983, 1-44, 1983.

Mengarelli 1935 R. Mengarelli, ‘Il tempio del “Manganello” a Caere’, StEtr 9, 1935, 83-94.

Miari 2000 M. Miari, Stipi votive dell’Etruria padana (Corpus delle stipi votive in Italia XI. Regio III, 3, =

Archaeologica 128), Roma 2000.

Mingazzini 1938 P. Mingazzini, ‘Il santuario della Dea Marica alle foci del Garigliano’, MonAnt 37, 1938, 693–984.MonAnt 37, 1938, 693–984.MonAnt

Minto 1925 A. Minto, ‘Saturnia etrusca e romana. Le recenti scoperte archeologiche’, MonAnt 30, 1925, 585–702.

Moretti 1975 M. Moretti, Nuove scoperte e acquisizioni nell’Etruria meridionale, Roma 1975.

287Man and animal in antiquity

Nardi et al. 1997 G. Nardi, M. Pandolfi ni & L. Drago, A. Berardinetti, Etrusca et Italica. Scritti in ricordo di Massimo

Pallottino. (Istituti editoriali ploigrafi ci internazionali), Pisa, Roma 1997.

Néraudau 1979 J. Néraudau, La Jeunesse dans la littérature et les institutions de la Roma républicaineépublicaineé , Paris 1979.

North 1995 J.A. North, ‘Religion and rusticity’, in T. J. Cornell & K. Lomas (eds), Urban society in Roman Italy,

London 1995, 135-150.

Ödegård 1997 S. Ödegård, Bastion of Empire The Topography and Archaeology of Cales in the Republican Period, Oslo Bastion of Empire The Topography and Archaeology of Cales in the Republican Period, Oslo Bastion of Empire The Topography and Archaeology of Cales in the Republican Period

1997.

Paglieri 1960 S. Paglieri, ‘Una stipe votiva Vulcente’, RivIstArch 9, 1960, 74–96.

Pailler 1988 J-M. Pailler, Bacchanalia. La répression de 186 Av. J. C. épression de 186 Av. J. C. é à Rome et en Italie, Rome 1988.

Pautasso 1994 A. Pautasso, Il deposito votivo presso la Porta Nord a Vulci (Corpus delle stipe votive in Italia-VII, Regio

VII, 3), Roma 1994.

Pensabene 1979 P. Pensabene, ‘Doni votivi fi ttili di Roma: contributo per un inquadramento storico’, Archeologia Laziale

2 (QarchEtr 3), Roma 1979, 217-222.

Pensabene 1982 P. Pensabene, ‘Luoghi di culto, depositi votivi e loro signifi cato’, in Roma Repubblicana 1982, 77-92.

Pensabene 2001 P. Pensabene, Le terrecotte del museo nazionale romano II Materiali dai depositi votivi di Palestrina.

Collezioni ‘Kircheriana’ e ‘Palestrina’ (Studia Archeologica 112), Roma 2001.Collezioni ‘Kircheriana’ e ‘Palestrina’ (Studia Archeologica 112), Roma 2001.Collezioni ‘Kircheriana’ e ‘Palestrina’

Pensabene et al. 1980 P. Pensabene et al., Terrecotte votive dal Tevere (Studi Miscellanei 25), Roma 1980.

Pfi ffi g 1975 A.J. Pfi ffi g, Religio Etrusca, Graz 1975.

Pesetti S. Pesetti, Terrecotte votive Catalogo del museo provinciale campano. 6. Animali, frutti, giocattoli, pesi

da telaio, Firenze 1994.

Potter 1977 T.W. Potter, The changing landscape of Etruria, London 1977.

Potter 1989 T.W. Potter, Una stipe votiva da Ponte di Nona (Lavori e studi di Archeologia, 13), Roma 1989.

Quilici 1982 L. Quilici, La Cività di Artena (Latium Vetus 4), Roma 1982.

Quilici 1983 L. Quilici, ‘Palestrina: luoghi di ritrovamento di materiale votivo, in Archeologia Laziale 5 (QArchEtr 7),

Roma 1983, 88-103.

Quilici & Quilici Gigli 1986 L. Quilici & St. Quilici Gigli, – Fidenae (Latium Vetus 5) Roma 1986.

Reggiani 1979 A. M. Reggiani, ‘La stipe di S. Erasmo di Corvaro a Borgorose’, ALaz 2 (QArchEtr 7), Roma 1979, 23-

225.

Reggiani Massarini 1988 A.M. Reggiani Massarini, Santuario degli Equicoli a Corvaro: oggetti votivi del Museo Nazionale

Romano (Lavori e studi di archeologia 11), Roma 1988.

Rizzello 1980 M. Rizzello, I santuari della Media valle del Liri IV – I sec. A. C., Sora 1980.

Roghi 1979 M. Roghi, ‘Terrecotte votive dal Lazio meridionale’, in Archeologia Laziale 2 (QArchEtr 3), Roma 1979,

226-229.

Ruggiero 1888 M. Ruggiero, Degli scavi di antichità nelle provincie di Terraferma dell’antico Regno di Napoli dal 1743

al 1876, Napoli 1888.

Salmon 1971 E.T. Salmon, Roman colonization under the Republic, London 1969.

Sarchioni 1959 G. Sarchioni, ‘L’ispezione dei visceri nell’antichità con riguardo all’aruspicina etrusca’, Veterinaria 1959,

n. 3, 141-144.

Söderlind 1997 M. Söderlind, ‘A female, Central Italic votive head of terracotta’, MedMusB 30, 1997, 17-26.

Söderlind 1997b M. Söderlind, ‘A female, Central Italic votive head of terracotta’, MedMusB 30, 1997, 17-26.

Söderlind 2002 M. Söderlind, Late etruscan votive heads from Tessennano. Production, distribution, sociohistorical

context (Studia Archaeologica 116), Roma 2002.context (Studia Archaeologica 116), Roma 2002.context

Stefani 1923 E. Stefani, ‘Frascati – Scoperta fortuita di antichi oggetti appartenenti ad una stipe’, Nsc 20, 1923, 257-

261.

288

Tabanelli 1960 M. Tabanelli, ‘Conoscenze anatomiche ed ex voto poliviscerlai etrusco-romani di Tessennano presso

Vulci’, Rivista di Storia della medicina 2, 1960, 295-313.

Tabanelli 1962 M. Tabanelli, Gli ex-voto poliviscerali etruschi e romani, Firenze 1962.

Torelli 1984 M. Torelli, Lavinio e Roma. Riti iniziatici e matrimonio tra archeologia e storia, Roma 1984.

Torelli 2000 M. Torelli (ed.), The Etruscans, Milano 2000.

Turfa 1986 J. MacIntosh Turfa, ‘Anatomical votives and Italian medical traditions’, in R. D. Puma & J. P Small

(eds.), Murlo and the Etruscans. Art ad Society in Ancient Etruria, Wisconsin 1986, 224-240.

Turfa in press J. MacIntosh Turfa, ‘Anatomical votives ’ in Thesaurus Cultus et Rituum Antiquorum, in press.

Unge Sörling 1994 S. Unge Sörling, ‘A Collection of Votive Terracottas from Tessennano (Vulci)’, MedMusB 29, 1994, 47-

54.

Vagnetti 1971 L. Vagnetti, Il deposito votivo di Campetti a Veio (Materiali degli scavi 1937-1938), Firenze 1971.

Van Straten 1981 F.T. Van Straten, ‘Gifts for the Gods’, in H. S. Versnel (ed.), Faith Hope and Worship. Aspects of

Religious Mentality in the Ancient World, Leiden 1981, 65-151.Religious Mentality in the Ancient World, Leiden 1981, 65-151.Religious Mentality in the Ancient World

Von Sydow 1976 W. von Sydow, ‘Funde und Grabungen in Latium und Ostia 1957-1975, AA, 1976, 340-415.

Zaccagni 1978 P. Zaccagni, ‘Gabii – La città ed il territorio’, in Archeologia Laziale 1 (QArchEtr 1), Roma 1978, 42-46.

Zaccagni 1980 P Zaccagni, ‘Palestrina. Materiali votivi di Piazza Ungheria’, Archeologia Laziale 3 (QarchEtr 4), Roma

1980,188-191.

Zaccheo 1980 L. Zaccheo, Sezze. L’Antiquarium Comunale e alcuni monumenti Antichi (Historica Setina Selecta 6.

Centro Studi Archeologici di Sezze), Sezze 1980.

Zevi 1973 F. Zevi, ‘Quattro teste votive fi ttili da Carsoli’ in Roma Medio Repubblicana, Catalogo della Mostra,

Roma 1973,. 362-263..

Zevi Gallina 1979 A. Zevi Gallina, ‘Santuari della Valle del Sacco’, in Archeologia Laziale 2 (QArchEtr 3), Roma 1979,

212-214.

Martin Söderlind

289

Table 2. List of sites in central Italy with animal fi gurines.1.ALATRI URBAN SANCTUARY1.ALATRI URBAN SANCTUARY 1 cow Della Seta 1918, 213. Della Seta 1918, 213. (Fenelli 1975, 246, no. 2. Rizzello 1980, 175. (Fenelli 1975, 246, no. 2. Rizzello 1980, 175. Comella 1981, 740f.)

2.ALATRI LOCALIT2.ALATRI LOCALITÁ Á STAZZASTAZZA Extra urban cult place. STAZZA Extra urban cult place. STAZZA 1 cow (Della Seta 1918, 214, no. 645. Fenelli 1975, 246, (Della Seta 1918, 214, no. 645. Fenelli 1975, 246, no. 2. Rizello 1980, 176. Bouma 1996, Vol III, 9, no. 4.)

3. ALBA FUCENS 3. ALBA FUCENS (MASSA D’ALBA) S. PIETRO (MASSA D’ALBA) S. PIETRO Urban sanctuary Animal fi gurines Animal fi gurines (Fenelli 1975, 248, no. (Fenelli 1975, 248, no. 47. Reggiani 1979, 224, note 12. Comella 1981, 748f. Comella 1981, 748f.)

4. ALBA FUCENS PETTORINO HILL Urban sanctuary 4. ALBA FUCENS PETTORINO HILL Urban sanctuary Animal fi gurines Animal fi gurines Fenelli 1975, 248, no. 47. Comella Fenelli 1975, 248, no. 47. Comella 1981, 748f.)

5. ALBANO. 5. ALBANO. COLLE DEI CAPUCCINI Extra urban sanctuary COLLE DEI CAPUCCINI Extra urban sanctuary 4 bulls and c. 10 cows. 1 bear (Chiarucci 1993. (Chiarucci 1993. Bouma 1996, Vol III, 10, no. 5a.)

6. ALBANO VALLE CAIA Rural cult place 6. ALBANO VALLE CAIA Rural cult place Goats Goats (Chiarucci 1993. Bouma 1996, Vol. III, 10, no. 5b.)(Chiarucci 1993. Bouma 1996, Vol. III, 10, no. 5b.)

7. AMELIA (AMERIA) UMBRIA Urban cult place 7. AMELIA (AMERIA) UMBRIA Urban cult place Cows Cows (Mazzolani 1966, 57. Mazzolani 1969. Biddittu 1985. (Mazzolani 1966, 57. Mazzolani 1969. Biddittu 1985. Bidittu & Galuzzi 1985. Bouma 1996, Vol. III, 11, no. 6b. Gatti 1997, 368-370, fi gs 24-25.)

8. ANAGNI. PONTIFICIO COLLEGIO LEONIANO Rural road sanctuary 8. ANAGNI. PONTIFICIO COLLEGIO LEONIANO Rural road sanctuary 16 fi gurines. 16 fi gurines. Cows and wild-boars. Cows and wild-boars. 1 pig. 1 rabbit. 3 feet of cows Mazzolani 1969, 104-110. (Fenelli 1975, 246, no. 4. Comella 1981, 740f. Bouma 1996, Vol. III, 12f, no. 8a. Turfa in press, no. 44.)

9. AQUINO. CAPITOLIUM Urban sanctuary 9. AQUINO. CAPITOLIUM Urban sanctuary Cows. Pigs. Cows. Pigs. Horses (Ruggiero 1888, 414. Grossi 1907. Dal (Ruggiero 1888, 414. Grossi 1907. Dal Maso & Vighi 1975, 221. Cagiano de Azevedo 1949. Bouma 1996, Vol. III, 15, no. 14a.)

10. ARCE – FOSSO DEL MEDICO Rural cult place 10. ARCE – FOSSO DEL MEDICO Rural cult place 1 cow (Giannetti 1970, 190. (Giannetti 1970, 190. Giannetti 1973. Nicosia 1976. Giannetti 1973. Nicosia 1976. Rizzello 1980, 152-158. Comella 1981, 742f. Bouma 1996, Vol. III, 16, no. 16. Turfa in press, no. 45.)

11. ARDEA. COLLE DELLA NOCE Urban cult 11. ARDEA. COLLE DELLA NOCE Urban cult Animal fi gurines Animal fi gurines (Fenelli 1975, 246, no. 7. Crescenzi & Tortoricci (Fenelli 1975, 246, no. 7. Crescenzi & Tortoricci 1983, 44. Comella 1981, 100. Roghi 1979, 229. Bouma 1996, 18, no. 17c. Turfa in press, no. 46a.)

12. AREZZO (ARRETIUM) FONTE VENEZIANA12. AREZZO (ARRETIUM) FONTE VENEZIANA Wild boars. 1 dog in bronze. 1 cockerel in silver. 1 head of a lion in bronze (Fenelli 1975, 247, no. 8. Comella 1981, 724f. Edlund 1987, 61, 68, 132, 136, 142, 144. Turfa in press, no. 15.)

13. ARTENA COLLE MAJORANAARTENA COLLE MAJORANA RuralARTENA COLLE MAJORANA RuralARTENA COLLE MAJORANA 1 pig (Quilici 1982, 129-131. Cassieri & Lutazzi 1985. Lamrechts (Quilici 1982, 129-131. Cassieri & Lutazzi 1985. Lamrechts 1983, fi g. 8. Bouma 1996, Vol. III, 24, no. 29.)

14. ATINA SODE S LORENZOATINA SODE S LORENZO 1 cow (Rizzello 1980, 134f. Comella 1981, 742. Enea nel Lazio 1981, nr. 84. (Rizzello 1980, 134f. Comella 1981, 742. Enea nel Lazio 1981, nr. 84. Bouma 1996, Vol. III, 24, no. 32b.)

15. ATRI. S. ROMUALDO 15. ATRI. S. ROMUALDO Urban or extra urban. Animal fi gurines Animal fi gurines (Fenelli 1975, 246, no. 10. Comella 1981, (Fenelli 1975, 246, no. 10. Comella 1981, 720f. Turfa in press, no. 20.)

16. BOMARZO PIANMIANO 16. BOMARZO PIANMIANO Rural 1 cow (Fenelli 1975, 246 no. 12. Baglione 1976. Comella 1981, 828f. Turfa (Fenelli 1975, 246 no. 12. Baglione 1976. Comella 1981, 828f. Turfa in press, 22.)

17. BOVILLE ERNICA Rural 17. BOVILLE ERNICA Rural Cows,Cows, 8 pigs (Giannetti & Berardi 1970, 115-118. (Giannetti & Berardi 1970, 115-118. Fenelli 1975, 247 no. 13. Rizzello 1980, 165-173. Comella 1981, 740f. Bouma 1996, Vol. III, 25, no. 38. Turfa in press, 48.)

18. CALVI (CALES) SOUTH EAST18. CALVI (CALES) SOUTH EAST Urban Cows, wild-boar Cows, wild-boar (Fenelli 1975, 247, no. 14. Comella 1981, 752. (Fenelli 1975, 247, no. 14. Comella 1981, 752. Ciaghi 1993, 19-23. Turfa in press, no. 75. )

Man and animal in antiquity

290 Martin Söderlind

19. CAPUA Animal fi gurines Animal fi gurines 19. CAPUA Animal fi gurines 19. CAPUA (Bonghi Jovino 1965. 971. Bonghi Jovino 1971. Bedello 1975. Fenelli 1975, 247, no. 16. Steingräber 1980.)

20. CARSOLI (CARSEOLI)20. CARSOLI (CARSEOLI) Animal fi gurines Animal fi gurines (Zevi 1973, 362f. Fenelli 1975, 247, no. 17. Marinucci 1976. (Zevi 1973, 362f. Fenelli 1975, 247, no. 17. Marinucci 1976. Comella 1981, 748f. Turfa in press, no. 71.)

21. CASALVIERI. MONTE COLLICILLO21. CASALVIERI. MONTE COLLICILLO Animal fi gurines Cows and unspecifi ed specimen Animal fi gurines Cows and unspecifi ed specimen (Rizzello 1980, (Rizzello 1980, 94, 105. Enea nel Lazio 1981, 64. Comella 1981, nr. 83. Bouma 1996, Vol. III, 28, no. 44.)

22. CASAMARI. LOCALIT22. CASAMARI. LOCALITÀ À ANTÉÉRA (CEREATAE MARIANAE) Rural.(CEREATAE MARIANAE) Rural. 17 cows. 1 wild boar and goat. (Rizzello 1980. Enea nel Lazio 1981. Bouma 1996, Vol. III, 28, no. 44.)

23. CASSINO ACROPOLIS 23. CASSINO ACROPOLIS Urban Cow, horse Cow, horse (Alinari 1932. Carettoni 1940, 62. (Alinari 1932. Carettoni 1940, 62. Bouma 1996, Vol. III, 29, no. 47.)

24. CERVETERI MANGANELLO UCERVETERI MANGANELLO Urban 2 pigeons. 1 hoove of cow2 pigeons. 1 hoove of cow (Mengarelli 1935, 85. (Mengarelli 1935, 85. Fenelli 1975, 247, no. 24. Bonghi Jovino 1976, 74-82. Turfa in press, nos. 23a-b.)

25. CERVETERI VIGNACCIA 25. CERVETERI VIGNACCIA Cows, pig, pigeon Cows, pig, pigeon (Fenelli 1975, 247, no. 24. (Fenelli 1975, 247, no. 24. Bonghi Jovino 1976, 74-82. Turfa in press, nos. 23a-b.)

26. CIVITA CASTELLANA (FALERII VETERES) VIGNALE LARGER TEMPLE26. CIVITA CASTELLANA (FALERII VETERES) VIGNALE LARGER TEMPLE 4 quadrupedes and a pigeon (Fenelli 1975, 247, no. 27. Comella 1986. Turfa in press, no. 41c.)

27. CORVARO Rural 27. CORVARO Rural 16 cows. 1 horse (Reggiani 1979, 223-225. Comella 1981, 748f. Reggiani Massarini (Reggiani 1979, 223-225. Comella 1981, 748f. Reggiani Massarini 1988. Turfa in press, no. 72.)

28. CRUSTUMERIUM. TENUTA DELLA BUFALOTTA28. CRUSTUMERIUM. TENUTA DELLA BUFALOTTA Rural. 1 pigeon. 1 dolphin. 1 lion mask. ((Melis & Melis & Quilici Gigli 1982. Pensabene 1982, tav. 21, n. 2. Quilici & Quilici Gigli 1986, 64, 352-354, 388, 403. Bouma 1996, Vol. III, 36, no. 65.)

29. FALTERONA29. FALTERONA Animal fi gurines Animal fi gurines (Beni 1930, 289-311. (Beni 1930, 289-311. Fenelli 1975, 248, no. 34. Comella 1981, 724f. Fenelli 1975, 248, no. 34. Comella 1981, 724f. Haynes 1985, 207, 297f. Turfa in press, no. 17.)

30. FIESOLE 30. FIESOLE 1 bronze owl (Bonghi Jovino 1976, 139-145. Maetzke 1955/56, 236-239. Comella 1981, (Bonghi Jovino 1976, 139-145. Maetzke 1955/56, 236-239. Comella 1981, 722f.)

31. FREGELLAE TEMPLE OF AESCULAPIUS Urban. 31. FREGELLAE TEMPLE OF AESCULAPIUS Urban. 121 cows, 2 wild boars and horse. (Fenelli 1975. (Fenelli 1975. Ferrea 1979. Bouma 1996, Vol. III, 38, no. 69a. Turfa in press, no. 54.)

32. GABII. TEMPLE OF JUNO GABINA. DEPOSIT I32. GABII. TEMPLE OF JUNO GABINA. DEPOSIT I 1 animal fi gure1 animal fi gure (Fenelli 1975, 248, no. 38. (Fenelli 1975, 248, no. 38. Comella Comella 1981. Enea nel Lazio 1981. Almagro Gorbea 1982. Bouma 1996, Vol. III, 40 no. 73a.)

33. GABII. TEMPLE OF JUNO GABINA.33. GABII. TEMPLE OF JUNO GABINA. DEPOSIT III DEPOSIT III 7 cows (Fenelli 1975, 248, no. 38. (Fenelli 1975, 248, no. 38. Comella 1981. Enea Comella 1981. Enea nel Lazio 1981. Almagro Gorbea 1982. Bouma 1996, Vol. III, 40 no. 73a.)

34. GABII. EAST OR ARCHAIC SANCTUARY34. GABII. EAST OR ARCHAIC SANCTUARY Extra urban 34. GABII. EAST OR ARCHAIC SANCTUARY Extra urban 34. GABII. EAST OR ARCHAIC SANCTUARY Animal fi gurines Animal fi gurines (Fenelli 1975, 248, no 38. (Fenelli 1975, 248, no 38. Comella 1981. Zaccagni 1978, 44. Bouma 1996, Vol. III, 41 no. 74b.)

35. GENAZZANO. (INTERGHI)35. GENAZZANO. (INTERGHI) Rural Cows, sheep, goats, cocksCows, sheep, goats, cocks (Fenelli 1975, 248, no. 40. Comella 1981, (Fenelli 1975, 248, no. 40. Comella 1981, 740f. Bouma 1996, Vol. III, 42 no. 75. Turfa in press, no. 56.)

36. GRAVISCA (PORTO CLEMENTINO) BUILDING GAMMA –GRAVISCA (PORTO CLEMENTINO) BUILDING GAMMA – PART I Animal fi gurinesAnimal fi gurines (Fenelli 1975, 250, (Fenelli 1975, 250, note 66. Comella 1978. Comella 1981, 730f. Turfa in press, no. 33.)

291

37. LANUVIUM. CULT PLACE OF JUNO SOSPITA Urban Goat?, Wild-boar? Goat?, Wild-boar? Pigeon (Fenelli 1975, 248, no. 43. Comella 1981, 746f. Bouma 1996, Vol. III, 43, no. 81a.

38. LAVINIUM 13 ALTARS. SOUTH SANCTUARY Extra urban 38. LAVINIUM 13 ALTARS. SOUTH SANCTUARY Extra urban 18 Cows. 1 horse. hooves of quadruped, 18 Cows. 1 horse. hooves of quadruped, animals 4 unidentifi ed quadruped animals. 4 sheep (?) 1 ram. 1 wild boar 2 sucking-pigs. 3 birds 3 seals 2 swans. (Fenelli 1975, 250, no. 67. Roghi 1979. Rizzello 1980, 165-173. Comella 1981, 744f., no. 94. Fenelli 1985, 336. Bouma 1996, Vol. III, 49-51, no. 84e. Turfa in press, no. 58.)

39. LAVINIUM. ZONA DELLA “MADONELLA” 39. LAVINIUM. ZONA DELLA “MADONELLA” Extra urban Animal fi gurinesAnimal fi gurines i. a. cows and pigs ((Fenelli 1975, nr. 67 and 226. Comella 1981, nr. 94. Castagnoli et al. 1975, 253.)

40. LAVINIUM. MINERVA OR EAST SANCTUARY40. LAVINIUM. MINERVA OR EAST SANCTUARY Extra urban 40. LAVINIUM. MINERVA OR EAST SANCTUARY Extra urban 40. LAVINIUM. MINERVA OR EAST SANCTUARY Animal fi gurinesAnimal fi gurines (Enea nel Lazio 1981, (Enea nel Lazio 1981, 186-196. Fenelli 1984, 333-337. Torelli 1984. Cristofani 1990, 183. Bouma 1996, Vol. III, 84d.)

41. LUCERA 41. LUCERA Cows, wild boars, pigsCows, wild boars, pigs (Fenelli 1975, 249, no. 43.D’Ercole 1990. Turfa in press, no. 77.) (Fenelli 1975, 249, no. 43.D’Ercole 1990. Turfa in press, no. 77.)

42. LUCUS FERONIAE (SCORANO) 42. LUCUS FERONIAE (SCORANO) Rural Cows Cows (Bartoccini 1961, 250. (Bartoccini 1961, 250. Moretti 1975, 110-153. Taf. 34-36. Moretti 1975, 110-153. Taf. 34-36. Fenelli 1975, 251, no. 77. Comella 1981, 736f. Turfa in press, no. 42.)

43. MAGIONE (VID TRASYMENSKA SJ43. MAGIONE (VID TRASYMENSKA SJÖÖN) N) Urban Animal fi gurines Animal fi gurines (Fenelli 1975, 248, no. 45. Comella (Fenelli 1975, 248, no. 45. Comella 1981, 722f.)

44. MARZABOTTO SUBURBAN 44. MARZABOTTO SUBURBAN 4 animal fi gurines4 animal fi gurines (Miari 2000, 216-230. (Miari 2000, 216-230. Turfa in press, no. 11a.) Turfa in press, no. 11a.)

45. MINTURNO. GARIGLIANOMINTURNO. GARIGLIANO Cows and a wild-boar Cows and a wild-boar (Mingazzini 1938. (Mingazzini 1938. Fenelli 1975, 248 no 49. Comella Fenelli 1975, 248 no 49. Comella 1981, 748f. Coarelli 1989. Bouma 1996, Vol. III, 88a, 54f.)

46. MONTELEONE SABINO46. MONTELEONE SABINO Animal fi gurinesAnimal fi gurines (Fenelli 1975, 248, no. 50. Von Sydow 1976, 379f. Reggiani (Fenelli 1975, 248, no. 50. Von Sydow 1976, 379f. Reggiani 1979, 225. Comella 1981, 748f. Turfa in press, no. 73.)

47. NARCE. SANTUARIO MONTE LI SANTI –LE ROTE 47. NARCE. SANTUARIO MONTE LI SANTI –LE ROTE 20 cows. Horses, pigs, sheep (?), Quadrupede with Horses, pigs, sheep (?), Quadrupede with mammals (De Luca Brolli 1990. Bollettino di Archeologia 1990. Turfa in press, no. 43. Oral communication with De Lucia Brolli.)

48. NEMI. SANCTUARY OF DIANA 48. NEMI. SANCTUARY OF DIANA Rural Horses, pigs, cows, elephants, deers (Fenelli 1975, 249, no. 52. (Fenelli 1975, 249, no. 52. Comella 1981, 744f. Blagg 1993, Bouma 1996, 60-64, no. 98. Turfa in press, 59.)

49. PALESTRINA. SOUTH WEST OF THE TOWN Extra urban 49. PALESTRINA. SOUTH WEST OF THE TOWN Extra urban Animal fi gurines Animal fi gurines (Fenelli 1975, 249, no. 57. (Fenelli 1975, 249, no. 57. Comella 1981, 738f.)

50. PALESTRINA. NEAR PORTA S. ROCCO Extra urban 50. PALESTRINA. NEAR PORTA S. ROCCO Extra urban Animal fi gurines Animal fi gurines (Fenelli 1975, 248, no. 38. (Fenelli 1975, 248, no. 38. Comella 1981, 738f.)

51. PALESTRINA. PIAZZA UNGHERIA (Temple of Hercules) Extra urban 51. PALESTRINA. PIAZZA UNGHERIA (Temple of Hercules) Extra urban Cows, pigs, horses, dogs Cows, pigs, horses, dogs Zevi Gallina 1979. Zaccagni 1980. Quilici 1983, 88. Bouma 1996, Vol. III, 69-71, no 101d. Pensabene 2001. Turfa in press, no. 59.

52. PALESTRINA. Porta San Francesco Extra urban 52. PALESTRINA. Porta San Francesco Extra urban Pigs (Fenelli 1975, 248, no. 38. (Fenelli 1975, 248, no. 38. Comella 1981, 738f.)Comella 1981, 738f.)

53. PESCAROLA – CASALVIERI - CASETTA I53. PESCAROLA – CASALVIERI - CASETTA I 14 cows. 1 horse (Rizzello 1980, 94, 105. Enea nel Lazio (Rizzello 1980, 94, 105. Enea nel Lazio 1981, 64. Comella 1981, 742.)

54. POGGIO BUCO- LE SPARNE POGGIO BUCO- LE SPARNE Animal fi gurines Animal fi gurines (Bartoloni 1972, 219. (Bartoloni 1972, 219. Fenelli 1975, 250, no. 61. Comella Fenelli 1975, 250, no. 61. Comella 1981, 726f.)

Man and animal in antiquity

292

55 POMPEII DORIC TEMPLE Urban 55 POMPEII DORIC TEMPLE Urban Animal fi gurines 1 hoove possibly of a deer. Animal fi gurines 1 hoove possibly of a deer. (D’Ambrosio & Boriello (D’Ambrosio & Boriello 1990, no. 263, Tav 40. D’Alessio 1998. Turfa in press, no. 79.)

56. PYRGI TEMPEL A 56. PYRGI TEMPEL A Urban 2 cows (Fenelli 1975, 250, no. 74. (Fenelli 1975, 250, no. 74. SteingrSteingräber 1980, 219, note 28. Turfa in ber 1980, 219, note 28. Turfa in press, no. 24.)

57. ROCCA SAN FELICE 57. ROCCA SAN FELICE 6 animal fi gurines6 animal fi gurines (Fenelli 1975, 250, no. 74. (Fenelli 1975, 250, no. 74. SteingrSteingräber 1980, 219, note 28. Turfa in press, no. 24.)

58. ROME. LA SALARA Urban 58. ROME. LA SALARA Urban 1 large dog, 1 goat, 1 head of an elephant 1 large dog, 1 goat, 1 head of an elephant (Bouma 1996, Vol III, 92, note (Bouma 1996, Vol III, 92, note 979.)

59. ROME. PALATINE. MAGNA MATER ROME. PALATINE. MAGNA MATER Urban Rams, pigs, horses, dogs, cows, sheep, lions and birds(Pensabene 1979, 71. Comella 1981, nr.61. Pensabene et al. 1980, 50. Bouma 1996, Vol III, 86f., no. 106m. Vagnetti 1971, 129, 131, 136.)

60. ROME. MINERVA MEDICA U60. ROME. MINERVA MEDICA Urban 5 bulls including fragments. 1 cow.5 bulls including fragments. 1 cow. 2 wild boars. 4 unidentifyable 2 wild boars. 4 unidentifyable quadrupeds. 8 birds including one cock, and two pigeons. 1 fragment of a lion. 1 fragment of a horse. 1 hoove of a horse (Fenelli 1975, 250, no. 69. Gatti Lo Guzzo 1978. Pensabene et al. 1980, 49. Comella 1981, nr.61. Bouma 1996, vol. III, 89f., no. 106u. Turfa in press, no. 64a.)

61. ROME SANCTUARY OF AESCULAPIUS Urban 61. ROME SANCTUARY OF AESCULAPIUS Urban Cow, ram, goat, pig, horse, dog, donkey, lion Cow, ram, goat, pig, horse, dog, donkey, lion (Fenelli (Fenelli 1975, 250, no. 69. Bouma 1996, Vol III, 92, no. 106aa. Turfa in press, no. 64b.)

62. SALERNO (MARCINA?) 62. SALERNO (MARCINA?) Wild boars, pigeons. Cockerels Cockerels (Fenelli 1975, 250, no. 70.)(Fenelli 1975, 250, no. 70.)

63. SAN GIULIANO (BARBARANO ROMANO)63. SAN GIULIANO (BARBARANO ROMANO) Animal fi gurines Animal fi gurines (Comella 1981, 728f.(Comella 1981, 728f.))

64. SATRICUM TEMPLE OF MATER MATUTA YONGER DEPOSIT (III) 64. SATRICUM TEMPLE OF MATER MATUTA YONGER DEPOSIT (III) Pigeons. CockPigeons. Cocks. Cows. Rams. Horses. 1 wild boar. 1 dog. 1 lion (Fenelli 1975, 247f. Ginge 1996, 82, note 90. Turfa in press, no. 65a.)

65. SATRICUM. NORTH OF THE CITY Extra urban 65. SATRICUM. NORTH OF THE CITY Extra urban Wild boars. Sheep. CowsSheep. Cows (Della Seta 1918, 318f.) (Della Seta 1918, 318f.)

66. SATURNIA 66. SATURNIA Extra urban Bull (Minto 1925, 603-605. (Minto 1925, 603-605. Fenelli 1975, 250, no. 75. Comella 1981, 726f. Fenelli 1975, 250, no. 75. Comella 1981, 726f. Turfa Turfa in press, no. 30.)

67. SEGNI. CAPITOLIUM. JUNO TEMPLE 67. SEGNI. CAPITOLIUM. JUNO TEMPLE Urban Pigeons (Delbr(Delbrück 1903, 13. Della Seta 1918, 216-222.Della Seta 1918, 216-222.Fenelli 1975, 251, no. 76. Comella 1981, 746. Enea nel Lazio 1981. Bouma 1996, Vol. III, 94, no. 108a. Turfa in press, no. 67.)

68. SEGNI. ACROPOLIS: AREA OF THE GARDEN OF THE SEMINARIO 68. SEGNI. ACROPOLIS: AREA OF THE GARDEN OF THE SEMINARIO Urban Animal fi gurines Animal fi gurines (Fenelli (Fenelli 1975, 251 nr.78. Comella 1981, 747. Bouma 1996, Vol III, 94, 108b.)

69. SEGNI: ACROPOLIS. CONTRADA PIANILLO 69. SEGNI: ACROPOLIS. CONTRADA PIANILLO Urban Pigeons ((Fenelli 1975, nr.78. Comella 1981, nr.101. Fenelli 1975, nr.78. Comella 1981, nr.101. Bouma 1996, Vol III, 95, no. 108c.)

70. SEZZE. JUNO REGINA 70. SEZZE. JUNO REGINA Rural Many cows (Fenelli 1975, 251., no. 79. Zaccheo 1980. Comella 1981, 748f. (Fenelli 1975, 251., no. 79. Zaccheo 1980. Comella 1981, 748f. Bouma 1996, Vol. III, 96, no. 112.)

71. SEZZE. PONTE DELLA VALLESEZZE. PONTE DELLA VALLE Extra urban Cows and pigs Cows and pigs (Colasanti 1906, 92. (Colasanti 1906, 92. Zaccheo 1983, 124. Bouma 1996, Vol. III, 97, no. 113. )

72. SODE-SAN LORENZO Rural 1 cow (Rizzello 1980, 134f. Comella 1981, nr. 84. Enea nel Lazio 1981, nr. 84. 84. Bouma 1996, 24, no. 32b.) Bouma 1996, 24, no. 32b.)

Martin Söderlind

293

73. SORA. CASTELLO DI SAN CASTO73. SORA. CASTELLO DI SAN CASTO Rural 1 wild boar (Cancellieri 1976-1977, 75 and 88. note 2. Rizzello (Cancellieri 1976-1977, 75 and 88. note 2. Rizzello 1980, 89. Comella 1981, 740f. Bouma 1996, Vol. III, 97, no. 115b.)

74. SOVANA From a votive deposit at the necropolis 74. SOVANA From a votive deposit at the necropolis Animal fi gurines in bronze Animal fi gurines in bronze (Bianchi Bandinelli 1929, (Bianchi Bandinelli 1929, 36f. 126f. Pfi ffi g 1975, 86. Comella 1981, 726f. Turfa in press, no. 31.)

75. TARQUINIA. ARA DELLA REGINA Extra urban 75. TARQUINIA. ARA DELLA REGINA Extra urban 1 horse. 1 cow. 2 feet of quadrupeds1 cow. 2 feet of quadrupeds (Comella 1981, (Comella 1981, 728f. Comella 1982.)

76. TEANO. LORETO 76. TEANO. LORETO Animal fi gurines Animal fi gurines (Fenelli 1975, 251, no. 82. (Fenelli 1975, 251, no. 82. Comella 1981, 752f.)Comella 1981, 752f.)

77. TESSENNANO Rural77. TESSENNANO Rural 39 animal fi gurines including 1 hoove of a cow, cows, 1 bull, 1 pig and 1 bird. 39 animal fi gurines including 1 hoove of a cow, cows, 1 bull, 1 pig and 1 bird. (Unge-Sörling 1994. Costantini 1995.)

78. TIVOLI. 78. TIVOLI. ACQUORIA ACQUORIA Sheep Sheep (Fenelli 1975, 251, no. 85. Comella 1981, nr.63. (Fenelli 1975, 251, no. 85. Comella 1981, nr.63. Bouma 1996, Vol. III, 100-102, no. 119a.)

79. TIVOLI. 79. TIVOLI. COLLE S. ANGELETTOCOLLE S. ANGELETTO Animal fi gurines Animal fi gurines (Fenelli 1975, 251, no. 85. (Fenelli 1975, 251, no. 85. Comella 1981, 738f.. Comella 1981, 738f.. Bouma 1996, Vol. III, 103, no. 123.)

80. VEII CAMPETTI EXCAVATION 1938-1939 Urban 80. VEII CAMPETTI EXCAVATION 1938-1939 Urban 2 birds, possibly a pigeon an a small goose. 1 cow. 1 plaque with rear part of a horse. 1 breast of animal. 1 fragment of quadrupede (Fenelli 1975, 251, no. 90. Vagnetti 1971. Bonghi Jovino 1976, 19-48. Comella 1981, 734f. Comella & Stefani 1990. Bouma 1996, Vol III, 104-106, no. 125a. Turfa in press, no. 37a.)

81. VEII CAMPETTI. EXCAVATION 1969 81. VEII CAMPETTI. EXCAVATION 1969 11 cows. 1 goat (Comella & Stefani 1990.) (Comella & Stefani 1990.)

82. VEII. PORTONACCIO E82. VEII. PORTONACCIO Extra urban 2 cocks including a fragment. 2 pigeons and 6 fragments of 2 cocks including a fragment. 2 pigeons and 6 fragments of pigeons. 1 cow and 2 fragments of cows. 1 animal foot in bronze. 1 plate of a pig. Several pigs and 4 fragments of pigs. 2 heads of horses. 1 panther in relief (Fenellli 1975, 251, no. 90. Comella 1981. 4 fragments of pigs. 2 heads of horses. 1 panther in relief (Fenellli 1975, 251, no. 90. Comella 1981. 4 fragments of pigs. 2 heads of horses. 1 panther in reliefCioncoloni 1986-87. Bouma 1996, Vol III, 125d.)

83. VEII. ISOLA FARNESE 83. VEII. ISOLA FARNESE Fragment of a statuette which probably represents a lion. Fragment of a statuette which probably represents a lion. Fragment of a Fragment of a horse (Fenelli 1975, 251, no. 90. Brunetti Nardi 1981, 145. Comella 1981, no. 55. Bouma 1996, Vol. III, 112, no. 125)

84. VELLETRI. S. CLEMENTE. U84. VELLETRI. S. CLEMENTE. Urban temple 1 pig (Comella 1981, 746f. Melis & Quilici Gigli 1983, 21-23. (Comella 1981, 746f. Melis & Quilici Gigli 1983, 21-23. Bouma 1996, Vol III, 114, no. 126c. Turfa in press, no. 68a.)

85. VELLETRI. ALGIDO 85. VELLETRI. ALGIDO Rural 1 pig carrying a child on the back (Melis & Quilici Gigli 1983, 21-24. Bouma (Melis & Quilici Gigli 1983, 21-24. Bouma 1996,Vol. III, 115f., no. 128.)

86. VELLETRI. LA PARATA Rural Cows, sheep, horses, many pigsCows, sheep, horses, many pigs (Melis & Quilici Gigli 1983, 6-9. (Melis & Quilici Gigli 1983, 6-9. Bouma 1996, Vol. III, 116f., no. 130. Turfa in press, no. 68c.)

87. VIA TUSCOLANA. LOCALIT87. VIA TUSCOLANA. LOCALITÀ À VERMICINOVERMICINO Rural 1 hoof, probably of a cow1 hoof, probably of a cow Fenelli 1975, 252, nr. 94. Comella 1981, 742f. Bouma 1996, Vol. III, 121, no. 150. Turfa in press, no. no. 53.

88. VELLETRI. SOLELUNA 88. VELLETRI. SOLELUNA Rural 3 cows, 1 cows’ hoof, 1 ox, 4 sheep, 8 pigs, 2 dogs 3 cows, 1 cows’ hoof, 1 ox, 4 sheep, 8 pigs, 2 dogs (Melis & Quilici Gigli (Melis & Quilici Gigli 1983, 21-24. Bouma 1996, Vol. III, 116, no. 129. Turfa in press, no. 68b.)

89. VEROLI S. MARIA SALOME 89. VEROLI S. MARIA SALOME Extra mural 6 cows. 1 wild boar (Rizzello 1980, 55-56, 64 dis.3, nr. 218. (Rizzello 1980, 55-56, 64 dis.3, nr. 218. 1 wild boar (Rizzello 1980, 55-56, 64 dis.3, nr. 218. 1 wild boarComella 1981, 740f. Bouma 1996, Vol III, 117, no. 133a.)

90. VIA APPIA Rural Animal fi gurines Animal fi gurines (Fenelli 1975, nr.91. Comella 1981. Bouma 1996, Vol. III, 118, no. (Fenelli 1975, nr.91. Comella 1981. Bouma 1996, Vol. III, 118, no. 134.)134.)

Man and animal in antiquity

294

91. VIA LATINA. AD DECIMUM: VIGNA CAMPINA-SEGNI AND VIGNA GIUSTI 91. VIA LATINA. AD DECIMUM: VIGNA CAMPINA-SEGNI AND VIGNA GIUSTI Rural CowsCows (Stefani 1923, (Stefani 1923, 261. Fenelli 1975, 252, no. 92. De Rossi 1979, nr.3, fi g. 250. Comella 1981, 744. Bouma 1996, Vol III, 120, no. 146.)

92. VIA PRENESTINA. PONTE DI NONA. 92. VIA PRENESTINA. PONTE DI NONA. Rural Cows, pigs, horses and cockCows, pigs, horses and cock Fenelli 1975, 252, no. 90. Potter 1977. Potter 1989. Comella 1981, 738f. Macintosh Turfa, 1986, 205. Bouma 1996, Vol. III, 121, no. 147. Turfa in press, no. 62.

93. VULCI PORTA NORD Extra urban 93. VULCI PORTA NORD Extra urban animal fi gurine animal fi gurine Paglieri 1960. Fenelli 1975, 252, no. 96. Bonghi Jovino 1976, 93-100. Pautasso 1994. Turfa in press, no. 39b.

Martin Söderlind