Man and Animal in Antiquity: Votive Figures in Central Italy from the 4Th To

Home , Artena, Barbarano Romano, Fregellae, Thesan, Vermicino

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

Martin Söderlind

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

Abstract: small statuettes and anatomical fi gures, i e representa- Human and animal votive fi gures in terracotta frequently appear tions of various internal or external parts of the human together in the same votive deposits in central Italy. Using a catalogue of ninetythree sites, the relationship between man and animal from body. The animal fi gures, on the other hand, are almost the 4th to the 1st centuries B.C. is being studied. The fi nd combinations exclusively represented by small scale fi gurines and, suggest that animal fi gurines formed an integrated part in the use of less frequently, by parts of animals in natural or almost human fi gures, such as heads, statues, statuettes and anatomicals, in natural size. Cows, pigs and horses are most commonly the towns and countryside alike. Apparently, man and animal were in 2 several respects given similar religious attention. Three main aspects represented, followed by wild boars and pigeons. are discussed: fertility, human/veterinary medicine and sacrifi ce. The Several other species are represented as well, albeit in religious concern for the procreation of man as well as for his livestock comparatively small numbers (Table 1). was given a similar kind of expression, as suggested by the votive In many cases, the moulds used for the manufacture imagery. Concerning health, the votive fi gures may partly refl ect an ancient past where the distinctions between human and veterinary of these terracottas are very worn. Concerning the hu- medicine far from always were clear. Regarding sacrifi ce, man and man heads and statuettes, the resulting lack of details animal formed opposite roles but possibly mutual objects of identifi ca- often makes it diffi cult to determine whether they are tion as well. male or female. As to the animal fi gures, the features that remain after a heavy wear may show the shape of a Various types of human and animal votive fi gures appear quadrupede, without leaving any details revealing what frequently in association with different kinds of cult particular kind of animal is being represented. places and sanctuaries in pre Roman and Roman central Together, these various kinds of terracottas form the Italy.1 Though existing already in the Archaic age, they typical content of the so called etrusco-latial-campanian become very common from the fourth to the fi rst centu- type of votive deposit.3 The type appears most frequently ries B.C. During this period, they are mostly mouldmade in the western part of central Italy, comprising Etruria, in terracotta but sometimes they appear in bronze as Latium and Campania. well. The human fi gures show a large variety, compris- In spite of the larger variations of forms of the hu- ing statues and heads of natural or almost natural size, man representations, compared with the animal ones,

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 278 Martin Söderlind

Species Number of fi ndspots temple of Minerva Medica on the Esquiline (No. 60), a Bovine animals 44 hoove of a horse is rendered. Apart from feet, other parts may occasionally be represented, such as the head or the Pigs 20 tongue of a cow.7 Horses 18 Because of the many similarities, I intend to discuss Wild boars 15 further the relationship between man and animal as seen in this fi gurative votive repertory. As a point of departure Pigeons 11 will be used a catalogue of sites with animal fi gurines Sheep 8 appearing together with human fi gures in central Italy 8 Goats 8 (Table 2). A number of aspects will be considered, starting with the fi nd contexts where human and animal Dogs 7 fi gures have been found together. Is it possible to see Lions 6 any particular fi nd combinations when animal fi gurines Birds 4 are present which do not occur when they are absent? Elephants 2 Find context Deer 1 Owl 1 As already mentioned, animal fi gurines occur mostly Seal 1 together with other kinds of fi gurative terracottas. Still, apparently, it does not seem that they can be associ- Swan 1 ated with any particular kind of votive offering more Table 1. Frequency (number of sites) by which various species appear in the votive imagery, starting with the most frequent. The fi gures are than others. In Fig. 1, it is shown how often (% of total drawn from Table 2. number of sites) various kinds of fi gurative and anatomical votives appear together with animal fi gurines, com- both kinds of fi gures show several parallels. Appearing pared with how often these votives occur in all sites with frequently together in the same votive deposits and in any kind of anatomical votive. It can be seen, that most the same sanctuaries, they seem to suggest that man and offerings show a pattern of distribution with regard to animal may have been devoted a similar kind of reli- the animal fi gurines which is very similar to the pattern gious attention. In many cases they were, for instance, they show in general. In other words, the use of animal probably dedicated to the same deities. Although inscrip- fi gurines seems to form an integrated part of the general tions are very rare on terracotta votive fi gures, in several use of (human) fi gurative votive offerings. cases, theonymes (not rarely appearing in pairs or triads) Summing up the results so far, not only the distribu- are otherwise known from the sanctuaries where they tion (occurring regularly in the same votive deposits in were offered. The deiteis are Apollo, Apollo Medicus, central Italy), execution (mouldmade terracottas in large Diana, Apollo and Diana, Ceres, Liber, Ceres and Liber, quantities, frequently made by worn moulds) and the Jupiter, Juno, Minerva, Jupiter together with Juno and way of representation (full fi gures as well as partial rep- Minerva, Hercules, Mater Matuta, Mars Ultor, Vesta, resentations) appear to be similar for human and animal Aesculapius, Aphrodite/Venus, Turan, Castor and Pol- fi gures. The consumptional pattern of both kinds of fi g- lux, Vesperna, Feronia, Dea Marica, Mercury, Lares, ures seem to be parallel as well. Animals appear always Vertumnus, Bacchus, Leda, Thesan, Tinia, Suris and to have been a human concern, always important enough Magna Mater.4 Of course, we cannot be certain that the to be an object in the communication with the gods. animal fi gurines were dedicated to all these deities, since It is now time to look at the orientation of the cult several gods could be worshipped at a single sanctuary. places and sanctuaries where the fi nds have been made Most frequent are Diana, Apollo, Hercules, Juno and Ve- in order to discern if there were any preferences as to the nus. The frequent association with Diana is hardly sur- orientation where animal fi gurines could form part of the prising, considering her close association with animals. ritual. Various kinds of wild animals are often represented at 5 the sanctuaries where her presence is indicated. Orientation A further similarity between the two kinds of fi gurines seems to be that both comprise full fi gure as well as partial representations. As to the human fi gures, As can be seen in Table 2, comprising ninetythree sites, both statues and statuettes have been mentioned as these kinds of votives are very common in central well as various kinds of anatomical votives. Regarding Italy. As far as can be seen from the sites with a known the animal fi gures, partial representations of animals orientation, urban fi nds (41,2%), are more frequent than are not common. However, although the list of sites rural ones (35,3%) and almost twice as common as extra with representations of animals presented in Table 1 urban ones (23,5%). Apparently, animal fi gurines were comprises only 9 sites with such parts,6 it may not be used as often in urban sanctuaries as in rural ones (Fig. complete, given the lack of information as to the precise 2). content of many votive deposits. In most cases, feet are This may seem surprising at fi rst, since cows, pigs represented, mostly of cows. In one case, at the so called and sheep, all frequently represented, would foremost Man and animal in antiquity 279

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. 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 character of its own. In fact, anatomical votives found in towns may also show the concerns of a rural population, 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 production, which in many different ways involved the most frequently represented animals (bovine animal and pig), Fig. 3. Female terracotta statuette. From Reggiani Massarini 1988, fi g. was probably carried out in the vicinities of many towns, 24. and partly within them as well, being a concern for large have represented the transformation of people from city parts of the urban populations. to smaller town, village or countryside.14 Furthermore, As pointed out by North, there was probably several viritane assignations represented the distribution of land circumstances that linked town and countryside together. plots to individual farming families who did not form If we may assume that there was a fl ow of immigrants part of a larger colonization project. These probably from the countryside, increasing as time went by, a lived in villae rusticae in the countryside as well. substantial number of the urban population would have To sum up the discussion so far, we have seen that been brought up in the country. This may have been the not only the distribution, execution, the way of repre- situation at any moment, given the death rates that could sentation and the consumptional pattern of human and be anticipated for the immigrants living under primitive animal fi gures are similar. After the discussion of the 10 sanitary conditions. Even in the city of Rome, some orientation of the sites, it appears that man and animal part of the urban population probably farmed land in the lived everywhere side by side, in the towns as well as in 11 vicinity, walking out in the fi elds every morning. If this the countryside. Wherever man went to perform sacred was the situation in Rome, it could most certainly be rituals, the animals, following in his path, remained an found in other smaller towns as well, not to mention the important religious concern. pagi and vici. To these points, made by North, I may add the Ro- Function 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 Having thus considered a number of similarities between votive terracottas of the Etrusco-latial-campanian type of the two kinds of fi gures, it is time to turn to the ques- votive deposit, since such fi nds are often considered to tion as to their function. If we look at the human fi gures, have been a concern not the least in the colonies.12 Dur- two main different ways of interpretation are usually ing the last centuries B.C., which are our main concern considered, the one not necessarily excluding the other. from the point of view of the fi gurative votive terracot- On the one hand, it has been assumed that statues, heads, tas, all over central Italy colonies were founded either as statuettes and male and female genitals may have been new towns or in already existing ones with the newcom- offereded for the sake of fertiliy and procreation (Fig. ers living within them as well as outside.13 Of the two 3). The female kourotrophoi statuettes and the swad- main categories of populations which are usually con- dled babies could indirectly be related to this sphere as 15 sidered to have been recruited as colonists, proletarians well. On the other hand, the large numbers of anatomi- from Rome and landless poor, the former group would cal votives of both internal and external organs, would 280 Martin Söderlind

Fig. 5. Terracotta fi gurine of bovine animal. From Reggiani Massarini 1988, fi g. 112. important, for the individual as well as for the community as a whole. The Liberalia is often considered to have originated Fig. 4. Votive arms in terracotta. From Castagnoli et al., fi g. 359. from an ancient fertility feast held in Lavinium, during which a phallos was carried around on a cart in the suggest a therapeutical, medical concern (Fig. 4). In countryside. It was held in honour of Liber and Libera, several cases, these two ways of interpretation coincide, the former presiding over the male seed and the latter for instance regarding human fertility and the well being over the female.18 The feast originally concerned the of the offspring. procreation of the entire peasant community, the plants, If we turn to the animal fi gurines, we may see that the men as well as their animals.19 both ways of interpretation just mentioned could be ap- For the girls, the corresponding initiation took place plied to them as well. On the one hand, the procreation at the feast in honour of Anna Perenna, with the consid- of the live-stock must have been of great importance for erable difference that no other rights were bestowed on agricultural economy at any level. On the other, the well the young woman than to marry and beget children.20 being of the existing animals must have been of equal In Lavinium, Liber was worshipped for a whole importance. A veterinarian medicine is known from liter- month. At the East sanctuary, large numbers of male and ary sources such as Cato, Columella and Varro. Thus, a female heads and statues have been associated with the medical/veterinarian function would represent a second initiation of young men and women at the Liberalia and possible function for the animal fi gurines. To these two the feast in honour of Anna Perenna respectively.21 possible functions, a third should be added: the fi gures Of course, votive male and female genitals could be could represent animal sacrifi ces, either as substitutes associated with fertility as well, whether in association or commemorating rituals that actually had been carried to the rites de passages or not. As to the uteri, small balls out. made of fi red clay have been found inside, made visible Considering the number of parallels between the by x-ray photography.22 Since the ancient medical sci- two kinds of fi gures, observed above, it may not seem ence does not appear to have comprised the knowledge surprising that their function may have been similar of the female egg, but rather to have considered two as well. It is only in the possibility of associating the kinds of semen, a male and a female, it seems reasonable animal fi gurines with sacrifi ce that a difference may be to assume that the clay balls, given their comparatively discerned. Although human fi gures frequently can be large size, were representing the embryo. The reason related to such a ritual as well, they probably in most for adding these invisible renderings would, as the most cases represent the performing part.16 I intend to discuss likely explanation, have been to express a wish to get below the three possible interpretations each at a time, pregnant or, possibly, to have a successful pregnancy.23 starting with fertility. Concerning the animal fi gurines, it is, fi rst of all, a reasonable assumption that several were given in order Fertility and procreation to promote new generations (Fig. 5). We can probably exclude some represented wild species from such a func- Starting with a brief discussion on the human fi gures, tion, for instance, wild boars or birds. The procreation we shall look at the heads and statues. Since they often of the live-stock, on the other hand, must have been one represent youths or young men and women, they have of the most important concerns in the agricultural food been associated with the initiation into manhood and production. In his treatise On Agriculture, Varro, writing marriage respectively, a rite de passage. In Rome, this when the votive terracotta fi gures still may have been transformation took place, as far as the young men were in use, mentions four important points to observe after concerned, at the Liberalia, when they acquired the du- the purchase of livestock, pasturage, breeding, feeding 17 ties and rights of a Roman citizen. Among the latter, the and health.24 It is interesting that breeding is considered right to marry and have children were one of the most second in importance only to the pasturage. In the vo- Man and animal in antiquity 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 Fig. 6. Terracotta feet of bovine animals. From Castagnoli et al., fi g. with distended udders, which could express a wish for 403. 26 healthy and reproductive animals. However, such a fi nding tells us nothing about the As with the human fi gures, it is uncertain what was character of the ancient veterinary medicine. Of the writ- the character of the dedication of the gift. This problem ten cources concerning the Roman tradition during the is relevant whatever function it may have had. It could period we are dealing with, Cato is, no doubt, the most have been intended as a thank offering, an offering as an relevant one. Native from Tusculum in Latium and liv- exhange or as an act of prayer for divine support not yet ing between 234 and 149 B.C. his work De Agricultura received. In either case, the fi gurine should be consid- discusses farming as it was practiced in central Italy dur- ered as a personifi cation of the same upon which the ing a period when the popularity of the fi gurative votive 27 offerer whishes to bring divine protection. terracottas may have reached its peak. Still, the question as to the relevance of this evidence for a discussion on A (veterinary) medical/therapeutical function the animal votive fi gurines must fi rst be discussed. Although we may probably assume that the proprietor Looking at the second possibility, a medical function, I of a farm like Catos’ did not concern himself with mass shall start with the human fi gures. They have been given produced votive fi gurines, it should be kept in mind that a comparatively large amount of consideration in previ- the slave run type of farm was a novelty. On the other ous studies and will therefore receive a brief treatment hand, the practical, veterinary, medical and religious here.28 Whereas there is a variety of possible interpreta- advise that Cato gives probably goes back on a tradition tions concerning statues, statuettes and heads, by far the much older than the farm type. No doubt, everything is most important signifi cance of the anatomical votives, not old, but the medical considerations that we are inter- internal organs, limbs and other parts of the human body, ested in most likely are, considering their partly magical would seem to have been a medical concern. They may character, as will be seen below. Therefore, for the many have represented a gratitude for a cure already received, smallholders that still existed in Catos’ days and who or expressed a prayer for a healing or recovery, either on probably stood for a large part of the mass consumption behalf of the votary himself or for a relative or friend. of votive terracottas, the partly magical medical/veteri- Although pathological signs are very rare on the anatom- nary remedies and rustic religious cult practice delivered ical votives, this may have more to do with the fact, al- in the book (in De Agricultura) were probably a concern ready mentioned, that they were mouldmade. Still, signs of theirs as well. In fact, oddly enough, the Preface of phimosis may have been observed on some votive makes reference to the type of colonus, the peasant male genitals, and the presence of small knobs on some farmer working on his farm, although the book itself uteri have been interpreted as fi broid tumours.29 Alterna- discusses a larger farm.32 Maybe it refl ects the possibility tive interpretations are sometimes mentioned, such as that some of the information given in the treatise went feet representing a journey, hands the gesture of prayer, back on the agriculture as practiced on the traditional and genitals representing fertility.30 Such functions can smaller Roman farm. To sum up, it would seem that the be far from excluded, but a medical/therapeutical func- information conerning the ancient Roman veterinary tion still remains the most important one. medicine given in De Agricultura could be relevant for Turning to the animal fi gurines, a medical/therapeuti- our discussion. cal function is clearly suggested by the archaeological Possibly, one of the reasons for the dedication of evidence. For instance, several animal fi gurines were cows’ feet is revealed in a passage concerning a remedy dedicated to the so called sanctuary of Minerva Medica for keeping the oxen from wearing their hoofs out: the in Rome, including a representation of a hoove of a bottom should be smeared with liquid pitch before they horse.31 It would hardly have made sense to honour the were driven anywhere on the road (Fig. 6).33 In fact, assumed goddess with a sacrifi ce represented solely Cato’s priorities when it comes to treating animals are by the foot of an animal. Nor could it, of course, have partly similar to those concerns that appear from the vo- served the purpose to promote the animal’s fertility. The tive repertory. In altogether six different chapters, Cato only remaining reasonable explanation is that it was of- discusses veterinary medicine.34 In no less than fi ve of fered for veterinary/therapeutical reasons. these, the oxen are the sole concern. Various potions are 282 Martin Söderlind proposed for them. Superstitious or magical considera- parallel use of anatomical human and animal votive ter- tions are mentioned. For instance, the man who gives the racottas could in that case partly mirror an ancient folk potion is repeatedly instructed to stand upright, as must medicine where the distinctions between the treatments the oxen as well.35 In Chapter 102, the ingredients in a of men and animals far from always were clear. liquid mixture against snakebites is discussed, which should be inhailed in the nostrils. The same remedy is Sacrifi ce recommended for a man, if necessary. Of course impos- sible to prove but reasonable to assume, snakebites may In the two previous functions of the votive fi gures, dis- have been one of the causes for the dedications of some cussed above, man and animal seem to have been treated of the votive representations of cows’ feet. similarly in many respects. As to the third possible The persistent concern with the well being of the function, sacrifi ce, the situation appears to be somewhat oxen seems understandable, since they were used in the different.43 Now, they appear to have obtained opposite fi elds and therefore needed in the vegetal food produc- roles with the man carrying out the animal sacrifi ce. tion as well as for any kind of transport. The single in- Starting with the man’ s role, for reasons already men- stance when Cato discusses veterinary medicine without tioned, human fi gures such as heads and statues, have mentioning the oxen, is when a treatment is proposed for been associated with the initiation into manhood at the keeping sheep from getting the scab.36 There was even Liberalia, when the youth acquired the duties and rights a feast held by the occasion of the oxen resting day.37 of a Roman citizen. For young women, the correspond- Possibly, there is reason to believe that the representa- ing initiation concerned marriage. At least for the men, tions of cows’ feet were often intended to be the feet of one of the most important rights acquired concerned the oxen rather than any kind of bovine animal, since any performance of sacrifi ces. As a part of the initiation rite, injury on the former would seriously have hampered the the initiand carried out his fi rst sacrifi ce, dressed in the agricultural work. Maybe, this circumstance contributed toga virilis capite velato. Indeed, the fi gures frequently also to the large number of fi gurines representing bovine represent the votaries capite velato,44 apparently in the animals,38 being the most popular votive fi gure. act of sacrifi cing or praying, according to the Roman On the other hand, it should be kept in mind that the tradition.45 agrigultural work carried out at Cato’s farm does not In this context, it may seem fi t to draw attention give a complete picture of the agricultural food produc- to a possible original signifi cance of the velatio capi- tion. In fact, despite its title, it deals only with some tis, as suggested by Freier. According to this view, the aspects. For instance, since cows or their milk are never velum signifi ed the skin of a previous sacrifi ced ani- mentioned, it has been assumed that the oxen were bred mal. Thereby, the person who carried out the sacrifi ce somewhere else.39 The horse does not seem to have been may have identifi ed himself with the victim.46 If so, the important on Cato’s farm, although the building of a practice would seem to correspond to a particular ritual stable is mentioned.40 Probably, it was used only by the signifi cance wich has been called vicarious association. landowner. Another interesting similarity between Cato’s It has been recognized as a world wide phenomenon in writings and the use of votive fi gures is the mutual disin- sacrifi cial practice especially when associated with rites terest in animals such as asses, mules and poultry. of passage. The sacrifi cial victim plays the part of the As can be seen from the above discussion, Cato offers initiate, but since the victim has fi rst been identifi ed with examples of an identical medical/veterinary treatment the donor of sacrifi ce, the donor is by vicarious associa- of man and animal. There can hardly be any doubt that tion also purifi ed and initiated into a new ritual status.47 the main reason for this similar treatment is that a slave Rather than polarizing man and animal into opposite in all likelihood is being intended. If slaves and domes- roles, the animal sacrifi ce would in that case in a para- ticated animals were given the same medical treatment, doxical sense seem to bring the parts together. the most obvious reason would probably be that both That votive fi gures in general were given as substi- were the property of the owner and their deaths would tutes for a kind of object or creature it represented seems have meant economic loss.41 But Cato offers medical ad- reasonable considering, for instance the terracotta repre- vise directly to the reader as well, adressing him in third sentations of various kinds of fruit, which were offered person singularis.42 Considering the old fashioned, partly as well.48 The large number of fi gurines representing magical character of the remedies, it is tempting to sug- pigs found at the sanctuary of S. Nicola di Albanella at gest that the equal treatment of man and animal not alto- Paestum appear most likely to have represented animal gether may have been a result of the economic thinking sacrifi ces, since this kind of sacrifi ce was particularly associated with the new slave run farm. To some extent, associated with Demeter.49 Some human fi gurines it could have been a part of the old rural veterinary tradi- represent votaries carrying the sacrifi cial animal.50 The tion. This tradition would cleary have antedated the ra- fact that the remains (bones) of sacrifi cial animals found tional use of slave labour in Italian farming, suggesting in association to a sanctuary correspond to the species that the parallel treatment could have had ancient roots represented in the votive imagery may occasionally be as well. As can be seen in the paper by Santillo Frizell in used as evidence, for instance at Norba, where fi guries this volume, veterinary and human medicine may even of cows and bones of cattle were found in the same have had a common origin within the religious sphere deposit.51 Sacrifi cial bones and animal statuettes do not of early healing cults associated with water springs. The often appear together in the same votive deposit, which Man and animal in antiquity 283 could indicate that real and substitute sacrifi ces were 1 Much of the discussion in this article is based on a list of not combined. However, the kinds of animals that were sites with animal fi gurines presented in Table 2. It derives preferred as sacrifi ces in a region probably had impor- from a catalogue comprising approximately 250 sites with tant roles in the rural economies. Therefore, the fi gurines anatomical votives which will be presented in a forthcoming publication of the votive anatomical and fi gurative terracottas could represent a particular concern for the fertility and from Tessennano, housed in the Museum of Mediterranean health of these species as well. In other words, the cor- and Near Eastern Antiquities at Stockholm. The present list is respondence of the animals that are represented in the hardly complete, but the fi nds included probably constitute a votive imagery with those that were sacrifi ced, does not substantial and, in all likelihood, representative number. No necessarily indicate substitute sacrifi ce.52 There seems, doubt, there probably exists some fi nds of animal fi gurines for instance, to be little evidence for substitute sacrifi ce appearing without any association with human fi gures. of the suovetaurilia. Although this seems to have been a Although I have not searched for such fi nds, there is reason widespread practice, fi gurines of pigs, sheep and cattle to believe that the number of sites is not large. Votive fi gures, in combination seem to appear only in a few cases in including the animal ones, occur mostly in deposits and less frequently as sporadic, single fi nds. northern Latium.53 2 The information concerning the species represented in the votive repertory is based on published reports of excavated Conclusions fi nds. These reports are often brief and hardly exhaustive. In many cases, votive animals are mentioned without any Above, human and animal votive fi gures have been con- specifi cation as to which species. Therefore, the various kinds sidered as parallel phenomena. The point of departure of animals and the number of locations where they have been for the discussion has been a catalogue of ninetythree found, listed in Table 1, are most likely far from complete either. However, there may be some reason to believe that the sites where both kinds of fi gures appear together. They proportions are representative. Studying the fi nds from Museo suggest that man and animal were given a very similar Provinicale Campano at Capua, Pesetti (1994, 32) found the religious attention in town and countryside alike. Func- same order of frequency, beginning with cows, followed by tion and signifi cance were therefore in all likelihood in pigs and horses. Discussing votive deposits in Latium Vetus, several respects similar. Both can probably be associated Bouma (1996, Vol. I, 239) obtained approximately the same with a procreative as well as a medical/therapeutical results, cattle being the most frequently represented kind of sphere. The view that animals and men were treated on animal, followed by sheep and pigs. However, the conclusion an equal footing in the latter sphere may be indicated that horses are comparatively rarely represented in Latium is by the literary evidence provided by Catos’ De Agricul- not supported by the presented data. Within a total of 36 latial sites with animal fi gurines, horses occur in 15 cases, whereas tura, though the reason for this may to a large part have sheep appear only at 9 sites (Bouma, ibid.). Considering that been that the men were slaves. As to the animal repre- pigeons and wild boars are not discussed, the representativity sentations, a third signifi cance should be considered: of animals in the votive imagery seems to be the same in they may have been substitutes for animal sacrifi ces or, Latium as in the rest of Central Italy. possibly, dedicated as commemoratives of sacrifi ces 3 Comella 1981. already carried out. Some human votive fi gures probably 4 Apollo (no. 27, 52, 56 and 83), Apollo Medicus (nos. 10 and represent votaries performing animal sacrifi ces, whether 78), Diana (nos. 49, 52, 56, 61, 65, 72 and 74)), Apollo and or not the velatio capitis originally may have substituted Diana (no. 3), Ceres (no. 39, 81), Liber (no. 39), Ceres and the skin of a previously slaughtered animal, which by vi- 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 carious association may have served to purify the votary. and Minerva (nos. 9 and 68), Hercules (no. 26, 28, 61, 70 and As regards the medical and the procreative sphere, they 74), Mater Matuta (nos. 26 and 65), Mars Ultor (no. 28), Vesta seem partly to have overlapped each other. Associated (no. 28), Aesculapius (nos. 32 and 62), Aphrodite/Venus ( with fertility was the hope for a successful deliverance nos. 37, 49, 52, 56 and 61), Turan (37), Castor and Pollux (no. of men and animals alike, a concern which also would 39), Vesperna (no. 39), Feronia (no. 43), Dea Marica (no. 46), seem to be related to the medical/therapeutical sphere. Mercury (nos. 49 and 65), Lares (no. 49), Vertumnus (no. 49), Put together, the votive imagery in Central Italy may Bacchus (no. 49 and 81), Leda (no. 52), Thesan (no. 57), Tinia refl ect old traditions regarding medical and veterinary (no. 57), Suris (no. 57), Magna Mater (no. 60). 5 concerns in early cult practice. 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); Martin Söderlind Pigeon (no. 67); wild boar (no. 73); Birds (no. 80). See also Lund University Bevan 1986. Dept of Archaeology and Ancient History 6 No 8 Anagni; No 24 Cerveteri Manganello; No 38 Lavinium Sölvegatan 2 Thirteen Altars; No. 60 Rome Minerva Medica; No. 75 S-223 62 Lund Tarquinia; No. 77 Tessennano; No 82 Veii Portonaccio; No. 87 Sweden Via Tuscolana; No. 88 Velletri Soleluna. 7 [email protected] For heads, see Mazzolani 1975, E223-224, fi g. 403. D403- 02 11 01 405,303, fi g. 379. 8 See note 1. 6 Pensabene 1979, 221f. For an opposite view, see Ödegård 1997, 134f. 9 North 1995, 139. 284 Martin Söderlind

10 North 1995, 139. 30 Lo Guzzo 1976. 11 Pensabene 1979. Comella 1981, 717. Torelli 1999, 121. 31 Astin 1978, 190. 12 See for instance, the situation at Cosa in Etruria, which is the 32 Cato De Agr 72. best known colony from an archaeological point of view. See 33 Cato De Agr 70, 71, 72, 96, 102, 103. Brown 1980. 34 Cato De Agr 71, 72. 13 Salmon 1971, 28. Càssola 1988, 7. 35 Cato De Agr 96. 14 For instance, in association to the sanctuary of Graviscae, 36 There were no corresponding feasts for mules, horses or large numbers of uteri and swaddled babies were found, asses, Cato De Agr 138. Comella 1978; Comella 1986. 37 Or oxen. In most cases, the distinction is not possible to 15 However, the possibility that human statuettes in some cases make owing to the wear of the moulds or possibly for the may have served as substitutes for human sacrifi ce has been reason that no distinction were intended. All fi gurines of cattle considered (Girardon 1995, 37). were certainly not oxen. In some cases, it is clear that a bull is 16 Néraudau 1979. Torelli 1984, 23-32. D’Ercole 1990. 297. being represented, for instance Costantini 1995, Tav. 27, f. 17 Scullard 1981, 91f. 38 Brehaut 1933, xxxi. 18 For Liber presiding over human, animal as well as vegetal 39 Cato De Agr 14. seed, see Pailler 1988, 564f. 40 The same economic way of reasoning is shown by Varro. 19 Torelli 1984, 27f. 41 Ubi uoles cibum concoquere et lotium facere, hinc bibito 20 For the most thorough discussion, see Torelli 1984, where quantum uoles sine periculo. Cato De Agr 127. the fi nds from the East sanctuary at Lavinium is being 42 For a discussion on the character of sacrifi ce, see van Straten discussed, including male and female heads and statues. Fot 1981. the association of votive heads and statues to initiation, see 43 This interpretation is very widespread. See, for instance, also D’Ercole 1990. See also Söderlind 1997 for a discussion Breitenstein 1941, nos. 788 and 83, fi g. 98; Phillips 1965, on a female type of votive head. 527; La Regina 1975; Lo Guzzo 1976; Marinucci 1976; 21 Baggieri 2000, 85, fi gs. 8-9. Cristofani 1978, 195; Pensabene 1979, 218f.; Comella 1981, 22 Turfa 1986, 230. 793; Comella 1982, 32-40; Hofter 1985, 121; Potter 1989, 49; 23 Alterae partes quttor sunt, cum iam emeris, observandae, de D’Ercole 1990, 24; Comella 1993, 420; Costantini 1995, 23 pastione, de fetura, de nutricatu, de sanitate. Varro De Agr II, and Carafa 1996. 1, 16 44 The velum was used not only by priests but also by laymen 24 I observed these improvements when examining the fi nds and women (see Freier 1965, 74f., 83, 102-119). There is no from the deposit at Muracci di Crepadosso myself at the local reason for Hofter’s view that only the rims of male votive museum in Artena. I thank the museum’s director Dott. Angelo heads represent the velum (see Hofter 1985, 121). Women Lutazzi who kindly allowed and assisted me when examining covered their heads as well (see Freier 1965, 118). the fi nds. These fi nds are still unpublished and briefl y 45 Freier 1965, 45, 74, 103. discussed in Cassieri & Lutazzi 1985. 46 Leach 1976, 84. 25 Costantini 1995, 64. 47 See, for instance, Castagnoli et al. 1975. Votive statues 26 Girardon 1995, 64. frequently hold fruits in their hands, apparently in the act of 27 See, for instance, Sarchioni 1959, Tabanelli 1960 and 1962, bringing them to the deity. See Costantini 1995, Tav. Fenelli 1975, Costantini 1995, 76-78. 48 Cipriani 1989. 28 For signs of phimosis on the male genitals, Fenelli 1975, 49 See, for instance, Torelli 2000, cat. No. 297, 630. 217f. and Comella 1982, 133. For the uteri, e. g. Comella 50 Bouma 1996, Vol. I, 238, note 107. 1982, 140. Costantini 1995, 75. 51 This is, however, suggested by Bouma (1996, Vol. I, 239). 29 For feet and hands, see Turfa 1986. For genitals, see below. 52 Bouma 1996, Vol. I, 2340. See also Girardon 1995, 72-79.

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. Man and animal in antiquity 285

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 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 International organisé par le Centre Jean Bérard et l’École Pratique des Hautes Études (Ve section), Naples, 23 - 25 Novembre 1989, 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, 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. Maetzke 1955/56 G. Maetzke, ‘Il nuovo tempio tuscanico di Fiesole’, StEtr 24, 1955/56, 227-253. 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. 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. Man and animal in antiquity 287

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 républicaine, 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 1997. Paglieri 1960 S. Paglieri, ‘Una stipe votiva Vulcente’, RivIstArch 9, 1960, 74–96. Pailler 1988 J-M. Pailler, Bacchanalia. La répressionpression de 186 AAv.v. J. C. 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),112), Roma 2001. 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),116), Roma 2002. Stefani 1923 E. Stefani, ‘Frascati – Scoperta fortuita di antichi oggetti appartenenti ad una stipe’, Nsc 20, 1923, 257- 261. 288 Martin Söderlind

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. 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. Man and animal in antiquity 289

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

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

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

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

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

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

7. AMELIA (AMERIA) UMBRIA Urban cult place Cows (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 16 ﬁ gurines. 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 Cows. Pigs. Horses (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 1 cow (Giannetti 1970, 190. 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 Animal ﬁ gurines (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 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 MAJORANA Rural 1 pig (Quilici 1982, 129-131. Cassieri & Lutazzi 1985. Lamrechts 1983, ﬁ g. 8. Bouma 1996, Vol. III, 24, no. 29.)

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

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

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

17. BOVILLE ERNICA Rural Cows, 8 pigs (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 EAST Urban Cows, wild-boar (Fenelli 1975, 247, no. 14. Comella 1981, 752. Ciaghi 1993, 19-23. Turfa in press, no. 75. ) 290 Martin Söderlind

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

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

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

22. CASAMARI. LOCALITÀ ANTÉRA (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 Urban Cow, horse (Alinari 1932. Carettoni 1940, 62. Bouma 1996, Vol. III, 29, no. 47.)

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

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

26. 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 16 cows. 1 horse (Reggiani 1979, 223-225. Comella 1981, 748f. Reggiani Massarini 1988. Turfa in press, no. 72.)

28. CRUSTUMERIUM. TENUTA DELLA BUFALOTTA Rural. 1 pigeon. 1 dolphin. 1 lion mask. (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. FALTERONA Animal ﬁ gurines (Beni 1930, 289-311. Fenelli 1975, 248, no. 34. Comella 1981, 724f. Haynes 1985, 207, 297f. Turfa in press, no. 17.)

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

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

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

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

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

35. GENAZZANO. (INTERGHI) Rural Cows, sheep, goats, cocks (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 – PART I Animal ﬁ gurines (Fenelli 1975, 250, note 66. Comella 1978. Comella 1981, 730f. Turfa in press, no. 33.) Man and animal in antiquity 291

37. LANUVIUM. CULT PLACE OF JUNO SOSPITA Urban 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 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” Extra urban Animal 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 SANCTUARY Extra urban Animal ﬁ gurines (Enea nel Lazio 1981, 186-196. Fenelli 1984, 333-337. Torelli 1984. Cristofani 1990, 183. Bouma 1996, Vol. III, 84d.)

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

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

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

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

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

46. MONTELEONE SABINO Animal ﬁ gurines (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 20 cows. 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 Rural Horses, pigs, cows, elephants, deers (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 Animal ﬁ gurines (Fenelli 1975, 249, no. 57. Comella 1981, 738f.)

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

51. PALESTRINA. PIAZZA UNGHERIA (Temple of Hercules) Extra urban 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 Pigs (Fenelli 1975, 248, no. 38. Comella 1981, 738f.)

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

54. POGGIO BUCO- LE SPARNE Animal ﬁ gurines (Bartoloni 1972, 219. Fenelli 1975, 250, no. 61. Comella 1981, 726f.) 292 Martin Söderlind

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

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

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

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

59. 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 Urban 5 bulls including fragments. 1 cow. 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 Cow, ram, goat, pig, horse, dog, donkey, lion (Fenelli 1975, 250, no. 69. Bouma 1996, Vol III, 92, no. 106aa. Turfa in press, no. 64b.)

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

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

64. SATRICUM TEMPLE OF MATER MATUTA YONGER DEPOSIT (III) Pigeons. Cock s. 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 Wild boars. Sheep. Cows (Della Seta 1918, 318f.)

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

67. SEGNI. CAPITOLIUM. JUNO TEMPLE Urban Pigeons (Delbrück 1903, 13. 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 Urban Animal ﬁ gurines (Fenelli 1975, 251 nr.78. Comella 1981, 747. Bouma 1996, Vol III, 94, 108b.)

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

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

71. SEZZE. PONTE DELLA VALLE Extra urban Cows and pigs (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. Bouma 1996, 24, no. 32b.) Man and animal in antiquity 293

73. SORA. CASTELLO DI SAN CASTO Rural 1 wild boar (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 Animal fi gurines in bronze (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 1 horse. 1 cow. 2 feet of quadrupeds (Comella 1981, 728f. Comella 1982.)

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

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

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

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 11 cows. 1 goat (Comella & Stefani 1990.)

82. VEII. PORTONACCIO Extra urban 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. Cioncoloni 1986-87. Bouma 1996, Vol III, 125d.)

83. VEII. ISOLA FARNESE Fragment of a statuette which probably represents a lion. 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. Urban temple 1 pig (Comella 1981, 746f. Melis & Quilici Gigli 1983, 21-23. Bouma 1996, Vol III, 114, no. 126c. Turfa in press, no. 68a.)

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

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

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

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

90. VIA APPIA Rural Animal ﬁ gurines (Fenelli 1975, nr.91. Comella 1981. Bouma 1996, Vol. III, 118, no. 134.) 294 Martin Söderlind

91. VIA LATINA. AD DECIMUM: VIGNA CAMPINA-SEGNI AND VIGNA GIUSTI Rural Cows (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. Rural Cows, 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 animal ﬁ gurine Paglieri 1960. Fenelli 1975, 252, no. 96. Bonghi Jovino 1976, 93-100. Pautasso 1994. Turfa in press, no. 39b.