1 Introduction
The sanctuaries of ancient Umbria provide a unique opportunity to examine the political, economic, and social changes during the Roman expansion. In Chapter 5, a comprehensive study of the material evidence collected from the sacred sites in the region challenged the commonly held belief that the expansion of Rome resulted in the decline of religious sites and the emergence of anatomical votives. By integrating the findings from the previous chapters, this concluding discussion reevaluates the traditional viewpoint on the usage of sanctuaries and anatomical votives during the Roman conquest. The argument suggests that local geographical and social factors influenced the persistence of religious practices at Umbrian sanctuaries. Furthermore, the custom of dedicating anatomical votives had already been prevalent in the region and was not a significant deviation from the established ritual practices of the Umbrian people. Additionally, the discussion provides broader conclusions regarding the cultural and socioeconomic patterns discernible in Umbrian sanctuaries during the archaic and Hellenistic periods.
To begin with, I examine the role of sacred spaces during the sixth to fourth century BCE before the Romans expanded their presence in the region. Based on the evidence that offerings were made locally and that specific figurines were associated with particular areas, coupled with the relatively low investment in votive offerings, it seems that the sanctuaries were closely linked with the local communities. These findings support Bradley’s argument that ancient Umbria had a sense of community identity rather than a broad Umbrian ethnic identity, which contributes to the ongoing debate about the formation of ethnicity in the region. Next, I explore the possible significance of the ritual deposition of archaic figurines in Umbrian sacred sites. The prevalence of archaic anatomical votives in almost all sites presented in this study suggests that Glinister’s interpretation of anatomical votives during the Roman period could be extended to pre-Roman times. I propose that the deposition of figurines and anatomical objects served as a ritual for promoting well-being for both individuals and the community. The figurines of warriors and Heracles represent stability and protection and may be associated with the requests made to the gods. Similarly, generic figurines of humans and animals draw attention to the source of the request for well-being, the individual, the community, and their livelihoods. By focusing on the ritual act of offering votives instead of their possible socio-economic implications, I detach these objects from their association with the particular social class that offered them, which, as previously discussed in Chapter 3, cannot be determined.
The evidence shows that while all the sanctuaries in Umbria continued to be visited during the late fourth–early first century BCE, the votive offerings indicate that some, particularly those located at higher elevations or near urban areas, experienced a decrease in usage. This trend may be linked to larger social changes in the region, such as the abandonment of hilltop settlements and the emergence of temple construction in some Umbrian towns. The decision by communities to relocate closer to roads and commercial hubs may have contributed to the decrease in visitation at the Monte Acuto sanctuary. Additionally, the establishment of new religious buildings at Iguvium and Asisium, as suggested by Bradley, could have led to a reduction in the frequency of religious activities at the Monte Subasio and Monte Ansciano sanctuaries.
As we examine the design of sanctuaries, we observe that the level of investment in these sacred sites increased in the late fourth and third centuries BCE. This is evident from the expansion and renovation of religious complexes, indicating a growing interest among individuals and groups in promoting building activities. This trend may be associated with a new political scenario emerging after Rome established its control over the peninsula and the wider central Mediterranean region. As recent work by scholars such as Terrenato and Colivicchi has rightly underscored, public munificence becomes an important part of central Italian aristocrats’ political agenda, which could intertwine with the expansionistic plans of elite factions from Rome.1 The possibility of eventually receiving Roman citizenship and thus entering the new global political arena initiated by Rome must have been an alluring perspective for the allied elites who aimed at having a stake in the electoral and decision process in Rome, and, as was the case for many other Italians, influencing new legislation. Therefore, the negotiation and interaction between the dominant elites in Umbria and Rome aimed at strengthening their own private status and may have been the driving force behind the monumentalization of Umbrian sanctuaries.
Similar dynamics, in which local practices mingle with and are shaped by the contemporary socio-political environment, are visible in the Umbrian votive deposits. Instead of being considered as evidence of a ritual change motivated by the use of foreign models, the adoption of terracotta for molding into anatomical shapes should be seen as a technical improvement on a long-lived ritual practice and part of a fashion that, alongside the use of Hellenistic figurines of worshipers and miniature vessels, was widespread throughout the Italian peninsula as well as in Greece.
By tracing the development of Umbrian sanctuaries from the archaic (sixth–fourth century BCE) to the Hellenistic period (late fourth–early first century BCE), this study elucidates the complex ways in which indigenous populations responded and adapted to the new socio-political realities that accompanied Roman hegemony and to more intense cultural borrowing from other regions of the peninsula and the Greek world. The interplay between new architectural models, materials and artifacts, and local religious traditions fittingly follows the substance of White’s Middle Ground theory, where different cultural backgrounds create new cultural structures.2 The influences recognizable in the material evidence from Umbrian sanctuaries are connected, however, to the interaction between locals and Romans and the broader context of the Italic peninsula and the Mediterranean.
2 Umbrian Pre-Roman Sanctuaries in Context
2.1 Topographical Aspects
As the topographical information presented in Chapter 5 shows, Umbrian sanctuaries were located in a variety of positions, mostly in accordance with prominent landscape features and near fortified or inhabited areas. The most common setting is the mountain peak. The sanctuaries of Monte Torre Maggiore, Monte Ansciano, Monte Ingino, Monte San Pancrazio, Monte Pennino, Monte Moro di Montefranco, Monte Subasio, and Cancelli are located on summits whose height varies from 1000 to ca. 1600 meters. Some sanctuaries were associated with other types of natural phenomena, such as caves (Grotta Bella sanctuary), lakes or other bodies of water (Sanctuary of Cupra at Colfiorito, Monte Moro, Monte Subasio),3 or hills (Colle Mori sanctuary). Some were located in or near settlement sites (Colle Mori, Pantanelli, Monte Torre Maggiore, Monte San Pancrazio, Monte Moro, Monte Subasio, Monte Ansciano and La Rocca sanctuaries) and in the vicinity of one or more hillforts (Monte Torre Maggiore, Cupra, Cancelli).4
Besides this proximity to natural landmarks, settlements, and hillforts, a distinctive feature of some Umbrian cult places, such as the Colle Mori, Monte Ansciano, Monte Acuto, Grotta Bella, and La Rocca sanctuaries, is their location in areas of long-abandoned Bronze Age sites (twelfth to tenth century BCE), whose use is attested by the presence of vessels, ornaments, spools, and loom weights. The link between Umbrian archaic sanctuaries and earlier sites has been noted by Bradley and Stoddart, who reasonably connected it to similar situations in Greece and Latium, where it was not unusual to legitimize the sacralization of a place by appealing to its antiquity.5 At Palaikastro, on Crete, for example, the memory of an earlier association of the place with a cult for a Bronze Age deity is believed to have prompted the building of a temple in later times.6 Similarly, at Lavinium a mound covering a tomb of the seventh century BCE was re-used as the “heroon of Aeneas” at the end of the fourth century BCE, and at Setia an archaic sanctuary was placed in the location of an earlier Bronze Age cult place.7
Although the available evidence does not enable us to determine the specific functions of the earlier Umbrian Bronze Age sites (religious/domestic, etc.), comparisons with elsewhere in Italy and Greece enable us to infer with a certain degree of confidence that the memory of earlier site occupation played an important role in the establishment of archaic cult places in the region in the sixth/fifth century BCE, and perhaps even served to legitimize their sacralization.
2.2 Architectural Aspects
Generalizing about the original appearance of pre-Roman Umbrian sanctuaries is difficult due to incomplete excavation and documentation.8 However, based on the full excavation and documentation of nine sanctuaries (Monte Acuto, Monte Ansciano, La Rocca, Monte Torre Maggiore, Colle Mori, Monte Moro, Grotta Bella, Cancelli, and Colfiorito), it appears that there was no standard layout or organization, and that each community’s sanctuary was designed to meet their unique ritual and practical needs. Similar to other archaic sanctuaries in the region, most Umbrian sacred places were open-air and sometimes included a bedrock pit, with only a few having any type of building.9
Among the nine fully excavated and documented Umbrian sanctuaries, only Monte Acuto, Colle Mori, and Monte Ansciano featured some kind of architectural structure to delineate the sacred area. A drystone wall marked the boundary at Monte Acuto and Colle Mori, while at Monte Ansciano, a platform made of limestone dumps served this purpose.10 The majority of Umbrian sanctuaries, however, showed little or no evidence of human intervention.11 While Colfiorito and Cancelli appeared to have no human-made features during the archaic period, sanctuaries such as Monte Acuto, Monte Torre Maggiore, Monte Moro, and Colle Mori shared the presence of a pit dug directly into the bedrock, which served either a religious or practical function.12 The circular pit at Monte Acuto was likely used for sacrificial purposes, while the one at Monte Torre Maggiore was interpreted as the foundation ditch of the sacred space. The pit at Colle Mori served as a well for cult-related functions, and the one at Monte Moro functioned as a cistern to collect rainwater or as a silo for food storage.
From the known examples of religious places in Umbria, it seems that, unlike the neighboring regions of Etruria and Latium that developed in the sixth century BCE “a separate architectural language for cult buildings” (e.g., podia and altars),13 Umbrians felt no need to separate cult areas visually from their surroundings. Rather than manmade structures, the distinguishing features of Umbrian sanctuaries were their topographical locations and, at times, the presence of a pit that served various ritual needs. The functional spatial organization and permanent architecture of Umbrian cult places were provided only after the fourth century BCE, mostly as a result of elite munificence within the new political network established by Roman expansion.
2.3 Function of Pre-Roman Sanctuaries
As the evidence presented above shows, most Umbrian sanctuaries were topographically associated with particular settlements. Even those that appear to have been located away from inhabited settlements, such as the Grotta Bella, Campo La Piana, and Monte Pennino sanctuaries, are sited in areas where hilltop fortified villages have been detected.
Scholars have long attempted to explain the relationship between these settlements and sacred spaces. Owing to the popularity of the pagus-vicus model,14 they have generally assumed that, in the absence of “real” urban units, such as those in Latium or Etruria, Umbrian sanctuaries functioned as civic, political, and economic centers. However, when we look at the material evidence, this interpretation can be hardly proved.
As I have discussed, Bradley rightly points out that the pagus-vicus model is inherently flawed, for it revolves around an ideal dichotomy between urban and non-urban, and it does not take into consideration that Umbrian centers may have functioned as self-sufficient even in the absence of cities like those in Latium and Etruria. Furthermore, it is virtually impossible to establish with certainty what type of political and administrative connections existed between cult places and inhabited centers. The main complication is that, with the exception of Colle Mori and Colfiorito, the settlements (whether hilltop or not) and their internal organization are not well known. Moreover, in cases such as Monte Moro and Grotta Bella, the presence itself of a settlement is based on pure conjectures and surmises rather than archaeological evidence. Without concrete archaeological data to support the pagus-vicus model, the role of sanctuaries as political and economic centers can only remain speculative.
Upon reviewing the published material, Bradley put forth an alternative interpretation of the function of Umbrian sanctuaries that does not frame them within the conventional pagus-vicus model but considers them as poles of aggregation for local communities. Specifically, he notes that the number of sanctuaries within the Umbrian territory and the presence of local votive offerings “strongly suggest that sanctuaries were closely related to particular communities.”15 Indeed, as the presence of metal slugs at the sanctuaries of Monte Torre Maggiore and Grotta Bella shows,16 it was possible for metal workshops to produce and sell votive offerings directly in situ. In addition, the proximity of sanctuaries to inhabited centers and the presence of casting workshops manufacturing votive figurines suggest that the activities at the sanctuary were integral to local community life. Bradley also notes that the low level of investment in votive offerings indicates that people from all levels of society participated in these sanctuaries. The examination of all votive figurines from Umbrian sanctuaries supports Bradley’s observations.
The two graphs presented in figures 6.1 and 6.2 compare the votive offerings from different Umbrian cult places. The first graph shows the number of votive offerings for each sanctuary, while the second graph shows the percentage of each votive type in relation to the total number of figurines dedicated at a particular sanctuary. The graphs reveal that the most commonly dedicated figurines in Umbrian sanctuaries are the less elaborate types, which are characterized by coarse rendering of anatomical details and minimal attention to the plastic cogency of the object. Among these types, the Esquiline Group (colored light blue in the graphs) is the most prevalent, followed by simple figurines made from bronze sheets (red), schematic-eyed crests (orange), and the Foligno and Amelia Groups (purple and dark green respectively).
Of similar, small economic value are the votive offerings of the type “Other” (salmon color in the graphs), distinguished by an overall simplified outline and an extremely small size. These characteristics apply to bronze specimens and those made from lead and found at the Grotta Bella and Pantanelli sanctuaries. As pointed out by Monacchi with respect to Grotta Bella, the mass production and small size of lead figurines provided a particularly inexpensive and easy way to shape the character of the rituals, just like the figurines of the Esquiline Group and the Nocera Umbra Group.17 Only in the case of Mars with the attached situla from Assisi (CSRufino_1; figure A147) can we imagine that the object’s dedication could have resulted from a more substantial economic expenditure.
The percentage graph (figure 43) reveals that larger and more sophisticated figurines, such as those of the Fabriano, Fossato di Vico, and Todi types (or the “Mars of Todi,” not shown in the graph), are practically absent from Umbrian sanctuaries. In fact, no more than two specimens of each type have been discovered in the region, with two figurines (one belonging to the Fabriano type and the other to the Fossato di Vico type) found at the Sanctuary of Cupra, and one figurine of the Todi type found at Monte San Pancrazio and another at Monte Santo. Unlike contemporary necropoleis, sanctuaries did not appear to be viewed as suitable places for expensive dedications intended to glorify or display the social status of the donor.18 Instead, the small investment in votive figurines suggests that the act of dedicating these objects was accessible to various strata of the community and that individuals acted collectively in the sacred realm, regardless of their position in society. The modest expenditure on these objects and the possibility for virtually the entire community to participate in the practice of dedicating votive figurines underscore the connection between inhabited centers and sacred spaces. As Bradley points out, it is feasible that the use of local sanctuaries may have strengthened a sense of belonging to specific communities and may have played a role in shaping community identity.
The presence of figurines categorized as “Other” adds to the evidence of the use of sanctuaries by individual communities. These figurines are unique to specific cult places and have no comparisons elsewhere in central Italy. The zoomorphic figurines from the Sanctuary of Cupra at Colfiorito, the warrior figures from Monte Santo (Tuder), and the lead figurines from Pantanelli and Grotta Bella (near Ameria) suggest an appreciation for a particular aesthetic that allowed the worshiping community to distinguish itself.19 As these figurines are found only at specific Umbrian sanctuaries, it is likely that the use of the sacred space was focused on the surrounding communities. In addition to dedicating the more common types of votive offerings, these communities sought to emphasize their uniqueness.
It is interesting to note that these areas where the unique figurines were found also yielded some of the earliest evidence of the names of individual groups in Umbria. For example, the fourth-century inscription from Colfiorito records the ethnic name pletinas, while third-century BCE bronze and lead coins from Tuder and Ameria have the local ethnics tutere, and amer/ameri.20 This suggests that the use of local figurines may have been associated with the emergence of distinctive regional groups during the Republican period.
Overall, the evidence from the votive figurines dedicated at Umbrian sanctuaries supports Bradley’s argument that these spaces were linked to the individual communities that occupied the area near them. While it is possible that worshipers from other parts of the region could dedicate objects, as the presence of the animal pendant—characteristic of the Picene area—from Monte Subasio shows (CSRufino_3; figure A149), it appears that local groups were the main users of these sacred spaces.21 Their participation in the ritual activities of dedicating votive offerings may have strengthened their sense of belonging to a particular community and eventually contributed to the formation of regional identities during the Middle Republican period.
Figure 42
Graph showing the types of figurines dedicated in each Umbrian sanctuary.
Figure 43
Graph showing the percentage of votive figurines dedicated in each Umbrian sanctuary
2.4 Towards an Understanding of the Ritual Function of Umbrian Votive Offerings
The archaic votive figurines found in Umbrian sanctuaries can be categorized into four groups based on their subjects (see figure 44).22 The first and most common group includes male and female figures that may represent worshipers, according to Colonna’s interpretation. The second group, found in thirteen out of fifteen sanctuaries, features warrior figurines depicted in an attacking stance, holding a shield and a spear. The third group, found in ten sanctuaries, consists of body parts and heads. Lastly, the fourth group is represented by a single example of the deity Heracles.
Figure 44
Graph showing the groups of votive figurines dedicated in each Umbrian sanctuary.
As Chapter 3 highlights, scholars have traditionally interpreted these votive figurines in the context of the socio-economic life of archaic Umbrian communities. They have analyzed the figurines’ refinement and iconography, attempting to link them to specific social classes of worshipers who may have dedicated them. However, this approach has limitations, as I have previously discussed. While the figurines’ size, quality, and production may suggest the level of investment put into their dedication, we cannot accurately determine the wealth of the individuals who donated them. In this section, I shift the focus from the socio-economic connotations of these figurines to their ritual significance. To achieve this, I adopt Glinister’s interpretation of anatomical terracottas from the Roman period and apply it to these archaic offerings.
In Chapters 2 and 5, I demonstrated that the conventional belief linking the diffusion of anatomical terracottas throughout the Italic peninsula to Roman domination is unfounded. To challenge the conventional assumption that votive terracottas reflect an “obsession with health and fertility” that arose from Roman conquest, Glinister argues that anatomical terracottas were dedicated to various deities and that only a small number of them were specifically associated with “health.”23 Secondly, Glinister emphasizes that the existence of anatomical votives in pre-Roman sanctuaries demonstrates that this type of votive predates the diffusion of Asclepius’ healing cult, which has been associated with the spread of anatomical terracottas. Additionally, shrines dedicated to Asclepius are scarcely attested in the peninsula during the fourth and third centuries BCE. While some anatomical votives from Latium and Etruria may indicate specific concerns for health and bodily ailments, most do not clearly connect with healing. In fact, the depiction of body parts such as open torsos or internal organs is limited to Latin and Etruscan areas, such as the polyvisceral plaques found in Veii, Fregellae, Pozzarello, and the Manganello sanctuary at Cerveteri, or the internal organs from Tarquinia, Veii, Gravisca, Ponte di Nona, and Lavinium.24 Given these insights, Glinister’s proposal that anatomical terracottas from the Roman period are likely connected to a ritual of well-being rather than medical health becomes even more compelling. This broader interpretation of the ritual linked to the dedication of these votives suggests a desire for a healthy, peaceful, and prosperous life both physically and morally, rather than solely a focus on healing.
Considering the constancy and tradition associated with ritual practices, it is unlikely that well-being rituals were only introduced to the Italian peninsula after the arrival of the Romans in a particular area.25 It is more plausible that local communities expressed their desire for happiness and comfort through ritual practices prior to significant cultural interactions with Rome in the fourth century BCE. Moreover, the presence of bronzes representing body parts in six out of fifteen archaic Umbrian sanctuaries, as shown in figure 42, supports the notion that Glinister’s interpretation of well-being rituals should not be restricted to the Roman period. It is conceivable that figurines from the sacred shrines of the region were associated with the same ritual of well-being as the one identified by Glinister in anatomical terracottas from the Roman period.
This raises the question of whether the votives from Umbria were intentionally created for their ritual function or whether their function emerged after their production through social relationships. Recent posthumanist studies have shown that human-made objects can shape religious tradition, suggesting that the objects themselves can lend themselves to their ritual function. This aligns with Alfred Gell’s view that objects may assume a function once they become enmeshed in social relationships, rather than being created with a specific purpose in mind.26 Indeed, the abovementioned groups of votives represent the basic recognizable figures through which worshipers could identify themselves and their environment: the warrior, identifiable also with Mars, who, as Sigismondi argues,27 for Italic populations had the two-pronged function of being able to protect people, animals, and crops from nature’s plagues; female and male figures; animals, which constituted the basis of the Umbrian economy; and, finally, heads and parts of the body, which, through synecdoche, may stand for the whole male or female figure. The dedication of these categories of votives may be related to the complex concept of personhood applied to archaeology by Chris Fowler and recently used by Emma Graham.28 In summary, heads and parts of bodies are a “visual abbreviation of the whole being of a suppliant,” and animal votive figurines are representative of the divisible part of a dividual human being (defined as the part of the self that can be detached and entrusted to the care of the gods), for they represent the things which people “grow, cultivate, and, most vitally, exchange.”29 As Graham argues with respect to anatomical and animal votives, these votive offerings represent bodies, their extension, and the base of their subsistence. They can be considered a prime means of dedication to an intangible divine power.
In his investigation of objects’ effect on people, Gosden demonstrates that an artifact’s form displayed en masse can suggest thought and mental representation.30 This means that artifacts influence how people use them and that their use may have nothing to do with the human intention that created them. It is, therefore, possible that these figurines, made because they represented a familiar and recognizable association with the everyday life of worshipers, used together and displayed in the specific context of the sanctuary, influenced the meaning of the ritual they came to represent. As Glinister noted,31 Italic and Roman religions were concerned with the gods’ close interaction with humans and control of human fates, individual and collective. The images of worshipers and animals displayed in the sacred areas of the region contributed to creating a ritual whose teleological aim was the overall prosperity of the community and the worshipers. Although limited to one case, we can read the same association in the warrior group and in the figure of Heracles, as both the soldiers and the deity evoke the maintenance of stability and more general protection.
It is interesting to note that bronze figurines are not the only evidence of this concern in Umbria. The Iguvine Tablets also highlight the well-being of the Iguvine community. For example, Tablet I.1.5 reads: “Commence this ceremony by observing the birds, those from in front and those from behind. Before the Trebulan Gate sacrifice three oxen to Jupiter Grabovius. Present grain-offerings, place the ribs on a tray, sacrifice either with wine or with mead, for the Fisian Mount, for the state of Iguvium.”32 These tablets mention a ritual that, according to Bradley,33 remains invisible in the archaeological record of Umbrian sacred spaces. However, when we turn our attention to Umbrian sanctuaries, the votives of humans, animals, parts of the body, warriors, and animals represent additional evidence of the presence of rituals of well-being, whose importance over time is emphasized by the presence of the Tablets during the Roman period in the Umbrian town of Iguvium.
From this point of view, the anatomical votives that are part of the votive assemblages of Umbrian sanctuaries during the Roman period do not represent a novelty. As we have observed, not only were anatomical bronze votives already in use in Umbria during the archaic period, but, together with male, female, warrior, and animal figurines, they were used for the same ritual of well-being. In the next section, I will return to this point about the presence of anatomical votives after the fourth century BCE.
2.5 Display of Votive Offerings
Due to the limited information available regarding the original placement of these votive objects, as they were discovered in a secondary deposition, spread out across the area, inside pits, or cisterns, it is challenging to determine where they were exhibited within any given sanctuary. Nonetheless, it is possible to propose some hypotheses regarding the duration and manner in which these objects were exhibited. The previous chapter’s material survey indicates that almost all figurine types have sharp points on their lower surface. Bradley suggests that this characteristic may suggest that “they were intended for display, probably affixed to a wooden surface.”34 The aforementioned hypothesis becomes even more compelling when taking into account the discovery of numerous nails at sites like the Monte Ansciano and the Colle Mori sanctuaries.35 These nails may have been employed to fasten several wooden planks together and/or attach them to the walls or platforms of the temple. Alternatively, in the absence of any built structure, they could have been used to secure the wooden planks somewhere within the sacred perimeter of the area. In this respect, the discovery of 169 nails at Monte Ansciano suggests that they might have been used to attach a wooden plank to a specific location within the sacred area. Furthermore, it is plausible that the bronze figurines were first attached to a stone base and then displayed on a wooden platform, as suggested by some Etruscan and Venetic figurines of the same period, which have been found to be still attached to their original supports.36
The presence of a hole on the surface of a bronze sheet figurine from Monte San Pancrazio (MSP_12; figure A57) suggests that there may have been an alternative method of displaying the figurine.37 Perhaps pierced figurines of this type were suspended for display either on trees, in a manner akin to the display of ox and cow masks on Cyprus, or on walls, like the fifth-century clay offerings from Corinth or the anatomical arm in bronze from Lagole, located in the Veneto region.38 This solution may have been particularly appropriate for the thin offerings made from bronze sheets or lead, as the preservation status of these materials does not provide any indication about their display. Given the extreme thinness of the lead figurines, it is unlikely that they could have been affixed to wood without sustaining irreparable damage.
Once fixed on the wooden planks or hung in the sanctuaries, votive figurines were likely visible until they were too numerous to display. In Umbria, four sanctuaries have provided evidence of where the figurines were placed after they were removed from view. Keeping up with a practice seen in the Greek world and elsewhere in the Italic peninsula,39 some votives (such as those from Pantanelli and Monte Acuto) were placed in pits, while others (such as those from Monte Torre Maggiore and Monte Moro) were deposited in wells and cisterns once these structures were no longer in use. For example, at Monte Torre Maggiore, it is possible to determine the duration of time that the archaic votive figurines were displayed before being discarded. Some of these objects, mixed with pottery, an aes rude, and an imperial balsamarium, were found in a layer that filled the well in the northwest corner of the sanctuary area. Although we do not know the construction phase of the well, an imperial coin of Commodus found therein provides us with a terminus post quem of its obliteration. This datum suggests that the well fell out of use at the end of the second century CE, after which it was used as a refuse pit for some of the many objects that accumulated in the sanctuary over the centuries. Thus we can surmise that, at least in the case of Monte Torre Maggiore, the figurines continued to be displayed for many centuries after their first deposition and that they were displayed alongside the other votives that began to be dedicated in the centuries following the fourth century BCE.40
3 Umbrian Sanctuaries between the Late Fourth and the Early First Century BCE
3.1 Votive Offerings in the Hellenistic Period
In Chapter 5, we learned that Umbria’s votive assemblages during the archaic period mainly consisted of bronze figurines and occasionally aes rude pieces. This pattern was also seen in other central Italian regions. However, in the Hellenistic period, the assemblages became more varied, including terracotta body parts, heads, Hellenistic worshiper type bronze figurines, miniature vases, and unguentaria. It is important to note that the number of figurative votive offerings significantly decreased during the Hellenistic period compared to the pre-Roman era, and the production of locally made bronze figurines, predominant in the pre-Roman period, came to a halt. This information should be considered before exploring the figurative votive offerings commonly found in the region’s sanctuaries during this period.
Three reasons could be behind this change. First, the decline in the dedication of figurative votives can be partially explained by the Umbrians’ adoption of a wider array of votive objects typical of much of central Italy. As Bradley notes,41 the connectivity brought about by the Roman expansion, in particular by means of the opening of new trade and communication routes across the peninsula, facilitated the acquisition and dedication of objects of more imported material, not only molded terracottas but also miniature vases, balsamaria, and black gloss and terra sigillata wares. With the opening of new trade and communication routes across the peninsula, some routes declined, such as those across the Apennines from Volsinii, which was sacked by Rome in 264 BCE. Since the raw material used to produce Umbrian bronze figurines came from the Etruscan colline metallifere,42 it is possible that the decline of this trade route affected the local production of bronze offerings.
Bradley suggests that another possible explanation for the decline in the quantity of votive offerings may reside in “the greater focus of life on city sites,” apparent as early as the end of the fourth century BCE.43 This phenomenon coincided with the new political situation that opened up for local elites, who could now pursue public recognition, profitable connections with Roman aristocrats, and a role in the Roman imperial machinery through actions of public munificence. In this context, it is reasonable to assume that the resources of individuals across the regions were increasingly directed towards public architecture in city centers and the monumentalization of buildings, rather than investing in votives to be displayed in rural sanctuaries.
Lastly, it is worth noting that as the number of votive offerings decreased during this period, a large quantity of pottery appeared in Umbrian sanctuaries. In some cases, where excavation reports allowed the evaluation of pottery forms, such as Monte Moro and La Rocca, it was observed that the most commonly represented shapes were paterae, ollae, plates, cups, and bowls. While a patera is an offering dish used for sacrifices, the other pottery forms identified are drinking and eating vessels that may not have been made exclusively for votive purposes. These shapes were generally the same as those found in burials and settlements, and related to commensality, including cooking, drinking, and feasting.44 The increased prevalence of pottery shapes related to feasting and banquets in Umbrian sanctuaries during the Hellenistic period could be attributed to a clearer diversification of activities within the sacred sphere, including dedications to the gods, drinking, and banqueting, both ritual and non-ritual.
3.2 Anatomical Votives Revisited
With respect to the dedication of figurative votive objects, anatomical votives and heads, present at eight out of the twelve Umbrian sanctuaries that continued to be used during the late fourth–early first century BCE, are the most ubiquitous (figure 45). Also widespread is the Hellenistic worshiper votive type, while the types Animal, Tanagrine, and Other are attested only at one sanctuary each.
Figure 45
Graph showing the groups of figurative votive objects dedicated in each Umbrian sanctuary.
Although the Hellenistic worshiper votive type has been rightly seen as part of the more homogenized central Italian cultural koine, the presence of heads and anatomical votives has been regarded as prime evidence of the cultural Romanization of the Umbrian community and a wholesale change in the religiosity of the local peoples. In line with some recent critiques of this assumption,45 I have shown in the previous chapter that the link between their presence and the progression of the Roman conquest in Umbria is untenable.
To summarize some of the counterarguments, the presence of anatomical heads and body parts in Umbrian sanctuaries is not necessarily tied to the political status of communities in relation to Rome. As the graph above shows (fig. 45), they can be found both in areas under direct Roman control, such as La Rocca, and in independent or rural areas (Monte San Pancrazio, Pantanelli, Grotta Bella, Monte Torre Maggiore, Monte Moro), as well as near a civitas sine suffragio (Cancelli and the Sanctuary of Cupra at Colfiorito). Additionally, the tradition of dedicating anatomicals and heads is not a new practice that suddenly emerged in the late fourth or early third century but rather a long-established tradition in the region dating back to the sixth century BCE, with offerings made mostly in bronze and, in some cases, in terracotta.46 From this point of view, the anatomical votives that are part of the votive assemblages at Umbrian sanctuaries during the Hellenistic period do not represent a novelty, as Comella and Turfa have argued.47 As we have observed, not only were anatomical bronze votives already in virtually all sanctuaries of the archaic period, but, together with male, female, warrior, and animal figurines, they were used for the same ritual of well-being that Glinister associates with the anatomical votives of the Hellenistic period.
When we disregard the notion that the existence of anatomical votives and heads is linked to Roman influence and consider the evolution of the material artifacts found in Umbrian sanctuaries over time, there is no evidence to support the belief that the anatomical votives and heads of the Hellenistic period were associated with a novel ritual practice. Rather, the evidence points towards the same ritual practice of dedicating anatomical votives and heads connected to a well-being ritual, which originated in the archaic period and continued in the Hellenistic era. The only change was in the material used to create the votive offerings.
It is increasingly recognized in the archaeology of ritual that constancy is a key feature of long-term ritual practices. However, this does not necessarily mean that the material expressions of a ritual remain constant over time. Instead, researchers have shown that the same ritual can be performed using different materials, and that material change does not necessarily indicate a change in the ritual itself. In the case of anatomical votives in Umbrian sanctuaries, the shift from bronze and lead figurines to terracotta anatomical votives does not imply a change in the underlying ritual practice of offering anatomical votives for well-being. Rather, it suggests a shift in the available materials and technologies used to produce such votives.48 Many of the contributions in the recent book edited by Stek and Burgers49 successfully show that it was not uncommon in cult places of the Italic peninsula to add new votives to rituals that were already in existence.
The anthropologist Anthony Cohen has suggested that during phases of significant social and spatial change, groups tend to emphasize and enhance old community borders through reinterpreting the past in a ritual context.50 This may explain why a ritual practice persists but its votive form evolves over time. In the case of Umbrian sanctuaries, the practice of dedicating anatomical votives and heads was likely connected to a ritual of well-being that began in the archaic period and continued into the Hellenistic period. However, as the social and political landscape changed with the Roman conquest, the material expression of the ritual may have evolved to reflect new social and cultural realities. The ability of ritual to articulate group identity and promote group cohesion, trust, and cooperation has been discussed in archaeology through various perspectives. Colin Renfrew has emphasized that the experience of ritual activity creates links between people and defines the membership of certain groups.51 This process may have had a stronger impact on colonies, where local and Roman people of varying statuses were included as founding members,52 but the winds of change brought about by new settlers in the region must have been influential for independent Umbrian communities as well. By reinforcing shared values and beliefs, the continuation of the well-being rituals during the Hellenistic period helped the local people define their communities’ identity after the Roman conquest and the formation of new cultural and political settlements.
As previously noted, anatomical bronzes were present in Umbrian pre-Roman cult places, but during the Hellenistic period they were replaced by terracotta votives. It remains unclear why locals chose terracotta votives for their well-being ritual instead of the bronze figurines they were accustomed to. However, we can suggest three possible reasons, all of which could be valid simultaneously. The first reason is that offering body parts instead of full bodies may have been more effective in conveying the message of the ritual, as the anatomical votives represented an extension of the corporeal body. This approach would have been more immediate and effective in achieving the ritual’s aim of promoting contentment and wellness for the individual or group. The second reason for the selection of anatomical terracottas as votives may be efficiency. Anatomical terracottas were often produced using a mass-production technique with molds, traveling workshops, or specialized artisans. They were usually made of coarse fabrics and required little reworking or retouching, making them easy to produce and transport.53 Compared to bronze figurines, anatomical votives and heads were stock productions and relatively easy to produce, and this made them more convenient for craftsmen and worshipers of different socio-economic statuses, given their overall low cost.54 To draw from Freeman’s reaction to Millett’s book, the adoption of Roman goods often had a lot to do with the “arrival of new, technologically better and cheaper goods” and “does not prove a desire to be seen as Roman.”55 Additionally, the large number of anatomical votives found throughout Central Italy and Greece during the Middle Republican period indicates that they were popular and in line with contemporary demands for votive objects. However, it is important to note that considering these objects fashionable does not imply their Roman origin, especially since the earliest anatomical terracottas were not even found in Rome.56
A question remains as to why a worshiper dedicated one particular part of the body instead of another. Glinister and Recke suggest that worshipers may have dedicated specific body parts as a more specific request for certain needs, such as terracotta genitalia for fertility or to mark puberty, feet for journeys or pilgrimage, eyes to be seen by the divinity, hands for prayer, and so on.57 Similarly, as suggested by Scopacasa,58 the presence of lower limbs may have expressed a concern about body parts regarded as essential for mobility and manual labors. Additionally, the availability of certain votives at a given sanctuary and local factors related to the cult may have influenced the choice of a particular anatomical votive. Although the specific significance of each individual anatomical votive is unclear, the fact that a wide range of body parts were dedicated in Umbria and throughout Central Italian sanctuaries indicates that the form of the votive played a significant role in the worshiper’s decision to make a vow.59
In conclusion, if we are to attribute any Roman influence to the prevalence of anatomical terracottas in Umbrian pre-Roman cult sites, it would likely be due to the development of a new road network that allowed for easier transportation of goods and ideas.60 A new road network crossing central Italy may have created the preconditions for spreading this new material into colonial and non-colonial areas. Traders and artisans from different parts of the Mediterranean could now easily reach this central region without the difficulty of crossing the Apennines. However, if roads and freer trade may have facilitated their diffusion, the presence of anatomical terracottas in Umbria is most likely linked to reasons other than Roman imposition of new cultic material evidence, such as convenience, fashion, and earlier local customs of dedicating such objects.
3.3 Continuity and Abandonment of Pre-Roman Cult Places
In the previous chapter, I challenged the traditional assumption that the continuation of Umbrian sanctuaries was linked to the Roman presence in the region. I demonstrated that pre-Roman Umbrian sanctuaries were still in use after the end of the fourth century BCE, regardless of the political status of communities in relation to Rome. However, I also found that compared to previous centuries (sixth/early fourth century BCE), there was a significant decrease in the material evidence for ritual activity (figurative offerings, pottery, coins) in some sanctuaries (Monte Acuto, Monte Subasio, Monte San Pancrazio, Monte Santo, Monte Ansciano) between the end of the fourth and the beginning of the first century BCE. This suggests a decline in the level of frequentation of these sanctuaries. In contrast, the archaeological data from the sanctuaries of Grotta Bella, Monte Torre Maggiore, Colfiorito, La Rocca, Campo La Piana, Monte Pennino, Cancelli, and Pantanelli did not show a significant decrease. In this section, I examine the level of use of Umbrian sanctuaries and propose possible reasons for the decline in use of some of them.
Before we explore this matter further, it is crucial to assess the credibility of the archaeological evidence available. As previously stated, the excavation of most Umbrian sanctuaries has been incomplete (such as Pantanelli, Monte San Pancrazio, Monte Subasio, Campo la Piana, Monte Pennino, and Monte Santo), and the information collected has been either insufficient (Pantanelli, Campo La Piana) or entirely absent (Monte San Pancrazio, Monte Pennino, Monte Subasio, Monte Santo).61 As a consequence, our knowledge of the archaeological material from these sanctuaries is extremely limited; except for the little information from the archaeological reports, it relies either on later studies of specific classes of objects, as is the case for Monte Santo and Monte Subasio, or on the presence of a selection of bronze figurines, whose original number is unknown, in the local museums of the region. Thus, the changing proportion of votive offerings between the archaic and Roman periods in these sanctuaries does not indicate the site’s overall use.
To gain a better understanding of the frequency of use of Umbrian sanctuaries, it is necessary to examine the ones that have been recently and thoroughly excavated. The rural sanctuaries of Grotta Bella, Monte Ansciano, Monte Torre Maggiore, Monte Acuto, Colle Mori, Monte Moro, La Rocca, and Colfiorito provide more representative data. Among these sanctuaries, Monte Acuto, and Monte Ansciano show a near absence of votive material dating from the late fourth to the early first century BCE, suggesting a halt in their activity during that period. The only evidence of cult activity during the beginning of the third century BCE at Monte Ansciano is a coin of a very early Republican issue and a fragment of a figurine belonging to the Hellenistic worshiper type. Similarly, Monte Acuto only shows evidence of activity during the late fourth to the early first century BCE in the form of fragments of black gloss and sigillata italica, as well as a miniature vase.
Bradley has offered a possible explanation for the reduced frequentation at the Monte Ansciano sanctuary.62 He notes that the apparent ending of ritual activity on Monte Ansciano is paralleled by the beginning of temple activity at Iguvium, which is attested for the Hellenistic period by a number of architectural terracottas found in the city center.63 It is highly likely that the construction of a new sacred space in the general area resulted in a reduction of ritual activity at an archaic cult place, as evidenced by other excavated sanctuaries in close proximity to Umbrian centers that continued to witness cult activity during the same period. Sanctuaries such as Colle Mori, Colfiorito, and Cancelli were situated close to urban centers like Monte Ansciano, but unlike Iguvium, no new sacred buildings were erected in these centers until the beginning of the first century BCE. The emergence of new temples at Iguvium after the fourth century BCE may have attracted the local community that previously worshiped at Monte Ansciano, resulting in a significant decline in its attendance.64
There needs to be a different explanation as to why there was a decline in ritual activity at the sanctuary on Monte Acuto, as it was not located near major settlements during the Hellenistic period, unlike Monte Ansciano. As Bonomi Ponzi points out, surface surveys in the territory surrounding Umbrian high-peak settlements testify to a significant decrease in the number of sites early in the Roman period.65 She observes that the trend of abandoning high peaks after the fourth century BCE coincided with people moving towards marketplaces closer to the main commercial routes and paying more attention to lowland, sub-Apennine settlements. This pattern is similar in other parts of the peninsula, where during this time, Iron Age villages that were well-defended moved towards sites that were more suitable for cultivation and communication. Additionally, Fracchia’s surveys of Roman Republican settlements in southern Italy demonstrate that areas closer to major road systems had a greater incidence of survival, and the sites that flourished over time were those that served nearby markets, such as villas or village.66 Therefore, it is likely that the new socio-economic reality influenced the decrease in ritual activity during the Hellenistic period on Monte Acuto, which was isolated from populated areas and not connected to major roads. The reason why other hilltop sanctuaries such as Monte Torre Maggiore and Monte Moro did not experience a significant decline in activity due to the new settlement patterns could be that they were located near major commercial routes (the Via Flaminia for Monte Torre Maggiore and a branch of the Via Salaria for Monte Moro) and urban settlements (such as Carsulae and Interamna Nahars, which were respectively 6 and 17 km away from Monte Torre Maggiore; Interamna Nahars and Spoletium were approximately 14 and 18 km away from Monte Moro). A similar situation can be seen with the sacred cave of Grotta Bella, where the continuous use of the space for rituals may have been facilitated by its easy access from the Via Amerina.
Although the available data do not allow us to have a complete picture of the level of frequentation of Umbrian sanctuaries, the analysis of the evidence from a few well-excavated cases suggests that sanctuaries continued to be visited during the Hellenistic period. It is plausible to hypothesize that, in the few cases where the evidence points to an apparent cessation of ritual activity, factors such as the construction of new temples in nearby settlement areas and the concentration of the economic life away from mountainous areas and towards commercial routes played a role in the progressive abandonment of a sacred area. Conversely, the evidence shows that sanctuaries located in areas closer to roads had a greater survival incidence, and those sites would flourish until the Imperial period.
The continuation of ritual activity at the La Rocca sanctuary demands separate consideration because it is distinct from other Umbrian sanctuaries in two ways. Firstly, this sanctuary is in an urban context, unlike the other rural sanctuaries previously discussed. Secondly, it is the only Umbrian, pre-Roman cult place that, in this period, sat within the area of a Latin colony (Spoletium). Although I demonstrated that overall there does not seem to be a link between the continuation of an Umbrian sanctuary and the political status of nearby communities’ relationship to Rome, Stek and Perna have made a case for the correlation between urban cult places and Roman colonization and incorporation.67 Significantly, Stek points out that the religious, social, and economic power of pre-Roman cult places represented an “important attraction for Roman expansion.”68 Similarly, Perna notes that the continuation of ritual activity at pre-Roman urban sanctuaries in Picenum after the foundation of colonies and municipia may have been the result of the conscious choice to use the importance of cult places as an element of syncretism between local and Roman cultures. Despite the presence of new sacred places built after the foundation of the Latin colony of Spoletium, it seems plausible that the Umbrian sanctuary at La Rocca continued to represent power on a tangible level in socio-economic and religious terms. The fact that, as Glinister points out, “collective cults enhanced an already dynamic interactive process, integrating different groups into society,”69 makes it possible that the La Rocca sanctuary served as a facilitator for cultural contact between the new settlers and local people.70 Another factor that could have helped in building a new community is the tradition of dedicating anatomicals, which was familiar to both colonists from Rome and local Umbrian peoples. Furthermore, the similarities between Roman and local cults might have played a role in integrating different groups into a cohesive community.71
3.4 Monumentalization of Umbrian Sanctuaries: Architectural Features
During the Roman conquest of Umbria, the region was made up of many politically independent communities, which had specific settlements and sanctuaries, as previously explained. Starting from the end of the fourth or the beginning of the third century BCE, Umbrian allied communities and Latin centers initiated significant construction projects. The Latin colony of Spoletium and the allied centers of Ameria, Asisium, and possibly Urvinum Hortense had massive defensive walls constructed around the mid-third century BCE; new temples are built at Spoletium, Iguvium, Urvinum Hortense, Asisium, Vettona, and Mevania; stone walled buildings are erected at Hispellum,72 and an inscription from Fulginiae attests to the presence of work concerned with the management of water supplies.73 As Bradley puts it, during this phase, towns began to “gain monumental physical dimension to complement their political identity.”74
Between the end of the fourth and the second century BCE, this trend of intense building activity also affected some rural sanctuaries of the region; complexes underwent phases of complete restructuring, involving the construction of buildings in areas previously marked by no permanent architectural structure. Although the available published material is limited and complete publications are lacking, it is clear that some individuals or groups invested in enhancing sacred buildings during this phase. Surviving evidence indicates that Umbrian sanctuaries were embellished with different architectural solutions mainly borrowed from contemporary Italic and Hellenistic templar architecture.
Architectural evidence for the monumentalization of Umbrian sacred buildings during the Hellenistic phase comes from the sanctuaries at Monte Moro, Monte Torre Maggiore, Cancelli, and Monte San Pancrazio. However, at Cancelli and Monte San Pancrazio, there is limited archaeological evidence available, which makes it difficult to reconstruct the original appearance of the buildings. Therefore, only a few inferences can be drawn from the available data. At Cancelli, the surviving evidence suggests that the building consisted of at least three rooms partially covered in opus signinum, and a water-related drain. Monte San Pacrazio’s sacred area was bounded by a Hellenistic porticus, intersected by a water channel. The archaeological evidence from Monte Moro and Monte Torre Maggiore is less fragmented and allows for a better reconstruction of the original appearance of these sanctuaries. At Monte Moro, the sacred complex was organized around three main rooms, with the central one likely serving as the main cult room. Additional rooms to the south formed an L-shaped space around an unpaved and open area. At Monte Torre Maggiore, the architectural layout and decoration are preserved. A precinct bounded the sacred area, and a rectangular temple made of large limestone blocks, oriented east-west, with a pronaos, cella, and columns all around it, was built on top of a tall podium in opus quadratum.
The available evidence suggests that most Umbrian sanctuaries followed Etrusco-Italic decorative forms. While Monte Torre Maggiore has yielded lion-headed waterspouts and a female head directly inspired by Hellenistic art, the antepagmenta and antefixes discovered at the sites of Pantanelli, Cancelli, Colfiorito, and La Rocca conform to decorative motifs that were popular in contemporary sanctuaries of Latium Alatri, Anagni, Minturnae, southern Etruria (Civita Castellana), and Samnium (Pietrabbondante).75
Umbrian sanctuaries had no standard architectural and planimetric style during the Hellenistic period. The available evidence suggests that the few cases that can be reconstructed either followed the Hellenistic tradition (Monte San Pancrazio) or combined the axiality of Etrusco-Italic architecture with decentralized rooms (Monte Moro) or elements of the Hellenistic tradition in a local manner (Monte Torre Maggiore). At Monte Torre Maggiore, various architectural models are used, including the Hellenistic temple plan with columns on all sides, which matches the remaining decorative elements, such as the lion spouts and a statue’s female head. These Hellenistic features are combined with local elements, such as locally carved limestone blocks and the frontality of the high-podium temple style that is typical of the Etrusco-Italic canon. The skill to manipulate different architectural canons and experiment with variations in a local fashion has been noticed by Battiloro and Scopacasa in Lucania and Samnium and framed within the context of what Ranuccio Bianchi Bandinelli named “Italic Hellenism,” which entailed the assimilation of Greek cultural forms into the Italic decorative and stylistic traditions.76
After an initial phase, spanning from the middle of the fourth to the middle of the third century BCE, during which the spread of Hellenistic culture in central Italy was largely due to the contacts that Italic communities had with Greece, southern Italy, and Sicily, Hellenistic iconographic models came to be widely used as a “language of power” in other parts of the peninsula as Italy became more integrated into the economic and cultural networks with the Hellenistic East. This phenomenon affected various regions, including the Samnite and Lucanian areas, where pre-Roman cults were revitalized through the use of monumental religious complexes, such as the sanctuary of Rossano di Vaglio, or through the construction of new buildings and complementary structures, as seen most notably at Pietrabbondante.77 Although the new architectural stimuli and influence in Umbria took less dramatic forms compared to their Samnite and Lucanian counterparts, they were still part of the same cultural trends. In other words, during the Hellenistic period, the architectural layout of Umbrian sanctuaries resulted from the adoption of new architectural trends that were common to all Italic communities. This was a consequence of an increased dialogue between the Italian peninsula and the eastern Mediterranean, as well as the integration of local and Italic traditions.
The transformations that occurred in Umbrian sanctuaries during the Hellenistic period raise questions about the promoters of their monumentalization during the last centuries of the Republic. This was a time when hilltop centers were abandoned, and Umbrian society was redefining itself under the influence of Roman preeminence in Italy and the Mediterranean.
3.5 Monumentalization of Umbrian Sanctuaries: Possible Agents
As previously mentioned, much of the public munificence visible during the Hellenistic period must be understood in the context of the relationship between Rome and its Italian allies. Gosden has recently stressed that in the context of Rome’s expansionism from its central Mediterranean base, “the possibilities of local participation in the new broader culture were attractive to many,”78 an idea that Terrenato has further elaborated. As he has underscored,79 Roman and Italic elite networking and negotiations played an important part in this interconnectedness. On the one hand, having local contacts was beneficial to Roman aristocrats trying to advance their specific agendas, such as the dominance of the local community, maintenance of the established order, control of the political brokerage between the community and the center of power, and the piloting of tribal formation and composition. On the other hand, the support of powerful Roman friends would facilitate the careers of Italic elite members, either in their own cities or in Rome itself. In short, Terrenato’s model goes beyond the classic dichotomy between Romans and Italians and suggests that the integration process may have been the result of a broad network of factional projects.
In central Italy, archaeological, epigraphical, and prosopographical material from some Etruscan, Latin, and Campanian polities provides evidence for factionalism in the context of Italic integration with Rome.80 Caere is a particularly illustrative case of the types of contact between peer groups in Rome and the Italic regions of the peninsula. Here, contacts between local elite members and those in Rome are attested as early as the fourth century BCE81 and intensified in the third century, when two members of the Roman family of the Genucii added to their name the appellative Clepsina, represented in Etruria at Tarquinia, Tuscania, and Caere. In order to strengthen the family ties with this region, C. Genucius Clepsina dedicated an underground cultic building in Caere and, likely due to his connection with the area, played a role in facilitating the interactions and negotiations between this city and Rome in the second decade of the century.82
Coles has also observed a similar dynamic of interwoven personal interests among local and Roman aristocrats in the Latin colonies of Latium and Campania.83 Specifically, she demonstrates that the impetus to found a colony was driven by a desire for a combination of benefits, including a closer tie to regions of personal concern, clientele, and political and economic advancement. Coles notes that given these ties between specific geographical areas and the interests of colonial officials, it is not difficult to imagine the benefits this group would have gained—particularly in terms of personal networks and assistance up the cursus honorum—by monumentalizing traditional religious landmarks.
In the Umbrian region, which gradually became part of the Roman expansionistic network through local alliances, the establishment of colonies, and the formation of civitates sine suffragio, evidence of elite agendas and factionalism can be seen in two notable cases mentioned in Chapter 4. In the context of the foundation of the colony of Nahars, Livy recounts how two townsmen betrayed the pre-Roman city to the Romans. At Asisium, Nero Babrius chose to commemorate his offices in two inscriptions: one in Umbrian using Latin script and the other in Latin language and script. These examples illustrate the presence of personal interests and factionalism among local and Roman aristocrats and how they influenced the development of the region.
In this varied and hybrid political scenario, where competition for a successful position within the nascent empire must have been particularly intense among the elites, it is difficult to pinpoint specific agents for the monumentalization of Umbrian sanctuaries. It is likely that the monumentalization of Umbrian sanctuaries during the Hellenistic period was the result of a complex interplay between local and Roman elites with intertwined interests. Rather than being solely driven by economic investment, the embellishment of local temples would have brought benefits to both Roman and local elites by extending their networks of clientele and providing access to new territories for political career advancement. In this competitive political scenario, both Umbrian and Roman agents sought to assert themselves, and public munificence was a valuable tool for achieving this goal.
4 Conclusion and Looking Forward
The discussion focused on the analysis of the data presented in Chapter 5, contextualizing it within the broader development of cult places in Umbria from the archaic to the Hellenistic periods. Four central themes of this study were explored: (1) the function of archaic Umbrian sanctuaries, (2) the significance of the votive practice of dedicating bronze figurines during this time, (3) the continuation and embellishment of sacred places, and (4) the emergence of anatomical terracottas in the Hellenistic period. The traditional pagus-vicus model and the political status of local communities in relation to Rome fail to fully account for the function of ancient sanctuaries and their decline following Roman expansion into the region. As an alternative approach, the analysis closely considered cult places’ topographical features and votive deposits.
By examining the topographical relationship between sanctuaries and nearby inhabited areas and identifying common votive figurines and locally made offerings, it becomes evident that archaic sanctuaries in Umbria were closely linked to the communities that inhabited the surrounding areas. The presence of unique figurines found only at specific Umbrian sanctuaries indicates that these sacred places were utilized by distinct communities that sought to emphasize their individuality. During the Hellenistic period, the decline in ritual activities at two of the sixteen sanctuaries studied was due to factors such as the construction of new temples in nearby settlements and the shift of economic activity away from high elevations and towards commercial routes.
The votive figurines found in Umbrian sanctuaries have been central to my interpretation of the associated deposition ritual. By examining these figurines, we can gain insight into the cultural continuity, modifications, and reinterpretations that occurred as a result of the Roman expansion. The ritual that was practiced in Umbrian cult places from the archaic period onwards was likely aimed at promoting the wellness of individuals and communities. Moreover, I have argued that the function of the figurines was not predetermined during their creation. Rather, the materiality of the figurines, along with their association with the sacred sphere and identification data, may have dictated the well-being ritual that was associated with them. The continuity of the votive ritual in Umbrian sanctuaries during the Roman period is demonstrated by the presence of anatomical terracottas and heads. This continuity also reveals the selective adoption and adaptation of foreign cultural elements, as discussed in Wallace-Hadrill’s code-switching model. In Umbria, the tradition of anatomical votives, common on the Tyrrhenian coasts of Latium and Etruria, was applied to archaic ritual in a selective manner. The presence of archaic votive offerings in Hellenistic sanctuaries further suggests the tangible connection between worshipers and the local past. Additionally, the offering of body parts and heads, familiar to the Umbrians and Roman settlers, may have facilitated the formation of new communities by acting as a point of contact between them.
In addition to the presence of more varied votive assemblages, containing heads and anatomicals alongside figurines of Hellenistic worshipers, miniature vases, and coins, the architectural embellishment of some Umbrian sanctuaries also indicates the adoption and adaptation of wider cultural trends that were prevalent in the Italic peninsula during the Hellenistic period. The use of local, Etrusco-Italic, and Hellenistic elements in these embellishments suggests that the region was open to new artistic stimuli, similarly to what was happening in other parts of the peninsula, such as Samnium and Lucania. Regarding the agents involved in this refashioning of Umbrian religious landmarks, it is likely that local as well as Roman elites were equally interested in using public munificence to pursue their political goals. This is supported by the competitive political scenario of the time, where alliances between elites were key to personal success and a public career.
In such an account of the change that happened in the cult places of the region after the Romans began their expansion, there is little space for a systematic imposition of Roman culture onto the region’s local people. The conquest of the region did not happen in the unilateral model of the imposition of one culture on another, but rather in a middle ground, a space “in between and within which peoples interact,”84 where the encounter between different cultural traditions created new cultural structures. This middle ground, shared by the Umbrians and Romans and influenced by the broader Hellenistic koine of the Mediterranean, allowed for the continuation of the tradition of dedicating anatomical votives and heads, which mingled with new offering types and a variety of architectural solutions that transformed the sacred areas into monumental structures. Furthermore, the use of a new material, terracotta, made the creation of votive offerings more affordable and accessible.
The type of approach advocated in this study—that sanctuaries and their votive deposits need to be studied simultaneously as components of a larger regional sacred landscape and with an eye toward each site specificity and its development from the archaic to the Hellenistic periods—can be fruitfully applied to the study of the sanctuaries of other regions. In the context of the Italic peninsula, this detailed analysis has been successfully conducted in Lucania and Samnium but is lacking in other regions of Central Italy, such as Picenum and Latium. By comparing the material culture, ritual practices, and historical contexts of different regions, scholars can identify commonalities and differences in the ways that local communities responded to cultural contact and change. This can contribute to a more nuanced understanding of the diversity and complexity of ancient Italian societies, as well as the ways in which cultural traditions were adopted, adapted, or rejected in different regions and contexts. As the example of Umbria shows, once a more complete picture of Italic sacred places is achieved, we can re-evaluate Rome’s impact on the sacred sphere of the peninsula.
Terrenato 2019, 240.
It is important to note, however, that, unlike White’s model, where interactions between Algonquian tribes of the Great Lakes and French settlers happened ex novo, Romans and Umbrians were close neighbors who had shared similar material culture since the Orientalizing period.
On the importance of the presence of water in Umbrian and Etruscan sanctuaries see Giontella 2006. For the religious significance of water in the selection of Roman and Greek sacred spaces, see R. Bradley, 2000. As Moser (2019, 48) rightly points out, water had also a very practical use as an integral component of the ritual connected to the purification before and after the sacrificial slaughter of animals.
It is difficult, however, to draw conclusions about the topographic relationship between sacred spaces and hilltop centers, for the latter have scarcely been investigated and their internal organization is not well known; in this respect, see Chapter 4.
Bradley 1997, 114; Bradley 2000a, 63; Stoddart 1994, 152.
Van Dyke and Alcock 2008, 98.
Sommella 1971–1972, 47–74; Nijboer 2001, 81.
The sanctuaries of La Rocca, Pantanelli, Monte San Pancrazio, Campo La Piana, Colle San Rufino, Monte Santo, and Monte Pennino have been only partially investigated and never or only roughly recorded. We cannot therefore exclude entirely the possibility that they may have had permanent architectural features during the archaic period.
A list of open-air rural Italic shrine is in Bradley and Glinister 2013.
It is of course possible that drystone precincts may have been weathered down and thus become unrecognizable to archaeologists. Clandestine and inadequately documented excavations also contribute to the difficulties of reconstructing the earliest layout of Umbrian cult places.
As Bradley notes (1987, 114), the natural cave setting at Grotta Bella may have rendered the presence of hand-made structure superfluous.
A pit is also mentioned by Staderini on Monte Pennino. See Chapter 5.
Potts 2015, 45.
See Chapter 2.
Bradely 2000a, 67.
See Chapter 5.
Monacchi 1988, 82.
It is crucial to note that due to the compromised exploration of certain Umbrian sanctuaries, the variety of votive offerings uncovered may not offer a complete representation. As a result, we cannot dismiss the possibility that prestigious dedications might have been more prevalent than suggested by the limited findings in the archaeological record.
On Grotta Bella and how this cult place strengthened a sense of belonging to specific communities and played a role in the formation of community identity, see Zapelloni Pavia and Larocca 2023.
Bradley 2000a, 24–25, adds that coins bearing the name ikuvins are further evidence of ethnic community in the third century BCE.
In this respect, it is worth noting that extra-urban sanctuaries have served as venues for consolidating political links between different communities that nonetheless speak the same language. See, Marroni 2012; Terrenato 2019.
These groups comprise the figurines from all the Umbrian sanctuaries presented and belonging to the typologies described in Appendix 1.
Glinister 2006b, 93.
Turfa 1994; de Grummond and Simons 2006, 90–115; Recke 2013; Hughes 2017.
Kyriakidis 2007, 15–16.
Gell 1988.
Sigismondi 1979, 48.
Fowler 2004; Graham 2017. Personhood, as defined by Fowler (2004, 4) is “the condition or state of being a person, as it is understood in any specific context. Persons are constituted, de-constituted, maintained and altered in social practices through life and after death. This process can be described as the ongoing attainment of personhood. Personhood is frequently understood as a condition that involves constant change, and key transformations to the person occur throughout life and death. People may pass from one state or stage of personhood to another. Personhood is attained and maintained through relationships not only with other human beings but with things, places, animals and the spiritual features of the cosmos. Some of these may also emerge as persons through this engagement. People’s own social interpretations of personhood and of the social practices through which personhood is realized shape their interactions in a reflexive way, but personhood remains a mutually constituted condition.”
Graham 2017, 51.
Gosden 2005.
Glinister 2006b, 94.
For the full English translation of this text, see Poultney 1958.
Bradley 2000a, 75.
Bradely 2000a, 72.
Malone and Stoddart (1994, 145) suggest that the nails were used to attach the offerings directly to the wooden plank. I agree with Bradley (1987, 199) that this interpretation does not seem likely, because most bronze votives do not show any possible nail holes.
In Etruria, the supports used for displaying figurines were typically stone bases often inscribed with information such as donors’ names, affiliations, and the divinity to whom the figurines were dedicated. At certain sites, like Campo della Fiera near Orvieto, these stone bases could support up to eight figurines at once (Stopponi 2011, 33–35). In some cases, the bases have been found without the figurines that they originally held; at Pasticcetto di Magione, pieces of the lead used to fix the figurines to their base have been found within the votive deposit (Roncalli 1989, 122, 4.32) and at Marzabotto molded travertine bases with traces of lead and small holes for the placement of one or two figurines are associated with the votives found at Fontile Sanctuary. The preserved bases are deliberately disproportionately shaped in relation to the size of the votive figurines in order to adapt their display to the architecture of the monumental complex while at the same time making the votive offerings visible from afar (Gualandi 1973, 63 and 1983,42; Mansuelli 1983, 48–49). Similarly attached to stone bases were the bronze figurines from the Venetic sanctuaries such as the Sanctuary of Raetia (Este), where bases, ca. 50 cm in height, are sometimes molded and accompanied by a dedication to Reitia (Chieco Bianchi 2002, 21), or the Sanctuary at San Pietro Montagnon (between Padua and Este), where remains of figurines held by lead to a base have been recovered (Dämmer 1986, 65). In one isolated case in the Venetic area, at Lagole, a bronze foot is pierced at the top suggesting the possibility that it could have been hung in the sanctuary area (Fogolari and Gambacurta 2001, 153 n. 82).
A few examples of the same type from Satricum and Segni (near Rome) also have small holes similar to that of the specimen from Monte San Pancrazio: Colonna 1970, tav. 46–47.
Ohnefalsch-Richter 1893, 257 (Crete); Lesk 2002 (Corinth); Gambacurta, and Fogolari 2001, 150 n. 82 (Lagole).
Larson 2007, 82; Bradley and Glinister 2013, 178. For votives found in wells and cisterns in Italy, see Glinister (2000) with respect to Falerii and Heldring (2007) for Satricum.
The partial reuse of older votive offerings has been recognized in sacred areas of southern Italy, as well as in Sicily and at the Faliscan sanctuary of Monte Li Santi-Rote at Narce, and could relate to the practitioners’ desire to keep alive through the centuries the essence of a cult: De Lucia Brolli 2018, 65 with previous bibliography. Following this idea and with respect to the new data from the sanctuary of Bagno Grande (Casciano, Tuscany), De Lucia Brolli (in Mariotti-Tabolli 2021, 229) suggests that the bronze votives belong to an earlier phase of the sanctuary and were reused in the Hellenistic period, perhaps after the interception of an earlier deposit during the restoration of the area.
Bradley 2000a, 176–177.
Stoddart 2013, 111.
Bradley 2000a, 173.
Perego and Scopacasa 2016, 35.
Most notably put forth by Glinister 2006a and 2006b.
See figures A171 (Monte Ansciano) and A3.179 (Colle Mori) in Appendix 3.
Turfa 2004, 359–336; Comella 1981, 767.
Kyriakidis 2007, 9–23. Conversely, the author points out that the presence of the same material evidence for ritual practices does not necessarily reflect a continuity of the associated belief.
Stek and Burgers 2015, 97–113.
Cohen 1985, 87.
Renfrew 2007, 109–123.
Bispham, 2006, 91; Bradley 2006a; Coles 2009; Glinister 2015 (esp. fn. 39 on the incorporation of the existing population, also as magistrates, in the colonies); Scopacasa 201, 47–50. Coles (2009, 167–168), in particular, has examined how cult and sacred spaces aided the integration of diverse social and ethnic groups in newly founded colonies. At Fregellae, for example, the placement of extra-urban sanctuaries along the Via Latina helped define community cohesion and boundaries.
Fenelli, 1975a, Comella, 1981, 793–794. Evidence of clay molds from Campania (Valle d’Ansanto and Paestum) seems to suggest that some producers may have worked directly on the sanctuary site: see Rainini 1976 (Valle D’Ansanto) and Ammerman 2002, 15–22 (Paestum).
Scopacasa 2015b, 7.
Freeman 1993, 444.
See the discussion in Chapter 2.
Glinister 2006b, 12; Recke 2013, 1076.
Scopacasa 2015, 19–20. In his analysis, Scopacasa focuses on the published material about anatomical votives from Apennine sanctuaries, with only the Umbrian sanctuaries of Monte Acuto, Monte Subasio, and Grotta Bella featuring in his list. In comparison to Tyrrenian and Daunian sanctuaries, here he notices a higher prevalence of lower and upper limb votives, which he regards as the “Apennine preference.” However, in Umbria this does not seem to be the case as the anatomical terracottas depict a broader range of body parts and organs.
We should also consider the possibility that the choice of a votive form was limited by the availability of votive offerings on sale at a given sanctuary.
Glinister 2006b, 26. In this respect, nobody should be surprised that, as noted by Gentili (2005), the earliest anatomical terracottas at Carsoli are dated to the middle of the fourth century BCE, some fifty years before the foundation of the colony in 298 BCE.
I found no records of this excavation in the Archaeological Archives of the region and in the depot of the Soprintendenza Archeologia Belle Arti e Paesaggio dell’Umbria.
Bradley 1997, 122.
Sisani 2001, 42; Strazzulla 1981, 186.
Although the few surviving votive offerings at Monte Subasio (near Assisium) in the third century BCE may not represent the original votive corpus, Bradley (1987, 125) hypothesizes a similar trend for this sanctuary. At Assisium, as at Iguvium, there is evidence of the development of a temple within the settlement.
Bonomi Ponzi 1989, 23. A similar phenomenon is observed in Samnium by Battiloro 2018, 165–168.
Fracchia 2013.
Stek 2017, Perna 2013.
Stek 2017, 286.
Glinister 2015, 154.
See fn. 513 for references on the inclusion of locals and foreigners in a new colony.
Glinister (2015, 151) mentions how the structural equivalences between Italic and Roman cults such as similar concepts of delimiting sacred spaces, the importance of the natural world for the divine, the presence of common gods to whom to dedicate prayers, vows, and rituals, helped the merging of religious traditions and patterns. At the same time, she stresses, the distinctive background of colonial founders, the presence of locals of different statuses, and the permeability which came from the possibility of acquiring links with nearby colonies or receiving new incomers at a later stage are all factors that facilitated “the development of colonial distinctiveness in the religious sphere” (153) and further enhanced a multi-cultural and hybrid colonial landscape.
Architectural decorations were also found at Civitalba, near Sentinum in the modern Le Marche region. Although this area lies outside the area covered by this work, it still belonged to the ancient region of Umbria.
For a discussion of the dates of these building constructions, see Bradley 2000a, 158–170.
Bradley 2000a, 158.
For Latin and Faliscan examples, see Andren 1940; for Samnium, Scopacasa 2015a, 265.
Battiloro 2018, 203–207; Scopacasa 2015, 115–119 and 262–270; Bianchi Bandinelli 1970, 11. For an overall picture of Italic Hellenism in Italy see Haumesser 2017, 645–665; Coarelli 1970–1971, 254–255; Torelli 1983; La Rocca 1996; Wallace-Hadrill 2008, 99. For Samnium see also: La Regina 1976; Tagliamonte 2005, 189–201.
For a discussion of the architecture of these sanctuaries see Battiloro 2018, 188–196; Scopacasa 2015a, 262–270.
Gosden 2004, 110.
Terrenato 2014 and 2019.
Terrenato (2014 and 2019) provides a lengthy and accurate review of central Italian examples of elite private agendas in the context of Roman expansion. Among the most noteworthy cases, we can mention the involvement of some members of the Latin family of the Plautii with the rebellion at Privernum and long-distance aristocratic connections between Rome and local elites from Arezzo (the Cilnii for example) or from Capua.
As reported by Livy (9.36.2–4), in the fourth century members of the Fabii, attested at Caere since the late seventh century BCE, were educated here to learn the Etruscan language. Furthermore, in the same century a Latin woman who resettled in Rome and held important political offices married a member of the powerful family of the Matuna in Caere: Terrenato 2018, 121.
Colivicchi 2015.
Coles 2009.
Lyons and Papadopoulos 2002, 158.