The aim of this book is to revisit the phenomenon of the massive diffusion of anatomical ex votos in ancient Italy (a phenomenon that has been the subject of a very abundant literature over the last sixty years, but often limited to monographs and studies of individual sites), starting with a large-scale regional study of the sanctuaries of Latium Vetus. In many respects, this starting point is a wise one, as there is too often a tendency to view anatomical ex votos through an Etruscan prism and with respect to only a few major sanctuaries (Veio, Tarquinia, Vulci, etc.). Latium is also completely absent from the fundamental collection of the Corpus delle Stipi votive in Italia, in which volumes devoted to Etruscan sites predominate. This refocusing on Latium is therefore useful, stimulated by the recent discovery of large “votive deposits” (this is the term the author finally chooses to use for these assemblages found sometimes, but not always, in pits), notably at Velletri (1997) and at Lanuvium, mod. Pantanacci (2012), both of them as yet unpublished assemblages for which we have only partial data (especially for the latter). From this point of view, Boecker’s book is more than just the Latin counterpart to F. Fabbri’s recent and valuable synthesis (2019) of Etruscan anatomical ex votos. Never before has a spatial and statistical approach to votive deposits in Latium during the Republican period been attempted in such a systematic and informed way[1].
The study is based on a catalogue of 116 places of worship containing terracotta offerings representing parts of the human body, corresponding to 56 sites and carefully mapped. Chapter 3 presents the 12 ‘case-studies’ selected, and represents the very core of the work. The sites are not selected according to the number of ex voto offerings found there. As a result, sites that yielded a large number of terracotta offerings (Fregellae, Lavinium, Ponte di Nona, etc.) stand side by side with sites that provided only a small number of votives: Cora, Nemi, Norba, and so on. On the other hand, Praeneste-Palestrina, with its more than 15 cult sites where votive material was found, was not included in the case-studies. What is even more consequential is the absence of Rome, which is deliberately excluded from the catalogue, even though we have monographic publications on finds from the Tiber and Minerva Medica.[2] The two largest cities in Latium are therefore left out to varying degrees. That said, the graphs provided for the composition of each of the deposits are very enlightening and provide a useful comparison of the votive facies (even if, as the author rightly points out, the quality of the data, which depends on many parameters, is inevitably uneven).
The presentation of the case studies is preceded by two chapters, the first setting out the history of the research and the methodology adopted and the second presenting a general overview of the consecration of models of body parts, from a geographical and chronological perspective. This second chapter also briefly reviews the interpretations that have been offered for the various types of anatomical ex votos. After the case studies, the fourth chapter moves on to the exploitation of the results: quantitative assessment of assemblages, topography of finds, divinities involved, comparisons with neighbouring regions. The final section of the work essentially consists of a critique of the interpretations that usually link anatomical ex votos to the sphere of illness and healing, and relate them to those found in the Greek world. The author supports a different viewpoint, proposing that the dedications of body parts were rooted in a pre-Roman religious koine in central Italy.
The subtitle of the book indicates that it deals with anatomical votives (anatomiche Votive). However, throughout the various chapters of the work, Boecker rather refers to the object of her investigation as the consecration of body parts (Körperteilweihungen). This point of vocabulary is not of secondary importance. It strongly preconditions the study. In fact, unlike many authors, Boecker chooses to include heads in the body parts she investigates (in addition, of course, to limbs, external and internal organs, and truncated bodies). It is undeniably true that the head is not a complete representation of the human person. But the representation of the head or bust is a common phenomenon in many cultures, even where offerings representing other parts of the body in isolation are unknown. Without even leaving Italy, we need only think of the shoulder busts that were so widespread in Magna Graecia and Sicily, and that nobody would think of classifying as anatomical ex votos. These busts can in fact be considered as one of the relevant markers for defining the “southern facies” of votive offerings, as opposed to the “Etruscan-Latin-Campanian facies” which, according to A. Comella, author of a pioneering article on the topic, is characterized above all by the persistent presence of anatomical ex-votos.[3] Including heads in the scope of the analysis certainly makes it possible to put forward interesting considerations on the gendered orientation of certain places of worship, but it also automatically raises the chronology of the Körperteilweihungen, since it is generally agreed that the first votive heads from Veio date back to the end of the 6th century, and are parallel to series of antefixes[4]. For this reason, too, linking (as the author does) the emergence of ‘consecrations of body parts’ with the development of terracotta decoration of temple roofs in the late 6th-early 5th century is in fact valid only for heads but not for anatomical terracottas as such, which appeared much later, since, as Boecker herself admits (p. 44), “The majority of consecrations of anatomical votives take place during the Middle and Late Republic, i.e. between Rome’s victory over the Latin tribes (338 BC) and the Social War (91-89/88 B.C.)”[5].
Generally speaking, the problem of dating anatomical ex votos is crucial and conditions their entire interpretation, both religious and historical. It is important to be very attentive to the chronology of their appearance and disappearance—even assuming that they disappeared altogether, which is far from certain. As far as the lower chronological limit is concerned, the book was written too early to take account of a breakthrough discovery (even if it falls outside the geographical scope of the study), that of S. Casciano dei Bagni in the province of Siena. This excavation produces major novelties, especially in terms of the material used, demonstrating more decisively than had ever been done before that exactly the same types of ex voto, whether anatomical or not (e.g., some children in swaddling clothes), exist in both bronze and terracotta. The chronology of the submerged deposit, which extends to the time of the emperor Tiberius, is highly instructive. It demonstrates that anatomical ex votos remained in use for much longer than previously thought.The chronology of the submerged deposit, which extends to the time of the emperor Tiberius, is highly instructive. It demonstrates that anatomical ex votos remained in use for much longer than previously thought.
The spatial interpretation developed by Boecker provides her with a model that distinguishes two basic groups of donors: “female donors… offered consecrations of body parts to female deities in urban sanctuaries… These dedications were linked to female fertility… Male donors are represented by male sexual organs… found on extra-urban sites, in association with foot votive offerings, animal statuettes… linked to travel, transhumance, trade and animal husbandry” (pp. 227, 239 and fig. 79). This model, based on a binary opposition between male and female places of worship with differentiated clienteles and devotions, has the merit of being coherent (some would say schematic, but this is largely due to the imperfect nature of the available data, both quantitatively and qualitatively). It almost completely rejects the idea that anatomical offerings could be the resolutive offerings of vows taken for health (‘almost’, but not quite, as the idea of a certain polysemy, an ambivalence of ex votos representing parts of the body, is nevertheless conceded, without this idea really being explored). The sanatio-fecundity binomial, on which the Italian scholarship based the bulk of its interpretation of the votive phenomenon in central Republican Italy, is therefore decidedly discarded, and replaced by another one, that of male mobility and female transition, both placed under the sign of rites of passage (even if it may seem surprising that Van Gennep is not cited at any point). Of course, reliance on the rites of passage that punctuate human life as an explanatory system is far from new in the field of studies of ‘votive deposits’ in Italy and elsewhere. From an historiographical point of view, it will be sufficient to cite here the interpretative keys proposed by M. Torelli for the Locri pinakes or for the terracotta statues—but not the anatomical ex votos—from the sanctuary of Minerva at Lavinium[6].
In order to propose this new model, Boecker had to leave aside everything that could link the anatomical ex votos to health lost and regained: in particular, she had to rule out Aesculapius, despite the fact that one of the largest votive deposits in Latium is precisely that of the sanctuary of Aesculapius at Fregellae (760 heads and half-heads, and 3,370 anatomical ex votos). To claim, as the first editors of the complex did, that in the 2nd century BC the god replaced “a previous cult of a divinity of water and fertility, probably female”[7] is to make an unprovable assertion. C. Boecker was aware of the problem and did not initially make a clear-cut judgement. But then, what was initially just one hypothesis among others, with all the difficulties it implied (the complete change of the titular divinity during the very existence of the sanctuary), became an incontrovertible truth.
More generally, Boecker was led to dissociate anatomical votives from any vow to health, even il fulfilled in a “generalist” sanctuary. Indeed, one will agree that it is inappropriate to speak of therapeutic sanctuaries in the strict sense in (Republican) Roman Italy — with a few exceptions, of course, such as Tiberina Island. Anatomical ex votos could be offered in any place of worship. And so, if they had something to do with health (but this is not the author’s opinion), this shows that this type of vow could be subscribed to and fulfilled in all sanctuaries, not just those of medical gods or those specialising in this field.
Terracotta lower limbs are seen as markers of ‘mobility’. What exactly is meant by this? If it’s simply a question of saying that the offering of feet/legs is a response to a mobility problem, caused by fractures, illnesses, etc., everyone will easily agree on this point. But in fact, mobility here refers rather to the assertion, periodically repeated since L. Stieda, that legs and feet were offerings made, not for healing, but for the happy outcome of a journey. Stieda, whose point of view was essentially medical, did not consider the votive feet to be healing gifts, precisely because of the absence of visible pathologies, but offerings for the fulfilment of a vow pro itu et reditu. Boecker’s adherence to this line of interpretation is perfectly acceptable. What is more troubling, on the other hand, is that the significance of the legs and feet was only addressed in half a page in chapter 2, without any precise conclusion. The same could be said for the various brief developments devoted to the different types of limbs and organs, again in chapter 2. The rapid presentation of the different hypotheses concerning each category of votive becomes, a few chapters later, a series of certainties from which the entire interpretation derives. To conclude with the lower limbs, it should be said that they are almost everywhere, and by far the most common offering among anatomical ex votos. The few anomalies concern only small votive deposits, from which it is difficult to draw statistical conclusions. A more significant exception is the Pantanacci terracotta assemblage at Lanuvium[8]. There are slightly more female sexual organs than lower limbs (125 vs 85), but these two categories together account for only half of the identifiable anatomical ex votos. The emphasis is more on the open body, the open head and the internal organs. In short, the logic behind the offerings is varied and difficult to pin down into a single binary opposition.
To sum up, this is a rich and stimulating publication, which is likely to be a landmark in the history of studies on votive assemblages from Republican Italy. It has two facets: on the one hand, it contains a vast amount of data and represents a significant effort, never before attempted, to put it together. On the other hand, it adopts a perspective that can be described as ‘deconstructivist’ in relation to the majority of previous studies. These proposals and conclusions will be discussed. In any case, the author had the merit of setting them out clearly and systematically.
Notes
[1] An earlier book on this topic should be mentioned, to which Boecker often refers: J. Bouma, Religio Votiva. The archaeology of Latial Votive Religion, Groningen, 1996.
[2] Pensabene P. Rizzo M. A., Roghi M., Talamo E. (edd.) 1980, Terracotte votive dal Tevere (Studi Miscellanei, 25), Roma. Gatti Lo Guzzo L. 1978, Il deposito votivo dall’Esquilino detto di Minerva Medica (Studi e materiali di etruscologia e antichità italiche, 17), Firenze. Another recent exhibition (La Roma della Repubblica. Il racconto dell’Archeologia) at the Capitoline Museums in 2023 revisited this Roman votive material, also somewhat forgotten since it was published almost half a century ago.
[3] Comella A. 1981, “Tipologia e diffusione dei complessi votivi in Italia in epoca medio- e tardo- repubblicana. Contributo alla storia dell’artigianato antico”, in MEFRA, 93, 2, pp. 717-803.
[4] There is a recent and well-informed update on the chronology of votive heads and their relationship with anatomical ex votos: M. Papini, “Bodies in pieces in central Italy”, in M. Maiuro, J. B. Johnson edd., The Oxford Handbook of Pre-Roman Italy, OUP, 2024, 822-837.
[5] In my opinion, this rather generic chronology could be further refined and slightly down-dated: O. de Cazanove, “Per la datazione degli ex voto anatomici d’Italia”, in T. Stek, G.J. Burgerts, (edd.), The impact of Rome on cult places and religious practices in ancient Italy, London, 2015, 29-66
[6] M. Torelli, Lavinio e Roma. Riti iniziatici e matrimonio tra archeologia e società, Roma, Quasar, 1984.
[7] F. Coarelli (ed.), Fregellae. 2. Il santuario di Esculapio, Roma, Quasar, 1986, 7.
[8] Attenni L., Ghini G. 2014, “La stipe votiva in località Pantanacci (Genzano di Roma-Lanuvio, Roma)” in Lazio e Sabina, 10. Atti del convegno, 2013, Roma, pp. 153-161