- Matthias Recke –
This raises the problem that because of the lack of dedicatory inscriptions, the local deity
can hardly ever be identifi ed, and the votive gifts themselves are not so specifi c that the
recipient can be read from them. The few epigraphically documented examples were
compiled by Turfa: Vea, Uni, Turan, Menerva and probably Tiur and Selvans in Etruria, and
Minerva, Diana, Juno, Mater Matuta, Ceres and Aesculapius in Latium and Campania.^24
Although in some sanctuaries anatomical votives have been found as they were placed
by the worshippers, namely on or at an altar in the sanctuary, or at least in the immediate
vicinity,^25 the majority of the objects come from secondary depositions. These were in the
form of pits in the area of the sanctuary, in order to make room for new offerings. These
bothroi (or stipes) can contain several thousand objects^26 and they are occasionally sorted
according to type,^27 but they often include other objects as well. Both fi nd-situations
illustrate clearly that among dedications the offering of anatomical votives was a very
broad, widespread custom, which refl ects an everyday, individual rite of the “private”
religion, and that this communication between worshipper and deity stands in the
foreground, and is by far much more crucial than any aspect of self-representation and
self-portrayal of the dedicant in public inside the sanctuary.^28 It is questionable, though,
to what extent we may read an indication of lower social status of dedicants from the low
value of the material and its less costly manufacturing process.^29
MEANINGVotive offerings are primarily gifts for the gods, tangible signs of reverence, and often
they are the only surviving witness to ritual cult events. They are considered an expression
of the interaction and communication between donor and deity. This also applies to the
anatomical votives. Since dedicatory inscriptions are missing in general,^30 it is diffi cult
to decide whether we are dealing with ex-votos in the strict meaning of the term, thus
with thanks-offerings made because of a vow and after the petition has been fulfi lled by
a deity, or if they are gifts that emphasize the request and the prayers of the worshipper
and are supposed to encourage the deity to an active participation.^31 In addition to the
lack of dedicatory inscriptions, the solution to this question is complicated by the fact
that the vast majority of votive offerings were found deposited in secondary contexts. It is
striking, however, that the low value of the votive material suggests a minor role for the
aspect of self-representation of the donor in front of other visitors to the sanctuary. Thus
these votive offerings differ quite signifi cantly from the practices in the Greek cultural
area where this is a central element.
The most important basis, from which all interpretive approaches proceed, is the
recognition that the anatomical votives, as well as the relevant statues and heads, do not
depict the deity revered, but rather mortal men.^32 In favor of this is the adaptation of
standardized head types with different physiognomic characteristics that typify human age
and gender, without following the usual ideal for classical divine iconography, such as the
dress and attitude of statues, especially the representation as gift-bearers or worshippers.
From this it can still not be concluded that the votives always represent the donor himself
(or a part of him). This is evident for example in the votives of swaddled infants (see Fig.
59.6) or small children, which they can hardly have consecrated themselves.^33 Therefore
if a dedication for a third party is possible, then we must also expect that men sometimes
could donate models of women’s bodies, heads or body parts, on behalf of their wives, and