- chapter 59: Science as art –
2 The earliest examples of votive heads are found in Veii and Falerii. On the origin of
Etruscan votive religion in the Protovillanovan and Villanovan periods and its development
independent from Greece, cf. Turfa 2006, 90, 102–103.
3 Summaries: Forsén 1996; Forsén 2004, 311–313.
4 Also half-busts: Baggieri 1999, 36 fi g. 1 (from Tessennano).
5 D’Ercole 1990, pl. 83 b.
6 Very rarely representations of the jaw with teeth: Pensabene 2001, pl. X.3 (from Palestrina);
Baggieri 1999, 93 Fig. 10 (Lucus Feroniae).
7 Portions of faces (“masks”) from Corvaro show a peculiarity of a profi led outline, a clear
abstraction of the representation in the sense of an image, cf. Reggiani Massatini 1988, 27–
34, Fig. 35–53.
8 This was already emphasized by Stieda 1901, 80. Old Babylonian and Hittite liver models
depict (as does the Etruscan bronze Liver of Piacenza) the livers of animals.
9 Recke, Wamser-Krasznai 2008, 125 Nr. 27, fi g. 50–52 (from Veii). Not addressed here are
the anatomical votives that represent the body parts of animals, usually the limbs of cattle,
but also of pigs and horses. The fi nds from Capua are published by Pesetti 1994, 96–100; cf.
also a bovine hoof from Palestrina: Pensabene 2001, 373 Nr. 350. Still unpublished are the
fi nds from the deposit of Fidenae, which are under study by L. Ceccarelli, Cambridge, among
which is a large-scale bovine hoof. The body-part votives most likely have their counterpart
in the Asklepieion of Corinth, where an isolated goat’s foot was found (Roebuck 1951, 141,
pl. 56.38).
10 This approach also explains the occurrence of identical types in different places: Although
not excluding the possibility that molds were actually traded, there is the proliferation of
types among impressions of the fi nished objects. Popular motifs of other workshops have been
incorporated into the repertoire. The revision (retouching) and reworking of the new molds
can over time lead to different variants (type conversion).
11 For the dating potential of votive heads, see the work of Papini 2004.
12 Votive heads in general do not represent physiognomic portraits, only types, cf. Hofter 1985,
Papini 2004.
13 Recke 2008, 60–61; Recke – Wamser-Krasznai 2008, 88 Fig. 16.
14 Pensabene 1980, pl. A, 506, 515; Recke – Wamser-Krasznai 2008, 80 Nr. 3, Fig. 13.
15 Terracotta molds are known in Pyrgi, Tarquinia, Satricum and Cales, see Turfa 2004, 364–
367.
16 Strictly speaking, only votive heads may be dated on stylistic grounds.
17 On terminology cf. Turfa 2006, 91.
18 An exception is the fi nd of a terracotta votive foot in a tomb at Spina: Berti, Guzzo 1993, 358
Nr. 911, Ferrara inv. 9438 (from Tomb 300B VP).
19 Glinister 2006, 13, note 11; cf. also the presentation of the most important fi ndspots in Turfa
2006, 95–102. Since then, new sites are known, for instance, Pellegrini, Rafanelli 2007,
189–212; or an as-yet unpublished deposit at Fidenae.
20 The most important literature on fi ndspots is summarized by Turfa 2004, 364–367.
21 Cf. Edlund 1987. Not all sanctuaries in which anatomical votives have been found are
necessarily healing shrines, as also emphasized by Glinister 2006, 13.
22 Summarized by Forsén 1996, esp. 133–159.
23 Turfa 2006, 92. Several shrines with anatomical models already existed in the Archaic period
and then in the (late) fourth century bc they undergo a corresponding change in votive
customs, identifi able in the fi nds.
24 Turfa 2004, 360. The founding of the Asklepios sanctuary on the Tiber Island in Rome as an
offshoot of the sanctuary in Epidauros and thereby the introduction of the Aesculapius cult
into Italy at the beginning of the third century bc is traditionally linked to the “plague”
epidemic in Rome. The new cult melded with older, long-established cults of native