cow being milked, but rather depicts the testing of a sacrificial victim. Though
heavily restored, the original parts of the group belong to a male animal and a kneel-
ing priest examining its reproductive organs.
A number of cults had strict rules concerning the victims’ sexual status as cow,
male bovine (bos mas), or bull (taurus). Bos masin this context indicates a fully pro-
creative bull, and not – as has been held in the past – an ox. Consequently, it is
argued by Goette, this quality, too, had to be checked before proceeding to the sacrifice
proper, an operation called probatio victimae(Plin. Nat.8.183; Cic. Leg. agr.2.93).
The group therefore focuses on a ritual sequence unparalleled among official monu-
ments; this sequence constitutes a necessary and unquestionable element of any
sacrifice, but one of such little importance as to be totally neglected by public imagery.
It neither allows an identification of the deity receiving the sacrifice, nor involves
any action by the decisive participants in the ritual. Just like adorning the victim,
leading it to the altar, and killing it, the probatio victimaeis rather a task to be
carried out by second-rank religious staff. Since its depiction is unsuitable to em-
phasize any superior responsibilities for the ritual as a whole, the reasons for choosing
such a sequence must be of a private nature. The person carrying out the probatio
was a pontifex minor, who probably covered this task for the whole span of his priest-
hood. This particular sequence may have been chosen as representatively stressing
his office, rather as the emperor chose to have himself depicted as performing the
libation in front of the altar.
A similar statue in the Badia di Grottaferrata (Goette 1986: fig. 5) museum shows
that such a decision was not necessarily exceptional. In this case, too, the subject
matter is likely to have been chosen for entirely private motives. The actual function
of the statue is unknown, but we can assume it served as a votive in some sanctu-
ary or as a representative accessory to a tomb. It remains an impressive testimony to
the much broader imagery of religious ritual within Roman private monuments.
Furthermore, it serves as a reminder of the limitations of archaeological finds in
illustrating written sources. The choice of the ritual sequences to be represented,
the stress on particular performers within the ritual, and the slight distortions of the
proceeding aimed at creating a clear-cut message all add up to creating a perspect-
ive on Roman religion specific to images. The images in themselves are a rich source
for religious practice and contemporary views of this practice, but they cannot be
read as continuous and coherent protocols of ritual illustrating the everyday (or the
extraordinary) proceedings of Roman religion.
Sacrificial Victims: Showing, Not Acting
Besides the great number of narrative scenes, a large series of public and private
monuments restricts itself to merely showing cult instruments and/or sacrificial
victims. The animals’ rich adornment usually leaves little doubt as to their destina-
tion of immolation, probably the most prominent example being the two depictions
of suovetauriliaon the back of the Anaglypha Traiani (fig. 12.4). Again, parallels
from Beneventum and Rome show the Anaglypha to be no exception in the recordReliefs, Public and Private 173