Terracotta Votive Offerings in Sets or Groups
Offrandes de terre cuite en set ou en groupe
p. 179-197
Résumés
Offrandes bon marché, les figurines de terre cuite sont nombreuses dans les dépôts votifs de tout le monde grec. Elles nous renseignent non seulement sur la nature du culte et la divinité dédicataire, mais aussi sur les préférences et les pratiques cultuelles du dédicant moyen. Cet article suggère qu’à l’occasion les figurines ont pu être achetées et consacrées en sets ou en groupes et qu’elles ont alors été disposées ensemble. Des offrandes génériques ont ainsi pu être offertes et présentées en groupes afin de constituer des représentations spécifiques ou même narratives en rapport avec le dédicant (par ex. un groupe familial) ou avec la personnalité de la divinité dédicataire (par ex. deux cavaliers pour représenter les Dioscures). De plus, des groupements de figurines pouvaient rapprocher physiquement le dédicant de la divinité (par ex. des figurines d’adorants ou de porteurs d’offrandes placées près d’une figurine représentant la divinité) ou mettre en scène un rituel particulier. Dans certains cas, des dépôts votifs constitués d’offrandes similaires peuvent indiquer que les figurines de terre cuite ont été offertes en groupes de deux exemplaires ou plus à l’occasion d’une seule et même visite au sanctuaire. De tels groupements de figurines pouvaient en dire plus sur le culte et la divinité dédicataire et pouvaient augmenter l’efficacité de l’offrande.
Inexpensive terracotta offerings are abundant in votive deposits throughout the Greek world. They have the potential not only to illuminate the type of cult and the nature and character of the recipients, but also to help us ascertain popular preferences and cult practices of the average worshipper. This paper puts forward the novel suggestion that terracotta offerings could occasionally have been purchased and dedicated in sets or groups, and presumably also displayed together. Thus generic offerings could have been dedicated and displayed in groups to produce more specific images and narratives connected to the personal circumstances of the dedicant (e.g., a family group) or the personality of the recipient deities (e.g., two riders could have denoted the Dioskouroi). Additionally, groupings of terracottas could have brought the dedicant physically closer to the divinity (e.g., adorants or offering bearers placed next to deities) or could have served a specific rite. In some cases, votive deposits with similar profiles of types of offerings may indicate that terracottas were dedicated in groups of two or more items during a single visit to the sanctuary. Such groups of offerings would have expressed complementary notions about the cult and the recipient, and could have increased the efficacy of the gift-giving.
Entrées d’index
Mots-clés : Offrande de figurine, offrandes groupées, pratiques votives, choix votif, placement des offrandes
Keywords : Terracotta votives, offerings in groups, votive practice, votive choice, placement of offerings
Texte intégral
1Offering a figurine to a deity was a customary act of worship in the Classical world.1 Worshippers seldom visited a shrine empty-handed; they brought small gifts, usually terracottas, as a token of respect to accompany their prayers or perhaps as a substitute for (or reminder of) more expensive offerings. Naturally, now they had established a special relationship with the divinity they expected a favour in return.2 Thus, humble but plentiful and enduring terracottas embody and preserve numerous expressions of the piety of the average worshipper. Their value is symbolic rather than material since they communicate a message, which often depended on the context in which they were used.3
2Unlike larger dedications, terracotta figurines are rarely discovered where they were originally displayed.4 The vast majority are found in votive deposits that are usually unstratified. Traditionally, scholarly research has focused on two main aspects: first, the style, date and iconography of the figurines themselves; and second, the identification of the recipient deity.
3More recently, another aspect has engaged scholarly interest: votive choice and practice. As mediating agents between the divine and human worlds, gifts were offered with specific intentions and were deliberately chosen by the individual for the particular occasion. But how did the average worshipper select the type of offering? Was the dedication of a votive a random act (“I just want to offer a gift”)5 or a conscious choice based on specific characteristics of an object (“I want to offer the right gift”)? And if the latter, was the selection determined by the dedicator’s personal preferences and circumstances,6 by the nature and character of the recipient deity,7 by specific rituals practised in the sanctuary,8 or by a combination of these? Moreover, might the selection of offerings have been limited by practical considerations such as cost, portability or availability of types at local workshops?9
4To understand how social customs and individual behaviour affected these decisions is challenging; nevertheless, we can be sure that various factors influenced the choice of small votives. Dedicants probably chose from a predetermined selection, sometimes depending on their specific concerns or circumstances and sometimes by the identity and special characteristics of the honoured deity or the nature of the particular cult.10
5In general, purchasers could choose from a range of types. Manufacturing techniques and iconographic types of terracotta offerings allowed them to be used for various purposes,11 and craftsmen obviously benefited by producing figurines with broad appeal.12 Many iconographic types are generic, but because offerings derived meaning from context, the same type could have been dedicated to various deities and at different sanctuaries. Thus, the ambiguous iconographic character of an offering would have taken on a particular significance in the specific ritual action and context, and through its association with other types of offerings.13 Generic images would also have been appropriate for offerings when specific rituals were presided over by a variety of deities,14 or if they were intended to represent images of the dedicators placing themselves under divine protection.15
6I suggest that additional flexibility in creating meaning could accrue through the grouping of individual offerings and appropriate placement. A type could have different meanings depending on how it was presented; thus two (or more) similar figurines placed side-by-side would provide a different interpretation from that of a single figurine, and while a generic figure could have denoted either a mortal or a deity when seated alone,16 standing figures placed next to it may have indicated it was a divinity.
7This aspect of votive practice – namely, small terracottas acquired, dedicated and displayed in sets or groups – has not yet been investigated. The tacit assumption is that on a particular occasion each person offered only one object. I will challenge this assumption and argue that sometimes a dedicant offered more than one object, these presumably being displayed together.
8Clear evidence for the practice of dedicating multiple offerings (of the same or different type) exists in other media. For example, votive inscriptions on non-terracotta artefacts demonstrate this and suggest some reasons for the practice. Thus, the inscription on a sixth-century BC bowl from Naukratis mentions two additional offerings made by an individual: Polemarchos dedicated me to Apollo; also the jug and the stand. The implication is that the objects were dedicated together and placed next to each other.17
9A tithe may have also required several objects to be dedicated together. Seven marble basins from the Athenian Akropolis each bear a variation of the same inscription: Onesimos, son of Smikythos, dedicated to Athena as dekate.18
10Inventories show that anatomical votives could also be dedicated in multiples by the same person. Moreover, iron spits, used regularly in sanctuaries as cult implements for roasting meat, were often dedicated in sets of six or multiples of six, most likely reflecting a banquet service.19
11Sculptures were often dedicated in groups. For example, Geneleos’ well-known family portrait group from Samos included six figures on a single base: a reclining man, a seated woman, three standing maidens and one youth. An inscription on the reclining man declares, [-ilarhes] dedicated us to Hera. Geneleos made us.20
12The Geneleos group combined conventional sculptural figure types in a new family group. The members are depicted in a typical characteristic activity or ideal pose reflecting their social role and status: the father reclines at a banquet, the legitimate spouse and mother is enthroned, the nubile daughters assume the characteristic kore stance, and the son holds a musical instrument, indicating his aristocratic education.21 Each statue functions on its own, but by being positioned on a single base and juxtaposed with the other statues it assumes further meaning; an evocative unit was thus formed from individual images.
13As Stéphanie Huysecom-Haxhi and Arthur Muller have recently shown, corresponding types of the Geneleos group are found among terracotta figurines (fig. 1), suggesting these types of figurines often represented mortals rather than gods and were depicted conventionally, according to their social role.22
Fig. 1. – Terracotta figurines and the Geneleos dedication.

After Muller 2009, p. 89, fig. 2; reproduction courtesy of the author.
14I will extend this interpretation a little to suggest that in some cases terracotta figurines representing general types like these might have been dedicated and displayed together to represent the family of the dedicator. Thus, votaries could choose generic types available in the workshop to construct their own individual family portrait to place under divine protection. The self-representational character of such an offering would also reflect the social position and identity of the votary.
15Occasionally, indications of how votives were used in a cultic setting derive from the form and iconography of the objects themselves. The production of terracotta banqueters began in the sixth century BC, and these represent the most popular and long-lived subject produced by Tarentine coroplasts.23 The man, bearded or unbearded, holds a drinking vessel and, from the early fifth century on, may wear an elaborate head-cover or helmet. From around the mid fifth century he may be accompanied by his female consort who either stands or sits on the couch or on a separate throne at the foot of the couch.24 Initially these composite types were constructed by combining before firing two positives made in independent molds: a reclining man and an enthroned or standing woman. This is clearly shown when a chronological difference exists between the two. Very soon the two separate molds were replaced by one that included both figures.25
16A similar case involves a seated man and seated woman,26 representing either a mortal couple asking for divine protection or a divine couple. Side-by-side placement of such figurines might have triggered the creation of composite pieces, such as the one found in Catania (fig. 2),27 where the emphasis lay on the notion of the couple.
Fig. 2. – Seated couple (probably a Milesian import) from the sanctuary of Demeter in Catania.

Photo courtesy Antonella Pautasso.
17In these cases, did the link between the two subjects exist from the beginning or did such a relationship develop with time? In either case, the implication is that these independent images were often dedicated and displayed together, prompting coroplasts to create a new composite type, perhaps to meet a demand; thus, rather than buying two individual figurines the votary could choose a composite figurine.28
18A fascinating case from Lakonia shows that such a pairing of two figurines was intended from the time of manufacture, for reasons related to the specific cult. The Archaic figurine in fig. 3 was found in a large votive deposit at Amyklai, and represents an enthroned bearded figure wearing a stephane, with left arm extended and right hand probably resting on his knees.29 The backrest of the throne is decorated with a frontal anthemion finial only on one side. The finial on the other side is not broken off but must have been eliminated deliberately by the coroplast before firing, probably to accommodate another seated figure, presumably female, placed next to it; her throne would have had an anthemion on the opposite side, as composite examples from other sites indicate.30 This very unusual technical characteristic of the male figurine suggests the joint dedication and display of two figurines. Thus, while other figurines found in the deposit show male and female figurines were dedicated at the sanctuary independently, this figurine must have been dedicated as part of a pair, a practice that may have inspired coroplasts to stress the pairing even more by producing a composition showing them sitting next to each other on a single throne, while still using pre-existing molds.
Fig. 3. – Figurine of enthroned man from Amyklai: Sparta Museum no. 6239.

Author’s photo.
19We know the identity of this couple because the votive deposit is associated with the sanctuary of Kassandra (known in Lakonia as Alexandra) and Agamemnon. The heroic cult practised at the Amyklai sanctuary is related to a variant tradition that placed the palace, and consequently the murder of Agamemnon and Kassandra, not in the Argolid as the tragic poets said, but in Lakonia.31
20Predominant among the Amyklaian offerings are Archaic and Classical terracotta plaques with relief decoration representing a seated man holding a drinking cup and accompanied by a snake (fig. 4).32 The man is sometimes accompanied by his consort (fig. 5), who may also appear on her own.33 The seated figures were surely intended to represent Agamemnon and Kassandra, and the iconography is closely related to the stone Lakonian reliefs34 representing local heroes.35 Appropriately, the two figurines placed side-by-side would have provided a three-dimensional version of the recurrent seated couple on the stone reliefs and terracotta plaques.
Fig. 4. – Plaques with seated man holding kantharos from Amyklai: Sparta Museum nos. 6230/1, 6221/1.

Author’s photo.
Fig. 5. – Plaque with seated couple and attendant from Amyklai: Sparta Museum no. 6231/2.

Author’s photo.
21Similarly, pairings of two identical or similar types may also have helped make general offerings more suitable for specific deities. Rider plaques are fitting general offerings for a hero,36 and in the Amyklaian deposit this would have been Agamemnon, who embodied the ideal qualities of horsemanship; however, paired riders might have been meant to represent the Lakonian Dioskouroi twins, who were often portrayed on horseback or next to their mounts.37 The heroic and funerary qualities of the Dioskouroi, who straddle the mortal and divine divide, would have made them appropriate offerings in any Lakonian heroic setting.
22While early Hellenistic plaques depicting the two Dioskouroi riding galloping horses and sometimes approaching the feast set out for them have been found at Lokroi Epizephyrioi and Taras,38 none have been found in Lakonia. Still, I suggest that two different plaques, each with one rider, might have been dedicated together. Since similar riders are shown facing left or right, the two plaques could have been displayed with the riders either facing the same direction (fig. 6) or facing each other (fig. 7). Support for this idea comes from Tarentine plaques,39 where both compositions can be found, while the compositions are also familiar from monumental sculpture and vase painting.40
Fig. 6. – Plaques with riders from Amyklai: Sparta Museum nos. 6150/13, 6150/1.

Author’s photo.
Fig. 7. – Plaques with riders from Amyklai: Sparta Museum nos. 6150/1, 6152/15.

Author’s photo.
23Seated goddesses can appear alone or in twos.41 Whether the duplication implies a pair of separate deities (like Artemis and Leto), strengthens the divine potency of one deity, or emphasizes two different aspects of the same deity is not of immediate concern here.42 The presence of both single and doubled versions may suggest that single figures could also have been dedicated in pairs and placed side by side, inspiring the creation of the composite group. The goddesses could have been differentiated, if this was desired, with different colours.43
24In addition to duplicates of the same subject, different subjects may also have been combined in one set to create an extended narrative. Identical triads on Lakonian and Messenian plaques have been identified as mortal worshippers (fig. 8), their number simply indicating there were several of them rather than signifying a particular divine or semi-divine triad.44 I suggest plaques with worshippers might have been placed next to plaques depicting the seated hero (fig. 4), thus composing larger scenes analogous to those on which deities and mortals appear together. Indeed, a plaque from Messene with two worshippers in front of a larger seated male combines the two subjects in one scene and gives an idea of the final effect of such positioning.45 This composition resembles that on the Lakonian stone reliefs with worshippers approaching the seated couple.46
Fig. 8. – Plaque with female triad from Amyklai: Sparta Museum no. 6237/28.

Author’s photo.
25The same could have been the case at Lokroi: plaques showing bearers of offerings could have been placed next to plaques depicting Persephone and Hades.47 In other Lokrian examples, three maidens holding hands and thus presumably dancing are shown with the seated Persephone.48 Such arrangements would have brought the mortal dedicants, represented by the images of the worshippers, in closer physical proximity to the divinity.
26Female musicians from South Italy and Sicily appear both as separate figures and in groups of three,49 suggesting single figurines may also have been offered as a group. For example, early Hellenistic examples of single musicians from Hadranon play double pipes (fig. 9) and tympanon (fig. 10),50 and represent either nymphs or mortals during a sacred ritual. Another example (fig. 11) shows a triad with the pipe player on the left and the tympanon player on the right; the middle one is a singer or dancer.51
Fig. 9. – Female aulist from Hadranon: Catania, Soprintendenza ai Beni Culturali e Ambientali, no number.

After Bellia 2009, p. 22 no. 3; reproduction courtesy of the author.
Fig. 10. – Female tympanist from Hadranon: Adrano, Museo Archeologico no. 6705.

After Bellia 2009, p. 25 no. 11; reproduction courtesy of the author.
Fig. 11. – Female triad of musicians from Hadranon: Syracuse, Museo Archeologico Regionale “P. Orsi” no. 33602.

After Bellia 2009, p. 26, no. 16; reproduction courtesy of the author.
27Etruscan material also supports this suggestion. From the Vignaccia sanctuary deposit at Caere come fourth-century BC figurines representing males playing double pipes and lyre, either alone (figs. 12, 13)52 or in pairs (fig. 14).53 Single or paired musicians could have been placed next to images representing a seated or standing divine figure in single or duplicated form (fig. 15).54 A composite version appears on another plaque from this deposit, where an identical pipe player in small scale accompanies the goddess Artemis/ Artumes depicted in a sacrificial context (the musician is not harmoniously integrated into the composition which may imply that two different types were combined).55 In another example two identical seated goddesses, each holding a bird, are flanked by similar diminutive musicians, an aulist and a lyrist (fig. 16).56 Interestingly, all these figures reproduce types encountered both alone and in combinations. The availability of these various types would have allowed dedicators to “mix-and-match” offerings to construct their own specific narrative frameworks.57
Fig. 12. – Male aulist from Caere: Berkeley, Phoebe Hearst Museum no. 8-2449.

After Nagy 1994, p. 213, fig. 19.4; reproduction courtesy of the Museum.
Fig. 13. – Male lyrist from Caere: Berkeley, Phoebe Hearst Museum no. 8-2576.

After Nagy 1994, fig. 19.10; reproduction courtesy of the Museum.
Fig. 14. – Pair of male musicians (aulist and lyrist): American Academy in Rome no. 86.

After Nagy 1994, fig. 19.9; reproduction courtesy of the American Academy in Rome, Photographic Archive.
Fig. 15. – Suggested arrangement of musicians depicted in figs. 12-13 flanking a seated Artumes: Berkeley, Phoebe Hearst Museum no. 8-2436.

After Nagy 1994, fig. 19.5; reproduction courtesy of the Museum.
Fig. 16. – Pair of seated goddesses flanked by diminutive male musicians (aulist and lyrist): Siena, Museo Archeologico no. 37850.

After Nagy 1994, fig. 19.7; reproduction courtesy of the American Academy in Rome, Photographic Archive.
28The use and display of votives in a cultic setting arises from both the objects themselves and the circumstances in which they were found. A terracotta group from a votive deposit at Paestum, dated around 470-460 BC, has as its central focus a large enthroned woman with polos and veil (fig. 17).58 Identified as Hera, she holds a pomegranate in her right hand and most likely carried a phiale in her (now missing) left hand. The figurine was originally flanked by two standing females who are stylistically related and probably made by the same craftsman: the woman on the left has her head covered with her mantle and holds a bowl of fruit in her left hand, while her right hand is raised in prayer; the woman on the right, only partly preserved, has her head uncovered and may also have held objects.
Fig. 17. – Group with female attendants (Paestum Museum nos. 1954, 1955) flanking a seated goddess (Paestum Museum nos. 1966, 1941).

After Baumbach 2004, fig. 5.22; reproduction courtesy of the author.
29The seated figurine’s high quality and large size (51.6 cm high) single it out from the deposit’s other terracottas. It probably imitates a large cult statue of Hera which may also have been in terracotta.59 In the coroplast’s version the goddess was provided with additional attending figures, most likely a worshipper and a priestess, to create a more imposing composition that also reflected local ritual actions.60
30A composite figurine from Athens (now in Berlin) shows a similar configuration.61 The difference in scale between the seated and standing figures is more pronounced here than in the Paestum group, suggesting again a goddess with mortal attendants. Only one standing figure remains intact and she has no attributes but simply keeps her arms along the sides.
31We cannot always be sure about the actual positioning of group terracottas, but as with large statuary, dedicants would have tried to position figurines to achieve a compositional unity. Arranging figurines in a row62 is not the only option. A different approach is suggested by an exceptional bronze group from Orvieto, probably dated to the fourth century BC. This is a stone base with eight holes, seven of which are arranged in a U-shape around the central eighth; three of the holes still preserve the original bronze statuettes, the two on the left in an adorant’s pose with extended arms and the central statuette wrapped in a mantle and perhaps representing a male Archaic statue.63
32Some groupings can be explained in purely ritual terms. Sets of offerings and ritual equipment have been recognized in Postpalatial (specifically Late Minoan IIIB and IIIC) Crete, and are associated with town shrines of a popular character. Among these, matching sets are most clear at Kavousi in East Crete.64 Each set consists of a “goddess with upraised hands”, a “snake tube”65 and a plaque (with either painted or relief decoration and suspension holes) (fig. 18);66 the sets are easily differentiated because they were made from the same type of fabric. Offering bowls (kalathoi) placed on the snake tubes67 were independent of the set since their clay does not match the other objects.
Fig. 18. – Sets of goddesses, snake tubes and plaques from Kavousi.

After Gesell 2004, fig. 7.14; reproduction courtesy of the Trustees of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens.
33These groupings were both produced and used as matching sets. The original arrangement would have seen the goddesses on the bench, snake tubes on the floor in front and plaques hung on the wall. This implies each family or special group obtained a set of ritual equipment and set it up in the shrine permanently. Members of the group would regularly bring their offerings in kalathoi to be placed on the snake tube and replaced each time by new offerings, which is why the kalathoi do not match the set.68
34Fourth-century BC finds from Elea-Velia, south of Paestum show that sets of votive objects, including figurines of seated goddesses, could be dedicated together in small naiskoi.69 In a similar situation at Lucanian Roccagloriosa, terracottas were arranged in three groups, each comprising pairs of goddesses: a larger type holding phiale and bowl of fruit and a smaller “velo puntato” type (which also appears on its own elsewhere).70
35Finally, small offerings could also be dedicated and displayed in sets because they were thematically related to the specific cult. The terracotta plaques found at Amyklai included reclining men, riders and warriors.71 In contrast to the distinctive seated figures (figs. 4-5), these are generic, stereotyped images that were appropriate dedications to any hero because they represent typical aristocratic and heroic activities— banqueting, hunting and war.72
36Intriguingly, all these subjects (including the seated figures), and many even mechanically related, are found in several other votive deposits in Lakonia and Messenia.73 The similar profiles of the assemblages suggest a correspondence in both the nature of the divinity and the cultic setting. Indeed, the evidence points to an association of all these deposits with heroic figures (for example, Agamemnon and Kassandra at Amyklai). At the same time, the similarity may indicate that people dedicated these plaques not only singly but also in sets. This would have increased the efficacy of the gift-giving not only numerically but also thematically, by addressing several aspects of the honoured figure as a whole. Each subject had an independent meaning but also expressed complementary notions about the cult and the recipient;74 for example, the warrior referred to the protective role of the hero, while the rider was associated with elite status and wealth.
37Dedications are not simply material objects, but dynamic and expressive products of human cultic behaviour. Although small offerings had intrinsic meaning, their dedicants could also have invested them with specific personal meanings and narratives. Thus, I trust I have shown that to recover more information on votive practice we need to move away from individual offerings and study the context in which they were found and their relation to other offerings found in the same assemblage.75
38Even though small votives may be perceived as isolated, individual images with self-contained meanings, their flexible iconography allowed them to be dedicated and displayed not just singly but also in groups. Worshippers could intentionally have chosen to dedicate more than one votive offering of the same or a different type, either as a way of enhancing the worth or symbolic value of the offering, or on behalf of family members who could not visit the sanctuary.76 Generic offerings appropriate for several cults could have been dedicated and displayed in intentionally constructed groups in order to produce more specific images and narratives that related to the personal circumstances of the dedicant or the character of the recipient deities. Extended narratives like these or an intentional arrangement of figurines may also have evoked rituals performed by participants. Thus popular preferences and cult practices can be further illuminated by studying terracotta votives not just individually but also as deliberately selected, arranged and sometimes manufactured groups.
Notes de bas de page
1 I am grateful to the following colleagues for ideas, advice and help at various stages of this research: Marina Albertocchi, Jens Baumbach, Angela Bellia, Adi Erlich, Mechthild Ladurner, Arthur Muller, Ili Nagy, Antonella Pautasso and Oliver Pilz.
2 On votive offerings see, e.g., W. Burkert, “Offerings in Perspective: Surrender, Distribution, Exchange”, in T. Linders, G. Nordquist (eds), Gifts to the Gods (Symposium, Uppsala, 1985), BoreasUpps 15 (1987), pp. 43-50; F.T. van Straten, “Gifts for the Gods”, in H.S. Versnel (ed.) Faith, Hope, and Worship: Aspects of Religious Mentality in the Ancient World (1981), pp. 65-104; Idem, “Votives and Votaries in Greek Sanctuaries”, in A. Schachter (ed.), Le sanctuaire grec (1992), pp. 247-290.
3 On votive offerings as communication media, see C. Frevel, “Gifts to the Gods? Votives as Communication Markers in Sanctuaries and Other Places in the Bronze and Iron Ages in Palestine/Israel”, in I. Cornelius, L. Jonker (eds), “From Ebla to Stellenbosch”: Syro-Palestinian Religions and the Hebrew Bible (2008), pp. 25-48.
4 See, e.g., the figurines at Sicilian Eloro: A.W. van Buren, “Newsletter from Rome”, AJA 70 (1966), pp. 349-361 at pp. 357-359, pl. 87.1; and the Archaic figurines and statues at Aghia Irini, Cyprus grouped by size and arranged in concentric semicircles around the altar: E. Gjerstad, The Cypro-Geometric, Cypro-Archaic and Cypro-Classical Periods. The Swedish Cyprus Expedition 4.2 (1948). I owe this reference to Adi Erlich.
5 Stillwell 1952, p. 9; C.G. Simon, The Archaic Votive Offerings and Cults of Ionia, Ph.D., University of California, Berkeley (1986), esp. pp. 410-420.
6 E.g., M. Voyatzis, “An Analysis of Votive Types Recently Found at Tegea”, in R. Hägg (ed.), Peloponnesian Sanctuaries and Cults (Symposium, Athens, June 1994) (2002), pp. 159-169 at p. 164.
7 E.g., Baumbach 2004.
8 Lippolis 2001.
9 Merker 2000, p. 325.
10 See Baumbach 2004, pp. 3-5. On this issue, see the papers in Prêtre, Huysecom-Haxhi 2009.
11 Huysecom-Haxhi, Muller 2007, p. 233.
12 See Lippolis 2001, p. 241.
13 See O. Broneer, “Hero Cults in the Corinthian Agora”, Hesperia 11 (1942), pp. 128-161 at p. 132; Merker 2000, p. 323; Lippolis 2001, p. 235.
14 Lippolis 2001, pp. 228-229; Lippolis 2009, p. 153.
15 A fine line separated human and divine representation.
16 Huysecom-Haxhi, Muller 2007, pp. 240-241.
17 Lazzarini 1976, no. 782.
18 Lazzarini 1976, no. 622; A.E. Raubitschek, Dedications from the Athenian Akropolis (1949), pp. 384-392, nos. 349-353, 357-358.
19 Salapata 2011, pp. 3-4.
20 Bumke 2004, pp. 82-90.
21 Huysecom-Haxhi, Muller 2007, pp. 241-242.
22 Huysecom-Haxhi, Muller 2007, pp. 241-242; Muller 2009, pp. 91-92.
23 Abruzzese Calabrese 1996, pp. 190-192.
24 See references in Abruzzese Calabrese 1996, p. 191; see a Boiotian group: ThesCRA 2 (2004), s.v. “banquet”, p. 243, no. 170.
25 Abruzzese Calabrese 1996, p. 191.
26 Higgins 1967, pp. 35-36.
27 Ca. mid sixth century BC: A. Pautasso, M. Albertocchi, “Nothing to Do With Trade: Vasi configurati, statuette e merci dimenticate tra Oriente e Occidente”, in R. Panvini et al. (eds), Traffici, commerci e vie di distribuzione nel Mediterraneo tra protostoria e V secolo a.C. (2009), pp. 283-290, at p. 286, fig. 2l; see Rouse 1902, p. 247, fig. 37. See the Zeus-Hera couple in M. Cipriani, “Il ruolo di Hera nel santuario meridionale di Poseidonia”, in J. de la Genière (ed.), Héra: Images, espaces et cultes (Colloque, Lille, novembre 1993) (1997), pp. 211-225 at pp. 218-219, fig. 13.
28 The same development is observed on stone banquet reliefs: on the sixth-century BC relief from Tegea, the woman is seated on a separate throne (Athens National Museum 55: Dentzer 1982, pp. 252-262, fig. 512); on later reliefs the woman usually sits on the couch.
29 Sparta Museum no. 6239.
30 http://www.corbisimages.com/Enlargement/MI001948.html (accessed on 13/2/2012).
31 Salapata 2002. The Spartans presumably exploited this version to claim the most famous epic king, Agamemnon, thus attempting to forge a legendary link with the Achaean kingdom of the past and create a justification for their intention to become the sovereigns of the Peloponnese.
32 See also Salapata 2006, figs. 2, 11.
33 Salapata 2002, pp. 142-143, figs. 3-4. In both cases, the woman holds a similar sceptre.
34 Stibbe 1991, figs. 5-25; Salapata 2006, figs. 1, 3-7.
35 Salapata 2011, pp. 4-5.
36 F. Langefass-Vuduroglu, Mensch und Pferd auf griechischen Grab-und Votivsteinen (1973), pp. 67-79.
37 M. Bonanno Aravantinos, “L’iconografia dei Dioscuri in Grecia”, in L. Nista (ed.), Castores: l’immagine dei Dioscuri a Roma (1994), pp. 9-25.
38 Lippolis 2009, figs. 4-5.
39 Lippolis 2009, figs. 4C, 5C and E.
40 See references in Salapata 2011, pp. 5-6.
41 Nagy 1994, p. 214 fig. 19.5 (single); Hadzisteliou-Price 1971, pl. I. 2 (duplicated).
42 On this issue see Hadzisteliou-Price 1971, esp. pp. 52-54; Nagy 1994, p. 215; Salapata 2009, pp. 331-332.
43 See Bumke 2004, pp. 58-59.
44 Salapata 2009.
45 P.G. Themelis, Ήρωες και ηρώα στη Μεσσήνη (2000), p. 21, fig. 17.
46 E.g., Salapata 2006, fig. 3.
47 Prückner 1968, p. 44, fig. 6 and p. 76, fig. 14.
48 Prückner 1968, pp. 65-66, pl. 11.1.
49 See, e.g., Bell 1981, pp. 92-93, 162-163, 188.
50 Bellia 2009, p. 22, no. 3 (pipes); p. 25, nos. 11-12 (tympanon).
51 Bellia 2009, pp. 25-26, nos. 13-16.
52 E.g., Nagy 1994, p. 213, fig. 19.4 (pipe player); p. 216, figs. 19.10 (lyre player).
53 Nagy 1994, pp. 216-217, fig. 19.9.
54 Nagy 1994, p. 214, fig. 19.5 (single Artumes); p. 215, fig. 19.6 (duplicated Artumes).
55 Boston, Museum of Fine Arts 88.364; Nagy 1994, pp. 211-12, fig. 19.1; H. Nagy, “Etruscan Votive Terracottas and their Archaeological Contexts”, in de Grummond, Edlund-Berry 2011, pp. 113-125, at p. 121, fig. 12.
56 Nagy 1994, pp. 215-216, fig. 19.7.
57 Construction of a narrative is certainly easier in painting and relief sculpture.
58 Sestieri Bertarelli 1989, pp. 39-44, figs. 28-29. Baumbach 2004, pp. 116-117, figs. 5.21-22.
59 Sestieri Bertarelli 1989, pp. 39-40, 43.
60 A similar configuration, with a male god attended by two female worshippers or priestesses, has been suggested for the Dreros sphyrelata, generally interpreted as a divine triad: see I. Romano, “The Dreros Sphyrelata: A Re-examination of their Date and Function”, in C.C. Mattusch et al. (eds), From the Parts to the Whole (2000), pp. 40-50, esp. 49-50.
61 Nicholls 1982, pp. 89-122 at pp. 119-120, pl. 29c.
62 See, e.g., Hellenistic family statuettes from Satricum with three and seven persons of mixed gender standing frontally in a row; J.W. Bouma, Religio Votiva: The Archaeology of Latial Votive Religion (1996), p. 270 and fig. 11a-b (on p. 274).
63 S. Stopponi, “Campo della Fiera at Orvieto: New Discoveries”, in de Grummond, Edlund-Berry 2011, pp. 16-44 at pp. 33-34, fig. 40. I owe this reference to Ili Nagy.
64 See most recently Gesell 2004; Day et al. 2006, esp. pp. 140-143.
65 A cylindrical ritual stand with serpentine handles whose function was to support a bowl (kalathos) filled with offerings: Gesell 2004, p. 140.
66 Gesell 2004, p. 143, fig. 7.14; G.C. Gesell, “The Function of the Plaque in the Shrines of the Goddess with Up-raised Hands”, in R. Laffineur, R. Hägg (eds), Potnia: Deities and Religion in the Aegean Bronze Age, Aegaeum 22 (2001), pp. 253-258.
67 Gesell 2004, pp. 140-141.
68 Gesell 2004, p. 143; Day et al. 2006, p. 143. After the ritual, goddess, snake tube and plaque would remain on display or be stored for future use.
69 M. Ladurner, “Terracotta Dedications in Context: An Example from Elea-Velia”, CSIG News 4 (summer 2010), pp. 15-16 (http://coroplasticstudies.org/newsletter.html).
70 H. Fracchia, M. Gualtieri, “The Social Context of Cult Practices in Pre-Roman Lucania”, AJA 93 (1989), pp. 217-232, at pp. 225-228, figs. 8, 10-11; H. Fracchia, “Cultic Organisation and Cult Assimilation at Lucanian Roccagloriosa. 5th – 2nd c. BC”, in A. Comella, S. Mele (eds), Depositi votivi e culti dell'Italia antica dall'età arcaica a quella tardo-repubblicana (2005), pp. 597-606.
71 E.g., Stibbe 1991, figs. 36-38, 43-44.
72 Dentzer 1982, pp. 480, 503.
73 See references in Salapata 2011, p. 5, n. 38.
74 See above n. 13.
75 Osborne 2004, pp. 1-10, esp. 3-4.
76 Salapata 2011, p. 4.
Auteur
-
Gina Salapata
Massey University, New Zealand.
Le texte seul est utilisable sous licence Licence OpenEdition Books. Les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés) sont « Tous droits réservés », sauf mention contraire.
Le mythe Néron
La fabrique d'un monstre dans la littérature antique (ier-ve s.)
Laurie Lefebvre
2017
Figurines de terre cuite en Méditerranée grecque et romaine
2 - Iconographie et contextes
Arthur Muller et Ergün Laflı (dir.)
2015
Corps, travail et statut social
L’apport de la paléoanthropologie funéraire aux sciences historiques
Anne-Catherine Gillis (dir.)
2014
Figurines grecques en contexte
Présence muette dans le sanctuaire, la tombe et la maison
Stéphanie Huysecom-Haxhi et Arthur Muller (dir.)
2015
Boulogne et Thérouanne au temps de César
Approche toponymique de la cité des Morins
Hubert Le Bourdellès
2009
Figures d’empire, fragments de mémoire
Pouvoirs et identités dans le monde romain impérial (IIe s. av. n. è.–VIe s. de. n. è.)
Stéphane Benoist, Anne Daguet-Gagey et Christine Hoët-van Cauwenberghe (dir.)
2011
Boulogne-sur-Mer antique, entre terre et mer
Gesoriacum-Bononia, le port et son arrière-pays
Olivier Blamangin, Angélique Demon et Christine Hoët-van Cauwenberghe (dir.)
2020
Choses vues et entendues par Pausanias
Guide des croyances de la Grèce antique
Jacques Boulogne, Marion Muller-Dufeu et Maude Picouet-de Crémoux (dir.)
2015
« Quartiers » artisanaux en Grèce ancienne
Une perspective méditerranéenne
Arianna Esposito et Giorgos M. Sanidas (dir.)
2013
