Defining the Ritual, Analyzing Society: The social significance of material culture in pre-Roman cult places of Latium Vetus.

Hele tekst

(1)Defining the Ritual Analyzing Society The social significance of material culture in pre-Roman cult places of Latium Vetus Defining the Ritual, Analyzing Society The social significance of material culture in pre-Roman cult places of Latium Vetus. Tanja van Loon.

(2) Defining the Ritual, Analyzing Society The social significance of material culture in pre-Roman cult places of Latium Vetus.

(3) university of. groningen. groningen institute of archaeology. Copyright © 2017 T. van Loon ISBN: 978-90-367-9919-5 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording or by any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in written form from the author..

(4) Defining the Ritual, Analyzing Society The social significance of material culture in pre-Roman cult places of Latium Vetus. Proefschrift. ter verkrijging van de graad van doctor aan de Rijksuniversiteit Groningen op gezag van de rector magnificus prof. dr. E. Sterken en volgens besluit van het College voor Promoties. De openbare verdediging zal plaatsvinden op donderdag 22 juni 2017 om 16.15 uur. door. Tanja van Loon geboren op 18 augustus 1982 te Leiden.

(5) Promotor Prof. dr. P.A.J. Attema. Copromotor Dr. A.J. Nijboer. Beoordelingscommissie Prof. dr. A. Guidi Prof. dr. M. Gnade Prof. dr. G.L.M. Burgers.

(6) Table of Contents List of figures/tables/plates Acknowledgements Introduction. iv vii. Part I. 7. • •. •. •. •. Method and structure of the thesis Research framework. 1 3 5. Chapter I - The site and its history I.1 - Landscape setting I.2 - A short history of the research Chapter II - Laghetto del Monsignore, renewed interests II.1 - The collections II.2 - The materials II.3 - Chronology II.4 - The site Chapter III - Introduction to the Catalogue III.1 - Numbering system III.2 - Typology III.3 - Organization of the catalogue III.4 - Decoration types Chapter IV - Miniature Impasto/coarse ware Class I - Plates Class II - Large bowls/Teglie Class III - Bowls Class IV - Cups Class V - Jars Class VI - Jugs Class VII - Amphorae Class VI+VII - Jugs/Amphora Class VIII - Lids Class IX - Stands Class X - Mini Miniatures Class XI - Kernoi Class XII - Votive tablets Class XIII - Fragments undetermined Plates 1-9 Chapter V - Impasto/coarse ware Class I - Plates Class II - Bowls Class I + II - Plates or Bowls Class III - Cups Class IV - Jars Class V - Large Jars, Dolia Class VI - Jugs Class VII - Amphorae Class VIII - Lids Class IX - Rim fragments undetermined Class X – Cooking stands. 8 8 10 13 13 14 15 17 18 18 18 20 21 27 28 30 32 35 44 61 62 63 63 64 66 70 71 72 74 83 84 84 92 93 103 115 117 118 121 126 128.

(7) Table of Contents. •. •. • •. •. Part II •. Class XI - Weaving Utensils Class XII - Tiles Class XIII - Wall fragments Class XIV - Handle and lug fragments Class XV - Base fragments Class XVI - Other fragments Plates 10-36 Chapter VI – Bucchero Class I - Cups Class II - Bowls Class I+II - Bowls or Cup Class III - Jars Class IV - Jugs-Amphorae Class V - Lids Class VI - Undetermined rim fragments Class VII – Wall fragments Class VIII - Handle fragments Class IX - Base fragments Plates 37-45 Chapter VII - Etrusco-Corinthian Class I - Unguentaria Class II - Plates Class III - Cups Class IV - Bowls Class III+IV - Bowls or Cups Class V – Jars Class VI - Jugs Class VII - Amphorae Class VIII - Pyxides Class IX – Lydia Class X – Undetermined rim fragments Class XI - Wall fragments/decorated fragments Class XII - Handle fragments Class XIII - Base fragments Plates 46-61 Chapter VIII - Depurated ware Plates 62-63 Chapter IX - Non-ceramic objects IX.1 - Beads IX.2 - Metals IX.3 - Stone IX.4 - Other Plates 64-68 Chapter X – Residual fragments in impasto Plates 69-70. 128 132 132 138 144 147 149 176 177 187 191 192 192 196 197 197 200 203 206 215 216 231 232 240 241 241 242 244 245 246 247 247 252 254 257 273 277 279 279 280 284 285 286 291 293. 295. Paper 1 - What is on offer? Defining the ritual practice of the cult place of Laghetto del Monsignore (Lazio, Central Italy). 1. Introduction 296 2. Votives as ritual objects 297 3. Methodology 298. ii.

(8) Table of Contents 4. Case study: Laghetto del Monsignore 300 5. Defining the ritual practice 307 6. Conclusions 316 • Paper 2 - No Small Affair. An in-depth analysis of the miniature pottery of the cult place of Laghetto del Monsignore (Lazio, Central Italy). 1. Introduction 317 2. Methodology 321 3. Case study: Laghetto del Monsignore 322 4. The miniature pottery 324 5. Miniatures and ritual practice at the cult place of Laghetto del Monsignore 327 6. Conclusions 329 • Paper 3 - Non-urban sanctuaries in context: a micro-regional study of the cult place of Laghetto del Monsignore (Lazio, Italy). 1. Introduction 331 2. The function of non-urban sanctuaries 332 3. Contextual approach, methodology and data 335 4. A case study: The cult place of Laghetto del Monsignore 337 5. Discussion: the multiple and changing functions of the cult place of Laghetto del Monsignore 350 6. Conclusion 353 • Paper 4 - Banqueting and feasting in pre-Roman Latium Vetus: commensality rituals as a means of social manipulation. 1. Introduction 354 2. Methodology and data 357 3. Diachronic Analysis 359 4. Functional analysis 362 5. Commensality rituals as a means for social manipulation 368 6. Conclusions 372 Evaluation 373 1. The case study: Laghetto del Monsignore 373 2. The cult place of Laghetto del Monsignore in its local context 375 3. Latial cult places in a changing society 377 4. Understanding ritual practice: a reassessment of the method 380 5. Concluding remarks 382 Bibliography 385 Nederlandse samenvatting 403. iii.

(9) List of Figures Fig. 1. Iron Age - Archaic settlements in Latium Vetus.. Fig. 23 Impasto/coarse ware typology: Plates/bowls.. Fig. 2 Detail of a map dating to 1666: Patrimonio di S. Pietro, Sabina, Campagna e Marittima (cf. Frutaz 1972: tav. XVII.6).. Fig. 25 Impasto/coarse ware typology: Cups. Fig. 24 Impasto/coarse ware typology: Bowls. Fig. 26 Impasto/coarse ware typology: Jars. Fig. 27 Impasto/coarse ware typology: Large Jars/ dolia.. Fig. 3 Detail of a map dating to 1692: Giovanni Battista Cingolani, Foglio VI. (cf. Frutaz 1972: tav. XXXII.1f).. Fig. 28 Impasto/coarse ware typology: Jugs. Fig. 29 Impasto/coarse ware typology: Amphorae.. Fig. 4 Topography of Laghetto del Monsignore and surroundings (Source: IGM map 400010 & 400050).. Fig. 30 Impasto/coarse ware typology: Lids. Fig. 31 Impasto/coarse ware typology: Cooking stands.. Fig. 5 Surveyed units and sites of the GIA-surveys in the Campoverde area (cf. Van Loon et al. 2014: 111, fig. 5).. Fig. 32 Impasto/coarse ware typology: Weaving utensils.. Fig. 6 Composition of the assemblage of the cult place of Laghetto del Monsignore, based on the four studied collections (NO 11.401).. Fig. 33 Bucchero: Number of sherds/vessels per class.. Fig. 7 Miniature impasto/coarse ware: Number of objects per class.. Fig. 34 Bucchero typology: Cups.. Fig. 8 Miniature impasto/coarse ware typology: Plates.. Fig. 36 Bucchero typology: Cups/bowls.. Fig. 9 Miniature impasto/coarse ware typology: Large bowls/teglie.. Fig. 38 Bucchero typology: Amphorae and Jugs.. Fig. 35 Bucchero typology: Bowls. Fig. 37 Bucchero typology: Jars. Fig. 39 Bucchero typology: Lids.. Fig. 10 Miniature impasto/coarse ware typology: Bowls.. Fig. 40 Etrusco-Corinthian: Number of objects per class.. Fig. 11 Miniature impasto/coarse ware typology: Cups.. Fig. 41 Etrusco-corinthian typology: Unguentaria. Fig. 42 Etrusco-corinthian typology: Plates.. Fig. 12 Miniature impasto/coarse ware typology: Jars.. Fig. 43 Etrusco-corinthian typology: Cups.. Fig. 13 Miniature impasto/coarse ware typology: Jugs.. Fig. 44 Etrusco-corinthian typology: Bowls.. Fig. 14 Miniature impasto/coarse ware typology: Amphorae... Fig. 46 Etrusco-corinthian typology: Jars.. Fig. 45 Etrusco-corinthian typology: Cups/bowls. Fig. 47 Etrusco-corinthian typology: Jugs.. Fig. 15 Miniature impasto/coarse ware typology: Jugs/Amphorae.. Fig. 48 Etrusco-corinthian typology: Amphorae.. Fig. 16 Miniature impasto/coarse ware typology: Lids.. Fig. 49 Etrusco-corinthian typology: Pyxides . Fig. 50 Etrusco-corinthian typology: Lydia.. Fig. 17 Miniature impasto/coarse ware typology: Stands.. Fig. 1.1. Iron Age - Archaic settlements in Latium Vetus.. Fig. 18 Miniature impasto/coarse ware typology: Mini-miniatures.. Fig.1.2 Composition of the assemblage of the cult place of Laghetto del Monsignore, based on the four studied collections (NO=11.401).. Fig. 19 Miniature impasto/coarse ware typology: Kernoi.. Fig. 1.3 Two miniature vases dating to the Early Iron Age (Latial Period IIA), (infra Part I, chapter IV) a) amphora type Imp.min VII II; b) stand type Imp.min IX B.I/1a).. Fig. 20 Miniature impasto/coarse ware typology: Votive tablets. Fig. 21 Impasto/coarse sherds/vessels per class.. ware:. Numbers. of. Fig. 1.4 Chronological distribution of the numbers of ritual objects (NO=1685) dedicated at Laghetto del Monsignore using the media ponderata.. Fig. 22 Impasto/coarse ware typology: Plates.. iv.

(10) Fig. 1.5 Chronological distribution of the ‘generic’ vessel classes of the cult place of Laghetto del Monsignore, using the media ponderata (NO=1456).. Fig. 2.9 Miniature one-handled cups (Infra Part I, chapter IV); a) type Imp.min IV.5 A.I/1a; b) type Imp.min IV.5 A.I/1b; c) type Imp.min IV.5 A.I/2; d) type Imp.min IV.5 A.II/2).. Fig. 1.6 A jar with ovoid body (infra Part I, chapter V; jar type Imp IV C.IV/1).. Fig. 3.1. Iron Age - Archaic settlements in Latium Vetus.. Fig. 1.7 Four types of etrusco-corinthian vases introduced in the Late Orientalizing Period (Infra Part I, chapter VII) a) aryballos type EC I.2 A.I/1 var.2a; b) alabastron type EC I.1 B.I var.1a; c) lydion type EC IX I/1; d) goblet type EC III.1 A.I/1).. Fig. 3.2. The case study area around Laghetto del Monsignore. Fig. 3.3. Landscape and topographic setting of Laghetto del Monsignore. Fig. 3.4. Chronological distribution of the numbers of ritual objects dedicated at Laghetto del Monsignore using the media ponderata (NO=1685).. Fig. 1.8 A bucchero chalice (Infra Part I, chapter VI, chalice type Buc I.4 I). Fig. 1.9 Media Ponderata graph of the votive deposits of Laghetto del Monsignore (NO=1685, left y-axis) and the East Sanctuary of Gabii (NO=227, right y-axis).. Fig. 3.5. Early Iron Age sites and infrastructure around Laghetto del Monsignore. Fig. 3.6. Late Iron Age-Orientalizing sites and infrastructure around Laghetto del Monsignore.. Fig. 1.10 Chronological distribution of the ‘generic’ vessel classes of the East Sanctuary of Gabii, using the media ponderata (NO=158).. Fig. 3.7. Archaic sites and infrastructure around Laghetto del Monsignore.. Fig. 1.11 Amphora in impasto Bruno with incised decoration, consisting of a cartwheel and combmotif (Inv.nr. 144132).. Fig. 3.8. Topography of ancient Satricum. Fig. 3.9. Post-Archaic sites and infrastructure around Laghetto del Monsignore.. Fig. 2.1. Iron Age - Archaic settlements in Latium Vetus.. Fig. 3.10 Impasto Bruno vessels with a comb-motif: a) amphora (Inv.nr. 144132); b) cup (Inv.nr. PDA53747); c) cup type (Inv.nr. CV'10.0211); d) cup (Inv.nr. CVlib5003).. Fig. 2.2 Composition of the assemblage of the cult place of Laghetto del Monsignore, based on the four studied collections (NO=11.401).. Fig. 3.11 Modelling of urban territories around Laghetto del Monsignore (walking distance buffers based on slope only).. Fig. 2.3 Horned miniature cups: a) horned cup type Imp.min IV.4 B.II/1; b) horned cup type Imp.min IV.4 B.III).. Fig. 4.1 A detail of the lid belonging to the Montescudaio urn.. Fig. 2.4 Miniature Kernos and Votive tablet (Infra Part I, chapter IV): a) kernos type Imp.min XI I; b) votive tablet type Imp.min XII I/2).. Fig. 4.2 Iron Age - Archaic sites in Latium Vetus. Fig. 4.3 Box plot diagram of the Crustumerium burial grounds.. Fig. 2.5 Miniature vessels in bucchero (a-c.) and etrusco-corinthian (d.); (Infra Part I, chapter VI & VII): a) kyathos type Buc I.7 B.I; b) kyathos type Buc I.7 B.II; c) bowl type Buc II B.II var.1 min.; d) alabastron type EC I.1 B.II1 min.1).. Fig. 4.4 Box plot diagram of the Osteria dell’Osa burial grounds. Fig. 4.5 Media Ponderata graph of the votive deposits of Laghetto del Monsignore (NO=1685, left y-axis) and the East Sanctuary of Gabii (NO=227, right y-axis).. Fig. 2.6 Vessel ratio of the impasto/coarse ware pottery shapes, for the full-sized vessels (NO=592) and miniature vessel replicas (NO=594) respectively.. Fig. 4.6a Functional analysis of the burial grounds of Crustumerium.. Fig. 2.7 Full-sized and miniature bowls and jars (Infra Part I, chapter IV & V); a) full-sized bowl type Imp II.1 B.I/2a; b) miniature bowl type Imp.min III A.II var.2; c) full-sized jar Imp IV C.IV/1; d) miniature jar type Imp.min V B.III1a).. Fig. 4.6b Analysis of period IVA.. Fig. 4.7 Impression of a changing set of grave goods between the Orientalizing period and the Archaic period.. Fig. 2.8 Two-handled miniature jar (Infra Part I, chapter IV): miniature jar type Imp.min V C.IV).. Fig. 4.8a Functional analysis of the burial ground of Osteria dell’Osa. Fig. 4.8b Analysis of period IVA.. v.

(11) Fig. 4.9 Functional analysis of the cult place of Laghetto del Monsignore (NO=1418).. Fig. 4.11 Functional analysis of the East Sanctuary of Gabii, Kontext 2 (NO=227).. Fig. 4.10 Example of some of the newly introduced pottery shapes in the Late Orientalizing period in etrusco-corinthian (a-c.) and bucchero (d.) (Infra Part I, chapter VI & VII); a) aryballos type EC I.2 A.I/1 var.2a; b) alabastron type EC I.1 B.I var.1a; c) goblet type EC III.1 A.I/1; d.) chalice type Buc I.4 I).. List of Tables Table 1 Periodisation of Latium Vetus based upon Pacciarelli 2000, Nijboer 2005, 2008, and Attema & de Haas 2005.. Table 4.1 Periodisation Latium Vetus. Table 4.2 Functional classes. Table 4.3 Average percentage of objects per functional class in each tomb in the burial grounds of Crustumerium.. Table 1.1 Vessel ratio within the Etrusco-Corinthian and Bucchero ware group. Table 2.1 Vessel ratio within the miniature impasto/coarse ware group.. Table 4.4 Average percentage of objects per functional class in each tomb in the burial grounds of Osteria dell’Osa.. Table 3.1 Periodisation as used in the paper. Table 3.2 The votive assemblage of Laghetto del Monsignore.. List of Plates Plates 1-9 Miniature impasto/coarse ware.. Plates 62-63 Depurated ware.. Plates 10-36 Impasto/coarse ware.. Plates 64-68 Non-ceramic objects.. Plates 37-45 Bucchero.. Plates 69-70 Residual impasto.. Plates 46-61 Etrusco-Corinthian.. vi.

(12) Acknowledgements Catherine van Tussenbroek’ fund, which supported the study of two extra material collections, and the ‘Stichting Philologisch Studiefonds’, that funded a trip to Southern Italy to visit the sacred landscapes of Magna Graecia. Finally, I thank the Royal Netherlands Institute in Rome for two research grants and the possibility to stay in Rome at several occasions. Special thanks are reserved for the Superintendent of the SBAL, Dott. M. Sapelli Ragni, and inspector dr. F. di Mario whom provided permission to study the collections. Furthermore, I would like to thank the local museums and directors of the antiquarium at the Forte Sangallo in Nettuno and the Museo Archeologico di Satricum in Borgo le Ferriere for facilitating me during the study of the materials. I am indebted to all the following persons who in one way or another have contributed into making the research possible. For helping with drawing the objects I am grateful to several students of the GIA, especially Marco Bakker, Yftinus van Popta, Tom Trienen and Gijs Tol. Siebe Boersma, Miriam Los-Weijns, Erwin Bolhuis and Sander Tiebackx, transformed the drawings of four different collections into beautiful plates with standardized drawings of all the selected objects. For advice on the classification and dating of the material I thank: Luca Allessandri, Carmela Anastasia, Barabara Bellelli, Letizia Ceccarelli, Alessandri Guidi, Francesca Ippolito, Martina Revello Lami, Bert Nijboer and Gijs Tol. You all have helped me to get a grasp on the rich material culture of Latium Vetus. It has been a privilege to work at the Groningen Institute for Archaeology along so many friendly and inspiring colleagues. I particularly want to acknowledge those colleagues working in Lazio, with who I worked. In a way, the path towards this dissertation has started at an early age. Already as a young girl I was determined to be an archaeologist. Living just a few 100 meters from one of the Netherlands biggest megalithic tombs (Hunebed D27 in Borger), I was intrigued by these early people. I roamed the fields around my house, looking for anything old, and brought all my collected objects to the local museum. Probably they were fed up by me after the tenth time of showing up with a pair of rocks, but the interest for archaeology stayed with me. Being fascinated by megaliths and lithic artefacts, I never thought I would eventually end-up in Italy, studying massive amounts of protohistoric pottery fragments. After my first year studying archaeology at the University of Groningen, in the summer of 2003, I went to Italy to participate in a field survey in Nettuno. I remember smothering heaths, cold showers, early mornings, days of surveying near an enormous smelly garbage dump, and only collecting six sherds (as a whole team!) in four weeks of working, but I fell in love with Italy and its history. The book that lies before you could not have been finished without the help of many people. Foremost I want to thank my supervisors, Peter Attema and Bert Nijboer, for their trust in me to conduct this dissertation and for their guidance over the years. Additionally, I want to thank the committee members, Alessandro Guidi, Marijke Gnade and Gert-Jan Burgers, for their thoughtful feedback on the manuscript. The dissertation would not have been possible without the support of several funding bodies. Primary funding for this project was provided by the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO, grant nr. 322-61-002). Additional funding was obtained from the ‘Dr.. vii.

(13) Acknowledgements especially want to thank my office-mates, Eleni Panagiotopoulou, Tamara Dijkstra, Sarah Willemsen and semi-roommate Olivia Jones. I am forever grateful for the numerous cups of tea and cookies, and your support during the whole PhD. I am so happy that I could do this with you by my side. I would like to take this opportunity to thank my mother for her unceasing encouragement and support she has given me my whole life; without her I would not be where I am today. Finally, the greatest thing archaeology has brought me is Gijs, and our two children: Thomas and Simon. I thank him for his enthusiasm, encouragement, unconditional support and for pushing me further than I could have imagined. I dedicate this book to you three, my family.. in many fieldwork campaigns, and who contributed a lot to my knowledge of Latium Vetus: Luca Allessandri, Kayt Armstrong, Peter Attema, Barbara Borgers, Rik Feiken, Tymon de Haas, Martijn van Leusen, Elizabeth van ‘t Lindenhout, Wieke de Neef, Bert Nijboer, Gert van Oortmerssen, Jorn Seubers, Marleen Termeer, Gijs Tol en Sarah Willemsen, but also Carmela Anastasia and Michelangelo La Rosa, working closely with the GIA in the Pontine Region. Moreover, I would like to thank my colleagues from the UVA working in Satricum, especially Marijke Gnade, Martina Revello Lami, Jeltsje Stobbe and Muriel Louwaard for their hospitality that went beyond collegiality. Furthermore, I like to thank my fellow PhD’s for the stimulating conversations and fun nights we had at the writing squad meetings. I. Melbourne, 4 May 2017. viii.

(14) Introduction located in the proto-urban settlements. 7 These cult huts are seen as evidence for the first civic cults within the settlements. 8 In the Archaic period these originally village-based cult places had transformed into large complexes with wealthy votive deposits and monumental temples. 9 The development of religious institutions in the urban settlements, 10 and the increasing control they exercised, are often interpreted as signs of early state formation. 11 It is not surprising that the institutionalized, monumental cult places of the Archaic period have taken a central position in the studies of ritual and religion in Latium Vetus. And while these have greatly contributed to research on the above-mentioned fundamental processes regarding the Archaic period, such as the urbanisation of the Latin towns and early state formation, they are often anachronistic, urbanocentric and do not address the deeper history that most of these sanctuaries possess. In fact, many of the cult places in Latium Vetus have a very long chronology, often going back into the Early Iron Age. The abundant evidence for the dedication of ritual objects in these cult places, often preceding the construction of monumentalized structures and maybe even the development of settlement proper, is a clear testimony of the importance that these cult places – and ritual practices in general – must have played throughout Latial society. The preference in the archaeological research of protohistoric Latium Vetus for the study of burial grounds and settlements can partly be explained by the problematic find circumstances of cult places. Sanctuaries in this. Between the 10th and 5th century BC Latium Vetus underwent profound political, economic and social changes. From the Early Iron Age onwards it witnessed increasing centralization of settlement, culminating in fully-fledged urban centres in the 6th century, 1 as well as signs of early state formation. 2 At the same time the burial evidence indicates increasing social stratification from the end of the Late Iron Age, resulting in the emergence of a dominant aristocracy in the 8th century, gaining status through wealth. 3 We can now speak of a society of extended patriarchal families, in the literature on the topic referred to as clans or gentes. 4 From the second half of the seventh century the burial inventories however become more modest until the custom of accompanying the buried with grave goods ceases almost completely around the beginning of the Archaic Period. 5 According to some scholars this would indicate that from the Late Orientalizing period the social structure within the clans had become stable. 6 These fundamental processes of urbanisation, early state formation and the advance of social stratification have been studied extensively through the domains of funerary and settlement archaeology. The increasing importance of the urban centres in Latium Vetus is, however, also clearly reflected in the developments concerning cult places. At the end of the Early Iron Age cult huts appear in the sanctuaries For a discussion of the process of urbanisation in Latium Vetus see among others: Pacciarelli 2000; Attema ed. 2004, 2005; Attema et al. 2010a; Fulminante 2014. 2 Motta & Terrenato 2006; Terranato 2011. 3 Anzidei et al. 1985: 196; Cornell 1995: 81; Waarsenburg 1994: 436; Smith 1996: 124; Paciarelli 2000; Fulminante 2003. 4 Cornell 1995: 84; Smith 1996: 124, 189-192; Motta & Terrenato 2006: 229. 5 Bietti Sestieri & De Santis 2000: 18-19. 6 Bietti Sestieri & De Santis 2000: 29. 1. Guidi 2009, 2012, 2014. Guidi 2004: 126; Guidi 2012: 141; Fulminante 2014: 224; Potts 2015: chapter 2. 9 Potts 2015. 10 Guidi 2004: 126; Guidi 2012: 141; Fulminante 2014, 224. 11 Nijboer 2004: 143; Attema 2005: 121-24. 7 8. 1.

(15) Introduction static but dynamic. 17 Ritual systems are part of social life and therefore involved in social transformations. 18 However, rituals cannot be seen as mere reflections of social structure, as they are culturally intertwined; 19 As developments in society and ritual practice are interactive and cannot be studied 20 independently in a meaningful way, it is crucial that rituals must be understood within their wider social context. 21 A better understanding of the relationship between ritual and society will not only give new insights in the ritual practice, but also in how society functioned as a whole. The aim of this thesis will be both to improve our understanding of changing ritual practices at cult places in protohistoric Latium Vetus, especially in relation to societal changes; and to provide guidance on methods to interpret ritual practice at cult places based on the analysis of ritual objects. Instrumental to this research is the extensive study of the material culture found at the spring cult place of Laghetto del Monsignore (Lazio, It.), located c. 4 km northwest of the Latin town of Satricum. 22 The case study will be material based, focusing on the material manifestation of ritual practice, the ritual objects. The availability of a large quantity of objects from the cult place, and its long period of use, covering the period between the 10th and the 5th centuries BC, makes it an outstanding case to study developments in ritual practice over time in detail, while providing the data quality necessary to evaluate the results in tandem with the changes Latial society underwent between the Early Iron Age and Archaic period. The. period are characterized by large deposits of ritual objects, the so-called votive deposits. These votive deposits usually do not contain the remains of a single ritual act, but are the product of centuries of ritual activities. The accumulation of ritual objects makes it hard to draw conclusions about the character of the ritual practices carried out at the cult places. Especially for the earliest periods, the ritual objects in these deposits are often the only source of evidence for the cult places. As a consequence of the problematic nature of the evidence, the study of the ritual practice at protohistoric cult places in Latium Vetus is still underdeveloped, and is largely excluded from our narrative of protohistoric Latial society. 12 Back in the late 1990s Wilkins already observed that archaeological studies concentrated too much on economic, political and social processes neglecting religion and ritual, and as such creating a simplistic view on society. 13 Indeed religion should not be seen as something that is imperceptible. Although the concept of religion is too complicated for application in archaeological research and the full range of meanings of religion was lost to us archaeologists, 14 archaeology can study the way in which religion was manifested in people’s everyday life, by considering the human actions inherent to their religious beliefs, the ritual practice. 15 As stated by Fogelin: ,,Religion is not only something people think about, but something people do." 16 As such have to recognize that rituals were ‘practiced’ by people and are therefore not. 12 With the exception of a few studies, see e.g. the East sanctuary in Gabii (Zuchtriegel 2012); the votive deposit II in Satricum (Bouma 1996); and the Casarinaccio votive deposit in Ardea (di Mario ed. 2005). However, the latter two fall largely outside the chronological scope of this study. 13 Wilkins 1996: 8. 14 Insoll 2004: 4; Hodder 1991: 11. Except if they refer to historically or contemporary known religions (Insoll 2005: 45). 15 Marcus and Flannery 1994: 56. 16 Fogelin 2008: 132.. Stavrianopoulou 2006: 7. Berggren & Nilsson Stutz 2010: 173; Howey & O’Shea 2009: 197. 19 Bloch 1989. 20 Wilkins 1996: 3. 21 Bourque 2000: 20. 22 Satricum is one of the best documented settlements in Latium Vetus, see Cifani 2010 for an overview of the publications concerning Satricum. 17 18. 2.

(16) Introduction 1) A typological analysis of the case study. extensive study of the cult place of Laghetto del Monsignore will not only increase our knowledge of the rituals practiced at the sanctuary and its relations to micro- and macro-regional developments, but also constitute a proof of concept of the potential of the study of large bodies of ritual objects (as in the votive deposits) in our understanding of past societies.. The first scale of analysis is an extensive typological study of the materials dedicated at the cult place of Laghetto del Monsignore. As part of this analysis, materials from four different collections from the Laghetto del Monsignore comprising 11.401 objects are studied. The materials are presented in Part I, with each chapter (chapters 4-10) dedicated to a different material class. The extensive study of the ritual objects provides the dataset for an in-depth analysis of the ritual practice at Laghetto del Monsignore, which is presented in part II.. Method and structure of the thesis In order to obtain insight into the relation between changes in ritual practice at cult places and social change I combined four different scales of analysis. These different scales are reflected in the structure of this thesis, which is made up of two parts. Part I constitutes a catalogue of the materials of Laghetto del Monsignore, comprising ten chapters. The first three chapters discuss the site and its history, a general outline of the materials published, and an introduction to the catalogue. In chapters IV-X the find assemblage are discussed. Part II consists of four papers (Paper 1 to 4) followed by an overall synthesis of the outcomes regarding the main research questions (Evaluations). The methodological framework for each paper will be discussed in more detail in the corresponding chapters. The four scales of analysis are described below:. Scale 1 Material study. 2) Interpretation of the material analysis The first and second paper of part II concern the study and interpretation of the materials from the cult place of Laghetto del Monsignore. As argued by Howey and O’Shea ,,Ritual practice is necessarily patterned and repetitive; producing material signatures that are readily (and uniquely) open to us as archaeologists for investigation.” 23 It is thus important not to look at the extra-ordinary, but to focus on the repetitive. At the same time, we cannot exclude the complexity of rituals themselves. We have to recognize that rituals were practiced by people, and are therefore not static. To get insight in the ritual practice at the cult place of Laghetto del Monsignore and possible changes therein, recourse will be. Scale 2. Scale 3. Scale 4. Interpretation of. Contextualization. Contextualization. the ritual practice. (local). (Latium Vetus). •Part I: Typological •Part II analysis of the •Paper 1: Diachronic assemblage of the case analysis of the fullstudy: Laghetto del sized objects Monsingore •Paper 2: Analysis of the miniature objects. •Part II •Paper 3: Microregional perspective. 23. 3. •Part II •Paper 4: Macroregional perspective. Howey & O’Shea 2009: 194..

(17) Introduction 3) A micro-regional perspective. made to an extensive analysis of the complete assemblage of ritual objects available from this cult place. The analysis is based on the materials published in Part I. The ultimate goal is not to develop yet another description of the material remains found at a sanctuary, but to provide a phase-by-phase framework of the material record to highlight changes that may occur in the composition of the dedicated objects overtime. The methodological approach will be both quantitative, identifying general trends in the data, and qualitative in nature, centred on the functional composition of the assemblage. The adopted approach allows for the identification of specific use patterns, enabling an identification of the rituals practiced at the cult place and possible changes therein overtime. To interpret any patterning in the ritual objects of the studied assemblage of Laghetto del Monsignore, parallels will be sought in contemporaneous closed find deposits, such as funerary contexts and ritual depositions inside settlements. Furthermore similarities between the ritual objects of Laghetto del Monsignore and the material assemblages of other Latin cult places may contribute to an understanding of the different ritual practices that were common in Latium Vetus during protohistory. The analysis of the ritual practice of Laghetto del Monsignore is discussed in papers 1 and 2. The former paper examines the methodological questions relevant to the study of ritual objects, followed by an interpretation of the ritual practice at the cult place based on an analysis of the full-sized vessels. The miniature pottery is discussed separately in paper 2. 24 This paper examines the function of miniature objects in the ritual practice at the cult place of Laghetto del Monsignore by comparing the miniature and full-sized impasto and coarse ware vessels.. The third paper, co-authored with dr. Tymon de Haas, will discuss the functioning of the cult place of Laghetto del Monsignore in its microregional context. Since no traces of settlements have been found in the direct environment of the cult place, it has been unclear how the cult place was embedded in local society and in what ways changes in the latter did affect the functioning of the cult place over time. Problematic to the study of non-urban sanctuaries 25 such as the cult place of Laghetto del Monsignore, is that they do not fit well into current models of sacred landscapes, which often use an urbanocentric framework, in which cult places are perceived as either urban or extra-urban. Even though this type of models have been useful in our understanding of sacred landscapes related to city states, for the non-urban sanctuaries with chronologies that pre-date the urban centres, this framework results in a static, anachronistic view of the sacred landscape, focussing on a single period of the sanctuary´s history. In order to obtain insight in the function of the cult places of Laghetto del Monsignore in relation to its local context, we elaborated a context-based approach, considering both the diachronic developments in ritual practice at the cult place of Laghetto del Monsignore based on the material study, and the physical setting of the cult place, focussing on its setting in relation to the landscape, and its position within local infrastructural networks and settlement organisation. The nature of the relationship between the sanctuary at Laghetto del Monsignore and the nearby settlement of Satricum will be central to this study. Already in the first paper written on the cult place of Laghetto del Monsignore, Giovannini and Ampolo observed the resemblance of the material from the Laghetto. 24 Because of difficulties with dating the miniature pottery closely, this category was excluded in the diachronic analyses of the cult place in paper 1.. As in: sanctuaries not situated within or directly near an urban town. 25. 4.

(18) Introduction of Gabii, that was studied in a similarly systematic manner. In the burial grounds throughout Latium Vetus we see the opposite development; from the second half of the seventh century the standard set of grave goods becomes more modest until burial goods disappear almost completely around the beginning of the Archaic Period. 29 To interpret the relation between these concurrent developments in both ritual domains, the burial grounds and the cult places must be studied in tandem. The analysis carried out is material based, comparing the compositions of the burial gifts in the tombs with the material assemblages of the cult places. For the comparative analysis we collated evidence from four case studies: two burial grounds and two votive deposits. The methodological approach is both quantitative and qualitative in nature: it centres on the identification of the supposed simultaneity of the general trends in the data, and compares the functional composition of the assemblages to obtain insights into the character of the ritual practice in both ritual domains. The last part of the paper addresses the interpretation of these developments in relation to contemporary social processes. Theories about the use of ritual practices as social manipulation strategies will be used to explain the motivation behind this apparent shift from the burial grounds to the cult places.. del Monsignore to that from the oldest votive deposit at the acropolis of Satricum (so-called votive deposit I). 26 The context-based approach will be used to understand the dynamic nature of the sacred landscape of which the cult place of Laghetto del Monsignore was part, and how its function within this sacred landscape may have been influenced by the development of Satricum into an urban centre with increasing territorial control.. 4) A macro-regional perspective The fourth paper, co-authored with dr. Sarah Willemsen, evaluates the diachronic developments of the cult place in light of changes in Latial society. What does the study of the changes in the material manifestation of ritual practice at the cult place of Laghetto del Monsignore and other Latin cult places add to our understanding of Latial society at large? According to Wilkins and with him many others, society and rituals are interactive and cannot be studied independently in a meaningful way, 27 because ,,A society creates its own rituals and the rituals help define the society.’’ 28 In acknowledging that ritual practice forms part of social life and is therefore part of social transformations, we can get insight in the way ritual is subject to change over time. It is from this perspective that we may try to understand and interpret the relationship between material culture, ritual practice and social change in Latial protohistory. The study will focus on the Late Orientalizing and Early Archaic period. In the material analysis performed in paper 1, I observed a strong increase in ritual objects dedicated at the cult place in the Orientalizing period. This peak in dedications around 600 BC was confirmed in the analysis of the East sanctuary. Research framework. Terminology Religion is a complex concept to define, because it incorporates aspects of human beliefs, human actions and material culture. To the archaeologist (re)constructing the past based on physical data, only part of the. Giovannini & Ampolo 1976: 347. E.g. Bremmer 1994; Herring 1996; Bourque 2000; Stavrianopoulou 2006; Whitley & Hays-Gilpin 2008. 28 Wilkins 1996: 3. 26 27. Colonna 1977; Bartoloni 1987; Bartoloni, Nizzo & Taloni 2009. 29. 5.

(19) Introduction concept of religion is perceptible. In the here presented study religion will be studied in its physical manifestation in the form of ritual practice. For that reason in this research recourse will be made to the term ‘ritual’ over ‘religion’ as a descriptive device, in which ritual is defined as ,,a ceremony that is always performed in the same way, in order to mark an important religious or social occasion’’ 30 The definitions cult place and sanctuary are used interchangeably to describe the physical locations where ‘religious’ rituals were practiced. For the physical location of ‘funerary’ rituals the terms burial ground or cemetery is used. Any building associated with these cult places or sanctuaries are described as a cult building, the definition of temple is only used to describe a building that is specifically devoted to the worship of a. divinity. The objects found in these cult places or sanctuaries, are defined as ritual objects. This term is used in a broad sense to describe all objects used in or in support of ritual practice; this includes votive dedications as well as ritual actions such as libation rituals or ritual feasting. The physical location where the dedicated ritual objects were deposited in the cult place (primary), or where they were placed after cleaning of the cult place (secondary), is called a votive deposit. The people that were practicing these rituals are described as participants, or in case of explicitly referring to the deposition of ritual objects, dedicators.. Chronology The chronological framework followed in this thesis:. Latial facies. Phase. Chronology. Latial Period I Latial Period IIA Latial Period IIB Latial Period III Latial Period IVA Latial Period IVB. Bronzo Finale 3 Early Iron Age Early Iron Age Early Iron Age Early-Middle Orientalizing period Late Orientalizing period Archaic Period Post Archaic Period. 1050/1025 – 950/925 BC 950/925 – 900 BC 900 – 850/825 BC 850/825 – 750 BC 750 – 630/620 BC 630/620 – 580 BC 580 – 500 BC 500 – 350 BC. Table. 1 Periodisation of Latium Vetus based upon Pacciarelli 2000, Nijboer 2005, 2008, and Attema & de Haas 2005.. Longman dictionary of contemporary English 2006: 1422. 30. 6.

(20) Part I. A material study of the cult place of Laghetto del Monsignore. 7.

(21) - Chapter I The site and its history I.1 - Landscape setting The cult place of Laghetto del Monsignore is located in the southern part of present-day Lazio, in ancient times known as Latium Vetus (see fig. 1). The landscape of Latium Vetus largely comprises three geographical units, the Alban Hills, dominated by the volcanic complex of the ancient Volcano Laziale, and a wide coastal plain made up of the Campagna Romana to the north and the Pontine plain to the south. 31 Laghetto del Monsignore is located. in the transitional area between these two geologically different areas. On the one hand the undulating landscape of the Campagna Romana that is characterized by tuff formations that are part of the lower slopes of the Volcano Laziale, and on the other hand the almost flat landscape of the Pontine plain that consists of sandy-clayey marine terraces along the coast and an inland low-lying ‘graben’ that held the former Pontine marshes. 32 As to Laghetto del Monsignore itself, we note that it is fed by a natural spring. At least four springs are still active within 5 km of the lake. The cult place is situated in the hydrological basin of the river Astura which divides the Pontine plain from the Campagna Romana and the only natural waterway connecting the Alban Hills with the coast. Furthermore, it is located only 5 km inland from the important protohistorical settlement of Satricum (present-day Borgo Le Ferriere), which is situated on a tuff-plateau, one of the southernmost outcrops of the tuff-covered hills. 33. Fig. 1. Iron Age - Archaic settlements in Latium Vetus.. 31 The Pontine plain is bordered to the north by the Colli Albani, to the east by the Monti Lepini and the Monti Ausoni and in the southern and western part by the Tyrrhenian Sea (See de Haas 2011; Tol 2012).. Kamermans 1991; Feiken 2014. The most southern tuff outcrops can be found near Borgo Montello (Kamermans 1991: 23). 32 33. 8.

(22) The site and its history The local context of the cult place of Laghetto del Monsignore Laghetto del Monsignore is situated just north/north-east of the present-day village of Campoverde, previously known as 34 Campomorto ; named after the Casale Campomorte, a group of ancient buildings, located in the southern part of Campoverde. 35 Both names refer to the old typonym of the region: Campomorto. The first map which shows the approximate location of Casale Campomorto is a map of 1666 (see fig 2). 36 The site is located just south of the junction of two large rivers, most probably these represent the Fossa Astura and the Fosso di Pane e Vino. Less than three decades later, in 1692 37, a far more accurate map (see fig 3) was made of the area showing, besides the locations of Casale Campomorto 38 and Borgo Le Ferriere, 39 also a lake in the vicinity of Casale Campomorto. Since no substantial lakes are known in the vicinity of Campoverde it is probable that this lake is indeed Laghetto del Monsignore. The fact that the lake on the map is connected by a stream to the Astura river, is of interest for our understanding of the topographical relation between the cult place of Laghetto del. Fig. 2 Detail of a map dating to 1666: Patrimonio di S. Pietro, Sabina, Campagna e Marittima (cf. Frutaz 1972: tav. XVII.6).. Monsignore and ancient Satricum located downstream the Astura. 40 Nowadays, the land surrounding Campoverde is in use for agriculture, mainly vineyards and kiwi plantations. In former times, at least until the thirties of the last century, the area looked considerably different. Before the 1930's the region in which Campoverde is situated was an extensive marshland, the so-called Paludi Pontine or Pomptinae paludes. Already the Romans made an effort to drain these marshes, followed by Pope Pius VI in the eighteenth century 41 and Mussolini between 1927 and 1934. 42 Especially the latter operation altered the landscape of the Pontine Region notably. Under Mussolini a project was carried out known as the Grande Bonifica integrale in during which the former swamps were turned into productive land. The macchia 43 covering the landscape was removed and new roads were constructed. The wetlands were drained by the canalization of existing waterways and the construction of new canals. 44. There is some controversy about the name of the lake. The fields in which it is situated go by the name Riserva Pantan D'Amici. That is why some locals refer to the lake as Pantano d'Amici. The name of the lake however refers to the fields located north of the Fosso Spaccasassi canal: Pantano di Monsignore. 35 Stefania Quilici Gigli (Quilici-Gigli 2004: 242) mentions that Casale Campomorte, was a group of buildings from the early nineteenth century, located south of the lake, in addition existed a Casale di Campomorto to the northwest near Torre di Padiglione. However, no Casale di Campomorto is mentioned in the vicinity of Torre di Padiglione and Casale Campomorto has been in used on antique maps from 1666 onwards (see fig. 3). 36 Map of 1666: Patrimonio di S. Pietro, Sabina, Campagna e Marittima (Frutaz 1972: tav. XVII.6). 37 Map of 1692: Giovanni Battista Cingolani, Foglio VI. (Frutaz 1972 : tav. XXXII.1f). 38 Casale Campomorto is number 282 on the map. 39 Ancient Satricum is located near Ferr. di Conca, nowadays Borgo Le Ferriere. 34. The river Astura is named Conca fiume on this map. Van Joolen 2003: 9. 42Serva & Brunamonte 2007: 128. 43 Macchia is the brushwood which covered almost the whole area. 44 Attema 1993: 28; Serva & Brunamonte 2007: 128. 40 41. 9.

(23) Chapter I extensive excavations between 1896 and 1898. 49 At the same time the immediate surroundings of Campoverde became of interest to scholars. In an article discussing the just recovered temple of Mater Matuta in Satricum, Barnabei and Mengarelli remark upon an ancient road in the vicinity of nowadays Campoverde, paved with basalt blocks, 50 and flanked with old tombs. According to Bouma this is the road that connected Antium with Velletri in the Imperial Period. 51 Two marble inscriptions and a sarcophagus found near Campoverde in 1896 probably belonged to the tombs along the road. 52 However, the votive deposit of Laghetto del Monsignore was not to be discovered until 1968, when Ampolo and Giovannini detected a large concentration of pottery in and near the spring lake, which they identified as belonging to a votive deposit. 53 They noted that by the time of the 'scientific' discovery of the cult place, the site had already been subject to looting. 54 Because of its isolated position the site was and still is an easy object for clandestine activities. This has likely intensified following the initial archaeological discovery of the cult place. Nevertheless it took almost ten years until proper investigations were carried out, at which time the site was damaged due to illegal excavations. 55. Fig. 3 Detail of a map dating to 1692: Giovanni Battista Cingolani, Foglio VI. (cf. Frutaz 1972: tav. XXXII.1f).. The Grande Bonifica project transformed the area surrounding Laghetto del Monsignore considerably. A map dating from 1933 showing the surroundings of Laghetto del Monsignore before the Bonifica integrale features a large, marshy depression of 650 by 300 meters south and south east of the present-day lake, probably supplied by water from the spring of the Laghetto del Monsignore. 45 Recent corings in this area confirm that the lake must have been much larger in ancient times. 46 On a recent map (see fig. 4) the depression surrounding the lake is still visible, but due to improved drainage of the land by a large canal north of the Laghetto del Monsignore, named Fossa Spaccasassi, the area is considerably less wet compared to earlier periods. 47 I.2 - A short history of the research Since the late 19th century the surroundings of Campoverde had stirred the interest of archaeologists. It was in this period that the tuff plateau at Borgo Le Ferriere was for the first time recognized as the acropolis of the Latin settlement of Satricum, 48 resulting in. 49 For an overview of the earliest excavations in Borgo Le Ferriere see Maaskant-Kleibrink 1987: 22-30. 50 See Quilici Gigli 2004: 244. 51 Bouma 1996: 41. 52 For refs see Bouma 1996: 41. The inscriptions and sarcophagus were dated in the first century AD. 53 Giovannini & Ampolo 1976: 347. 54 Giovannini & Ampolo 1976: 347. 55 Maaskant Kleibrink 1997/1998: 441.. Quilici Gigli 2004: 242, fig. 5. Personal communication by J. Sevink. 47 The field surrounding the lake lies 2.2-3.5 meters lower than the nearby road and 2.1 meters lower than the drainage channel. 48 Bouma 1996: 32. 45 46. 10.

(24) The site and its history A rescue excavation was executed between December 1977 and January 1978 by the Soprintendenza archeologica per il Lazio under the supervision of Crescenzi. Many finds were below the water surface in the lake itself and alongside the banks of the lake. 56 However, due to heavy rainfall and the continuous flowing of the spring, circumstances were far from ideal for an excavation. The high groundwater level made Fig. 4 Topography of Laghetto del Monsignore and surroundings (Source: IGM map 400010 & 400050). the excavation difficult and did not allow the excavators to dig more than During the 1980's the staff of the Groningen 1.40-1.50 meters below ground level. 57 Besides Institute of Archaeology, who at the time were the adverse conditions for archaeological working at the excavations of Satricum, took a excavation also interference by local activities renewed interest in the cult place of Lago di caused problems. Intensive agriculture and Monsignore. In the fall of 1986, the Groningen clandestine excavations in the surroundings of Institute of Archaeology 61 started a detailed the lake had already resulted in the partial study of the pottery that had been found at demolition of the archaeological record, which the site during the excavation. Unfortunately, made it difficult to recognize different strata because of a robbery at the storerooms in within the votive deposit. 58 A short report on Tivoli, not all of the excavation material was the excavation and the materials collected was available for further studies. 62 The remaining written by Crescenzi in Archeologia Laziale I 59 material was drawn and described by a group in 1978, and single artefacts were presented in of students of the GIA, under the supervision several publications. 60 During the excavation, of M. Kleibrink and A.J. Beijer, which resulted as well as during various unsystematically in a publication of the miniature impasto recoveries of materials gathered at the lake, a pottery found at the excavation by Kleibrink in large quantity of material was collected over 1998. 63 time, but no comprehensive study of the finds was ever published.. 56 Crescenzi. 1978: 51. 1978: 51. 58 Crescenzi 1978: 51. No archaeological strata have been found. 59 Crescenzi 1978: 51-54. 60 Giovannini & Ampolo 1976: 346; Crescenzi 1978: 52; Bartoloni & Cataldi Dini 1980: 130; Bedini & Cardano 1980: 99, 101-2; Ampolo 1980: 182; Beijer 1991: 67, 73, 77, 82; Quilici Gigli 2004: 244-5; Papi 2001. 57 Crescenzi. Henceforth mentioned as GIA. Maaskant Kleibrink 1997/98: 441. 63 Maaskant Kleibrink 1997/98: 441-511; MaaskantKleibrink 2004: 132-155. The other material groups, such as the full-sized impasto, coarse ware, bucchero and etrusco-corinthian pottery, were not published. 61 62. 11.

(25) Chapter I gathered from the lake and surroundings of Lago di Monsignore between 1978 and 1985 by Arnaldo Liboni , the former director of the Museum. 65 As part of the Pontine Region Project of the Groningen Institute of Archaeology, in the summer of 2005 intensive field surveys were executed in the surroundings of Campoverde and 66 Padiglione. The surveys highlighted at least one, possible two, sites with and Orientalizing/Archaic phase in the vicinity of the cult place (see fig. 5). 67 In December 2008, the cult place was in the news again after a large-scale rescue operation by the Comando dei Carabinieri per la Tutela del Patrimonio Culturale, following private looting at the Laghetto del Monsignore. During this intervention materials were confiscated from an illegal excavation that had been carried out at the lake, as well as from the house of the owner of the land.. Fig. 5 Surveyed units and sites of the GIA-surveys in the Campoverde area (cf. Van Loon et al. 2014: 111, fig. 5).. Besides publications of parts of the votive material, the archaeological discovery of the sanctuary resulted also in the display of a number of objects in various musea and temporary exhibitions, among which a largescale exhibition on pre- and protohistoric Latial culture in Rome in 1976. 64 Nowadays the excavated material is partly in the storerooms of the Museo Nazionale Etrusco di Villa Giulia in Rome and partly on display in the Museo delle Navi Romane in Nemi. Also in the communal museum of Nettuno, in the Forte Sangallo, materials of the Laghetto del Monsignore are stored. These materials were 64 The exhibition Civiltà del Lazio Primitivo was originally in 1976 in the Palazzo delle Esposizione in Rome and travelled later on in other cities in Europe, e.g. Originile Romei (1980) in Bucarest and Róma Születése (1980) in Budapest. The exhibition in Rome resulted in a publication, Civiltà del Lazio Primitivo 1976, in which also the discovery of the votive deposit at Laghetto del Monsignore was published; see Giovannini & Ampolo 1976: 346.. Personal comment A. Liboni. For publications of other contexts of the Liboni Collection see: Tol 2012: Chapter 4. 66 Van Loon et al. 2014. 67 Van Loon et al. 2014: 111. For a discussion of the function of these sites see infra Paper 3. 65. 12.

(26) - Chapter II Laghetto del Monsignore, renewed interests Unfortunately, the series of events described above characterising the recent history of the Laghetto del Monsignore, has destroyed the original context of the votive deposit. What remains are dispersed collections of materials without stratigraphical information and lacking systematic publication. The material study presented in this book brings together several sources to provide an overall picture of the assemblage of Laghetto del Monsignore as such making up for the lack of publication. Its aim is to make the contents of this unique votive deposit accessible to scholarship and further analysis. 68 Four collections of the cult place could be studied as part of collaboration between the Groningen Institute of Archaeology and the Soprintendenza per Beni Archeologici del Lazio, 69 including the two collections from the rescue operations in 2008, the remaining collection of the rescue excavation of 1977-78 and the collection from the communal museum of Nettuno.. under the supervision of dr. F. di Mario, Prof. dr. P.A.J. Attema and T. van Loon. The first collection consists of 1280 objects, confiscated from the house of the owner of the land by the Comando dei Carabinieri per la Tutela del Patrimonio Culturale. This collection comprises a relatively large number of complete vases. The second collection contains the material from rescue operation carried out by the Soprintendenza per I Beni Archeologici del Lazio at the location of the illegal excavation. During this operation 1586 objects were collected from piles of soil scooped from the lake. The latter collection of material includes wide range of objects, including bone and metal items, however the main part consists of ceramics. 3. Excavation 1977-1978 The third collection contains materials excavated by Crescenzi in 1977-78. The materials (that were not subject to looting) have been studied in the fall of 1986 by the Groningen Institute of Archaeology, under the supervision of Prof.dr. M. Maaskant-Kleibrink and dr. A.J. Beijer. From the excavation material only the pottery was studied, comprising a total of 2679 fragments.. II.1 - The collections 1. + 2. Rescue operations 2008 The first two collections come from the earlier mentioned rescue operation in the fall of 2008. These two collections are stored in the communal museum in Borgo Le Ferriere and were classified and drawn in the winter of 2010, by an Italian-Dutch research group,. 4. Collection of the Antiquarium di Nettuno The last and largest collection of this study, with a total of 5856 objects, is formed by the material gathered by Arnaldo Liboni between 1978-1985. The materials are stored and partly at display at the Antiquarium of Nettuno in the. For extensive research papers on the cult place of Laghetto del Monsignore based on the materials published here see: infra Paper 1 to 4. 69 Protocol number: Prot. MBAC-SBA-LAZ N.2131, Class 31.10.04/1D 22-02-2010, signed by the Superintendent Dott. M. Sapelli Ragni. 68. 13.

(27) Chapter II Forte Sangallo. 70 The objects were found in the lake as well as in the area surrounding the Laghetto del Monsignore, probably distributed over the land due to ploughing and levelling. In spite of the fact that a large part of the materials was found off-site, the condition, number and composition of the material leaves no doubt on its provenience from the votive deposit itself. The Liboni collection comprises foremost pottery, but also entails objects made of bronze, glass and amber. The objects of the Liboni collection have been studied in several campaigns between 2005 and 2009 by the GIA, under the supervision of dr. A.J Nijboer, Prof. dr. P.A.J. Attema and T. van Loon.. Monsignore (see fig. 6). 71 Almost all the miniature impasto/coarse ware vessels in the assemblage correspond to the full-sized impasto/coarse ware vessel repertoire, including foremost jars, cups and bowls, although some of the vases are unique for votive deposits, such as the votive disks 72 and kernoi. 73 One of the most substantial pottery categories, besides the impasto/coarse wares, is the bucchero and etrusco-corinthian pottery. Both groups have their origin in the Etruscan area and are likely to be imported from this region. However, the ample numbers of these groups in the votive deposit of Laghetto del Monsignore may imply local production to have taken place alongside import. 74 Besides the abovementioned Etruscan wares, there are small numbers of objects in other types of depurated ware; 75 including sparse fragments of attic pottery, ceramica etrusca a figura nere, impasto chiaro sabbioso, fine cream ware and a number of sherds of an as of yet undetermined depurated ware. Besides pottery, objects in metal, glass, amber, faience and stone were present. The metal objects were principally made of bronze; they include: human representations in sheet bronze, jewellery, bowls, fibulae, aes rude and several undetermined small objects. Besides the bronze objects very few metal objects. II.2 - The materials The four collections of the assemblage of Laghetto del Monsignore comprise of a total of 11.401 fragments, the majority of which (97.7%) is formed by ceramic objects (see fig. 6). The largest group is formed by full-sized and miniature impasto and coarse wares. This category mostly features common shapes such as jars, bowls, lids, cups and plates. This form repertoire, at first manufactured as handmade impasto pottery is gradually replaced by wheelturned coarse wares in the 6th century. Besides the common kitchen and storage wares in plain impasto, there is also a small amount of table wares, such as impasto rosso, impasto bruno and buccheroid impasto. Besides pottery, ceramic weaving utensils and building material can be found in the assemblage. As in the case with most cult places in protohistoric Latium Vetus, in addition to the full-sized pottery a large number of miniature objects in impasto and coarse ware has been found in the assemblage of Laghetto del. 71 Part of the miniatures of collection 3 were published before by prof. M. Kleibrink (See Kleibrink 1997/98). 72 Votive disks are also named focacce in Italian literature. 73 For a more detailed analysis of the miniature impasto pottery and their relation to the full-sized vessels see infra Paper 2. 74 Local production for bucchero pottery is supposed for the nearby settlement of Satricum (see Nijboer 1998: 8283). Possibly the bucchero from Laghetto del Monsignore is produced in Satricum. For a further discussion of the provenance of the pottery see the individual bucchero and etrusco-corinthian chapters. 75 The etrusco-corinthian pottery is separated from this group because of their frequent presence in the assemblage.. 70 Some. of the materials are on display, but the main part can be found in the storerooms, crates 61-73.. 14.

(28) Laghetto del Monsignore, renewed interests. Fig.6 Composition of the assemblage of the cult place of Laghetto del Monsignore, based on the four studied collections (NO=11.401).. were recovered; there are some undetermined iron fragments and one rounded, lead projectile. The glass, amber and faience objects are all beads, some of which were decorated with white eyes. Only one stone artefact was present, a part of a grinding stone. In addition, several undetermined and fragmented pieces of bone, carbon, lithic and stone were part of the assemblage.. in the excavation of 1977-78, which, due to the stylistic resemblance of their incised decorations with the Apennine facies, 77 were attributed to this early period. Unfortunately, these sherds from Laghetto del Monsignore were never published. Allegedly similar finds from Satricum likewise received such an early date. 78 Delpino and Crescenzi later on followed by other archaeologists, doubted the dating of these objects and noted that although the decoration resembled the Apennine style, a more recent date seemed more plausible. 79 Nowadays, a starting date of the cult in Latial Period I at the end of the Bronze Age80 or even in the Early Iron Age 81 is widely accepted.. II.3 - Chronology Most publications are unanimous about the Orientalizing and Archaic phases of the sanctuary, which are consistent with the picture we have of contemporaneous Latial votive deposits. However, the start and end date of the cult place is under debate. Particularly the start of the cult place has received much scholarly attention as the sanctuary of Laghetto del Monsignore is seen as one of the first cult places of the Latial culture. Several publications of the end of the 1970's and the 1980's proclaimed a start of the cult place already at the end of the Middle Bronze Age (Bronzo Medio 3). 76 This assumption was based on the presence of some impasto sherds. Decoratie ,, ...a solcature, zig-zag, triangoli excisi, metope campite a triangoli e a tratteggio, spine di pesce e puntinati vari.” (see Cresenzi 1978: 52 ). 78 Cresenzi 1978: 52; Giovannini Ampolo 1976: 347; For the Satricum materials see: Fugazzola Delpino 1976: 67, tav. IIC, a-b. 79 f.e. Cresenzi 1978: 52; Fugazzola Delpino 1976: 66, Waarsenburg 1994: 195. However, we should keep in mind that there are few objects dating to the eneolithic period and the Bronze Age (see chapter X), no clear indicators for cult activities have been found in this early period. 80 Cresenzi 1978: 52; Guidi 1980, 149, 151; Guidi 198990: 411; Maaskant-Kleibrink 1991: 61; Waarsenburg 1994: 24; Whitehouse 1995: 86; Guidi 2009: 144; Peroni 2004: 420; Quilici Gigli 2004: 245; Alessandri 2009: 119120. 81 Quilici Gigli 2004: 245. 77. 76 Giovannini & Ampolo 1976: 347; Cresenzi 1978: 54; Löwe 1978: 142, Veloccia Rinaldi 1978: 24; Nenci 1985: 337; Knoop 1986: 70.. 15.

(29) Chapter II The extensive typological study of the collections provided renewed insights in issues concerning the dating of the cult place, as well as the start date as the end date. Although some evidence for earlier activities at the site have been found, 82 as for example the impasto fragments decorated with a squame decoration motifs, typical for the eneolithic period, and some shapes that have a possible date in the Bronze Age, there is no evidence to support the fact that activities related to ritual practices already took place in this period. In fact the earliest indicators for ritual practice at the site, can be find in the form of miniature vessels, including a miniature amphora and stands, 83 dating to the Early Iron Age, which points towards a start date of the cult place c. 950 BC, Latial Period IIA. 84 Only a small number of impasto objects can be attributed to the earliest phase of the sanctuary, indicating low intensity activity in the Iron Age. 85 Nevertheless, the continuing presence of miniaturized objects for more than five centuries is clear evidence of the cultic use of Laghetto del Monsignore from the 10th century onwards. The main part of the votives can be dated to the Orientalizing and Archaic Period. This is mainly due to the large numbers of bucchero and etrusco-corinthian pottery dating late 7th and early 6th century BC. The amount of impasto pottery increases also slightly in this period. Besides the impasto common. kitchen/storage wares, the impasto vessel repertoire now also includes table wares in finer impasto, among which impasto rosso, buccheroid impasto and impasto bruno, mainly vessels associated with drinking, such as cups, jugs and amphorae. Some of the impasto bruno vases from this period, such as the spiral amphorae and the tazze with comb-motifs, bear much resemblance to the pottery from Satricum. 86 Impasto pottery was used into the Archaic period when the impasto vases were gradually replaced by coarse ware vessels. 87 The end date of the cult place is hard to establish precisely. From the second half of the 6th century onwards the number of objects starts to decline rapidly, it is evident that cultic activity (involving ritual objects) dwindled at this point. The presence of some pieces of black gloss pottery found near the sanctuary would, according to some scholars, indicate cult activity at the site of Lago del Monsignore in the 3th century BC. 88 Veloccia Rinaldi, for example, uses this as evidence for continuity of the cult into the Mid Republican Period. 89 However, as Crescenzi and Guidi stated correctly, there is no chronological overlap between the 5th century ritual objects and the Black gloss fragments at the site. 90 Furthermore, no black gloss fragments came from the studied collections, indicating that the previously found black gloss fragments in the vicinity of the lake were probably related to a settlement site. The GIA survey of 2005 highlighted indeed the presence of Republican material in fields 300 meter west of the cult place (see fig. 5). 91 Although few pottery fragments could indeed be dated to the. See infra Part I, chapter X, comprising nine impasto fragments dating to the eneolithic period, Early Bronze Age, Middle Bronze Age and Recent Bronze Age. 83 Miniature amphora type Imp.min VII II and stands type Imp.min IX B.1 I. 84 Some of the full-size vessels could possibly be dated to the Final Bronze Age (Latial Period I). However, the start date of the cult place is based upon a combination of: clear indications for ritual practice (as in the miniature pottery), and other well-dated objects (in this case impasto pottery). This makes a certain start date of the cult place in Latial Period IIA. 85 Although we cannot exclude the possibility that more ritual objects in perishable materials were used, or even that the ritual activities simply required less ritual objects. 82. Cresenzi 1978: 53; Veloccia Rinaldi 1978: 24; Beijer 1991: 67; Waarsenburg 1994: 429. 87 Gnade & Stobbe 2014: 1250. 88 Cresenzi 1978: 54; Guidi 1991: 411; Bouma 1996: 81; Quilici Gigli 2004: 245. Among others a black gloss bowl dating between 350-265 BC (Morel 2783-2784). 89 Veloccia Rinaldi 1978: 24. 90 Guidi 1991: 411; Cresenzi 1978, 54. 91 Van Loon et al. 2014: 111, figure 5. 86. 16.

(30) Laghetto del Monsignore, renewed interests Republican period, 92 no indicators for ritual use can be observed in this period anymore. Furthermore, the absence of any anatomical votives in the material assemblage of the cult place, a key element of Republican votive dedication, doesn’t account for continuity of cult practices. In other publications the end of the 6th century is taken as the final date of the sanctuary. 93 Löwe claims that the deposit was ritually buried in the late 6th century. 94 But while evidence for ritual activity in the PostArchaic period is scarce, the presence of a number of bucchero, attic and depurated fragments in combination with two miniature coarse ware vessels dating to the 5th and beginning of the 4th century, in all likelihood constitute the latest dating evidence for ritual activity at the site, indicating the gradual fading of the cult place in the 5th century.. During field surveys in the surroundings of the lake by the GIA in 2005 96 no building material was found in the direct vicinity of the lake. In the fields 300 meter to the west of the cult place the team did find evidence for at least one site with a clear concentration of 6th century ceramic materials, including red augite tile and hut loam, confirming the presence of a building. Because of the distance to the cult place, this is rather likely to be a habitation site than a building directly related to the cult place. However, according to Quilici Gigli, large amount of tiles and tuff blocks were recovered north-west of the lake. 97 The tiles, manufactured of a red-brown impasto and of impasto chiaro sabbioso, both types with a lot of augite inclusions, were dated between the 6th and 4th century. 98 The close resemblances between the objects that were found in the vicinity of the architectonic remains and the materials of the votive deposit, indicate that a connection between the structure and the deposit is plausible. 99 Quilici and Quilici-Gigli state that it is likely that the blocks and tiles belonged to a small building that is associated with the cult place of Laghetto del Monsignore dating between the 6th and 4th century BC. 100 The presence of eight fragments of red-brown impasto tiles 101 in the assemblage of Laghetto del Monsignore suggests that we indeed cannot rule out the presence of a small cult building in the 6th century.. II.4 - The site Because of the absence of evidence for a cult building, the cult place of Laghetto del Monsignore has been described in the literature as an open-air cult place. While in the Early Iron Age sanctuaries in Latium Vetus in general seem to have been open-air cult places, by the Late Orientalizing and Archaic periods they would normally feature one or more cult buildings. 95 Indeed during the excavations of 1977-78 no structures have been found near the lake.. One of the most frequent types in the assemblage dating to this period is a high collared jar with an almond thickening of the rim. This type of jar is commonly found in the off-site material during intensive field surveys in the region by the Groningen Institute of Archaeology, indicating the possible use in pastoral activities (Attema et al. 2010b). 93 Giovannini Ampolo 1976: 347; Cresenzi 1978, 54; Löwe 1978 142; Nenci 1985: 337; Knoop 1986: 70; Peroni 2004: 420; Quilici Gigli 2004: 245. 94 Löwe 1978: 142. 95 For an overview of the developments of cult buildings and temples see Potts 2015. 92. Van Loon et al. 2014. Gigli 2004: 244. It is not stated at what distance from the lake. 98 Quilici & Quilici Gigli 1984: 131. 99 Bouma 1996: 52. 100 Quilici & Quilici Gigli 1984: 131. The date is inconsistent with the chronological timespan of the cult place based on the study of the material assemblage. 101 See types Imp XII I and Imp XII Indet. 96. 97 Quilici. 17.

(31) - Chapter III Introduction to the Catalogue PDA44740, PDA47520- PDA47549, PDA47650PDA53820 (soprintendenza numbers) and CVlib0001-CVlib5670 (non-official numbers). In Chapters IV-X the material categories, as described in section II.2, will be discussed. Each chapter will give an introduction of the material assemblage, a general description of each class, followed by the descriptions of the types belonging to this class. The drawings of the types will be presented at the end of each chapter.. III.2 - Typology The objects of the four collections are presented in a morphological typology, based on differences in wares and morphology of the objects. No existing classification has been used as a model for this typology, although bibliographic research aided much to our understanding of the morphology and terminology of the assemblage. The pottery is divided into different ware categories: impasto/coarse ware 102 (Imp), bucchero (Buc), etrusco-corinthian (EC) and depurated ware (Dep. ware). Furthermore, the impasto and coarse wares are divided into fullsized shapes (Imp) and miniatures (Imp. min). 103 In addition to the pottery also objects made of other materials have been found at the votive deposit, such as bronzes objects (Bronze), Glass, Amber and faience beads (Bead), one lead object (Lead) and stone objects (Stone). The ware categories are subdivided into classes, we can distinguish: classes of vessel shapes and other objects, numbered I, II, III etc. (e.g. Imp.min IV.5 A.III/1 var.1). With a few acceptations wall fragments were not assigned to a vessel class. The same applies for other 'diagnostic' fragments such as decorated wall fragments, bases, handles etc. These fragments are divided over classes based on. III.1 - Numbering system Unfortunately circumstances never allowed to follow an overall numbering system of the objects. For each of the collections a small part has numbers assigned by the Soprintendenza, for the objects that are lacking official numbers, 'fictitious' numbers are created which are related to the bags, crates and collections in which they are stored. This resulted in the following system: Collections 1 & 2 The objects of these two collections can be recognised in the catalogue as beginning with 143/144 or CV'10. Collection 1: CV'10.0195-0887, CV'10.0968-1208, CV'10.2724-2750 (non-official numbers). Collection 2: 143911- 144192 (soprintendenza numbers) and CV'10.0046, CV'10.0068CV’10.0194, CV'10. 0888-0967, CV'10.12092723 (non-official numbers) Collection 3 The material belonging to this collection can be recognised in the catalogue as beginning with CV or CVgia: CV18000CV18677 (soprintendenza numbers) and CVgia0001-CVgia1996 (non-official numbers). If possible, the different wares (either impasto, coarse ware, impasto bruno or impasto rosso) will be specified in the description of the distinguished types. 103 See the introduction of Chapter IV on the miniature impasto/coarse ware vessels for the benchmarks used for this division. 102. Collection 4 The objects belonging to this collection can be recognised in the catalogue as beginning with PDA or CVlib: PDA44731-. 18.

No results found