Cambridge Archaeological Journal 11:2 (2001), 185–200

Form and Meaning in Etruscan Ritual Space

Vedia E. Izzet

Monumental sanctuaries in Central Italy, more specifically South Etruria, appear sud-
denly in the middle of the first millennium BC. Ancient Greek and Roman authors wrote
about the Etruscans, and the Etruscans themselves produced a mass of material evidence
which they buried in their tombs, and which drew on Classical elements including
mythology. As a result of the wealth and breadth of archaeological material, this society
provides much, so far unexplored, scope for cognitive investigation. Here my concern is
why sanctuaries emerged in the late sixth century, and why the highly codified temple
architecture of South Etruria took the form that it did.

Monumental temples appear suddenly in South in Etruria, a view in which the temple becomes the
Etruria in the late sixth century BC. Previous studies by-product of a social phenomenon. Instead, the
seeking to explain this development have concen- stress here is on the planning and construction of
trated on the temples and sanctuaries as complete, temple architecture, with all the choices involved in
fully-formed phenomena, associated with the estab- how this should be accomplished, in the deploy-
lishment and maintenance of boundaries. What these ment of style, form and decoration. We can thus
studies ignore, however, is the way in which the acknowledge the intentionality in the construction
physicality of the temple is concerned with articulat- of the temples which survive today. At every stage,
ing the same message. Previous approaches have alternatives (both well-established and innovatory)
failed to engage with the temple as a building which were available to the constructors, and decisions were
was meaningfully constructed, viewed, and visited. made on how to proceed. Every element in temple
The decorative and formal elements of the temple architecture was made deliberately, and, equally, the
must be incorporated into the debate for a more method of construction was intentionally selected.
complete understanding of the rise of formal sanctu- This, of course, applies to all material culture and to
aries in Etruria. In a move towards such an approach, all aspects of the Etruscan ritual environment, from
this article will examine the material remains of Etrus- the location of the temple in the landscape to the
can temples as part of the meaningfully-constructed details of the decoration of the gutter tiles. The man-
Etruscan built environment. Taking the expression ner in which objects or buildings are made or deco-
of boundaries as a starting point, it will examine the rated is never arbitrary, but results from the choices
ways in which Etruscan craftsmen and builders ma- and selections made by craftsmen in the process of
nipulated the materials in their hands in order to production. They exist because they have meaning,
express boundedness. and they occur in the forms that they do because
The archaeological remains of Etruscan sanctu- those forms have significance.
aries should not be considered en masse as reflecting At the outset we must acknowledge a number
meaning in a passive manner simply because they of problems inherent in the material available in
exist. Nor should they be seen as symptomatic, or trying to tackle this problem. The first is that not
symbolic, of overarching social or cultural changes many temples and sanctuaries actually survive. At

185

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959774301000105 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 Vedia E. Izzet

Cerveteri, it has been suggested that eight sanctuar- of all kinds is not new (Morris 1992, 11); the greatest
ies existed in the urban area (Mengarelli 1935; though danger being to cobble together the few sources to
see Nardi 1989); of those, only two have been inves- make one scrambled example, what Morris has called
tigated and published: the supposed Temple of Hera a ‘composite’ picture, which is temporally static. The
at the Vigna Parrocchiale and the small Manganello alternative ‘one-off study’ is wholly inappropriate
sanctuary (Mengarelli 1935; 1936); a third is cur- when trying to explain the emergence of a broad
rently under excavation at Sant’Antonio (Izzet 2000). cultural phenomenon. At the cost of ignoring tem-
If the numbers from Cerveteri are anything to go by, poral and regional variation in the later history of
we have a very small sample of the original whole. A Etruscan sanctuaries, I will draw together the evi-
similar picture emerges at Orvieto, where only two dence from the different sites available, using the
of the nine temples noted have been excavated extant examples to provide sharp focus within a
(Colonna 1985, 81). Accordingly, since we have very much broader cultural picture. It is only through
few examples from which to extrapolate wider trends, examination of the individual examples together that
questions of the representativeness of our sample an attempt at capturing the more complete picture
must always be borne in mind. The sample size could can be made. Given that we are dealing with the
be increased by the inclusion of sites from Latium dramatic transition from the absence to the presence
(for instance Cornell 1995, 108–12; Rendeli 1990; Smith of built sanctuaries, the general similarities between
1996; Torelli 1990 (1981), 165–70), but this would incor- them justify such an approach. In addition, although
porate sites from a different cultural milieu, thus add- later examples will be incorporated, an attempt will
ing to the difficulties of assessing representativeness. be made to concentrate on the earlier sanctuaries.
In addition to small sample size, the few Etruscan The fragmented nature of our information should
examples that do survive span several centuries, from not restrict enquiries (Morris 1992, 15), and what
the sixth-century BC Piazza d’Armi at Veii to the fourth- follows is an attempt to see how far we can take the
century BC Ara della Regina at Tarquinia (Stefani 1944– evidence we do have in order to understand the
5, 228–90; Romanelli 1948, 238–70). development of sanctuaries in the sixth century, and
The second problem inherent in the material in particular, to understand why they took the shape
lies in the nature, rather than the quantity, of the they did.
evidence. Etruscan temples often underwent several
changes and renovations, so that, for instance, the Early Etruscan ritual: the problem
Belvedere Temple at Orvieto has at least two sets of
architectural terracottas (Andrén 1940, 169; Colonna The late sixth century BC saw the beginning of an
1985, 82; Riis 1941, 100–101), as does Temple B at intensive period of sanctuary foundation in south-
Pyrgi (Colonna 1970, 402–5). This is a particular prob- ern Etruria: it was at this time that large sanctuaries
lem when considering temples excavated earlier in were first built, usually comprising at least one tem-
this century, before systematic excavation practices ple in a bounded sacred area, and associated with an
were adopted on Etruscan sites. There are, in fact, altar and a votive deposit. Most significantly, these
few sites which have been excavated recently, giv- sanctuary complexes quickly developed, and were
ing us very little information from modern tech- to retain, a standardized architectural form.
niques such as stratigraphic or palaeobotanical data Previously, ritual had taken place in sites that
(notable exceptions to this are Pyrgi: Colonna 1988– were selected according to the natural landscape.
89, 131–8, 233–4; Punta della Vipera: Torelli 1967; These can be categorized according to physical ge-
and the ongoing investigations at Sant’Antonio at ography such as lakes, caves or mountain tops, and
Cerveteri: Izzet 2000). Finally, though it is easy to are identified archaeologically by votive deposits (for
talk of an ‘Etruscan Temple’, no two surviving ex- the best summary see Edlund 1987). A striking ex-
amples are the same, and none fits Vitruvius’ de- ample of the first type is the Lago degli Idoli at
scription exactly. The Belvedere Temple at Orvieto, Monte Falterona, about thirty kilometres east of Flor-
though close to the Vitruvian model, is wider at the ence (Colonna 1960, 589–90; Dennis 1883, 107–11;
back than at the front, so that the columns are not Edlund 1987, 56–7; Fortuna & Giovannoni 1975). The
aligned with the cella walls as prescribed (Pernier & site is now destroyed, but yielded one of the richest
Stefani 1925, 159). The record we have, in other words, collections of votive offerings in Etruria. This in-
is somewhat fragmented, and this cannot be ignored cluded an impressive collection of bronze figurines
during enquiries into the nature and form of Etrus- (Brendel 1978, 225–6, fig. 152; Richardson 1983, for
can sanctuaries. The problem of restricted evidence example 292–3, pl. 204, fig. 692; Riis 1941, 135), as

186

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959774301000105 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 Form and Meaning in Etruscan Ritual Space

well as anatomical terracottas, coinage, weapons and suggestion for an early sanctuary is the ‘palace’ at
plentiful aes rude. The site could have been the centre Murlo. This monumental complex, with its perpetu-
of a healing cult, as indicated not only by the pres- ally ambiguous status and function, is often seen as
ence of the anatomical votives, but also reproduc- a precursor to the built sanctuaries of Etruria. The
tions of actual suffering and disease: one figure, for suggestion is particularly convincing, given the un-
instance, has a wounded chest (Dennis 1883, 108). equal tripartite division of the building at the end of
The total number of objects exceeded 600, indicating the 60 m by 60 m courtyard, foreshadowing the cella
the considerable popularity of the sanctuary, which of the Etruscan temple (Colonna 1985, 53; 1986, 423–
remained in use from the sixth until the fourth cen- 4; Edlund 1987, 91; Prayon 1986, 195; Stopponi 1985,
tury BC. Despite this popularity, evident both in terms 64–154). Even in this instance, however, the classifi-
of the numbers of votives and the longevity of the cation of sanctuary does not fit easily. The presence
site, there was no associated structure. of quotidian paraphernalia, specifically dining equip-
Monte Soracte is possibly the most famous ment (Rathje 1994, 98; Spivey & Stoddart 1990, 73),
mountain-top ritual site in Etruria, owing no doubt and the excavator’s arguments for a political meet-
in part to Horace’s evocation (Edlund 1987, 46–9; ing place of the putative Etruscan League (Phillips
Horace Odes 1, 9). Other literary sources tell us about 1993, 80–81), as well as those for the domestic resi-
a cult of the Hirpi on the mountain (Pliny the Elder, dence of a powerful leader (Spivey & Stoddart 1990,
Historia Naturalis 7. 19), and the poisonous gases and 73; Torelli 1990 (1981), 174–81; 1983), add to the un-
fumes emanating from the site. This is corroborated certainty in assigning the complex an exclusively
by archaeological survey which has noted sulphur ritual function. In fact, the confusion of modern schol-
fissures on the mountainside (Jones 1963, 126). Pot- ars and the continued debate over the function of the
tery indicates usage from the Neolithic onwards complex may not be accidental, but may rather be
(Edlund 1987, 49), but although there seems there- indicative of ancient ambiguity towards the build-
fore to be evidence of cultic activity on the site from ing’s function. In a wider context, Torelli and Ruiz
pre-Etruscan times, there is no trace of any sort of have suggested that the complex belongs to a type of
temple or sanctuary building. political formation involving extra-urban residence-
These two examples serve to show the exist- cum-ritual structures in evidence from Iberia, and
ence of cultic practice in Central Italy from the Central and Southern Europe (Ruiz 1998, 192–3). In
Neolithic onwards. The locations for these activities so doing, they acknowledge the overlapping func-
were determined by the selection of special places in tions of the building, and the ambiguity between
the landscape — hills, springs, lakes and caves. These ritual and non-ritual practices enacted in the com-
natural features were the setting for ritual action. plex.
Religious ceremonies and worship did not need a Despite the very likely religious or ritualistic
humanly-made environment in which to take place. function of these buildings, it would be difficult to
This changed dramatically in the second half of the classify them as temples or sanctuaries in the same
sixth century, when we see the construction in South sense as the complexes from the late sixth century BC
Etruria of buildings specifically for religious prac- and later. The multiplicity of uses and functions of
tice. For the first time in Central Italy, sanctuaries — the earlier structures discussed above is replaced by
architectural spaces specifically built for ritual prac- the specificity of ritual function in the later sanctu-
tice — emerge and, along with them, codified tem- ary complexes. These share a codified and uniform
ple architecture. style of religious architecture in the form of the tem-
This is not to discount completely the possibil- ple, an external altar or podium for sacrifices, a
ity of earlier buildings which were used for religious temenos wall which surrounds the sanctuary, and the
purposes. Sanctuaries and temples may have prec- presence of votive deposits (Colonna 1985, 23–7). At
edents from before the sixth century BC. It has been the same time, it must be stressed that such a defini-
argued, for instance, that the seventh century build- tive list is not ubiquitous in the archaeological record,
ing at Roselle served a religious function (Bocci Pacini and that the decorated temples were a predominantly
1975, 21–33; Colonna 1985, 53–6). A similar instance South Etrurian phenomenon. The specific features
has been found at Tarquinia, where ritual action, we can call typical of Etruscan sanctuaries emerged
including burial, has been demonstrated within a in the second half of the sixth century, in marked
building on the settlement plain (Bonghi Jovino 1986, contrast to the ambiguity in the physical location of
89–94 & 98–105; Bonghi Jovino & Chiaramonte Treré cult of the preceding centuries. Attempts to explain
1986; 1997, 164–94). Perhaps the most convincing the sudden appearance of this phenomenon run par-

187

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959774301000105 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 Vedia E. Izzet

allel to intellectual trends in Classical archaeology in tural history, where use of the Roman writer
general. What follows is a brief summary of the six Vitruvius is most prominent (De Architectura 4, 7). In
most influential approaches to sanctuaries in Etruria. an architectural treatise dedicated to Octavian (later
to become the Emperor Augustus), Vitruvius de-
Early Etruscan ritual: the solutions scribed, and thereby defined, the Tuscan Order for
the Romans. His definitions still inform modern ac-
Six former treatments of Etruscan sanctuaries form counts of Etruscan temples. This material will not be
the framework for the analysis presented below. The used here, partly because Vitruvius’ account has been
approaches and their conclusions provide a breadth so expertly discussed elsewhere (for instance, Andrén
and depth to the study of Etruscan ritual architec- 1940: xxxv; Barker & Rasmussen 1998, 219; Boëthius
ture, which will be integrated into an analysis of 1955–56; 1978; Colonna 1985, 60; Knell 1983; Lake
temple form. 1935, esp. 89–92; Pfiffig 1975, 55; Prayon 1986, 104;
Spivey 1997, 62); partly because his account of Etrus-
1. Perhaps the most prevalent approach remains the can architecture is descriptive rather than analytical
art-historical. Here the main emphasis is on the ob- or explanatory; and partly because, as a Roman,
jects found in votive deposits, or on the decoration Vitruvius was writing several centuries after the
of the temple. Sanctuaries are seen largely in terms buildings and events he discusses, and as a non-
of the ‘art’ that was found in them. This has been the Etruscan, his account is likely to be ‘unbalanced’, or
fate of one sanctuary in particular, the Portonaccio at written for ulterior motives. (For the problems of
Veii, though others, such as Pyrgi (Pairault Massa using Roman sources for earlier periods, see Beard et
1992, 72–5) or Orvieto (Riis 1941, 96–107), have been al. 1998, 4–9; for the use of Roman sources for Etrus-
drawn into similar discussions. The discovery at Veii can ritual in particular, see Dumézil 1970, 661, 626).
of the famous acroterial sculptures in 1916 refocused In architectural histories of Etruria, the origins
attention on this uniquely Etruscan form of produc- of Etruscan temples are sought in indigenous do-
tion, at a time when the independence of ‘The mestic architecture, as a continuous local develop-
Etruscans’ was a central issue in Italian nationalism ment. The progression, discussed above, is seen as
(Pallottino 1991, 12–14). The importance of these running through the mud-brick house at Roselle,
haughty cultural icons is evident in the continued through the complexes at Murlo and Acquarossa,
emphasis they still receive: no work on Etruscan art culminating in the monumental sanctuary (Colonna
is complete without reference to these astonishing 1985, 53; 1986, 433). These enquiries document Etrus-
feats of coroplastic genius. Most recently, Spivey talks can ritual practice from at least the Iron Age, tracing
of the ‘archaic smile’, ‘breeze-blown drapery’ and the history of the physical location of cult practice.
‘Ionian profile’ of the so-called Apollo; a little ear- The emphasis on the indigenous roots of Etruscan
lier, Brendel argued, if rather optimistically, for a ritual architecture is important in highlighting is-
‘School of Vulca’ in a manner unmistakably reminis- sues of origin and influences on Etruscan architec-
cent of John Beazley’s work on Athenian vase paint- tural forms. Precedent alone, however, is not enough
ers (Beazley 1942; 1956; Brendel 1978, 237–8; Gantz to explain temple form; questions of why such local
1974–75; Spivey 1997, 66; Torelli 1990 (1981), 170). As models were maintained and why other features were
well as the emphasis on artistic value, a further ele- imposed still need to be addressed. The answers to
ment of the art-historical tradition is to trace the such questions must lie in the selection of forms in
origins of certain styles or techniques. So, for in- the first place, and in an examination of those forms.
stance, ‘Greek workmanship provided the initial im-
petus’ for architectural terracotta decoration in 3. Moving away from the physical details of sanctu-
Etruria (Spivey 1997, 60; see also Colonna 1986, 433). ary architecure, a broader stance is taken by those
In such approaches sanctuaries are important as re- attempting to write a socio-political history of Etruria.
positories for objets d’art, with the objects themselves Mario Torelli, for example, sees the dedication of
overriding the contexts in which they were found. sanctuaries as an explicitly anti-aristocratic gesture
These enquiries have the potential to tell us a great (Torelli 1990 (1981), 181). He and others emphasize
deal about the objects themselves; they make no claim the importance of tyrants in the foundation of tem-
to explain the emergence of the contexts in which ples, in the transition away from regal power (Pairault
the objects were found. Massa 1992, 60–75). This interpretation is given unu-
sually strong backing by the inscription on the gold
2. Linked to this school of thought is that of architec- plaques from Pyrgi claiming that Thefarie Velianas,

188

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959774301000105 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 Form and Meaning in Etruscan Ritual Space

ruler of Cerveteri, had dedicated the sanctuary, per- territories, acting as the focus of conflicts over terri-
haps as an anniversary celebration (Colonna 1985, torial control, and their resolution (Zifferero 1995,
134; Cornell 1995, 147; Pairault Massa 1992, 68; Pallot- 333). In addition, sanctuaries were regarded as a
tino 1964). In these cases, sanctuaries are integrated ‘zona franca’ for exchange and interaction between
into historical accounts, taking their emergence in cities (again argued for Greece by de Polignac 1994;
the first place for granted. 1995, 5–11; for Etruria see also Rendeli 1993, 357–60).
In a similar way, the new sanctuaries are seen by oth-
4. Another historical approach has been to see the ers as points of Etruscan interaction and exchange with
development of sanctuaries as an obvious compo- Greece and Phoenicia (Cornell 1995, 108–12; Cristofani
nent of an emerging city state. Based loosely on the 1983, 119–22; Spivey & Stoddart 1990, 123–5).
criteria for urbanization outlined by Gordon Childe
(Childe 1950, though the development of sanctuar- The interpretative approaches discussed above gen-
ies is not listed by him), this argument sees the de- erally share two characteristics. The first is that they
velopment of sanctuaries as part of what being a city are all, in some way, concerned with marking differ-
is all about, and so a natural part of the process of ence. This is perhaps even applicable to the art and
urbanization. For Colonna, the creation of an acropo- architectural histories, where the concern with ori-
lis, with a sanctuary or sacred area, defines a city in gins can be linked with the expression of cultural
the political sense. He sees the ‘appropriazione del difference. It is still more explicit in the other ap-
sacro’ as crucial for the aggregation and equilibrium proaches, where sanctuaries are shown to mark dif-
of the urban community (Colonna 1986, 433). These ferences between socio-political systems, between
approaches are based on the binding quality of ritual individual cities, and between different territories.
as a mechanism for urban cohesion; the appropriate- The concern with marking boundaries will be taken
ness of the specific form of the Etruscan temple in as the starting point of my analysis below.
expressing this is taken as given. The second characteristic, shared by all but the
art and architectural histories, is a lack of interest in
5. More recently, influences from other areas of ar- what the temples looked like. Concern with the size
chaeological research have affected approaches to of a temple, or its location, overrides the details in
Etruscan sanctuaries. Two in particular have been the construction of the temples. The links between
influential, and been developed further by Etrusco- these details and the ‘meanings’ which they carry
logists. The first is the notion of peer-polity interac- are not explored. For such approaches, it seems that
tion (Renfrew & Cherry 1986). Through the mediation it is not really necessary to know what a temple looked
of Snodgrass’ work on Greek sanctuaries, competi- like (for instance de Polignac 1995, and the original
tion between Etruscan city states in Central Italy has 1984 French edition, contains no illustrations), or rather,
been analyzed by Rendeli (Snodgrass 1986; Rendeli the appearance of a temple is taken so much for
1990). From a diachronic survey of temple size he granted that it raises no comment whatsoever.
has shown that inter-state competition does indeed In the following section, I will examine the form
seem to be a major component in the construction of and decoration of Etruscan temples in an attempt to
Etruscan temples (see also Torelli 1990 (1981), 169). re-integrate the physical specificity of the temple
Although this may account for the increased size of into these cultural explanations centred around
temples in the early fifth century BC, it does not boundedness. Rather than seeing the approaches out-
explain the choice of the temple form. lined above as competing and conflicting, I see them
as unified in negotiating difference. Further, the inte-
6. The other new approach has again entered through gration of temple form and decoration is crucial for our
Classical archaeology. This is the work of Andrea readings of Etruscan ritual landscapes and the wider
Zifferero, based on that of de Polignac for Greek cultural context of sanctuary foundation.
sanctuaries (de Polignac 1995; Zifferero 1995; see
also Nardi 1989). Zifferero shows convincingly that Etruscan temple form
the location of temples was very strategic: temples
and sanctuaries, along with cemeteries, were located The physical appearance of the temple is the starting
to serve as ‘ritual halos’ (Riva & Stoddart 1996, 91, point of the analysis which follows. The specifics of
99–100) to distinguish between urban and non-ur- the temple’s physical form were deeply implicated
ban space, and also between the territories of differ- in the creation and transference of meaning. Form
ent cities. Sanctuaries were sited at the frontiers of and decoration, usually the domain of the architec-

189

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959774301000105 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 Vedia E. Izzet

tural- or art-historian, must be integrated into a culturally-informed cultural actions of the producer
broader cultural understanding of Etruscan sanctu- impregnates the object he or she is creating with
aries. Though this has been attempted before (Pairault knowledge (Gell’s ‘magic of production’: Gell 1992;
Massa 1992; Spivey 1997), the means by which the 1998, 49–50). Simultaneously, the knowledgeable con-
physical form of the temple and its decoration trans- sumer (Jenks’ ‘artful viewer’: Jenks 1995, 10, or the
mit meaning in synchrony have not been confronted sanctuary visitor) reads, extrapolates and creates
satisfactorily, largely because too strict a distinction meaning, and so posits creative agency back on the
has been drawn between form, decoration, and cul- object (Gell 1992, 51–2). In this sense, style and form
tural meaning. are more than a means of communication (Weissner
Etruscan temple architecture was designed to 1990) between far more knowing human agents, or
create and maintain physical, cultural and ontologi- even a ‘register’ of social conventions (Whitley 1991,
cal differences. This analysis is based on three inter- 4–5). Rather, as the object is the point of interaction
related presuppositions about the creation and between the producer and consumer, style and form
transmission of meaning in material culture. The are part of the meaning itself. In addition to the
first two concern the production and the reception of symbolic messages which accrete around objects in a
objects, and so involve the creation of meaning in, sociological sense, where objects are manipulated in
and by, objects (in this case expressing difference). power strategies (for instance, Bourdieu 1977), the
The third concerns the interrelatedness of the differ- ways in which objects are made — their style (Hodder
ent spheres in which one particular object can oper- 1990, 45) — is fundamental to the meanings they
ate simultaneously. embody.
By beginning with the details of temple con- The third basis for the following analysis of
struction, and concentrating on the physicality of Etruscan sanctuaries concerns the multiplicity of lev-
objects, it is possible to build up layers of meaning at els on which objects and artefacts operate. Material
which the temple operates, from the materially spe- culture creates, bridges and transcends physical and
cific to the cultural. Objects (and temples) are the cognitive categories. Thus an architectural detail, for
result of a process of production, a process which is example a terracotta plaque, not only marks the struc-
deeply enmeshed in culture. Examining objects and tural difference between the wall and the roof of the
their details (such as form and style) acknowledges temple, but also spatial differences between inside
the choices and selections made by producers, and and outside, the political differences between terri-
so the cultural weight of production. The impor- tories, and the ontological difference between the
tance of agency in the production of objects (Gell sacred and the profane. In addition, the choice of
1998; and similarly Shanks’ ‘primacy of production’: style, material, and location of the plaque are all
Shanks 1999, 18–19), combined with a stress on the bound up with such differences, which are expressed
physicality and visibility of artefacts (Buchli 1995, simultaneously. In such a case, the plaque is not
189–90; Jenks 1995; Heywood & Sandywell 1999) merely reflecting or highlighting a broader cultural
imbues them with power to transmit, absorb and difference (say, territorial); it is instrumental in cre-
create meaning. Such concentration on style, form ating the difference itself. In this sense, examination
and technique does not signal a return to an art- of form and style allows objects to act more than
historical fetishization of objects. On the contrary, metaphorically (Tilley 1999). Material culture slips
acknowledging the interplay between culture and between and among ontologically differing and in-
producer gives objects an active cultural presence. terrelated spheres (political, religious, social, spatial,
Similarly, the importance of seeing and being structural) in creating meaning, rather than being
seen is essential in the experience of material cul- placed in the linear and hierarchical relationships
ture, and so in the creation and reception of its mean- that metaphor implies. Material culture hovers be-
ing, be it object, building or landscape (Barrett 1994; tween the cognitive and material (Davey 1999, 13).
Bradley 1998; Tilley 1994, 12). Again, this is not to Thus the temple, its builders and worshippers (and
argue for a universality in the human experience of interpreters) collude in a reciprocal symbiotic rela-
forms or styles; given the importance of the pro- tionship in manufacturing meanings on many dif-
ducer of the object as a cultural agent, this is no ferent levels. Meaning is reflected back and forth
longer possible. The creation of meaning in objects between the material elements of the temple and the
comes from two directions: the producer and the cognitive spheres which are embedded in it, each
consumer; the meeting place for the two is the object augmenting and supplementing the other.
itself, or in this case the temple. In other words, the Once we have established a scheme in which

190

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959774301000105 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 Form and Meaning in Etruscan Ritual Space

meanings are transferred,

and can slip between cog-
nitive spheres, it is neces-
sary to return to the
function of the temple as
a religious building.
Though the details of the
temple architecture are
deployed in order to ar-
ticulate difference, this
emphasis on the differ-
ence between spheres
draws attention to the
function of a temple as a
bridge between spheres.
By highlighting the gulf
between the sacred and
the profane, the temple
draws these two catego-
ries into dialogue, and al-
lows passage between
them. When considering
temple architecture in par- Figure 1. Reconstruction of a typical Etruscan temple. (After Colonna 1985, 50, 63.)
ticular, the articulation of
difference need not exclude the potential for trans- reaction to stress takes the form of elaborated bounda-
gressing those differences; indeed it allows negotia- ries. The physical points of interaction between dif-
tion between them. ferent types of spaces are given physical emphasis,
It is precisely through the elision of these cat- for example through monumentalization or decora-
egories of difference within the physical form and tion. Differences are emphasized and sharply de-
style of the building that the efficacy of the temple in fined in order to preserve their integrity.
negotiating them becomes so great. In tracing this
negotiation, it is useful to think in terms of two a) Temple bases
distinct, but inter-related, aspects of the temple: deco- Etruscan temples were placed on discrete bases. Like
ration and form. the Greek temple, the ‘house of the god’ was sepa-
rated clearly from the ground on which it stood.
Temple decoration Unlike the straight steps of the Greek stylobate and
stereobate, however, the Etruscan temple sat on a
When considering decoration, it is important to dis- base which was moulded and carefully shaped with
tinguish (for analysis at least) between the subject convex and concave curves, the so-called Etruscan
and content of the decoration, the manner in which round, and its variations into points and angles (Shoe
it is executed, and its location within the temple’s 1965, 14). The alternating tori, fasces, and ‘hawk’s
decorative scheme. The Etruscan temple was en- beak’ mouldings were carved into the blocks which
crusted with decoration, from the bottom up (Fig. 1). fit together almost seamlessly (Fig. 2). Within Etruria
It is now well established, through the work of an- itself, the moulded bases of only two temples sur-
thropologists, architects and archaeologists (e.g. vive.1 These are the Belvedere Sanctuary at Orvieto
Bachelard 1994 (1958); Dissanayake 1992; Douglas and the fourth-century phase of the Ara della Regina
1984 (1966); Hodder 1982; Lefebvre 1991 (1974); at Tarquinia. A third is mentioned from Roselle
Parker Pearson & Richards 1994), that when sepa- (Andrén 1940, xxxix, note 20; Dennis 1883, 229; Lake
rate categories of any sort are under stress in some 1935, 147). Of the Belvedere Sanctuary, only the
way, there is an accompanying cultural emphasis on moulded blocks, which were not found in situ, sur-
the points of interaction between those categories. In vive (Andrén 1940, xxxviii; Minto 1934, 78); in the
other words, there seems to be a reinforcement of Ara della Regina, the base is made up of rectilinear
those threatened categories. In material culture, the steps, surmounted by one large, and one narrow

191

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959774301000105 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 Vedia E. Izzet

bronze nails through holes in the

terracotta (for example at Pyrgi:
Colonna 1970, 710, fig. 550). There
were two principal rows of plaques,
both running all the way around
the temple (see the reconstructions
in Andrén 1940, pl. CCXLIII;
Boëthius 1978, 59–63; Colonna
1985, 63). The first row was at the
point at which the walls of the tem-
ples ended and met the overhang-
ing pitched roof (Fig. 3). Here there
Figure 2. Profiles of: a) the altar from Punta della Vipera (after Torelli 1967, was a single row of revetment
333); b) the altar at Vignanello (after Colonna 1985, 24); and c) the base of plaques, each divided into three
the Ara della Regina temple at Tarquinia (after Colonna 1985, 73). discrete zones by a half-round or
roll moulding: an anthemion at the
curved stone ‘cushion’ (Fig. 2 (c); Romanelli 1948, bottom, usually taking up about half of the plaque, a
242–8; Shoe 1965, 89–90). A better idea of the bases fascia, and a concave cornice decorated with tongues
may be gained from the surviving altars in Etruria or strigils (Andrén 1940, cciii; Colonna 1985, 63). The
(Shoe 1965, 20), such as those at Pieve a Socana, whole plaque was moulded and painted. The
Punta della Vipera, Vignanello, and Marzabotto, anthemion was usually decorated with a lotus-
where the alternating bands are particularly elabo- palmette design, resulting in a scolloped lower edge
rate (Fig. 2 (a) & (b)) (Brizzolara et al. 1980, 105–6; to the plaque, while the fascia was restricted to geo-
Brizio 1891; Colonna 1985, 24, 164–7; Mansuelli 1972; metric patterns such as lozenges, zig-zags, horizon-
Torelli 1967, 332). Both sets of bases are reminiscent tal lines or a guilloche (Andrén 1940, cciii). The cornice
of statue bases, so that the religious is seemingly was almost always a deep, ridged strigil moulding,
placed on a pedestal, physically raised above, and painted in alternating colours (for example at Pyrgi,
separated from, the quotidian (Shoe 1965, 21). In Temple A: Colonna 1970, 346–62; see Shoe 1965, 27–9
both the altars and the temple podia, the interplay of for Etruscan terminology).
light and shadow caused by the varying undulations The second row of plaques ran along the out-
in the interconnecting surfaces of the mouldings side edge of the overhanging pitched roof (Fig. 1).
would have drawn the eye to this area, emphasizing Here a row of plaques similar to those described
it visually. At both temple sites, the blocks of the above was surmounted by a row of antefixes along
base were faced with a different stone from the rest the side-walls of the temple, and a row of frontal
of the temple; this stone was nenfro (Fig. 2(c)) (for simas at either end (for example on Temple B at
recent excavations at Cerveteri see Izzet 2000). This Pyrgi: Colonna 1970, 362–71; see also Andrén 1940,
is significant enough in itself in drawing attention to pl. ccxliii; Colonna 1985, 63). The frontal sima was
this part of the temple, and alerting us to the fact that made up of two parts bounded by small half rounds:
something is at stake here. Nenfro is also paler, and is a flat fascia and a convex cornice, ending in a thin
a finer-grained stone than the surrounding tuff, and beak, decorated with a series of strigils (Shoe 1965,
so would have stood out starkly against the rest of 211–15). The sima was surmounted by an open-work
the temple. So, not only is difference stressed by the cornice or cresting, again usually lotus and palmette
act of using a different stone per se, but also in the (Andrén 1940, clxxxviii; Colonna 1985, 63).
specific choice of stone. Such details are integrated The details of the decoration serve to empha-
into the emphasis of difference, setting the religious size the stress and significance given to temple deco-
apart, from the foundations upwards. ration. These continuous friezes of plaques went all
the way round the temple, in repeated motifs and
b) Terracotta plaques sets of patterns. The obtuse angles of the terminal
Perhaps the most idiosyncratic element of the Etrus- plaques made the plaques face the viewer on the
can temple was the mould-made terracotta plaques ground (Andrén 1940, clxxxvi). This results in a frieze
which adorned them (Andrén 1940; Shoe 1965, 27– where the plaques fit together without seams or joins,
9). These highly decorative slabs of terracotta were producing a constant tonal effect around the monu-
moulded and painted, and attached to the temple by ment; there is no change of rhythm or tempo in a

192

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959774301000105 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 Form and Meaning in Etruscan Ritual Space

frieze decorated in such a way.

Through its repetitious nature, the
frieze is emphatically non-narra-
tive and as such can have no
beginning and no end; it is a con-
tinuous, impenetrable whole. Un-
like, say, the Parthenon frieze
(Osborne 1987, 99–100), it does not
invite the viewer in; rather, at the
point where roof meets wall, it
presents a hard, painted façade all
the way round the temple, like an
impenetrable halo.

c) Antefixes
The pitched roof of the Etruscan
temple was made up of pantiles
covered and sealed by ridged tiles.
At the end of each row of ridged
tiles was an antefix (Figs. 1 & 4).
These were most commonly the
‘tongue-framed’ faces of gorgons,
satyrs, the gods Achéloos and
Silenus, and maenads, for exam- Figure 3. Terracotta plaque from Temple B at Pyrgi. (After Colonna 1970,
ple at the Portonaccio sanctuary at 346.)
Veii (Andrén 1940, clxix, 5–8, pls.
1–3; Giglioli 1919). All but the last are not particu-
larly surprising subjects, given their well attested
and widely corroborated apotropaic nature through-
out the range of archaeological material, down to
personal ornaments, such as necklaces with the face
of Achéloos (Briguet 1986, 103), which are surely the
precursors of the Roman bulla. These protective dei-
ties have a natural position on a temple. One of
the factors, however, which contributes to the
apotropaism of these characters explains their selec-
tion for temples specifically, and also incorporates
the maenads. This is, of course, their hybrid nature.
All these creatures are, in some senses, between cat-
egories and transcend them, or, in the language of
structural anthropology, they are all liminal (Leach
1976, fig. 7; for a funerary context for such figures in
Etruria see Martelli 1988; Spivey & Stoddart 1990,
116–17). The gorgon is half woman, half beast; the
satyr half man, half beast; Achéloos half man, half
bull, and the maenad half mad, half sane. By virtue Figure 4. Antefix in the form of a female head from
of belonging to neither and both categories simulta- Temple B at Pyrgi. (After Colonna 1970, 333.)
neously, these figures are ideal for mediating be-
tween one world and another, in this case religious the boundary between inside and outside the tem-
and non-religious, and temple and non-temple. At ple; they are guardians of boundedness itself.
the same time, their liminality challenges the bounda- The gorgon and Achéloos are particularly ap-
ries of categories into which, and between which, posite in other ways. Achéloos, as a river god, was
they fall. They therefore act not only as guardians of intrinsically linked with movement and passage and

193

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959774301000105 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 Vedia E. Izzet

hence transition. As well as being a hybrid being, he from the Portonaccio sanctuary at Veii (Giglioli 1919).
was also metamorphic, with the capacity to trans- Here over-life-size terracotta sculptures were placed
form himself into a bull, serpent or bull-headed man along the roof-ridge of the temple. At least four fig-
at will. The person of Achéloos challenges the cat- ures survive, and again the liminal nature of two of
egories of his identity through his transformation. them is self-evident: Hermes and Herakles. The oth-
This questioning of categories, and thereby defini- ers, Apollo and Leto, are more difficult to explain,
tion of them, fits neatly into the broader message of although Apollo’s role as an arbiter may be useful in
the temple. The placing of gorgons acts in a different understanding his presence, if indeed these are cor-
way. These images serve, in some ways, normatively. rect assignations (the temple is no longer thought to
One account tells us that the formerly beautiful be dedicated to Apollo: Colonna 1986, 468, cf. Andrén
Medusa’s transformation was a punishment for the 1940, 1–2). Again, beyond their meanings as mythi-
crime of sleeping with Poseidon in the Temple of cal characters involved with mediation and negotia-
Athena, and so desecrating the sanctuary. In this tion, the statues as objects — in other words, how
sense she is an object lesson in behaviour at sanctu- the statues were made and what they looked like —
aries. More interesting, however, is the danger of her are effective in transmitting a similar message. These
gaze, reputed to petrify and emasculate. It must have moulded and painted figures would have crowned
been a distinctly disturbing experience to catch the the temple, though their exact order and which way
eye of a gorgon in the sanctuary, and, given her they faced is not clear (compare Spivey 1997, 63, fig.
prominent positioning, this would have been almost 44 and Boëthius 1978, 62, fig. 51). Whatever it was,
unavoidable. they would have been seen in profile from the side
As well as their attested mythical attributes, of the temple. While the antefixes, through their bra-
which it is assumed were understood in Etruria by zen frontality, fix a point from which the viewer’s
the Archaic Period (Spivey 1997, 56), the mode of gaze bounces back, the roof sculptures, through their
representing these figures also implicated them in studied insouciance, rebuff the viewer just as effec-
the expression of difference and in the marking-off tively. Unlike the pedimental groups with their nar-
of the temple as different. All the characters are dis- rative framework and ‘action shots’, which we can
embodied heads, and they are all frontal, staring out observe with no difficulty, these figures deliberately
from the temple. When looking up at the temple; avoid our gaze, in an analogous way to that in which
viewers would have encountered face after face look- the antefixes command it. These figures, with their
ing down on them, angled by the pitch of the roof. sublime smiles, looked enigmatically over the heads
The frontal stare of the faces would have confronted, of the visitor, not giving anything away.
and engaged them; they stared straight back, like a So far, only the decoration of the temple has
mirror. Thus the viewer’s gaze is reflected back, from been considered. The details of the content of the
the very point at which it meets the temple. The decoration have been integrated into the broader
antefixes make the viewer engage with their faces, messaging of the structure in several ways. Subjects
and so define the outside of the temple, and, by and myths explicitly dealing with boundedness were
association, the beginning of the sacred. In this way deliberately selected, the arrangement of the decora-
the antefixes implicate the viewer in the creation of tive elements was such that it emphasized differ-
difference. ence, and the integration of decoration and sculpture
within its architectural setting was achieved in such
d) Sculpture a way as to corroborate this. As hinted above, how-
The last element of decoration on Etruscan temples ever, the form of the temple was equally important
is large-scale individual sculpture. The most com- in the expression of this meaning.
plete pedimental group is from Temple A at Pyrgi
dating to about 460–455 BC, which shows a scene Temple form
from the Theban cycle (Colonna 1970, 48–82; dating
p. 82; Pairault Massa 1992, 72–4). Spivey has argued The themes of axiality, frontality, and centrality play
that this choice of subject is fitting because of the an important part in the architectural form of the
elements of ‘hubristic impiety’, which are shown Etruscan temple (for example Boëthius 1978, 37). The
punished in the scene (Spivey 1997, 98). So, rather pedimental sculpture was at both ends of the temple
like the lesson of Medusa, the choice of subject is (in fact, the surviving Pyrgi example is from the back
deliberately normative. The most famous group of of Temple A), and the exact placing of the roof-
architectural sculptures, however, is probably that sculptures from Veii is uncertain (Spivey 1997, 63).

194

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959774301000105 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 Form and Meaning in Etruscan Ritual Space

So, though it could be argued that

the importance of frontality has been
overstated in the foregoing discus-
sion of the temple’s decoration, this
emphasis seems entirely justified
when examining temple form.
Frontality and centrality are closely
knit into the design of the Etruscan
temple, principally in the treatment
of columns and steps (Fig. 5).

a) Columns
The Etruscan temple had three cel-
lae, the central one larger than the
two on either side (see, for instance,
the plans of the Belvedere Temple
at Orvieto and the Portonaccio Tem-
ple at Veii in Fig. 5). The columns
were aligned with the cella walls,
and were only at the front of the
temple (Fig. 1; Castagnoli 1955). Col-
umns should be considered archi- Figure 5. Plans of: a) the Belvedere Temple at Orvieto (after Colonna 1985,
tectural elaboration: they are points 82); and b) the Portonaccio Temple at Veii (after Colonna 1985, 100).
of particular concentration in terms
of both construction and building, and also in terms to some reconstructions, there were only two col-
of the viewing of the temple (see Rykwert 1996). Yet umns in total (Fig. 5(b); Colonna 1985, 100; Rendeli
again, the concentration of this elaboration is at the 1990, 6). These were aligned with the central cella,
front of the building, signalling the most important and the sides of the temple were completely blocked
part of the temple. Comparison with Greek temples off by the continuation of the cella walls (Colonna
serves to emphasize the distinctness of the Etruscan 1985, 100; Rendeli 1990, 6; though see Prayon 1986,
deployment of columns, and so highlights the spe- 198, figs. V–38 & V–39). From the sides and back, the
cific Etruscan concern with expressing boundedness. temple would have presented completely blank walls,
Columns themselves are rather ambiguous in their topped by the decoration mentioned earlier. By the
allegiance; together they form a line or colonnade blocking of the sides, and the placing of the columns
but this is, necessarily, penetrable. When looking at at the front, the temple signalled the entrance to the
the temple from the outside, the columns seem in- sacred most emphatically; it was impossible to enter
disputably part of the structure, and those looking from anywhere else. Movement across the boundary
on are undoubtedly outside. Yet when standing was limited and restricted to one point only. This
within the colonnade, the viewer’s status is unclear: was emphasized further by the irregular inter-
he or she is neither in the ‘outside’ space formerly columnation at the front of the temple. The align-
occupied, nor is he or she inside the cella, the walls of ment of the columns with the cella walls resulted in a
which can still be seen, and even more clearly than wider opening in the centre of the façade, concen-
before. Columns are at the same time inside and trating the location of the boundary at that point. In
outside the categories which the temple is defining. other temples this is less extreme. Some have a row
In the Greek temple the colonnade acts as a perme- of columns across the entire front (for example Tem-
able screen around the cella. By contrast, in the Etrus- ple A at Pyrgi), and in others the number of rows is
can temple, this mediative area is only present at the increased (for example at Orvieto, Fig. 5(a)), but this
front. Thus, in the Etruscan temple, the transition be- never exceeds two (though again, from outside
tween inside and outside is only present and possible Etruria the Temple of Capitoline Jove could be cited;
at the front of the building. see Cristofani 1990, 75–6; Gjerstad 1960, 180–84;
The number of rows of columns varied from Prayon 1986, 196). Although in these cases concen-
site to site, allowing for even greater emphasis on tration on the centre of the front is less acute than at
frontality. At the Portonaccio sanctuary, according the Portonaccio temple, in all of them the location of

195

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959774301000105 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 Vedia E. Izzet

the columns emphasizes the frontality and centrality (apparent because they do not coincide with struc-
of the beginning of the sacred. Temple form was tural weaknesses). All the elements of decoration
instrumental in reducing the potential entry to or discussed above are in places where there seems to
exit from the temple to a single point, and so was be a danger of seepage between categories: the join
crucial in defining and confining the sacred. between floor and ground, wall and roof, and roof
and sky. At all these points the integrity of the struc-
b) Steps ture, and the differences it embodies, are challenged,
The same frontality is evident in another element of and protected through ornament. This is perhaps
temple form: steps. Again, comparison with Greek most explicit in the treatment of doorways, possibly
temples is instructive. Greek temples had a stylobate the weakest point of all. The doors to the cellae were
and stereobate around the entire structure. It would surrounded by more painted relief plaques (Fig. 1;
have been possible to step up on to the temple at any Boëthius 1978, 62), for example on Temple B at Pyrgi
given point. In contrast, the Etruscan temple only (Colonna 1970, 380–87), where the door-jamb
had steps at the front (Figs. 1 & 5) (e.g. at Orvieto: terracottas are the most complex and intricate of all
Pernier & Stefani 1925, 159; and Tarquinia: Romanelli the plaques on the temple (Fig. 6).
1948, 239.) In an Etruscan temple it was physically The care with which the terracotta panels for
impossible to get up onto the podium in any other the entire temple were made indicates the impor-
way than that which was intended by the builders: tance of these pieces and where they went on the
the front. By being given no other choice, the visitor temple. Temple B at Pyrgi provides at least two ex-
would have been forced to collude in the definition amples of terracotta plaques which were made for
of the temple. As well as physically dictating the their specific locations. One is a revetment plaque
location of the transition between the sacred and the from the rear right-hand corner of the temple
profane, the steps also provided a visual focus at the (Colonna 1985, 130); the other is from the corners of
front of the temple in a similar way to the moulded the door-jamb pieces (Fig. 6; Colonna 1970, 381, 384–
base. 5, fig. 302). It was imperative to cover these areas
with decoration, yet the mass-produced identical
c) Location of decoration plaques would not fit into these awkward areas. The
So far, the ornateness and the subject of the decora- solution was the special manufacture of interlocking
tion has been the main emphasis. It is also impor- pieces, tailor-made for the spot.
tant, however, to consider where on the temple the Two further aspects of the location of temple
decoration was placed. The sum of all this decora- decoration implicate it in negotiating difference.
tion is a highly ornate building which must have These are linked to the messages and meanings of
glistened with the moulding, colour and pattern temple form, in that they reinforce elements which
which was imprinted upon it. All the decoration are expressed in form. They illustrate most clearly
discussed so far is from the outside of the temple, the manner in which meaning, built form, and deco-
making it stand out in the landscape like a jewelled ration are not only linked, but inextricably inter-
casket. Given the importance of elaboration in mark- twined within the structure as a whole. The first is
ing difference, the extensive decoration of the sur- the ‘great architectural emphasis laid on the facade’
face of the Etruscan temple should be seen in terms of the temple (Andrén 1940, lxxii). In addition to the
of marking the importance of the distinction between decoration running around the temple, there was a
inside and outside, in other words, between reli- concentration of decoration at the two ends of the
gious and non-religious space. It is not surprising, temple, in the form of pedimental sculpture, for ex-
then, that where these categories meet is precisely ample those from Temple A at Pyrgi (Colonna 1970,
where decoration is located on the temple: on the 48–82). The form of the temple allows for the placing
outside. The importance of decoration in articulat- of this additional architectural sculpture here, in the
ing difference does not end here. The location of the two triangular gable spaces under the pitched roof
decoration on the outside is also integrated into the (Andrén 1940, ccix). This extra sculpture emphasizes
dialogue. Where decoration is concentrated on the the longitudinal axis of the temple, setting up a con-
building, the choice of which parts of the temple are ceptual (and, as it was placed on the ridge pole, real)
ornamented, provides crucial clues as to the differ- central line from which to view the temple. The front/
ences which are particularly at stake. It is therefore back relationship is securely established by the loca-
no surprise that the decoration of Etruscan temples tion of these sculptural elements. The emphasis on
is concentrated on the points of apparent weakness the ends cannot, of course, be seen from the sides.

196

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959774301000105 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 Form and Meaning in Etruscan Ritual Space

This does not, however, detract from the sculptures’

ability to emphasize the longitudinal axis on two
counts: first, because even if the visitor had never
seen an Etruscan temple before, when he or she did
get to the front he or she would know it; and second,
if the visitor had been to such a site before, he or she
would anticipate what was waiting around the cor-
ner. For the Portonaccio group of sculptures, Spivey
has argued that the placing of sculptures along the
roof indicates that the temple ‘was clearly to be ap-
preciated by a viewer approaching from the side’
(Spivey 1997, 63, caption to fig. 44, though he also
admits that the placement is uncertain, see above).
Viewing the sculptures from the side in profile would, Figure 6. Terracotta plaque from around the door of
however, have made it impossible for viewers to Temple B at Pyrgi. (After Colonna 1970, 380.)
engage with them, their gaze constantly eluding
them. In order to interact, the viewer would have viewed (Berger 1973; Bryson 1983), and objectification
had to move round to the front, the disdain of the implies control over it. By establishing a viewing
sculptures almost forcing him or her to move and, point for the temple, the sacred is put in its place
equally important, move to the front. Although the within the general order. Simultaneously, by direct-
temple could have been appreciated from the side, the ing the viewer to a certain point, through the visual
visual cues moving the viewer to the front would have cues discussed above, temple form exerts control
ensured that this would not have been for long. Thus over the viewer. All the elements of the temple are
the way in which the sculptures were executed (the unified in expressing the difference of the sacred
archaic smile), and their composition (the profile view), from the profane, and thus ordering the relationship
and their location (axially on the roof) all combine to between the two. The Etruscan temple achieves this
force an appreciation of the temple from the front. on many interacting levels. Difference is expressed
The second aspect which the location of the in the iconography chosen for the outside of the
decoration emphasized is centrality. Etruscan pedi- temple, for instance the gorgon; in the choice of the
mental sculpture, unlike Greek, does not extend over form the decoration should take, like the repetitive
the entirety of the tympanum, at least, not until the patterns, frontal faces, or aloof stare of the acroterial
fourth century BC (for instance at Tarquinia and Tala- sculpture; in the location of the decoration at points
mone; Tarquinia: Pairault Massa 1992, 101–2; Roman- of vulnerability or along the longitudinal axis; and
elli 1948, 254–5; Talamone: Gamburi 1888, 686; in the deployment of architectural features such as
Pairault Massa 1992, 240–3.) Instead, sculpture is the columns and steps. Obviously these cannot, in
only present in the very centre of the gable triangle practice, be separated as distinctly as implied here;
(Fig. 1). The sumptuous ornamentation, in the form the elision in meanings of the location, form and
of the extremely deep relief, like that from Pyrgi, is content of the ridge pole relief sculpture at Pyrgi, or
located in line with the central roof beam, and covers the roof sculpture at Veii, shows this most clearly.
it. By being located on the columen, the sculpture Rather, all these factors are in play simultaneously.
joins the structural centre of the building with the Inevitably this results in the separate elements also
symbolic centre. affecting or influencing each other. The meanings of
the individual pieces of ornament or sculpture are
Conclusion constantly reflected in each other, so that the mean-
ing of one is dependent on and reinforced by that of
Visually and physically, Etruscan temple form — another. For instance, the interpretation of the Veiian
the columns and steps in particular — directs and roof sculpture above is related to the importance of
guides the visitor to a certain area. The nature and frontality and the longitudinal axis of the temple.
location of the decoration do the same thing. These This, in turn, is mirrored in the far broader Etruscan
combined efforts give very clear messages about the context of the temple as a mechanism for marking
location of the front of the temple, and therefore the difference. This stratigraphy of meanings is how
point from which the temple should be viewed. Cre- meaning is transmitted, maintained and understood.
ating a viewpoint leads to the objectification of the Though the rise of sanctuaries and temple ar-

197

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959774301000105 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 Vedia E. Izzet

chitecture can be explained in terms of urbanism, Barrett, J., 1994. Fragments from Antiquity: an Archaeology of
with temples as somehow symptomatic of a city- Social Life in Britain, 2900–1200 BC. Oxford: Blackwell.
state, or as a means of competition between cities Beard, M., J. North & S. Price, 1998. Religions of Rome, vol.
and territories, it must be remembered that the forms I: A History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Beazley, J.D., 1942. Attic Red-figure Vase Painters. Oxford:
of temple architecture were deliberately chosen to
Clarendon Press.
articulate difference most clearly. By being so effec- Beazley, J.D., 1956. Attic Black-figure Vase Painters. Oxford:
tive at expressing differences, the sanctuary and tem- Clarendon Press.
ple also create and reinforce them. Thus, once built, Berger, J., 1973. Ways of Seeing. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
the temple becomes instrumental in the creation and Bocci Pacini, P. (ed.), 1975. Roselle. Gli scavi e la mostra.
structuring of differences as well as reflecting them. Pisa: Pacini Editore.
This can be traced from the detail of the terracotta Boëthius, A., 1955–56. Vitruvius e il tempio tuscanico.
plaque to the topographical location of the site. An Studi Etruschi 24, 137–42.
analysis of form allows for the integration of these Boëthius, A., 1978. Etruscan and Early Roman Architecture.
Harmondsworth: Penguin.
different levels on which the meanings operate; but
Bonfante, L., 1986a. Daily life and afterlife, in Bonfante
this is only possible if we take all elements of the (ed.) 1986b, 232–78.
sanctuary, including its form and decoration, as oc- Bonfante, L. (ed.), 1986b. Etruscan Life and Afterlife: a Hand-
curring because they have meaning. book of Etruscan Studies. Warminster: Aris & Phillips.
Bonghi Jovino, M. (ed.), 1986. Gli Etruschi di Tarquinia.
Acknowledgements Modena: Edizioni Panini.
Bonghi Jovino, M. & C. Chiaramonte Treré (eds.), 1986.
I wish to thank the following people for reading and Tarquinia – ricerche, scavi e prospettive. Atti del convegno
commenting on earlier versions of this article: Sara internazionale di studi “La Lombardia per gli Etruschi”,
Milano, 24–25 Giugno 1986. Rome: ‘L’Erma’ di
Aguilar, Graeme Barker, Rosanna Omitowoju, Tom
Bretschneider.
Rasmussen, Marco Rendeli, Rob Shorrock, Anthony Bonghi Jovino, M. & C. Chiaramonte Treré (eds.), 1997.
Snodgrass, Nigel Spivey, Simon Stoddart, and Sofia Tarquinia. Testimonianze archeologiche e ricostruzione
Voutsaki. The comments of the editor and readers of storica scavi sistematici nell’abitato, campagne 1982–
the Cambridge Archaeological Journal were particularly 1988. Rome, ‘L’Erma’ di Bretschneider.
apposite. Bourdieu, P., 1977. Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press.
Note Bradley, R., 1998. The Significance of Monuments: on the
Shaping of Human Experience in Neolithic and Bronze
Age Europe. London: Routledge.
1. Though it would be possible to cite others from Latium
Brendel, O., 1978. Etruscan Art. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
(for instance at the sanctuary of Sant’Omobono: see
Briguet, M–F., 1986. Art, in Bonfante (ed.) 1986b, 92–173.
Cristofani 1990, 115–30; Ioppolo 1989; Ross Holloway
Brizio, E., 1891. Relazione sugli scavi eseguiti a Marzabotto
1994, 68–80, esp. 75; or at Ardea: Stefani 1954). Some
presso Bologna dal novembre 1888 a tutto maggio
continue to see structures B and D at Marzabotto as
1889. Monumenti Antichi 1, 249–426.
temples (for example Barker & Rasmussen 1998, 221,
Brizzolara, A.M., G. Colonna, S. de Maria, G. Gualandi,
caption to fig. 79) though they are generally thought
G.A. Mansuelli, G.V. Gentili & F–H. Pairault Massa,
to be altars (Brizzolara et al. 1980, 105–6; Colonna
1980. Guida al museo etrusco di Marzabotto. Emilia
1985, 89; 1986, 473; Mansuelli 1972, 130; Shoe 1965,
Preromana 8, 97–120.
21).
Bryson, N., 1983. Vision and Painting: the Logic of the Gaze.
London: Macmillan.
Vedia Izzet Buchli, V.A., 1995. Interpreting material culture: the trou-
Christ’s College ble with text, in Hodder et al. (eds.), 181–93.
Cambridge Castagnoli, F., 1955. Peripteros sine postico. Mitteilungen
CB2 3BU des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts (Römische
Abteilung) 62, 139–43.
References Childe, V.G., 1950. The urban revolution. Town Planning
Review 21, 7–16.
Andrén, A., 1940. Architectural Terracottas from Etrusco- Colonna, G., 1960. Falterona. Enciclopedia d’Arte Antica.
Italic Temples. Lund. Colonna, G. (ed.), 1970. Pyrgi. Scavi del santuario etrusco
Bachelard, G., 1994. The Poetics of Space. Boston (MA): (1959–1967). Notizie degli Scavi, second supplement.
Beacon Press. Colonna, G. (ed.), 1985. Santuari d’Etruia. Milan: Electa.
Barker, G. & T. Rasmussen, 1998. The Etruscans. Oxford: Colonna, G., 1986. Urbanistica e architettura, in Rasenna.
Blackwell. Storia e civiltà degli Etruschi, ed. G. Pugliese Carratelli.

198

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959774301000105 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 Form and Meaning in Etruscan Ritual Space

Milan: Libri Scheiwiller, 371–530. Hodder, I., M. Shanks, A. Alexandri, V. Buchli, J. Carman,
Colonna, G. (ed.), 1988–89. Pyrgi. Scavi del santuario J. Last & G. Lucas (eds.), 1995. Interpreting Archaeol-
etrusco (1969–1971). Notizie degli Scavi, second sup- ogy: Finding Meaning in the Past. London: Routledge.
plement. Ioppolo, G., 1989. L’architettura del tempio arcaica, in Il
Conkey, M. & C. Hastorf (eds.), 1990. The Use of Style in viver quotidiano in Roma arcaica, ed. G. Pisani Sartorio.
Archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Rome: Edizioni Procom, 34–6.
Press. Izzet, V.E., 2000. The Etruscan sanctuary at Cerveteri,
Cornell, T.J., 1995. The Beginnings of Rome: Italy and Rome Sant’Antonio: preliminary report of excavations
from the Bronze Age to the Punic Wars (c. 1000–264 BC). 1995–1998. Papers of the British School at Rome 68,
London: Routledge. 321–35.
Cristofani, M., 1983. Gli Etruschi del mare. Milan: Longanesi Jenks, C. (ed.), 1995. Visual Culture. London: Routledge.
& Co. Jones, G.D.B., 1963. Capena and Ager Capenas. Papers of
Cristofani, M. (ed.), 1990. La grande Roma dei Tarquini. the British School at Rome 31, 100–158.
Rome: ‘L’Erma’ di Bretschneider. Knell, H., 1983. Der etruskische Tempel nach Vitruv.
Davey, N., 1999. The hermeneutics of seeing, in Heywood Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts
& Sandywell (eds.), 3–29. (Römische Abteilung) 90, 91–101.
Dennis, G., 1883. The Cities and Cemeteries of Etruria. Lon- Lake, A.K., 1935. Archaeological evidence for the ‘Tuscan
don: John Murray. Temple’. Memoirs of the American Academy at Rome
de Polignac, F., 1994. Mediation, competition, and sover- 12, 89–149.
eignty: the evolution of rural sanctuaries in Geo- Leach, E., 1976. Culture and Communication: the Logic by
metric Greece, in Placing the Gods: Sanctuaries and Which Symbols are Connected. Cambridge: Cambridge
Sacred Space in Ancient Greece, eds. S. Alcock & R. University Press.
Osborne. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 3–18. Lefebvre, H., 1991. The Production of Space. Oxford:
de Polignac, F., 1995. Cults, Territory and the Origins of the Blackwell.
Greek City-state. Chicago (IL): Chicago University Press. Mansuelli, G.A., 1972. Marzabotto: dix années de fouilles
Dissanayake, E., 1992. Homo Aestheticus: Where Art Comes et de recherches. Mélanges d’Archéologie et d’Histoire
From and Why. Seattle (WA): University of Washing- de l’École Français de Rome, Antiquité 84, 111–44.
ton Press. Martelli, M., 1988. La culture artistica di Vulci arcaica, in
Douglas, M., 1984 (1966). Purity and Danger: an Analysis of Un artista etrusco e il suo mondo. Il pittore di Micali, ed.
the Concepts of Pollution and Taboo. London: Routledge M.A. Rizzo. Rome: De Luca, 22–8.
& Keegan Paul. Mengarelli, R., 1935. Il tempio del Menganello a Cerveteri.
Dumézil, G., 1970. Archaic Roman Religion. Chicago (IL): Studi Etruschi 9, 83–94.
Chicago University Press. Mengarelli, R., 1936. Il luogo e i materiali del tempio di
Edlund, I.E.M., 1987. The Gods and the Place: Location and HPA a Caere. Studi Etruschi 10, 67–86.
Function of Sanctuaries in the Countryside of Etruria Minto, A., 1934. Orvieto. Scavi governativi al tempio
and Magna Graecia (700–400 BC). Lund: AIRRS 4 43. etrusco di Belvedere. Notizie degli Scavi, 67–99.
Fortuna, A.M. & F. Giovannoni, 1975. Il lago degli idoli. Morris, I., 1992. Death-ritual and Social Structure in Classical
Testimonianze etrusche in Falterona. Florence: Olschki. Antiquity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gamburi, G.F., 1888. Talamone (Comune di Orbetello). Nardi, G., 1989. Appunti sui santuari urbani. (Quaderni del
Ruderi antiche ed oggetti scoperti sul poggio di centro di studio per l’archeologia etrusco-italica.
Talamonaccio. Notizie degli Scavi, 682–91. Miscellenea Ceretana 1.) Rome: Consiglio Nazionale
Gantz, T.N., 1974–75. Terracotta figured friezes from the delle Ricerche.
workshop of Vulca. Opuscula Romana 10, 1–22. Osborne, R., 1987. The viewing and obscuring of the Par-
Gell, A., 1992. The technology of enchantment and the thenon frieze. Journal of Hellenic Studies 107, 98–105.
enchantment of technology, in Anthropology, Art and Pairault Massa, F–H., 1992. Iconologia e politica nell’Italia
Aesthetics, eds. J. Coote & A. Shelton. Oxford: antica: Roma, Lazio, Etruria dal VII al I secolo a. C.
Clarendon Press, 40–63. Milan: Longanesi & Co.
Gell, A., 1998. Art and Agency. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Pallottino, M. (ed.), 1964. Scavi nel santuario etrusco di
Giglioli, G.Q., 1919. Veio. Scavi nell’area della città e delle Pyrgi. Archeologia Classica 16, 49–117.
necropoli. Notizie degli Scavi, 3–37. Pallottino, M., 1991. A History of Earliest Italy. London:
Gjerstad, E., 1960. Early Rome III. Lund: AIRRS 4 17. Routledge.
Heywood, I. & B. Sandywell (eds.), 1999. Interpreting Visual Parker Pearson, M. & C. Richards (eds.), 1994. Architecture
Culture: Explorations in the Hermeneutics of the Visual. and Order: Approaches to Social Space. London:
London: Routledge. Routledge.
Hodder, I., 1982. Symbols in Action: Ethnoarchaeological Stud- Pernier, L. & E. Stefani, 1925. Orvieto. Tempio etrusco
ies in Material Culture. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni- presso il Pozzo della Rocca. Notizie degli Scavi, 133–
versity Press. 61.
Hodder, I., 1990. Style as historical quality, in Conkey & Pfiffig, A.J., 1975. Religio Etrusca. Graz: Akademische Druk-
Hastorf (eds.), 44–51. und Verlagsanstalt.

199

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959774301000105 Published online by Cambridge University Press

 Vedia E. Izzet

Phillips, K.M., 1993. In the Hills of Tuscany: Recent Excava- Shanks, M., 1999. Art and the Greek City State: an Interpre-
tions at the Etruscan Site of Poggio Civitate (Murlo, tive Archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Siena). Philadelphia (PA): University of Pennsylva- Press.
nia Museum. Shoe, L., 1965. Etruscan and Republican Roman mould-
Prayon, F., 1986. Architecture, in Bonfante (ed.) 1986b, ings. Memoires of the American Academy in Rome 28,
174–201. 1–232.
Rathje, A., 1994. Banquet and ideology: some new consid- Smith, C.J., 1996. Early Rome and Latium: Economy and Soci-
erations about banquetting at Poggio Civitate, in ety. Oxford: Clarendon.
Murlo and the Etruscans: Art and Society in Ancient Snodgrass, A.M., 1986. Interaction by design: the Greek
Etruria, eds. R. de Puma & J.P. Small. Wisconsin city-state, in Renfrew & Cherry (eds.), 47–58.
(WI): Wisconsin University Press, 95–9. Spivey, N.J., 1997. Etruscan Art. London: Thames & Hudson.
Rendeli, M., 1990. “Muratori, ho fretta di erigere questa Spivey, N.J. & S.K.F. Stoddart, 1990. Etruscan Italy. Lon-
casa” (Ant. Pal. 14. 136). Concorranza tra formazioni don: Batsford.
urbane dell’Italia centrale tirrenica nella costruzione Stefani, E., 1944–5. Scavi archeologici a Veio in contrada
di edifici di culto arcaici. Rivista dell’Istituto Nazionale Piazza d’Armi. Monumenti Antichi 40, 177–290.
d’Archeologia e Storia dell’Arte 12 (Ser. 3), 1–20. Stefani, E., 1954. Ardea (Contrada Casalinaccio). Resti di
Rendeli, M., 1993. Città aperte. Ambiente e paesaggio rurale un antico tempoi scoperto nell’area della città. Notizie
organizzato nell’Etruria meridionale costiera durante l’età degli Scavi, 6–30.
orientalizzante e arcaica. Rome: Gruppo Editioriale Stopponi, S. (ed.), 1985. Case e palazzi d’Etruria. Milan:
Internazionale. Electa.
Renfrew, C. & J.F. Cherry (eds.), 1986. Peer Polity Interac- Tilley, C., 1994. A Phenomenology of Landscape. Oxford:
tion and Socio-political Change. Cambridge: Cambridge Berg.
University Press. Tilley, C., 1999. Metaphor and Material Culture. Oxford:
Richardson, E., 1983. Etruscan Votive Bronzes. Mainz am Blackwell.
Rhein: Philipp von Zabern. Torelli, M., 1967. Terza campagna di scavi a Punta della
Riis, P.J., 1941. Tyrrhenika: an Archaeological Study of Etrus- Vipera (S. Marinella). Studi Etruschi 35, 331–52.
can Sculpture in the Archaic and Classical Periods. Co- Torelli, M., 1983. Polis e “palazzo”. Architettura ideologia
penhagen: Einar Munksgaard. e artigianato greco in Etruria tra VII e VI sec. a. C., in
Riva, C. & S.K.F. Stoddart, 1996. Ritual landscapes in ar- Architecture e société de l’archaïsme grec à la fin de la
chaic Etruria, in Approaches to the Study of Ritual: république romaine, ed. P. Gros. Rome: Collections de
Italy and the Ancient Mediterranean, ed. J.B. Wilkins. l’École Française de Rome 66, 471–99.
London: Accordia Research Centre, 91–109. Torelli, M., 1990. Storia degli Etruschi. Rome-Bari: Editori
Romanelli, P., 1948. Tarquinia. Scavi e ricerche nell’area Laterza.
della città. Notizie degli Scavi, 193–270. Weissner, P., 1990. Is there a unity to style?, in Conkey &
Ross Holloway, R., 1994. The Archaeology of Early Rome and Hastorf (eds.), 105–12.
Latium. London: Routledge. Whitley, T., 1991. Style and Society in Dark Age Greece.
Ruiz, A., 1998. The Archaeology of the Iberians. Cambridge: Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cambridge University Press. Zifferero, A., 1995. Economia, divinità e frontiera: sul ruolo
Rykwert, J., 1996. The Dancing Column. Cambridge (MA): di alcuni santuari di confine in Etruria meridionale.
MIT Press. Ostraka 4, 333–50.

200

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959774301000105 Published online by Cambridge University Press