Introduction

In the last forty years, the study of Etruscan language has made remarkable progress, even though scanty knowledge of the vocabulary still poses problems. The corpus of about 10,000 inscriptions^[1] provides insights into the social and religious structures of the Etruscan city-states, a most important source given the nearly total loss of the original Etruscan literary production. The majority of 20^th-century scholars generally accepted the idea of an extraordinary high social position of women in the Etruscan society (or, better, societies).^[2] However, such an interpretation was based mainly on ideology-driven, and therefore distorted, accounts of some (mainly Greek) ancient authors.^[3] A review of this assumption by means of a systematic study of the epigraphic evidence was generally not attempted; only more recent research is aware of the problem and shows interest in this regard.^[4] This paper aims at giving an overview of the quantitative but also qualitative dimension of the female element in the field of Etruscan votive inscriptions^[5] (including issues of interpretation).

When we attempt to classify the epigraphic material, we find that the Etruscan language shares the problems of other ancient languages: inscriptions, which neither by their internal characteristics, that is by their linguistic peculiarities, nor according to the kind of object inscribed, nor through external circumstances, as for example findspots, can be assigned without doubt to a specific category/sphere of content, but must instead remain open in regard to classification.^[6] Furthermore, it is very difficult to decide whether inscriptions on votive objects of daily use (i. e. ceramic objects) that simply contain one onomastic form (as a rule in the genitive case) were meant from the start as votive inscriptions or are simple owner’s inscriptions without religious implications. The votive character of such inscriptions is defined only by their findspot—a sanctuary or a votive hoard—thus leaving open the possibility that the votive character is only secondary.^[7] If even the findspot is missing, no reliable statement in this sense can be made. The present paper, therefore, concentrates on the group of inscriptions that can be clearly recognized as votive by their internal structure: they contain names of divinities and/or specific terms that belong to the sphere of dedication, as for example a more general appellation for the offering—here terms like alpan, cver, tinscvil are well known in Etruscan—or verbs from the group of the verba donandi like archaic muluvanice or alice and especially tur(u)ce used from the fifth century onwards.^[8] Of course, other forms of religious inscriptions parallel to these existed as well, but they will not be treated here.^[9]

Among the inscriptions certainly belonging to the votive sphere the female percentage is not high, as has been confirmed by Daniele F. Maras in his comprehensive study on the Etruscan sacred epigraphy (2009).^[10] Among a total of 118 more complex religious inscriptions with analyzable name elements dating between the seventh and the first centuries B. C. E., Maras singles out a mere 20 specimens (thus approximately one-sixth) that can be associated with women.^[11] Even though the evidence is certainly very fragmentary, we can assume that the genders were not equally represented in this kind of documents. Here it should be added that the simple owner’s inscriptions also show a clearly lower percentage of women compared to men, even though the difference is less extreme (varying in time and from place to place).^[12]

Early Evidence up to the End of the Fifth Century B. C. E.

The number of female votive inscriptions varies depending on the chronological frame. In Archaic and sub-Archaic periods, female votive inscriptions are attested only in very small numbers: altogether only three inscriptions from the sixth and fifth centuries acknowledge female donors with certainty; three more inscriptions are uncertain due to their fragmentary character. These documents belong to different sanctuaries and worship different deities, whose sex in all documented cases is female (tlusχva, Thesan, Cavaθa, probably Menerva, perhaps Vei)—a fact that is not really surprising but should not be overestimated due to the fragmentary status of our documentation.

The earliest inscription known comes from the suburban Portonaccio sanctuary near Veii. The cult place yielded the most significant and extensive group of archaic votive inscriptions in Etruria. The epigraphic evidence belongs mainly to the sixth century and is concentrated in the zone around the altar, where the main deity was Menerva.^[13] Approximately 80 (in large part fragmentary) inscriptions are known. They are written in the archaic alphabet of Veii and show quite uniform traits, a feature which rightly led to the assumption of the existence of a writing school connected to the sanctuary.^[14] The objects inscribed are generally pottery products, in many cases huge bucchero oinochoai (the offering also consisted in the liquid content, the wine) produced in loco. The name of the divinity occurs rarely; the name of the dedicant, on the other hand, appears quite regularly. In this group of inscriptions, among those with analyzable name elements, only one case might have been dedicated by a woman: a bucchero oinochoe from the first half of the sixth century shows the following text (engraved after firing in the archaic alphabet of Veii): ṃ[i]̣ṇi mu.l.vaṇịce venali.a. .ṡ.larina.ṡ. .e.n mipi kapi ṃ[i(r)] ṇ[u]ṇai. = “Me gave Venalia Ṡlarinaṡ. Do not touch me (?), I (am) nunai.”^[15] The first part of the right-running inscription shows a formula typical of archaic dedications and commonly found in gift-inscriptions, with the active verb form muluvanice and the name of the dedicant in nominative.^[16] The most probable division of the name is Venalia Ṡlarinaṡ (female praenomen + masculine nomen gentile in the genitive case),^[17] even though other (less convincing) proposals have also been suggested in the past (e. g. Vena (?)—from venali—as name of a female deity).^[18] What follows is an interdiction against third parties to take possession of the object, unusual for this group of inscriptions.^[19] It is worth stressing that the female donor (if this interpretation is correct) offers a vase form usually used by male dedicants in the sanctuary and in clear connection with wine; all in all this seems quite an exceptional case. As is evident from onomastics, the high social status of the dedicants is a general characteristic of the archaic Portonaccio sanctuary. This sanctuary likely had supra-regional significance and formed—possibly in combination with the healing and oracular aspects of the goddess Menerva—an important node in the network of the Etruscan elites. Self-representation by setting votive inscriptions was part of a code of behavior typical of male members of the aristocracy.

An extremely interesting discovery from Orvieto/Volsinii veteres shows that the Late Archaic world was more faceted than the previous example would make us believe. In 2008, the inscribed base of a statue dating to the last quarter of the sixth century was unearthed in the so-called Campo della Fiera sanctuary.^[20] The base (h. 83.7 cm, w. 51.5 cm, d. max. 40 cm) was discovered in a square structure defined by stone blocks together with other, but smaller, bases for statuettes and other materials. The two inscriptions on the base, running from right to left and written in the archaic alphabet of Orvieto, are: kanuta larecenas laute/niθa aranθia pinies puia turuce and tlusχval marveθul faliaθ/ere (fig. 1). The first part mentions a certain Kanuta as the donor (turuce = “dedicated”); she was a lauteniθa, “freedwoman,” of the gens Larecena, and puia, wife, of Aranth Pinie. The single personal name kanuta could be of Italic-Oscan provenience,^[21] whereas the attached nomen gentile in the genitive case, larecenas, is typically Etruscan. The latter name has a certain local anchoring, being attested once more in the Crocefisso del Tufo necropolis (ET² Vs 1.51) and possibly also in the sanctuary itself ([–-]ṛece[?]).^[22] Her husband’s gens Pinie is also proper Etruscan, but probably not of Volsinian origin (likely from Tarquinia). The inscription provides by far the earliest evidence for the term lautni(θa); all other documents belong to the late Etruscan period.^[23] It is not quite clear whether the archaic form should be understood in the classic/later sense of the Latin liberta or in a more open sense of familiaris (= belonging to the familia, in relation to the Etruscan laut(u)n). In any case, it implies some sort of freeing from a patron’s power. The second part mentions a little-known divine collective in the genitive case, the tlusχva, probably a group of female divinities with chthonic nature.^[24] In marveθ or (marveθul) must be seen a specification (maybe an epiclesis) or a second deity; faliaθere seems to be a locative, for which the translation “in the high/celestial place”, in reference to the Campo della Fiera-Sanctuary, has been suggested.^[25] In general, the finds from this sector of the sanctuary belong to the cult of female divinities with chthonic-Demetrian character practiced preferentially by women.^[26] Regrettably, the votive gift

Fig. 1

Inscribed base from Orvieto (ET² Vs 1.51), Campo della Fiera, last quarter of the 6^th century (from: Stopponi 2009, 478, fig. 47, with permission of the author).

itself is not preserved, but in all probability it consisted of a bronze standing statuette, of which only lead traces in the stone remain. The huge base was made from trachyte, and with its height of 83 cm it constitutes a quite costly dedication, bearing witness to the social rise by marriage of a formerly unfree woman of probable non-Etruscan origin. In all respects, this Late Archaic inscription must be considered an extraordinary piece of evidence, able to transmit the self-confidence and pride of its female donor even today. A further (probably) female dedication from this area of the sanctuary is documented by a modest stone base, much smaller than the former one (w. 9 cm, h. 7 cm).^[27] The fragmentary inscription, dating to the fifth century B. C. E., runs on all four sides of the small base, of which only three are (partly) preserved: θan/e/[?]/[?]s. An integration with θan/e/[χvil/u]s seems convincing, conveying the well-known female praenomen in the genitive case. The single praenomen suggests a more private sphere; in combination with the kanuta-inscription and the little base with [–-]ṛece[?] one could suggest that this area of the sanctuary was used in particular by the larecena gens and its clients.^[28]

A more conventional document, from the social point of view, comes from Pyrgi, the most important harbor town of Caere. It was found in the so called “Monumental Sanctuary,” and precisely in the area of temple A (fig. 2). The earlier temple B (c. 510 B. C. E.) was dedicated to Uni (Hera/Juno), who, however, was flanked by other deities like Tin(i)a (ET² Cr 4.3), Farthan (ET² Cr 4.15), Vei (ET² Cr 4.25, Cr 4.34) and maybe more (the actual votive deposits have not yet been found). The main deity of temple A, of “Tuscanic” type and built around 470/60 B. C. E., is still unidentified.^[29] The document consists of a fragmentary bronze sheet inscribed in the archaic alphabet of Caere and dates to the late sixth/beginning of the fifth century. Unfortunately the left part is missing:^[30]1e:ta θesan e:tras: u:niiaθi ha[-?-] ²hutilatina e:tiasas: a:calia[-?-] ³θanaχ:vilus: caθar:naia[-?-]. Even though line 2 causes serious problems of interpretation, the document probably attests that a certain θanaχvil caθarnai—a proper Etruscan name of a freeborn woman with praenomen and matching nomen gentile^[31]—made a dedication in the sanctuary of Uni (= uniiaθi) or was part of a couple or group of donors. The gift probably consisted of a statue of Thesan, as suggested at least by the nominative of the name of the goddess of dawn (Eos/Aurora) in combination with eta (“this is Thesan”). Thesan appears to be a co-deity of Uni in the sanctuary. The genitive etras can possibly be seen as filiation and connected to the Greek Αithra/Latin Aethra, known as the mother of Eos from a literary source (Hyg., Fab.,

Fig. 2

Sacred districts of Pyrgi: Monumental Sanctuary (with temples B and A) and Southern Sanctuary/Area Sud (from: Michetti – Belelli Marchesini 2018, 263, fig. 2, dis. S. Barberini, with permission of the author).

praef. 12).^[32] The inscription has a formal-solemn character but does not necessarily refer to a cult statue, a reference to a votive gift is possible as well; regrettably line 2 is very unclear. The inscription documents a costly offering made by or under participation of an Etruscan noblewoman. The document can be linked to the small but illustrious group of inscribed bronze and gold sheets known from this important sanctuary (ET² Cr 4.3–5).

A large number of votive inscriptions were found in the holy district south of the monumental zone, the so-called Area Sud of Pyrgi. The area has been explored since 1983/84 and consists of a certain number of sacella and at least nine altars (fig. 2).^[33] A chthonic male deity with underworld features named Śur(i) and his female companion Cav(a)θa were venerated here by socially broader parts of the population (as suggested by the high number of individual names).^[34] Two fifth-century fragmentary vase inscriptions offered to the goddess Cavaθa could have been dedicated by women, but their poor state of preservation calls for caution: [- - -]uma cavuθ[as - - -]^[35] could be the rest of a female name (e. g. setuma, vinuma). In the case of ^ami. cavθas^bra D. Maras suggests completing the abbreviation ra with a feminine ra(mθa) or ra(vnθu),^[36] but a male name like for example ra(cu) or other is equally possible. However, material evidence of Area Sud clearly indicates a female presence: (gold) jewelry, pyxides, and especially (Attic) epinetra.^[37] Further archaeological finds like a female statue holding a pig and some few epigraphic attestations show, at least in part, a strong Demetrian influence in the cults.^[38] The female objects are found along with a great number of arrow-, javelin-, and spearheads in the Southern sanctuary, and one sauroter from deposit κ with possible male connotation in connection with Śuri, but alternatively also with Menerva as goddess of war.^[39]

Late Etruscan Evidence

From about 400 B. C. E., epigraphic evidence referring to female donors increases, but its number compared to evidence of male dedicants remains clearly inferior in the late-Etruscan period as well. Among the deities venerated by women we now find female (e. g. Turan, Thufltha) as well as male (e. g. Selvans, Mant(u)rns, flere Aplu?) divinities; the latter ones show a chthonic character and/or connections to health and well-being. The types of objects inscribed by women follow general votive trends.^[40]

An Attic kylix dating to the late fifth or early fourth century B. C. E. comes from Gravisca, the port town of Tarquinia. The piece was found in sacellum γ in the southern part of the sanctuary and shows an inscription in the south Etruscan alphabet engraved after firing under the foot of the vase:^[41]turns turce ramθa veṇatres = “(Possession) of Turun/Turan. Ramtha Venatres gave (this).” The dedication names the Etruscan goddess Turan,^[42] whose iconography and at least some of whose functions correspond to those of the Greek Aphrodite. According to the Greek-Etruscan epigraphic evidence she is one of the most prominent deities in the so-called emporium sanctuary (in addition to Uni/Hera and Vei/Demeter) and mistress of sacellum γ. This is true even for the period preceding our inscription, when the cult place of this port town was visited by many Greeks venerating Aphrodite (and other Greek gods), probably as patroness of the sailors.^[43] At the time of our inscription the sanctuary had already been abandoned by the Greeks, and was entirely in local Etruscan hands. It seems to have been visited by large parts of the population. Deeply transformed, it showed—based on the votive material (especially anatomical votives)—a strong orientation towards cults connected with sanatio and female fertility. The name Ramθa Venatres consists of a typical Etruscan female praenomen in the nominative followed by a (masculine) nomen gentile in the genitive case; it is structured according to one of the ways to form a complete female name (in the sense of “Ramtha, (member) of the gens Venatre”) in use since the Archaic period.^[44] In my view, the identification of the dedicant with an unfree person is not necessary^[45]. Further Etruscan attestations of the name venatre are presently absent, but forms such as venate and venatne are likely variants^[46].

As is generally known, engraved bronze mirrors were a typical and very large class of products in Etruria. They belonged mainly to the female sphere,^[47] so it is not surprising that some few mirrors were offered as female votive gifts. However, compared with the great mass of mirrors known, we currently recognize only three mirrors that by virtue of their inscriptions can be directly connected to female offerings or rituals in the presence of women. This is a rather small number. The engraved rear of a bronze mirror from the Ager Hortanus, probably from Bomarzo and dating to the end of the fourth century B. C. E., shows the following deities with their names inscribed: aplu, menrva, hercle, artume—a popular assembly of gods. The votive inscription reads:^[48]mi titasi cver menaχe = “I was made as a sacral gift by Tita.” In this case a construction with a passive verb form (menaχe) and pertinentive is used; with high probability we can recognize the donor in tita,^[49] who is mentioned only with her praenomen. The name of the worshipped deity is missing. A mirror from Vulci showing three male gods (second half of the fourth-beginning of the third century B. C. E.) bears the following inscription on the front (reflecting) side, apparently engraved to create a symmetric layout of the text:^[50]1vipia alṡinas turce ²verṡenas calia. The likeliest interpretation is that two women with different gentilicia dedicated the mirror in a sanctuary. Once again their names are formed with the masculine form of the nomen gentile in the genitive case. They could be mother and daughter, but also just as well persons not related to each other. Interesting, but only in part comprehensible, is the inscription engraved in (mainly) south Etruscan alphabet on the rear of a third mirror dating to the early fourth century B. C. E.^[51]: mi: anaias[:?] ṭites: turnas: secan: (or: sec an) men[:] mamnθi: sal: mama: ²tinś: uniapelis. The inscription mentions a woman and a man in the genitive case: anaias tites turnas. The woman appears with her praenomen only (anaia), a trait that is usually interpreted as a evidence of a more private and less “official” sphere. Maras suggests interpreting it as the dedication of a (probably married) couple offered during special circumstances, such for example a wedding ceremony. An alternative interpretation “I (am) of Anaia, she/who (is) daughter (sec) of Tite Turna(s)” is tempting, but due to the lack of interpunctuation between sec and an, it is less probable. The inscription is generally seen as a dedication, even though only the first part, being a classical owner’s inscription, is certain. The second part probably refers to a place (mamnθi = “in the mamna”), the combination tinś: uniapelis can be interpreted as indication of a special day (tin) or as reference to Tin(ia),^[52] the ending (north Etruscan) san remaining a problem.

The inscription on a bronze sheet found in the bed of the stream Castro in the territory of Arezzo, probably part of a larger object (late fourth century B. C. E.), yields the name of a woman with clear gamonymikon:^[53]fasti : kainei : tulesa : kn. According to A. Maggiani, the sheet was not a funerary object, but—by virtue of the findspot—an offering to a river deity whose name together with the verb turke would be missing.

From the fourth century onwards, the number of bronze figurines with votive inscriptions generally increases in the northern and inner parts of Etruria. These regions look back on a long tradition of bronze votive sculpture,^[54] whereas in south Etruria votive sculptures were usually made of terracotta and generally not inscribed (examples of bronze figurines are of course also known in the south). The bronze figurines represent the actual dedicants or, more rarely, the worshipped divinities. Their inscriptions reveal a strong connection to the local territory and offer valuable insights into the world of the Etruscan cults that were actually practiced, a merit that other kinds of objects—such as for example the numerous mirror scenes—cannot achieve, since their iconography is strongly related to Greek mythology. This group of evidence builds the core of the following observations.

Selvans, the Etruscan god of wood and shepherd (with certain functional correspondence to the Roman Silvanus), is widely represented in the epigraphical legacy, with at least 15 attestations^[55] (but is totally lacking in the written evidence of the mirrors). He was worshipped by men and at least in two cases by women as well (ET² Ta 3.9, Um 3.2; unclear Ta 3.7: maybe a couple?; see below). The remarkable richness of his epithets—at least seven are attested—reflects his local embedment and at least in part the wide range of functions attributed to him. He was the protector of borders (ET² Vs 3.10: selvansl tularias) and cared for the health not only of animals but of human beings as well; thus representing a kind of healing divinity. As for the Roman Silvanus, here too, numerous epithets attest a wide spectrum of functions (e. g. Horace, Epod. II,22: tutor finium). The literary sources reveal a misogynic aspect in the agricultural/rural cult of the Roman Silvanus (esp. Cato, Agr. 83), which is not represented with the same impact in the Latin epigraphic material, since inscriptions were dedicated to Silvanus from women as well, certainly in a relatively small number.^[56]

A 15.3 cm high bronze statuette in the British Museum—unfortunately of unknown origin and dated to the first half of the fourth century B. C. E.—shows a barefoot youth wearing a short mantle around his hips, without attributes in his hands.^[57] Both epigraphical and stylistic characteristics suggest that the figure was produced in a workshop located in middle or south Etruria (according to G. Colonna it may have been Volsinii). On the mantle runs the inscription: ⁴ecn. turce. larθi.³leθanei. alpnu²selvansl.¹canzate = “This dedicated Larthi Lethanei (as a) gift. (Possession) of Selvans Canzate.” For her votive gift Larthi Lethanei used a dedication formula that is common for this period (alpnu being a variant of alpan). canzate is probably an epithet of Selvans, possibly an ethnikon, which could refer to a certain place or sanctuary; however, the genitive case, which would be grammatically correct (canzates), is missing here.

A similar, slightly taller (17 cm) bronze statuette, today kept in the Vatican, comes from the Umbrian Apennines near Scavolini by Pennabilli in the upper Marecchia valley.^[58] This statuette, too, depicts a young man with a mantle around his hips, but with the addition of boots and (now lost) attributes in both hands: very likely a patera in the left, an unclear lost object in the right. The figure dates to the late fourth/early 3^th century B. C. E.. The inscription is in the alphabet of Volsinii: ¹(e)tn turce. ramθa ufta²{ta}vi. selvan(sl) = “This dedicated Ramtha Uftavi. (Possession) of Selvans.” The nomen gentile of the woman is an (old?) borrowing from the Umbrian language.^[59]

In both cases a woman dedicated the statuette of a young man.^[60] According to Martin Bentz this fact should be understood to mean that the statuette represents the god himself, that is Selvans^[61]. Especially in the case of the British Museum statuette, which is bare of any attribute, this proposal is not fully convincing. For mere comparison one can mention the famous statuette of Selvans from the Porta Bifora in Cortona: its animal-like head-dress in particular leaves no doubts as to whom it represents.^[62] Contrary to Bentz, Mauro Cristofani interprets the figure in the Vatican without hesitation as an “offerente” (= donor), characterized by the supposed patera.^[63] Such an interpretation is much more convincing. The easiest solution would be to identify the youth with a person associated with the female dedicant, probably her own son, for whose benefit the dedication was made. This is probably true also for the small statuette (h. 11.5 cm) of an offering man with wreath dedicated by a woman, if the integration ḥ(asti) travi is correct (second century B. C. E.).^[64]

Offerings for the benefit of someone other than the donor seem to be a phenomenon attested more frequently in epigraphically documented late Etruscan dedications made by women. One very likely example is the small bronze figurine of a young boy with short tunica (8 cm high), probably found in the territory of Castiglion Fiorentino near Cortona (now in the Museo dell’Accademia Etrusca di Cortona) and dated to the late fourth/early third century B. C. E.^[65] The upright standing boy wears a sewn garment and holds an apple or a pomegranate in each hand. The figure cannot be identified as a deity. The inscription in the north Etruscan alphabet informs us that we are dealing with the votive gift of Larthia Ateinei to the deity Mant(u)rns (in the genitive case): ¹larθia: ateinei:²flereś: mantrn/śl:³turce:. The family name of the female donor is known from the area between Siena, Chiusi and Perugia. The mentioned deity or numen (which is the correct translation for flere)^[66] can be connected with the Etruscan Manθ, attested epigraphically in Pontecagnano/Campania (ET² Cm 4.3) and referred to by Servius in his discussion of the origins of Mantua (Aen. X,198–200: in Etruscan the Latin Dis Pater was called “Mantus”).^[67] Even though the grammatical structure and original articulation of Mant(u)rns are under debate, the deity was likely a chthonic numen of unclear gender probably connected to the underworld. The statuette represents the (apotropaic?) dedication of a mother for her child. According to A. J. Pfiffig, Mantrnś (south Etruscan Mantrns) does not represent a god of the underworld, since the dedication of a young boy’s statuette to a death deity would be “fully unlikely, if not absurd.”^[68] However, the offering of human-shaped figurines in sanctuaries belonging to necropoleis (for example at Orvieto and Vetulonia) is a phenomenon well known in Etruria.^[69] Furthermore, also the name of Śuri—without question a god with strong chthonic-underworld aspects—seems to appear on child statuettes; at least the so-called Carrara Putto, a statuette representing a young boy with bulla that comes from the urban area of Tarquinia and dates to the late fourth/early third century B. C. E. (h. 32.7 cm), likely shows his name (beside that of Selvans).^[70] The fragmen

Fig. 3a–b

Bronze statuette of a young boy with inscription, h. 32 cm, from Montecchio Vesponi (territory of Cortona), ca. 150 BCE, Leiden, National Museum of Antiquities, inv. CO 4 (© National Museum of Antiquities, Leiden).

tary state of the inscription advises caution, but it seems possible to recognize in the statuette of the young boy a dedication by the parents (mentioned only indirectly in the boy’s name) in the interest of the son.

The following inscription explicitly speaks of a dedication pro filio. The statuette was found in 1746 in Montecchio Vesponi, at the northern border of the territory of Cortona, together with other bronze objects as part of a votive hoard,^[71] possibly indicating a cult place of the goddess Thufltha, although as yet no architectural evidence has been found. The statuette represents again a naked boy (today in Leiden, Rijksmuseum).^[72] The standing figure wears the bulla, a sign of free birth, and holds a bird in his hands—likely a duck, despite the figurine’s Italian nickname putto con oca (fig. 3). The figure dates to around 150 B. C. E. and, with its height of 32 cm, must be considered a quite costly votive gift. The inscription runs on the right leg and was applied before casting: ¹veliaś. fanacnal. θuflθaś²alpan. menaχe. clen. ceχa. tuθineś. tlenaχeiś = “From Velia Fanacnei to (actually of) Thufltha; the votive gift has been made in favor of the son tuθineś tlenaχeiś.” The text explains that Velia Fanacnei offered this gift to the goddess Thufltha. Etruscan alpan, meaning “votive gift,” is a sacral expression well known from the fifth century onwards.^[73] The dedication was done for the benefit of the son, pro filio, as emphasized by the addendum clen ceχa. Despite these elements, the name of the son is not mentioned. The gens fanacni is attested by an ash urn inscription from Cortona, possibly belonging to the local high society.^[74] The addendum tuθineś tlenaχeiś, apparently an ablative construction, offers a more tempting interpretation:^[75] in reference to the Italic term tuta/touta, tuθina is mostly interpreted as a kind of administrative subunit, a district, pagus, or vicus in the territory of Cortona. In this case tlenaχe would be a toponym.^[76] Furthermore, Colonna, Maras, and others assume some sort of public intervention linked to the dedication. Even if completely different suggestions for this term exist.^[77] an interpretation as some sort of territorial (sub)entity (district of origin?) seems most likely, in my view.

Fig. 4a-b

Bronze statuette of a woman with inscription on the rear side, h. 17.7 cm, from Montalcino, mid-2^nd century BCE, Florence, Museo Archeologico Nazionale, inv. 84407 (©/su concessione del Museo Archeologico Nazionale di Firenze, Polo Museale della Toscana, further reproduction prohibited).

A second example for a clen ceχa inscription is found on the well-known statuette of the so-called Apollo from Ferrara, dated to the second quarter or mid-fourth century B. C. E. (height 27.2 cm).^[78] Apollo is adorned with a laurel wreath, and the missing left hand once held the kithara. The north Etruscan inscription was engraved after casting: ¹mi : flereś : spulare : aritimi ²fasti : ru{i}friś : t(u)rce : clen : ceχa. The second part informs us that the dedication was made by a certain Fasti Ru{i}friś^[79] in favor of her son. The divinity is simply named flere, corresponding to the Latin numen, in this case probably meaning Apollo in his function as protector of male youth. The following spulare is unknown and aritimi problematic: we either have to recognize the name of Artemis, in whose sanctuary the ritual may have taken place,^[80] or, less probably, the Etruscan name of Arezzo.^[81]

Returning to Thufltha, the goddess (with the female marking -θa suffix) is mentioned in a further votive inscription dedicated by a woman, and finally in this case the inscription is placed on a female statuette (17.7 cm).^[82] The figure of a woman leaning against a pillar was found at Castello di S. Angelo in Colle near Montalcino. It dates to the mid-second century B. C. E., and was probably part of a votive hoard (fig. 4). Even though the Greek iconographic prototype was often used for Aphrodite and the Muses, this statuette might represent the donor instead of the actual goddess.^[83]. The inscription was engraved “a freddo” on the rear of the figure: ^a,1θa(na) : cencnei. ²θuplθaś = “Tha(na) Cencnei, of Thufltha.” Below this text runs a second, slightly later inscription by a second hand mentioning a male donor.^[84] According to epigraphic evidence, the goddess Thufltha received offerings from both men and women, from members of the upper class, but also from freed individuals and slaves.^[85] She was worshipped by large parts of the population, including those from the countryside. The worshippers cannot be restricted to a specific gender or a particular age group. Besides being an individual deity, she could also be head/seat of a divine collective (aiser thuflthas). She appears on the Bronze Liver of Piacenza and has an obvious connection to the healing and fertility cults so popular in Hellenistic Etruria, and according to Maras, who proposes to identify her with Tyche/Fortuna, she is also connected to fate.^[86]

While representations of female donors are already common and numerous within small votive sculptures from the earlier period,^[87] this study has shown that there is little evidence for inscribed female votive figures dedicated by women. The need to document the offering act with an inscription was probably felt more strongly in cases when the dedication was not made in one’s own interest, but on behalf of a third person. Dedications made by women using figurines of male children and young men suggest such a conclusion. The clen ceχa formula—meaning pro filio and used in two cases by women—stresses such a hypothesis. The well-being of one’s own offspring represents the key feature. clen ceχa-inscriptions are documented only in some rare examples, and at least in one case a quite complex dedication clen ceχa set by a father is known as well^[88] (cf. also the unclear inscription on the Carrara Putto). One should not fail to mention, however, that as yet no Etruscan votive inscription is known for the benefit of a daughter, seχ.^[89] Similarities can be noticed when comparing the situation to that of Roman Republican Italy: a few dedications set by women, but equally by men, on behalf of their sons are known. Contrary to Etruria inscriptions set by mothers pro filia are also documented.^[90]

Conclusions

Finally, returning to the question raised at the beginning of this paper,^[91] we can conclude that women are represented in Etruscan votive inscriptions from an early date, but always in small numbers. The rare archaic examples show strong connections to high status thinking and self-representation; this is true for the Portonaccio sanctuary, where sporadic female participation in cults outside the private, domestic sphere was possible (but apparently not the rule), and the monumental sanctuary complex in Pyrgi. Self-representation—albeit on a lower social level—played a key role also for the freedwoman Kanuta, probably in connection with female cults. Especially from the fourth century B. C. E. onwards, female votive inscriptions strongly concentrate on family and possibly health concerns. The examined material does not provide any linguistic evidence for religious offices held by women (for example specific titles).^[92] It is possible, but far from certain, that in the Hellenistic period (second century B. C. E.) some rich(?) women like Velia Fanacnei from the Cortonese territory received public acknowledgement as some kind of benefactress;^[93] all in all, however, the analyzed material does not allow us to identify any role or situation other than the ones already found in other ancient classical societies.