@mastersthesis {11114,
	title = {Actors and Agents in Republican Religion in Italy: A View from the Sanctuary at Grasceta dei Cavallari},
	year = {2011},
	school = {Michigan},
	abstract = {This dissertation takes the southern Etrurian sanctuary of Grasceta dei Cavallari in the Tolfa Mountains as a case-study to re-evaluate and challenge prevailing scholarship concerning the actors and agents participating in ritual behavior in fourth- to first-century BCE Italy. Through this period the dedication of anatomical terracotta votives-external body parts, internal organs-and terracotta heads was an extremely pervasive form of worship. Its spread is tied to Rome{\textquoteright}s occupation of the peninsula, and its adoption by indigenous non-Roman peoples is seen as a hallmark of their acculturation under Rome{\textquoteright}s hegemony. The present conventional perspective neglects to differentiate practice from identity: because participation in the essentially Roman ritual was virtually pan-Italic, so too was a Romanized identity, regardless of traditional cultural backgrounds. I argue that traditional local identities not only continued within the foreign rituals but also can be perceived and interpreted through the archaeological signatures of the votive offerings. I take as evidence the different formal styles of the votives at Grasceta dei Cavallari. Most notable are the schematic heads that are attributed to local workshops. Scholars depreciate this indigenous style as anomalous or as a naive imitation of more "classical" Hellenic style products. I see, instead, a formal logic to the style. Informed by an entrenched and long-lived tradition within the Etruscan aesthetic repertoire, the style was ingrained in the habitus of the peoples. Its propagation into the anatomical votive tradition signals the agency of the Etruscans in maintaining visually their identity in the foreign cult. I disagree that the ritual tradition{\textquoteright}s dominance minors the success of Rome to homogenize and Romanize the conquered peoples. There was no overarching imperial strategy guiding Roman expansion. Likewise, the native{\textquoteright}s response to conquest extended beyond outright acceptance or resistance. Autonomy to evaluate imported customs enabled the conquered to adapt and refashion those which seemed advantageous. Thus, I argue that the tradition was taken up not to replace traditional belief systems, but to enhance them and provide novel ways for individuals and communities to manage their relationship with the divinities.},
	keywords = {Greek/Roman Art},
	author = {Dicus, Kevin}
}
