Skip to navigation – Site map

HomeNuméros25Book Review: Between Deity and De...

Book Review: Between Deity and Dedicator: The Life and Agency of Greek Votive Terracotta Figurines. By Sanne Hoffmann

Berlin: De Gruyter (Image and Context 23). 2023. Pp. xi, 347.
Jaimee Uhlenbrock

Abstract

Sanne Hoffmann, Between Deity and Dedicator: The Life and Agency of Greek Votive Terracotta Figurines, Berlin: De Gruyter (Image and Context 23). 2023. Pp. xi, 347 is reviewed by Jaimee Uhlenbrock.

Top of page

Full text

Fig. 1. Cover of the book Between Deity and Dedicator: The Life and Agency of Greek Votive Terracotta Figurines, by S. Hoffmann

Fig. 1. Cover of the book Between Deity and Dedicator: The Life and Agency of Greek Votive Terracotta Figurines, by S. Hoffmann
  • 1 Veldhues and Schwarzmaier, 2022; Dickmann, Engels, and Kanel, 2022; Carboni, Cenci, and Chiarenza, (...)
  • 2 Aurigny and Rohaut, 2022.  
  • 3 Huysecom-Haxhi and Pautasso, 2022.
  • 4 van Rooijen 2021; Pautasso, Albertocchi, and Portale, 2025; Gürbüzer, 2025.
  • 5 Galbois, 2025.

1Over the last five years, ten books, including two exhibition catalogues and five conference proceedings, have appeared that have focused on Greek figurative terracottas from limited thematic perspectives. Four are iconographic in scope,1 one is dedicated to hand modeling,2 one to economic aspects,3 three are regional,4 and one explores the intersection of terracottas and society.5 By contrast, Sanne Hoffmann looks at Greek votive terracottas using the widest possible chronological and geographic parameters. As a result, this book is a monumental undertaking, and its author is to be commended for her novel approach. She explores the life history of votive terracottas from manufacture to discard by comparing the contexts of 14 votive assemblages dating from the Archaic through the Hellenistic period that represent mainland Greece, Magna Graecia, the Greek islands, and East Greece. The circumstances of these contexts reveal the role(s) that votive terracottas may have played in the material culture of ancient Greece. In addition, Hoffmann also seeks to understand the appropriateness of terracottas as votive objects and the reasons behind their popularity. This is achieved by integrating differing, but complementary, research approaches, each one of which sheds a little more light onto these mostly small and ubiquitous sculptural objects in clay that populated Greek religious spaces often by the hundreds, if not by the thousands, over the course of nearly a millennium. This study is an updated version of Hoffmann’s PhD dissertation submitted to the University of Aarhus in 2019, and in a number of ways this still reads like a dissertation, with the obligatory literature review and an unnecessarily lengthy chapter on the manufacture of figurative terracottas that repeats what has already been written elsewhere in a number of studies.

2Nonetheless, and because of this, reading this book is a little like reading a densely packed and extremely useful encyclopedia on votive terracottas that is meticulously organized into six main chapters, each one of which has lengthy subsections dedicated to investigating the specific place of votive terracottas in the continuum of their life cycles.

Chapter I. Introduction

3This chapter is long and complex, as it consists of a preamble of sorts followed by four additional sub-sections. In this, as is to be expected, the author outlines her approach and her goals. Hoffmann notes that most studies on figurative terracottas have had a self-limiting focus, such as typology, iconography, diffusion, style, or social appropriateness, among others. To compensate for this, the author aims for a global, in her words, “broadly oriented life cycle approach” that follows the path of a terracotta from its birth, or manufacture, to its death, or final discard. In so doing, she hopes these mostly small-scale votives speak for themselves. She also asks if the characterization of these humble objects as offerings of little value is well founded; how the specific moments in their life cycle could shed light on their popularity; and how her approach, founded on current archaeological methods, could bring a new perspective to what she calls “a long established and traditional archaeological field,” in that order.

4At this point one wonders if she is speaking specifically about coroplastic research, or more broadly about research on votives in general. Surely, the field of coroplastic studies is neither long-established nor traditional, having evolved only in the last 50 years or so with research objectives and a vocabulary specific to the study of portable, mass-produced, sculptural objects in clay. It has been noted that, aside from a few important studies, figurative terracottas were either ignored altogether or were marginalized in most archaeological publications until the last quarter of the 20th century, while the terms coroplastic studies, or coroplastic research came into use in dedicated publications only in the first decade of this century.

5In any case, in this preamble Hoffmann clarifies what is meant by her use of the terms Greek, terracottas, and votive, this last one of which has the prerequisites of a sacred setting and the presence of terracotta figurines in a quantitatively significant enough number to indicate repeated ritual acts. To fulfill these prerequisites, she has cast a wide net to include 14 published case studies that come from sites throughout the entire Mediterranean basin and that date from the Archaic to the Hellenistic period.

6This is followed by Section 1, “Previous Scholarship on Greek Votive Terracottas,” which is essentially a literature review. While this alone has the potential for being an extremely valuable resource, particularly for the young researcher, more useful would have been critical commentary, when appropriate. For example, the British Museum catalogue of 1954 by Reynold Higgins and the volumes of the Louvre Museum by Simone Besques are no longer reliable for dating purposes, yet they still are frequently consulted, and their outdated chronology has become self-replicating.

7Section 2 of the Introduction, “Approaches to Archaeological Contexts through Time,” reviews the development and integration of theoretical anthropological frameworks into classical archaeology and stresses that an understanding of a particular archaeological context is related to the time when the context was under study and the perspective of the person who was doing the study.         

8In Section 3 of the Introduction, “Method and Theory,” Hoffmann presents the research path that she has taken in order to explore the life history of votive terracottas from manufacture to discard from 14 votive contexts. This she believes highlights consistencies or inconsistencies in votive practices involving terracottas that can shed light on the reasons behind their use and popularity, or their disfavor, across time. From this, general conclusions can be drawn.  She reviews the development of the object biography approach that, for her, also includes the chaîne opératoire, but the agency that the terracottas may have possessed as a group within a sacred setting also is explored.

9In Section 4 of the Introduction, “Structure and Focal Points,” the structure of the book is outlined, and the reasons for the identification of specific “Links,” or “Focal Points,” in the life cycle of votive terracottas is explained. These links broadly illustrate similarities and/or differences over time in the character of dedicatory practices that may shed light on their use and/or function. The eventual practice of discard so common among Greek votive assemblages removes the votive object from its active role as mediator to one that has lost its agency.

Chapter II. Making and Moving

10The first sub-section of this chapter, “Making the Figurines,” has rather lengthy sections on the successive phases in the manufacture of terracottas, including materials, the physical space, and the workforce that this required. While these subjects obviously are important to acknowledge when outlining the life cycle of figurative terracottas, there is nothing new here to consider, and one wonders why so much space has been occupied by this discussion. On the other hand, the last section that has an extensive analysis of coroplastic mass production should be read carefully as Hoffmann counters the prevailing notion of masses of terracottas dedicated on a single occasion, or even over a short period of time. “Moving the Figurines,” the title of the second sub-section of Chapter II, looks at trade patterns as evidenced by figurines produced in Corinth, Rhodes, Naukratis, Athens, Cyrene, and several sites in Asia Minor. These illustrate a widespread network of trade theoretically based on three models that could have been responsible for the extensive distribution of terracottas. Within these networks, figurative terracottas that were traded far from their place of manufacture may have served as identity markers, thereby acquiring a social value in addition to their inherent cultic value.     

Chapter III. Dedicating and Mediating

11This is an important chapter for a number of reasons. First, Hoffmann not only distills the archaeological and visual evidence for the placement of terracotta votives, but she also reviews the written evidence for votives in general found in a variety of sources, including decrees, inventories, and ancient writers, such as Aristophanes, Plato, and Pliny. All the evidence suggests a desire to place the votives as close to the divinity as possible. Particularly informative is the author’s presentation of the inscriptional and literary evidence for the attachment of votive objects directly to the walls, eaves, or even to the roofs, of temples, a practice that was made possible in some instances by having wooden rails or panels incorporated into the walls onto which votives were nailed. Still, one wonders just how a dedicant could reach the eaves of a sacred building, much less the roof, without the collaboration of sanctuary officials. Although the author herself admits that figurative terracottas are absent from the inscriptional evidence, nevertheless the mention of accumulations of offerings blocking a walkway in a decree from Rhodes, or obstructing the view of the cult statue in an inscription from Athens, certainly calls to mind the masses of votives of the Archaic period from the Lindian Athenaion, for example, most of which defied hanging and must have been on some horizontal surface. Even so, the display of the numerous and contemporary archaic protomai, over 487 of which came from one mold series alone, must have been problematic without the possibility for suspension.

12The second section of Chapter III, “Discussing Iconography, Symbolism and Cultic Use,” delves into the complex issue of the possibility of cult identification by relying on the iconographic elements of specific terracotta types. The author creates an exploratory framework built on 13 case studies of sanctuaries epigraphically identified as belonging to specific divinities. Within this framework, all but two of the sanctuaries belong to female deities, with the Sanctuary of Apollo on Aegina and the Sanctuary of the Kabiroi in Thebes representing the male divine presence. The terracottas from these sanctuaries then are the collective basis for brief descriptions of gender representation and posture, followed by a lengthier discussion of bodies, including so-called dolls and protomai, as well as representations of dancers, children, and kourotrophoi. This is concluded by a review of the various attributes and ritual paraphernalia present in the terracottas from the 13 case studies. While Hoffmann acknowledges that there may indeed have been a few specific terracotta types, such as the so-called Baubo figurines that could reference specific cults, in this instance that of Demeter, the shared coroplastic typology throughout the Greek world from the Geometric to the late Hellenistic periods consisted either of generic images, or ones provided with attributes that mirrored the universal aspects of a cult of fertility. 

13In the conclusion to this section, Hoffman asks how the figurines “shaped the cult or performed within the different roles of the deities and cults.” She responds by invoking the concept of aspects under which the divinity functioned, in her view, fertility, and the resultant incorporation of such symbolism in the terracottas that would mirror those aspects, which she sees as universal. While Hoffmann’s view of this issue has resonance, what is missing in this concluding paragraph is the role of coroplasts and potters in the initial materialization of these aspects. While it is clear that potters and coroplasts in all periods must have been keenly aware of which visual characteristics a votive object should have had to be most appropriate for local cultic references, at the same time, as Hoffmann herself asserts, votive terracottas, by and large, were endowed with a vague and universal symbolism that would make them appropriate in most cultic rituals within which female concerns were paramount. What she neglects to mention is that, with very few exceptions, it was not the cult nor the associated rituals that dictated the visual aspects of these small images, but rather the image makers themselves, who likely understood that their images would have been used in a variety of circumstances. The figurines did not shape the cult. They merely materialized it for the dedicants, and in so doing provided a major opportunity for cultic engagement.

Chapter IV. Depositing and Discarding

14In the first section of Chapter IV, “Defining and Identifying Votive Deposits and Contexts,” Hoffmann attempts to pin down just what comprises a disposal deposit, i.e., the removal en masse of votive material from its primary context once its quantity exceeded what was practical, the third link in the life cycle of votive terracottas. This leads to a very informative and lengthy review of the concept of ritual disposal, or discard, as explored in a number of recent publications. But in the end, Hoffmann stresses that for her study the more important aspect to consider is the disposal stage of the life cycle of votive terracottas, rather than what the form of that disposal might have been.

15In Section 2 of Chapter IV, “Observing and Analysing Find Contexts,” Hoffmann reviews the evidence for 13 different cultic contexts from 9 sites to illustrate the wide range of depositional (read disposal) practices that can be documented, from an almost “tidily stacked” accumulation of votives found buried behind the altar of the Temple of Athena on Chios to the questionable and uncertain contexts from Agrigento. She also includes the Pithos deposit from the Acropolis of Gela that she identifies as a primary ritual deposit, and one could wonder why this particular deposit is in a chapter dedicated to removal or disposal deposits. Regardless, Hoffmann identifies very general characteristics from each of her case studies that could serve as criteria for the recognition of secondary votive depositions, such as sacred context, artefact concentration, obvious placement, curated objects, religious or symbolic imagery, and indication of repetitive action, among others. Yet, as Hoffmann herself admits, these criteria also could be used to identify primary deposits, such as those of the Bitalemi Thesmophorion in Gela, for example, where terracottas, pottery, and other objects were found in situ in small groups buried in the sand of a low dune, over which a small naiskos was erected around 540–535 B.C.E. 

  • 6 Laumonier 1956, 8.

16“The Practice of Deposition” is the title of the third section of Chapter IV, where the evidence for a significant diversity in disposal contexts, or secondary depositions, is reviewed, in some cases within the framework of recycling. Although this section covers many different aspects of secondary depositions, one could wonder why the example of the votive deposit from the original Heraion on Delos was not included.6 This offers a particularly informative instance of the curation of a group of votive terracottas and pottery of the 6th century B.C.E. that belonged to the first Heraion that then were piously stacked inside it during the construction of the fifth century Heraion above it. In any case, Hoffmann looks for evidence that might indicate the length of time a particular votive assemblage might remain in a sanctuary before a clean-up was necessary.

Chapter V. Transformation and Termination

  • 7 Alroth, 1998.

17This chapter discusses aspects of the fourth link in the life cycle of votive terracottas, the one in which the practice of offering figurative terracottas underwent a transformation ending in eventual obsolescence. Section 1, “Considering Change and Continuity,” focuses on the commonalities evident across cultic practices, including the cult objects themselves, their meanings, and the cult identification across time in a sacred setting. Citing the criteria established by Brita Alroth,7 — stylistic change, changes in motifs, change in number, change in material, and change of position — Hoffmann applies them to 14 sanctuary contexts and finds that the differences outweigh the similarities. In four cases, Aegina, Brauron, Tiryns, and Gela, figurative terracottas were a continual presence throughout the life of the cult. In other cases, terracotta dedications ceased, but cultic activity at the site continued. In Knossos, the sudden disappearance of terracotta votives may have been related to architectural changes at the site, while the conquest of Corinth by the Romans in 146 B.C.E. brought a sudden end to terracotta dedications at the sanctuary of Demeter and Kore, only to give impetus decades later to the offering of anatomical terracottas at the sanctuary of Asklepios. In general, in the late Hellenistic period in many sanctuaries, lamps seem to have replaced votive terracottas in number. 

Chapter VI. Discussion and Conclusions

18In this chapter Hoffmann reminds the reader that her study is based on the four key links in the life cycle of votive terracottas. In the second of these key links, “Making and Moving,” she contests the prevailing view that terracottas were inexpensive objects mass produced to satisfy the devotional needs of a popular clientele. She argues that the raw material, clay, was valuable in itself because of its specific color or plasticity, as can be suggested by the use of imported clay at Delos, for example. Yet, the color of the clay surely must not have been of concern to coroplasts, as all figurines from the early 6th century onward, with the exception of those made in Corinth, were covered with a heavy white preparatory layer as a basis for painted details. 

19Countering the generally held assumption that specific types of mold-made terracottas could be found in votive contexts by the dozens coming from the same mold family, or even by the hundreds, she argues that the relative isolation of specific types among masses of other votives indicates they were not considered to be cheap, but rather had a special status that made them more worthy. Moreover, the fact that they were traded across long distances lent additional weight to their value as votive objects, but also as important objects expressive of communal identity. Yet, the criteria for value that she cites, either economic or social, again does not address the role of the coroplast or potter who continued to introduce mediocre terracottas into the market long after their physical characteristics were legible. The hundreds, if not thousands, of terracottas of poor quality that ended up in sanctuary contexts are strongly indicative of a lower economic level for their dedicants, while terracottas that were larger, more carefully made, decorated with expensive pigments, and were much fewer in number, point to a more expensive item produced for a more discriminating clientele. 

  • 8 As in note 7.
  • 9 Blinkenberg 1931, col. 55.
  • 10 Blinkenberg, 1931, col. 594.
  • 11 As in note 10.

20Yet, Hoffmann does convincingly argue that the dedication of terracottas in general was not a particularly common practice, and that evidence for the presence in sanctuaries of “masses” of terracottas from a specific time and that were mold related cannot always be substantiated. This is based on a “cautious estimate” of the numbers published for three of her case studies, the sanctuary of Demeter and Persephone at Corinth, the Rhodian sanctuary of Athena Lindia, and the Thasian Artemision.8 In Lindos, as Hoffmann herself noted, 351 examples of a single archaic protome type (no. 2447) were brought to light at the Athenaion that were from three successive generations of the same prototype,9 94 protomai represented another series (no. 2448) of the same prototype,10 and 42 belong to yet another series (no. 2449).11 While this does document a significant number (487) stemming from the same prototype or early generation mold, as Hoffmann correctly argues, these numbers simply do not reflect mass dedications within a specific length of time. When the total number of these protomai, 487, is divided by 25, that is, the last quarter of the 6th century, the resulting number is 19.5 dedications of at least three generations this type of protome a year.

21Hoffmann has shown us that differing factors apparently were at play in the eventual disregard for figurative terracottas as appropriate dedicatory objects, a phenomenon that can be traced best across the last two centuries of classical antiquity. The material evidence for such dedicatory practices is as vast as the ancient Greek landscape, perhaps too vast for a study that seeks to unravel the multifarious reasons behind the presence and disappearance of figurative terracottas in Greek sanctuaries throughout the course of the first millennium B.C.E. and across the Greek world. When the overall content of a study is so extensive, the final results may appear to be diluted. A more useful investigation of votive practices might have been a focus on the popularity of specific contemporary types in sanctuaries across a global spectrum, such as archaic protomai, or 5th century articulated figurines, or late classical dancers. 

22Figurative terracottas may have represented the most abundant form of sculptural expression in any medium that could be found in Greek sanctuary contexts or secondary depositions in any period. Yet, it is important to keep in mind that figurative terracottas comprised only one category of religious dedication that, in some instances, may or may not have come with its own ritual code or dedicatory system. Although Hoffmann’s research platform is based on her 14 case studies involving figurative terracottas from across the broadest chronological and religious spectrum possible, equally as valid would have been a comparison of all small votives from a more limited number of case studies belonging to a more limited chronological framework. In this way, the quantitative relationship of the deposition and discard of small-scale votives in terracotta in relation to others in any other medium could also illuminate the role(s) played by the votive objects in each category, as well as their possible relationship to each other. Of course, missing from this equation would be offerings that were ephemeral, or that did not survive the consequences of burial.

  • 12 Laumonier 1956, 74, no. 109.

23It is obvious that this book will become a standard volume on Greek terracotta votives, as well it should. For this reason, a factual error must be corrected so it will not be perpetuated. This concerns the female protome found in the secondary deposit of the Heraion on Delos that carries a dedicatory inscription on its inside surface. This inscription indicates that the dedicant was a woman, Mnelaris or Megaris,12 and not a man, as Hoffmann states. Another correction might also be in order. The exclusive use of the term figurine or terracotta figurine(s) to refer to all terracottas can be misleading. Within the category of figurative terracottas there is evidence for the production of at least ten different classes of coroplastic (i.e., sculptural in terracotta) objects, including figurines and larger-scale statuettes, as opposed to busts, protomai, masks, appliques, pinakes, reliefs, jewelry, plastic vases, and models of things, such as foodstuffs, models of furniture, carts, boats, or even houses. The all-encompassing term figurative terracottas, or perhaps just terracottas, is preferable, unless one is indeed exploring only one of these classes. Some quirky uses of the English language aside, Between Deity and Dedicator should find a place on the bookshelves of anyone involved in the study of Greek figurative terracottas.

Top of page

Bibliography

Albertocchi, M., A. Pautasso, and E.C. Portale, eds. 2025. Terrecotte figurate della Sicilia greca in contesto. SMAC-Studi e materiali di archeologia classica, 1. Catania: Edizioni CNR.

Alroth, B. 1998. “Changes in Votive Practice? From Classical to Hellenistic. Some Examples.” In Ancient Greek Cult Practice from the Archaeological Evidence. Proceedings of the Fourth International Seminar on Ancient Greek Cult, organized by the Swedish Institute at Athens, 2224 October 1993, edited by R. Häag, 217–228. Stockholm: Svenska Institutet i Athen.

Aurigny, H., and L. Rohaut, eds. 2022. Quand on a la terre sous l'ongle. Le modelage dans le monde grec antique. BiAMA 32. Aix-en-Provence: Presses universitaires de Provence.

Carboni, R., C. Cenci, and N. Chiarenza, eds. 2024. What Terracottas Can Tell us. Coroplastic Polysemy in the Ancient Mediterranean, 1 and 2. Proceedings of International Conference, Cagliari 10th–12th november 2022. Otium. Archeologia e cultura del mondo antico 16 and 17. Perugia: OTIUM.

Castiglione, M., and I. Oggiano, eds. 2024. Giving Voice to Silence. Material and Immaterial Evidence of the Female World and Childhood from the Coroplastic Perspective. Proceedings of the Webinar (September 2122, 2022). Rome: Edizioni.

Dickmann J-A, B. Engels, and R. Känel, eds. 2021. Der Ton macht die Figur. Terrakotten aus der Berliner Antikensammlung. Katalog zur gleichnamigen Ausstellung Archäologische Sammlung der Universität Freiburg 28. Januar 17. Juli 2022. Freiburg:  Albert-Ludwigs-Universität.

Doğan Gürbüzer, E. 2025. Antik Çağda Pişmiş Toprak Figürinler Nasıl Yapıldılar? Ne Anlatiyor? Istanbul: Zero Books.

Galbois, E., ed. 2025. Terres cuites et sociétés antiques. Toulouse: ​​Presses universitaires du Midi.

Huysecom-Haxhi, S. and A. Pautasso, eds. 2022. ‘“Craft Economy” and Terracotta Figurines. Approaching Systems of Production through Coroplastic Studies.” In Archaeology and Economy in the Ancient World: Proceedings of the 19th International Congress of Classical Archaeology, Cologne/Bonn 2018, edited by M. Bentz and M. Heinzelmann. Propylaeum 16. Heidelberg.

Laumonier, A. 1956. Les Figurines de terre cuite. Exploration archéologique de Délos 23. Athens/Paris: E. de Boccard.

Van Rooijen, G. 2021. Goddesses of Akragas. A Study of Terracotta Votive Figurines from Sicily. Leiden: Sidestone Press.

Veldhues, V., and A. Schwarzmaier, eds.  2022. Klasse und Masse: Die Welt griechischer Tonfiguren. Exhibition catalogue, Antikensammlung der Staatlichen Museen zu BerlinPetersberg: Michael Imhof Verlag.

Top of page

Notes

1 Veldhues and Schwarzmaier, 2022; Dickmann, Engels, and Kanel, 2022; Carboni, Cenci, and Chiarenza, 2024; Castiglione and Oggiano, 2024.

2 Aurigny and Rohaut, 2022.  

3 Huysecom-Haxhi and Pautasso, 2022.

4 van Rooijen 2021; Pautasso, Albertocchi, and Portale, 2025; Gürbüzer, 2025.

5 Galbois, 2025.

6 Laumonier 1956, 8.

7 Alroth, 1998.

8 As in note 7.

9 Blinkenberg 1931, col. 55.

10 Blinkenberg, 1931, col. 594.

11 As in note 10.

12 Laumonier 1956, 74, no. 109.

Top of page

List of illustrations

Title Fig. 1. Cover of the book Between Deity and Dedicator: The Life and Agency of Greek Votive Terracotta Figurines, by S. Hoffmann
URL http://journals.openedition.org/acost/docannexe/image/4335/img-1.jpg
File image/jpeg, 99k
Top of page

References

Electronic reference

Jaimee Uhlenbrock, “Book Review: Between Deity and Dedicator: The Life and Agency of Greek Votive Terracotta Figurines. By Sanne Hoffmann”Les Carnets de l’ACoSt [Online], 25 | 2025, Online since 08 December 2025, connection on 15 May 2026. URL: http://journals.openedition.org/acost/4335; DOI: https://doi.org/10.4000/15awg

Top of page

About the author

Jaimee Uhlenbrock

State University of New York, New Paltz

uhlenbrj@hawkmail.newpaltz.edu

By this author

Top of page

Copyright

CC-BY-NC-ND-4.0

The text only may be used under licence CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. All other elements (illustrations, imported files) may be subject to specific use terms.

Top of page
Search OpenEdition Search

You will be redirected to OpenEdition Search