.

This paper is a reply to a text that Giuseppe Sassatelli published on Archeologia Classica in 2015, in which he refutes in polemic manner three of my convictions on Villanovian Bologna of considerable importance not only for Felsina but also, in general, for Etruscan studies. The first of those questions concerns the two monuments discovered in Fondazza road, devoid of comparison, that I attributed to a sacred area conjecturing the possibility that they were simple altars. This interpretation is however denied by S., who interprets them as stones destined to monumentalize an access. The second issue is related to the western limit of the Villanovian city that S. identifies with the river Ravone, assuming an abnormal amplitude comprised between 200 and 300 hectares. Most likelihood this limit was instead represented by Vallescura stream, bringing the town to about 170 hectares, in line with the major agglomerations of the period. Finally, S. lingers on my recent contribution of 2013 in Archeologia Classica on the excavation in VIII Agosto square, which showed a peculiar building with large wooden structure. While I had assumed that it could possibly be a place for meetings and voting, dating back to the birth of Felsina, S. refutes my guess thinking of a common corral.

.

.The Great Altar is surely the most magnificent evidence of Attalid propaganda entrusted to the images in order to exalt Pergamon supremacy also in cultural and artistic field. In particular, the Altar sculptural decoration shows the interest of the Attalid dynast in encouraging philological activity, re-elaborating and editing the prestigious Hellenic epic heritage for promoting the dynastic ideology. In order to evaluate the ideological potential of epic themes represented in monumental buildings of Hellenistic Asia Minor, this paper is focused on the Trojan cycle of frieze and columnae caelatae in the temple voted to Apollo Smintheus at Chryse in Troad. The topographical, cultural and chronological (middle of the 2nd cent. B.C.) background of Smintheion, in fact, which emphasizes the link with the Homeric literary tradition, suggests to reconnect the representation of Trojan myth to the fervent activity of philologists at the Pergamon court. In this perspective, the promotion of the Homeric poetry had a central role as well in term of iconography on order to transmit and divulgate the key-concepts of Attalid cultural and religious policy.

.

This paper resumes the text of the IV mimiamb of Herodas, which, set at the Asklepieion of Kos, tells of the visit at the sanctuary of two women and their sacrifice of a cock to the god. In his tale the poet describes the monuments and works of art encountered and admired by the characters, description that has been widely studied and analyzed especially with regard to the altar, with the statues made by the sons of Praxiteles, and the famous paintings on the walls of the pronaos of the temple. So far, however, no scholar has focused on the last verses of the poem, in which, after the sacrifice of the cock, the two women purposed to go and eat their meal in the nearby oikoi. Taking inspiration from the text of Herodas, the article will confirm the destination as a ritual banquet hall of the building immediately to the south of the temple, the so-called “building D”, generally known as abaton; towards it, in fact, the two women may have gone after sacrifice to eat their meal.

.

In case of several major temples located inside the same sanctuary, difficulty arises with regard to the identification of the deity each of them was dedicated to. Although archaeological researches traditionally attempt to refer each temple to a different divinity, many examples of sacred buildings dedicated to the same god or goddess and situated in the same sanctuary can be found throughout the Greek world.

Notwithstanding the widespread presence of Hera cult in Achaean colonies, the analysis of the archaeological, epigraphic and philological documentation concerning Metaponto urban sanctuary seems to indicate that, probably, both temple A and B were consecrated to Apollo, as no conclusive element actually proves the presence of the goddess. In this perspective, the sacred area can be regarded as the place where Apollo – whose cult is testified since the beginning by argoi lithoi distributed in the whole temenos – was worshipped as the principal god and the owner of both the two major temples, while different secondary cults were hosted in other edifices of the sanctuary.