Giving the gods their due: evidence of ritual from Poggio Colla to this early horizon there are at least three build- ing phases (fig. 1) that have been discussed in detail elsewhere 6 . In Phase I, possibly in the late 6 th or 5 th century BC, a monumental temple was built on the acropolis. e temple was destroyed and replaced by two courtyard complexes. e first of these (Phase II) measures approximately 11 by 20 meters and had a large central altar as well as change in axis. Phase III continued the courtyard plan, with only minor changes in layout but with rubble rather than ashlar foundations. What is interesting about the transition from Phase I to II, from podium temple to court- yard structure, is that the temple parts were ritually treated, and that these ritual actions are mirrored in the many votive or ritual deposits at the site 7 . Nine ritual contexts have been discussed in previous pub- lications; an important new one, Ritual Context 10, will be discussed here. ese ten contexts provide a consistent picture of specific and recurrent practices: deliberate fragmentation of objects, placement of objects in alignment with the axial layout of the sanctuary, and the purposeful turning upside-down of objects of ritual significance. RITUAL CONTEXT 1, “Fissure Deposit”. A large fis- sure in the bedrock at the west end of the courtyard leads to an underground void that runs for some distance underneath the west walls of the court- yard. At some point after the destruction of the Phase I temple, a large stone podium block from this structure was placed in front of the fissure 8 . e block was deliberately broken (it still bears the chisel marks) and then neatly turned upside down. Next to it were deposited a fine gold ring 9 and long strands of gold wire/thread 10 that may have been woven into fabric. RITUAL CONTEXT 2: Bronze Stips. at the bedrock at Poggio Colla seems to have had ritual value is fur- ther demonstrated by a votive stips deposited to the west and south of the Phase II altar. e full deposit is still not fully excavated and to date includes 43c pieces of bronze that at the lowest level were layered e acropolis sanctuary of Poggio Colla pros- pered from at least the M th century BC until its destruc- tion, probably at the hands of the Romans, in the 2 nd century BC. Recent excavations of the sanctuary proper have produced detailed and compelling evi- dence for a complex series of ritual deposits, one of which is unpublished and presented here in honor of Francesco Nicosia who first systematically excavated the site and supported the early efforts 1 of what was to become the Mugello Valley Archaeological Project 2 . e extensive settlement at Poggio Colla in- cluded production areas 3 that must certainly have been connected to the economic agency of the sanctuary itself, which was strategically placed in a dominant position at the juncture of two discrete areas, the broad Mugello basin and the narrowing defiles of the Val di Sieve that afford access to the Arno and to what Nicosia called the Agro Fiorentino. e sanctuary, which in recent years has produced abundant information about ritual activity 4 , had at least four phases of occupation. e earliest, identi- fied by traces of hut foundations, may be associated with two heavily carbonized strata that predate the first stone architecture and are filled with bucchero and buccheroid impasto dating to at least as early as the middle of the Mth century BC 5 . Subsequent 1 We are profoundly grateful for Francesco Nicosia’s sup- port and for the enthusiastic encouragement that he gave US in the early years of excavation. From the first day that he told US to go “excavate the temple”, his faith in the importance of the site was fundamental to the success of what has become a large, interdisciplinary project that includes Southern Methodist University (USA), the University of Pennsylvania Museum (USA), Franklin and Marshall College (USA), and the Open University (UK). I am grateful for the support and collaboration of the other project directors: Dr. Michael omas, Profs. Ann Steiner and Gretchen Meyers, and the project architect, Jess Galloway. I also wish to acknowledge our deep gratitude for the ongoing support of the present Superintendent for the Archaeology of Tuscany, Dr. Andrea Pessina; the Archaeological Inspector for the Mugello, Dr. Luca Fedeli; as well as Dr. Fulvia Lo Schiavo, the former Superintendent. 2 Two full excavation reports have been published: WAR- DEN et al. 1ccc; WARDEN et al. 2005. Yearly reports as follows: WARDEN 200X, ID. 200ca. 3 e artisan areas and settlement surrounding the sanctu- ary are summarized by THOMAS 2000. 4 For a summary of the ritual contexts and their possible interpretation: WARDEN 200cb, ID. 2010; WARDEN 2012. 5 e bucchero and buccheroid impasto is being studied by Prof. Phil Perkins, open university (UK). 6 A summary of these phases can be found in W ARDEN et al. 2005. 7 WARDEN 200cb. 8 WARDEN et al. 2005, p. 25M, fig. 4. WARDEN 2012, p. X5, fig. 5.3. 9 Inv. Pc 03-0c2. 10 WARDEN et al. 2005, p. 25M, fig. 5. Inv. Pc 03-0X5.