Journal - Comune di Monteleone di Spoleto

Recommendations

Info

102 for much of their length — and the sequence of holes for nonmetallic pins. The diameter of the holes is the same as observed along one of the edges of the bronze sheathing of the pole; the interval between them differs slightly (by a few millimeters) and hence they are not perfectly superimposed. The hypothesis i would like to advance runs as follows: it is clear that the ivory was worked in numerous strips to match the length of the pole. The perforated edges of the strips were positioned under the proper right edge of the bronze that revetted the pole and “sewn” with leather threads; about 3⁄8 in. (1 cm) of the width of the ivory strip was covered by bronze. The opposite edge of the bronze sheathing, about ¾ in. (2 cm) away, was nailed to the wood of the pole. The edge of the ivory opposite the holes overlapped the nailed bronze edge without being attached to it, so as to prevent stress, as revealed by the stain about 3⁄8 in. (1 cm) wide left on the bronze (Figure V.64). once it was assembled, the visible surface of the ivory measured about 1¼ in. (3 cm) wide; hence, the single ivory strips were about 1 5⁄8 in. (4 cm) wide. 23b. Fragment of decoration (from the pole?) (Figure V.76) elephant ivory l. 6 5⁄8 in. (16.7 cm), W. 1 1⁄8 in. (3 cm), original thickness not preserved Description. The strip resembles the preceding one, but without the ancient edge. Here, too, there is a green stain caused by contact with bronze along the line that may have contained the perforated edge. Condition. The fragment has been recomposed from two pieces. The obverse is well preserved, while the reverse is eroded. Technical observations. See cat. 23a. Commentary. See cat 23a. 24a. Fragment of decoration (Figure V.76) elephant ivory l. 3 in. (7.5 cm), W. 1 in. (2.6 cm), thickness .2 cm Description. The strip has two preserved ancient edges: the longer one has a sharp oblique edge toward the inside with crisscross incisions; the other edge is scalloped. along the first edge are two holes for attachment; they measure 1⁄8 in. (.2 cm) in diameter and have always been open. a tiny hole on the shorter edge is surrounded by a green stain caused by contact with a small bronze nail or bronze wire. The whole reverse is crisscrossed by incisions. Condition. The fragment is slightly concave lengthwise toward the obverse, perhaps due to desiccation over time. Both sides are well preserved. Technical observations. The larger holes share the same typology as the ones in cat. 23a, whereas the smaller one resembles the description in cat. 22. For the crisscross lines on the underside, see cat. 22. The piece was not examined to determine to which animal order the ivory belongs. Commentary. See cat. 24b. 24b. Fragment of decoration (Figure V.76) ivory l. ¾ in. (2 cm), W. 1 in. (2.5 cm), thickness .2 cm Description. Part of the strip is identical to the preceding one, in that only a short piece of scalloped edge containing a similar tiny hole survives. Condition. The reverse is eroded. Commentary. it is not known whether fragments 24a and 24b were part of a single strip or were two identical strips mirror reversed. They originally fit on the flat surfaces of a part of the chariot, or of the horses’ harness, that cannot be identified. 25. Fragment of inlay of an eye (Figure V.82) ivory l. 1 in. (2.6 cm), W. 5⁄8 in. (1.7 cm), thickness .44 cm Description. The lens-shaped piece preserves about half of its original edge, which is cut slightly obliquely toward the outside. There are traces of crisscross incisions on the reverse. Condition. Two slivers have been superimposed to recompose the fragment. The reverse is quite eroded. Technical observations. The crisscross lines on the cut of the edge of cat. 21a are missing on cat. 25 as on cat. 22. on cat. 25, however, the incisions are present on the reverse. The uneroded area of the reverse is reddish brown in color as a result of contact with iron or another, perhaps organic, material. High magnification revealed small, shining areas where ancient adhesive may have been applied. 13 The piece was not examined to determine to which animal order the ivory belongs. Commentary. The curvature and length of the fragment can only fit the left eye of the boar protome, but with the following reservations: The thickness of the inlay is about twice that of the cavity prepared in the bronze, and it cannot be established whether this is a result of a natural expansion of the ivory due to the particular conditions of contact with chemical and microbiological agents within the tomb. in V.82 Fragments of ivory inlays from an eye (cat. 25) and perhaps from an eye (cat. 26)
width, the surface of the fragment represents about half that of the eyeball and it does not have a cavity for the iris, unlike the panther’s right eye on the central panel, which also has a hole for the pupil (see Figure i.13). Given the smaller size of the inlay, it is likely that the iris in the boar’s eyes was painted. 26. Fragment of inlay (from an eye?) (Figure V.82) ivory l. 5⁄8 in. (1.5 cm), W. ¼ in. (.5 cm), thickness .42 cm Description. The piece is of lenticular shape. The outer edges are not preserved, only the inside one from the middle of a hole that was probably located in the center of the object. There are the familiar crisscross incisions on the underside. Condition. The whole fragment is stained brown as if from contact with iron or another, perhaps organic, material. Technical observations. For the crisscrossed lines see cat. 21a. The piece was not examined to determine to which animal order the ivory belongs. Commentary. The thickness and the appearance of the stain resulting from contact with another material indicate that, like the preceding piece, this one comes from an eye, perhaps the right eye of the boar protome. if so, there must have been a pin of a different material that served the dual purpose of representing the pupil and attaching the inlay to an organic support placed between the ivory and bronze. See cat. 22 for a discussion of this method of applying inlays into prepared bronze cavities. 27. Fragment of inlay (Figure V.83) Possibly elephant ivory l. 7⁄8 in. (2.2 cm), W. 1⁄2 in. (1.3 cm), average thickness ¼ in. (.64 cm) Description. The ringlike fragment has an ancient central hole measuring 1⁄2 in. (1.14 cm) across. Contact with bronze has turned the whole piece green. no crisscross incisions have been observed on the upper or lower side. Condition. about one-third of the ancient hole is missing, but its internal edge is well preserved. none of the ancient outer edge has been preserved around the perimeter of the fragment. Soil accretions adhere to one of the surfaces. Technical observations. The absence of crisscross incisions clearly shows that the method of application used for this piece differed from the one adopted for the other ivories examined so far. Commentary. Previously i attributed the fragment to the eye inserted in the helmet of the central panel because its noteworthy thickness matches the height of the relief at that point. 14 i still hold this opinion, but further study of the chariot has led me to believe that the presence of the eye in the helmet was not part of the artist’s original project (see Section iii). V.83 Fragment of ivory inlay 28. Fragment of inlay from a side panel (Figures V.84, V.85) ivory l. 3⁄8 in. (1.1 cm), W. 3⁄8 in. (1 cm) Description. The strip has four carved grooves running the length of the surface and spaced so as to form five horizontal ribs, the central one being the widest and the side ones progressively narrower. unlike cats. 21, 22, and 24 – 26, there are no crisscross incisions on the reverse. Condition. The original execution can be recognized on both sides, even if some chipping is present. The two edges are also well preserved within the small fragment. Technical observations. The narrow grooves are deep and rectangular in section. The dimensions of the fragment and the treatment of the surface make clear that the original fillet V.84 Fragment of ivory inlay from one of the side panels V.85 Possible location of ivory fragment 28 (Figure V.84), which was originally inlaid at the base of one of the two side panels The Monteleone Chariot V: Catalogue 103
Page 1 and 2:
M e t r o p o l i ta n M u s e u M
Page 3 and 4:
M e t r o p o l i ta n MuseuM Journ
Page 5 and 6:
Contents The etruscan Chariot from
Page 7:
M e t r o p o l i ta n MuseuM Journ
Page 10 and 11:
i.2-i.4 The monteleone chariot afte
Page 12 and 13:
i.5. diagram of the monteleone char
Page 14 and 15:
i.7 The monteleone chariot after re
Page 16 and 17:
16 i.9 The site of monteleone di Sp
Page 18 and 19:
i.10 Plan of the gravesite of the m
Page 20 and 21:
i.18 Pieces of the chariot and othe
Page 22 and 23:
22 in that city he promptly cabled
Page 24 and 25:
i.24 The monteleone chariot during
Page 26 and 27:
26 i.28 detail of the monteleone ch
Page 28 and 29:
28 among surviving works of ancient
Page 30 and 31:
ii.2 The plaster cast used to encas
Page 32 and 33:
32 a b c ii.8 Bronze decoration on
Page 34 and 35:
ii.11 Substructure of parade chario
Page 36 and 37:
ii.15 reconstruction of the shock-a
Page 38 and 39:
38 century B.C. it seems that the s
Page 40 and 41:
40 inserted the tenons of a curved
Page 42 and 43:
iii.3 The box of the monteleone cha
Page 44 and 45:
iii.4 montage of photographs showin
Page 46 and 47:
iii.6 diagrams of the central panel
Page 48 and 49:
48 fied the female figure as earth,
Page 50 and 51:
50 outside wheel of achilles’s ch
Page 52 and 53: iii.15 iii.16 iii.17 details of the
Page 54 and 55: iii.29 details of the toolmarks on
Page 56 and 57: iii.41 Toolmarks on the inner decor
Page 58 and 59: 58 attested from excavations) devel
Page 60 and 61: iii.43 aryballos in the form of an
Page 62 and 63: 62 that reached the metropolitan mu
Page 64 and 65: 64 6. The head of the eagle at the
Page 66 and 67: V.1 Central panel of the monteleone
Page 68 and 69: 68 V.4 Central panel, right profile
Page 70 and 71: V.8 Central panel, detail of the Bo
Page 72 and 73: V.11 Boar protome V.12 detail of th
Page 74 and 75: 74 V.19 Proper right tusk of the bo
Page 76 and 77: V.23 Proper right panel and related
Page 78 and 79: 78 V.26 edging of the proper right
Page 80 and 81: 80 V.30 Proper left panel and relat
Page 82 and 83: 82 V.33 edging of the proper left p
Page 84 and 85: V.37 right nailed boss, front V.38
Page 86 and 87: V.46 left lion head, front 86 V.47
Page 88 and 89: 88 V.52 Frieze on proper right side
Page 90 and 91: V.56 Frieze on proper left side, fr
Page 92 and 93: V.62 Bronze fragments as reconstruc
Page 94 and 95: V.65 eagle head from the end of the
Page 96 and 97: V.68 lion head from the proper left
Page 98 and 99: V.74 Proper left wheel V.75 X-ray o
Page 100 and 101: 100 V.77 location of ivory fragment
Page 104 and 105: 104 V.86 Fragment of ivory decorati
Page 106 and 107: 106
Page 108 and 109: 108 aPPendiX: TranSCriPTion oF SiGn
Page 110 and 111: 110 minuti dettagli sulla disposizi
Page 112 and 113: 112 found in the nearby small valle
Page 114 and 115: 114 14. emiliozzi 1992, p. 102, fig
Page 116 and 117: 116 dall’uso [sic!] e sopravvive
Page 118 and 119: 118 39. Serra ridgway 2001, p. 352.
Page 120 and 121: 120 suggests that they were all mad
Page 122 and 123: 122 reFerenCeS Åkerström, Åke 19
Page 124 and 125: 124 1972 Buccheri a cilindretto di
Page 126 and 127: 126 emiliozzi, adriana 1991 “il C
Page 128 and 129: 128 laureti, Pasquale 1904 “la bi
Page 130 and 131: 130 Welt, vol. 1, part 1, Von den A
Page 132: 132 Bruwier, marie-Françoise Tilli
show all

Journal - Comune di Monteleone di Spoleto

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?