Journal - Comune di Monteleone di Spoleto

noTeS To SeCTion i (PaGeS 9 – 28)
1. leach 1991, pp. 398 – 414.
2. emiliozzi 1991, drawings on pp. 104, 122; emiliozzi 1996a, figs.
1 – 3; emiliozzi 1997d, figs. 3 – 6.
3. For the history and legends of the Sabine people and the boundaries
of their territory, see Poucet 1963; Salmon 1970; Poucet 1972;
Pallottino 1973, fig. 1; musti 1985; and mansuelli 1996.
4. as distinct from lower or Tiburtine Sabina (see Santoro 1973
and 1986). This ancient region is usually divided into two separate
entities — inner Sabina with its cities (using the latin names they
were given at the time of the roman conquest) at reate (rieti),
amiternum (near l’aquila), and nursia (norcia), and Tiburtine
Sabina with its centers at Cures, eretum, Trebula mutuesca, and
Forum novum (which are found respectively near present-day
Passo Corese di Fara in Sabina and montelibretti, monteleone
Sabino, mentana, and Vescovio di Torri in Sabina), as well as modern
Poggio Sommavilla and magliano Sabina, the ancient names
of which are no longer known. This division of ancient Sabina into
two parts seems to have had its origins in roman historiography;
see musti 1985, pp. 78 – 83, and Stalinski 2001, p. 27.
5. For an annotated bibliography, see Bonamici 1992, although
de angelis 1991 should be added to it.
6. de angelis 1985b and 1991.
7. after angiolo Pasqui’s explorations in 1907 (minto 1924a, 1924b),
professional excavations began again in 1978 (de angelis 1979,
1985a, 1985b, 1991).
8. For a succinct, annotated overview, see Stalinski 2001, pp. 59 – 72,
and for monteleone di Spoleto in particular, pp. 66 – 67.
9. Bonomi Ponzi 1982, p. 139; manconi 1985; Stalinski 2001, pp. 19
and n. 26, 23 and n. 39 (with further bibliography).
10. For the disposition of territory in the Valnerina in the archaic
period, see Stalinski’s annotated summary (2001, pp. 27 – 30), and
Cordella and Criniti 2008, pp. 33 – 41, both with bibliographies.
11. For an overview of the aristocracy in ancient italy, see d’agostino
1999d; delpino and Bartoloni 2000; naso 2000; and Bartoloni
2003. on the sixth century in etruscan and roman cities, see
Section ii, note 23.
12. “lettere ed arti,” Il Giornale d’Italia, anno iii, no. 187 (July 17,
1902), p. 2; this brief notice is transcribed in Corona [2000], p. 20.
13. it is worth pointing out that for some time the lion heads on the
two arms of the yoke were identified as serpent heads because of
their elongated and therefore unnatural form.
14. New York Press, october 18, 1903, which described the chariot,
summarized the story of its discovery, referred to the different
opinions on the identification of its narrative scenes, and announced
that the chariot would be on display at the metropolitan museum
on october 26, 1903; New York Tribune, october 18, 1903, which
announced the same event; New York Tribune, Illustrated Supplement,
october 18, 1903, pp. 8 – 9, which published four photographs
of the chariot, one including several bronze vases.
15. Scientific American 1903, pp. 385 – 86, with four figures with the
following captions: 1. (three-quarter view, right) “an etruscan Biga
or Chariot. used Probably about 600 B.C. Found at norcia, italy
and acquired by the metropolitan museum of art”; 2. “The Front
of the Chariot. Hercules Presenting His Helmet and Shield to
minerva”; 3. “one Side Panel, representing Hercules Killing
laomedon, Father of Priam”; and 4. “The other Side Panel,
representing Hercules Killing one of laomedon’s Children.” The
identification of the scenes was attributed to luigi Palma di
Cesnola, disagreeing with alexander S. murray, who identified the
principal scene as representing achilles and Thetis.
16. la Ferla 2007, p. 39.
17. interview with Giuseppe Vannozzi published in Corona [2000],
pp. 7 – 9. morini (1904) confirmed that the sale to Petrangeli was
completed on march 23.
18. leach 1991, nos. 24 (pyxis), 3.20, 3.21 (lip-cups; it is impossible to
know which of the two cups he was referring to), 3.17 – 19, 13
(spits), 19 (tripod). Seven spits came to the metropolitan museum,
five in 1903 and two in 1921. an eighth remained with Vannozzi
and was seized by the carabinieri in June 1902 along with other
items said to have come from the Tomb of the Chariot (see
appendix, document 2). Today it is in the museo nazionale
dell’umbria in Perugia. other spits were found in 1907 when
angiolo Pasqui reopened the tomb (he spoke of a “bundle” of
spits); they entered the collection of the museo archeologico in
Florence. They are made of iron and are shorter than the others
(see, for example, leach 1991, no. 21). The mention of the tripod
(mma 03.23.53) is especially important in judging its genuineness
given that it was restored at the metropolitan museum, an intervention
described as radical even in the accession file: “mostly
modern; made out of a few ancient pieces by W. richards at
General Cesnola’s request.” For this reason it was not exhibited
(see richter 1915, p. 180).
19. This might be identified with the cauldron in leach 1991, pp. 398 –
99, no. 2, although the description is too vague to be certain.
20. Pasqui may have seen a part of the revetment of the walls in place
and thought that the tomb had not been explored in its entirety.
morini (1904, p. 10) said that the bones of the deceased were
found partially disturbed but that there was only one skull, a fact
also underscored in Compagnoni-natali 1905, p. 571.
21. For example, martelli Cristofani 1977, p. 17; Woytowitsch 1978,
pp. 18, 47, no. 85; Bonamici 1997, pp. 180 – 81. The two spindle
whorls Pasqui found in 1907 are cited as evidence by Bonamici,
although they were clearly imported into the tomb in the backfill
when it was closed (see note 23 below).
22. minto 1924b, p. 149.
23. The spindle whorls are now in the museo archeologico in Florence
(inv. 14343, 14344) along with other fragments angiolo Pasqui
found in 1907 when he reopened the tomb. See page 19, no. [1].
24. morini 1904, no. 2; leach 1991, pp. 182 – 84, nos. 3.13 – 3.16 and
p. 401, no. 4 (in total, twenty-six and twenty-eight). leach gives
the mma accession numbers for the objects.
25. morini 1904, no. 13; leach 1991, p. 408, no. 17.
26. morini 1904, no. 4; leach 1991, pp. 409 – 10, no. 19.
27. morini 1904, no. 6; leach 1991, pp. 411 – 12, no. 24. This description
of the cover of the pyxis does not correspond with the piece
in the metropolitan museum, although i do not believe this suggests
the existence of a second, more elaborate lid that disappeared
on the antiquarian market. it seems instead that morini,
who had not seen the whole object, was referring to an exaggerated
description of someone who had.
28. morini 1904, no. 11; leach 1991, pp. 407 – 8, no. 15.
29. morini 1904, no. 12; leach 1991, p. 184, nos. 3.17 – 3.19, and
p. 406, no. 13. a total of eight spits have been traced; nothing is
known of the other three (see note 18 above).
30. leach 1991, pp. 398 – 99, no. 2.
31. Furtwängler 1905, pp. 586 – 87, no. 1; richter 1953, nos. 16, 17;
leach 1991, pp. 185 – 86, nos. 3.20, 3.21.
32. leach 1991, pp. 395 – 96, 401 under no. 4 (inv. 21.88.53 – 56, 21.88.61),
406 under no. 13 (inv. 21.88.59, 21.88.60), 411ff., nos. 25, 26.
33. Furthermore, returning to the objects morini (1904) described as
from the Tomb of the Chariot, we find, under no. 16: “Several
eagles, several dogs and rams, all in bronze and about 15 cm. in
length and 8 cm. high; all together there are about twenty.” if these
are not appliqués removed from the large bronze vessels found in
the two tombs excavated in the winter of 1902, then the objects
were even more mixed up, both in the Vannozzi household and
while they were in Petrangeli’s possession. We know in fact from the
same publication by morini (1904, p. 11) that isidoro Vannozzi also
The Monteleone Chariot: Notes to Section I 111