Journal - Comune di Monteleone di Spoleto

116
dall’uso [sic!] e sopravvive per un certo tempo in aree periferiche
e attardate, nelle quali si mantengono assetti sociali tradizionali”
(With the rise of urban societies in etruria the chariot, a symbol
of regal power, went out of use but survived for a time in
peripheral and backward areas that followed more traditional
social practices).
58. See Camerin and emiliozzi 1997, no. 90 (annifo at Foligno),
suppl. no. 15 (Gubbio).
59. i excavated this chariot, which was reduced to very small fragments,
between 2005 and 2006, and it is now being studied. For
preliminary information, see Benelli and Santoro 2009, where the
tomb is dated to the second half of the sixth century B.C. The
vehicle has no decorated bronze revetment like that found in the
older Tomb 11 (see Section iii, note 58).
60. Camerin and emiliozzi 1997, nos. 119 (Pitigliano, 510 – 490 B.C.),
127 (600 – 525 B.C.).
61. Fifty-seven excavated vehicles from the Piceno area dating to the
orientalizing and archaic periods are listed in Camerin and
emiliozzi 1997, nos. 42 – 86, suppl. nos. 2 – 14. For finds published
after 1997, and especially for the careful presentation of a chariot
and cart dated to the seventh century and for a list of the literature
(in n. 6) on three other orientalizing vehicles from the same Picene
center, see de marinis and Palermo 2008. For lucania, see ibid.,
nos. 1 – 3, and for daunia, nos. 4 – 7.
62. See note 28 above. The news of an orvietan provenance for the
pole finial with a lion protome in the museum of Fine arts, Boston,
now seems more significant; see Höckmann 1982, pp. 44n256,
117; Camerin and emiliozzi 1997, no. 118.
noTeS To SeCTion iii (PaGeS 39–62)
1. The reconstruction published in emiliozzi 1997, pp. 184– 85,
figs. 3, 4, was refined after the bronze sheathing was removed
from the old mount on the chariot.
2. exact measurements are not possible because the wood in all
ancient italian examples has disappeared.
3. The system is visible in a later representation of a chariot on a
Faliscan volute krater by the aurora Painter (Woytowitsch 1978,
no. 239, pl. 46; Crouwel 1992, pl. 31.1).
4. The existence of this peg was only revealed during the reconstruction
of the monteleone chariot, and it therefore is not mentioned
or represented in my previous publications.
5. The first measurement was made on the back of the area where
the front and side panels join, and it corresponds to the width of
the sheet that was used to make the kouros and that covered the
seams on each side. The second measurement is calculated on the
basis of the width of the floor frame into which this trunk was
inserted. The third measurement corresponds essentially to the
height of a kouros plus the diameter of the nailed boss above
its head.
6. See Section ii, note 21.
7. For the models and representations, see Woytowitsch 1978,
pp. 67ff. (“Wagenmodelle”) and 80ff. (“Wagendarstellungen”).
Finds of sheets of revetment from leather collars have been confirmed
at the Barberini Tomb at Palestrina (675 – 650 B.C.; museo
nazionale etrusco di Villa Giulia, rome, 13201 – 2; Camerin and
emiliozzi 1997, no. 25); for three horses in Tomb 8 (lXi) at Contrade
morgi at narce (675 – 650 B.C.; ibid., no. 203; de lucia 1998, with
a graphic reconstruction by me); at Tomb 11 at Colle del Forno at
eretum (620 – 600 B.C.; Camerin and emiliozzi 1997, p. 296,
no. 10, figs. 20, 21; emiliozzi in emiliozzi, moscati, and Santoro
2007, p. 152, fig. 4, pl. Viii; another sheet similar to the one from
eretum but without provenance is now in the ny Carlsberg
Glyptotek, Copenhagen; see Johansen 1971, pls. XX – XXiii, XXViii;
and martelli Cristofani 2005, pp. 123, 127, fig. 13); and at the Tomb
of Warrior B at Sesto Calende (575 – 550 B.C.; Camerin and
emiliozzi 1997, no. 241). revetment for a yoke similar to that at
monteleone can be connected with chariot i from Castel San
mariano (Feruglio 1997, p. 222, no. 8, fig. 13). it has recently been
suggested that the sheets identified as revetments for the yoke of
the Castro chariot (see Camerin and emiliozzi 1997, no. 100) may
come, instead, from a funerary bed (Sgubini moretti and de lucia
Brolli 2003, p. 380, fig. 29).
8. The earlier reconstruction included an oblique, straight pole that
was convincing because of its simplicity and because it is similar
to the lifesize model at Chianciano (see note 10 below). Following
the observations made during the restoration (see cat. 16), however,
it would have been difficult to adapt the pole to the horses’
backs because its slant is determined by the position of the
boar protome, and if the pole had been straight the yoke would
have been too high for the small animals used at that time (see
emiliozzi 2009).
9. a feline head (a lion’s?) is placed at the base of the pole of the
(perhaps divine?) chariot represented on chariot ii from Castel San
mariano (see Höckmann 1982, pp. 42 – 43, fig. 25, pl. 30).
10. For the Chianciano model, see Spruytte 1983 pl. 2.1; littauer and
Crouwel 1988, p. 195, pl. V (with bibliography); and Bonamici
2003, ills. pp. 45, 54 (with bibliography). The yoke is 33 inches (84
cm) long and is attached to the draft pole, which is about 75 inches
(190 cm) long. This unusual model is extremely interesting because
it is a faithful reproduction in bronze of the system used to attach
the yoke and pole, and it allows one to imagine how they must
have been connected on the monteleone chariot, given the marks
left on the draft pole (see cat. 16). The Tarquinia group has been
discussed at length in the literature, most recently in Bagnasco
Gianni 2009; emiliozzi 2009, especially p. 147; and Bagnasco
Gianni 2010, fig. 1.
11. i have suggested (see Section iii.F) that this chariot maker was also
responsible for the Via appia antica chariot, which has bronzeclad
wheels like those on the monteleone chariot.
12. Hampe and Simon 1964, pp. 53 – 67.
13. Furtwängler 1905, p. 8; ducati 1909. For the scholars who disagree
or at least have some doubts, see Brommer 1965, pp. 280 –
81 (objections about Polyxena and Frieze 11 with Chiron, iris, and
achilles); Banti 1966 (Herakles and Pholos instead of achilles and
Chiron in Frieze 11); Brendel 1978, p. 150 (the protagonist hero
could be achilles as easily as aeneas); Schiffler 1976, p. 139 (Frieze
11 cannot represent achilles’s childhood because the winged figure
is male and thus cannot be iris, because the centaur can be
better identified as Pholos, and, more generally, because the frieze
has no fixed narrative); Camporeale 1981 (leans toward Banti’s
position); Höckmann 1982, p. 118 (doubts about Polyxena); leach
1991, p. 398 (raises doubts, but uncritically, that the three panels
can be related to one another thematically); Bonamici 1997, p. 185
(perplexity over Polyxena); mehren 2002, p. 47 (doubts concerning
the identification of achilles and memnon in the dueling
scene); and lowenstam 2008, p. 134 (perplexity over Polyxena
and iris).
14. The connection between the birds of prey and the deer was underscored
by Furtwängler (1905, p. 10). not suspecting the further
connection with the boar, he explained incorrectly that it was
already dead before being attacked by the birds. Furtwängler also
observed that the scene takes place in a space behind the protagonists,
given that the border of the shield overlaps the deer’s belly.
15. Schiffler 1976, pp. 30ff., 257ff.
16. a scene on an attic lekythos painted in Six’s technique by the
diosphos Painter (ca. 490 B.C.) shows the goddess holding the
same object before her, grasping the thongs from which it hangs
in her left hand; see Haspels 1936, p. 235, no. 76, pls. 38,4, 37,3;
and Lexicon Iconographicum Mythologiae Classicae, vol. 5 (Zürich
and munich, 1990), p. 745 (iris i, no. 16, ill.).