Journal - Comune di Monteleone di Spoleto

40
inserted the tenons of a curved board that finished the back
of the floor frame and served as a running board for mounting
the chariot. Wooden pegs pierced both the finials and
the inner tenons. as i have said, i am not sure if the flooring
was made of woven strips or wooden slats, but i am inclined
to favor the second possibility (see Figures ii.15, iii.1 and
Sections ii.a, ii.B).
each of the two inverted-trapezoidal elements in the
chariot’s shock-absorbing system (see Figures ii.15, iii.1,
and Section ii.B) was 14 5⁄8 in. (37 cm) long and 2 in. (5 cm)
high. The rectangular opening on each of the side friezes
(cats. 11 and 12, and see Figures ii.9a, iii.3), which was also
re-created in the wooden substructure, indicates that the
element was joined to both the axle and the chassis by a
parallelepipedal peg (2 1⁄4 x 2 x 1 in. [5.5 x 5 x 2.5 cm]) provided
with tenons. 4 in each end of the inverted trapezoid
was a curved cut that ran into the floor frame and formed a
semicircle; this semicircle accommodated the heads of the
pair of crossbars positioned between the floor frame and the
draft pole, which in turn had semicircular indentations to hold
the two crossbars. There is no evidence showing whether
these joints were lashed together with rawhide straps.
The sidings of the chariot’s body were made from an
inverted-u-shaped wooden front rail and two similarly
shaped side rails. leather was stretched over three sides and
enclosed (partially or totally) the chariot’s car. leather must
also have been present in chariots like the monteleone and
Castel San mariano vehicles that were completely covered
by embossed bronze sheets. it served the dual purpose of
protecting the work of the master craftsman and ensuring that
the occupants of the chariot did not come into contact with
the metal. The dismantling of the old reconstruction of the
monteleone chariot allowed me to observe the back of the
bronze revetments and understand the shape of the original
wooden substructure. The railing was made from only two
forked branches, stripped of bark, appropriately bent, and
mounted as follows (see Figure iii.1): The trunk of each fork
was squared to about 14 5⁄8 inches high, 3 inches wide, and
1 5⁄8 inches thick (37 x 7.5 x 4 cm), 5 leaving a tenon underneath
that measured at least 1 5⁄8 x 7⁄8 in. (4 x 2 cm). each
tenon was inserted into a specially prepared hole where the
curve of the floor frame ends and was secured under the
floor frame by a wedge. one of the branches of each fork
had been heat-bent to form an inverted u from where it
forked, and its end was inserted into the chassis behind the
axle; the other branch was used to make half of the front rail.
The two parts of the front rail were joined by whittling their
diameters to half their original width, superimposing them,
and lashing them together with rawhide straps. after they
were bent the rails were filed into an oval section.
Because of the extremely fragmented state of the metal
in the rear side panels (cat. 15) there is no direct information
about their wooden substructure. Comparison with the
Castro chariot suggests that a small rectangle of wood fitted
into the floor frame had a batten intended to be attached to
the corresponding side rail. This hypothesis is supported by
the illustrations of parade chariots on terracotta friezes on
etruscan and latin buildings (see Section ii.C and
Figure ii.16). a chariot depicted on a black-figure etruscan
hydria in the museum of Fine arts, Boston, has rear side
panels made from a further extension of the forks forming
the rails. 6
The traction system of the monteleone chariot is perfectly
consistent with that of etruscan-italic chariots of the
first millennium B.C., as seen in clay and metal models,
illustrations, and some actual pieces. 7 There were two horses
under a neck-yoke that was connected to the vehicle by
means of a central draft pole. depictions of neck-yoked
chariots usually show a draft pole rising in a gentle curve.
The pole of the monteleone chariot, however, seems to be
unique, not because it was totally revetted but because of
its profile (including the part under the chassis), which is
made up of two obtuse angles. The current reconstruction
of the section projecting beyond the chassis follows the line
of the bronze revetment: it consists of only two pieces and
reveals the shape of the lost wood. 8 The pole so articulated
is clearly made from a solid double-forked branch, one of
whose extensions was cut off at the fork (the part with the
largest diameter under the chassis) and the other toward
the end (the part with the smallest diameter). The reasons for
this solution are less clear, unless it is related to the particular
system of straps and wedges under the boar protome (cat. 2).
my sketch of the system (Figure iii.2) is based on this reasoning:
First, the pole on chariot i from Castel San mariano
is also covered by a boar protome. Second, that chariot had
a heavy bronze revetment on the front panel that was made
separately from the side panels. Third, the thin bronze nails
used to attach the front panel of the monteleone chariot
were not sufficient to stabilize a similar bronze sheet (see
cats. 1a, 1b), and undoubtedly a supporting system was concealed
under the boar protome. Fourth, the boar’s head, with
its crest, may have been more suitable for covering the supporting
system than the head of a lion (or other feline to be
connected with the deer depicted in the scene). 9 and fifth,
the front panel of the monteleone chariot shows the cutout
at the center of the base (cat. 1a). Something comparable
may have existed in the fragmentary chariot i from Castel
San mariano but not in the Castro chariot, where nothing is
placed over the pole where it projects from under the chassis.
in the Castro example the bronze revetment of the front
panel is only partial and hence light, and at its base there is
only the faint arc of a circle above the pole (Figure ii.5). in
such a case, the junction of the pole and the front curve of
the chassis could have been secured by simpler devices.