See also Vol. I. p. 440.
PART IV
ITALIAN POTTERY
CHAPTER XVIII
_ETRUSCAN AND SOUTH ITALIAN POTTERY_
Early Italian civilisation—Origin of Etruscans—Terramare
civilisation—Villanuova
period—Pit-tombs—Hut-urns—Trench-tombs—Relief-wares and painted
vases from Cervetri—Chamber-tombs—Polledrara ware—Bucchero
ware—Canopic jars—Imitations of Greek vases—Etruscan
inscriptions—Sculpture in terracotta—Architectural
decoration—Sarcophagi—Local pottery of Southern Italy—Messapian
and Peucetian fabrics.
In the succeeding section of this work we propose, by a natural
transition, to deal with Italian pottery, that is, Etruscan and Roman,
as distinct from Greek. The subject naturally falls under three
heads—the first two dealing with the pottery of the period previous to
the Roman domination of Italy, and therefore contemporaneous with the
Greek pottery; the third with Roman pottery from the second century
B.C. onwards, and of necessity including also remains of similar
pottery from Gaul, Britain, and other countries over which that
civilisation extended.
In the present chapter the first two branches of the subject—namely,
Etruscan pottery, and the local fabrics of Southern Italy—will be
discussed; the period of time which they cover is, as has been said,
coincident with that covered by the history of Greek pottery, extending
from the Bronze Age down to the end of the third century B.C.
§ 1. ETRUSCAN POTTERY
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Helbig, _Die Italiker in der Poebene_; _Ann. dell’ Inst._ 1884, p.
108 ff., 1885, p. 5 ff.; Karo, _Cenni sulla cronologia
preclassica_, Parma, 1898; Von Duhn in _Bonner Studien_, p. 21
ff., and in _J.H.S._ xvi. p. 125 ff.; Martha, _L’Art Étrusque_,
_passim_; Dennis, _Cities and Cemeteries of Etruria_, 2nd edn.
(good for topography; archaeology out of date); _J.H.S._ xiv. p.
206 ff. (C. Smith on Polledrara ware); Gsell, _Fouilles de
Vulci_; Pottier, _Cat. des vases ant. du Louvre_, ii. p. 285 ff.
(the best general survey); _Notizie degli Scavi_, _passim_, for
excavations; _Brit. Mus. Cat. of Bronzes_, p. xliv ff.
(1) EARLY ITALIAN CIVILISATION
As regards Etruria, it will be seen that the art of the people was
largely imitative, being derived mainly from Greece, but in some
measure also from the East. Few remains of their productions have
reached the present day, with the exception of large numbers of vases,
bronzes, and jewellery; these, however, afford a very clear notion of
the characteristics of Etruscan art. It is hardly possible to treat the
subject of working in clay in Etruria with such fulness as can be done
in the case of Greece and Rome, owing to the greater dearth of
literature; but in our previous chapter (III.) on this subject much has
already been said with reference to what is known on this head. In
regard to the pottery, careful scientific excavations, such as those
undertaken by M. Gsell at Vulci (Vol. I. p. 77), have done much to
increase our knowledge of all periods, and to place chronological
certainty within the reach of the inquirer.
In dealing with the history of art in Italy, we are naturally first met
with two questions: (1) Who were the earliest inhabitants of the
country, particularly in the region afterwards known as Etruria, in
which the first signs of artistic development appear? (2) At what
period and from what quarter did the Etruscans occupy this region, or
are they aboriginal? It will therefore be necessary to devote a few
preliminary paragraphs to these much-debated questions,[2246] in order
to gain a better understanding of the subsequent history.
The question of the origin of the Etruscans, to take the second first,
is as old as Herodotos.[2247] As is well known, the Father of History
held to the view that they originally came from Lydia, a view which
found general support in antiquity, and is referred to by Horace,[2248]
and many other writers. His fellow-townsman Dionysios was, however, of
the opinion that they were autochthonous.[2249] However much of truth
there may be in either of these theories, the fact remains that with
certain modifications each of the two alternatives has found supporters
even down to the present day, though to Niebuhr first is due the
suggestion that the immigration of the Etruscans was by land and not by
sea, and that they came from Central Europe by way of the Rhaetian
Alps. He has been followed by most writers since—above all by Mommsen,
who was the first to point out the absurdity of identifying the Lydian
Τυρρηνοί or Τυρρηβοί with the Italian _Tusci_ or _Etrusci_. It follows
from this that the whole of the civilisation of Northern and Central
Italy is due to this race, which would obviously have left its impress
on each district as it passed through it; and, secondly, that it was
this same race that was afterwards known by the name of Etruscan.
The chief objection to the theory of an autochthonous origin is that,
as we shall presently see, a break in the civilisation of Northern
Italy which can be traced about the beginning of the ninth century B.C.
is of such a marked and rapid character that it cannot be regarded as
due to any cause but the irruption of a new race. Moreover, there is
probably, as M. Pottier points out,[2250] more truth in the words of
Herodotos than appears at first sight. It is true that there are no
grounds for accepting the Lydian theory absolutely; but apart from
this, it is to be noted that Herodotos nowhere states that the
Tyrrhenians landed on the west coast of Italy—_i.e._ in Etruria. What
he does say is that, “after having visited (or coasted along) many
nations, they arrived at the Umbrians, where they founded cities and
inhabit them to this day; and instead of Lydians, their name was
changed to that of Tyrrhenians.” Additional evidence is given by
Hellanikos,[2251] who explicitly states that they landed at the mouth
of the Po; and as the Umbrians probably occupied a larger territory in
prehistoric than in classical times,[2252] we may fairly place here the
city of Tyrsenia or Tyrrhenia, which Herodotos gives as the name of
their first new home. Thus the Umbrians will represent the early
aborigines whose civilisation, known as the Terramare, we shall
presently describe, and it was this civilisation, transformed and
developed, which was carried by the invaders over the Apennines into
the region now to be known as Etruria. It will be noted that this
theory at least satisfactorily combines the land and sea migrations of
the Etruscans into Etruria, though it does not profess to dogmatise as
to the region whence they first started. The idea that they first
landed on the west coast is entirely due to Roman ideas, fostered by
poets like Virgil; and though it is in one passage accepted by
Dionysios of Halicarnassos, he expressly contradicts himself in
another.[2253]
The two chief characteristics of this new Etrusco-Umbrian civilisation
are the development of geometrical decoration and the predominance of a
metallurgic element, both of which are obviously derived from Eastern
sources, whether Hellenic or Oriental. It will suffice here to point
out that the “Tyrrhenians” during their previous voyages (see above)
might well have come in contact with the other civilisations of the
Eastern Mediterranean, such as Cyprus, Asia Minor, Mycenae, and the
Greek islands, and that their natural acquisitiveness and capacity for
imitation, which we shall find illustrated throughout their history,
enabled them to pick up and use artistic ideas from all these quarters.
Even their earliest art yields many points of comparison with that of
the Eastern Mediterranean.
The earliest civilisation of which traces have survived in Italy is, as
we have already seen, that of the Terramare, so called from the remains
discovered in that district, covering the basin of the Eridanus or Po,
but chiefly between Piacenza and Bologna. We have further seen that the
aboriginal people to whom these remains belong are probably to be
identified with the Umbrians, but it is perhaps safer to style them
Italiotes. They were lake-dwellers, living in wooden houses built on
piles in the water or in the marshy lagoons of the district which they
inhabited, and their civilisation was of the rudest description.
We find among their remains, besides rude objects in bronze and other
substances, pottery of the very simplest kinds, hand-made and roughly
baked. This is not found in tombs, but mingled with the débris of the
dwellings. The shapes comprise cups and pots, and there are few
attempts at decoration beyond rows of knobs or bosses. A
crescent-shaped or lunulated handle is attached to many of the vases,
serving as a support for the thumb; but this is a feature also found in
other parts of Italy and in Sicily. Iron, glass, and silver are quite
unknown, and gold only represented by a doubtful specimen; on the other
hand, along with the finds of bronze, which include weapons, tools, and
objects of toilet, are survivals of the Neolithic Age in the shape of
axes, spear-heads, and tools of stone. In several of the settlements
actual moulds for bronze-casting were found.
The Neolithic remains are sufficient to indicate the early date of this
civilisation, and it is probably contemporary in point of development
(if not of date) with the earliest remains from Hissarlik and Cyprus.
It may thus be traced back as far as 1500 B.C. at least, and seems to
extend down to about the end of the tenth century B.C. The analogous
pottery found at Thapsus in Sicily is mixed with Mycenaean vases, and
may therefore be more precisely dated; but it is altogether more
advanced than that of the Terramare. The influence of the latter no
doubt spread gradually downwards during these thousand years through
Central and Southern Italy.[2254]
(2) THE VILLANUOVA PERIOD (TOMBS _A POZZO_)
The next stage in the development of civilisation in Italy, probably
separated from the preceding by a period of transition, is what is
known as the Villanuova period, from a site of that name at Bologna. It
begins with the ninth century B.C., and lasts for some two hundred
years; its traces are much more widely spread than those of the
Terramare people, being found not only to the north of the Apennines,
but all over Etruria. It is interesting to note that the chief finds
have been made in what afterwards became the principal centres of
Etruscan civilisation, such as Bologna, Corneto, Vetulonia, etc. In
almost every respect it shows a marked development on the preceding
stage. Iron is already known, and the working of bronze better
understood, the processes of hammering plates (σφυρήλατον) and working
in _repoussé_ being introduced to supplement that of casting.[2255]
We now for the first time meet with tombs, the characteristic form of
which is that of a well or pit, ending in a small circular chamber, in
which the remains are deposited. Italian archaeologists have given to
these tombs the name of _a pozzo_. The method of burial practised was
almost exclusively that of incineration, but it appears certain that
the inhabitants of Etruria never showed a special preference either for
one method or the other, and the alternative method of inhumation
already appears at Corneto before the next stage is reached with the
eighth century.
It has been sometimes objected that the introduction of inhumation must
connote the first arrival of the Etruscan people in these regions, on
the ground that they did not practise incineration; but this idea rests
on no sound basis. The introduction of the new system, which never
entirely ousted incineration, can easily be explained as due to
external influences; not indeed to the Phoenicians (although it was a
universal Oriental custom), for their influence in Italy has been much
exaggerated; but rather to the Greeks, who colonised Cumae in the
middle of the eighth century, from which time onwards Hellenic
influence gradually becomes more and more apparent.
We have seen, then, that the Villanuova civilisation may be fairly
regarded as Etruscan. It was not, however, by any means confined to
Etruria, for it is spread all over the country to the north of the
Apennines, and two of its most important centres were at Bologna and
Este. The whole of this region shows traces of having been for a long
time under the early Etruscan domination. It is, in fact, in close
dependence on the Terramare civilisation which here preceded it, the
difference, as we have indicated, being brought about by commerce and
foreign influences.
[Illustration:
From _Ann. dell’ Inst._
FIG. 178. TOMB _A POZZO_
WITH CINERARY URN.
]
The _pozzo_ tombs usually contain a large cinerary urn or _ossuarium_,
in which the ashes were placed after being burnt (Fig. 178).[2256]
These urns are fashioned by hand from a badly levigated volcanic clay,
generally known as _impasto Italico_. It is to be distinguished from
the later _bucchero nero_ (see p. 301) by its quality, and by the fact
that vases of the latter clay are always wheel-made. The clay is
irregularly baked over an open fire, and the colour of the surface
varies from red-brown to greyish black. It is covered with a polished
slip, and there is no doubt that it was the intention of the potter to
give the vases a metallic appearance as well as form.
As regards their shape, they are of a peculiar but uniform type, with a
small handle at the widest part, and cover in the form of an inverted
bowl or saucer with handle (Fig. 179: see also Fig. 178).[2257] The
ornamentation consists of geometrical ornaments incised or stamped in
bands round the neck and body—such as maeanders, chevrons, stars, and
dots—the incisions being made while the clay was moist. In rare cases
we meet with painted ornaments in white applied directly to the
surface. Besides the urns, which often almost fill the chamber,
accessory objects in the form of common pottery, fibulae, and other
bronze objects, spindle-whorls and amber objects, are found in the
tombs.
The common pottery does not in its character exhibit much advance on
that of the Terramare. The difference, indeed, consists not so much in
development of technique as in a greater variety of decoration. It has
points of resemblance with the far earlier pottery of Hissarlik and the
early Bronze Age tombs of Cyprus (see Chapter VI.), and there are not
wanting evidences of commercial intercourse with and importation from
the Eastern Mediterranean. But two salient features of the Italian
wares are the employment of handles and the unique form of the hut-urn
(see below).
[Illustration:
From _Notizie degli Scavi_.
FIG. 179. CINERARY URNS FROM TOMBS OF VILLANUOVA PERIOD AT CORNETO.
]
The clay is mostly of the same kind as that of the urns, and the smoked
and irregularly fired surface shows that furnaces were not yet in use,
but that an open fire sufficed for the purpose. The technique is
exceedingly primitive, and the forms are simple but heavy. In the
latter respect the striking difference in the inherent artistic
capacity of the Greeks and Italians is already apparent. The latter
never at any time displayed that unfailing eye for form which
distinguishes the Greeks in all their products. The shapes include
saucers like the urn-covers, bowls with a flat vertical or high-looped
handle, flasks with long beak-like necks like the early Cypriote vases,
bowls with small feet, jars with one or two handles, _aski_, and
_kerni_, or groups of vases united on one stem.
Many of these are quite plain, but the majority are decorated with
geometrical patterns, like the _ossuaria_ or urns already described.
Some of the patterns show quite a mechanical regularity, as if produced
from a stamp. These take the form of circular sinkings and other
patterns formed by circles, an early instance of a motive which
afterwards became common in Etruria. There are even some instances of
designs in colour, a sort of cream pigment being used. A peculiarity of
this class is the fondness for protuberances in the form of horns on
the handles (_ansae lunulatae_), which are also found in the Terramare,
as already mentioned; or knobs round the body of the vase, in order to
hold cords for suspension, which afterwards served a merely decorative
purpose, like the bosses on cups described by Homer.[2258] Sometimes
are to be seen rude attempts at modelling horses or heads of oxen, or
at giving the whole vase the form of a bird, as is seen in some of the
_aski_.[2259]
The absence of accessory vases in Villanuova tombs, as is sometimes the
case at Vulci,[2260] seems to show either very great antiquity or else
a long survival of an older type. On the whole, however, a
chronological classification is hardly possible. Generally speaking,
the pit-tombs were still in use throughout Etruria at the end of the
eighth century, and no tombs of the next stage can be dated earlier
than 700 B.C. The line of demarcation for the latter end of the period
is therefore the seventh century, coincident with the first undoubtedly
Greek importations found in the tombs.
The real interest of the Villanuova period is, however, centred in
remains which do not come within our province—namely, the objects in
bronze which have been found in such enormous numbers at Bologna,
Vetulonia, and elsewhere.[2261] They fall into line with the earliest
remains on Hellenic sites—such as Olympia, Rhodes, and Crete—and a
connection can often be traced, as in the fibulae, with the Hallstatt
civilisation.[2262] On the other hand, they are entirely free from any
Oriental influence.
Sometimes the cinerary urns in the tombs of this period take the form
of huts (_tuguria_), though these are more often found in the
neighbourhood of Rome, as at Alba Longa. They represent, in fact, the
civilisation of the Italiote people on their first arrival in Latium,
which they probably colonised by moving southward through Umbria and
Picenum, leaving Tuscany to the Etruscans. One of the best examples of
these hut-urns is that from the Hamilton collection in the British
Museum (Plate LVII. fig. 4), which still contains ashes. The ashes were
inserted through a little door, which was secured by a cord passing
through two rings at its side and tied round the vase. The
ornamentation suggests the rude carpentry which was applied to the
construction of the dwellings of this primitive people, the cover or
roof being vaulted, with raised ridges intended to represent the beams
of a house or cottage. These urns have no glaze on their surface, but a
polish was produced by friction. They are occasionally painted with
patterns in white, inlaid in grooves. On the Museum example are
fragments of maeander. They are usually found inside large vases, which
protected them from falling earth and other accidents. The fact that
they were found under beds of lava originally led to an exaggerated
opinion of their antiquity, but in any case the nature of their
contents confirms their very primitive use.[2263]
An interesting account of the early settlements in the southern
extremity of Etruria is given by Von Duhn,[2264] as the result of
exploration by local archaeologists on the sites of Falerii (Civita
Castellana) and Narce.[2265] The most interesting feature of these
results is the gradual migration of the peoples from the hill-tops to
the valleys as they became more civilised. Thus many modern cities,
such as Florence, are direct descendants of the early hill-settlements
of primitive Italy. In Etruria it was usually the reclaiming of the
marshes for cultivation that enabled the population to settle in the
lower and more accessible situations.
The Faliscan region well illustrates this principle, as does Narce. In
the earliest graves on the hill-tops cremation is the rule, and the
urns are of the Villanuova type. Nothing of later date than the eighth
century is found, and no importations. The hut-dwellings at Narce seem
to have been of the hut-urn type. The common pottery is of the
primitive hand-made greyish black clay; but after the eighth century
the position of the settlement was shifted lower down, and in these
later tombs a remarkable series of red-glazed wares is found (see
below, p. 301), and Greek and Oriental importations soon make their
appearance. Narce soon fell under Etruscan sway, but Falerii retained
its individuality for some time longer.
(3) THIRD PERIOD: TOMBS _A FOSSA_; FIRST GREEK INFLUENCES
The next stage in the development of Etruscan civilisation is marked by
a change in the form of the tomb. The pit is now replaced by a trench;
in other words, the vertical form is exchanged for a horizontal one.
Concurrently with this change the practice of inhumation becomes fairly
general. This period may be regarded as extending from the eighth
century B.C. to the beginning of the sixth, and is marked by the first
signs of importations from Greece in the shape of Geometric pottery and
bronzes. In general character it is not strongly marked off from the
preceding. The great advance is in the development of art in the
objects found in the tombs. Not only do we witness the first beginnings
of what is destined to become the typical species of Etruscan
pottery—namely, the _bucchero nero_—but towards the end of the period
the Greek influence, as evidenced by finds of wheel-made vases with
Geometrical decoration, or even of the so-called Proto-Corinthian type,
becomes widely felt. It was no doubt largely due to the foundation of
colonies in the south of Italy, such as Cumae. Altogether it is a most
important period for the history of Etruscan pottery. Of Oriental
influence there are at present hardly any signs, and all wheel-made
vases found in these tombs are probably of Greek origin, as it does not
appear that the wheel was in regular use before the middle of the sixth
century.[2266]
It is now necessary to turn our attention to the local hand-made
varieties. And, in the first place, it is worthy of note that pottery
of the Villanuova type actually survives the transition from the
pit-tombs to the trenches, as is seen at Corneto, Vetulonia, and
elsewhere. Probably it indicates the pottery in common use, the
imported objects being only regarded as _de luxe_; or else, as Prof.
Helbig suggests,[2267] the former types were preserved for religious
reasons connected with burial rites, as was often the case in Roman
religion.
In the earlier types of pottery from the _fossa_ tombs, such as are
common at Vulci, the hand-made pottery of _impasto Italico_ still
continues, preserving the same shapes and the same simple linear
decoration; but it is better baked, and the surface is somewhat better
polished. Red wares are also found, and yellow wares with Geometrical
ornaments painted in red, which are evidently local imitations of the
Greek Geometrical fabrics (see below).
Later, while the technique remains unaltered, a difference is seen in
the forms, which become lighter, more varied, and more symmetrical.
Such shapes as the stamnos, kantharos, and trefoil-mouthed oinochoë now
for the first time appear. The methods of ornamentation are also
modified; new varieties of incised patterns are seen, and the bodies of
the vases are sometimes fluted or ribbed; while such motives as friezes
of ducks, which are also found on the contemporary bronzes,[2268] now
first find a place. M. Gsell, describing in detail the various fabrics
found in the Vulci tombs of this period,[2269] speaks of pottery of a
grey clay baked to red, perhaps in a furnace, forming urns and jars of
a considerable size. He thinks that some primitive kind of wheel (see
above) must have been used to produce these. In some of the _impasto_
wares there is a decided advance in technique, the clay being better
levigated and the walls of the vases thinner. Some black wares seem to
have been _fumigated_ like the later _bucchero_. Generally speaking,
both incineration and inhumation are still practised.
The ornaments are incised, stamped, or painted, and the decoration
almost exclusively linear, the stamped patterns being usually in the
form of stars. This pottery is, in fact, merely a continuation of that
of the pit-tombs, except that the imitation of metal-work is much more
strongly in evidence.
Yet another variety preserves the methods and forms of the Villanuova
class, but introduces a new kind of clay, altogether black, as
distinguished from the earlier reds and browns. A remarkable specimen
of this early black ware found at Orvieto has incised upon it the
subject of Bellerophon and the Chimaera, the style being, as we should
expect, childish to the verge of the ludicrous.[2270] Later, the black
wares acquire a very fair glazed surface, and are ornamented with
incised linear patterns of zigzags, chevrons, etc.; these are mostly
small vases. It is in these two particularly that we see the
forerunners of the highly developed _bucchero_ ware.
Besides these local fabrics, there are found Greek imported wares with
Geometrical decoration of pale yellow clay, with ornaments in brown
turning to red; the commonest form is the oinochoë, and the patterns
include circles, zigzags, wavy lines, embattled patterns, etc. These
are all wheel-made, and are, in fact, the same types as are found in
the Dipylon cemetery at Athens and in Boeotia (Chapter VII.); the
earliest instances belong to the end of the eighth century, in some
late pit-tombs at Caere, in which also “Proto-Corinthian” pottery was
found. They coincide with the great impetus given to Greek colonisation
in Sicily and Southern Italy, and probably came by that way into
Etruria. It should be borne in mind that these vases were imported not
for their own merit, but for the value of their contents. It has
already been mentioned that local imitations of them are found in the
trench-tombs.
To the seventh century belong also two classes of pottery which are
more or less connected, and are chiefly associated with Caere.[2271]
The first class consists of a series of vases of red ware, mostly large
jars and πίθοι, ornamented with designs in relief, the lower part of
the body being usually ribbed. The designs take the form of bands of
figures stamped round the upper part of the vase, either in groups on
the principle of the metope or in extended friezes. In the former case
the design was produced from a single stamp for each group; in the
latter, it was rolled out from a cylinder resembling those in use in
Assyria for sealing documents. Besides the jars, plates of this ware
are not uncommon; they may have formed either covers like those of the
Villanuova _ossuaria_, or stands for the jars, in order to hold
drippings of liquid, etc. The use of the πίθοι in tombs is not quite
clear, though they were doubtless in daily use for holding grain or
liquids.[2272]
The subjects are always of an Orientalising character, similar to those
found on Greek vases under Oriental influence, and comprising animals,
monsters, hunting scenes, combats, and banquets. The origin of these
vases is doubtful; they may be either indigenous or imported, as
similar examples have been found in Rhodes, Boeotia, Sicily, and
elsewhere; but they are rare outside Etruria. The suggestion of a
Sicilian origin[2273] has found some favour, but it is more likely that
they are native productions after Greek models (see Vol. I. p. 496);
some are undoubtedly of local make,[2274] and they were probably made
at Caere or in the neighbourhood. Their prototypes go back almost to
the Mycenaean period, but were hardly imported before 700 B.C., after
which time the local imitations begin, being one more instance of the
invariable rule that all Etruscan pottery is more or less imitative.
Similar vases in metal were manufactured on the coast of Asia Minor,
and the ἀναθήματα of the Lydian kings at Delphi[2275] were probably
examples of this class.[2276]
[Illustration:
From _Gaz. Arch._
FIG. 180. PAINTED ETRUSCAN PITHOS FROM CERVETRI (IN LOUVRE): BIRTH
OF ATHENA; BOAR-HUNT.
]
The second class shows some affinities to the other in regard to the
shape and the nature of the clay; but the important difference is that
the vases are decorated with _painted_ subjects instead of reliefs. The
subjects are painted in white outline on a brick-red glazed ground, the
process being as follows: The clay, which resembles the _impasto
Italico_, is first hardened by baking, and then a mixture of wax and
resin and iron oxide is applied to it, and a lustre given to the
surface by polishing. The pigment, a mixture of chalk and lime, is then
laid on. The process can hardly be said to be Greek, and yet the
subjects are purely Greek, being borrowed in part from the Greek
Geometrical vases, such as sea-fights, and in part from later (Ionian)
sources[2277]; we actually find representations of the Birth of Athena
and the Hunt of the Calydonian Boar (Fig. 180).[2278] The shapes of the
vases again are certainly local, as are the animal forms, which
resemble those incised on the _bucchero_ wares. The drawing is usually
crude in the extreme. It is interesting to note that on the vase from
which Fig. 180 is taken the potter has painted in white an Etruscan
inscription (not shown in the cut). Another vase of the same class was
found in the Polledrara tomb (see Plate LVI. and p. 300 below). The
method of painting in opaque pigment on a red or black ground is, it
would seem, an Ionian characteristic, being found at Naukratis in the
seventh century (Vol. I. p. 347), and also, as we shall see on other
quasi-Ionic fabrics in Etruria.
Generally speaking, the tombs _a fossa_ are not later than the middle
of the seventh century; evidence of this is given by the absence of
_bucchero_ proper and of Corinthian fabrics. There are, however, traces
of their lingering on even down into the sixth century, as at Vulci,
where Helbig mentions a tomb found in 1884 containing Corinthian vases
of that date.[2279] At Corneto the latest belong to the end of the
seventh century.
(4) FOURTH PERIOD: CHAMBER TOMBS; ORIENTAL INFLUENCE
Our fourth period, which in many respects shows a close continuity with
that of the tombs _a fossa_, is nevertheless clearly defined by two
circumstances: firstly, the adoption of a new type of tomb, doubtless
developed out of the _fossa_, which takes the form of a large chamber,
and is therefore known as _a camera_; secondly, the influence of
Oriental art, concurrently with an increased influx of importations
from Greece. The period covers about a century of time, from 650 to 550
B.C., and includes several of the largest and most important tombs that
have been found in Etruria, which will demand more or less detailed
treatment. In none, however, were any great finds of pottery made; but
one of these tombs, the Grotta d’ Iside or Polledrara tomb at Vulci,
contained several specimens of exceptional interest.
The simplest form of chamber-tomb consists of a narrow corridor or
δρόμος leading into a larger chamber; next, the δρόμος opens into a
square or rectangular vestibule, round which various side-chambers are
attached; finally, the tomb assumes the form of a vast subterranean
edifice composed of several wings, and used for more than one corpse—in
fact, a “family vault.”
While on the one hand the ceramic types of the Villanuova period still
linger on, as in the retention of _ossuaria_ for the receipt of ashes,
on the other the painted Greek vases and the local _bucchero_ wares
increase more and more, and altogether there is a great advance in the
direction of variety and richness. This period saw not only the general
introduction of the wheel into Etruria, but also the introduction of
the alphabet of Western Greece, through Cumae. A vase of _bucchero_
ware found at Vetulonia bears an Etruscan inscription, which can hardly
be much later than 700 B.C.,[2280] and we have already seen an instance
on a vase from Caere.
In the earlier chamber-tombs no _bucchero_ is found, and the pottery is
of the same types as in the trench-tombs; but with the enlarged
arrangement of the tomb come the Corinthian vases of Orientalising
style, to be followed later by the Ionian and later Corinthian fabrics,
and finally by the Athenian wares. The vestibule disappears after the
sixth century, and all later tombs have the simple δρόμος. The typical
contents of a chamber-tomb are, as regards local pottery, in the
earlier tombs _impasto Italico_ wares, in the later _bucchero_. The
former is hand-made, the shapes similar to those found in the
trench-tombs—_i.e._ pots incised with zigzags, circles, and other
patterns, or painted in white. The latest varieties are wheel-made, of
_bucchero_ forms. The latter wares, which are much more numerous, are
evolved from the _impasto_: (1) by the use of the wheel; (2) by the
introduction of the furnace; (3) by extensive imitation of Greek
ceramic and metal forms. The earliest _bucchero_ vases at Vulci and
Corneto synchronise with Corinthian pottery of the middle style, about
630-600 B.C., and they last down to the end of the fifth century.
The appearance of the alphabet seems to point to a marked incursion of
Greek influence in the early part of the seventh century. The story of
the arrival of Demaratos of Corinth, about 665 B.C., with the three
artists whom he brought in his train, Diopos, Eucheir, and
Eugrammos,[2281] is no doubt an echo of this. The progress of Hellenism
was, however, momentarily arrested by the growing power of Carthage,
which may partly account for the temporary Orientalising of Etruscan
civilisation. It is certainly to the Carthaginian influence in Italy
that the Phoenician objects found in the seventh century tombs, such as
the silver bowls of Praeneste, are due. Oriental influence is also seen
in the large tombs at Vulci, Caere, and Vetulonia, but it is hardly so
strong as was at one time supposed; and of late years scholars have
generally recognised that Ionian art and commerce played a much larger
part throughout in the civilisation of Etruria[2282]; and, further,
that Oriental art found its way mainly through these channels. At all
events there was throughout the seventh and sixth centuries a keen
struggle for supremacy in the Western Mediterranean, in which the
Etruscans, the Phoenicians of Carthage, and the Ionian and Continental
Greeks alike shared; and hence the diverse influences at work in
Etruria.
But it was not long before Greece, with its rising colonies of Cumae,
Sybaris, and Syracuse, made its predominance to be felt in the Western
Mediterranean, and this was consummated by the final victory of Hiero
over the combined fleets of Carthage and Etruria off Cumae in 474 B.C.
A monument of this exists to the present day in the bronze helmet
dedicated by that king at Olympia, now in the British Museum.
We may further define as the second great period of Greek importations,
that extending over the sixth and fifth centuries, a period which saw
the development not only of the local _bucchero_ fabrics, but also of
the Greek black- and red-figured vases, which, heralded by the
Corinthian wares, now pour in a continuous stream into Etruria. To this
same period belong the paintings of the Etruscan tombs.
The earliest influences from Greece came, as has been hinted, through
colonies like Chalcidian Cumae, which were the chief agents in the
Hellenisation of Etruria; but at Cervetri, at any rate, the prevailing
influence was Corinthian, as testified by the remarkable series of
Corinthian and quasi-Corinthian vases in the Campana collection at the
Louvre. Later in the sixth century came the connection with Athens, the
chief results of which are to be seen in the contents of the tombs of
Vulci (Vol. I. p. 76). It extends from the time of the Peisistratidae
(540-520 B.C.) down to about 450 B.C., being probably brought to an end
by the Peloponnesian War and the destruction of the Athenian maritime
supremacy; but isolated instances of importations occur down to the
time of Alexander the Great, in the Panathenaic amphorae of which dated
examples of 336 B.C. have been found at Cervetri (Vol. I. p. 390).
In sketching this outline of Hellenic influence in Etruria we have
overstepped the limits of chronological sequence, and must retrace our
steps in order to deal first with the local products of the period from
650 B.C. onwards, and secondly with the effects of the Greek
civilisation on the same.
* * * * *
=Polledrara ware.=—The Grotta d’ Iside or Polledrara tomb at Vulci
has been dated, on the authority of a scarab of Psammetichos I.
(656-611 B.C.) which it contained, towards the closing years of the
seventh century. This dating has been generally accepted, and there
seems no reason to doubt it, although the evidence of an isolated
scarab is not always as trustworthy as appears at first sight.
Besides local bronze work and objects of Egyptian or quasi-Egyptian
character, it contained one vase of unique character which calls for
special consideration.[2283]
This is a hydria of somewhat peculiar, if not unique form, with a very
wide body and rudimentary foot. In some details, especially in the
treatment of the handles, it exhibits obvious evidence of imitation of
metal-work. Although at first sight resembling _bucchero_ ware, the
clay is seen on examination to be of a different type, not being grey
but reddish brown in fracture, while the lustrous black surface is
produced by a thin coating or slip. It is decorated with designs in
three colours, red, blue, and a yellowish white, which were laid on the
black and then fired. The red is best preserved, the blue fairly so,
but the white has almost entirely disappeared.[2284] The designs are
arranged in three friezes, of which the lower consists only of isolated
bits of key-pattern. On the two upper rows are scenes from the story of
Theseus and Ariadne, together with Centaurs, Sphinxes, and other
accessory figures. On the upper row Theseus slays the Minotaur; on the
lower, Theseus and Ariadne are seen, firstly in a chariot, secondly
leading a dance of four other figures, the hero playing a lyre, while
Ariadne holds the clue.[2285] The colouring scheme is most elaborate,
and cannot be detailed here; an occasional use of incised lines may
also be noted.
A small two-handled cup or kylix,[2286] of a type often found at
Naukratis decorated with eyes, was also found in this tomb, and appears
to belong to the same class. The clay is similar to that of the hydria,
as is the decoration, which however, owing to the flaking off of the
black slip, has largely disappeared. Although in its technique it
resembles the hydria, the subjects and motives are probably derived
from Naukratis. Only a few other examples of this “Polledrara” ware are
known: an oinochoë in Berlin,[2287] two vases in the Louvre,[2288] and
a vase found at Cervetri, unpublished.[2289] From the contents of the
tomb in which the last-named was found, it may fairly be dated early in
the sixth century.
Mr. Cecil Smith regards the Polledrara hydria as the result of an
Italian attempt to imitate the new _bucchero_ technique which was at
this time being perfected (see below), the form of the vase being
borrowed from an Ionic source.[2290] Ionic influence (see above, p.
296) is visible in more than one respect in this vase, as also in the
reliefs decorating the bronze bust from the same tomb. Other details,
such as the imitation of metal-work, are rather to be referred to a
Corinthian source; and it is worthy of note that two Corinthian vases
were among the contents of the tomb.
The striving after a gaudy effect by the use of polychrome decoration,
and especially the employment of blue, a colour otherwise unknown in
vase-painting before the end of the fifth century, finds a parallel in
the sixth century poros-sculptures from the Athenian Acropolis, in
which even more violent effects of colour are attained, as in the
bright blue beard of the Triton. But in this case there seems little
doubt that the idea is borrowed from Egypt, with its fondness for
brightly decorated mummy-cases and bright blue images of faïence and
porcelain. Other details which betray an Egyptian origin are the lions’
masks, the all-pervading lotos-flower, and the seated dog or jackal.
The connecting link is no doubt the great trading centre of Naukratis,
through whose agency the Egyptian scarabs, porcelain objects, and
ostrich eggs found in this tomb also came to Etruria.
As a parallel to the Polledrara finds should here be cited the painted
terracotta panels from Caere now in the British Museum and Louvre,
which are certainly local products, and give a realistic representation
of the Etruscan people. They are described below (p. 319). These again,
both in subject and style, lead to a comparison with the large Etruscan
terracotta sarcophagi, of which the most remarkable is that in the
British Museum.[2291] Here, as in the Polledrara bronze bust, the rude
native attempts at sculpture in the round are combined with reliefs
which successfully reflect the style of Ionic art. Lastly, we note
another parallel in the paintings of animals on the walls of a tomb at
Veii.[2292]
Mr. Cecil Smith sums up: “The Polledrara ware was probably local
Italian, made at Caere under the combined influence of Ionian and
Naukratite imports, acting on an artistic basis principally derived
from Corinth.” Developed _pari passu_ with the red _impasto_ ware (of
which a painted example was found in the Vulci tomb), it gradually
gave way to the _bucchero_ ware with which we deal in our next
section. It only remains to note that similar ware has been found in
Rhodes,[2293] where also later wares of a genuine _bucchero_ type,
unpainted, have come to light; and these appear to be instances of a
counter-importation from Etruria to Asia Minor.
The only other piece of pottery from the Polledrara tomb which calls
for special comment is one to which reference has just been made, a
large _pithos_ of the primitive _impasto_ red ware, made on the wheel
(Plate LVI.). It falls into line with the painted and stamped fabrics
from Caere already described (p. 292 ff.), and is, like the hydria,
painted in polychrome, but the colours are much faded. The subjects are
a frieze of animals and a ship.
Three other tombs which rival the Polledrara in size and importance are
the Regulini-Galassi tomb at Caere,[2294] the Tomba del Duce at
Vetulonia,[2295] and the Bernardini tomb at Praeneste.[2296] Although
the finds of pottery herein were small, they are yet of great interest
for the history of Etruscan art in general, especially as they afford
evidence for approximate dating. In the two former Etruscan
inscriptions were found. The Caere and Praeneste tombs are probably the
earliest, about 650 B.C., and the Del Duce and Polledrara tombs are not
later than the end of the seventh century.
------------------------------------------------------
PLATE LVI
[Illustration:
EARLY ETRUSCAN POTTERY.
1. CAULDRON AND STAND OF RED WARE FROM FALERII; 2. PAINTED AMPHORA OF
RED WARE (POLLEDRARA TOMB)
(BRITISH MUSEUM).
]
------------------------------------------------------
In the Regulini-Galassi tomb the pottery takes the form of large
caldrons of red glazed ware, which mark a transitional stage between
the _impasto_ and _bucchero_. They are characterised by the large
Gryphons’ heads projecting in relief round the sides, to which are
attached chains. Sometimes they are supported on high open-work stands.
In 1892 the British Museum acquired a series of these and similar vases
(Plate LVI.), including some plain specimens of _bucchero_ ware from
early tombs at Civita Castellana (Falerii: see Vol. I. p. 75).
* * * * *
=Bucchero ware.=—This may be called the national pottery of Etruria.
Its technique is not at present perfectly known, and analysis does not
show certainly whether the black paste is natural or artificial. Modern
experiments have been made which seem to indicate that this result may
be obtained by fumigating or smoking the clay in a closed chamber after
the baking, which process blackens the clay throughout.[2297] But M.
Pottier[2298] thinks that the black surface was obtained not by
fumigation of the vase, but by applying a slip of pounded charcoal
already smoked, which at a moderate temperature would permeate the
clay. The surface was then covered with wax and resin, and polished,
like the Polledrara hydria. A combination of analyses of the paste made
by Brongniart[2299] gives the following result:
Silica 60-70 parts.
Clay earth 12-16 ”
Carbonate of lime 2-4 ”
Magnesia 1-2 ”
Water 8-10 ”
Carbon 1 -3 ”
The oldest _bucchero_ vases go back to the tombs _a fossa_ of the end
of the seventh century. They are small and hand-made, ornamented, if at
all, with geometric patterns, incised. The engraving was done by a sort
of toothed wheel or a sharp tool; more rarely, hollowed out in grooves.
Obviously the process is an imitation of metal engraving. Oriental
influence soon appears, first of all in the chalice-shaped cups found
at Cervetri, the surface of which is covered with figures of lions,
deer, etc., in Oriental style. Both form and decoration are derived
from metallic prototypes. The projecting Gryphons’ heads mentioned
above are also typical of this class.
In tombs of 560-500 B.C., along with Corinthian vases, a different type
occurs, the vases being wheel-made, of light and elegant forms—cups,
chalices, pyxides, amphorae, and jugs.[2300] The ornament is in the
form of reliefs, either stamped from a cylinder on a narrow band, as in
the red ware from Caere (see p. 292), or composed of a series of
medallions separately modelled or made from moulds and stuck on. This,
again, is an imitation of metal. Examples of these types are given in
Plate LVII. figs. 1-3, 5.
The subjects are not very varied. They range from animals such as stags
and lions, or monsters such as Sphinxes and Centaurs, to winged
deities, suppliants with offerings before deities, and other
mythological figures—Chimaera, the Asiatic Artemis, or the Minotaur.
Egyptian masks are also common. Episodes of hunts or banquets
occur,[2301] and also groups of figures in meaningless juxtaposition.
Some vases have only curvilinear patterns, such as palmettes, all of a
vegetable rather than a geometrical type. In this group the general
tendency is rather Hellenic than Oriental, especially towards Ionian
art.[2302] This is only a temporary phase, and is practically confined
to Cervetri, Veii, and Corneto—_i.e._ the maritime region in which the
Corinthian vases are found.
------------------------------------------------------
PLATE LVII
[Illustration:
ETRUSCAN BLACK WARE: HUT-URN AND BUCCHERO
(BRITISH MUSEUM).
]
------------------------------------------------------
At Chiusi an extraordinary development is manifested, which gradually
obtained a monopoly. The city was far from the sea and Hellenic
influences, and retained Oriental traditions. After the end of the
sixth century all the varieties of _bucchero_ were fused into one type,
which lasted down to the end of the fourth century.[2303] The shapes
include amphorae, trefoil-mouthed oinochoae, various forms of cups,
bowls with raised handles and ladles (kyathi), table-utensils, basins
imitating metal forms, braziers, and vases in the form of birds or
fishes. They are ornamented with reliefs from top to bottom, the
subjects being much the same as in the last group. The tops or covers
are often in the form of female or cows’ heads, or surmounted by birds
(cf. Plate LVII. fig. 5). The figures and ornaments are stamped in from
moulds and fixed by some adhesive medium, incised designs being
inserted to fill up the spaces. These reliefs are never found earlier
than the period of Attic importations.
The subjects are derived as before from Greek, Egyptian, and Assyrian
sources, the Oriental types being so much combined that they must
evidently have come through the Phoenicians. Among the Greek subjects
we find Theseus and the Minotaur, Perseus and the Gorgons, Pegasos and
the Chimaera, warriors, etc. The animals and the four-winged figures
are Assyrian in type, while Egypt supplies such types as Ptah, Anubis,
and other animal-headed deities, and the female heads on the so-called
Canopic jars.
There are here no signs of inventive genius. The technique is purely
native, but all is founded on foreign models.[2304] The shapes are
those of Ionia and the coast of Asia or of Athens. On the other hand,
the development of the technique from the Villanuova pottery is
certainly apparent. The Greeks, indeed, tried to imitate it at times,
and _bucchero_ ware is found at Rhodes and Naukratis. We may fairly lay
down that Etruscan invention is limited to the perfecting of the
technique and the combination of the borrowed elements and art-forms.
Many of the flat reliefs seem to be copied from ivories, and the
rounded reliefs are certainly from bronze _repoussé_ work; in some
cases we find traces of gilding, silvering, and colour, which have been
intended to reproduce the appearance of metal. Again, in many respects
the _bucchero_ vases are merely the counterparts of works in bronze, as
in the case of the braziers and the bowl with Caryatid supports given
in Plate LVII. fig. 2.[2305] In short, they reproduce for us what is
wanting in our knowledge of early Greek metal ware.[2306]
There seem to be some references to this early black ware in the Roman
poets, for Juvenal[2307] mentions it as being in use in the time of
Numa: “Who dared then,” he says, “to ridicule the ladle (_simpuvium_)
and black saucer of Numa?” Persius[2308] styles it _Tuscum fictile_,
and Martial[2309] imagines Porsena to have been quite content with his
dinner-service of Etruscan earthenware.
* * * * *
A peculiarly Etruscan type of vase which deserves some separate
attention is that known as the Canopic jar, resembling the so-called
κάνωποι in which the Egyptians placed the bowels of their
mummies.[2310] These Etruscan _canopi_ are rude representations of the
human figure, the heads, which are often attired in Egyptian fashion,
forming the covers. The eyes are sometimes inlaid, and the female heads
have large movable earrings and other adornments. In the tombs it was
customary to place these vases on round chairs of wood, bronze, or
terracotta. An example may be seen in the Etruscan Room of the British
Museum, where the chair is plated with bronze, covered with archaic
designs in _repoussé_ relief,[2311] and another is shown in Fig. 181.
Similar chairs were discovered in the _Tomba delle Sedie_ at Cervetri;
but the Canopic jars are almost confined to Chiusi. The type finds a
parallel in the so-called “owl-vases” from the second city at Hissarlik
(Vol. I. p. 258), in which the same combination of the vase-form with
the human figure is to be observed. The lower portion of the jar was
intended to receive the ashes of the dead, like the _ossuaria_, this
method of placing the mortal remains of a person within a
representation of himself being peculiarly Egyptian.
Signor Milani[2312] has traced the origin of the Canopic jars to the
funeral masks placed over the faces of the dead, which are sometimes
found in the earliest Etruscan tombs. This practice may have been
derived from Mycenae, where Schliemann found gold masks in the
shaft-tombs of the Agora; but in Etruria the examples are all in
bronze, except a few of terracotta.[2313] A gradual transition can be
observed from the mask, at first placed on the corpse and then attached
to the urn containing its ashes, to the head fashioned in the round and
assimilated with the cover; while in later times a further transition
may be observed from the vase with human head to the complete human
figure. Finally, its place was taken by the reclining effigies on the
covers of the sarcophagi (p. 320). The earliest jars are found in the
_pozzo_ tombs of the eighth century, the evolution of the head modelled
in the round being accomplished by the seventh century, and the archaic
types last down to about 550 B.C., when the severe perfected style
comes in, to be succeeded by the free style of the fifth century, after
which time the Canopic jars cease to be manufactured.
[Illustration:
From _Mus. di ant. class._
FIG. 181. CANOPIC JAR IN CHAIR PLATED WITH BRONZE.
]
The types are both male and female throughout, the latter being usually
distinguished by wearing earrings and necklaces. Towards the end of the
series the handles are gradually converted into rudimentary arms, and
finally into fully developed human arms, sometimes holding attributes.
They are probably placed on chairs as emblems of the power and
authority which the deceased enjoyed during his life. In the Berlin
Museum[2314] there is a remarkable example of the sixth century in
which the jar is placed on a chair of the same clay, covered with
_graffito_ ornamental designs and figures of animals. The jars are
always made of a plain red unglazed clay, and are uncoloured. In the
British Museum[2315] there are two seated female figures on detached
square bases, wearing bright red chitons and large circular earrings,
which seem to represent the period of transition from the jar to the
sarcophagus, the style in which they are modelled being that of the
fifth century. Some of the later examples have strongly individualised
features, and seem to be genuine portraits; it is possible that they
are actually from moulds taken from the faces of the dead.
(5) PERIOD OF GREEK INFLUENCE; PAINTED POTTERY
Although the Etruscans executed such admirable works in bronze,
exercised with such skill the art of engraving gems, and produced such
refined specimens of filagree-work in gold, they never attained to high
excellence in their pottery. The vases already described belong to
plastic rather than pictorial art, and are mostly imitations of work in
metal. Down to the end of the sixth century B.C. their attempts at
painting vases have been, as we have seen, limited practically to two
fabrics, the Polledrara ware and the Caere jars with paintings in a
similar technique. These methods have, however, nothing in common with
Greek vase-paintings of the ordinary kind on a glazed surface, a method
which was never popularised in Etruria.
The total failure of the Etruscans in vase-painting finds a curious
parallel in their sculpture; all their best work is to be sought in
their engraving or figures in low relief, as in the mirrors and
_cistae_. Yet the same mirrors and _cistae_ show clearly that it was
from no lack of ability in drawing that they failed; wherefore it is
the less easy to understand, not only the absence of all originality in
their painted vases, but also the rarity of instances of their
imitative tendencies in this respect.
Apparently the red-figured vases which were imported into Etruria in
such large numbers in the fifth century served as prototypes, not for
their paintings, but for the engraved mirrors to which we have alluded.
It may have been that they shrank from the task so successfully
achieved by Greek painters of suitably decorating the curved surfaces
of a vase, and preferred the flat even surfaces supplied by the
circular mirrors and the sides of the _cistae_. Moreover, the interior
designs of the kylikes, perfected by Epiktetos, Euphronios, and their
contemporaries, served as obvious models for disposing a design in a
circular space; and they had in the subjects of the vases a
mythological repertory ready to hand.
It now remains to be seen to what extent they actually were influenced
in their pottery by the imported Greek vases.
For considerably over a century painted pottery, at all times rare in
Etruria, is practically unrepresented in the tombs except by Greek
importations, Corinthian, Ionic, and Attic; the only local attempts in
this direction are the Polledrara and Cervetri vases. As we have seen,
early Corinthian vases appear in the _fossa_ tombs, and later
Corinthian in the chamber tombs, in which, towards the middle of the
sixth century, the Attic B.F. fabrics begin to make their appearance.
The latest developments of the Corinthian wares are, indeed, almost
unrepresented, but their place is taken by what appear to be local
imitations of the Corinthian vases, a large series of which was found
at Cervetri, and now forms part of the Campana collection in the
Louvre. These are, however, for the most part certainly Greek, being
presumably made by the Greek settlers in that town—at any rate, an
Etruscan origin cannot be proved for them.[2316]
We have also seen that the Ionian fabrics exercised a great influence
on Etruscan art, and this leads us to another series of vases found at
Cervetri, the Caeretan hydriae discussed in Chapter VIII. Some years
ago it was noticed by the late F. Dümmler[2317] that there were in many
museums examples of a class of vases which stood in close relation to
the Caeretan hydriae, yet were obviously a different fabric. Having
collected and examined these vases, he was able to demonstrate
satisfactorily that they were direct imitations by the Etruscans of the
Caeretan hydriae,[2318] thereby proving at the same time that the
latter were imported from other sources (_sc._ Ionia), and not, as had
hitherto been supposed, themselves of Italian origin. It is not
unlikely that the Ionic influence in Etruria is due to the Phocaean
migration of 544 B.C.; on reaching Italy the Ionian fugitives would
naturally hand on their art-traditions there.
------------------------------------------------------
PLATE LVIII
[Illustration: ETRUSCAN IMITATIONS OF GREEK VASES (BRITISH MUSEUM).]
------------------------------------------------------
These Etruscan vases are not exclusively hydriae, some being amphorae,
others kyathi; but they all bear the unmistakable stamp of Etruscan art
in the drawing of the figures and other small details, such as the
treatment of the incised lines. It will further be noticed that the
drawing is in most cases quite free from archaism, figures being often
drawn in full face or correct profile; and this consequently proves
that they belong to a considerably later date than the fabrics which
they imitate, although the figures are always in black on a red ground.
The style in some cases is not unlike that of the later Panathenaic
amphorae of the fourth century, and may also be compared with some of
the bronze cistae from Palestrina. Accessory pigments are rare, and the
incised lines are sketchy and careless; great prominence is given to
the bands of ornament bordering the designs, this being a feature
borrowed from the Caeretan hydriae. On a large amphora in the British
Museum (B 64) the characteristic Caeretan band of lotos-flowers and
palmettes is exactly reproduced, though in black instead of
polychrome.[2319] Other typical ornaments are the maeander and
chevrons; ivy-leaves and sprigs shooting up from the ground;
lotos-buds, and wreaths of all kinds. The subjects are limited in
range, and thoroughly Etruscan in feeling; Pegasi and beardless
Centaurs with human forelegs, Bacchic subjects, and genre scenes, such
as athletic contests, combats, or funeral ceremonies (Plate LVIII.),
almost complete the list. The turned-up shoes and the pointed _tutuli_
worn by the women, as well as the physiognomy of the figures, with
their receding foreheads, are all characteristically Etruscan, though
the two former details are borrowed from Ionia.[2320] The shapes of the
vases are heavy and inartistic, and the effect altogether unpleasing. A
list of the principal examples is here appended.[2321]
When at last the imitative instincts of the Etruscans did in course of
time impel them to turn their fancy to copying the red-figured vases,
we find the same characteristics reproduced. The number of such
imitations is not large, but they are unmistakable, not only from the
style, but from the pale yellow clay, dull black glaze, and bizarre
character of the ornamentation. Nevertheless, in some cases fairly good
results are obtained, as in the B.M. kylix F 478, which in its interior
design at all events is an obvious attempt to imitate the work of the
great Athenian kylix-painters. The artist seems to have learned his art
from the school of Hieron and Brygos, but his Etruscan instincts are
revealed in the over-elaboration and stiff mannerisms of the drawing.
The Museum also possesses a very fine krater from Falerii (F 479),
which appears to be an example of a local school,[2322] imitating the
red-figured vases of the “fine” period and large style. But these
comparatively successful imitations are exceptional.
The other red-figured Etruscan vases are far inferior, and are executed
in a style which none can fail to recognise. It is dry and lifeless in
the extreme, the drawing helpless, and the whole effect repulsive and
disagreeable, as is so often the case with Etruscan art. These vases
are not earlier than the third century B.C., and may be later. In them
we observe, besides Greek mythological subjects, the introduction of
local deities such as Charun and Ker. The British Museum possesses some
ten examples of this class, in addition to the two already described.
The most interesting is a krater (F 480 = Plate LVIII.), with, on one
side, the death of Aktaeon, designated by his Etruscan name _Ataiun_;
on the other, Ajax, designated _Aifas_, throwing himself upon his
sword, after the award of the armour of Achilles.
Another vase of this class has for its subject the farewell of Admetos
and Alkestis,[2323] with Etruscan inscriptions accompanying the
figures, and a speech issuing from the mouth of one of them. Behind
Admetos is one of the demons of the Etruscan hell, probably intended
for Hades or Thanatos, wearing a short tunic and holding in each hand a
snake. Behind Alkestis is Charun with his mallet. On another vase found
at Vulci[2324] Ajax is represented slaying a Trojan prisoner in the
presence of Charun; and on the reverse the latter appears again with
Penthesileia and two other women. On a third[2325] Leda is represented
showing Tyndareus the egg from which Helen and Klytaemnestra were
destined to be born; it is inscribed _Elinai_, the Etruscan form of
Helen.
The latest specimens of these fabrics, which have been found at Orvieto
and Orbetello, positively degenerate into barbarism[2326]; the figures
are carelessly and roughly painted, and white is extensively used as an
accessory, as in the later Apulian and Campanian vases. The subjects
are usually borrowed from the infernal regions, and the gruesome figure
of Charun is common.
Inscriptions on Etruscan vases are rare as compared with Greek, and in
many cases have only been scratched in after the vase was made. There
are also instances of imported Greek vases on which Etruscan
inscriptions have been incised in this manner, as in the case of a vase
in the form of a lion in the British Museum (A 1137, from Veii), on
which is incised [FΕΛΘΥΡ] [ἉΘΙΣΝΑΣ], _felthur hathisnas_. The earliest
known are incised on plain pots of black ware, and several of these
take the form of what are known as _abecedaria_, or alphabets. Strictly
speaking, some of these alphabets are of Hellenic origin, and do not
give the forms of the Etruscan letters as they are known to us; but as
the latter are derived from the Greek (western group), probably through
Cumae (see above, p. 295) these inscriptions would naturally represent
their original forms in Etruria.
In 1882 an amphora was discovered at Formello near Veii,[2327] on which
this Greek alphabet is written twice from left to right, together with
a retrograde Etruscan inscription, and a “syllabary” or spelling
exercise. The alphabet is as follows: α, β, γ, δ, ε, ϝ, ζ, _h_, θ, ι,
κ, λ, μ, ν, [samech,], ο, π, Ϻ, ϙ, ρ, σ, τ, υ, [X], φ, ψ. This is the
most complete _abecedarium_ extant, containing twenty-six letters and
illustrating the archaic Greek forms of the twenty-two Phoenician
letters in their Semitic order. The four additional ones are υ, [X] ( =
ξ), φ, and ψ ( = χ). The character [X] is the representative of
_samech_, and is not found in Greek inscriptions; Ϻ is _shin_ or _san_
(cf. p. 247).
The Caere alphabet, on a vase now in the Museo Gregoriano, is also
combined with an Etruscan syllabary, consisting of such forms as _bi_,
_ba_, _bu_, _be_, _gi_, _ga_, _gu_, _ge_, etc.[2328]; the alphabet
resembles that from Formello, except for the omission of the ϙ, and the
[san], of the same type, extending as far as ο, was found at Colle near
Siena.[2329] On another small black jar also found at Caere, and now in
the Museo Gregoriano,[2330] is incised an Etruscan inscription in two
lines, in which also the letters are certainly early Greek rather than
Etruscan; these two from Caere must be of the same date as the
Regulini-Galassi tomb, about 650-600 B.C.
[Illustration: FIG. 182. ETRUSCAN ALPHABET, FROM A VASE.]
The two following, however, are genuine Etruscan _abecedaria_: one from
the foot of a cup found at Bomarzo,[2331] on which the alphabet runs
(retrograde): α, γ, ε, ϝ, ζ, η, θ, ι, λ , μ, ν, π, Ϻ, ρ, σ, τ, υ, φ, χ,
φ, the other in the museum at Grosseto,[2332] in which the letters are
practically the same, but with the addition of κ and ϙ. In the first
named the form ζ for Z should be noted, and in both occur the _san_ and
two forms of φ, which in Etruscan generally appears as [Etrusan phi].
Among other instances of early Etruscan inscriptions are that on the
Louvre vase from Caere, with white paintings on red ground (D 151: see
p. 294), which dates from the seventh century; and on objects from the
Regulini-Galassi and Del Duce tombs (pp. 295, 300). They are, however,
very rare on the pottery of the next two centuries, with the exception
of those incised on the plain pottery, which bear no essential relation
to the vase itself.[2333] These, as has been noted, are also found on
imported Greek wares, one of the best instances being the kylix of
Oltos and Euxitheos, at Corneto,[2334] on the foot of which is an
inscription of thirty-eight letters not divided into words.
Occasionally also painted inscriptions are found.[2335]
When, however, we come to the imitation Greek vases of the third and
second centuries, we find a curious reversion to the old Greek practice
of inscribing the names of the figures and even sentences on the
paintings themselves. Some of these have already been mentioned. The
best example is afforded by the krater with Admetos and Alkestis, on
which the names of the two principals are given as [ΑΤΜΙΤΕ], _Atmite_,
and [ΑΛCΣΤΙ], _Alcsti_; while by the side of the figure of Charun is a
long inscription 15[46]ΕΓΗ: 15[72]ΕΑΣΓΕ: 15[56]ΝΑΓ: 15[94]ΑΤΔΛΜ:
14[96]ΦΛΕΔΟΔΓΕ On the vase with Ajax and Penthesileia the names are
given as [ΑΙFΑΣ], [ΨΑΔΥ], [ΠΕΝΤΑΣΙΛΑ], and [ἹΝΘΙΑΛ] [TYRMYGAS]. On a
vase mentioned by Gerhard, Nike inscribes on a shield the word [ΑΝΣΑΛ],
_Lasna_.[2336]
§ 2. ETRUSCAN TERRACOTTA WORK
It remains to say a few words on the other uses of clay among the
Etruscans. This subject has indeed been discussed to some extent in
Chapter III., regarding the use of clay in general in classical times.
But there are some features of work in terracotta which are peculiar to
this people. For their extensive use of this material we are quite
prepared by the evidence of the pottery found in their tombs, which
shows that they understood the processes of manufacture perfectly, even
if they failed in their attempts at decoration. As we shall see, they
employed it constantly, not only for finer works of art, but for
ordinary and more utilitarian purposes. This we know not only from the
existing remains, but from many passages of ancient writers, who speak
of the Etruscan preference for clay and their skill in its use.
Pliny, in particular, speaks of the art of modelling in clay as
“brought to perfection in Italy, and especially in Etruria.”[2337] He
attributes its introduction to the three craftsmen whom Demaratos
brought with him from Corinth in the seventh century B.C.—Eucheir,
Eugrammos, and Diopos—whom he styles _fictores_.[2338] This story of
its origin need not, of course, be implicitly believed; nor, on the
other hand, need the statement of Tatian,[2339] who, followed in modern
times by Campana and other Italian writers, claimed for Italy a
priority over Greece in the art of making terracotta figures. For their
statues the Etruscans certainly seem to have preferred clay to any
other material. Although few of these have descended to us, there are
many passages in Roman literature which imply their excellence, and it
is chiefly from these that our knowledge of Etruscan statues in
terracotta is derived. The Romans, unable themselves to execute such
works, were obliged to employ Etruscan artists for the decoration of
their temples, as in the notable instance of that of Jupiter on the
Capitol. A certain Volca of Veii[2340] was employed by Tarquinius
Priscus, about 509 B.C., to make the statue of the god, which was of
colossal proportions, and was painted vermilion, the colour being
solemnly renewed from time to time. The same artist made the famous
chariot on the pediment of the temple, which, instead of contracting in
the furnace, swelled to such an extent that the roof had to be taken
off. This circumstance was held to prognosticate the future greatness
of Rome.[2341] Volca also made a figure of Hercules in the Forum
Boarium, and we read that Numa consecrated a statue of Janus[2342]; but
the material in the latter case is not actually specified as terracotta.
Pliny goes on to say that such statues existed in many places even in
his day. He also speaks of numerous temples in Rome and other towns
with remarkable sculptured pediments and cornices; the existing remains
of some of these will presently be discussed. There is no doubt that
the use of terracotta for the external decoration of temples was even
more general in Etruria than in Greece; and, whereas in Greece it
ceased in the fifth century, in Etruria it lasted down to Roman times.
The use of bricks in Etruria seems to have belonged entirely to the
time when it had lost its independence, under Roman dominion. For
instance, the brick walls of Arretium, which are highly spoken of by
Pliny and Vitruvius,[2343] do not belong to the Etruscan, but to the
later city; and although Gell alleged that he saw tufa walls with a
substructure of tiling at Veii, Dennis sought for these in vain[2344];
even a pier of a bridge resting on tiles which he found there proved to
be later work. For buildings and for tombs the principal material seems
to have been tufa, but the tiles of the roofs were probably of
terracotta, as were sometimes those used for covering tombs.[2345]
Etruscan temples were also largely built of wood, with a covering of
terracotta slabs, as the evidence of recent excavations shows. This
method of decoration, which, as we saw in a previous chapter (Vol. I.
p. 100), was largely practised in Italy and Sicily, and even spread
thence to Greece, as at Olympia, is not alluded to by Vitruvius in his
description of Etruscan temples (iv. 7), although he speaks of the
wooden construction of the roofs; but he alludes to _antepagmenta_
fixed on the front of the temples, which may refer to the terracotta
slabs.[2346] Earlier restorations made after his descriptions are
imperfect in this respect, only regarding construction and not
decorative effect.[2347] It is at any rate clear that the roof had a
pediment on the front only, the other three sides projecting over and
forming eaves, round which hung the pendent slabs (see below); they
were not required in front because of the portico. Araeostyle temples,
the same writer tells us, had wooden architraves and pediments,
ornamented with sculpture in terracotta. The cinerary urns often supply
evidence as to the construction of the roofs, with their exact
imitation of tiles.
We have now remains of at least four temples built in this method, or,
rather, of their terracotta decoration: from Cervetri in Berlin, from
Civita Lavinia in the British Museum (Plates II.-III.), from Alatri
(1882), and from Falerii or Civita Castellana (1886).[2348] Other
remains of architectural terracotta work come from Orvieto,[2349]
Pitigliano,[2350] and Luni (see below), and from Conca or
Satricum,[2351] the latter being chiefly antefixal ornaments of the
ordinary Italian types. The Cervetri remains consist of roof-tiles,
antefixal ornaments with figures in relief in front, and friezes with
chariots and warriors.[2352] Portions of a similar frieze from the same
site are in the British Museum,[2353] as are also three antefixes in
the same style as one in Berlin from Cervetri (Plate LIX.).[2354] They
belong to the fifth century, and illustrate a later development from
the ordinary archaic type—idealised female heads or heads of Satyrs
with rich polychrome decoration. Another example in Berlin appears to
represent Juno Sospita.[2355] The friezes are a good example of the
Italo-Ionic style of the end of the sixth century, the points of
comparison with the Chalcidian and other B.F. vases being particularly
noteworthy.[2356]
But for information on the form of the Etruscan temple these are too
fragmentary to be of any use. The remains from Alatri, Civita
Castellana, and Civita Lavinia are much more illuminating. The
last-named, of which some description has already been given (Vol. I.
p. 101), are partly archaic, partly of the fourth century, the two
former wholly of the later date; but allowing for differences of style,
the general arrangement was in all cases practically the same. The
front of the temple was in the form of a pediment supported on columns,
with ornamental raking cornices, and _akroteria_ in the form of figures
or groups. Along the sides and back ran gutters, with lion-head spouts
at intervals, faced by upright cornices, with pendent plates of
terracotta, or “barge-boards” hanging free and ornamented with patterns
in relief. These were for protection against weather, like the edgings
to the roofs of Swiss châlets and modern railway stations. The practice
was quite un-Greek, and peculiar to Etruria. The antefixal ornaments
were continued along the sides above the cornice. The architraves were
also ornamented with terracotta slabs, on which were palmette patterns;
and thus the whole formed a rich and continuous system of terracotta
plating which completely covered the woodwork of the architraves and
roof. All the slabs were ornamented with coloured patterns in relief,
or simply painted on a white slip, such as maeanders, tongue,
scale-pattern, lotos-flowers, or various forms of the palmette.
* * * * *
------------------------------------------------------
PLATE LIX
[Illustration:
1. ETRUSCAN ANTEFIX (FIFTH CENT.)
2. ETRUSCAN SARCOPHAGUS (THIRD CENT.)
(BRITISH MUSEUM).
]
------------------------------------------------------
The existing remains of Etruscan monumental sculpture in clay are, as
has been indicated, not large. Some of the architectural antefixes are
almost important enough to be included under this head, especially
those in the form of figures or groups modelled almost in the round.
These belong mostly to the fifth century B.C., and the finest example
is the group in the Berlin Museum from the Cervetri find already
mentioned, representing Eos carrying off Kephalos[2357]; it is in the
style of about 480 B.C. A smaller but still very effective example is
the antefix from Civita Lavinia in the British Museum, representing a
Satyr and Maenad awaiting the advent of Dionysos (Plate II.).[2358]
With these must be reckoned the sculptured friezes from Cervetri in the
British and Berlin Museums, and the reliefs on the British Museum
sarcophagus from the same site.[2359] In all these the same prevalence
of Ionic Greek influence may be observed, which is characteristic of so
much Etruscan work of the late archaic period, both in terracotta and
bronze, as in the reliefs of the Polledrara bust.[2360] This influence,
which is due to the strong Hellenic element in the civilisation of
Caere and the Campanian cities, we have also seen at work in the
vase-paintings of the period.[2361]
One of the earliest instances, and perhaps the most remarkable, of
Etruscan clay modelling in the round, for its size and execution, is
the group on the top of the famous sarcophagus in the British Museum
(Fig. 183).[2362] The figures, a man and woman reclining on a couch,
are life-size, of somewhat slender proportions, with smiling features,
the drapery of the woman stiff and formal. Sir Charles Newton has
described the style as “archaic, the treatment throughout very
naturalistic, in which a curious striving after truth in anatomical
details gives animation to the group, in spite of the extreme
ungainliness of form and ungraceful composition.” The same difficulties
that beset the sculptor of the Polledrara bust, in working in the round
instead of relief, are visible here; and the contrast with the Hellenic
style of the reliefs round the lower part is very marked. There are
similar sarcophagi in the Louvre, and in the Museo Papa Giulio at
Rome.[2363] M. Martha notes in regard to the figures on the former that
the faces are remarkable for individuality and precision of type, but
the limbs are stiff and rude. This is not an infrequent feature of
early Greek art.[2364] Signor Savignoni claims these three monuments as
purely Ionic Greek work, but repudiates much of the British Museum
sarcophagus as un-antique.
[Illustration: FIG. 183. ARCHAIC TERRACOTTA SARCOPHAGUS (BRITISH
MUSEUM).]
Of later sculpture in terracotta the instances are comparatively few,
by far the best being the pedimental sculptures from Luni in Northern
Tuscany, discovered in 1842, and now at Florence.[2365] Their date is
about 200 B.C., and they include figures of the Olympian deities,
Muses, and a group of Apollo and Artemis slaying the Niobides. A few
remains of similar figures were found at Orvieto.[2366]
[Illustration:
FIG. 184. PAINTED TERRACOTTA SLAB FROM TOMB
(LOUVRE).
]
It may be convenient to speak here of a small group of monuments in
terracotta which illustrate in an interesting manner the achievements
of Etruscan painting in the archaic period. This is a series of
terracotta slabs, which were inserted into the walls of small tombs at
Cervetri to receive the painted decoration which the Etruscans
considered such an important feature of their sepulchral
arrangements.[2367] Two sets have been found, one of which is in the
Louvre, the other in the British Museum; both are of similar character,
and belong to the beginning of the sixth century, but the style varies
in some degree. Fig. 184 gives one of the slabs in the Louvre.
The surface of the slabs was covered with the usual white slip or
λεύκωμα of early Greek paintings,[2368] on which the designs were
sketched with a point and filled in with red and black outlines or
washes. The white ground was left for the flesh of women and for white
drapery, the flesh of the men being coloured red. Of the two the Louvre
slabs seem the more advanced, and more directly under Ionic influence,
while the others are more provincial in character. The Caeretan hydriae
seem to have left some traces on the former, and in the latter it is
interesting to note the use of borders of white dots for the drapery,
such as we see on the Daphnae vases (Vol. I. p. 352).
These paintings may also be compared with those in the Grotta Campana
at Veii (Vol. I. p. 39), which, in spirit at any rate, if not in date,
are the oldest examples of Etruscan painting, while still under
Oriental influence. But not being works in terracotta, they do not
strictly concern us here.
* * * * *
Although the more important sarcophagi of the Etruscans were made of
alabaster, tufa, and peperino, a considerable number, principally of
small size, were of terracotta. All of these belong to a late stage of
Etruscan art. Some few were large enough to receive a body laid at full
length. Two large sarcophagi, from a tomb at Vulci, now in the British
Museum, may be taken as typical.[2369] The lower part, which held the
body, is shaped like a rectangular bin or trough, about three feet high
and as many wide. On the covers are recumbent Etruscan women, modelled
at full length. One has both its cover and chest divided into two
portions, probably because it was found that masses of too large a size
failed in the baking. The edges at the point of division are turned up,
like flange tiles. These have on their fronts in one case dolphins, in
the other branches of trees, incised with a tool in outline. Other
sarcophagi of the same dimensions are imitations of the larger ones of
stone. Many of the smaller sort, which held the ashes of the dead, are
of the same shape, the body being a small rectangular chest, while the
cover presents a figure of the deceased in a reclining posture. They
generally have in front a composition in relief, freely modelled in the
later style of Etruscan art, the subject being often of funeral import:
such as the last farewell to the dead; combats of heroes (Plate LIX.),
especially that of Eteokles and Polyneikes; a battle in which an
unarmed hero is fighting with a ploughshare[2370]; the parting of
Admetos and Alkestis in the presence of Death and Charun; and the
slaying of the dragon by Kadmos at the fountain of Ares.[2371] Some few
have a painted roof. All these were painted in _tempera_ upon a white
ground, in bright and vivid tones, producing a gaudy effect. The
inscriptions were also traced in paint, and rarely incised. A good and
elaborate example of the colouring of terracotta occurs in the
recumbent figure on a small sarcophagus in the British Museum (Plate
LIX.).[2372] Here the flesh is red, the eyes black, the hair red, the
wreath green, and the drapery of the figure is white, with purple and
crimson borders; the phiale which the figure holds is yellow (to
imitate gilding), and the cushions on which he reclines are red and
blue. This system of colouring is maintained to an even greater degree
in the relief on the front of the sarcophagus, the subject of which is
a combat of five warriors. The background is coloured indigo, and every
detail is rendered in colour, except the nude parts, which are covered
with a white slip throughout. The pigments employed are red, yellow,
black, green, and purple, and the inscription above is painted in brown
on white, all the colours being marvellously fresh and well preserved;
but the general effect is gaudy, fantastic, and scarcely appropriate.
It may also be said in regard to the whole series that the subjects are
monotonous and unpleasing, and the compositions crowded to excess.
By far the finest example of these terracotta sarcophagi is one found
at Cervetri not many years ago, now in the British Museum (Plate
LX.).[2373] It is known from the inscription in front to be the last
resting-place of a lady named Seianti Thanunia, whose effigy,
life-size, adorns the top—a most realistic specimen of Etruscan
portrait-sculpture, and in splendid preservation. Within the lower part
her skeleton is still preserved, together with a series of silver
utensils. A very similar specimen, that of Larthia Seianti, is in the
Museum at Florence,[2374] and from the coins found therewith the date
of these two may be fixed at about 150 B.C. The figure of the lady was
cast in two halves, the joint being below the hips; she is represented
as a middle-aged matron, her head veiled in a mantle which she draws
aside with her right hand. In her left she holds a mirror in an open
case; she wears a _sphendone_ in her hair, and much jewellery. On the
right arm are bracelets, and on the left hand six rings, the bezels of
which are painted purple to imitate sard-stones; in her ears are
pendants painted to imitate amber set in gold. The nude parts are
painted flesh-colour, and colouring is freely employed throughout, the
cushions being painted in stripes. The dimensions of the sarcophagus
itself are 6 ft. by 2 ft. by 1 ft. 4 in.; it has no reliefs on the
front, but is ornamented with pilasters, triglyphs, and quatrefoils.
For antefixal ornaments, masks, and the decoration of the smaller
sarcophagi and other products of ordinary industry, the clay seems to
have been invariably made in the form of a mould; but for the larger
sarcophagi and the Canopic figures a rough clay model was made by hand
and itself baked. Probably both processes were employed
concurrently—large statues, for instance, being made in several pieces;
in these it will generally be noted that the head and torso are
modelled more carefully than the limbs.
------------------------------------------------------
PLATE LX
[Illustration: SARCOPHAGUS OF SEIANTI THANUNIA (SECOND CENT. B.C.)
(BRIT. MUS.)]
------------------------------------------------------
M. Martha[2375] explains the invariable colouring of Etruscan
terracottas on the supposition that the Etruscans did not profess to
make figures in this material, but looked down on it as a common
substance, to be concealed wherever possible. However this may be, the
polychromy was not only a necessary artifice, but an admirable means of
imparting life and realism to the figures. In the archaic period there
is much less variety, yellow, red, brown, and black being the only
colours employed as a rule.[2376] The dark red pigment usually applied
for flesh-colour on the sarcophagi may suggest the _minium_ with which
the statue of Jupiter Capitolinus was smeared. In later work the tints
are lighter and much more varied, as we have seen, and this is
especially noticeable on the figures from the Luni pediments, in which
rose, yellow, green, and blue are employed with the same delicate
_nuances_ that we see in the Tanagra figures.
§ 3. SOUTHERN ITALY
In dealing with the indigenous non-Hellenic people of Southern Italy
and their pottery, we are almost more at a disadvantage than in regard
to the Etruscans. The peoples are almost unknown to us, and are vaguely
characterised as “Iapygian,” “Messapian,” “Oscan,” and so on; but this
does not really carry us much further. Moreover, this part of Italy has
never been scientifically or thoroughly excavated, like Etruria, and
even where finds have been made they are small and poor; nothing of
very remote date appears to have come to light, and very few early
Greek importations. Hence there has been until quite recently no
attempt made at a scientific study of the pottery, or even to
distinguish local from imported wares; in Heydemann’s catalogue of the
Naples vases it is practically ignored. Recently, however, Herr Max
Mayer, and Signor Patroni, whose laudable investigations of the
Graeco-Italian vases have already received attention (Chapter XI.),
have turned their attention to the study of the less promising
indigenous fabrics.[2377]
The region with which the present section deals is that comprised by
the three districts of Apulia, Lucania, and Campania. The barbarian
races by which it was occupied in classical times were known by various
names, used with some vagueness; but roughly we may divide them into
two groups: the Iapygians or Messapians and the Peucetians, occupying
the south-east portion of the peninsula from modern Bari to the end of
the “heel”[2378]; and the Osco-Samnites, who occupied Campania and the
mountainous district of Samnium on its north-eastern border. In Lucania
the district of Sala Consilina has yielded local pottery.[2379] The
Osco-Samnites appear to have been more amenable to the influence of
Greek civilisation than the others, owing to the existence in their
midst of such centres of culture as Cumae, Capua, and Poseidonia
(Paestum); hence we find that the pottery of that region shows a much
more Hellenic character than that of Apulia, and is more like that of
Etruria in its attempts to imitate the Greek imported fabrics (see Vol.
I. p. 484).
Greek painted vases are found in Southern Italy as early as the seventh
century B.C., though even in “Aegean” times they had penetrated as far
as Sicily, and even Marseilles (see Vol. I. pp. 69, 86).[2380] At Cumae
in particular, and also at Nola, “Proto-Corinthian” and Corinthian
wares have been found; during the sixth century Ionic and Attic B.F.
wares make their appearance, but never in large quantities, as in
Etruria. They, however, gave rise to a class of imitative fabrics found
chiefly in Campania: small amphorae and other forms rudely painted with
black silhouettes, dating from the fifth century. At Tarentum the finds
of vases have been mainly Greek, but even these are comparatively rare.
The principal examples of local wares are to be seen in the museums of
Bari, Lecce, Taranto, and Naples; the British Museum, Louvre, and
Berlin only possess isolated specimens.[2381] The general scarcity of
imports is due, Signor Patroni thinks, to the restricted intercourse
between the colonies on the coast and the interior districts peopled by
hostile local tribes. After the fifth century, when large numbers of
Greek artists were established in the towns of Southern Italy, the
circumstances became different, and we have already made in Chapter XI.
a general survey of the various fabrics produced from that time in the
various centres down to the total decay of the art.
All Italiote pottery, before this direct influence of Hellenism made
itself felt, may be called “archaic”; but it must at the same time be
borne in mind that these archaic types still went on during the time of
Greek influence. They formed, in fact, a “domestic” style, as opposed
to the “high-art” style of the Graeco-Italian wares, just as the early
Geometrical pottery of Athens is thought to have been in relation to
the Mycenaean vases (see Vol. I. p. 279). They must not, however, be
regarded—as has been done by some writers—as deliberate archaistic
revivals of older fabrics. It is true that they bear a remarkable
resemblance in many cases to Aegean, Cypriote, and Geometrical wares;
but this likeness is due to other causes, being the result of
development, not of direct imitation. A learned Italian, on first
seeing some of the local pottery excavated in Apulia, exclaimed, “This
is the Mycenaean style of Italy.” Chronologically and ethnographically
he was wrong, but artistically he was right; and as Signor Patroni has
pointed out, parallels to nearly all the ornamental motives of local
Apulian fabrics may be traced in Mycenaean pottery.
There is also a favourite shape, that of a large double-mouthed
_askos_, examples of which may be seen in the British Museum (F 508 =
Fig. 185, and F 509), which is obviously derived directly from the
Mycenaean “false-necked amphora” (see Vol. I. p. 271). It is not a
Hellenic type, although it is the forerunner of a form of askos found
among the painted vases of Apulia.[2382] Another favourite form, which
Signor Patroni calls the _orcio appulo_, a jar with three vertical
handles round the nearly spherical body, and wide-spreading mouth, may
similarly be derived from the Mycenaean three-handled _pyxis_ (Vol. I.
p. 272). Other forms, again, are parallel with those of Cyprus, as is
in some cases the system of geometrical decoration, a figure or pattern
in a panel with borders of geometrical ornament.
The writers above-mentioned distinguish two main classes of the local
pottery of Apulia (including the south-eastern extremity or “heel” of
Italy). The central portion of this district was inhabited by a tribe
known as the Peucetii, and the extremity by Messapians, or, as they are
also styled, Iapygians. The vases, which appear to be the product of
the latter race, are found in various places—such as Brindisi, Egnazia
or Fasano, Lecce, Nardo, Ostuni, Otranto, Putignano, Rugge, Taranto,
and Uzento—and they may best be studied in the museum at Bari. The
pottery of the Peucetii, which Signor Patroni calls Apulian, covers the
region round Bari, including Putignano on the south, Bitonto and Ruvo
on the north, where the local civilisation seems to have been modified
by the influence of such centres as Canosa.
[Illustration: FIG. 185. ASKOS OF LOCAL APULIAN FABRIC (BRITISH
MUSEUM).]
The typical form of Messapian pottery is a krater with high angular
handles, at the highest and lowest points of which are pairs of discs
(_rotelle_), a spherical body, and neck sloping inwards, without lip.
The form is one which, as we have seen in Chapter XI., was adopted by
the Greek vase-painters in Lucania at a later date.[2383] Mayer states
that this form is only found in the “heel” of Italy, but Patroni seems
to imply that it is typical of Central Apulia.[2384] It is painted in
two colours—purple-red and dark brown or black; but the former colour
is not found in the earlier examples. The decoration includes simple
geometrical or vegetable patterns, such as wreaths, panels of
lozenge-pattern, zigzags, and an ornament composed of two triangles
point to point [hourglass], which Mayer calls the “hour-glass“
ornament. The more developed examples have figures in panels, ranging
from rows of ducks to human figures. Among these are a man gathering
fruit from a tree and two stags confronted. Lenormant published two
very interesting specimens in the Louvre, one of which has two cocks
confronted, the other a man swimming accompanied by a dolphin.[2385]
The latter, with others of the same class, styled by Lenormant
“Iapygian,” appear to be imitations of B.F. amphorae[2386]; but if they
are imitations they must be almost contemporaneous with their
prototypes, and cannot be later than the fifth century. The man with
the dolphin recalls the story of Taras and the coin-types of Tarentum;
but Lenormant pointed out that a similar legend was current relating to
Iapys, the eponymous hero of Iapygia,[2387] and he may therefore be
intended. Some of these vases have painted inscriptions, one of which
runs, [ΙΑΡ]; but they are apparently nothing more than names, partly
Hellenised.
Among other shapes are a kind of askos with simple decoration, a jug or
pitcher with discs attached to the handles, also with simple patterns,
and a unique variety of the krater with four flat-topped
column-handles. Signor Patroni[2388] calls attention to another class
of Messapian vases from which the geometrical decorative element is
absent, the ornament being arranged in bands of equal width, and
varying between linear and natural forms. A characteristic motive is a
sort of chain-pattern. The wave and rows of pomegranate-buds also
occur, and animals, such as dogs and dolphins; also human heads and
figures. The shapes are either the double-necked askos, as given in
Fig. 185, with an arched handle between the mouths, or a kind of double
situla, formed of two jars on a cylindrical stand with a vertical
handle between.
As Mayer has pointed out, there cannot here be any question of a very
ancient class of vases, but rather of one of eclectic character. The
Geometrical tendency appears chiefly in the north of the district,
where the influence of Peucetia (see below) was felt. The vegetable
ornaments, he suggests, have affinities with those of “Rhodian”
vases.[2389] The date can hardly be earlier than the fifth century.
[Illustration:
From _Notizie degli Scavi_.
FIG. 186. KRATER OF “PEUCETIAN” FABRIC WITH GEOMETRICAL DECORATION.
]
The fabrics of Central or Peucetian Apulia centre, as has been noted,
round Bari. They are all of a strongly Geometrical type, but the system
of ornamentation is freer and more varied than in the Messapian class.
They are easily recognisable by their forms and characteristic designs,
painted only in brown or black. Here, again, the typical form is a
krater, in which the handles are either arched in vertical fashion or
else form flat bands. It has a shallow, spreading lip. The patterns are
arranged in panels and bands, and are often executed with great care.
Fig. 186 gives an example from Sala Consilina in Lucania.[2390] The
favourite motives are chequers, zigzags, the “hour-glass,” hook-armed
crosses, and lozenges filled with reticulated pattern, neatly arranged
in friezes or saltire-wise. Round the lower part of the vase is often
found what may be described as a comb-pattern, and on some vases is a
curious rudimentary form of the maeander, arranged in triangles or
diagonal crosses. Among the other shapes are a small askos with
ring-handle on the back, a sort of high stand like a fruit-dish, large
cups and bowls, and the _orcio_ already mentioned. One of the finest
examples is a krater from Ruvo in the Jatta collection,[2391] with
twisted handles and a very elaborate system of ornamentation, chiefly
diaper and maeander patterns.
Like the Messapian, the Peucetian or Apulian pottery seems to have
flourished during the fifth century[2392]; but there are some vases
which seem to form connecting-links with their Hellenic prototypes, and
probably belong to the sixth century.[2393] In any case, both fabrics
must be regarded as much earlier than previously supposed; they are
certainly not late archaistic work, and time must be allowed for their
disappearance when the Hellenic fabrics of Apulia begin. In placing the
majority of the products between 600 and 450 B.C., we shall probably
not be far from the truth, although M. Pottier[2394] would throw the
origin of the fabrics as far back as the eighth century.
-----
Footnote 2246:
See especially Pottier, _Louvre Cat._ ii. p. 285 ff., and Gsell,
_Fouilles de Vulci_, p. 315 ff.
Footnote 2247:
i. 94.
Footnote 2248:
_Sat._ i. 6, 1.
Footnote 2249:
i. 30.
Footnote 2250:
_Op. cit._ p. 297.
Footnote 2251:
_Frag. Hist. Graec._ ed. Didot, i. p. 45: ἐπὶ Σπινῆτι ποταμῷ (the
name of one of the mouths). He calls them here Pelasgians.
Footnote 2252:
Bertrand and Reinach, _Les Celtes dans les vallées du Po et du
Danube_, p. 73 ff.: cf. Bertrand, _Arch. celtique et gauloise_, p.
205.
Footnote 2253:
Cf. i. 27 with vii. 3.
Footnote 2254:
See Helbig, _Die Italiker in der Poebene_, for a full account of this
period; also Von Duhn in _J.H.S._ xvi. p. 128, whose ethnographical
views seem to differ in many details from those of other writers
previously cited.
Footnote 2255:
See _Brit. Mus. Cat. of Bronzes_, p. xlv.
Footnote 2256:
See _Ann. dell’ Inst._ 1884, p. 111.
Footnote 2257:
_Notizie degli Scavi_, 1881, pl. 5, Nos. 15, 16.
Footnote 2258:
_Il._ xi. 633; _Od._ iv. 615, vi. 232. See Dumont-Pottier, i. p. 152.
Footnote 2259:
On the ornamentation of the Villanuova period general reference may
be made to Böhlau’s _Zur Ornamentik der Villanovaperiode_ (1895).
Footnote 2260:
Gsell, _Fouilles de Vulci_, p. 254.
Footnote 2261:
See _Brit. Mus. Cat. of Bronzes_, p. xlv, and references there given.
Footnote 2262:
The objects found at Hallstatt date from about the tenth to ninth
centuries B.C., and are sometimes “sub-Mycenaean” in character.
Footnote 2263:
See on the subject of hut-urns the bibliographies given in Gsell,
_Fouilles de Vulci_, p. 258; _Bonner Studien_, p. 24 (Von Duhn); and
_J.H.S._ xvi. p. 127 (_id._).
Footnote 2264:
_J.H.S._ xvi. p. 125.
Footnote 2265:
See also for Narce _Mon. Antichi_, iv. pt. 1, p. 105 ff.
Footnote 2266:
M. Pottier states that a primitive kind of wheel was used for making
the _impasto_ in the eighth century, and Helbig and Martha are
certainly wrong in stating that it was not introduced till the sixth
(see _Louvre Cat._ ii. p. 294).
Footnote 2267:
_Bull. dell’ Inst._ 1885, p. 118.
Footnote 2268:
_E.g._ _Brit. Mus. Cat._ Nos. 347 ff.
Footnote 2269:
_Op. cit._ p. 345 ff.
Footnote 2270:
_Notizie degli Scavi_, 1884, p. 186 = 338: cf. for the style a vase
from Tamassos, Cyprus, in the British Museum (_Rev. Arch._ ix. 1887,
p. 77).
Footnote 2271:
See generally Pottier, _Louvre Cat._ ii. p. 363 ff.
Footnote 2272:
See Vol. I. p. 153, and cf. Perrot, _Hist. de l’Art_, vi. p. 211,
fig. 57, for examples from Troy.
Footnote 2273:
Abeken, _Mittelital._ p. 362 ff.; but see _Arch. Zeit._ 1881, p. 41.
Footnote 2274:
_E.g._ _Ann. dell’ Inst._ 1884, pl. C.
Footnote 2275:
Hdt. i. 14, 25; Paus. x. 16.
Footnote 2276:
For Greek examples of early vases with reliefs see Vol. I. p. 497,
and Plate XLVII.
Footnote 2277:
See for specimens _Gaz. Arch._ 1881, pls. 28, 29, 32-3; Pottier,
_Vases du Louvre_, pls. 33-4.
Footnote 2278:
Louvre D 151.
Footnote 2279:
_Bull. dell’ Inst._ 1884, p. 163.
Footnote 2280:
_Röm. Mitth._ 1886, p. 135.
Footnote 2281:
See Pliny, _H.N._ xxxv. 152. The names are doubtless descriptive.
Footnote 2282:
Cf. _B.M. Cat. of Bronzes_, p. xlvii, and references there given.
Footnote 2283:
Nearly all the contents of this tomb are now in the British Museum
(Etruscan Saloon, Cases 126-35): see Micali, _Mon. Ined._ pls. 4-8;
Dennis, _Etruria_^2, i. p. 457 ff.; C. Smith in _J.H.S._ xiv. p. 206.
Footnote 2284:
A most trustworthy reproduction of this vase and its decoration, made
by Mr. F. Anderson, is given in _J.H.S._ xiv. pls. 6-7.
Footnote 2285:
Cf. throughout the François vase.
Footnote 2286:
Micali, _op. cit._ pl. 5, fig. 2.
Footnote 2287:
_Cat._ 1543.
Footnote 2288:
_Cat._ C 617-18.
Footnote 2289:
_Bull. dell’ Inst._ 1881, p. 167, No. 26.
Footnote 2290:
The hydria is a form of essentially Ionic origin, the earliest
examples being found in the “Caeretan” and Daphnae fabrics (see
Chapter VIII.).
Footnote 2291:
_Cat. of Terracottas_, B 630 = Fig. 183.
Footnote 2292:
Micali, _Mon. Ined._ pl. 58; Dennis, _Etruria_, i. p. 34 ff.
Footnote 2293:
Cf. an oinochoë in the British Museum, A 633; and see _J.H.S._ x. p.
126.
Footnote 2294:
_Mus. Greg._ i. pl. 15 ff.; Helbig, _Führer_, 1899, ii. p. 344 ff.
Footnote 2295:
_Notizie degli Scavi_, 1887, pls. 14-18.
Footnote 2296:
_Bull. dell’ Inst._ 1876, p. 117 ff., and _Mon. dell’ Inst._ x. pls.
31-33. The art of Praeneste, though a Latin town, was wholly
Etruscan. Cf. the later series of bronze cistae found here.
Footnote 2297:
Martha, _L’Art Étrusque_, p. 462.
Footnote 2298:
_Louvre Cat._ ii. pp. 294, 315.
Footnote 2299:
_Traité_, i. p. 414: see Blümner, _Technologie_, ii. p. 62. It may be
compared with the analysis of the clay of Greek vases given in Vol.
I. p. 203.
Footnote 2300:
Cf. Micali, _Mon. Ined._ pls. 28-30.
Footnote 2301:
Micali, _op. cit._ pls. 28-32.
Footnote 2302:
Cf. _Arch. Zeit._ 1884, pl. 8, fig. 1, and the reliefs from Sparta,
_Ath. Mitth._ 1877, pls. 20-4.
Footnote 2303:
Cf. _Ann. dell’ Inst._ 1877, pls. U, V; Micali, _op. cit._ pls. 27-32.
Footnote 2304:
See Pottier, _Louvre Cat._ ii. p. 324 ff.
Footnote 2305:
Cf. B.M. A 379 with _Bronze Cat._ Nos. 385, 436-37.
Footnote 2306:
See also on the subject generally, _Gaz. Arch._ 1879, p. 99 ff.;
Pottier, _Louvre Cat._ ii. p. 314 ff.; Martha, _L’Art Étrusque_, p.
462 ff.; and Gsell, _Fouilles de Vulci_, p. 445 ff.
Footnote 2307:
vi. 343: cf. Pliny, _H.N._ xxxv. 158-59, and Chapter XXI.
Footnote 2308:
ii. 60.
Footnote 2309:
xiv. 98: cf. p. 479.
Footnote 2310:
See Perrot, _Hist. de l’Art_, i. p. 308.
Footnote 2311:
See _Cat. of Bronzes_, No. 600, and _Cat. of Terracottas_, D 215. The
bronze plates were formerly made up into the shape of a shield, with
many restorations; but on removing these, the true form was
discovered. The body of the chair is modern.
Footnote 2312:
_Mus. di Ant. Class._ i. p. 299 ff., with many examples on pls. 9,
9_a_, 11-13. Fig. 181 is from pl. 9, figs. 9, 9_a_.
Footnote 2313:
H 148 in the British Museum is a curious terracotta example, covered
with incised designs: see Benndorf, _Gesichtshelme und
Sepuleralmasken_, pl. 11, p. 42.
Footnote 2314:
_Cat._ 3976-77.
Footnote 2315:
_Cat. of Terracottas_, D 219-220.
Footnote 2316:
See Vol. I. p. 321.
Footnote 2317:
_Röm. Mitth._ 1888, p. 174 ff.: see also Endt, _Ion. Vasenm._ p. 71.
Footnote 2318:
They also show the influence of the “Pontic” class (Vol. I. p. 359).
Footnote 2319:
It may be compared with B 59 in the same case (Plate XXVI.).
Footnote 2320:
See Endt, _Ion. Vasenm._ p. 51; Pottier, _Louvre Cat._ ii. p. 413.
Footnote 2321:
B.M. B 61-74; Louvre E 754-81 (some of these do not show distinctive
Etruscan features, although made in Italy); Naples 2522, 2717, 2757;
Würzburg 81-2; Micali, _Mon. Ined._ 36. 1, 37, 1, and 43, 3; _id._
_Storia_, 82, 3; Dubois-Maisonneuve, _Introd._ 34; Inghirami, _Mus.
Chins._ 72; Gsell, _Fouilles de Vulci_, pl. 18-9; _Anzeiger_, 1893,
p. 87. According to Endt, _loc. cit._, about 200 examples are known.
B 63 in the B.M. is reproduced in Plate LVIII.
Footnote 2322:
Another is given in _Mon. dell’ Inst._ x. pl. 51.
Footnote 2323:
Bibl. Nat. 918 = Dennis, _Etruria_, ii. frontispiece.
Footnote 2324:
Reinach, i. p. 88.
Footnote 2325:
Micali, _Mon. Ined._ pl. 38.
Footnote 2326:
Cf. _Mon. dell’ Inst._ xi. pls. 4-5; also Inghirami, _Vasi Fitt._ iv.
358.
Footnote 2327:
Roberts, _Gk. Epigraphy_, i. p. 16 (_q.v._ for facsimile); _Bull.
dell’ Inst._ 1882, p. 91.
Footnote 2328:
Roberts, p. 17: for a facsimile see Dennis, i. p. 271.
Footnote 2329:
Roberts, p. 18.
Footnote 2330:
Dennis, i. p. 273; Deecke, _Etr. Forsch. u. Stud._ iv. (1883) p. 39.
Footnote 2331:
Dennis, i. p. 172.
Footnote 2332:
_Ibid._ ii. p. 224.
Footnote 2333:
See for instances Micali, _Mon. Ined._ pl. 55, 7; _ibid._ _Storia_,
pl. 101; _Mus. Greg._ ii. pl. 99.
Footnote 2334:
Reinach, i. 203.
Footnote 2335:
_E.g._ Fabretti, _C. I. Ital._ 2606, 2609.
Footnote 2336:
_Ann. dell’ Inst._ 1831, p. 176: cf. also Fabretti, Nos. 2222, 2583.
Footnote 2337:
_H.N._ xxxv. 157.
Footnote 2338:
_Ibid._ 152.
Footnote 2339:
_Orat. ad Graec._ 1.
Footnote 2340:
Pliny, _H.N._ xxxv. 157.
Footnote 2341:
The story is told by Pliny, _H.N._ xxviii. 16, and Plutarch,
_Poplicola_, 13. See Vol. I. p. 116.
Footnote 2342:
Pliny, _H.N._ xxxiv. 33.
Footnote 2343:
_H.N._ xxxv. 173; Vitr. ii. 8, 9.
Footnote 2344:
_Etruria_, i. p. 12.
Footnote 2345:
See Durm, _Handbuch d. Architektur_, 2. Theil, Bd. 2 (_Die Baukunst
der Etrusker_), p. 5.
Footnote 2346:
See Wiegand, _Puteolanische Bauinschr._ (_Jährb. für Philol._
Suppl.-Bd. 20, p. 756 ff.); Borrmann in Durm’s _Handbuch_, 1. Theil,
Bd. 4, p. 40.
Footnote 2347:
For a recent restoration of an Etruscan temple see Anderson and
Spiers, _Architecture of Greece and Rome_, p. 126.
Footnote 2348:
_Notizie degli Scavi_, 1887, p. 92 ff.
Footnote 2349:
_Ann. dell’ Inst._ 1881, p. 48.
Footnote 2350:
_Notizie_, 1898, p. 429 ff.; _Class. Review_, 1899, p. 329.
Footnote 2351:
_Notizie_, 1896, p. 33.
Footnote 2352:
_Mon. dell’ Inst._ Suppl. pls. 1-3.
Footnote 2353:
_Cat. of Terracottas_, B 626.
Footnote 2354:
_Cat. of Terracottas_, B 621-23: cf. _Arch. Zeit._ 1871, pl. 1. B 621
is illustrated in Plate LIX.
Footnote 2355:
Panofka, _Terracotten des k. Mus._ pl. 10.
Footnote 2356:
See Furtwaengler, _Meisterwerke_, p. 250.
Footnote 2357:
_Arch. Zeit._ 1882, pl. 15: cf. also Martha, _L’Art Étrusque_, p. 324
(in Louvre).
Footnote 2358:
_J.H.S._ xiii. p. 316.
Footnote 2359:
Murray, _Terracotta Sarcophagi_, pls. 9-11.
Footnote 2360:
_B.M. Cat. of Bronzes_, No. 434, and p. xlvii.
Footnote 2361:
See p. 308, and Furtwaengler, _Meisterwerke_, p. 250.
Footnote 2362:
For full description of this sarcophagus see _Cat. of Terracottas_, B
630; Murray, _Terracotta Sarcophagi_, pls. 9-11, p. 21. It is
interesting to note that the figures must be contemporaneous with the
Capitoline statues made by Volca.
Footnote 2363:
_Mon. dell’ Inst._ vi. pl. 59; _Mon. Antichi_, viii. pl. 13, p. 521
ff. (Savignoni). The latter was found in the same group of tombs as
the painted slabs in the Louvre described below.
Footnote 2364:
Cf. _Mon. Antichi_, viii. p. 531.
Footnote 2365:
_Mus. Ital. di Ant. Class._ i. p. 89 ff., pls. 3-7.
Footnote 2366:
Dennis, _Etruria_, ii. p. 48.
Footnote 2367:
Martha, _L’Art Étrusque_, pl. 4 = _Mon. dell’ Inst._ vi.-vii. pl. 30;
_J.H.S._ x. pl. 7, p. 243 ff.; Pottier, _Louvre Cat._ ii. p. 412.
Footnote 2368:
Cf. the Thermon metopes, $1$2 1903, pls. 2-6 (Vol. I. p. 92).
Footnote 2369:
_Cat. of Terracottas_, D 799, 800.
Footnote 2370:
This subject has been interpreted as Kadmos (or Jason), contending
with the armed men who sprang from the sown teeth of the dragon: see
Dennis, _Etruria_^2, ii. p. 165.
Footnote 2371:
See generally Brunn and Körte, _I rilievi dell’ urne Etruschi_, 2
vols.; _B.M. Cat. of Terracottas_, D 787-98.
Footnote 2372:
_Cat. of Terracottas_, D 795.
Footnote 2373:
Martha, _L’Art Étrusque_, p. 351; _Ant. Denkm._ i. pl. 20; _Cat. of
Terracottas_, D 786.
Footnote 2374:
_Mon. dell’ Inst._ xi. pl. 1.
Footnote 2375:
_L’Art Étrusque_, p. 300.
Footnote 2376:
Blue occurs on the B.M. sarcophagus (B 630) (as also on the
Polledrara hydria).
Footnote 2377:
_Röm. Mitth._ 1897, p. 201 ff., 1899, p. 13 ff.; Patroni, _Ceramica
Antica_, chap. i., and _id._ in _Mon. Antichi_, vi. p. 349 ff.: see
also Pottier, _Louvre Cat._ ii. p. 371.
Footnote 2378:
A line drawn across from Taranto to Fasano roughly divides the two
districts, the Peucetians being on the north, the Messapians on the
south.
Footnote 2379:
_Notizie degli Scavi_, 1897, p. 167.
Footnote 2380:
For Marseilles see also Déchelette, _Vases Céramiques de la Gaule
rom._ i. p. 7.
Footnote 2381:
See also Reinach, ii. 242-43, for those in the Imperial Museum at
Vienna.
Footnote 2382:
_E.g._ B.M. F 414-16, 584-85.
Footnote 2383:
See also Vol. I. p. 172, Fig. 40.
Footnote 2384:
_Ceram. Ant._ p. 27.
Footnote 2385:
_Gaz. Arch._ 1881-82, pl. 19, p. 107.
Footnote 2386:
_Ibid._ pls. 19, 21; _Sale Cat. Hôtel Drouot_, May 11, 1903, No. 20.
Footnote 2387:
Serv. _ad_ Virg. _Aen._ iii. 332.
Footnote 2388:
_Ceramica Antica_, p. 19 ff.
Footnote 2389:
Cf. _Röm. Mitth._ 1897, pl. 10, p. 222.
Footnote 2390:
_Notizie degli Scavi_, 1897. p. 168.
Footnote 2391:
_Röm. Mitth._ 1899, pl. 3, fig. 32.
Footnote 2392:
Patroni puts the limits of date for both fabrics at 600-450 B.C.
Footnote 2393:
_Röm. Mitth._ 1899, p. 46, pls. 4-5.
Footnote 2394:
_Louvre Cat._ ii. p. 372.
CHAPTER XIX
_TERRACOTTA IN ROMAN ARCHITECTURE AND SCULPTURE_
Clay in Roman architecture—Use of bricks—Methods of
construction—Tiles—Ornamental antefixae—Flue-tiles—Other
uses—Inscriptions on bricks and tiles—Military tiles—Mural
reliefs—List of subjects—Roman sculpture in
terracotta—Statuettes—Uses at Rome—Types and subjects—Gaulish
terracottas—Potters and centres of fabric—Subjects—Miscellaneous
uses of terracotta—Money-boxes—Coin-moulds.
The uses of clay among the Romans were, as may be supposed, much the
same as among the Greeks and Etruscans, in architecture, in sculpture,
and for household implements. The main differences are that in some
cases—as in architecture—its use was more extensive at Rome, in others
less; and that generally the products of this material in Roman
workshops are inferior to those of the Greeks. But the technical
processes are in the main identical with those employed by the Greeks,
and consequently much that has been said in Chap. III. of this work
need not be here repeated.
I. ARCHITECTURE
1. BRICKS AND TILES
The Romans divided the manufacture of objects in clay into two classes:
_opus figlinum_ or fine ware, made from _argilla_ or _creta figularis_;
and _opus doliare_, for tiles and common earthenware.[2395] We begin,
then, as in the chapter on the Greek uses of clay, with the latter
division, including the use of this material in Roman architecture, and
primarily in the making of =bricks and tiles=. It must be borne in
mind, however, that the structural use of bricks of clay, such as we
employ at the present day, was unknown to the Romans; they only used
what we should call tiles, and even these were only employed
structurally, as a facing to walls and vaults of concrete; no walls
were ever built of solid brick, and even in those of seven inches
thickness the bricks are built on a core of concrete. Nor were the
bricks allowed to appear on the outer face of the building, at least
before the second century of the Empire; they were always faced with a
coating of marble or stucco.
Nevertheless, the general use of bricks or tiles was most extensive,
and they were employed as tiles for roofing houses, as bricks for walls
and vaults, and even for columns, as slabs for pavements, for furnaces
and for covering graves, and in tube form for conveying water or hot
air; they are found in temples, theatres, and baths, and are used for
cisterns and fountains, and in aqueducts and military fortifications.
They were called _lateres_, because, says Isidorus, “they were broad,
and made by placing round them four boards.”[2396] The kilns were
called _laterariae_, and the makers _laterarii_; to make bricks was
_lateres ducere_, _fingere_,[2397] or (with reference to the baking
only) _coquere_. The word _later_ seems to be employed indiscriminately
for sun-dried (_crudi_) and baked bricks (_coctiles_),[2398] without
the qualifying epithet, but _testa_ is also used when burnt brick is
intended.[2399] The sun-dried bricks were the earlier and simpler form,
used for building walls and cemented together with clay or mud.[2400]
Vitruvius in his account of brick-making (ii. 3) only refers to this
kind, and apparently never mentions baked bricks except in passing
allusions. He describes three kinds, to which he says the Greeks gave
the respective names of _genus Lydium_, _pentadoron_, and _tetradoron_
(see Vol. I. p. 95). The two latter are exclusively Greek, but the
first-named, 1½ by 1 foot in dimensions, answers to the Roman _tegula
sesquipedalis_.[2401] A frequent arrangement, he says, was to employ
half-bricks in alternate courses with the ordinary sizes, which served
to bind the walls together and present an effective as well as a stable
appearance. This information is repeated by Pliny, copying almost word
for word.[2402]
Among the Romans two dimensions were in general use, as may be inferred
from the frequent mention in inscriptions or elsewhere of the
_sesquipedales_ and of _bipedales_,[2403] or two-foot bricks, as we
shall have occasion to show later. Being very flat and thin in
proportion to their size, these bricks rather resemble tiles, as has
been already noted; they are generally square, or at least rectangular.
But there were also _tegulae bessales_ or bricks measuring two-thirds
of a foot square, _i.e._ about 8 inches, and triangular bricks,
equilateral in form, with a length varying from 4 to 14 inches. The
latter are the kind used in all existing Roman walls of concrete with
brick facings. The thickness varies from 1¼ to 2 inches. They are not
always made with mechanical accuracy, the edges being rounded and the
sides not always parallel. In military works they were often used
alternately with flint and stone (see below, p. 337), as we see them in
England, at Colchester, Dover, Verulam, and many other places.[2404] At
Verulam the tiles are arranged in three horizontal layers at intervals
of about 4 feet, with flint and mortar between. They were also used for
turning the arches of doorways, and for this purpose _tegulae
bipedales_ were cut into pieces, so as only to tail a few inches into
the concrete which they cover. Complete squares were introduced at
intervals to improve the bonding.[2405]
The pillars of the floors of hypocausts were formed of _tegulae
bessales_, and sometimes also of two semicircular bricks joined so as
to form a circle, varying from 6 to 15 inches in diameter.[2406]
Occasionally the upper bricks diminished in size, in order to give
greater solidity to the structure. The bricks or tiles forming the
upper floors were from 18 to 20 inches square; in some cases, as at
Cirencester,[2407] these were flanged tiles (see below).
The general size of Roman bricks was, in the case of the
_sesquipedales_, 1½ by 1 Roman foot; but variations are found, such as
15 by 14 inches. For the _bipedales_ Palladius recommends 2 feet by 1
foot by 4 inches. The great building at Trier known as the Palace of
Constantine is built of burnt bricks, 15 inches square by 1¼ inch
thick.[2408] Prof. Middleton notes tiles in Rome of 12, 14, and 18
inches square,[2409] and Marquardt[2410] states that bricks found in
France measure 15 by 8 to 10 inches; others (the _bessales_) 8 by 8 by
3 inches. A complete circular brick, measuring 7½ inches across by 3¼
inches thick, and impressed with the stamp of the eleventh legion, was
found at Dolae near Gardun, and is now in the museum at Spalato.[2411]
Vitruvius[2412] gives elaborate instructions about the preparation of
the clay for sun-dried bricks, and counsels in the first place a
careful choice of earth, avoiding that which was sandy or stony or full
of loose flints, which made the bricks too heavy, and so liable to
split and fall out when affected by rain; it also prevented the straw
from binding properly. Clay which was either whitish or decidedly red
(from a prevalence of ochre) was preferred, and that combined with
coarse sand (_sabulo masculus_) made light tiles, easily set. The
process of manufacture was a very simple one. The clay was first
carefully cleaned of foreign bodies, and then moistened with water and
kneaded with straw. It was then moulded by hand or in a mould or frame
of four boards, and perhaps also pressed with the foot.[2413] The
bricks were then dried in the sun and turned as required, the usual
process also adopted in the modern brickfield. Some bricks actually
bear the marks of the feet of animals and birds which had passed over
them while the clay was soft, and there is one in the Shrewsbury Museum
with the imprint of a goat’s feet. Others at York and Wiesbaden show
the nails of a boy’s shoes.[2414] These impressions of feet (where
human) may also be referred to the practice of using the feet to knead
the bricks.
The bricks were then ready for use, but were kept for two years before
being employed, otherwise they were liable to contract, which caused
the stucco to break off and the walls to collapse. At Utica, Vitruvius
tells us, they had to be kept five years, and then could only be used
if passed by a magistrate. Altogether, much care was taken in their
preparation, and it was generally considered that spring and autumn
were the most favourable times for making them, probably because they
dried more slowly and were less liable to crack during the operation.
In summer the hot sun baked the outer surface too fast, and this
appeared dry while the interior was still moist, so that when the
inside dried the outside contracted and split.[2415] It was also, of
course, advisable to avoid seasons of rain and frost. But the bricks
could not be properly tested until they had undergone some exposure to
the weather, and for this reason Vitruvius recommends the employment of
old roof-tiles where possible in building walls.[2416]
For baked bricks the processes must have been much the same, with, of
course, the addition of the baking in the furnace. Existing Roman
bricks are nearly always of well-tempered clay and well baked; but the
clay exhibits a great variety of colour—red, yellow, and brown. The
paste is remarkably hard, breaking with an almost vitreous fracture,
and sometimes shows fragments of red brick (_pozzolana_) ground up with
it to bind it together, and prevent warping. This may be seen in the
Flavian Palace on the Palatine, and in an archway in the Aurelian Wall
near the Porta Latina. As an instance of varieties of brick found in
the same building, Nero’s Aurea Domus may be cited.[2417] The
durability of Roman tiles is ascribed to their careful preparation and
seasoning, which give them a much longer life than modern tiles; hence
they were frequently used up again in early mediaeval buildings and in
Romanesque churches in England, as at St. Albans, St. Mary-in-Castro,
Dover, and St. Botolph’s and Holy Trinity, Colchester.[2418]
During the period of the Republic private houses and public buildings
alike were built of unburnt brick in Rome, as we learn from the words
of Dio Cassius,[2419] Varro,[2420] and Cicero[2421]; Varro speaks of
_domus latericiae_, and Cicero of “the brick (_latere_) and concrete of
which the city is constructed.” After the Republican period this
material was still employed outside Rome with burnt-brick
cornices,[2422] but even this was exceptional. Pliny mentions walls of
sun-dried bricks at Arretium and Mevania.[2423] Henceforth, then, burnt
brick was employed more and more as Rome grew more populous.[2424] In
Vitruvius’ time (the beginning of our era) the materials used for
building were stone for substructures, burnt brick (_structura
testacea_) for the outer walls, concrete for the party-walls, and wood
for the roofs and floors. He explains the cessation of the use of
unburnt brick as due to the legal regulations of his time, which
prohibited party-walls of more than 1½ foot in thickness, and unburnt
bricks could only support one story above them in that size.[2425]
Baths, either public or private, walls and military fortifications,
were built of bricks, the latter being thus better able to resist
attacks than if they were of stone. Temples, palaces, amphitheatres,
the magnificent aqueducts and the cisterns with which they
communicated, were also usually of this material. Of these, numerous
remains exist in Rome and other places, such as Cumae and Pozzuoli. The
aqueduct made by Nero from the Anio to Mons Caelius is of brick, that
of Trajan partly so; the _aqua Alexandrina_ of Severus Alexander (A.D.
229) and that existing at Metz are wholly of brick, and so are the
_castella_ or reservoirs made by Agrippa when he constructed the Julian
conduit over the Marcian and Tepulan.[2426] It is true that Augustus
boasted that he had found Rome of brick and left it marble[2427]; but
it must be remembered, firstly, that Suetonius uses the term
_latericiam_, which may denote unburnt brick; secondly, that the phrase
is probably to be limited to public buildings and monuments, in which
there was an increased use of marble for pillars and roofs. For walls
brick and concrete continued to be used, as in private buildings, with
a covering of stucco in place of marble incrustation.
In the first century of the Empire brick-making was brought to
perfection, and its use became universal for private and public
buildings alike; the mortar of the period is also of remarkable
excellence. The Romans introduced brick-making wherever they went; and
even their legions when on foreign service used it for military
purposes. But of pure brick architecture, as we see it, for instance,
in the Byzantine churches of Northern Italy, there was no question
until comparatively late times. It was always covered over with marble
or stucco until the second century of the Empire. Examples of
sepulchral buildings wholly in brick, of the time of Hadrian, may be
seen in the tomb before the Porta San Sebastiano at Rome, known as the
temple of Deus Rediculus. This has Corinthian pilasters with a rich
entablature, red bricks being used for architectural members, yellow
for the walls; the capitals are formed of layers of bricks. Of
Hadrian’s time are also the guard-house of the seventh cohort of
Vigiles across the Tiber, of which a small part remains, and the
_amphitheatrum castrense_ on the walls of Aurelian.[2428]
One of the most remarkable instances of Roman brick construction is the
Pile Cinq-Mars, as it is called, a tower still standing on the right
bank of the Loire, near Tours. It is about 95 feet high and 13 feet
square, expanding at the base, being built of tiles to a depth of 3
feet each side, with a body of concrete; the tiles are set in mortar
composed of chalk, sand, and pounded tiles. On one side there are
eleven rectangular panels with tile-work of various patterns, like
those on the flue-tiles (see p. 348), and as also seen on the Roman
wall at Cologne; the patterns include squares, triangles, and rosettes.
The history and purpose of this building are quite unknown.[2429]
At Pompeii bricks are used only for corners of buildings or doorposts,
and sometimes for columns, as in the Basilica and the house of the
Labyrinth.[2430] There are also late examples of brick columns with
capitals in tiers of bricks as in the tomb mentioned above. Brick walls
are not found, but bricks occur as facing for rubble-work. These are
less than an inch thick, triangular in form, with the hypotenuse (about
6 inches long) showing in the face of the wall. Sometimes fragments of
roof-tiles are used (cf. p. 334). The earlier bricks contain sea-sand,
and have a granular surface; the later are smooth and even in
appearance. Later, what is known as _opus mixtum_ (see below) is used,
as in the entrance of the Herculaneum gate; this implies courses of
stone and brick alternating,[2431] which, as we have seen, was common
in military works, as in the Roman walls in Britain. In this country,
owing to the absence of good material for concrete, the use of stones
or brick throughout for building was general from the first; hence,
too, the bricks are always flat and rectangular in form
(_bipedales_).[2432]
The arrangement of triangular bricks (made by dividing a medium-sized
brick into four before baking), laid flat in regular horizontal
courses, is characteristic of the earliest examples of Roman methods.
It is found in the Rostra (44 B.C.) and in the Regia (35 B.C.), the
earliest existing examples.[2433] The back wall of the Rostra is of
concrete faced with triangular bricks 1½ inch thick, the sides 10
inches long. The same arrangement may be seen in the Pantheon, in the
Thermae of Diocletian, and in some of the aqueducts (see below). The
brickwork in the Pantheon was formerly thought to belong to the
building of Agrippa in 27 B.C., but has been now shown to belong to the
second century.[2434] At Ostia, in the temple of Honos and Virtus, the
walls are built of triangular bricks or with red and yellow bricks with
moulded cornices.
[Illustration:
Section of Angle.
FIG. 187. CONCRETE WALL,
Faced with (A) _opus incertum_, (B) _opus reticulatum_. C shows the
horizontal section, similar in both.
]
[Illustration: FIG. 188. CONCRETE WALL (VERTICAL SECTION), FACED WITH
BRICK.]
About the year 80 B.C. the method known as _opus reticulatum_ was
introduced, in which the bricks presented square faces (about 4 inches
each way), and were arranged diagonally to form a network pattern (Fig.
187). At Pompeii the _opus reticulatum_ dates from the time of
Augustus; it is laid on concrete, and the bricks are small four-sided
pyramids with bases 3 to 4 inches square.[2435] This method lasted down
to about A.D. 130 in Italy. It should, however, be noted that it was
commoner in stone than in brick, the latter material not having come
into general use for building at the time when it was employed.[2436]
But even when tufa was used for the reticulated work, bricks or tiles
were used for quoins at the angles, and for bonding courses through the
walls, as well as for arches and vaults (Fig. 188). This combination of
_opus reticulatum_ and brickwork is well illustrated in the palace of
Caligula.[2437] In the case of vaults, indeed, the use of brick seems
to have been general, as in the baths of Caracalla, and many other
buildings (cf. Fig. 189). Vitruvius[2438] advises the use of _tegulae
bipedales_ to protect the wooden joists over the vaults from being
rotted by the steam from the hot bathrooms; they were to be placed over
the whole under-surface of the concrete vault, supported on iron
girders, which were suspended from the concrete by iron clamps or pins.
Over the whole was laid a coating of cement (_opus tectorium_) in which
pounded pottery was the chief constituent, and this was stuccoed.[2439]
[Illustration: FIG. 189. CONCRETE ARCH; HALF WITH BRICK FACING REMOVED.]
The _opus mixtum_ (the term is not classical) prevailed regularly under
the later Empire, from the fourth to the sixth century; the earliest
example which can be dated is the circus of Maxentius. It is also used
in work of the time of Theodoric.[2440] The method of construction is
shown in Fig. 190.
The reason for the limited use of brick in Rome may have been the
scarcity of wood for fuel for the kilns. But in any case the pointed
backs of the bricks made a good bonding with concrete, and presented a
large surface with a comparatively small amount of clay. The secret of
the wonderful durability of Roman buildings is that each wall was one
solid coherent mass, owing to the excellence of the concrete. In the
Pantheon the concrete of the dome is nearly 20 feet thick, the brick
facing only about 5 inches. The character of the brick facing often
indicates the date of a wall, the bricks in early work being thick and
the joints thin; later, the reverse is the case. But caution must be
exercised in dating on this principle, owing to the great variety of
methods employed during the same reign, and even in the same
building.[2441]
[Illustration:
From _Blümner_.
FIG. 190. DIAGRAM SHOWING CONSTRUCTION OF WALL OF OPUS MIXTUM.
]
* * * * *
The word for a tile, _tegula_, is derived from _tegere_, to cover, or,
as Isidorus says, they are so called _quod aedes tegant_[2442]; the
curved roof-tiles were known as _imbrices_ because they received
rain-showers (_imbres_). The maker of roof-tiles was known as
_tegularius_[2443] or _figulus ab imbricibus_.[2444] _Tegulae_ or flat
roof-tiles were usually made with vertical flanges (2½ inches high)
down the sides, and these flanges, which fitted into one another
longitudinally, when placed side by side served to hold the
covering-tiles placed over them. There were also roof-tiles known as
_tegulae deliciares_[2445] and _colliciares_, which formed the
arrangement underneath the surface of the roof by means of which the
water was collected from the _tegulae_ and carried off in the front
through spouts in the form of lions’ heads.[2446]
Besides the various rectangular forms we find triangular tiles used,
either equilateral or right-angled; semicircular or curved tiles, used
for circular walls, ovens, tombs, and cornices, or other parts of
buildings; cylindrical tiles (_tubuli fictiles_),[2447] which were used
for drains and conduits; and, finally, the rectangular hollow
flue-tiles, employed for hot air in hypocausts.[2448] Another form was
the _tegula mammata_, a plain square tile with four knobs or
breast-like projections (_mammae_), which was often used in party-walls
with the object of keeping out damp.[2449] The tiles were inserted by
the points of the projections into the concrete, thus leaving a space
between in which the warm air could circulate freely.
Existing examples of tiles are composed of a compact dense clay, less
fine than that of the bricks, and of a pale salmon or light straw
colour when baked. They were probably made in moulds—but these may only
have been a couple of boards placed together—and after being dried in
the sun were baked in kilns. The flanged tiles were, of course,
produced by turning up the edges before drying. Besides the arrangement
described above, it is probable that roofs were sometimes tiled in the
manner prevalent in the present day, with flat or curved tiles
overlapping like scales; and for this purpose the tiles seem to have
been pierced with holes at one corner, and so attached to one another.
The same method obtained in the Roman villas in Britain, except that
Stonesfield slate was used in place of tiles. An inscription found at
Niederbrunnen in Germany speaks of _attegia tegulicia_, or huts roofed
with tiles, erected in honour of Mercury.[2450]
Tiles with turned-up edges or flanged tiles were principally employed,
as has been indicated, for roofing; but some were also placed in walls
where required, especially where a space was required for the passage
of air.[2451] They were also employed for the floors of bath-rooms, in
which case they were laid on the _pilae_ of the hypocaust in an
inverted position, and the cement flooring was laid upon them. The
flanges are generally about 2¼ inches higher than the lower surface of
the tile; they are bevelled on the inner side in order to diminish the
diameter of the _imbrex_, but have no holes for nailing to the rafters.
The ends of the sides were cut away in order that the lower edge of one
tile might rest on the upper edge of the one adjoining. Those found in
France are said to be distinguished by the sand and stones found in
their composition.[2452] There are flange tiles of red and yellow clay
from the Roman Thermae at Saintes in the Museum of Sèvres, and others
from ancient potteries at Milhac de Nontron, as well as tiles of red
clay from Palmyra.[2453] In the military _castra_ in England flange
tiles of a red or yellow colour have been found, the latter with
fragments of red tiles mixed in the clay. They are also often found in
the ruins of villas. A flange tile from Boxmoor, Herts, now in the
British Museum, measures 15½ by 12 inches, the flange being 2¼ inches
high; and it will be seen that these dimensions correspond roughly with
the _tegulae bipedales_. Flanged tiles with holes in them appear to
have been used at Pompeii for lighting passages, the flanges serving to
keep out rain.[2454]
The _imbrices_ or covering-tiles which held the flat tiles together,
thus rendering the roof compact, were quite plain, with the exception
of the end ones over the gutters. These were in the form of antefixal
ornaments like the Greek examples (Vol. I. p. 98), an upright semi-oval
termination ornamented with a relief or painted pattern, with an arched
support at the back. Many examples exist at Pompeii (see below),
Ostia,[2455] and elsewhere; but artistically they are far inferior to
the Greek examples, and of simpler design. Most of them have a simple
palmette or acanthus pattern in low relief, but on or below this an
ideal head or the head of a deity is sometimes added, such as Zeus
Ammon, Medusa, a Bacchic head, or a mask, or even a figure of Victory.
Of the last-named there is a good specimen in the British Museum (D 690
= Fig. 191); she carries a trophy from the battle of Actium, and stands
on a globe from which spring two Capricorns (the symbol of
Augustus).[2456]
[Illustration:
FIG. 191. ROMAN TERRACOTTA ANTEFIX: VICTORY WITH TROPHY
(BRITISH MUSEUM).
]
No better example of the various uses of ornamental tiles in
architecture can be selected than the remains found at Pompeii, which
are exceedingly numerous. Terracotta seems to have been used here
especially for such parts of the decoration as were exposed to wet, as
well-mouths, gutters, and antefixal tiles.[2457] A characteristic
feature of the decoration of Pompeian houses was the trough-like gutter
which surrounded and formed an ornamental cornice to the _compluvium_
or open skylight of the atrium and peristyle, through and from which
the rain-water was collected in the _impluvium_ or tank sunk in the
ground below. These were adorned with spouts in the form of animals’
heads or foreparts,[2458] usually lions and dogs, with borders of
palmettes between; the gutter behind was virtually a long tank of
square section.
Antefixes and gutter-cornices, where they occur, must always be
regarded as serving ornamental rather than necessary purposes. All
early work in terracotta at Pompeii is of coarse clay, but good
execution; later, the reverse is the case. The only public building in
which many remains of terracotta tiles and cornices have been preserved
is the temple of Isis; but the Basilica may also have had terracotta
decoration. Many fragments also remain from private houses, some
actually _in situ_, having been neglected by early explorers as
unimportant. In the house of Sallust a kymation cornice from one of the
garden courts has scenic masks forming the spouts; this is not earlier
than the rebuilding of the house A.D. 63. There is also much terracotta
work in the house of the Faun.[2459] Comic masks were used both as
spouts and as antefixes, the exaggerated mouth of the mask serving
admirably for the former purpose.[2460] These date from the reigns of
Nero and Vespasian, and all seem to be from the same fabric, although
there is considerable variety in the types; the use of masks for these
purposes is not earlier than Nero’s reign (cf. the house of Sallust,
above). Besides the ornaments above mentioned the patterns on the
cornices include palmettes and floral scrolls, dolphins and Gryphons.
The roof-tiles were of the usual kinds, flat oblong _tegulae_ with
flanges, measuring 24 by 19 by 20 inches,[2461] with semi-cylindrical
_imbrices_. They were laid in lines parallel to the long ridges of the
roofs, so that the water converged into the gutter-tiles at the angles,
whence it fell into the impluvium. These gutters, however, were not
confined to the angles of the openings, but were sometimes ranged along
the whole length of the sides, as we have seen; those at the angles
only seem to be earlier in date. They are not found on the exteriors of
buildings. The front of the gutter was usually in the form of a
vertical kymation moulding, but was sometimes simply chamfered.
Antefixal ornaments terminating the covering or ridge-tiles are not
invariable, but are found at different periods. The earliest examples
are in the form of palmettes, but the later exhibit a great
variety[2462]: comic masks, a head in low relief on a palmette, or a
head surmounted by a palmette. Of the latter class thirty-eight were
found in 1861. In the Augustan period ideal heads of gods and demi-gods
are sometimes found.[2463]
Von Rohden, in summing up (p. 14), is of the opinion that terracotta
roof-decoration at Pompeii was _comparatively_ rare. In the whole
record of excavations only twenty-three water-spouts are mentioned,
though it is probable that many were never registered. In scarcely more
than twelve private houses have as many pieces been found as would
suffice for the whole of the atrium and peristyle roofs, and nearly all
of these are of late date. The discovery of isolated pieces in a house
seems to show that they were used up again in the restorations after
the earthquake of A.D. 63.
There are also some good examples of roof-tiles among those which have
been found at Ostia, both in baths and private houses; some of the
latter came from a house of which the brickwork bore inscriptions with
the names of consuls of Hadrian’s reign. The arrangement of the
roof-tiles is that described on p. 341; the antefixal ornaments are
usually in the form of palmettes or acanthus leaves, with maeander
below; but heads of deities, such as Venus and Neptune,[2464] or of
Medusa, and tragic masks were also found. Two exceptional examples had
groups in relief of Neptune drawn over the sea by hippocamps, and of
the statue of Cybele in the ship drawn by the Vestal Virgin
Claudia.[2465]
* * * * *
Tiles of the size known as _bipedales_ are also used for lining the
walls of rooms. They are found in Roman villas in Britain, and are
ornamented on one side with various incised patterns, made with a tool
in the wet clay. On some found at Ridgewell in Essex the decoration
consists of lozenges, rosettes, and other ornaments,[2466] like those
on the Pile Cinq-Mars already described; they are often found covered
with the stucco with which the walls were plastered. At Pompeii,
Orvieto, and elsewhere the stucco-painted walls were constructed with
_tegulae mammatae_ placed edgewise, and connected with the main walls
by leaden cramps, the brick lining being thus detached from the walls
by a narrow interval which served as an air-cavity.[2467] This was a
frequent proceeding, and was also contrived with flanged tiles; it
corresponds with the system prescribed by Vitruvius for keeping damp
from the painted walls of rooms.[2468] It was also largely employed in
baths and bathrooms, the object being both to keep the walls dry and to
allow hot air to circulate from the hypocausts and warm the rooms. In
the cold climate of Britain the Romans found this a universal
necessity, and instances may be observed in many of their villas; but,
as far as can be observed, the general method of warming was by an
extensive system of pipes under the floors rather than up the
walls.[2469] These tiles are pierced with holes, by means of which they
were attached to the walls by plugs or nails of lead. In the _castrum_
at Jublains a chamber is yet partly standing with one of its sides
coated with tiles of this kind.[2470]
[Illustration:
From _Middleton_.
FIG. 192. METHOD OF HEATING THE BATHS IN THE THERMAE OF CARACALLA.
]
A A Concrete wall, faced with brick,
shown in vertical and horizontal
sections.
B Lower part of wall, with no brick
facing.
C C _Suspensura_, or upper floor of
Hypocaust, supported by pillars.
D D Another floor, with support only at
edges.
E E Marble flooring.
F F Marble plinth and wall lining.
G G Under floor of Hypocaust, paved
with large tiles.
H H Horizontal and vertical sections of
flue-tiles lining wall of
Calidarium.
_a a_ Iron hold-fasts.
J J Socket-jointed flue-pipe of
Tepidarium.
K Rain-water pipe (in horizontal
section).
L L Vaults of crypt, made of pumice-
stone concrete.
More commonly, however, a peculiar kind of tile was used for warming
the hot rooms (_sudationes_) of baths, and in villas when required.
They were hollow parallelopipeds, known as _tubi_, with a hole in the
side for the escape of the air which traversed them, the usual
dimensions being about 16 by 6 by 5 inches.[2471] Seneca speaks of
pipes inserted in walls, which allowed the warmth to circulate and warm
both the upper and lower stories equally[2472]; and the younger Pliny
mentions the air-holes (_fenestrae_) in the pipes which warmed his
bedroom, by means of which the temperature could be regulated at
pleasure.[2473] Sometimes, as in the baths of Caracalla and the house
of the Vestals, the whole side of a wall was composed of flue-tiles
covered with cement,[2474] which was made to adhere by scoring the
sides with wavy or diagonal lines, as in the flat tiles described
above, and as is often done in modern building. The whole system of
heating, which may be seen in the baths of Caracalla, is very
instructive (Fig. 192): the walls were of concrete with brick facing,
through which a system of flues of socket-jointed tiles passes upwards
from the hypocaust below, effectually warming every part.[2475]
[Illustration: FIG. 193. FLUE-TILE WITH ORNAMENTAL PATTERNS.]
The hollow tiles often assume a more ornamental appearance (as in Fig.
193), the patterns scratched on them taking the form of lozenges and
diapers, chevrons, chequers, and rosettes, as may be seen in a Roman
villa at Hartlip in Kent, where other tiles are simply scored with
squares.[2476] This villa is remarkable for the extensive use of tiles
throughout; even the staircases are constructed with them. Others found
in Essex and Surrey have dogs, stags, and initial letters among
foliage; one found in London had among the wavy lines of pattern the
letters Px Tx[2477]; and another, from Plaxtol in Kent, the local
maker’s name, CABRIABANTI.[2478] These hollow tiles, which are
generally of the same clay as the roof-tiles, were also occasionally
used as pillars of hypocausts,[2479] but for this purpose columns of
_tegulae bessales_ were more usual, as Vitruvius implies.[2480] Many
examples may be seen in the Roman villas of Britain, as at Cirencester,
Chedworth, Lympne, and Wroxeter. In a villa found at Carisbrooke, Isle
of Wight, the whole bath was constructed of tiles, the floor supported
by _pilae_ of the same.[2481] At Bath the hollow tiles are actually
used as _voussoirs_ for arches and vaults.[2482]
Through these chimneys—for this is what they practically were—the hot
air circulated and gave an imperfect warmth to the rooms, the heat
radiating from the walls or penetrating through the air-holes.[2483]
The pipes standing close to one another virtually made up the wall; but
the exact method by which the warming was accomplished, without great
inconvenience to the occupiers of the rooms, is not quite clear. It is
not difficult to imagine that the tiles would have warmed rooms merely
by the introduction of hot air circulating through them, even though
covered with stucco. On the other hand, the apertures for admitting the
air into the rooms, if of any size, must also have admitted smoke from
the hypocausts, and interfered with the ventilation. It may be that
they were not made for this purpose at all, but only for fastening the
pipes together or to the walls. Another difficulty is the method in
which the flues made their exit into the open air. It has been
suggested, partly on the analogy of a mosaic found in Algeria, that
they ended above in an arrangement like a chimney-stack. There is,
moreover, a terracotta roof-tile in the Museo delle Terme at Rome with
a circular pipe, 8 inches in diameter, projecting from its upper
surface.[2484]
Terracotta pipes, or _tubuli_, of cylindrical form, were sometimes
employed by the Romans for conveying or distributing water, but the
more usual material for this purpose, especially for drinking-water,
was lead; the latter were called _fistulae_.[2485] The Venafrum
inscription, an edict of the Emperor relating to the water-supply of
the town, mentions _canales_, _fistulae_, and _tubi_.[2486] Vitruvius
calls the _canales structiles_, implying that they were of
masonry.[2487] Pliny speaks of _tubi fictiles_ used for conduits from
fountains,[2488] and Vitruvius recommends the use of terracotta pipes
(_tubuli fictiles_) in aqueducts.[2489] Examples of clay piping are
preserved in the Museo delle Terme at Rome. At Marzabotto, near
Bologna, terracotta pipes were used for carrying off the water from the
roof of a house, by means of a straight tube through the wall fitting
into another which curved upwards inside.[2490] These date from the
fifth century B.C. Other examples have been found in Rome and
Italy,[2491] and specimens found on the Rhine were 21½ inches long, of
which ¾ inch was inserted into the adjoining pipe, and 3½ to 4½ inches
in diameter. Terracotta was also used for cisterns, as at
Taormina,[2492] and for aqueducts; but Lanciani has pointed out that
its use in these ways was confined to irrigating purposes. The Campagna
of Rome was formerly extensively drained with these tiles, and owed to
that circumstance much of its ancient healthfulness.
Of the use of tiles in pavements there is frequent mention in Roman
writers.[2493] For this purpose complete tiles were seldom used, at any
rate in Italy; but in Britain it was not at all uncommon, as in the
villa at Hartlip already mentioned. On the other hand, hypocausts were
regularly paved with tiles, as in the Baths of Caracalla (Fig. 192
above),[2494] and in an example found at Cirencester, where the tiles
are flanged.[2495] But in another form tiles played a considerable part
in Roman methods of paving. Pliny and other writers[2496] speak of
_pavimentum testaceum_ or _opus signinum_ as the usual pavement for
rooms, especially those liable to damp, such as kitchens and
outbuildings, or for baths and cisterns. This was made of a layer of
fragments of tiles stamped and pounded into a firm solid mass, combined
with mortar. It corresponds to the _nucleus ex testis tunsis_ of
Vitruvius, which (to a depth of six inches) was laid on the _rudus_ or
coarser concrete. On this was laid the flooring, consisting either of
tiles or marble slabs, or more generally of mosaic. The Baths of
Caracalla again afford a good illustration of the process.[2497] In the
mosaics too fragments of clay were often used, especially for producing
red or black colour.[2498] Vitruvius and other writers allude to this
practice,[2499] and the former also speaks of _testacea spicata_, a
kind of false mosaic made with small bricks about 4 inches by 1 inch,
set on edge to form a herring-bone pattern. In the Guildhall Museum is
part of a tesselated pavement of concrete, faced with small bricks
about an inch square.
One of the most interesting uses of tiles by the Romans is in
connection with their tombs. Not only are they used in the construction
of the more magnificent edifices (cf. p. 336), but they were also often
employed (as in Greece) for the humbler graves. For the latter, three,
or sometimes six, _tegulae bipedales_ were set up in the form of a
prism, one forming the floor, the other two the gabled covering which
protected the body from the superincumbent earth. Within this were laid
the _ollae_ or sepulchral urns which held the ashes of the dead, and
other vases. A tomb found at Litlington in Cambridgeshire was covered
with a large flanged tile, which protected the pottery buried
underneath[2500]; and at Eastlow Hill in Suffolk a tomb was found
roofed with twelve rows of flanged tiles, each side in rows of
four.[2501] In some of the tombs of Greece belonging to the Roman
period semi-cylindrical tiles were used for this purpose. In the
provinces the tiles often have impressed upon them in large letters the
names of the legions which garrisoned the various cities. The tiles of
Roman tombs at York are inscribed with the names of the sixth and ninth
legions which were quartered there: as LEG · VI · VICT · P · F, _legio
sexta victrix pia fidelis_; LEG · IX · HISP (or VICT), _legio nona
Hispana_ (or _victrix_).[2502] At Caerleon (Isca Silurum) the bricks
bear the name of the second or Augustan legion: LEG · II · AVG.[2503]
The stations of the twentieth legion may also be traced at Chester in
this manner; the tiles are inscribed LEG · XX · V · V.[2504] They were
placed at the foot of the tomb like tombstones, in order to indicate
who was buried beneath, the inscriptions being written across the
breadth of the tile. They are of very different dates, some of those in
Britain being apparently as late as the introduction of Christianity.
* * * * *
The extent to which bricks and tiles were used in Roman buildings under
the Empire may be gauged by the number of those with inscriptions which
remain; a whole section of the Latin _Corpus_ (see below) is devoted to
those found in Rome alone, numbering some two thousand. Many of them
have been removed to the museums from the principal edifices, such as
the Pantheon, the Coliseum, the Circus Maximus, the Baths of Titus and
Caracalla, the Basilica of Constantine, and the Praetorian Camp. Other
inscriptions have been found on tiles removed from such buildings and
used to repair the roofs of churches in Rome. Such places as Bologna,
Cortona, Tibur, and Ostia have also produced numerous inscribed tiles
of this class. The use of such stamps was to guarantee the quality of
the clay. To the topographer, as will be seen, these stamps are often
of great value; and had the custom of placing on them the names of the
buildings for which they were intended been less rare, they might often
have afforded valuable evidence as to doubtful sites. Besides their
topographical value, the tiles also help to settle the succession of
consuls, and throw great light on the economy of the Roman farms and
the possessions of the great landed proprietors. The uninterrupted
series, extending from the times of the Caesars to the age of Septimius
Severus, of names of proprietors, potters, and estates, tells much of
the internal condition of Italy, and of one of the sources of revenue
to the Roman nobility.[2505]
The stamps found on bricks and tiles are of four kinds—rectangular,
semicircular, circular, and crescent-shaped. The inscriptions are in
raised letters in all cases, but instances are also known of incised
inscriptions, written without frames across the tile. After the time of
Diocletian the only forms found are square, circular, and octagonal;
the square stamps always have straight inscriptions. On the circular
stamps the inscriptions are placed in a circle, in one or two lines,
and the beginning is determined by a small cut-out circle at the edge
of the stamp, thus 20[22]orbiculus known as the _orbiculus_; apart from
this its object is uncertain. In later stamps the inscription often
reads backwards, or certain letters are reversed. The letters were cut
straight in a mould and lie in the plane of the surface, being of
rectangular section, not wedge-shaped, as in inscriptions on marble.
During the Republican period and the first century of the Empire a
plain “block” type is used; then the letters become smaller and more
elegant, with bars at the ends of the _hastae_, as 20[54]E, M etc.
Finally they show a tendency about A.D. 200 to become broader and
shorter: 20[76]E, M, S At and after the time of Diocletian the forms
become very varied. Punctuation in the best period takes the form of a
15[17]triangle afterwards the mark becomes vague in form. Ligatured
letters are rarely found after the time of Diocletian, but are common
in the best period; sometimes more than two are combined.[2506] The
stamps with which the letters were made were usually of wood or bronze,
but have not been preserved.
In the centre of the stamp it was customary to place an emblem or
device of some kind, perhaps in view of a law which obliged brick and
tile makers to affix distinctive marks or emblems on their bricks; but
the devices are not peculiar to individual workshops, and some
potteries, such as the Terentian (see below), used several. They may be
compared with the countermarks or small adjuncts on the coins of the
Republic, and the seals and stamps on the wine-amphorae of Thasos (Vol.
I. p. 158). Figures of gods, such as Mars, Cupid, and Victory, animals,
and even groups of figures, occur, and after the third century
Christian emblems are often found. It is most probable that they were
merely ornamental and without significance, except in certain cases of
canting or punning allusions. Thus M. Rutilius Lupus has a wolf;
Flavius Aper a boar; Aquilia an eagle; C. Julius Stephanus a wreath;
and Aelius Asclepiades a serpent, with reference to the god
Asklepios.[2507]
[Illustration: FIG. 194. STAMPED TILE (BRITISH MUSEUM).]
The most complete stamps have the date of the emperor or the
consulship, the name of the estates (_praedia_) which supplied the
clay, that of the pottery where it was baked (_figlinae_ or
_officina_), and that of the potter who prepared it; sometimes even of
the slave who moulded the tile, and even its very dimensions. Two
typical examples may be given from the British Museum collection,[2508]
of which the first (Fig. 194) is said to have been found in the
Catacombs at Rome. It has in the centre of the stamp a figure of
Victory, round which is the inscription in two lines, beginning with
the outer band:
OPVS DOL(_iare_) DE FIGVL(_inis_) PVBLINIANIS
(_ex_) PREDIS AEMILIAES SEVERAES
“Pottery[2509] from the Publinian works, (the clay) from the estate
of Aemilia Severa.”
The other has no device, but the last word of the inscription is in the
centre:
IMP ANTONINO II E(_t_) BALBINO COS
D P Q S P D O ARABI SER(_vi_)
“The Emperor Antoninus for the second time and Balbinus consuls; from
the estates (_de praediis_) of Q. Servilius Pudens, pottery
(_doliare opus_) from the hand of the slave Arabus.”
The earlier stamps exhibit more method and precision; the later betray
comparative carelessness. In the latter the name of the emperor
sometimes occurs alone, and unusual expressions are introduced.
Contractions are invariable at all periods, and even the consuls are
sometimes only mentioned by initials; but by comparison of examples it
is possible to place them in the right order. Those found in Rome cover
the period from the reign of Trajan to that of Theodoric (A.D. 500),
but in other parts of Italy they are found dating as early as 50 B.C.
We are told that Theodoric, when he repaired the walls of Rome, made a
present of twenty-five thousand tiles for the purpose,[2510] and on the
tiles bearing his name he is styled “The good and glorious king,” with
the additional exclamation, “Happy is Rome!”[2511]
The estates on which the clay for the tiles was produced are called
_possessiones_; _privata_ (private property); _rationes_ (shares);
_insulae_ (blocks); or more generally, _praedia_. The latter word,
indeed, is almost invariably used down to the third century, the
others being more characteristic of the time of Diocletian. The
_praedia_ not only provided the clay, but in some cases also
contained the potteries. On some tiles _fundus_, which means a
country farm, is found. The proprietors of these estates were
imperial personages, persons of consular dignity or equestrian rank,
and sometimes imperial freedmen. Many tiles give merely the name of
the imperial estates, without mentioning the reigning emperor; in the
later ones, as in the Basilica of Constantine, it is usual to find
the expression OFF · AVGG ET CAES NN, _Officina Augustorum (duorum)
et Caesarum (duorum) nostrorum_.[2512] Several names of the Antonines
occur; also Annius Verus and his wife Domitia Lucilla, the parents of
M. Aurelius. Septimius Severus owned many _praedia_ which supplied
bricks for his palace on the Palatine.[2513] The Empress Plotina was
evidently a large landed proprietor, and we also find the names of
Aelius Caesar (Hadrian’s adopted heir), M. Aurelius, Faustina II.,
and Julia Procula. Among the names of inferior proprietors, unknown
to fame, occur Q. Servilius Pudens, T. Statilius Severus, and L.
Aemilius Julianus, priest of the sun and moon.[2514] Such names as Q.
Agathyrsus, Rutilius Successus, and Sulpicius Servandus seem to
denote imperial freedmen; the first-named styles himself AVG ·
LIB.[2515]
A remarkable fact in connection with these inscriptions is the
prevalence of feminine names, the quantity of tiles on which these are
found being enormous. The causes are various,—partly the renunciation
by emperors of their private fortunes in favour of their female
relations; partly the proscriptions which, from the failure of male
heirs, caused estates to devolve upon women; partly the gradual
extinction of great families. The important position held by freedmen
under the Empire is well known to the student of Roman history.
The potteries of the tile-makers were of two kinds—_figlinae_ and
_officinae_; but the former seems to be a wider and inclusive term—that
is to say, that one _figlina_ included several _officinae_ or
workshops. In the inscriptions, ex figlinis is usually followed by the
name of the owner, _ex officinis_ by the name of the potter
(_officinator_). The former expression is by far the commoner, and the
latter (OF or OFFIC) is more usually found on lamps and vases, although
after the third century it is invariable on the tiles. The _figlinae_
are always mentioned in a subordinate manner to the _praedia_, when
both are mentioned, as is usually the case. The potteries were mostly
outside the city, even at some distance. Localities are not often
mentioned, but we have the Salarian potteries on the _Via
Salaria_,[2516] and also mention of the _Via Nomentana_,[2517] and such
expressions as _Ad Aureliam_, _Ad Mercurium felicem_, or _Ad viam
triumphalem_. Stamps found in the walls along the Appian and Latin ways
show that potteries existed in the direction of the Alban and Tusculan
hills, and in other parts of Latium, as at Praeneste and Ostia. On the
north side they extended as far as Narnia and Ocriculum[2518] on the
Tiber. They are also found in Etruria and Campania. Tiles from Latium
were exported to Liguria, the Adriatic, Sardinia, Africa, Gaul, and
Spain.
Usually a descriptive epithet is associated with the word _figlinae_,
either of a geographical or personal character. Examples of the former
are Macedonianae, Rhodianae, and Oceanae. The latter give either the
name of an emperor, as Neronianae, Domitianae; or a Gentile or family
name, as Favorianae,[2519] Furianae, Publinianae, Terentianae, or
Voconianae. One of the names which occurs most frequently is that of L.
Brutidius Augustalis, a freedman; others are stamped EX FIGLINIS
PRIMIGENI SERVI DNI NOSTRI IMP—“From the potteries of Primigenius,
slave of our lord the Emperor.” Imperial slaves owned many potteries,
and others were owned by the emperors or other wealthy proprietors, and
administered by freedmen or slaves. The _officinae_ served to
distinguish the functions of the different _figlinae_. Thus the
establishment of M. Publicius Januarius, a freedman, is styled
_doliariae officinae_; or they are distinguished by separate names, as
Claudianae, Domitianae, and so on. The tiles from the potteries of
Asinius Pollio bear the name of C. Cosconius as maker, as do those of
Julia Procula’s potteries, being further distinguished as _doliares_,
_bipedales_, and _sesquipedales_.[2520] It would appear that the
potteries of private proprietors were under the direction of freedmen,
while those of the imperial estates were chiefly managed by slaves,
from whose labours large revenues were obtained.
There were many private potteries in Gaul and Germany.[2521] In the
neighbourhood of Saarbrück many tiles have been found with the maker’s
name, L. Valerius Labeius. Others with private names have been found at
Trier, one with the stamp of the _colonia_. Several potters with
Gaulish names are known, and probably FIDENATIS on a tile at Zulpich,
SECVNDANVS F(_igulus_ or _fecit_) and PACATVS F from Seligenstadt,
refer to craftsmen of that nationality.[2522] Often the master’s name
only occurs, of which possible instances are BELLICIANVS on a tile from
Caerwent, and PRIMV(_s_) on another from Colchester.[2523] In the
British Museum are tiles with the initials T · P · F · A, T · P · F ·
C, T · P · F · P, from Rodmarton in Gloucestershire.[2524] Tiles found
in the provinces also have the maker’s name simply, without indications
of date or the owner of the pottery, as on those from Seligenstadt
already cited. The makers must in all cases have been of inferior
condition, as implied in the example already quoted of the slave Arabus
(p. 354); and other names—Daedalus, Peculiaris, Primigenius,
Zosimus—belong to the same rank of life. Yet the occurrence of a single
name for a private individual is everywhere very common. On the other
hand, imperial slaves usually have two names given, and freedmen
three.[2525]
On the tiles of the freedmen of the Gens Domitia (dating about the
reign of Hadrian) is frequently stamped the formula VALEAT QVI FECIT,
“May he who made it prosper,” with the name of the representative of
the family in the genitive.[2526] On other tiles we find such
expressions as VTAMVR FELICES, “May we use it and be happy”[2527];
FORTVNA COLENDA, “Fortune is to be worshipped” (a second-century
tile)[2528]; and on others of post-Diocletian date, VRBIS ROMAE, “The
city of Rome”[2529]; SECVLO CONSTANTINIANO, “The age of Constantine”;
FELIX ROMA (on the tiles of Theodoric), “Happy is Rome.”[2530] Even on
sepulchral tiles of late Imperial times are stamped such aspirations
as, VTI FELIX VIVAS, “May you live happily.”[2531]
[Illustration: FIG. 195. INSCRIBED TILE FROM LONDON (GUILDHALL MUSEUM).]
Again, memoranda are found incised on the tiles, as on one at Hooldorn
in Holland, KAL · IVNIS · QVARTVS LATERCLOS N(_umero_) CCXIIII,
“Quartus (made) 214 tiles on the first of June”; and on another, found
in Hesse in 1838, STRATVRA TERTIA LATERCVLI CAPITVLARES NVM · LEG ·
XXII, “In the third layer large tiles of the number of the
twenty-second legion.”[2532] A tile found in Hungary had scratched upon
it two metrical lines in cursive writing:
_Senem severum semper esse condecet_
_Bene debet esse povero_ (sc. _puero_) _qui discit bene_[2533];
and on others names such as Tertius, Kandidus, Verna, were
incised.[2534] Idle boys in the brickfields often seem to have
scratched the alphabet or other words in the soft clay, and complete
Roman alphabets are found at Hooldorn[2535] and Stein on the
Anger[2536]; the letters I K L M on one at Winchester[2537]; on another
at Silchester is ... E PVELLAM.[2538] On a tile in the Guildhall Museum
(Fig. 195), found in Warwick Square, E.C., are the words AVSTALIS |
DIBVS · III | VAGATVRSIB | COTIDIM, of which no satisfactory
translation has been given, but it has been usually regarded as the
gibe of a fellow-workman at a devout individual.[2539] On another, now
at Madrid, the first two lines of the _Aeneid_ are written in excellent
cursive characters of the first century after Christ.[2540]
The Roman tiles, if rightly used, are found very useful for judging the
dates of buildings. For instance, a study of those in the Pantheon
showed that the walls were neither the original ones nor those built by
Agrippa in 27 B.C., but were restored in the second century or supplied
then with new brickwork. On the other hand, the stamps from the Flavian
amphitheatre and Thermae Antoninianae confirm the dates of those
buildings. Those tiles which bear the name M. Aurelius Antoninus as
consul[2541] seem to be the Emperor Caracalla’s. In the time of
Diocletian the dates cannot be definitely ascertained, but before his
time the shape of the stamp is a good criterion. Rectangular stamps are
found in the best period, and in the first century B.C. only one line
of inscription is usual. Two lines denote the period 50–100 A.D. or
later; semicircular or lunate forms came into use under Claudius, and
lasted to the end of the first century; perfect circles belong to the
same period. The type with the cut-out _orbiculus_ came in about Nero’s
reign, and the size of the _orbiculus_ gradually diminishes down to
that of Severus, while the inscriptions gradually increase in
length.[2542]