DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.42080#0022
2
ITALIC TOMB-GROUPS
the reverse of the print and that these numbers tally
with those which were pasted on the vases them-
selves. But, unfortunately, this evidence is not now
available for all the objects; some of the photographs
are marked ‘duplicate,’ and have no numbers on
the reverse and many of the numbers are now
missing from the objects themselves. Apparently
Mancinelli carried out Frothingham’s instructions
of furnishing diagrams and lists for each tomb, for
these are mentioned in their correspondence, but
the original drawings and lists are not preserved
except in a few instances. From one list a drawing
was cut out, which perhaps indicates that Frothing-
ham discarded the originals when he translated
them into English.
The cases containing Frothingham’s purchases
were sent to America in several instalments, but
none were opened until the autumn of 1897. The
new building for the Museum was not then finished
and the collection was stored in a temporary work-
room, where, in considerable discomfort and re-
stricted space, Frothingham unpacked the contents
of the twenty-nine tombs here published and dic-
tated to Miss Jane McHugh the lists which were
later copied into the inventory of the Museum.
These lists do not always tally with the record
photographs. Sometimes the smaller objects from
two tombs had been interchanged, as happened
with Narce 19 M and Narce 23 M, but these mis-
takes could generally be rectified by study of the
record photographs.
Sometimes the inventory listed fewer objects than
appeared in the record photograph in which cases
the first step was to institute a search in the Museum
for the missing objects. Often this search was suc-
cessful as might have been foretold from a note left
by Frothingham with a ‘miscellaneous group’ to the
effect that many of these could be assigned to the
tombs from which they came. In one instance the
search led as far as California where was located an
oinochoe which had been shipped by mistake with
antiquities purchased by Frothingham for the
Berkeley Museum. Through the kind cooperation
of H. R. W. Smith, this vase was restored to the
tomb-group to which on the evidence of the record
photograph it could be shown to belong. Only
a very few of the objects which appear in the record
photographs were not recovered; in such cases, the
lost vases are mentioned in the text.
In other instances, however, the inventory lists
more objects from a given tomb than can be identi-
fied in its record photograph. Such discrepancies
may be due either to the haste with which Frothing-
ham worked in compiling his lists, or to the im-
possibility of distinguishing all the small objects in
the poorer photographs. Whatever the reason, the
objects not recognizable in the photographs have
been withdrawn except in one case, that of Vulci 5
where a vase which does not appear in the photo-
graph appears in both Mancinelli’s list and in his
diagram of the tomb.
The methods by which these tomb-groups were
acquired and recorded has been described as fully
as possible in order that the reader may be aided in
judging whether or no the records be trustworthy.
Some evidence on this point is forthcoming from
the collection itself. The number of diminutive
and fragmentary objects preserved and recorded
implies that the excavators dug with considerable
care and took pains to preserve all they found. And
there is other corroborative evidence: from among
the charred bones in three cinerary jars were re-
covered in 1936 objects which had apparently been
overlooked by the excavators but which clearly be-
longed with objects which they had found and
recorded. Thus in the cinerary jar of Narce 70 M
there still remained a piece of a bronze bracelet
other fragments of which had been recorded and
photographed as coming from this tomb; a twisted
and charred bronze ring found within the cinerary
jar of 23 F is the mate to a well preserved ring which
the excavators had recorded; a small fragment of
an iron bracelet from Vulci 66 joined other frag-
ments recorded as belonging to this tomb. Again,
combinations of ceramic types are such as occur in
other tombs; thus the checkered jar and ribbed jars
of Vulci 22 occur together in a tomb-group from
Pitigliano now in Berlin. In the case of Narce 23
M, the pottery is so uniform in style as to warrant
confidence in the record of this tomb.
In view of such evidence the reader will perhaps
agree that although these objects were excavated
without the supervision of a trained scholar and
their records will always be open to a certain amount
of suspicion, it would have been unwise to arrange
them for publication in any other way than accord-
ing to the tombs in which they were reported to be
found. And, after all, the methods by which these
tombs were dug differ hardly at all from those em-
ployed in the excavation of other tombs the contents
of which have been made the basis of widely ac-
cepted systems of chronology.
ITALIC TOMB-GROUPS
the reverse of the print and that these numbers tally
with those which were pasted on the vases them-
selves. But, unfortunately, this evidence is not now
available for all the objects; some of the photographs
are marked ‘duplicate,’ and have no numbers on
the reverse and many of the numbers are now
missing from the objects themselves. Apparently
Mancinelli carried out Frothingham’s instructions
of furnishing diagrams and lists for each tomb, for
these are mentioned in their correspondence, but
the original drawings and lists are not preserved
except in a few instances. From one list a drawing
was cut out, which perhaps indicates that Frothing-
ham discarded the originals when he translated
them into English.
The cases containing Frothingham’s purchases
were sent to America in several instalments, but
none were opened until the autumn of 1897. The
new building for the Museum was not then finished
and the collection was stored in a temporary work-
room, where, in considerable discomfort and re-
stricted space, Frothingham unpacked the contents
of the twenty-nine tombs here published and dic-
tated to Miss Jane McHugh the lists which were
later copied into the inventory of the Museum.
These lists do not always tally with the record
photographs. Sometimes the smaller objects from
two tombs had been interchanged, as happened
with Narce 19 M and Narce 23 M, but these mis-
takes could generally be rectified by study of the
record photographs.
Sometimes the inventory listed fewer objects than
appeared in the record photograph in which cases
the first step was to institute a search in the Museum
for the missing objects. Often this search was suc-
cessful as might have been foretold from a note left
by Frothingham with a ‘miscellaneous group’ to the
effect that many of these could be assigned to the
tombs from which they came. In one instance the
search led as far as California where was located an
oinochoe which had been shipped by mistake with
antiquities purchased by Frothingham for the
Berkeley Museum. Through the kind cooperation
of H. R. W. Smith, this vase was restored to the
tomb-group to which on the evidence of the record
photograph it could be shown to belong. Only
a very few of the objects which appear in the record
photographs were not recovered; in such cases, the
lost vases are mentioned in the text.
In other instances, however, the inventory lists
more objects from a given tomb than can be identi-
fied in its record photograph. Such discrepancies
may be due either to the haste with which Frothing-
ham worked in compiling his lists, or to the im-
possibility of distinguishing all the small objects in
the poorer photographs. Whatever the reason, the
objects not recognizable in the photographs have
been withdrawn except in one case, that of Vulci 5
where a vase which does not appear in the photo-
graph appears in both Mancinelli’s list and in his
diagram of the tomb.
The methods by which these tomb-groups were
acquired and recorded has been described as fully
as possible in order that the reader may be aided in
judging whether or no the records be trustworthy.
Some evidence on this point is forthcoming from
the collection itself. The number of diminutive
and fragmentary objects preserved and recorded
implies that the excavators dug with considerable
care and took pains to preserve all they found. And
there is other corroborative evidence: from among
the charred bones in three cinerary jars were re-
covered in 1936 objects which had apparently been
overlooked by the excavators but which clearly be-
longed with objects which they had found and
recorded. Thus in the cinerary jar of Narce 70 M
there still remained a piece of a bronze bracelet
other fragments of which had been recorded and
photographed as coming from this tomb; a twisted
and charred bronze ring found within the cinerary
jar of 23 F is the mate to a well preserved ring which
the excavators had recorded; a small fragment of
an iron bracelet from Vulci 66 joined other frag-
ments recorded as belonging to this tomb. Again,
combinations of ceramic types are such as occur in
other tombs; thus the checkered jar and ribbed jars
of Vulci 22 occur together in a tomb-group from
Pitigliano now in Berlin. In the case of Narce 23
M, the pottery is so uniform in style as to warrant
confidence in the record of this tomb.
In view of such evidence the reader will perhaps
agree that although these objects were excavated
without the supervision of a trained scholar and
their records will always be open to a certain amount
of suspicion, it would have been unwise to arrange
them for publication in any other way than accord-
ing to the tombs in which they were reported to be
found. And, after all, the methods by which these
tombs were dug differ hardly at all from those em-
ployed in the excavation of other tombs the contents
of which have been made the basis of widely ac-
cepted systems of chronology.