DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.42080#0126
106
ITALIC TOMB-GROUPS
that of the fragmentary shield from the Tomba del
Duce, id., PI. 185, 6, but the Tomba del Duce con-
tained a skyphos, id., PL 186, 6, which is the counter-
part of a skyphos, id., PI. 333, 4, from the Regolini-
Galassi Tomb. The bronze flask from the War-
rior’s Tomb is much more convex on one face than
on the other. Flasks of this shape are common in
Cyprus from the Bronze Age on, but in Italy they
are rare although so few are illustrated in side
view that there is liability of error here; two exam-
ples of this type were found by Doro Levi in a
trench-tomb, No. XXVII, in the necropolis of
Massa Marittima, MonAnt. XXXV, col. 70, Fig. 24.
An unpublished clay flask of this shape, No. 31270,
in the Berlin Museum, ornamented with figures of
archaic style, is dated to the sixth century. On one
of a group of fragments, perhaps from a pyxis,
found in the Argive Heraeum, are represented
bronzes apparently offered as prizes for a chariot
race, Argive Heraeum II, PI. LX, 19 and BSA. XXXV,
PI. 25, 4. One is a helmet, one a tripod and one a
tall bronze vase; between the last two is a narrow
object which has been identified as a sword or a
cleaver, but which may equally well be taken to be
a flask of the type under discussion, represented in
side view because of the exigencies of the available
space. The drawing of the horses and their harness
and of the deer shows that these fragments are of
post-geometric date. There is nothing therefore to
prevent a flask of this shape being dated well into
the seventh century. And lastly on the gold-plated
pectoral from the Warrior’s Tomb, Montelius, PI.
2l8, 13, in the third from the outer of the rectangu-
lar frames is a row of key-like motives which occur
on a small plaque from the Regolini-Galassi Tomb,
Montelius, PI. 341, 5, on a large plaque from Prae-
neste, id., PI. 378, 4, and on a small plaque from
Tomb II, Marsiliana, Marsiliana, PI. XIV, 15.
Over fifty years ago Furtwaengler observed, A£.
1884, pp. 112-113, that the same stamp was used
for the key motive in the Praeneste plaque and the
plaque from the Warrior’s Tomb. The general
style of the Regolini-Galassi pectoral is later but the
unusual motive of the key pattern is the same as on
the other pieces of gold-work cited, so that no long
lapse of time should be assumed between them. It
would seem appropriate, then, to date the Warrior’s
Tomb ca. 680 B.C.
With another famous Tarquinian tomb, the
Bocchoris Tomb, our Narce 1 is connected by the
Phoenician palmettes on Nos. 3 and 4 and by two
types of fibulae, with arches one in the form of a
backward looking lion and the other in the form of
a horse with an ape on its back. But Narce 1 is also
connected by its pottery with Barnabei’s Tomb LXI
which we have seen, p. 62, good reason to date
near the middle of the seventh century, and, if the
interpretation of No. 35 as a “ Topjgucker” is correct,
with the Bernardini and Barberini Tombs. The
evidence of our tombs thus indicates that there is no
great span of time between the Bocchoris and the
great tombs. Does other evidence lead to the same
conclusion?
The date of the Bocchoris Tomb has often been
discussed but the conclusions which have been
reached differ considerably.* It is apparent that
the first objective is to fix as accurately as possible
the dates of Bocchoris’ reign. Byvanck, loc. cit.,
seems substantially right on this point since his argu-
ment is based on Breasted, Ancient Records IV,
884-1027, but the following note which was kindly
furnished me by Professor Battiscombe Gunn will
perhaps clarify the problem further:
I do not know whence Karo AM. 1920, pp. 103-
115, obtained his dating 734-728 B.C. for Boc-
choris’ reign. The only modern historian to give
such a high date is Budge, who, taking over the
unusable chronology of Brugsch, which mechani-
cally allots 33 or 34 years to every reign (three
generations to a century), places Bocchoris at 733-
700 B.C. Other datings as high as this, or higher,
belong to the childhood of modern Egyptian his-
toriography. The principal modern historians,
from Wiedemann (in 1884) to the present, have
given the following dates:—
Wiedemann ca. 720-715
Petrie 721-715
Breasted 718-712
Meyer (in 1930) ca. 720-715
These datings are arrived at as follows. The be-
ginning of the 26th dynasty is taken as being firmly
fixed at 664-663 B.C. For the preceding dynasty,
the 25th, no evidence indicates more than 51 years.
Before this we have the 24th dynasty consisting of
one king only, Bocchoris, to whom Greek sources,
based on Manetho’s History, variously assign 6 and
44 years; as those sources which give 6 years are
considered on other grounds to be the most correct,
and as, further, the 6th year is the highest known
from contemporary records of this king, his reign is
taken by all writers to have lasted six years. Wiede-
mann and Petrie take 664 B.C. for the beginning of
the 26th dynasty, and assign 51 years to the 25th
* Maclver, Man, 1928, p. 210, assigns the tomb to the years
720-680; Karo, AM, 1920, p. 110, would date it ‘not too deep’ in
the seventh century; Aberg, p. 125, dates the Bocchoris vase about
730 and the tomb he considers to be “betrachtlich jiinger”; Aker-
strom, p. 50, thinks that the date of 700 for the tomb “keineswegs als
selbstverstandlich betrachten werden darf;” Byvanck, Mnemosyne, 1936—
1937, p. 188, dates the reign of Bocchoris to the years 715-710, and
holds that the vase can scarcely be dated after 690; Ducati, p. 153,
dates the tomb to ca. 680.
ITALIC TOMB-GROUPS
that of the fragmentary shield from the Tomba del
Duce, id., PI. 185, 6, but the Tomba del Duce con-
tained a skyphos, id., PL 186, 6, which is the counter-
part of a skyphos, id., PI. 333, 4, from the Regolini-
Galassi Tomb. The bronze flask from the War-
rior’s Tomb is much more convex on one face than
on the other. Flasks of this shape are common in
Cyprus from the Bronze Age on, but in Italy they
are rare although so few are illustrated in side
view that there is liability of error here; two exam-
ples of this type were found by Doro Levi in a
trench-tomb, No. XXVII, in the necropolis of
Massa Marittima, MonAnt. XXXV, col. 70, Fig. 24.
An unpublished clay flask of this shape, No. 31270,
in the Berlin Museum, ornamented with figures of
archaic style, is dated to the sixth century. On one
of a group of fragments, perhaps from a pyxis,
found in the Argive Heraeum, are represented
bronzes apparently offered as prizes for a chariot
race, Argive Heraeum II, PI. LX, 19 and BSA. XXXV,
PI. 25, 4. One is a helmet, one a tripod and one a
tall bronze vase; between the last two is a narrow
object which has been identified as a sword or a
cleaver, but which may equally well be taken to be
a flask of the type under discussion, represented in
side view because of the exigencies of the available
space. The drawing of the horses and their harness
and of the deer shows that these fragments are of
post-geometric date. There is nothing therefore to
prevent a flask of this shape being dated well into
the seventh century. And lastly on the gold-plated
pectoral from the Warrior’s Tomb, Montelius, PI.
2l8, 13, in the third from the outer of the rectangu-
lar frames is a row of key-like motives which occur
on a small plaque from the Regolini-Galassi Tomb,
Montelius, PI. 341, 5, on a large plaque from Prae-
neste, id., PI. 378, 4, and on a small plaque from
Tomb II, Marsiliana, Marsiliana, PI. XIV, 15.
Over fifty years ago Furtwaengler observed, A£.
1884, pp. 112-113, that the same stamp was used
for the key motive in the Praeneste plaque and the
plaque from the Warrior’s Tomb. The general
style of the Regolini-Galassi pectoral is later but the
unusual motive of the key pattern is the same as on
the other pieces of gold-work cited, so that no long
lapse of time should be assumed between them. It
would seem appropriate, then, to date the Warrior’s
Tomb ca. 680 B.C.
With another famous Tarquinian tomb, the
Bocchoris Tomb, our Narce 1 is connected by the
Phoenician palmettes on Nos. 3 and 4 and by two
types of fibulae, with arches one in the form of a
backward looking lion and the other in the form of
a horse with an ape on its back. But Narce 1 is also
connected by its pottery with Barnabei’s Tomb LXI
which we have seen, p. 62, good reason to date
near the middle of the seventh century, and, if the
interpretation of No. 35 as a “ Topjgucker” is correct,
with the Bernardini and Barberini Tombs. The
evidence of our tombs thus indicates that there is no
great span of time between the Bocchoris and the
great tombs. Does other evidence lead to the same
conclusion?
The date of the Bocchoris Tomb has often been
discussed but the conclusions which have been
reached differ considerably.* It is apparent that
the first objective is to fix as accurately as possible
the dates of Bocchoris’ reign. Byvanck, loc. cit.,
seems substantially right on this point since his argu-
ment is based on Breasted, Ancient Records IV,
884-1027, but the following note which was kindly
furnished me by Professor Battiscombe Gunn will
perhaps clarify the problem further:
I do not know whence Karo AM. 1920, pp. 103-
115, obtained his dating 734-728 B.C. for Boc-
choris’ reign. The only modern historian to give
such a high date is Budge, who, taking over the
unusable chronology of Brugsch, which mechani-
cally allots 33 or 34 years to every reign (three
generations to a century), places Bocchoris at 733-
700 B.C. Other datings as high as this, or higher,
belong to the childhood of modern Egyptian his-
toriography. The principal modern historians,
from Wiedemann (in 1884) to the present, have
given the following dates:—
Wiedemann ca. 720-715
Petrie 721-715
Breasted 718-712
Meyer (in 1930) ca. 720-715
These datings are arrived at as follows. The be-
ginning of the 26th dynasty is taken as being firmly
fixed at 664-663 B.C. For the preceding dynasty,
the 25th, no evidence indicates more than 51 years.
Before this we have the 24th dynasty consisting of
one king only, Bocchoris, to whom Greek sources,
based on Manetho’s History, variously assign 6 and
44 years; as those sources which give 6 years are
considered on other grounds to be the most correct,
and as, further, the 6th year is the highest known
from contemporary records of this king, his reign is
taken by all writers to have lasted six years. Wiede-
mann and Petrie take 664 B.C. for the beginning of
the 26th dynasty, and assign 51 years to the 25th
* Maclver, Man, 1928, p. 210, assigns the tomb to the years
720-680; Karo, AM, 1920, p. 110, would date it ‘not too deep’ in
the seventh century; Aberg, p. 125, dates the Bocchoris vase about
730 and the tomb he considers to be “betrachtlich jiinger”; Aker-
strom, p. 50, thinks that the date of 700 for the tomb “keineswegs als
selbstverstandlich betrachten werden darf;” Byvanck, Mnemosyne, 1936—
1937, p. 188, dates the reign of Bocchoris to the years 715-710, and
holds that the vase can scarcely be dated after 690; Ducati, p. 153,
dates the tomb to ca. 680.