DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.42080#0128
108
ITALIC TOMB-GROUPS
but omitted such important pieces as one of the two
vase-carriers on the flaring top of which are painted
five warriors with crested helmets and round shields,
Helbig, loc. cit., pp. 19 and 20; a large cantharus
with polished grey surface; and a fragment of a
wooden vase with bronze studs similar to the frag-
mentary vase of wood from the Warrior’s Tomb,
Tarquinii, Montelius, PI. 288, 8. The cantharus
the neck of which is ornamented with white geo-
metric patterns like those on our bowls, Nos. 1, 7
and 8 from Narce(?)27 M, Figs. 18, 19 and 20, is now
on display in the Corneto-Tarquinia Museum with
the other vases from the Bocchoris Tomb and is
perhaps to be identified with the “colossale tazza
munito dim manico verticale” of Helbig’s description,
id. p. 19, on the supposition that a second handle
was found after Helbig made his notes.
Of the objects from the Bocchoris Tomb which
have been published, the amphora with a “Phoeni-
cian palmette” above the double spiral, Montelius,
PI. 295, 8, cannot be far removed in date from those
on No. 1 from Narce 1, Frontispiece and PI. XXVII,
or from the similar but more elaborate ornament on
an amphora, id., PL 326, 7, from Barnabei’s Tomb
LXI. Hooked rays such as occur on the frag-
mentary vase, Montelius, PI. 295, 15 are frequent
in the first black-figured style of Protocorinthian
vases dated to the first quarter of the seventh cen-
tury, Payne, PI. 10, 5 and 6, Johansen, PL XXI, 3,
and in Early Protoattic vases, HespSup. II, pp. 151
and 152 and Fig. 107. The use of rays at the base
of a vase is thought by Weinberg, AJA. 1941, p. 37,
to have begun about 700 B.C. The gold-work from
the Bocchoris Tomb is doubtless somewhat earlier
than that from the Regolini-Galassi Tomb, but if
the woman between the sphinxes, Montelius, Pl.
295, 3, be compared with the woman of id., PL 341,
4, it will be seen that the former should not be dated
very much earlier than the latter. Whether the
Bocchoris Tomb contained one or more burials, I
can see nothing in its contents to necessitate a date
earlier than the second quarter of the seventh cen-
tury, perhaps a decade later than the Warrior’s
Tomb from Tarquinii, ca. 670 B.C.
Those of our tombs, then, which are affiliated
with the Warrior’s Tomb, pp. 7-41 and 81-88,
should constitute a slightly earlier group; those
which are affiliated with the great tombs, including
the Bocchoris Tomb, will constitute a second group,
and there remains a third and later group which
can be more exactly dated by Protocorinthian or
Corinthian imports. To the last group belongs
Narce 64 B which, since it was used for three burials
and contained both an imported Late Protocorin-
thian vase and an Italic imitation of a Corinthian
vase, probably remained in use for a considerable
space of time during the last years of the third
quarter and the first years at least of the last quarter
of the seventh century. Vulci 5, Vulci 26 and
Narce 65 M, can be dated with a fair degree of ac-
curacy. Vulci 22 remains a problem; there is no
information as to whether it was a trench-tomb or a
chamber-tomb. If the latter, as seems more prob-
able, it might have been in use during the years
660-625 B.C.
Three vases from our tombs seem to derive from
Protoattic pottery and to afford new clues for Italic
chronology. The first is the urn, No. 3 from Narce
1, Frontispiece and PI. XXIX. The Phoenician
palmettes, moored together and propped on groups
of parallel struts, would seem, as we have seen, p.
61, to be a trifle later than the Hymettos amphora
in Berlin, and the animals on this same vase should
derive from prototypes of the Early Protoattic
period. This vase therefore can be dated somewhat
* later than 675 B.C. The second vase is the vase-
carrier, No. 1, from Narce 2 F, PI. XXXIII and Fig.
38, connected with pottery from Narce 1 by the
frieze of birds on the flaring top, and with Early
Protoattic pottery both by the frieze of dancers with
dotted or buttoned garments and by the procession
of riders on the base. The third vase is No. 3,
from Narce 7 F, PI. XXXV and Figs. 41 and 42, which,
though less clearly connected with Protoattic style,
is ornamented with a frieze which includes prancing
or galloping horses which first make their appear-
ance in Attic art about the middle of the seventh
century.
The tombs from which these three vases come
have been placed, toward the end of the series of
tombs from Narce, next to the chamber-tomb 64 B,
but they are so closely connected with tombs placed
earlier in the series (cf., e.g., No. 19 from Narce 1
with No. 12 from Narce 71 M; No. 10 from Narce
42 M with No. 12 from Narce 2; or No. 22 from
Narce 1 with No. 6 from Narce 19 M), that no great
lapse of time should be assumed between them.
The years 680-650 might well include all the tombs
from Narce 43 down to Narce 64 B, and also the
first four of the tombs from Vulci.
The evidence points to overwhelming foreign in-
fluence during these thirty years. The shapes of
vases used in this period are nearly all influenced by
either Greek or Eastern prototypes. Some of them
were not copied exactly; a foot was added to a
phiale, three feet were added to a type of Proto-
ITALIC TOMB-GROUPS
but omitted such important pieces as one of the two
vase-carriers on the flaring top of which are painted
five warriors with crested helmets and round shields,
Helbig, loc. cit., pp. 19 and 20; a large cantharus
with polished grey surface; and a fragment of a
wooden vase with bronze studs similar to the frag-
mentary vase of wood from the Warrior’s Tomb,
Tarquinii, Montelius, PI. 288, 8. The cantharus
the neck of which is ornamented with white geo-
metric patterns like those on our bowls, Nos. 1, 7
and 8 from Narce(?)27 M, Figs. 18, 19 and 20, is now
on display in the Corneto-Tarquinia Museum with
the other vases from the Bocchoris Tomb and is
perhaps to be identified with the “colossale tazza
munito dim manico verticale” of Helbig’s description,
id. p. 19, on the supposition that a second handle
was found after Helbig made his notes.
Of the objects from the Bocchoris Tomb which
have been published, the amphora with a “Phoeni-
cian palmette” above the double spiral, Montelius,
PI. 295, 8, cannot be far removed in date from those
on No. 1 from Narce 1, Frontispiece and PI. XXVII,
or from the similar but more elaborate ornament on
an amphora, id., PL 326, 7, from Barnabei’s Tomb
LXI. Hooked rays such as occur on the frag-
mentary vase, Montelius, PI. 295, 15 are frequent
in the first black-figured style of Protocorinthian
vases dated to the first quarter of the seventh cen-
tury, Payne, PI. 10, 5 and 6, Johansen, PL XXI, 3,
and in Early Protoattic vases, HespSup. II, pp. 151
and 152 and Fig. 107. The use of rays at the base
of a vase is thought by Weinberg, AJA. 1941, p. 37,
to have begun about 700 B.C. The gold-work from
the Bocchoris Tomb is doubtless somewhat earlier
than that from the Regolini-Galassi Tomb, but if
the woman between the sphinxes, Montelius, Pl.
295, 3, be compared with the woman of id., PL 341,
4, it will be seen that the former should not be dated
very much earlier than the latter. Whether the
Bocchoris Tomb contained one or more burials, I
can see nothing in its contents to necessitate a date
earlier than the second quarter of the seventh cen-
tury, perhaps a decade later than the Warrior’s
Tomb from Tarquinii, ca. 670 B.C.
Those of our tombs, then, which are affiliated
with the Warrior’s Tomb, pp. 7-41 and 81-88,
should constitute a slightly earlier group; those
which are affiliated with the great tombs, including
the Bocchoris Tomb, will constitute a second group,
and there remains a third and later group which
can be more exactly dated by Protocorinthian or
Corinthian imports. To the last group belongs
Narce 64 B which, since it was used for three burials
and contained both an imported Late Protocorin-
thian vase and an Italic imitation of a Corinthian
vase, probably remained in use for a considerable
space of time during the last years of the third
quarter and the first years at least of the last quarter
of the seventh century. Vulci 5, Vulci 26 and
Narce 65 M, can be dated with a fair degree of ac-
curacy. Vulci 22 remains a problem; there is no
information as to whether it was a trench-tomb or a
chamber-tomb. If the latter, as seems more prob-
able, it might have been in use during the years
660-625 B.C.
Three vases from our tombs seem to derive from
Protoattic pottery and to afford new clues for Italic
chronology. The first is the urn, No. 3 from Narce
1, Frontispiece and PI. XXIX. The Phoenician
palmettes, moored together and propped on groups
of parallel struts, would seem, as we have seen, p.
61, to be a trifle later than the Hymettos amphora
in Berlin, and the animals on this same vase should
derive from prototypes of the Early Protoattic
period. This vase therefore can be dated somewhat
* later than 675 B.C. The second vase is the vase-
carrier, No. 1, from Narce 2 F, PI. XXXIII and Fig.
38, connected with pottery from Narce 1 by the
frieze of birds on the flaring top, and with Early
Protoattic pottery both by the frieze of dancers with
dotted or buttoned garments and by the procession
of riders on the base. The third vase is No. 3,
from Narce 7 F, PI. XXXV and Figs. 41 and 42, which,
though less clearly connected with Protoattic style,
is ornamented with a frieze which includes prancing
or galloping horses which first make their appear-
ance in Attic art about the middle of the seventh
century.
The tombs from which these three vases come
have been placed, toward the end of the series of
tombs from Narce, next to the chamber-tomb 64 B,
but they are so closely connected with tombs placed
earlier in the series (cf., e.g., No. 19 from Narce 1
with No. 12 from Narce 71 M; No. 10 from Narce
42 M with No. 12 from Narce 2; or No. 22 from
Narce 1 with No. 6 from Narce 19 M), that no great
lapse of time should be assumed between them.
The years 680-650 might well include all the tombs
from Narce 43 down to Narce 64 B, and also the
first four of the tombs from Vulci.
The evidence points to overwhelming foreign in-
fluence during these thirty years. The shapes of
vases used in this period are nearly all influenced by
either Greek or Eastern prototypes. Some of them
were not copied exactly; a foot was added to a
phiale, three feet were added to a type of Proto-