Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T21:39:24.909Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Antiquities from Lanuvium in the Museum at Leeds and elsewhere1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 August 2013

A. M. Woodward
Get access

Extract

This article continues my catalogue of the objects from Lord Savile's excavations at Lanuvium, of which the first instalment appeared in these Papers (Vol. VII. pp. 63–91), and completes my task as far as concerns the contents of the Museum at Leeds. As it has been decided not to attempt to include here the numerous small objects of lesser importance from the site, which are in the British Museum, but are not yet included in any volume of the Catalogue, the contents of this, the final, instalment consist of the following:—(1) the remainder of the objects in all materials in the Museum at Leeds; (2) such objects in the British Museum as have been published already, either by the discoverer in Archaeologia, or in the various volumes of the Catalogue concerned. It will be seen that by far the most important and extensive part of the latter consists of the objects of terracotta. The republication of these, in extenso, is necessary for the proper understanding of the Leeds pieces, and enables the whole of this material to be presented simultaneously.

Type
Research Article
Information
Papers of the British School at Rome , Volume 11 , November 1929 , pp. 73 - 136
Copyright
Copyright © British School at Rome 1929

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 73 note 2 Monumenta Lanuvina, Mon. Ant. xxvii. (1921), pp. 293–370, Pls. I.–IV. Occasional discoveries are reported from time to time in Notizie degli Scavi.

page 74 note 1 The claim of Lord Savile to have identified the site of the temple of Juno Sospita rests on no sound foundation, and in referring to it in the first part of my article (p. 63) I did not intend to imply that I accepted it as proved. I regret that by careless phrasing I seem to have conveyed that impression to Dr Bendinelli (op. cit. p. 317 f.).

page 74 note 2 The numbering is continued from that article. Measurements are given in metres throughout.

page 74 note 3 This does not belong to any of the six existing torsi, op. cit. Nos. 1–6. For another torso-fragment see below, No. 77a.

page 74 note 4 Both these feet are of unknown provenance, but the similarity in scale, in marble and in the type of boot, make it extremely likely that they belong to this group; and they may have reached the Museum separately from the bulk of the finds given to it by Lord Savile.

page 75 note 1 Cf. Bendinelli op. cit. pp. 357 ff.

page 75 note 2 Ibid.

page 76 note 1 Cf., among many others, the unknown personage in the Vatican (Mus. Chiaram. 15, Amelung, , Cat. I. p. 323Google Scholar = Reinach, , Répertoire, iii. p. 279, 4)Google Scholar, the Louvre Augustus (Reinach, op. cit. i. p. 137, 4 = Bernoulli, , Röm. Ikon. ii. 36)Google Scholar, and the Florence Britanniens (Reinach, op. cit. i. p. 577, 2 = Bernoulli, op. cit. ii. 367).

page 77 note 1 Unpublished; a cast is in the Leeds Museum.

page 79 note 1 Perhaps related to that from which is derived the terminal bust in the Vatican (Mus. Chiaram. 685 A, Amelung, , Cat. I. p. 779)Google Scholar, in spite of differences of treatment.

page 80 note 1 Pernice-Winter, , Der Hildesheimer Silberfund, p. 39Google Scholar, Fig. 15, and Plates XIV., XV.

page 81 note 1 Cf. Louvre, , Reinach, , Répertoire, i. p. 104, 2Google Scholar; p. 115, 1; Vatican (Gall. Lap. 177, Amelung, , Cat. I. p. 291Google Scholar; ibid. Belvedere, 39a, Amelung, , Cat. II p. 103).Google Scholar

page 81 note 2 Perhaps a dancing maiden; certainly too sedate to be a Maenad.

page 81 note 3 For sarcophagi with gryphons on the end cf. J.H.S. xx. (1900), pp. 82, 98 and Pls. VII., XII. and refs. to Robert, , Sark. Rel., on p. 82.Google Scholar

page 82 note 1 It contrasts unfavourably with the fine composite capitals from the Forum of Trajan (cf. Anderson-Spiers, –Ashby, , Architecture of Rome, Pl. XXV).Google Scholar

page 83 note 1 On a label is written ‘Nel giardino del mio Villino, Aple. 85.’

page 83 note 2 Archaeologia, xlix. p. 375, and Pl 27, 1.

page 83 note 3 Papers, B.S.R. vii. p. 65.

page 83 note 4 = C.I.L. xiv. 4177; there is no doubt about either the reading or the antiquity of the inscription.

page 84 note 1 The connection of this family with Lanuvium is pointed out by Savile, Lord, Archaeologia, xlix. p. 370.Google Scholar

page 84 note 2 Nos. B 605–615; D 711 ff.; note that D 576 is a Roman mural relief; E 144 is a Roman tile; B 616, 617, D 756–769, 771, 772, 776 are not architectural. That the identification by Lord Savile of this site as that of the Juno-temple is erroneous has been pointed out above.

page 85 note 1 E.g. by MrsStrong, , J.R.S. iv. (1914), p. 166, note 6.Google Scholar

page 85 note 2 Koch, H., Dacbterrakotten aus Campanien [Berlin, 1912]Google Scholar; I have found this work most helpful with regard to the interpretation of many of the Leeds fragments. A few of the Lanuvium pieces have been recently republished by Mrs E. Van Buren in her Figurative Terra-Cotta Revetments in Etruria and Latium in the VI. and V. centuries B.C., to which references are given below, where necessary.

page 85 note 3 As Koch noticed on Campanian examples, op. cit. p. 13; naturally where the colour is applied to details of ornament in relief, guide-lines are not needed.

page 85 note 4 Cf. Koch, op. cit. p. 14.

page 85 note 5 Archaeologia, liii. p. 151.

page 85 note 6 Cf. Bendinelli, op. cit. p. 342, note 1, who compares the deposit found at Veii, , Notizie degli Scavi, 1919, pp. 15 ff.Google Scholar It is natural to share his regret that no exact record was kept of the objects accompanying the antefixes in the deposit at Lanuvium.

page 86 note 1 See Koch's sketches, op. cit. pp. 4 ff., Figs. 2–10, which well illustrate various types of attachment to, or strengthening of, the back of the antefix.

page 86 note 2 Nos. 47–50 below.

page 86 note 3 Koch, op. cit. p. 6.

page 86 note 4 For other examples (2) found in Rome, and one at Lanuvium, now in the local Museum, cf. E. Van Buren, op. cit. p. 21.

page 87 note 1 These two heads are not catalogued as belonging to antefixes in B.M. Cat., but Mrs Van Buren rightly identifies them as such; a duplicate example from Orvieto is quoted and reproduced for the former, and duplicates of the latter exist at Orvieto and Munich (illustrated in her Fig. 4). Note that the references to B.M. Cat. should be transposed in her publication, as B 618 is given erroneously as her type XV.

page 87 note 2 A. S. Murray, J.H.S., l.c., and Walters, B.M. Terracottas, ad. loc., compare the attitude of the Satyr described by Pliny, , H.N. xxxv. 138Google Scholar, as Aposcopeuonta. Cf. E. Van Buren, op. cit. p. 24 f., both for further references in Greek literature to this attitude, and for further varieties of the Satyr–Maenad type of antefix from Satricum, Falerii, etc., and op. cit., Pl XV. For later examples from Lanuvium, see Nos. 24–28 below.

page 88 note 1 No similar antefix type appears in Koch's book.

page 89 note 1 Cf. the specimen from Capua, B.M. B 588, and Koch's restored drawing of it, op. cit., Pl xvi. 2.

page 91 note 1 By myself.

page 91 note 2 Cf. the restoration of a similar cornice from the large temple at Falerii (third-second centuries B.C.), by Taylor, Mary and Bradshaw, H. C., Papers, B.S.R. viii. p. 28, and Pl. II.Google Scholar

page 92 note 1 The drawing does not represent the original length to scale.

page 92 note 2 Mended by myself.

page 93 note 1 This member is shewn in situ in the restoration in the British Museum (B 609; cf. J.R.S. iv. (1914), p. 168, Fig. 17), and in that of the Falerii temple, Papers, B.S.R., loc. cit.

page 94 note 1 Cf. that from Falerii, , Notizie degli Scavi, 1888, p. 431Google Scholar, where it is shewn as below the pediment; in Paters, B.S.R. viii. p. 32, this is shewn to be wrong, and it is transferred to the lower edge of the rake of the pediment; it seems, therefore, that our fragments must be likewise located; but Koch puts his example from Capua below the bed of the pediment, op. cit. p. 87 and Pl. XXXII. 3.

page 94 note 2 Apparently known as in Greek architecture; cf. Wiegand, , Puteolanische Bauinschrift, p. 757Google Scholar; at Athens, I.G. i. 167 (= I.G. ii.2, Ed. Minor, 463), l. 72, and Caskey, , A.J.A. xiv. (1910), p. 308 f.Google Scholar

page 95 note 1 The drawing is only intended to shew the relative positions of the fragments, compressed to a minimum length, and the division into slabs aims only at shewing which pieces are from slab-edges.

page 96 note 1 It is erroneously included among the fragments belonging to it in B.M. Cat.; the average thickness of the pieces from the ‘curtain’; is only ·02; it seems not thick enough to combine with No. 81.

page 96 note 2 Cf. a similar panel from Falerii, , and restoration in Notizie degli Scavi, 1888, p. 431Google Scholar, and Borrmann, , Handbuch der Architektur, i. pt. 4Google Scholar (Keramik in Baukunst), p. 42; Papers, B.S.R., l.c. No. 4, and Pl II.

page 98 note 1 For antefixes of similar style from Falerii, , cf. Papers, B.S.R., l.c. p. 31Google Scholar, and note 3.

page 100 note 1 Probably from a building similar to that at Falerii; cf. Notizie, loc. cit., for position; and Papers, B.S.R., l.c. and Pl II.

page 101 note 1 Its small size leaves exact restoration doubtful.

page 101 note 2 The position of the bull's fore-legs seems identical with that on the similar relief (not from Lanuvium) B.M. D 569, Pl XLIV (2), but the altar-like pedestal is there replaced by a candelabrum.

page 102 note 1 This is presumably the meaning of the phrase employed in the Catalogue, ‘employed for filling in the side of a sloping roof.’

page 102 note 2 Cf. C.I.L. xv. 1, 1462a, which reads C. Sulpici Felici[s] in semicircle.

page 102 note 3 A full account of these objects has recently been published by Mrs E. D. Van Buren: see her Terracotta Arulae in Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome, vii. (1928), pp. 15 ff., in which the various types and motives are analysed. Nos. 138 and 139 correspond to p. 27, No. 3 in her list.

page 103 note 1 In B.M. Cat., ad loc., it is suggested that this may be ‘Agamemnon capite obvoluto or some other mythological subject.’

page 103 note 2 Cf. B.M. Cat. Introd. p. xix. and the full discussion of numerous types by Conze, , Jahrb. des Deutsch. Arch. Instituts, v. (1890), pp. 118 ff.Google Scholar; and ibid., Anzeiger (same date), p. 166 f. for further examples.

page 104 note 1 Conze, op. cit. p. 131.

page 104 note 2 Ibid., Pl. II., 2. Here, however, the modelling is much better.

page 104 note 3 Cf. ibid., p. 134 (lower figure).

page 105 note 1 I cannot find this signature elsewhere.

page 105 note 2 The cap resembles that of the quaint bearded ‘Firedemons’ on the brazier-handles, Conze, , Jahrbuch, l.c. type I, and Figs, on p. 121Google Scholar, but the turban is not a feature of these figures. The pigtail seems to prove that this is not fluffed-out hair appearing below the cap. I cannot trace a similar type elsewhere.

page 106 note 1 Cf. B.M. Bronzes, 756 ff.

page 106 note 2 The type is not unlike the Hera Ludovisi, but cannot be earlier than the third century B.C. (and may be later). It is noteworthy that no terracotta was found representing Juno Sospita as worshipped at Lanuvium; cf. the types collected and discussed by MissDouglas, E. M., J.R.S. iii. (1913), pp. 61 ff.Google Scholar

page 107 note 1 This may indicate simply a break in manufacture, remedied by patching with liquid clay and re-baking; but it is not clearly visible up the back of the heel. No. 189 is half of a similar foot which has split longitudinally.

page 107 note 2 For gryphons as Akroteria see MrsVan Buren, 's Figurative Terra-Cotta Revetments, pp. 36 f.Google Scholar, type I.

page 108 note 1 I wish to record my indebtedness to Professor J. D. Beazley, who has examined the Attic fragments; the dates and parallels suggested are almost all due to his ready assistance.

page 108 note 2 Jacobsthal, P., Göttinger V asen, p. 23, Fig. 44Google Scholar; cf. also Rome, Villa Giulia 6080 (athlete and woman with ribbon); Mawr, Bryn, U.S.A., A.J.A. 1916, p. 338 (woman and Silenus)Google Scholar; Leipzig, , Jahrb. xi. (1896), p. 193, Fig. 41 (Aphrodite on a goose).Google Scholar By the same hand as the two last, the stemless cup British Museum Inv. 1917, 7. 26. 2, and (?) the marriage pyxis, ibid. (cf. Sotheby's, Sale Catalogue, Dec. 6, 7, 1920, Pl. 2Google Scholar; published now by Walters, H. B., J.H.S. xli. (1921), p. 144, and Fig. 13).Google Scholar

page 108 note 3 J.H.S. xxv. (1905), pp. 263 ff.; Greek Athletics, pp. 382 ff.

page 108 note 4 (‘Reminds me of the Penthesilea, painter (V ases in America, pp. 129–32)Google Scholar, and at any rate belongs to that period, say 475–460.’—J. D. B.) Cf. Hoppin, , Handbook of R.F. Vases, ii. pp. 337 ff.Google Scholar

page 109 note 1 Under this heading are included the examples—which are mostly devoid of interest and artistic merit alike-of the various types of pottery described in B.M. Vases, vol. iv.

page 109 note 2 Cf. B.M. Vases, iv. p. 22 f., and F 523–42.

page 109 note 3 Cf. ibid., p. 20 f., and F 269–477.

page 110 note 1 Cf. B.M. Vases, iv. p. 23, and F 543–594.

page 111 note 1 Cf. the fish-plates, B.M. Vases, iv. p. 19, and F 254–268.

page 111 note 2 Salvius is not a rare name, especially among freedmen and slaves; cf. Dessau, I.L.S. Index Cognominimi, s.v.; but this can hardly be the explanation of this inscription.

page 112 note 1 For other late examples cf. Déchelette, , Les Vases Céramiques ornées de la Gaule Romaine, i. p. 114Google Scholar; B.M. Roman Pottery, introd. p. xvii, and L 138; May, T., The Pottery from Silchester, Pl. IIGoogle Scholar, Nos. 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, and p. 9 f.

page 114 note 1 For the history of this shape and its Arretine prototypes, see Oswald and Pryce, op. cit. pp. 173 ff., and Plates XLII., XLIII.

page 114 note 2 Loeschcke, , Haltern, V., Pl. X., 3 B.Google Scholar

page 114 note 3 A few more stamped pieces of this ware came to light in the excavations of 1914–15, including another example of stamp No. 4 (Docimus). Cf. Bendinelli, op. cit. p. 330 f.

page 114 note 4 For the name similarly spelt, cf. C.I.L. iv. 882 (dedication on a fresco at Pompeii); and of the normal form, various examples in Dessau, I.L.S. Index Cognominimi, s.v.

page 116 note 1 Cf. B.M. Vases, i. 2, H 21, and Introd., p. xxv.; cf. Archaeologia, xxxviii., Pl. 7, group 2.

page 116 note 2 This type is perhaps not earlier than the Imperial period; cf. an example from Silchester, May, T., The Pottery from Silchester, p. 113Google Scholar, and Pl. XLVII., type 54.

page 117 note 1 For this type cf. May, op. cit., p. 111 f., and Pl. XLVII, types 46, 47, 51; and his references to finds from Haltern and Hofheim. It is not rare on Romano-British sites.

page 117 note 2 Cf. the Plates of Forms (Pl. XXXVIII.–XLIII.) in B.M. Lamps, ad fin.

page 118 note 1 In style resembles B.M. Lamps, 320, which has, however, a more ornate nozzle, and the dots are interrupted by it; also apparently no dots on lower part of body.

page 118 note 2 Cf. the N accompanied by beads incised on the base of No. 74 below, and of B.M. Lamps, 320. It is not safe to infer that all these come from the same workshop, as No. 74 belongs to a much later type.

page 119 note 1 Cf. B.M. Lamps, 1438–1442, and Fig. 346, which has, however, painted ornament in r.f. technique, and a different profile of base.

page 119 note 2 I cannot trace an exact parallel. B.M. Lamps, 406 has the form of a squatting child, with the nozzle on the projecting top of the base on which he sits. Possibly both are of Egyptian fabric, as this specimen is from Naukratis.

page 119 note 3 Cf. B.M. Lamps, 443 ff.

page 119 note 4 Traces of burning in the wick-hole seem conclusive proof of this.

page 120 note 1 As B.M. Lamp, 530 ff.

page 121 note 1 Cf. op. cit. 628 ff.

page 121 note 2 As B.M. Lamps, 751 ff.

page 121 note 3 See bibliography of these lamps ad loc.

page 121 note 4 See below, inscription No. 21, and Fig. 36, 3.

page 123 note 1 Cf. C.I.L. xv. 2, Form 12.

page 123 note 2 Cf. B.M. No. 872, which is a similar figure standing to the front.

page 124 note 1 Subject uncertain. The same type occurs on a lamp, with heart-shaped nozzle, in Rome (Museo delle Terme, No. 68).

page 124 note 2 No parallel in B.M. Lamps.

page 124 note 3 As op. cit. 887 ff.

page 124 note 4 As op. cit. 942 ff.

page 124 note 5 = Pl. XXII.; for the same motive as a design on South Gaulish Terra Sigillata, cf. Déchelette, op. cit. No. 468; Knorr, , Töpfer und Fabriken verzierter Terra-Sigillata des ersten Jahrhunderts, p. 33 f.Google Scholar, Pl. 16 (19), and 57 (2).

page 124 note 6 For the design cf. B.M. Nos. 508 (= Fig. 93), 543, 1064.

page 125 note 1 They occur on the blunt-nozzled types (Forms 72–74), cf. esp. B.M. No. 509.

page 126 note 1 Wrongly indexed, op. cit. p. 239, as 977; and see p. 124, note 3.

page 126 note 2 Nothing similar in B.M. Lamps.

page 127 note 1 Not to be confused with C.I.L. xv. 2, 6893.

page 127 note 2 This cannot be Clodius Helvetius' stamp, though a similar one (B.M. No. 997) is ascribed to him, op. cit. p. xxxviii, but rightly given to Heliodorus in the text (and misprinted 977 in the Index).

page 127 note 3 Cf. No. 17.

page 127 note 4 This variety with a small circle above and below is not given in C.I.L.; the type cited has a small leaf (?) below only.

page 127 note 5 Much rubbed, but apparently without the stops which appear in Nos. 12–15.

page 127 note 6 The Μ above the name is roughly scratched, not moulded. The inscription is surrounded with six small impressed circles, equidistant, and seems to prove that C.I.L. xv. 2, 6896, classed as Graece inscripta, and read as with similar small circles, should perhaps be read as Μ and connected with the present type.

page 127 note 7 Quite unintelligible; perhaps a jesting allusion to the subject … nigri (?).

page 128 note 1 The blundered version suggests an illiterate (or Greek ?) workman: l. 2 ends EA, l. 3 EEL, l. 4 MIE, and there are two strokes between H and C in l. 5. This version tends to support that in C.I.L. ii. 4969 (3) where Hübner read HVC (= bunc) but was over-ruled by Mommsen, (cf. C.I.L. xv. 2, 6196, note).Google Scholar

page 128 note 2 For such fibulae see Haverfield, 's list, Journal of Arch. Inst. lx. (1903), pp. 236 ff.Google Scholar, and additions, of. cit., lxii. (1905), pp. 265 ff.; another inscribed example was found at Wroxeter; cf. Wroxeter Excavation Report, i. (1912), p. 24, and Fig. 9, 5. They would seem (Haverfield, l.c.) to be of Gaulish origin, and to date from the early Empire, probably the first century.

page 128 note 3 Inscribed inside the bow, ‘Found at Civitalavinia, January 17th, 1888’.

page 128 note 4 Cf. a very similar specimen from Woodeaton, in Oxfordshire, J.R.S. vii. (1917), p. 111 f., No. 52, Fig. 9.Google Scholar It is hard to believe that these uninscribed examples are not both contemporary with, and from the same centre, or centres, of origin as the inscribed group.

page 129 note 1 Cf. B.M. Bronzes, 2225 ff., and refs. ibid.; also Ward, J., The Roman Era in Britain, pp. 227 f.Google Scholar, and Fig. 64, E, F, G, for representative examples found in Britain; Wroxeter Retort, iii. (1914), pp. 27 ff., and Pl. XVIII., XIX. for further examples, one of which contained the original wax and string-impression on it.

page 129 note 2 Cf. B.M. Bronzes, 2313 ff., and Introd. pp. lxiv. f.; J. Milne, Surgical Instruments in Greek and Roman Times, passim; and the interesting group, from near Kolophon, described by DrCaton, R., J.H.S. xxxiv. (1914), pp. 114 ff.Google Scholar

page 131 note 1 Possibly not for surgical purposes; it is unusually short for a stylus.

page 131 note 2 So-called bistoury; cf. Caton, op. cit., Fig. 1, and B.M. Bronzes, 2332 ff. But possibly merely an elaborate spatula.

page 131 note 3 For two-pronged tenacula cf. B.M. Bronzes, 2322–6.

page 131 note 4 Labelled as ‘lamp-stopper’, but the purpose here suggested seems much more appropriate. There is no clue to their respective find-spots.

page 132 note 1 E.g. Curle, , A Roman Frontier-Post, Newstead, p. 161Google Scholar, and Pl. XXXVIII., Figs. 8 and 10.

page 134 note 1 Ancient Flutes from Egypt, J.H.S. xxxv. (1915), pp. 12–21.

page 135 note 1 Das Glas im Altertume [1908], Formentafel A.