Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T11:24:18.397Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

I. A Roman Couch in Cambridge

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 April 2011

R. V. Nicholls
Get access

Extract

In the autumn of 1972 there appeared on the London market a remarkable collection of many hundreds of pieces of richly carved bone, all reputedly found together many years ago and thought to have adorned ornate toilet boxes and similar containers from a single tomb. Closer examination, however, soon revealed that, except for the parts of four small pyxides, the whole of this material came from the decoration of a single ancient couch of hitherto unprecedented elaboration. In 1973 the Fitzwilliam Museum in Cambridge succeeded in buying the whole collection with resources made available by the Cunliffe Fund and the Victoria and Albert Museum Grant-in-Aid Fund. Detailed study and identification of the components followed and less than a year and a half later a complete restoration of one end of the couch had been carried out by the Museum's technical staff and placed on show in the Roman Room there.3 This has had the happy result of putting the best preserved elements on public display and making their function and the design of the whole couch immediately meaningful, while still leaving much of the material relatively unassembled and so available for any future investigation into the ancient techniques involved. Further study of this remarkable piece of furniture has followed and has since been reported on by the author in papers read to the Friends of the Fitzwilliam Museum and at the Museum of Classical Archaeology in Cambridge.

Type
Research Article
Information
Archaeologia , Volume 106 , 1979 , pp. 1 - 32
Copyright
Copyright © The Society of Antiquaries of London 1979

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

Notes

1 See pp. 20–1 below, nos. D1-D4, fig. 7, pl. x b. The abbreviations used in the footnotes are those listed in Journal of Hellenic Studies, LXVII (1947), pp. xxii–ivGoogle Scholar, and Annual of the British School at Athens, XLIV (1949), pp. 333–5.Google Scholar

2 Ann. Report of Fitzwilliam Mus. Syndicate, 1973, p. 9, pl. 1; On View, 1974, p. 19.

3 Progress of restoration reported in Cambridge Independent Press, 7th February 1974, p. 3, with figs., and Cambridge Evening News, 11th July 1974, p. 5, with figs.

4 See pp. 21–5 below; for its possible later continuance, pp. 35–6, 27. Bone clearly used as home-grown equivalent of ivory, ivory couches being objects of the greatest luxury: cf. Horace, Sat. ii, 6, 103; Ovid, Met. ii, 737–8; Suetonius, Divus Julius, 84; Macrobius, Saturnalia, iii, 13, 11. On veneering of furniture in ivory or tortoise-shell, cf. Pliny, Nat. Hist, xvi, 232–3.

5 Viz. wings and other fragments from nos. 5, 11, 12–14 on pp. 22–3 below.

6 MA I (1889), pp. 233–44, pls i–ii p. 23 below, no. 15.Google Scholar

7 The biggest one-piece veneers, none completely preserved, seem to have covered whole sides of some of the larger fulcra and to have been of a shape that could readily have been cut from a shoulder-blade; see pp. 15, 22 no. 6, 23 no. 15.

8 See pp. 9–10 above; inside the foot component (p. 4, no. A2, pl. iii a) of the right restored leg.

9 p. 24 above, no. 18.

10 See especially p. 11 above; cf. also pp. 5 and 18 on no. A8a.

11 For the attributions made to different bone-carvers, see p. 18 above.

12 See p. 18 above.

13 E. Brizio in NS 1902, pp. 454–5, fig. 18.

14 Mutz, A., Die Kunst des Metalldrehens bei den Römern (1972), pp. 166–7Google Scholar, figs. 487–90, shows turned bronze couch leg from Herculaneum with similar wooden cores and iron centrerod; this has already been claimed as the normal form of construction of the bronze couches: Hill, D. K. in J. Walters Art Gallery, XV–XVI (1952–1953), p. 53;Google ScholarRichter, G. M. A., Furniture of Greeks, Etruscans and Romans (1966), p. 57.Google Scholar Similar centrerods claimed for alabaster couch legs: NS 1893, pp. 64–8, with figs.; Hill, loc. cit.

15 Cf. p. 18 above.

16 Cf. nos. 1, 4–6, 15, 17 on pp. 21–4 above.

17 The diameter of A4 makes it possible for it to have occupied the position at the top of the sculptural groups, A8, here assigned to the hypothetical A9, but the relationship between A4 and the torus member, A5, renders it unlikely that it did so unless the position of the goddess groups is changed, as suggested immediately below. On the torus member as another characteristic of the developed Hellenistic and early Roman couch see pp. 18–19 above.

18 See pp. 18–19 above.

19 Kyrieleis, H., Throne und Klinen(Jdl Erg XXI, 1969), Type A, pp. 116–31Google Scholar (assembly especially clear on the Duvanli couch, ibid., pp. 126–9, pl. xvii, 3–4); for construction, cf. also Richter, op. cit., pp. 40–1, figs. 217–18.

20 The variation in size of the fragmentary sculptures of nos. 13 and 14 on p. 23 below suggests that these couches, too, may have employed a similar device.

21 e.g. Richter, op. cit., p. 92, fig. 457.

22 e.g. RM XLV (1930), pp. 144–6Google Scholar, pls. XXXIX, XLVII–VIII; Richter, op. cit., pp. 57–8,105–9, figs. 308, 530, 532–4, 545, 548; cf. also the later representations, ibid., figs. 550–1, 553. The remaining undecorated parts of the frames of these couches were often covered by the valances hanging down over their faces from the mattresses above (e.g. ibid., figs. 302–3, 369, 414–16, 421, 423, 568, 601). But on the present group of bone couches under-drapes may have been used to reveal the whole of their decorated faces; such hangings, fastened under or behind the frame, are well attested in Etruscan representations: Körte, G., I Rilievi delle Urne Etrusche, III (1916), pp. 128–32Google Scholar, 138–9, pls. ciii, 3–4, civ, 5–6, cv, 8–9, cvi, 10, cix, 4; Richter, op. cit., p. 92, fig. 460. On the Cambridge couch the iron hooks, Bio, may have served to fasten such drapes (see below).

23 In NS 1902, p. 457, in dealing with the finds from Tomb 2 at Ancona, Brizio describes only three of each category of nail, although one might reasonably expect a minimum of four of each.

24 Fuchs, W., Der Schiffsfund von Mahdia (1963), p. 31, no. 37, pl. XLV.Google Scholar

25 Pareti, L., La Tomba Regolini-Galassi (1947), pp. 285–6, no. 336, pl. xxx.Google Scholar

26 Baker, H. S., Furniture in the Ancient World (1966), pp. 71–5, 102–5, 119, 142–4, figs. 83–5, 132–9, 170–1, 219–20. For such cording on Greek furniture, cf. the evidence of the Duvanli couch (Kyrieleis, loc. cit.) and Richter, op. cit., p. 41, figs. 216, 218.Google Scholar

27 Ransom, C. L., Couches and Beds of the Greeks, Etruscans and Romans (1905), pls. iv–vGoogle Scholar; Winter, F., Alterthümer von Pergamon, VII, 2, Die Skulpturen (1908), pp. 350–2Google Scholar, no. 445, Beiblatt XLIV.

28 Brizio in NS 1902, pp. 445, 452.

29 So assembled are nos. 4, 5, 11, and 17 on pp. 21–4 above.

30 NS 1902, p. 456, figs. 19 a–c.

31 See above, p. 18, n. 75. Unlike the low Egyptian beds, where movement in the frame was allowed for, these couches had to remain completely rigid; some form of strengthening (possibly at their inner edge?) may have been necessary to impart this rigidity to t he often slender frames of the bronze couches.

32 See p. 20; for another instance of such profile medallions and relief decoration in the present group of couches, p. 23, no. 13.

33 For examples with separately carved bone fulcrum mouldings preserved, see pp. 21–4, nos. 1–6, 10 (?), 11–12, 15, and 17; for those with plain sides in bone veneer, ibid., nos. 6 and 15.

34 p. 24 above, no. 17.

35 pp. 21–4 above, nos. 1–13, 17, 19.

36 e.g. on the cinerarium of Arnth Volumnius from the Tomb of the Volumnii at Perugia: Körte, G., Das Volumniergrab (Abh. Göttingen N.F. XII, 1, 1909), pp. 16–18Google Scholar, no. 5, pl. vi; Giglioli, G. Q., L'Arte Etrusca (1935), pl. ccccxviiGoogle Scholar, 1; von Gerkan, A. and Messerschmidt, F. in RM LVII (1942), pp. 222–9Google Scholar, pl. XX.

37 See p. 29 above, nn. 110–11. But it is naturally by no means excluded that the underside of the fulcrum may have been shaped to provide a padded socket exactly fitting over the upper part of the corner boss or down on to the couch frame.

38 Budde, L. and Nicholls, R., Cat. Greek and Roman Sculpture in Fitzwilliam Mus. (1964), pp. 44–5, no. 77, pl. XXIII.Google Scholar

39 The goose is associated in art with both Aphrodite and Eros and swans drew the goddess's chariot.

40 Cf. Overbeck, J., Atlas der griechische Kunstmythologie (1872–1887), pl. VIIIGoogle Scholar, 8–10. But a marble Aphrodite from Egypt also reveals such billowing drapery: Mon. Piot XXI (1913), pp. 166–71Google Scholar, pl. XVII.

41 See pp. 4, 9–10, pl. IV a.

42 Brunn, E., I Rilievi delle Urne Etrusche, I (1870), pp. 4–19, nos. 1–31, pls. i–xv.Google Scholar

43 Pryce, F. N., BMC Greek and Roman Sculpture, I, Part ii (1931), pp. 233–4. no. D76, fig. 96.Google Scholar

44 Cf. the Cyrenaican examples: Paribeni, E., Cat. delle sculture di Cirene (1959), pp. 103–4Google Scholar, nos. 280–1, pl. cxxxv; Huskinson, J., Roman Sculpture from Cyrenaica in British Museum (Corpus Signorum Imperil Romani, II, 1, 1976), p. 3Google Scholar, no. 6, pl. 11.

45 E. Brunn, G. Körte, I Rilievi delle Urne Etrusche, ii, pp. 27–56, especially pls. xvii, 2, XVIII, 3; von Vacano, O. W. in Hommages à Albert Grenier, III (1962), pp. 1531–53, pls. cccviii–x.Google Scholar

46 pp. 4–5, 11 above.

47 dall'Osso, I., Guida Illustrata del Mus. Naz. di Ancona (1915), p. 369, with fig.Google Scholar; Marconi, P. and Sera, L., Il Mus. Naz. delle Marche in Ancona (1934), p. 17Google Scholar, fig. on p. 43; here p. 21 below, no. 4.

48 e.g. Fuchs, Schiffsfund von Mahdia, p. 16, no. 5, pl. xiv; F. Winter, Die antiken Terrakotten, iii, Die Typen der figürlichen Terrakotten, II (1903), p. 352, no. 2.Google Scholar

49 Widely attested in decorative art, e.g. Hoffmann, H. and von Clear, V., Antiker Gold- und Silberschmuck, Mus.f. Kunst u. Gewerbe, Hamburg (1968), p. 26Google Scholar, no. 18, with fig.; Graindor, P., Terres Cuites de l'Egypte gréco-romaine (1939), pp. 77–8Google Scholar, no. 8, pl. vi; Kübler, K. in JdI LXVII (1952), pp. 109–10Google Scholar, figs. 8–9 (cf. Perlzweig, J., Athenian Agora, VII (1961), p. 114Google Scholar, no. 684); Toynbee, J. M. C., The Hadrianic School (1934)Google Scholar, pl. LIV, 5; etc.

50 e.g. Amelung, W., Die Skulpturen des vaticanischen Museums, I (1903), pp. 480–1, no. 251, pl. 1.Google Scholar

51 p. 23 above, no. 12.

52 Overbeck, op. cit., pl. xxi, 10–13; Schreiber, T., Die hellenistischen Reliefbilder (1890), pis. XXXIV–VIGoogle Scholar; Schmidt, E., Archaistische Kunst in Griechenland und Rom (1922), pp. 61–2Google Scholar; Fuchs, W., Die Vorbilder der neuattischen Reliefs (JdI Erg XX, 1959), pp. 151–2Google Scholar, 178; Bieber, M., Sculpture of the Hellenistic Age (2nd edn., 1961), p. 186Google Scholar, fig. 804; Andrén, A. in Opuscula Romana, V (1965), pp. 112–13Google Scholar, no. 40, pl. xxxvii.

53 von Rohden, H. and Winnefeld, H., Architektonische römische Tonreliefs (1911), pp. 17–19Google Scholar, figs. 24–5, pl. cxi, 2–3; Borbein, A. H., Campanareliefs, typologische und stilkritische Untersuchungen (RM Erg XIV, 1968), pp. 186–7Google Scholar, pl. XLI.

54 Chase, G. H., Cat. Arretine Pottery, Boston Mus. Fine Arts (1916), pp. 28 ff.Google Scholar, pls. iii, i, iv, 1–2; Dragendorff, H. and Watzinger, C., Arretinische Reliefkeramik (1948), pp. 61–4, 177Google Scholar, pl. i, 7–11; Brown, A. C., Cat. Italian Sigillata in Ashmolean Mus. (1968), p. 13Google Scholar, no. 26, pl. IX.

55 Furtwängler, A., Antike Gemmen (1900), p. 183Google Scholar, pl. xxxviii, 23 (the associated Victory, ibid., pl. LXV, 51).

56 van Buren, E. D. in MemAmAc III (1919), p. 98, pl. LXXIII, 1.Google Scholar

57 Lippold, G., Die Skulpturen des vaticanischen Mus. III, 1 (1936), pp. 60–3Google Scholar, no. 516, pl. vii; for this type also on a gem, cf. Zwierlein-Diehl, E., Die antike Gemmen des Kunsthistorischen Mus. Wien, I (1973), p. 135, no. 410, pl. LXVIII.Google Scholar

58 e.g. also with an overfold, Lippold, op. cit., pp. 184–6, no. 582, pl. LI.

59 Brizio in NS 1902, p. 446, figs. 14–17; here p. 21 below, no. 4.

60 p. 22 above, no. 5.

61 pp. 22–3 above, nos. 7, 8, 10 and 11.

62 Seen by Mr. Volk in Téramo early in 1973; subsequent correspondence has, to date, failed to produce further information on this find. The Vindonissa example: p. 23 below, no. 13.

63 Naples 109891: Graeven, H., Antike Schnitzereien aus Elfenbein und Knochen in photographischer Nachbildung (1903), p. 56Google Scholar, pl. XXXIII, centre; also Naples 109892, 109893, and 109894, all from Pompeii, ibid., pl. xxxiv.

64 p. 16, n. 47; p. 21 above, no. 4.

65 p. 22 above, nos. 5, 7, 8.

66 e.g. Richter, op. cit., p. 91, fig. 451.

67 e.g. A. de Franciscis, Il Mus. Naz. di Napoli (1963), fig. 91, bottom; on couches of the present group this seems confined to no. 13 on p. 23 below, where the fretted acanthus was also carved in relief and generally more evolved stylistically than anything on the Cambridge couch.

68 RM LVII (1942), pp. 181–3, figs. 10–11.Google Scholar

69 p. 23 above, no. 15.

70 p. 23 above, nos. 13 and 14.

71 De Franciscis, op. cit., fig. 92, bottom, second from right.

72 See p. 20 above; for the Vindonissa couch, p. 23 above, no. 13.

73 pp. 12 and 15 above.

74 p. 10 above.

75 Greifenhagen, A. in RM XLV (1930), pp. 137–65Google Scholar, pls. xxxix–Li; Neugebauer, K. A. and Greifenhagen, A. in AM LVII (1932), pp. 29–45Google Scholar, Beil. VI–VII; Hill, D. K. in J. Walters Art Gallery, XV–XVI (1952–1953), pp. 48–63Google Scholar, 96; Richter, op. cit., pp. 57–8, 105–9, figs. 308, 530, 532–40, 542–9; Siebert, G. in BCH Suppl. I, Études déliennes (1973), pp. 555–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

76 Nat. Hist, xxxiii, 144; xxxiv, 9.

77 At the triumph of Gnaeus Manlius: Pliny, Nat. Hist. xxxiv, 14; cf. Livy xxxix, 6, 7.

78 i.e. on virtually all of those where the leg components are sufficiently preserved for a judgement to be made, viz. nos. 1, 3, 4, 6, 12–15, 17, on pp. 21–4.

79 The evidence is discussed on pp. 26–7 above.

80 Especially stamped Nicephorus for Perennius: CV A Metropolitan Mus. New York, I (1943), pls. viii–xiiiGoogle Scholar; and M. Perennius Tigranus: ibid., pl. XXVII; Greifenhagen, A., Beiträge zur antiken Reliefkeramik (jdI Erg XXI, 1963), pls. v–ixGoogle Scholar; Brown, op. cit., pp. 4–6, no. 1, pls. I–IV.

81 NS 1893, pp. 64–8, with figs.; cf. also the Etruscan cineraria from Clusium, SE XXV (1957), pp. 114–15, figs. 6, 9.Google Scholar

82 Kyrieleis, op. cit., pp. 35–41, pls. viii, 2, ix, 1–3, xviii, 4.

83 Cf. the influence of Achaemenid forms on early Hellenistic (and earlier) Greek silver vessels: Strong, D. E., Greek and Roman Gold and Silver Plate (1966), pp. 75, 99–102, 106.Google Scholar

84 Kyrieleis, op. cit., pp. 146–51.

85 Bernard, P. in Syria, XLVII (1970), pp. 327–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

86 Stelai from Thasos: Picard, C. in BCH LXXVIII (1954), pp. 269–81Google Scholar, fig. 4, pls. XI–XII; marble legs from Amastris in Paphlagonia and stele from Samothrace: Mendel, G., Mus. Impériaux Ottomans, cat. des sculptures grecques, romaines et byzantines (1914), II, pp. 92–3Google Scholar. nos. 336–7, iii, p. 188, no. 975.

87 The earliest examples: Noe, S. P., The Alexander Coinage of Sicyon (1950), p. 33Google Scholar, pls. XV, XVIII; on dating: Troxell, H. in Museum Notes, XVII (1971), pp. 51 ff.Google Scholar In addition to Sicyon, D r. Price reports such thrones on issues of Cabyle, Mesembria, Temnos, Mytilene, Colophon, Magnesia, Teos, Chios, Alabanda, and Cos; he will deal with this material in his forthcoming Coins of Alexander the Great in the British Museum.

88 Kallixenos of Rhodes, cited in Athenaeus, v, 197 a.

89 Athenaeus, v, 202 a-b.

90 Now Naples, Gallery 29, no. 975. Nilsson, M. P., Timbres amphoriques de Lindos (1909), pp. 168–74Google Scholar, fig. 2; Studniczka, F., Das Symposion Ptolemaios II nach der Beschreibung des Kallixenos (Abh. säcks. Ges. d. Wissenschaften, XXX, 2, 1914), p. 119Google Scholar, fig. 29; Picard, C. in BCH LXXXIII (1959), pp. 409–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar, fig. 1, pl. xxiii.

91 From Delos: Picard, BCH LXXVIII, pp. 258–69, pl. ix; from Miletopolis in Mysia: Mendel, op. cit. iii, pp. 280–1, no. 1056 (where, however, linked with transitional-type of n. 86 above).

92 Often, however, indistinct and, doubtless, also including the transitional type. Pottier, E., Reinach, S., Veyries, A., La Nécropole de Myrina (1888), pp. 422–3Google Scholar, 437–48, pls. XXXVI, XL; Winter, op. cit. i, p. 197, nos. 2–4, ii, pp. 106, no. 6, 109, no. 6; Burr, D., Terracottas from Myrina in Mus. of Fine Arts, Boston (1934), p. 40Google Scholar, no. 20, pl. ix; Mollard-Besques, S., Cat. des figurines et reliefs en terre-cuite, Mus. du Louvre, II (1963), pp. 110–11Google Scholar, 114, 127, pls. CXXXIII, CXXXVII, CLIII-IV; Richter, op. cit., p. 57, figs. 302–3; Higgins, R. A., Greek Terracottas (1967), p. 117Google Scholar, frontispiece, pl. LIV a.

93 Körte, Rilievi delle Urne Etrusche, iii, pp. 135–6, nos. a-b, fig. 21.

94 Körte, op. cit., pp. 139, nos. a-d, 231, pl. CLVIII, 6.

95 e.g. Richter, op. cit., p. 92, fig. 457.

96 The cineraria of Aule, Larth and Vel(thur) Volumnius and (with couch legs of mixed type) of Arnth V.: Körte, Das Volumniergrab, pp. 15–18, nos. 2–5, pis. IV-VI; von Gerkan, A. and Messerschmidt, F. in RM LVII (1942), pp. 153–6, 217–35, pls. XVIII–XX.Google Scholar

97 e.g. the footstool and table, Richter, op. cit., pp. 105, 112, figs. 519, 567. On the much older sphinx support figures under the arms of classical Greek thrones and their oriental antecedents cf. Kyrieleis, op. cit., p. 200.

98 p. 22 above, no. 11.

99 e.g. in peristyle of House of Adonis, Pompeii: Raoul-Rochette, M., Choix de Peintures de Pompéi (Paris, 1844–1853), pp 135–52. pl. x.Google Scholar

100 p. 2 2 above, no. 5.

101 p. 23 above, nos. 12–14.

102 p. 24 above, no. 18.

103 e.g. in triclinium of House of Vettii: Hermann, P., Bruckmann, H., Denkmäler der Malerei des Altertums, I (1904–1931), p. 53. pl. XLIGoogle Scholar; Rizzo, G. E.,La Pittura Ellenistico-Romana (1929), pl. xxvi.Google Scholar

104 Duke of Serradifalco, Le Antichità della Sicilia, V (1842), pp. 63–4Google Scholar, pl. xxxix; JdI IV (1889), pp. 255–60Google Scholar, with figs.; Graeven, op. cit., p. 90, fig. 10; Marconi, P., Il Mus. Naz. di Palermo (1932), p. 14Google Scholar, figs, on p. 39.

105 pp. 21–4 above, nos. 3, 7, 9, 12 (?), and 17; also, in addition, p. 26, nn. 160, 166, and further recorded examples, such as Brunn, H. in AdI XXXIV (1862), p. 284, pl. p, bottom.Google Scholar

106 Cf. pp. 12, 14 above. Also earlier: cf. p. 17, n. 66.

107 Cf. pp. 15 and 17 above.

108 Pritchett, W. K. in Hesperia, XXII (1953), p. 253, no. II, ll. 235–6; xxv (1956), pp. 232–3.Google Scholar

109 Eccl. 906–10.

110 Filow, B. D., Die Grabhügelnekropole bet Duvanlij in Südbulgarien (1934), pp. 119–26, figs. 145–50; Kyrieleis, op. cit., pp. 126–9, pl. XVII, 3–4.Google Scholar

111 Richter, op. cit., pp. 56, 62, figs. 282, 299, 332, 620–1.

112 Kyrieleis, op. cit., pp. 129–31. Some, however, apparently retained a more rigid form of attachment, e.g. Richter, op. cit., pp. 56–7, figs. 300, 305.

113 Richter, op. cit., p. 57, figs. 306–7.

114 Inv. no. 1909.6–23.1. Graeven, op. cit., pp. 97–9, pl. LIX; Strong, E., Art in Ancient Rome, II (1929), p. 43, fig. 313.Google Scholar

115 Bendinelli, G., Il Tesoro di Argenteria di Marengo (Monumenti d'Arte Antica, R. Ace. di Torino, I, 1937), pp. 32Google Scholar, 55, pl. xii; Carducci, C., Antique Italian Gold and Silver (1964), p. 58Google Scholar, pl. LIX; D. E. Strong, op. cit., p. 179, pl. LIII b.

116 Naples example: p. 17 above, n. 71; Vindonissa couch: p. 23 below, no. 13.

117 e.g. Giglioli, op. cit., pls. CCCCM, CCCCXN, 2.

118 Hill, D. K. in Hesperia, xxxii (1963), pp. 293–300, pls. LXXVIII–IX.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

119 Naples 109881, 109888, from Pompeii: Graeven, op. cit., pp. 48–50, pls. xxx, right, xxxi, centre.

120 Naples 109889, 109890, from Pompeii: ibid., pp. 50–2, pl. XXXI, left and right. Cf. the ivory variety more in the normal evolved Hellenistic tradition: ibid., pp. 100–101, pl. LXI, bottom left, and closely similar examples in Athens National Museum, British Museum and formerly on London market (1973–4).

121 From the Penne find and showing interesting resemblances to Naples 109889 and 109890: p. 22 below, no. 10 (where, on quality of carving, provisionally linked with the later material, rather than the earlier, p. 21 no. 2); quite differently handled on the New York couch: p. 24 below, no. 17.

122 p. 17 above, nn. 62–3.

123 p. 21 above, no. 3.

124 e.g. the Marsiliana d'Albegna pyxis: Huls, Y., Ivoires d'Étrurie (1957), pp. 39–40, no. 12, pl. VIII.Google Scholar

125 Cf. ibid., pp. 31–2, no. 1, 61–2 no. 60, pls. I–II, XXVI.

126 Cf. the wooden pyxides of the 4 th century B.C. to 2nd century A.D.: Rieth, A. in AA 1955, pp. 1–26Google Scholar, figs. 2–8, 14–15; Vaulina, M. and Wąsowicz, A., Bois grecs et romains de l'Ermitage (1974), pp. 145–8Google Scholar, nos. 67–72, pls. CXXVI–VII.

127 e.g. Naples 112210 (from Herculaneum) and 77569 and 109856 (from Pompeii): Graeven, op. cit., pp. 59–64, pls. XXXVIII–XL. The Cupid pyxides are to be the subject of a detailed publication by Professor A. Adriani; meantime, see Marangou, L., Benaki Museum, Athens, Bone Carvings from Egypt, i, Graeco-Roman Period (1976), pp. 61–2, 125–6, nos. 217–18, pl. LXIV.Google Scholar

128 See p. 17 above.

129 At Messrs. Spink and Son Ltd., who unfortunately retain no record of the couch or of its present or past whereabouts.

130 pp. 26, 31 above.

131 For access to t h e Ancona couches, despite the earthquake damage to the museum, the author is deeply indebted to Dr. Liliana Mercando.

132 The tentative account of the Penne find given here is based on a comprehensive photographic coverage kindly provided by Dr. Cristiana Morigi Govi.

133 The author is considerably indebted to Dr. Piera Ferioli for access to all of the relevant finds in t h e Museo Nazionale Romano.

134 Perhaps, on the analogy of the Ancona couch, no. 4 above, rightly assigned to the corners of the frame, rather than interpreted as going on the back side of the sculptures on the legs, in that case set against a narrow vertical cylinder of the kind met with on the Vindonissa couches, nos. 12–14.

135 Seemingly bought in, to judge from a marked copy of the catalogue.

136 Access kindly provided by Dr. Klaus Vierneissel.

137 For such lion masks and their position on the frame, cf. the representation in Perugia: Körte, Rilievi delle Urne Etrusche, iii, p. 139, pl. cix, 5.

138 On quality of carving, provisionally linked to this couch rather than no. 2 above, but not of itself datable.

139 p. 20 above, n. 120.

140 Ransom, op. cit., pl. xxii. On the sphinx-leg couches, to which this example may thus belong, see p. 19 above.

141 Ransom, op. cit., p. 103, pls. xxiv–v. To judge from composition and partly fretted execution, rightly assigned to corners of frame and not, as has been claimed, from a cylindrical relief frieze on the legs.

142 The couches from Eckinger's two cremation burials have been given the same inventory number and the carvings, conflated in both display and storage, can only now be distinguished on the basis of the selection of fragments published by Eckinger. To prepare reconstruction drawings of this material would entail many months of work. The provisional opinions given here on the Vindonissa finds are based on some hours spent examining the fragments, through the kindness of Mr. Martin Hartmann and his very helpful staff and arranged in advance by Dr. H. Isler.

143 This question is debated above, pp. 25–6, 27.

144 The author's attention was first drawn to this find by Dr. P. La Baume and Dr. P. Noelke.

145 The account given here is based on a detailed photographic coverage kindly provided by Dr. Dietrich von Bothmer. The suggested new interpretations have not, however, been able to b e checked at first hand and are accordingly tentative.

146 NS 1902, p. 458. For the coin type and its current dating cf. Crawford, M., Roman Republican Coinage (1974), p. 229, no. 173, pl. XXVIII.Google Scholar

147 NS 1902, p. 457, fig. 28 (misquoted as 26), no. 12.

148 Ibid., pp. 450–2.

149 One handle missing. The reference made by Brizio to NS 1892, p. 83, should read ‘pp. 85–6’.

150 Dr. Hayes relates it to Baur, P. V. C., Cat. Stoddard Coll. (1922), p. 256, no. 558, fig. 112, which he is inclined to date around the mid first century B.C.Google Scholar

151 MA I (1889), p. 235Google Scholar, pl. II, 5–8; for t he combination of these fusiform and globular varieties, Dr. Hayes cites the early Augustan group, Bernabò-Brea, L. and Cavalier, M., Meligunìs- Lipára, II (1965), pp. 258–9Google Scholar, pls. CCXIV–VI.

152 MA I (1889), p. 235, pl. II, 9–11.Google Scholar

153 Hinz, op. cit., p. 66; this find is at present known to the author only from this publication.

154 Studi Classici e Orientali, XXIV (1975), p. 57 n. 24; the author is indebted to Dr. M. J. Vickers for first drawing his attention to this find, which is known to h im only from this preliminary report.Google Scholar

155 MA I (1889), p. 234Google Scholar

156 Cf. Robertson, A. S., Roman Imperial Coins in Hunter Cabinet, i, Augustus to Nerva (1962), p. LV (dated c. A.D. 34–7).Google Scholar

157 Paribeni, Terme, p. 293, no. 990.

158 ‘From the Abruzzi (?)'. Last cited by Eckinger in Anz. f. schw. Alt. XXXI (1929), p. 251.Google Scholar

159 Cinerary urn found with no. 12: ibid., p. 242; the dating is that suggested by the Vindonissamuseum. Flavian offerings associated with no. 13: Ges. Pro Vind.Jber. 1955–6, p p. 32–4, fig. 17.

160 National Museum, Warsaw; nos. 148306 and 148307 cited Marangou, op. cit., p. 62 n. 352. The author is indebted to Dr. E. Rodziewicz for information on this material.

161 p. 20 above, n. 120.

162 p. 17 above, n. 63.

163 Anz.f. schw. Alt. XXXI (1929), p. 255, nos. K and L. The author is indebted to Dr. I. Jensen for t he information that the Cologne find formerly in the Schlossmuseum in Mannheim cannot now be traced in the Reiss-Museum. As this article goes to press, it has just been confirmed that the two other finds formerly in the Wallraf-Richartz-Museum have been identified by Dr. P. La Baume in the Römisch-Germanisches Museum in Cologne, but no further information on t h em is yet to hand; see the Addendum, p. 31.Google Scholar

164 Beschreibung römischer Altertümer gesammelt von C. A. Niessen in Köln (3rd edn., 1911), pp. 256 f., pl. CXLVIII; Eckinger in Anz.f. schw. Alt. XXXI (1929), pp. 252–4, fig. 7.Google Scholar

165 Cf. Hinz, op. cit., p. 66; Eckinger, op. at., p. 255.

166 Marangou, op. cit., pp. 62, 126, no. 221, pl. LXI c. Now removed from its mount, revealing more of the feet and the inverted vessel or omphalos between them. The author is indebted to Dr. Marangou for help on this and other matters.

167 e.g. nos. 3, 7, 9, and 17 above and t h e corner reliefs of nos. 11 and 17, this work being often more summary than that of the rest of the couch.

168 Rieth in AA 1955, p. 5; Woodbury, R. S., The History of the Lathe to 1850 (1964), pp. 20–4.Google Scholar

169 Huls, op. cit., passim.

170 Ibid., pp. 85–7, 204–8, 216, pls. LII-III; Weinberg, S. S. in Muse, IX (1975), pp. 25–33Google Scholar. Possibly the finest Hellenistic Etruscan ivories are the figures, Müinzen und Medaillen Sonderlist, O (1972), p. 22Google Scholar, no. 58, with figs.

171 Weinberg, op. cit., figs. 1–3, 5–9, including a winged Minerva and a winged Triton.

172 p. 23 above, nos. 12–14.

173 pp. 16, 17, 20 above.

174 pp. 4–5, 8–10 above.

175 p. 23 above, no. 12.

176 As a result of such considerations, in the preliminary reports on the reconstruction of the Cambridge couch, the dates suggested for it have varied between c. 100 B.C. and the later first century B.C.

177 pp. 17–21, 24–5 above.

178 pp. 17, 24, 25 above.

179 pp. 16–17 above.

180 pp. 25–6 above.

181 pp. 17, 21, 26 above. A find of bone carvings very similar in style to those of the Vindonissa couches (especially to nos. 12 and 14 on p. 23) made at S. Vittore di Cingoli in the Marche (NS 1974, p. 123, figs. 42–3) does little to resolve this problem. They are from the vicinity of a group of cremation burials mainly of the early first century A.D., but including one burial possibly as late as Flavian times. These carvings were too incomplete for their finder even to identify as from a couch or for their inclusion in the list of documented finds given above; they may also include fragments of Cupid pyxides (ibid., fig. 43, top left; cf. p. 21 above, n. 127).

182 On at least two of these couches (p. 23, nos. 13–14) these sculptures, though differently conceived, varied in size like those of the Cambridge couch, suggesting the only parallels so far observed for the unusual reciprocal effect shown by the legs of the latter (pp. 4–7, 11 above).