Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T16:12:36.211Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Studies in Early Etruscan Bucchero

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 August 2013

Nancy Hirschland Ramage
Get access

Extract

Bucchero is a type of Etruscan pottery which is black, both on the surface and in the core. There are many different shades of grey to black which are still considered to be bucchero, but in all cases the core of the pottery must be ‘reduced.’ The process was discovered by the Etruscans, and gave rise to one of the most characteristic products of their culture.

Bucchero varies enormously from period to period, from place to place. In this paper the period to be covered is approximately 650–600 B.C., during which the forms of bucchero sottile were established and developed in southern Etruria. The origins of these forms will also be sought in earlier periods, chiefly from the late eighth century onwards. The bucchero pesante of the sixth century, and later types continuing in the fifth, will not be considered here.

Type
Research Article
Information
Papers of the British School at Rome , Volume 38 , November 1970 , pp. 1 - 61
Copyright
Copyright © British School at Rome 1970

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

* This paper is in large part based on my doctoral dissertation for Harvard University, June, 1969. I would especially like to thank Mr. J. B. Ward-Perkins and Prof. G. M. A. Hanfmann for their valuable advice at various stages; and Prof. Mario Torelli and Dr. Francesco Roncalli for many helpful discussions regarding the material. L'ing. Lerici and the Dott.ssa Vanoni were kind enough to allow me to study and draw the Lerici material. Thanks are due also to Dr. Mario Moretti for permission to work with the bucchero in the Cerveteri and Tarquinia museums and storerooms. Finally, I would like to thank Mr. B. Shefton for reading the proofs, and for making some very helpful suggestions.

1 Shepard, A. O., Ceramics for the Archaeologist, Washington, 1963, p. 216Google Scholar; Noble, J. V., Techniques of Painted Attic Pottery, New York, 1965, p. 43Google Scholar. Also Goldman, H., ed., Excavations at Gözlü Kule, Tarsus III, Princeton, 1963, p. 66Google Scholar; Richter, G. M. A., ‘Technique of Bucchero Ware,’ StEtr, x, 1963, p. 61Google Scholar. Abbreviations used in the footnotes comply with the ‘Notes for Contributors and Abbreviations,’ American Journal of Archaeology, lxix, 1965, pp. 199 ffGoogle Scholar.

2 Bucchero from other places, such as Lesbos, was made by the same technique only by coincidence (see below, p. 4). A similar process is used today in the Santa Clara and San Ildefonso pueblos in New Mexico.

3 Hencken, H., Tarquinia, Villanovans and Early Etruscans, Cambridge (Mass.), 1968, pp. 374–6Google Scholar; Rebuffat, M. R., MélRom, lxxiv, 1962, p. 387Google Scholar. He dates it 680–660 B.C.

4 MonAnt, xlii, 1955, pp. 346 ffGoogle Scholar.

5 Close-Brooks, J., NSc, xix, 1965, pp. 57 ff.Google Scholar, fig. 5; and in StEtr, xxxv, 1968, pp. 325 ffGoogle Scholar.

6 NSc, 1882, pp. 291 ff.Google Scholar

7 Payne, H., Necrocorinthia, Oxford, 1932, pp. 18, 27, 272Google Scholar, dated it 650–640; concurring with this dating is Villard, F., MélRom, lx, 1948, pp. 7 ff.Google Scholar

8 Bundgȧrd, J. A., Analecta Romana Instituti Danici, iii, 1965, pp. 30 ff.Google Scholar Other early abecedaria on bucchero of approximately the same date appear on an unguentarium from the Regolini-Galassi Tomb and on a chalice from Narce, which belongs slightly later according to the shape, although the writing is considered to be extremely early (ibid., pp. 27 ff.) These are all dated by L. H. Jeffery simply as 650–600 B.C. (Local Scripts of Archaic Greece, Oxford, 1961, p. 237)Google Scholar. The script on a bucchero aryballos from Viterbo, in the shape of a cock, is certainly somewhat later (Bundgȧrd, op. cit., pp. 38 ff.).

8a Cf. the discussion on buccheroid by Gjerstad, E., Early Rome, VI, i, Lund, 1966, pp. 268 ff.Google Scholar

9 Matteucig, G., Poggio Buco, Berkeley, 1951, p. 15Google Scholar.

10 To mention a few: Hanfmann, G. M. A., ‘Eine Syrische Bronzestatuette in Berlin,’ AA, 1935, pp. 50 ff.Google Scholar; Hopkins, C., ‘Oriental Evidence for Early Etruscan Chronology,’ Berytus, xi, 1955, pp. 75 ffGoogle Scholar; Maxwell-Hyslop, K. R., ‘Urartian Bronzes in Etruscan Tombs,’ Iraq, xviii, 1956, p. 150CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

11 Dunbabin, T. J., The Greeks and their Eastern Neighbours, London, 1957, pp. 35 ff.Google Scholar; Hanfmann, G. M. A., ‘Archaeology in Homeric Asia Minor,’ AJA, lii, 1948, pp. 135 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Barnett, R., ‘Early Greek and Oriental Ivories,’ JHS, lxviii, 1948, pp. 1 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

12 Brown, W. L., The Etruscan Lion, Oxford, 1960, pp. 2, 6 f.Google Scholar, 26 ff.

13 Hanfmann, op. cit. (note 10), pp. 50 ff.

14 Dohan, E. Hall, Italic Tomb Groups, Philadelphia, 1942, p. 59, pl. XXXII, 54Google Scholar. Also Jacobsthal, P., JRS, xxxiii, 1943, p. 99Google Scholar.

15 Inv. no. ND 7844 B. Mallowan, M. E. L., Nimrud and its Remains, ii, 1966Google Scholar, pl. 357. I am grateful to Prof. Torelli for pointing this out to me. Cf. also a related bowl in the Bernardini Tomb, Curtis, C. D., MAAR, iii, 1919, pl. 46Google Scholar.

16 Mallowan, op. cit., pp. 2130–1.

17 Pareti, L., La Tomba Regolini-Galassi, Vatican City, 1947Google Scholar, nos. 251–254, pl. XXXVI and Giglioli, G., L'Arte Etrusca, Milan, 1935, pl. 15.2Google Scholar; Falchi, I., Vetulonia, Florence, 1891, pl. X, 13, 14 and p. 135Google Scholar; Giglioli, op. cit., pl. 39.3 and Levi, D., C.V.A., Italy8Google Scholar, Florence 1, pl. 15.

18 Ward, W. H., The Seal Cylinders of Western Asia, Washington, 1910, pp. 369–70Google Scholar, no. 1274 and our Fig. 1. Prof. Hanfmann was kind enough to inform me of this parallel.

19 Camporeale, G., ‘Brocchetta Cipriota della Tomba del Duce di Vetulonia,’ ArchCl, xiv, 1962, pp. 61 ff.Google Scholar; Gjerstad, E., Early Rome IV, Lund, 1966, p. 270Google Scholar.

20 Hanfmann, G. M. A., ‘Ionia, Leader or Follower?’ HSCP, lxi, 1953, pp. 1 ffGoogle Scholar. Cf. also Birmingham, J. M., ‘The Overland Route across Anatolia in the Eighth and Seventh Centuries B.C.’, AnatSt, xi, 1961, pp. 185 ffGoogle Scholar.

21 Dunbabin, op. cit., p. 45; Barnett, op. cit., pp. 8–10. Cf. also Herrmann, H.-V., ‘Urartu und Griechenland,’ JDAI, 81, 1966, pp. 79 ff.Google Scholar

22 D'Agostino, B., ArchCl, xiv, 1962, pp. 71 ff.Google Scholar

23 Johansen, K. F., Les Vases Sicyoniens, Paris, 1923, pp. 27–8Google Scholar; Kinch, K. F., Vroulia, Berlin, 1914, p. 46Google Scholar.

23a A fine early example with dotted closed fans appeared in the London market (Spinks) in 1966. For the shape, cf. the buccheroid impasto in Gjerstad, op. cit. (note 19), p. 155, fig. 62.7. I am grateful to Mr. Shefton for this information.

24 For a bronze example in the Warrior Tomb, see Hencken, op. cit. (note 3), fig. 184b.

25 The first number is Pareti's; the second is the new number given by the Vatican Museum. This form will be continued wherever possible throughout the paper.

26 Ducati, P., Storia dell' Arte Etrusca, ii, Florence, 1927Google Scholar, pl. 3, 10a and b. Also Mayer, M., JDAI, xxii, 1907, pp. 207 ff.Google Scholar

27 Brown, op. cit. (note 12), p. 38, note 2.

28 Blakeway, A., ‘Demaratus,’ JRS, xxv, 1935, pp. 129 ff.Google Scholar For eighth-century Italic Geometric, see Coldstream, J. N., Greek Geometric Pottery, London, 1968, pp. 91, and 370–371Google Scholar.

29 NSc, xix, 1965, p. 152Google Scholar, fig. 67, Tomb II 14 Q.

30 Cf. photos: Dohan, op. cit. (note 14), pl. XXX.9 and pl. XXXIX.9. Also the bucchero imitation, pl. XL.4.

31 A bucchero aryballos in the Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge (GR 4–1929), with a graffito, has an ovoid shape which seems too early for the 2nd half of the century; but as it is to my knowledge unique, we must explain it as a lag in style.

32 As for the chalice, the bucchero form was based on an ivory prototype, which in turn was probably imitating a metal prototype.

33 Pareti, op. cit. (note 17), p. 225. Cf. also Matz, F., ‘Die altitalischen und vorderasiatischen Riefelschalen,’ Klio, xxiv, 1937, p. 110Google Scholar. Also Luschey, H., Phiale, 1939, pp. 92 ff.Google Scholar

34 Ryberg, I. S., An Archaeological Record of Rome, Philadelphia, 1940, p. 19Google Scholar; Gjerstad, op. cit. (note 19), p. 157 and fig. 88.1.

35 Bundgård, op. cit. (note 8), p. 66 note 47, and his discussion pp. 33 ff. Buonamici wished to place the alphabet in the first half of the century, but this in no way fits with the evidence of the other material (Epigrafia Etrusca, Florence, 1932, p. 107)Google Scholar. Cf. Jeffery, op. cit. (note 8), pp. 237, 240–1.

36 Riis, P. J., Gnomon, xxiii, 1951, pp. 64 ffGoogle Scholar.

37 Mingazzini, P., Vasi della Collezione Castellani, Rome, 1930Google Scholar, pl. VII.8; also Mayer, op. cit. (note 26), p. 207, fig. 18 b.

38 Pareti, op. cit. (note 17), pp. 380–1 and 511; Gjerstad, E., Opuscula Romana, v, 1965, p. 56Google Scholar.

39 It hung precipitously over the edge of the hill, which probably accounts for the fact that it had never been robbed.

40 StEtr, i, 1927, p. 160Google Scholar, pls. 27–28. MonAnt, xlii, 1955, pp. 329 ff.Google Scholar, figs. 66 and 67. Payne, op. cit. (note 7), p. 27.

41 Payne, op. cit., pp. 273 ff., nos. 55, 56, 160, 151.

42 Dohan, op. cit. (note 14), p. 5 and pl. VII.6 and XLIX.9.

43 De Juliis, E., ‘Buccheri Figurati del Museo Archeologico Nazionale,’ ArchClass, xx, 1968, pp. 24 ff.Google Scholar; Brown, op. cit. (note 12), pp. 47–8. Also H. Palmer, unpublished thesis at Johns Hopkins University (ref. from Prof. Hanfmann). Cf. also Szilagyi, J. G., ‘Italo-Corinthiaca,’ StEtr, xxvi, 1958, pp. 273 ff.Google Scholar and ‘Remarques sur les vases Etrusco-Corinthiens de l'Exposition Etrusque de Vienne,’ ArchClass, xx, 1968, pp. 1 ff.Google Scholar; also Amyx, D. A., ‘Some Etrusco-Corinthian Vase Painters,’ Studi in Onore di L. Banti, Rome, 1965, pp. 1 ff.Google Scholar

44 Johansen, op. cit. (note 23), pl. VIII.5 and 6.

44a Dunbabin, T. J., Perachora, ii, Oxford, 1962, p. 540 (on 4121–7)Google Scholar.

45 I should like to thank Dr. Roncalli for his assistance, in allowing me to draw the Vatican pots and in having the analysis of the skyphos made.

46 Higgins, R., Minoan and Mycenaean Art, New York, 1967, fig. 131Google Scholar; and A Catalogue of the Greek and Etruscan Vases in the British Museum, London, 1925, vol. I, p. 153Google Scholar.

47 Persson, A. W., New Tombs at Dendra near Midea, Lund, 1942, pp. 92–3, 137Google Scholar. Cf. also a mercury-gilded silver relief of the seventh century, Richter, G. M. A., Handbook of the Greek Collection, Metropolitan Museum of Art, Cambridge (Mass.), 1953, p. 32Google Scholar. For later examples, see Strong, D. E., Greek and Roman Gold and Silver Plate, Ithaca, New York, 1966, pp. 11 ffGoogle Scholar.

48 E. Zapicchi and his father, who is in charge of the Cerveteri storerooms and tombs, were most helpful to me over a period of months when I was working there.

49 The caution with which a typology should be read is ably set forth by Arne Furumark in his Introduction to The Mycenaean Pottery: Analysis and Classification, Stockholm, 1941, p. 1 ffGoogle Scholar.

50 T. Dohrn, ‘Die Etruskische Bandhenkel Amphora des 7. Christ, J. H. v.,’ Studi in Onore di L. Banti, Rome, 1965, pp. 143 ffGoogle Scholar.

51 Gjerstad, E. and Gierow, P. G., Opus Arch, v, 1962, p. 50Google Scholar, and Gjerstad, , Opuscula Romana, v, 1965, pp. 49 ff.Google Scholar

52 Gallatin, A., AJA, xxx, 1926, p. 76CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

53 Pasqui, A., MonAnt, iv, 1894, pp. 230 ff.Google Scholar and fig. 103.

54 Gjerstad. op. cit. (note 19), p. 281.

55 Pasqui, op. cit., pp. 230 ff.

56 Ryberg, op. cit. (note 34), p. 23. I came to the suggestion which I make here below independently of her similar suggestion.

57 Palm, J., ‘Veiian Tomb Groups in the Museo Preistorico, Rome,’ Opus Arch, vii, 1952, pl. 6 and p. 85Google Scholar.

58 Ryberg, op. cit., p. 23, pl. 8.

59 Dohrn, op. cit., pp. 143 ff.

60 When referring to material from the Lerici Collection, the letters will indicate the zone, the first number is that of the tomb, and the second number is that of the piece in the tomb. MA refers to Monte Abbatone; B refers to Bufolareccia. Cf. Lerici, C., Nuove Testimonianze dell' Arte e della Civiltà Etrusca, Milan, 1960, p. 46Google Scholar; and Vanoni, L., Materiali di Antichità Varia, v, Rome, 1966Google Scholar.

61 H. R. W. Smith thought that the sixth century bucchero stand with a convex open ‘trough’ was the model for a Chalcidian piece in the University of Pennsylvania Museum. ‘Origin of Chalcidian Ware,’ U. of California Publications in Classical Archaeology, i, Berkeley, 1932, pp. 96 ff.Google ScholarContra, see Rumpf, A., Philol. Wochschr., 1934Google Scholar, col. 681, and Dohrn, T., Die Schwarzfigurigen etruskischen Vasen, pp. 10 and 144Google Scholar, no. 32. Cf. also von Bothmer, D., AJA, lxx, 1966, p. 184Google Scholar.

62 Silver : Minto, A., Marsiliana d' Albegna, Florence, 1921, p. 213Google Scholar, fig. 12. Curtis, C. D., MAAR, v, 1925Google Scholar, pl. 5, fig. 2, 3, 4, 6. Falchi, op. cit. (note 17), pl. X.3. Pareti, op. cit, nos. 157–162. The Pontecagnano finds are as yet unpublished, but B. D'Agostino, Soprintendente at Salerno, was kind enough to send me the pertinent information. Gold: Curtis, C. D., MAAR, iii, 1919Google Scholar, pl. 10. Bronze: Curtis, , MAAR, v, 1925Google Scholar, pls. 19, 20, 21.1.

63 Brown, op. cit. (note 12), pp. 28–9.

64 Curtis, , MAAR, iii, 1919Google Scholar, pl. 10.

65 NSc, xiii, 1935, p. 350Google Scholar, fig. 21d.

66 Gjerstad, op. cit. (note 19), p. 280.

67 Young, R. S., AJA, lxx, 1966, pp. 268–9Google Scholar, pl. 74, fig. 3.

68 Brown, op. cit., p. 33. For the Barberini Tomb examples, see Curtis, , MAAR, v, 1925Google Scholar, pls. 13 and 14.

69 Brown, loc. cit.

70 Chronique des Fouilles en 1956,’ BCH, lxxxi, 1957, p. 531Google Scholar and pl. XIII. Cf. also Ducat, J., ‘Perirranteria,’ BCH, lxxxviii, 1964, pp. 577 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Hiesel, G., Samische Steingeräte, Hamburg, 1967, pp. 4 ff.Google Scholar

71 Riis, P. J., Tyrrhenika, Copenhagen, 1941, pp. 20–1Google Scholar; Hanfmann, G. M. A., Altetruskische Plastik, I, Wurzburg, 1936, pp. 23, 66 ff.Google ScholarCf. also Mallowan, op. cit. (note 15), I, p. 211, fig. 146.

72 Close-Brooks, J., NSc, xix, 1965, p. 57Google Scholar.

73 Gjerstad, op. cit. (note 19), p. 280 and Palm, op. cit. (note 57), pls. 13, 15, 17, 18, etc.

74 Mingazzini, op. cit. (note 37), pl. I.1–2.

75 Ibid., pl. I.7–10.

76 Enciclopedia dell' Arte Antica, ii, Rome, 1959, p. 207Google Scholar. Cf. also NSc, xxi, 1965, p. 152Google Scholar, fig. 67, Tomb II 14 Q.

77 Weinberg, S., Hesperia, xvii, 1948, p. 227Google Scholar, pl. 83. For kantharoi from Perachora, cf. Dunbabin, op. cit. (note 44a), p. 385; and from elsewhere, p. 386, n. 1. Also Villard, F., ‘Les canthares de bucchero,’ Hommages à Albert Grenier, Coll. Latomus, 58, 1962, pp. 1625 ffGoogle Scholar.

78 Clara Rhodos, iii, 1929, p. 24Google Scholar, no. 6.

79 Cook, R. M., Butchart, C. B. R., ‘Some Bucchero Vases from Ardea,’ PBSR, xvii, 1949, pp. 1 ff.Google Scholar; Isler, H. P., ‘Etruskischer Bucchero aus dem Heraion von Samos,’ AM, 82, 1967, pp. 77 ff.Google Scholar

80 Atkinson, K. M. T., PBSR, xiv, 1938, pp. 115 ffGoogle Scholar; Dunbabin, T. J., PBSR, xvi, 1948, p. 19Google Scholar.

81 Jacobsthal, P., ‘Rhodische Bronzekannen aus Hallstattgräbern,’ JDAI, xliv, 1929, pp. 198 ff.Google Scholar

82 NSc, xvii, 1963, p. 197Google Scholar, fig. 78e. Cf. also MonAnt, iv, 1894Google Scholar, pl. XXX, p. 76.

83 Courbin, P., ‘Les origines du canthare attique archaique,’ BCH, lxxvii, 1953, pp. 322 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

84 Palm, op. cit. (note 57), Tombs IV, XII, XVII, XIX, XX.

85 NSc, xiii, 1935Google Scholar, pl. I.1.

86 NSc, xix, 1965, p. 219Google Scholar, fig. 108m; Montelius, O., Civilisation primitive en Italie, Stockholm, 1895Google Scholar, pl. 283, fig. 9.

87 For Villanovan prototypes, see: Crested: NSc, xix, 1965, p. 193Google Scholar, fig. 93d. Winged: NSc, xix, 1965, p. 197Google Scholar, fig. 96b. The wings of this type of pot are placed at the top of the handle, rather than near the rim, as on the bucchero examples.

88 Johansen, op. cit. (note 44), p. 80 and Payne op. cit. (note 7), p. 8. Cf. also Hanfmann, G. M. A., ‘Aegean and the Near East,’ Studies Presented to Hetty Goldman on the Occasion of her 75th Birthday, New York, 1956, p. 168Google Scholar; and Goldman, op. cit. (note 1), pp. 285 and pl. 145.

89 Villard, F. and Vallet, G., ‘Megara Hyblaea,’ MélRom, lxvii, 1955Google Scholar, fig. 4d.

90 Gjerstad, op. cit. (note 19), pp. 281 f. and Kinch, op. cit. (note 23), pl. 34, 38, 39, etc.

91 Enciclopedia dell' Arte Antica, ii, Rome, 1959, p. 206Google Scholar.

92 Kinch, op. cit., pp. 78 and 168; Price, E., Classification of East Greek Pottery, 1927, p. 4Google Scholar.

93 Villard and Vallet, op. cit., pp. 14 ff., pl. 4A.

94 Gjerstad, op. cit. (note 19), p. 281.

95 Magi, F., La Raccolta B. Guglielmi nel Museo Gregoriano Etrusco, Vatican City, 1939, part 1, pp. 138 fGoogle Scholar.

96 Gallatin, op. cit. (note 52), p. 76.

97 MonAnt, iv, 1894, p. 428Google Scholar, fig. 148.

98 Magi, op. cit., pp. 138 f.

99 Pareti, op. cit. (note 17), nos. 165–166, pl. XVII; Curtis, , MAAR, iii, 1919Google Scholar, pl. 26, 2–3; Curtis, MAAR, v, 1925Google Scholar, pl. 6, 1–2; Falchi, op. cit, (note 20), pl. X. 18; Pellegrini, G., MonAnt, xiii, 1903, p. 241Google Scholar, fig. 17. I am indebted to Dr.Bruno D'Agostino for supplying me with information concerning the find at Pontecagnano.

100 Brown, op. cit. (note 15), p. 38, note 1.

101 Hencken, op. cit. (note 3), fig. 194b, and Åkerström, Å., Der Geometrische Stil in Italien, Uppsala, 1943, p. 78Google Scholar.

102 Hencken, op. cit., pp. 213 and 216.

103 Payne, op. cit. (note 7), fig. 6 and fig. 10, a and b. Cf. also Villard, F., MonPiot, xlviii, 1956, p. 47Google Scholar.

104 Now in Berlin. Jacobsthal, op. cit. (note 81), pl. III.1, and IV.1–2.

105 Villard, op. cit. (note 103), pp. 25 ff.

106 Ibid., p. 44. But see the convincing arguments which make these bronzes Etruscan works: Frey, O. H., ‘Zu den ‘rhodischen’ Bronzekannen aus Hallstattgräbern,’ Marburger Winckelmann-Programm, 1963, pp. 18 ff.Google Scholar

107 Payne, op. cit. (note 7), p. 299.