Florida State University Libraries
Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations The Graduate School
2006 Bucchero Pottery from Cetamura del Chianti (1978-2003) Stephanie A. Layton
Follow this and additional works at the FSU Digital Library. For more information, please contact [email protected]
THE FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF ARTS AND SCIENCES
BUCCHERO POTTERY FROM CETAMURA DEL CHIANTI (1978-2003)
By
STEPHANIE A. LAYTON
A Thesis submitted to the Department of Classics in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts
Degree Awarded: Summer Semester, 2006
Copyright © 2006 Stephanie A. Layton All Rights Reserved
The members of the Committee approve the thesis of Stephanie A. Layton defended on
th
April 25P ,P 2006.
______Nancy T. de Grummond Professor Directing Thesis
______David Stone Committee Member
______Daniel J. Pullen Committee Member
The Office of Graduate Studies has verified and approved the above named committee members
ii
For my Parents – Thank you for all your love and support
iii TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Figures v
Abstract xii
Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION 1
Chapter 2 THE CATALOG
A. Bucchero Catalog Methodology 7 B. Catalog of Cetamura Bucchero Pottery 10 I. Miniature Kyathos II. Small Jar III. Plate-Cover IV. Kantharos V. Plates VI. Bowls VII. Miniature Bowls VIII. Cups IX. Chalices C. Special Examples 48 I. Stamp II. Sigla III. Problem pieces
Chapter 3 CONCLUSION 55
Appendices 60 A. Catalog of Cetamura Impasto Pottery B. Provenance Index of All Bucchero from Cetamura C. Form Index of Cataloged Bucchero and Impasto from Cetamura D. Part Index of Cataloged Bucchero and Impasto from Cetamura E. Concordance
FIGURES AND ILLUSTRATIONS 77
BIBLIOGRAPHY 183
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 187
iv LIST OF FIGURES
1. Map of Etruria 77
2. Cetamura del Chianti General Site Plan 78
3. Map of Bucchero Distribution at Cetamura 79
4. Map of Cataloged Bucchero Distribution at Cetamura 80
5. Drawing of Cat. 1 C-02-44 81
6. Drawing of Cat. 2 C-99-236 82
7. Drawing of Cat. 3 C-88-249 83
8. Drawing of Cat. 4 C-88-169 84
9. Drawing of Cat. 5 C-99-81 85
10. Drawing of Cat. 6 C-99-318 86
11. Drawing of Cat. 7 C-01-406 87
12. Drawing of Cat. 8 C-01-716 88
13. Drawing of Cat. 11 C-99-151 89
14. Drawing of Cat. 13 C-99-50 90
15. Drawing of Cat. 14 C-99-528 91
16. Drawing of Cat. 15 C-03-32 92
17. Drawing of Cat. 16 C-98-62 93
18. Drawing of Cat. 17 C-87-344 94
19. Drawing of Cat. 20 C-94-108 95
20. Drawing of Cat. 22 C-99-231 96
21. Drawing of Cat. 24 C-99-317 97
v
22. Drawing of Cat. 25 C-01-362a 98
23. Drawing of Cat. 28 C-95-163 99
24. Drawing of Cat. 29 C-01-478c 100
25. Drawing of Cat. 30 C-93-100 101
26. Drawing of Cat. 31 C-99-34 102
27. Drawing of Cat. 33 C-98-66 103
28. Drawing of Cat. 34 C-99-282 104
29. Drawing of Cat. 35 C-01-478a 105
30. Drawing of Cat. 36 C-02-42 106
31. Drawing of Cat. 37 C-95-79 107
32. Drawing of Cat. 39 C-95-164 108
33. Drawing of Cat. 40 C-98-71 109
34. Drawing of Cat. 41 C-99-179 110
35. Drawing of Cat. 42 C-94-47 111
36. Drawing of Cat. 43 C-84-656 112
37. Drawing of Cat. 44 C-03-164 113
38. Drawing of Cat. 45 C-01-363 114
39. Drawing of Cat. 47 C-94-48 115
40. Drawing of Cat. 48 C-94-49 116
41. Drawing of Cat. 49 C-88-124 117
42. Drawing of Cat. 50 C-90-74 118
43. Drawing of Cat. 51 C-94-90 119
44. Drawing of Cat. 52 C-98-158 120
vi
45. Drawing of Cat. 53 C-99-283 121
46. Drawing of Cat. 54 C-02-203 122
47. Drawing of Cat. 55 C-03-86 123
48. Drawing of Cat. 56 C-03-22 124
49. Drawing of Cat. 57 C-99-31 125
50. Drawing of Cat. 58 C-91-176 126
51. Drawing of Cat. 59 C-01-399 127
52. Drawing of Cat. 60 C-93-106 128
53. Drawing of Cat. 61 C-01-681a 129
54. Drawing of Cat. 62 C-01-681b 130
55. Drawing of Cat.63 C-01-681c 131
56. Drawing of Cat. 64 C-99-51a 132
57. Photo of Cat. 1 C-02-44 133
58. Photo of Cat. 2 C-99-236 133
59. Photo of Cat. 3 C-88-249 134
60. Photo of Cat. 4 C-88-169 134
61. Photo of Cat. 5 C-99-81 135
62. Photo of Cat. 6 C-99-318 135
63. Photo of Cat. 7 C-01-406 136
64. Photo of Cat. 8 C-01-716 136
65. Photo of Cat. 9 C-98-116 137
66. Photo of Cat. 10 C-99-30 137
67. Photo of Cat. 11 C-99-151 138
vii
68. Photo of Cat. 12 C-99-238 138
69. Photo of Cat. 13 C-99-50 139
70. Photo of Cat. 14 C-99-528 139
71. Photo of Cat. 15 C-03-32 140
72. Photo of Cat. 16 C-98-62 140
73. Photo of Cat. 17 C-87-344 141
74. Photo of Cat. 18 C-93-24 141
75. Photo of Cat. 19 C-94-79 142
76. Photo of Cat. 20 C-94-108 142
77. Photo of Cat. 21 C-98-114 143
78. Photo of Cat. 22 C-99-231 143
79. Photo of Cat. 23 C-99-316 144
80. Photo of Cat. 24 C-99-317 144
81. Photo of Cat. 25 C-01-362a 145
82. Photo of Cat. 26 C-01-731 145
83. Photo of Cat. 27 C-93-116 146
84. Photo of Cat. 28 C-95-163 146
85. Photo of Cat. 29 C-01-478c 147
86. Photo of Cat. 30 C-93-100 147
87. Photo of Cat. 31 C-99-34 148
88. Photo of Cat. 32 C-99-281 148
89. Photo of Cat. 33 C-98-66 149
90. Photo of Cat. 34 C-99-282 149
viii
91. Photo of Cat. 35 C-01-478a 150
92. Photo of Cat. 36 C-02-42 150
93. Photo of Cat. 37 C-95-79 151
94. Photo of Cat. 38 C-98-173 151
95. Photo of Cat. 39 C-95-164 152
96. Photo of Cat. 40 C-98-71 152
97. Photo of Cat. 41 C-99-179 153
98. Photo of Cat. 42 C-94-47 153
99. Photo of Cat. 43 C-94-48 154
100. Photo of Cat. 44 C-84-565 154
101. Photo of Cat. 45 C-03-164 155
102. Photo of Cat. 46 C-01-363 155
103. Photo of Cat. 47 C-01-407 156
104. Photo of Cat. 48 C-94-49 156
105. Photo of Cat. 49 C-88-124 157
106. Photo of Cat. 50 C-90-74 157
107. Photo of Cat. 51 C-94-90 158
108. Photo of Cat. 52 C-98-158 158
109. Photo of Cat. 53 C-99-283 159
110. Photo of Cat. 54 C-02-203 159
111. Photo of Cat. 55 C-03-86 160
112. Photo of Cat. 56 C-03-22 160
113. Photo of Cat. 57 C-99-31 161
ix
114. Photo of Cat. 58 C-91-176 162
115. Photo of Cat. 59 C-01-399 163
116. Photo of Cat. 60 C-93-106 164
117. Photo of Cat. 61 C-01-681a 164
118. Photo of Cat. 62 C-01-681b 165
119. Photo of Cat. 63 C-01-681c 165
120. Photo of Cat. 64 C-99-51a 166
121. Photo of Cat. 65 C-99-235 166
122. Impasto, Drawing of Cat. 66 C-88-102 167
123. Impasto, Drawing of Cat. 67 C-95-171 168
124. Impasto, Drawing of Cat. 68 C-99-80 169
125. Photo of Cat. 66 C-88-102 170
126. Photo of Cat. 67 C-95-171 170
127. Photo of Cat. 68 C-99-80 171
128. Rasmussen miniature kyathos, type 1e 171
129. Rasmussen miniature kyathos, type 1e 172
130. Rasmussen kantharos, type 3a 172
131. Rasmussen kantharos, type 3e 173
132. Rasmussen kantharos, type 3e 173
133. Rasmussen plate, type 1 174
134. Rasmussen plate type 1 174
135. Rasmussen plate type 2 174
136. Rasmussen plate type 2 175
x
137. Rasmussen bowl, type 1 175
138. Rasmussen bowl, type 1 176
139. Rasmussen bowl, type 2 176
140. Rasmussen bowl, type 3 177
141. Rasmussen bowl, type 3 177
142. Rasmussen bowl, type 4 178
143. Rasmussen miniature bowl, type 1 178
144. Rasmussen miniature bowl, type 2 179
145. Rasmussen miniature bowl, type 2 179
146. Rasmussen miniature bowl, type 3 179
147. Rasmussen cup, type 2b 180
148. Rasmussen cup, type 5 180
149. Rasmussen chalice type 2d 181
150. Rasmussen beaker 181
151. Pianu small jug 182
152. Pianu plate-cover, type 3 182
xi ABSTRACT
Cetamura del Chianti is a small habitation site in the Chianti region of Tuscany which has yielded a number of bucchero pottery fragments. Bucchero is an Etruscan fineware, known for its characteristic burnished black surface, consistent black color throughout the paste, and smooth texture. Bucchero pottery, useful as a dating tool, ranges in date from the seventh to the fourth century BC, and is characteristic of Etruscan settlements and manufacture. In this thesis, I analyze the bucchero found at Cetamura del Chianti between 1978 and 2003, which I have surveyed and included in a catalog. Using the details and information that the catalog entries provide, this paper includes an overall examination of the pottery, noting especially the presence of various vessel forms; namely: miniature kyathos, small jug, plate cover, kantharos, plate, cup, chalice, and miniature bowl. It also examines the special features of some of the pottery, including a palmette stamp and incised graffiti and gives relevant comparanda for each item. This survey of the pottery fragments included in the catalog helps to show what kinds of vessels were being used at the site, the range in quality of the vessels, from very fine, smooth fragments to rough and poorer qualities of bucchero, and the likelihood that bucchero was being imported to the site from regional workshops, rather than being made by resident craftsmen. Finally, in this thesis I place these discussions in the context of the pottery and other material objects found at the site of Cetamura del Chianti. The pottery fragments show definite activity in the Etruscan habitation period on the site, especially in the 6th century BC. Additionally, I place my findings about the quality and forms of the vessels found at Cetamura in the larger context of bucchero pottery found in Northern Etruria, especially, and from similar small habitation sites throughout Etruria at this time.
xii CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Cetamura del Chianti is a small, rural habitation site, established on a high hill (695 m. above sea level) located in the Chianti region of Italy, in what was part of northern Etruria (Fig. 1). It was located in the vicinity of major Etruscan centers such as Volterra, Fiesole, Arezzo, and Poggio Civitate. Cetamura exhibits a long history of occupation, including the Paleolithic, Archaic Etruscan, Hellenistic Etruscan, Roman, and 1
Medieval periods.TP PT Although there is a wide range of occupation periods, there remains a paucity of artifacts showing the Archaic Etruscan habitation period. Fortunately, the excavations at this site have produced bucchero pottery, which has provided evidence and information about this occupation period. Cetamura was first discovered by Alvaro Tracchi in 1964, and archaeological excavations by Florida State University have occurred from 1973 to 2006, at the time of the completion of this thesis. Nancy T. de Grummond has been the director of the site since 1983. The archaeological excavations have centered around two levels of the site, Zone I and Zone II (Fig. 2). Zone I occupies the summit of the hill, while Zone II is located to its north, and is approximately 3 m. below Zone I. It is in Zone I that our only identifiable evidence of an Archaic building was found, in the form of a post pit. The pit has actually been dated to the Archaic Etruscan occupation period due to the presence of four pieces of bucchero (Cat. 51) at the bottom of the post pit, beneath the imprint of a timber post and stone packing. Another notable feature in Zone I which may be of Archaic date is the well on 2
Zone I.TP PT So far it has produced only one piece of diagnostic bucchero pottery (Cat. 16), and the evidence is insufficient to confirm the Archaic date. Additional excavations will be necessary to come to any final conclusions.
1
TP PT See de Grummond 2000, pages 6-21 for a full and complete discussion of the historical background of the site, as well as its layout and archaeological features. 2
TP PT de Grummond, 2000, 11-12. The well has been excavated to a depth of 26m without arriving at the bottom.
1 One hundred forty-six bucchero fragments have been excavated at Cetamura from 1978-2003; the frequency of bucchero varies across the site, however. Bucchero was found in the largest quantities, for example, in the scarp that separates Zone I from Zone II. In fact, 120 pieces of bucchero were found there near an important trash pit, and the trash pit itself yielded four fragments. Other examples of bucchero were found in Zone I, such as in the well, as previously mentioned, and in Structure G (fig. 2). Only four pieces of bucchero were excavated in Zone II, C-91-176, C-90-55, C-99-530, C-88-34, one of which is diagnostic (cat. 58). Bucchero is a common feature of most Etruscan sites, and its creation ranges in th th date from the 7P P to the 4P P century BC. But the production of bucchero did not occur 3 4 throughout Etruria from its beginning. According to RasmussenTP PT and BerkinTP PT it was a regional development, starting in southern Etruria at Cerveteri. The first production of th bucchero occurred in the first quarter of the 7P P century in Cerveteri, in funerary contexts, 5 and soon the pottery type spread to Veii and Tarquinia.TP PT It then began to be utilized th outside Cerveteri ranging up to Central and Northern Etruria in the second half of the 7P P th century BC, even expanding to outside Etruria proper in the last quarter of the 7P P century th and the beginning of the 6P century.P Rasmussen mentions that bucchero was also found 6 outside of Etruria, at sites such as Sicily, Ithaca, Chios, Corinth, and even Athens.TP PT Etruria can be divided into three distinct parts: Southern, Central, and Northern 7
(Fig. 1). According to Gran-Aymerich,TP PT northern Etruria extends from the Maremma to the Arno valley; it includes the Etruscan sites of Roselle, Populonia, Vetulonia, Cetamura, and Poggio Civitate, as well as other sites. Southern Etruria includes the major centers of Veii, Vulci, Tarquinia, and Cerveteri, as well as their surrounding territories. Central Etruria embraces Orvieto and Chiusi, and their surrounding territories. From the earliest history of the investigations of the site of Cetamura, bucchero pottery has been noted. Tracchi, during his explorations beginning in 1964, found examples of bucchero at the site. According to de Grummond 2000, Cetamura shows
3
TP PT Rasmussen 1979, 1,4 4
TP PT Berkin 2003, 2-3 5
TP PT Berkin 2003, 2 6
TP PT Etruria proper includes an area ranging from the river Arno in the north to Rome and the Tiber River in the South. Etruscans also inhabited the area further south at Salerno at the river Sele (fig 1); Rasmussen 1979, 158 7
TP PT Gran-Aymerich 1993, 23-25
2 th th
evidence of occupation from the 7P P century BC to the beginning of the 5P P century BC when the site was apparently abandoned. However, due to the dearth of materials from this time period, not very much is known about the inhabitants of the site. Since the bucchero materials found at Cetamura do date to this time period, as will be seen in this catalog, they will provide important evidence of this little known period. Unfortunately, the findings from the bucchero are restricted in that most of the materials have survived only in a fragmentary state. Bucchero pottery is generally considered to be an Etruscan fineware: wheel-made, burnished, and fired in a reducing atmosphere so that it is dark black throughout the 8 surface and the interior paste. It is comprised of finely-levigated clay.TP PT This description, however, refers to the best examples of bucchero. There is indeed a range of bucchero found throughout Etruria. According to Rasmussen, the bucchero found in Southern 9
Etruria was of a higher quality than the bucchero found in Northern and Central Etruria.TP PT Additionally, materials found in habitation contexts such as at Cetamura can be contrasted with funerary discoveries, in that “the quality [of the domestic materials] is 10 often poor and the range of shapes limited.”TP PT The value of the bucchero at Cetamura lies not in its aesthetic value, but rather in the assistance it provides for dating and chronological purposes. At Cetamura there is a range in quality and a need for criteria which help to identify bucchero. There is often a spectrum of pottery types seen at the site, involving characteristics from buccheroid impasto, to grayware, gray bucchero, and bucchero. Gray bucchero, for example, is described by Matteucig as having a clay with a grayer color, as opposed to black; there can be variations in color from light to dark gray, and the paste typically is micaceous and can have small inclusions. It is likely that some of this gray bucchero has been found at the site of Cetamura. This is an important identification, since, as Matteucig notes, “this type of product may belong to an 11 experimental stage in the making of bucchero.”TP PT Grayware is a pottery type that is also light gray in color throughout both the surface and the biscuit and made on the wheel. It
8
TP PT See Wisseman 1978, passim; Richter 1936, passim; Del Vita 1927, passim, for more information and discussion about the production methods of bucchero pottery 9
TP PT Rasmussen 1979, 1 10
TP PT Rasmussen 1979, 158. 11
TP PT Matteucig 1951, 15.
3 typically has an unburnished surface and contains sandy inclusions. Some of the bucchero in this catalog has sandy inclusions and a lighter colored biscuit, and thus appears to have some of the same qualities as the grayware found on the site. Rasmussen 12 describes buccheroid impasto as being “an in between stage of fairly short duration”.TP PT The surface is mostly black, sometimes with areas of a brownish color and the core is relatively light in color. Additionally, buccheroid impasto has its own shapes, which differ from the standard forms of bucchero. After examining all of the pottery sherds, I was able to distinguish and differentiate between Cetamura’s bucchero and these other types of pottery. Accordingly, in the catalog I have eliminated pieces that do not have the appropriate characteristics of bucchero. This study uses 65 diagnostic pieces of pottery, namely rims, handles, and bases, which have been separated from the larger corpus of bucchero found at the site, and which can help to determine dating and form typology. The pieces of bucchero could only show that bucchero was indeed present. The study at Cetamura is especially critical due to the paucity of published information concerning bucchero from non-funerary contexts and from northern Etruria. What this study can tell us is information about vessel types used in this type of habitation site and some of the qualities of bucchero used and possibly produced in this region. This material can also be used as comparanda for other Etruscan habitation sites to show patterns in ceramic usage. Most published research in the study of bucchero pottery has largely centered on vessels from Southern
Etruria, and materials from tomb groups. In fact, Rasmussen’s BuccheroU Pottery from
Southern Etruria,U published in1979, which has been considered one of the most important resources for the study of bucchero pottery and has historically been the primary resource for bucchero typology since its publication, contains materials solely from funerary contexts in South Etruria. In his catalog, Rasmussen examines bucchero from 40 tomb- groups, from the sites of Cerveteri, Tarquinia, and San Giuliano. From these materials, Rasmussen has created an extensive typology and attempted to place the materials in a chronological framework. He bases his Etruscan absolute chronology on Greek chronology, more specifically on the Payne-Johansen convention for Protocorinthian and
12
TP PT Rasmussen 1979, 2.
4 13
Corinthian pottery, with only a few modifications.TP PT Also important for the classification of bucchero is the publication of pottery from Gravisca, the port of Tarquinia, by G. Pianu (2000). Though again the site is in Southern Etruria, in this case the context is of habitation. The lack of information from northern sites makes it difficult to evaluate bucchero found in contexts outside of southern Etruria. It is important, therefore, to conduct studies of bucchero in order to determine regional differences found in bucchero forms, including construction materials, methods, production centers, and decorations. This catalog has been created in an attempt to bridge this gap in bucchero study, as the bucchero from the site is mostly unpublished (with the exceptions of Cat. 51, 52, 57, 14
58).TP PT Additionally, this catalog will prove useful when evaluating future discoveries of bucchero pottery at the site of Cetamura. There are a few of publications that do discuss bucchero from northern contexts. 15
One notable example comes from BerkinTP ,PT who discusses the Orientalizing Bucchero from Poggio Civitate (Murlo). Interesting comparisons have been made between the materials at Poggio Civitate and Cetamura, as seen in the catalog entries, and as will be discussed further in Chapter 3. This work has been especially useful in pointing out the typological differences between bucchero forms from northern Etruria, and those from southern Etruria. The study of the bucchero pottery from Cetamura del Chianti begins here in Chapter 1 with a general overview of bucchero, the excavation site, and the scholarship used for this thesis. Chapter 2 contains both a description of the methodology used in evaluating the bucchero, and a catalog of 65 diagnostic bucchero fragments found at the site of Cetamura out of the larger corpus of 146 fragments. Chapter 3 contains the conclusions that can be drawn from the bucchero, discussions of the forms found at Cetamura, and a consideration of how the Cetamura bucchero relates to other sites in Etruria. Various appendices are provided, which include a supplementary catalog of three impasto fragments identified at Cetamura and various indices of the bucchero
13
TP PT See Rasmussen 1979, 6-7 for more information. 14
TP PT All of which have been published in de Grummond 2000, 23-25 15
TP PT Berkin 2000
5 pottery, arranged by form, part, and provenance, as well as a concordance. Photos and drawings are provided after the indices.
6 CHAPTER 2
CATALOG OF BUCCHERO
A. Methodology of the Catalog
In this catalog, I have studied the bucchero from Cetamura del Chianti and provided information about the diagnostic pieces of pottery, which include rim, base, and handle fragments. For the purposes of this catalog, I investigated and recorded information concerning the bucchero pottery sherds from the excavation years 1978- 16
2003. I examined the Special Object Inventory (SOI)TP PT lists from each of the excavation seasons during this period, having collected the pottery fragments that were identified as bucchero, gray bucchero, or grayware. These three types of pottery at Cetamura tend to have some overlapping characteristics, as discussed in Chapter 1 above, creating the necessity for a careful examination of each piece. The entries in the catalog of the bucchero from Cetamura del Chianti are divided into two groups: the standard, undecorated pieces and the special examples. The standard pieces of bucchero are subdivided by form: kantharos, miniature kyathos, cups, chalices, plate cover, small jar, plates, bowls, and miniature bowls. The typological arrangement of the forms is based mainly on Rasmussen, although my catalog also references Pianu, who provides further examples of the bucchero studied by Rasmussen, and also forms not 17 included in Rasmussen’s text.TP PT Within each group of forms, e.g. cups, type 1, the first examples listed have drawings illustrating them. The other examples are listed in the order of discovery (sequential SOI numbers). The second group of catalog entries concerns special examples of bucchero found at Cetamura. These are divided into three groups: bucchero with stamped decoration, bucchero with sigla, and problem pieces. With the stamped bucchero and the bucchero with sigla, a discussion of the respective decoration is included in the catalog entry, along with a description of the vessel itself and comparanda. The problem pieces are a different
16
TP PT The SOI number at Cetamura is used to catalog artifacts such as diagnostic pieces of pottery, metal, glass, etc. for later research and study. 17
TP PT These forms include the plate cover (Cat. 3) and the small jog (Cat. 2); Pianu 2000, 37-8, 67.
7 kind of corpus, as they present numerous challenges in their study. While they are diagnostic pieces, not enough is preserved to get an accurate determination of their vessel type. However, these are included because they show evidence of bucchero in certain areas and features around the site, and this information can be useful in dating these provenances. There are drawings illustrating examples of every form found at Cetamura.. Not every catalog entry is illustrated by a drawing, but all entries have accompanying photographs. The relevant photographs and illustrations for each bucchero sherd are indicated by figure numbers in the catalog entries, as well as in the list of figures, on page v of this publication. I have cataloged the bucchero in the following manner. Each piece of bucchero is identified by a catalog number, followed by the Cetamura Single Object Inventory (SOI) number (e.g. C-94-79). Next are given the provenance, part, form, measurements, and a discussion of the paste and condition for each item. The “provenance” refers to the 18
location on the site where it was found.TP PT This information was obtained from the SOI 19 sheets, master inventory lists, and field notebooks.TP PT The “part” of the item refers to what part of the vessel it comes from, e.g. rim, base, and/or body. The “form” indicates the type of vessel of which the item is part, e.g. a cup, bowl, kantharos. These forms have been identified, as discussed above, mainly by using Rasmussen and Pianu. The “measurements” indicate the actual size of the object (its length and width) as well as its 20 thickness. Additionally, if applicable, the diameter of the vessel is given here.TP PT All measurements are given in centimeters. The “paste” refers to the clay and added materials from which the vessel was made. This includes the feel of the clay, any visible inclusions, and a description of the color of the clay using the Munsell color chart on both the interior and exterior surfaces, 21 as well as in the core (interior color) of the sherd.TP PT Additionally, the entries contain a report on the condition of the bucchero; in so doing, this will help to differentiate the
18
TP PT See Appendix B 19
TP PT All of the bucchero studied in this thesis has been identified with the same type of numbering system. All of the pottery was excavated either during Nancy de Grummond’s tenure as director of the site, or a few years before, when the excavation began using this type of inventory numbering system. 20
TP PT The diameters of rims and bases have been estimated using a standard diameter gauge 21
TP PT Munsell Color Company, Munsell Soil Color Charts (Baltimore: 1975)
8 poorly levigated, inconsistently gray, lower quality bucchero from bucchero that is simply poorly preserved in the archaeological record. The entries have a “discussion” section, in which any additional information about the vessel is given. And finally, the entries will “bibliography” as well as an estimated “date” if possible. The study of the bucchero from Cetamura del Chianti, including the examination, discussion, drawings, and photography of the pieces, was conducted by the author during the 2004 summer study season and the 2005 summer dig season in Chianti. All photographs were taken by the author in the summer of 2005. Drawings for Cat. 4, 11, 14, 15, 17, 20, 22, 24, 27, 30, 31, 37, 40, 41,42, 46, 56, and 64 were made by Jacquelyn Clements, and the remaining drawings provided in this thesis were created by Maria Rosa Lucidi, with the exception of Cat 13, 51, 52, 57, and 58, which were drawn by Brian Doyle, and Cat. 66, which was drawn by David Pearce.
9 B. Catalog of Cetamura Bucchero
I. Miniature Kyathos
RasmussenU Type 1e 1 C-02-44 Fig. 5, 57 Provenance: 24N/12W.22.1 Part: Handle fragments Measurements: 4.1 x 1.8 x 0.8 cm, length of handle preserved: 8.1 cm. Paste: Smooth, fine, well-levigated paste, micaceous inclusions. The core is a dark gray (Munsell 5Y 4/1 “dark gray”) and the interior and exterior surfaces are a darker gray (Munsell GLEY N 3 “very dark gray”). Condition: Surfaces and edges show wear and a small amount of scratches and chipping. A small amount of dirt/soil is present on the surfaces. Discussion: Eight fragments total; five joining fragments, three with association unknown. The surfaces of this handle show signs of burnishing. The handle loops over itself, and in cross-section has an ovoid shape. According to Rasmussen, miniature kyathoi often vary in profile, as well as in the cross section of the handle, which can make it difficult to discover direct comparisons. Sometimes the handles have a strut, which joins the two sides of the loop handle; sometimes the strut is omitted. In the case of the reconstruction of this handle, the strut may be omitted, as shown in the drawing in Fig. 111, or the remains of the three unjoining fragments associated with this handle may be part of the strut (Fig. 110). This handle is comparable to Rasmussen’s Miniature Kyathos type 1e. Two of his examples are included here for comparison. One from Bufalareccia, Cerveteri (Rasmussen 190) has a simple strut made from a ball of clay. The second (Rasmussen 188) from Monte Abatone, Cerveteri, has no strut present in its manufacture. The two vessels have similar shapes to their handles, although they differ from Cat. 1 in the cross- section of their handles. The variance in the manufacture in miniature kyathoi, as mentioned above, does not discredit the comparison. Other comparable vessels come
10 from Gravisca, where kyathoi are only attested in miniature form, Cerveteri, Poggio Buco, Roselle, Rubiera, and Poggio la Croce. Bibliography: Amorelli 1971, 205; Bocci 1965, 149-50, 186-7; Malnati 1993, 51, 62; Matteucig 1951, 45; Olivotto 1994, 61; Pianu 2000, 34, 66; Rasmussen 1979, 96, 112; Valenti 1995, 187, 271. th th
Date: 6P P – beginning of 5P P century BC by Rasmussen’s comparanda
II. Small Jar
PianuU Type 1 2 C-99-236 Fig. 6, 58 Provenance: 24N/12W.8.9a Part: Rim and body fragment Measurements: 5.4 x 2.7 x 0.5 cm, diameter of rim: 9 cm. Rim sherd preserving 5% of the circumference. Paste: Soft, fine, slightly chalky texture, micaceous inclusions throughout. The core is a light brownish gray (Munsell 10YR 6/2 “light brownish gray”). The interior and exterior surfaces are a dark gray (Munsell GLEY N 4 “dark gray”). Condition: There is a small amount of dirt/soil present on the surfaces and the edges. The edges and surfaces show wear, especially part of the interior surface. Scratching and chipping is present on all surfaces. Discussion: Although this shape was not included in Rasmussen’s study, a comparable example was found in Pianu. The rim from Cetamura and the one from Gravisca have a similar diameter and profile, as seen in the form from Pianu (Fig. 151). The Gravisca example has a rim diameter of 6.5 cm, comparable to the 9 cm found at Cetamura. A similar type of form was found in impasto at Poggio Buco. Not a popular bucchero form. Bibliography: Matteucig 1951, 35-6; Pianu 2000, 38, 67. Date: 550-500 BC by Pianu’s comparanda
11 III. Plate-Cover
PianuU Type 3 3 C-88-249 Fig. 7, 59 Provenance: 25N/10.5E.6.4 Part: Unknown Measurements: 3.4 cm x 2.3cm x 1.8 cm. Paste: A smooth, fine, well-levigated paste, micaceous inclusions throughout. The core is a dark gray color (Munsell GLEY N 4 “dark gray”). The interior and exterior surfaces of the vessel are darker gray color (Munsell GLEY N 3 “very dark gray”) Condition: The edges and surfaces show wear, chipping, and scratches. No edges present. Discussion: Striation marks and some faint evidence of burnishing remain on the exterior and interior surfaces of this lid. Although no edges are present on the fragment, the extant portion shows the acute angle on the interior of the lid where it would rest upon a vessel. Lids were used with a wide variety of bucchero vessels, such as kantharoi, chalices, pyxides, amphorae, kyathoi, and bowls. This plate-cover form is not included in Rasmussen’s survey; it is classified, however, by Pianu (Fig. 152). Other examples of this form come from Poggio Civitate and the manufacture of lids is especially typical of Chiusi. Bibliography: Berkin 2003, 79-80; Pianu 2000, 36-7, 67. th
Date: 5P P cen. BC by Pianu’s comparanda
IV. Kantharos
RasmussenU Type 3 4 C-88-169 Fig. 8, 60 Provenance: 25N/8.5E.7.6 Part: Handle and body Measurements: 5.2 cm x 4.3 cm x 1.5 cm .
12 Paste: A smooth, slightly gritty paste, with micaceous and small sandy inclusions. The inner core of the fabric is a medium gray color (Munsell GLEY N 6 “gray”). The interior and exterior surfaces of the vessel are a dark gray color (Munsell GLEY N 3 “very dark gray”). Condition: Broken on all sides. The edges and the surfaces show wear, chipping and scratching. Discussion: Although this fragment is not very well preserved, there is evidence of burnishing on this piece. Additionally, not enough of the handle is preserved to acquire a cross-section of the handle, but the lower section of the handle preserves part of the wall of the vessel to which it was attached. Unfortunately, not enough of the vessel is preserved to determine an identification more specific than that it likely corresponded to Rasmussen’s type 3 due to the angle in which the handle meets the interior wall (Figs. 130, 131, 132). This vessel type, the kantharos, was very popular throughout Etruria and outside Etruria proper. The slope of the wall preserved on the interior of the vessel as well as the size of the handle corresponds well to a kantharos from Bufolareccia, (Cerveteri) as well as from Gravisca and from Poggione. Other examples were found at San Giuliano, Tarquinia, Poggio Buco, Orvieto, Poggio la Croce, Veii, and Vulci. Bibliography: Berkin 2003, 33-7; Camporeale 1972, 33-5, tav. VIII; Camporeale 1991, 115-6; Haynes 1985, 77; Matteucig, 1951, 39; Minoja 2000, 84-8; Olivotto 1994, 16-8, 40; Pianu 2000, 31-3, 65; de Puma 1986, 44; Rasmussen 1979, 106, 194; Regter 2003, 82; Valenti 1995, 187,271; Vilucchi 1991, 75. th
Date: 6P P century by Rasmussen’s comparanda
V. Plates
RasmussenU Type 1U 5 C-99-81 Fig. 9, 61 Provenance: 24N/12W.8.4 Part: Rim and body fragment
13 Measurements: 4.1 x 2.6 x 0.6 cm, diameter of rim: 15cm. Rim sherd preserving 7% of the circumference. Paste: Smooth, fine, well-levigated paste, micaceous inclusions visible throughout. The core is a medium gray color (Munsell 10YR 5/1 “gray”) and the interior and exterior surfaces are a dark gray color (Munsell GLEY N 4 “dark gray”) with the exterior surface being slightly darker. Condition: The fragment is also broken heavily on the interior surface with some scratches present on the surfaces. Discussion: Striation marks are present on the surfaces, especially on the edge of the rim. Also the surfaces show evidence of burnishing. The profile of the everted rim shows this vessel to correspond with Rasmussen’s type 1 plate, specifically shown through an example from Monte Abatone, Cerveteri (Fig. 133). The size of the vessel, specifically the diameter of the rim, also makes this a likely match. The diameter of the Monte Abatone example is 15.5 cm, while the Cetamura example is 15 cm. This rim also has an ovoid, slightly bulbous shape to the edge, seen in the profile, which is similar to Cat. 12 and 15. Comparable examples were also found at Cerveteri and Roselle. Bibliography: Berkin 2003, 60-1; Bocci 1965, 121, 123; Haynes 1985, 112-3; Olivotto 1994, 15; Rasmussen 1979, 124, 202; th
Date: 5P P century BC by Rasmussen’s comparanda
6 C-99-318 Fig. 10, 62 Provenance: 24N/12W.8.11 Part: Rim and body fragment Measurements: 4.5 x 3.9 x 0.5 cm, diameter of rim: 16 cm. Rim sherd preserving 5% of the circumference. Paste: Soft, fine, well-levigated paste, micaceous inclusions throughout. The core is a light brownish gray color (Munsell 2.5Y 6/2 “light brownish gray”). The interior and exterior surfaces are a dark gray (Munsell GLEY N 4 “dark gray”). Condition: A small amount of wear is evident on the surfaces and edges.
14 Discussion: Striation marks are present on all surfaces, especially on the edge of the everted rim. Burnishing is also evident on all surfaces. Several deeper grooves are present on the exterior surface of the vessel, directly underneath the rim. The profile of this vessel shows a comparison with Rasmussen’s plate type 1. A specific example hails from Cerveteri (Fig. 134). The size of this vessel, especially the rim’s diameter, measuring 17.7 cm, gives a direct comparison, as well as the profile of the rim. Other similar vessels come from Poggio Civitate, Cerveteri, and Roselle. Bibliography: Berkin 2003, 61; Bocci 1965, 121, 123; Haynes 1985, 112-3; Olivotto 1994, 15; Rasmussen 1979, 124, 202. th
Date: 5P P century BC by Rasmussen’s comparanda
7 C-01-406 Fig. 11, 63 Provenance: 24N/12W.34.1 Part: Rim and body fragment Measurements: 3.1 x 2.0 x 0.6 cm, diameter of rim: 16 cm. Rim sherd preserving 6% of the circumference. Paste: Smooth, fine, well-levigated paste, micaceous inclusions. The core is a light brownish gray color (Munsell 10YR 7/2 “light gray”). The interior and exterior surfaces have a dark gray color (Munsell 2.5Y 4/1 “dark gray”). Condition: Wear is evident on the surfaces and edges. Discussion: Striation marks are present on all surfaces, especially on the edge of the everted rim. Burnishing is also evident on all surfaces. The profile of this vessel shows a comparison with Rasmussen’s plate type 1. A specific example of this type is found at Cerveteri (Fig. 133). The Cerveteri rim’s diameter, measuring 15.5 cm, and the profile of the rim give the Cetamura fragment a direct comparison to the Cerveteri plate. A Similar example was discovered at Roselle. Bibliography: Berkin 2003, 60-1; Bocci 1965, 123-4; Haynes 1985, 112-3 Olivotto 1994, 15; Rasmussen 1979, 124, 202. th
Date: 5P P century BC by Rasmussen’s comparanda
15 8 C-01-716 Fig. 12, 64 Provenance: 24N/12W.32.2 Part: Rim and body fragment Measurements: 3.9 x 1.6 x 0.8 cm, diameter of rim: 19 cm. Rim sherd preserving 7% of the circumference. Paste: A smooth, fine paste, micaceous inclusions visible throughout, paste rougher on interior with sandy inclusions. The core is mostly a light gray color (Munsell 10YR 7/1 “light gray”) with some of the core having a pinkish color (Munsell 7.5 YR 7/3 “pink”). The interior and exterior surfaces are a dark gray color (Munsell GLEY N4 “dark gray”) Condition: The edges and the surfaces seem well worn and have evidence of chipping and scratching. Discussion: Striation marks and evidence of burnishing is present on all surfaces, as well as grooves on the exterior surface. The profile shows a slightly curved edge to the rim. The profile of this rim gives a direct correspondence with Rasmussen type 1, an example of which comes from Monte Abatone, Cerveteri (Fig. 134). The size of the diameter from Cerveteri is comparable (measuring 17.7 cm.), as well as the slope of the rim and the shape of the profile of the rim. Other examples come from Poggio Civitate, Cerveteri, and Roselle. Bibliography: Berkin 2003, 60-1; Bocci 1965, 123-4; Haynes 1985, 112-3; Olivotto 1994, 15; Rasmussen 1979, 124, 202. th
Date: 5P P century BC by Rasmussen’s comparanda
9 C-98-116 Fig. 65 Provenance: 24N/9W.1.5 Part: Rim fragment Measurements: 2.5 x 1.4 x 0.5 cm, diameter of rim: 13 cm. Rim sherd preserving 7.5% of the circumference. Paste: A smooth fine, well-levigated paste, slightly chalky texture, micaceous inclusions throughout. The core is a light brownish-gray color (Munsell 2.5Y 6/2 “light brownish gray”) The interior surface is also a light brownish-gray color (Munsell 2.5Y 6/2 “light brownish gray”) and the exterior is a dark gray color (Munsell 5Y 4/1 “dark gray”).
16 Condition: Some discoloration caused by soil residue is present on a moderate amount of the interior surface, making it appear lighter. Some faint pockmarking and scratches are present on the surfaces. Discussion: The surfaces show evidence of burnishing. Three faint grooves are present on the exterior surface of the vessel, running directly beneath the rim. The profile of the everted rim shows this vessel to correspond with Rasmussen’s type 1 plate, specifically shown through an example from Monte Abatone, Cerveteri (Fig. 116). The size of the vessel, specifically the diameter of the rim, also makes this a likely match. This rim also has an ovoid, slightly bulbous shape to the edge, seen in the profile, which is similar to Cat. 8 and 12. Similar examples found in Cerveteri, and Roselle. Bibliography: Berkin 2003, 60-1; Bocci 1965, 123-3; Haynes 1985, 112-3; Olivotto 1994, 15; Rasmussen 1979, 124, 202. th
Date: 5P P century BC by Rasmussen’s comparanda
10 C-99-30 Fig. 66 Provenance: 24N/12W.pedestal removal Part: Rim fragment Measurements: 3.0 x 1.3 x 0.6 cm; diameter of rim: 17 cm. Rim sherd preserving 5% of the circumference. Paste: Soft, fine paste, micaceous and small inclusions throughout. The core is a medium brown color (Munsell 7.5YR 5/2 “brown”). The exterior surface is a dark gray color (Munsell GLEY N 4 “dark gray”) and the interior surface is a darker gray (Munsell GLEY N 3 “very dark gray”). Condition: The surfaces and edges show wear, and a small amount of chipping is present on the surfaces. Discussion: Striation marks are present on all surfaces. An incised line runs .6 cm below the rim on the interior surface. The rim’s profile is comparable to Rasmussen’s type 1 plate, with an example from Monte Abatone, Cerveteri (Fig. 134). The diameter of the Cerveteri example is similar to this rim fragment, measuring 17.7 cm., as well as the slope of the everted rim. Other comparable examples have been found at Cerveteri and Roselle.
17 Bibliography: Berkin 2003, 60-1; Bocci 1965, 123-4; Haynes 1985, 112-3; Olivotto 1994, 15; Rasmussen 1979, 124, 202. th
Date: 5P P century BC by Rasmussen’s comparanda
11 C-99-151 Fig. 13, 67 Provenance: 24N/12W.8.6 Part: Rim and body fragment. Measurements: 3.7 x 2.3 x 0.6 cm, diameter of rim: 16 cm. Rim sherd preserving 7.5% of the circumference. Paste: Smooth, fine, well-levigated paste, micaceous inclusions throughout. The core is a light brown color (Munsell 2.5Y 6/3 “light yellowish brown”). The interior surface is a dark gray (Munsell GLEY N 4 “dark gray”). The exterior surface is a yellowish brown color (Munsell 2.5Y 6/3 “light yellowish brown”). Condition: A major part of the exterior surface is discolored, due to dirt/soil. The surfaces and edges show wear. Discussion: Striation marks are present on the surfaces, especially on the edge of the rim. Also the surfaces show evidence of burnishing. The profile of the everted rim shows this vessel to correspond with Rasmussen’s type 1 plate, specifically shown through an example from Monte Abatone, Cerveteri (Fig. 133). The size of the vessel, specifically the diameter of the rim, measuring 15.5 cm., also makes this a likely match. Other examples found at Caere, Cerveteri, and Roselle. Bibliography: Berkin 2003, 60-1; Bocci 1965, 123-4; Haynes 1985, 112-3; Olivotto 1994, 15; Rasmussen 1979, 124, 202. th
Date: 5P P century BC by Rasmussen’s comparanda
12 C-99-238 Fig. 68 Provenance: 24N/12W.8.9a Part: Rim and body fragment Measurements: 2.7 x 2.1 x 0.6 cm, diameter of rim: 18 cm. Rim sherd preserving 4% of the circumference.
18 Paste: Smooth, fine paste, soapy texture, micaceous inclusions. The core is a grayish- brown color (Munsell 10YR 5/2 “grayish brown”). The interior surface is a medium gray color (Munsell 10YR 5/1 “gray”) and the exterior surface is also a medium gray color (Munsell GLEY N 5 “gray”) Condition: The edges seem worn, and dirt/soil is present on the surfaces and edges. A small amount of scratches are present on the surfaces. Discussion: Striation marks are present on the surfaces, especially on the edge of the rim. Also the surfaces show faint evidence of burnishing. The profile of the everted rim shows this vessel to correspond with Rasmussen’s type 1 plate, specifically shown through an example from Monte Abatone, Cerveteri (Fig. 133). The size of the vessel from Cerveteri, specifically the diameter of the rim, measuring 15.5 cm. also makes this a likely match. This rim also has an ovoid, slightly bulbous shape to the edge, seen in the profile, which is similar to Cat. 9. Also found at Cerveteri and Roselle. Bibliography: Berkin 2003, 60-1; Bocci 1965, 123-4; Haynes 1985, 112-3; Olivotto 1994, 15; Rasmussen 1979, 124, 202. th
Date: 5P P century BC by Rasmussen’s comparanda
RasmussenU Type 2U
13 C-99-50 Fig. 14, 69 Provenance: 24N/12W.8.2 Part: Rim and body fragment Measurements: 3.7 x 3.4 x 0.6 cm, diameter of rim: 17 cm. Rim sherd preserving 5% of the circumference. Paste: A soft, slightly gritty paste, micaceous and sandy inclusion throughout. The core is a dark gray color (Munsell GLEY 5B 4/1 “dark bluish gray”). The interior and exterior surfaces are a dark gray color (Munsell GLEY N 3 “very dark gray”). Condition: The edges and surfaces show wear. Discussion: Striations and evidence of burnishing are preset on the surfaces of this vessel. The sherd shows a distinctive overhanging rim. This type of rim is seen in
19 Rasmussen’s type 2 plate. An example of this type of vessel comes from Monte Abatone, Cerveteri (Fig. 136) which also has a similar rim and diameter, measuring 15.8 cm. Comparable examples were discovered at Vulci, Cerveteri, and Roselle. Bibliography: Bocci 1965, 140-1; Camporeale 1991, 60; Rasmussen 1979, 124, 202; th
Date: 5P P century BC by Rasmussen’s comparanda
14 C-99-528 Fig. 15, 70 Provenance: 24N/9W.1.1 Part: Rim and body fragment Measurements: 4.1 x 3.2 x 0.7 cm, diameter of rim: 20 cm. Rim sherd preserving 3% of the circumference. Paste: Smooth exterior surface, numerous medium-sized inclusions evident throughout. Core is discolored by dirt/soil, appears to be a light brown color (Munsell 10YR 6/3 “pale brown”). The exterior surface is a dark grayish-brown color (Munsell 10YR 3/2 “very dark grayish brown”) while the interior surface is a darker gray color (Munsell 10YR 3/1 “very dark gray”). Condition: The edges and surfaces show wear. Pockmarking, scratches, and chipping are evident on all surfaces of the fragment. Discussion: Striations and evidence of burnishing are present on the surfaces of this vessel. The sherd shows a distinctive overhanging rim, which is seen in Rasmussen’s type 2 plate. An example of this type of vessel comes from Monte Abatone, Cerveteri (Fig. 135) that also has a similar rim and comparable diameter, at 14.5 cm. Other examples hail were fund at Vulci and Cerveteri. Bibliography: Haynes 1985, 128; Rasmussen 1979, 124, 202. th
Date: 5P P centuries BC by Rasmussen’s comparanda
15 C-03-32 Fig. 16, 71 Provenance: 30N/18W.6a.1 Part: Rim and body fragment Measurements: 3.7 x 2.0 x 0.5 cm, diameter of rim: 19 cm. Rim sherd preserving 5% of the circumference.
20 Paste: Smooth, fine, well-levigated paste, micaceous inclusions visible throughout, paste rough on interior with sandy inclusions. Core is a light brown color (Munsell 2.5Y 6/2 “light brownish gray”). The exterior and interior surfaces are a very dark gray (Munsell GLEY N3 “very dark gray”) Condition: Wear and scratches are evident on the edges and the surfaces. Discussion: Striations and evidence of burnishing are preset on the surfaces of this vessel. The sherd shows an overhanging rim which is smaller and thinner than Cat. 13 and 14. This type of rim is seen in Rasmussen’s type 2 plate. An example of this type of vessel comes from Cerveteri (Fig. 135), which also has a similar rim and comparable diameter size, at 14.5 cm. Other examples hail from Vulci and Cerveteri. Bibliography: Rasmussen 1979, 124, 202. th th
Date: 6P -5P P P centuries BC by Rasmussen’s comparanda
VI. Bowl
RasmussenU Type 1U
16 C-98-62 Fig. 17, 72 Provenance: 5N/18W.19.3 Part: Base and body fragment Measurements: 7.2 x 7.6 x 1.1 cm, height preserved of the vessel: 2.7 cm, diameter of base: 6 cm. Ring-base foot preserving 37% of circumference. Paste: A slightly rough texture, micaceous and medium-sized inclusions throughout. The core is a light gray color (Munsell 5Y 7/1 “light gray”). The exterior surface is a dark gray color (Munsell GLEY N 3 “very dark gray”) but shows areas of a slightly lighter color of gray (Munsell GLEY N 4 “dark gray”). The interior surface also ranges between a dark gray (Munsell GLEY N 4 “dark gray”) and a brownish-gray (Munsell 2.5Y 6/2 “light brownish gray”). Condition: The edges and surfaces are well worn, the edges, the base, and the interior surfaces show chipping. The interior surface appears to have a moderate amount of discoloration. The edges seem to break off in layers.
21 Discussion: Striations are present on the surfaces and base of the vessel. An incised line is present on the exterior floor. Ring-foot base with a low-dipping floor. Corresponds well with Rasmussen’s bowl type 1, an example of which comes from San Giuliano (Fig. 138). The San Giuliano example also has the same profile of ring-foot base, with a thin, short foot flaring outward, the diameters of the bases are similar, with the San Giuliano example’s base measuring 6.2 cm, and both have a similar profile of the floor of the vessel. Rasmussen also mentions that this type is common in San Giovenale and Rome. Possible similar comparisons hail from Gravisca, Marzabotto, San Giuliano, and Rome, but are not all exact matches. Bibliography: Minoja 2000, 100-4; Pianu 2000, 18, 57; Rasmussen 1979, 124, 203; Tripponi 1970, 95. Date: 600-550 BC by Rasmussen’s comparanda
17 C-87-344 Fig. 18, 73 Provenance: 21.5N/12W.10.15 Part: Rim and body fragment Measurements: 4.4 cm x 3.8 cm x 0.5 cm, diameter of rim: 21 cm. Rim sherd preserving 4% of the circumference. Paste: Slightly chalky, fine, well-levigated paste, micaceous inclusion throughout. The core has a medium gray color in the center (Munsell GLEY N 5 “gray”), sandwiched between an outer core layer that is colored light gray (Munsell 5Y 7/1 “light gray”). The exterior surface is a dark gray color (Munsell 2.5Y 4/1 “dark gray”) and the interior surface is also dark gray (Munsell GLEY 4 N “dark gray”). Condition: The edges and the surfaces are worn and a small amount of pockmarking is present on the surfaces. Discussion: Evidence of striations and burnishing is present. The carination on the vessel is located 1.2 cm below bottom of rim. The rim profile of the vessel is very similar to Cat. 18-21 and 23. This fragment corresponds with Rasmussen’s type 1 bowl with an example coming from San Giuliano (Fig. 137). This comparison has a similar rim profile and a similar sharp carination although the vessel from San Giuliano is a bit
22 smaller, with its rim diameter measuring 16.5 cm. Other comparable vessel examples come from Gravisca and Marzabotto. Bibliography: Malnati 1993, 54, 67; Minoja 2000, 100-4; Pianu 2000, 18, 57; Rasmussen 1979, 124, 203. Date: 600-525 BC by Rasmussen’s comparanda
18 C-93-24 Fig. 74 Provenance: 24N/21W.1.6 Part: Rim and body fragment Measurements: 3.5 x 3.5 x 0.5 cm, diameter of rim: 17 cm. Rim sherd preserving 4% of the circumference. Paste: Slightly chalky, fine, well-levigated paste, micaceous inclusions throughout. The core is a very thin strip of a medium gray color in the center (Munsell GLEY N 5 “gray”), sandwiched between an outer core layer, colored a light gray (Munsell 2.5Y 6/2 “light brownish gray”). The exterior and interior surfaces are a medium gray color (Munsell GLEY 5N “gray”). Condition: The surfaces and edges are well worn, and scratching and chipping is evident on the surfaces. Discussion: Evidence of striations and burnishing present on all surfaces. Carinated rim with carination located 1.2 cm below bottom of rim on the exterior surface. Rim profile similar to Cat. 17, 19-21, 23. Type similar to Rasmussen bowl type 1 with an example coming from San Giuliano (Fig. 137). This comparison has the same profile of the rim, a similar sharp carination, and comparable rim diameter, at 16.5 cm. Other comparable vessel examples come from Gravisca and Marzabotto. Bibliography: Malnati 1993, 54, 67; Minoja 2000, 100-4; Pianu 2000, 18, 57; Rasmussen 1979, 124, 203; Date: 600-525 BC by Rasmussen’s comparanda
19 C-94-79 Fig. 75 Provenance: 24N/15W.3.6
23 Part: Rim and body fragment Measurements: 3.9 cm x 2.7 cm x 0.6 cm, diameter of rim: 16 cm. Rim sherd preserving 5% of the circumference. Paste: A slightly chalky feel, fine, well-levigated paste, micaceous inclusions throughout. The core is a medium gray color (Munsell 10YR 6/1 “gray”) and the interior and exterior surfaces are a darker medium gray color (Munsell 10YR 5/1 “gray”) Condition: The edges and surfaces seem well worn. Some chipping is present in a small area of the exterior surface. Discussion: Evidence of striations and burnishing present on all surfaces. Rim profile similar to Cat. 17-18, 21, 23. Type similar to Rasmussen bowl type 1 with an example coming from San Giuliano (Fig. 137). This comparison has a similar rim profile, a similar sharp carination, and comparable diameter, measuring 16.5 cm. Other comparable vessel examples come from Gravisca and Marzabotto. Bibliography: Malnati 1993, 54, 67;.Minoja 2000, 100-4; Pianu 2000, 18, 57; Rasmussen 1979, 124, 203; Date: 600-525 BC by Rasmussen’s comparanda
20 C-94-108 Fig. 19, 76 Provenance: 24N/15W.3.9 Part: Rim and body fragment Measurements: 3.4 cm x 3.0 cm x 0.6 cm, diameter of rim: 19 cm. Rim sherd preserving 3% of the circumference. Paste: A smooth, slightly chalky, fine, well-levigated paste. Micaceous inclusions are apparent throughout. The core is a light brown color (Munsell 10YR 6/3 “pale brown”). The exterior and interior surfaces are a medium gray color (Munsell 10YR 5/1 “gray”) although the interior surface is slightly darker that the exterior. Condition: Clay/dirt residue remains on all the surfaces and the edges, especially on the rim, and the core is a lighter color due to the residue. Some scratches are evident on the interior surface of the vessel.
24 Discussion: Evidence of striations and burnishing present on all surfaces. Carinated rim with carination located 1.2 cm below bottom of rim on the exterior surface. Rim profile similar to Cat. 20-22, 24-26, 28. Type similar to Rasmussen bowl type 1 with an example coming from San Giuliano (Fig. 137). This comparison has the same profile of the rim, a similar sharp carination, and comparable diameter, measuring 16.5 cm. Other comparable vessel examples come from Gravisca and Marzabotto. Bibliography: Malnati 1993, 54, 67;.Minoja 2000, 100-4; Pianu 2000, 18, 57; Rasmussen 1979, 124, 203; Date: 600-525 BC by Rasmussen’s comparanda
21 C-98-114 Fig. 77 Provenance: 24N/9W.1.5 Part: Rim and body fragment Measurements: 3.5 x 2.2 x 0.6 cm, diameter of rim: 17 cm. Rim sherd preserving 6% of the circumference. Paste: A smooth fine, well-levigated paste, slightly chalky texture, micaceous inclusions throughout. The core is a medium gray color (Munsell 5Y 6/1 “gray”). The exterior and interior surfaces are a medium gray color (Munsell GLEY N 5 “gray”). Condition: The surface and edges are worn, the surfaces show some scratching present, and the exterior surface has some chipping, especially on part of the rim. Discussion: Evidence of striations and burnishing present on all surfaces. Two small, distinct grooves run directly underneath the rim on the exterior surface. Rim profile similar to Cat. 17-20, 23. Type similar to Rasmussen bowl type 1 with an example coming from San Giuliano (Fig. 137). This comparison has a similar rim profile, a similar sharp carination, and comparable diameter, at 16.5 cm. Other comparable vessel examples come from Gravisca and Marzabotto. Bibliography: Malnati 1993, 54, 67; Minoja 2000, 100-4; Pianu 2000, 18, 57; Rasmussen 1979, 124, 203.
25 Date: 600-525 BC by Rasmussen’s comparanda
22 C-99-231 Fig. 20, 78 Provenance: 24N/12W.8.9a Part: Rim and body fragment Measurements: 6.1 x 3.3 x 0.5 cm, diameter of rim: 17 cm. Rim sherd preserving 7.5% of the circumference. Paste: Soft, fine, well-levigated paste, micaceous inclusions throughout. The core is a medium gray color (Munsell 10YR 6/1 “gray”). The interior and exterior surfaces are a dark gray color (Munsell GLEY N 4 “dark gray”). Condition: A small amount of scratching and pockmarking is present on the surfaces. Discussion: Evidence of striations and burnishing present on all surfaces. Carinated rim with carination located 1.2 cm below bottom of rim on the exterior surface. Rim profile similar to Cat. 21, 24, 26, 28. Type similar to Rasmussen bowl type 1 with an example coming from San Giuliano (Fig. 137). This comparison has the same profile of the rim, a similar sharp carination, and comparable diameter, 16.5 cm. Other comparable vessel examples come from Gravisca and Rome. Bibliography: Minoja 2000, 100-4; Pianu 2000, 18, 57; Rasmussen 1979, 124, 203. Date: 600-525 BC by Rasmussen’s comparanda
23 C-99-316 Fig. 79 Provenance: 24N/12W.8.11 Part: Rim and body fragment Measurements: 2.5 x 1.7 x 0.5 cm, diameter of rim: 16 cm. Rim sherd preserving 5% of the circumference. Paste: Smooth, fine, well-levigated paste, micaceous inclusions. The core is a medium gray color (Munsell 10YR 6/1 “gray”), the interior and exterior surfaces are a dark gray color (Munsell GLEY N 4 “dark gray”). Condition: Chipping is present on the surfaces, and the edges show wear.
26 Discussion: Evidence of striations and burnishing present on all surfaces. An incised band is present underneath the rim on the exterior surface of the vessel. Rim profile similar to Cat. 17-21. Type similar to Rasmussen bowl type 1 with an example coming from San Giuliano (Fig. 137). This comparison has the same profile of the rim, a similar sharp carination, and comparable diameter, 16.5 cm. Other comparable vessel examples come from Gravisca and Marzabotto. Bibliography: Malnati 1993; Minoja 2000, 100-4; Pianu 2000; Rasmussen 1979, 124, 203. Date: 600-525 BC by Rasmussen’s comparanda
24 C-99-317 Fig. 21, 80 Provenance: 24N/12W.8.11 Part: Rim and body fragment Measurements: 7.1 x 4.5 x 0.6 cm, diameter of rim: 17 cm. Rim sherd preserving 12.5% of the circumference. Paste: Smooth, fine, well-levigated paste, micaceous inclusions. The core is a medium gray color (Munsell 5Y 6/1 “gray”). The interior and exterior surfaces are a dark gray color (Munsell 5Y 4/1 “dark gray”). Condition: A small amount of scratching and chipping is present on the surfaces. Discussion: Evidence of striations and burnishing present on all surfaces. Grooves from manufacture are also present on the interior and exterior surfaces. Carinated rim with carination located 1.0 cm below bottom of rim on the exterior surface. Type similar to Rasmussen bowl type 1 with an example coming from San Giuliano (Fig. 137). This comparison has the same profile of the rim, a similar sharp carination, and comparable diameter, 16.5 cm. Other comparable vessel examples come from Gravisca. Bibliography: Minoja 2000, 100-4; Pianu 2000, 18, 57; Rasmussen 1979, 124, 203; Date: 600-525 BC by Rasmussen’s comparanda
27 25 C-01-362a Fig. 22, 81 Provenance: 24N/12W.33.2 Part: Rim and body fragment Measurements: 3.0 x 2.3 x 0.5 cm, diameter of rim: 14cm. Rim sherd preserving 6% of the circumference. Paste: Fine, soft, slightly chalky paste, micaceous inclusions throughout. The core color is a medium gray color (Munsell GLEY N5 “gray”) and the interior and exterior surfaces are a darker gray color (Munsell GLEY N4 “dark gray”) with the interior surface being slightly lighter. Condition: The edges and the surfaces seem well worn and the rim shows evidence of chipping and scratches. Discussion: Light striation marks are extant on the interior and exterior surfaces, and especially on the everted rim. An incised band runs directly underneath the exterior side of the rim. Evidence on burnishing is on the surfaces. Type similar to Rasmussen bowl type 1 with an example coming from San Giuliano (Fig. 137). This comparison has the same profile of the rim, a similar sharp carination, and comparable diameter, 16.5 cm. Other comparable vessel examples come from Gravisca. Bibliography: Minoja 2000, 100-4; Pianu 2000, 18, 57; Rasmussen 1979, 124, 203; Date: 600-525 BC by Rasmussen’s comparanda
26 C-01-731 Fig. 82 Provenance: 24N/12W.32.2 Part: Rim and body fragment Measurements: 2.3 x 1.8 x 0.5 cm, diameter of rim: 14-16 cm. Rim sherd preserving 4% of the circumference. Paste: A smooth, fine, well-levigated paste, with micaceous inclusion throughout. The core is a medium gray color (Munsell GLEY N 6 “gray”). The interior and exterior surfaces are a dark gray (Munsell 5Y 4/1 “dark gray”) with the exterior being slightly darker.
28 Condition: The surfaces and edges show minor wear, with a small amount of chipping on the exterior surface. Discussion: Evidence of striations and burnishing present on all surfaces. An incised bard runs directly beneath the bottom of the rim on the exterior surface. Rim profile similar to Cat. 17-21, 23. Type similar to Rasmussen bowl type 1 with an example coming from San Giuliano (Fig. 137). This comparison has the same profile of the rim, a similar sharp carination, and comparable diameter, 16.5 cm. Additionally, comparable to forms from Gravisca and Marzabotto. Bibliography: Malnati 1993, 54, 67;.Minoja 2000, 100-4; Pianu 2000, 18, 57; Rasmussen 1979, 124, 203. Date: 600-525 BC by Rasmussen’s comparanda
RasmussenU Type 2 27 C-93-116 Fig. 83 Provenance: 15N/30W.14.6 Part: Rim and body fragment Measurements: 3.2 x 2.0 x 0.5 cm, diameter of rim: 17 cm. Rim sherd preserving 5% of the circumference. Paste: Smooth, fine paste, micaceous inclusions throughout. The core is a light brownish-gray color (Munsell 10YR 7/2 “light gray”). The preserved surface color is a dark gray (Munsell 10YR 3/1 “very dark gray”) and the interior surface has areas of a grayish brown (Munsell 10 YR 5/2 “grayish brown”). Condition: The edges and especially the surfaces are very well worn. The exterior and interior surfaces are poorly preserved, leaving it appearing mottled with different colors. Chipping and scratches are very evident on the surfaces. Dirt/soil is present on the surfaces and edges. Discussion: Faint striation marks are visible on the interior surface. With a plain vertical lip. Comparable to Rasmussen’s type 2 bowl, such as found at Monte Abatone, Cerveteri (Fig. 139). Both with a plain, undecorated rim and similar dimentions, with the
29 Cerveteri example measuring 17.4 cm. Other comparable examples are found at Gravisca and Marzabotto. Bibliography: Malnati 1993, 53, 66; Pianu 2000, 19-20, 58; Rasmussen 1979, 125, 203; Date: 550-500 BC by Rasmussen’s comparanda
RasmussenU Type 3 28 C-95-163 Fig. 23, 84 Provenance: 27N/15W.1.3 Part: Base and body fragment Measurements: 6.8 cm x 5.2 x 0.8 cm, preserved height of the vessel: 2.5 cm, diameter of base: 9 cm. Ring-foot base preserving 25% of circumference. Paste: A slightly gritty paste, sandy and micaceous inclusions. The core is a light brownish-gray color (Munsell10YR 7/2 “light gray”). The interior surface of the vessel is a dark gray (Munsell GLEY N 4 “dark gray”) and the exterior is darker gray (Munsell GLEY N 3 “very dark gray”) Condition: The surfaces appear worn and some chipping and cracking are present on and around the base. Discussion: Striations are present on the surfaces of the vessel. Comparable to Rasmussen’s bowl type 3, with an example from Monte Abatone, Cerveteri (Fig. 140). Both show a ring-foot base in profile, as well as similar base siameters, with the Cerveteri example measuring 11.1 cm.. Other comparanda come from Roselle. Bibliography: Bocci 1965, 128-9; Rasmussen 1979, 125, 203; Tripponi 1970, 83. th
Date: End of 6P P century BC by Rasmussen’s comparanda
29 C-01-478c Fig. 24, 85 Provenance: 24N/12W.34.2 Part: Rim and body fragment Measurements: 7.3 x 3.6 x 0.5 cm, diameter of rim: 21cm. Rim sherd preserving 7.5% of the circumference.
30 Paste: Soft, slightly chalky paste, fine with micaceous inclusions. The core is a medium gray color (Munsell GLEY N 5 “gray”)and surrounded by an outer core of a light gray color (Munsell 5Y 7/1 “light gray”). The surfaces are a dark gray color (Munsell 2.5Y 4/1 “dark gray”). Condition: The surfaces and edges show light wear, and the surfaces have a small amount of dirt/soil and scratches evident. Discussion: Striations and burnishing present on surfaces. Three joining fragments; joined with C-01-478f & C-01-478g. A gentle, sloping carination is present in the profile, located 1.2 cm below the bottom of the rim on the exterior. The profile is comparable to Rasmussen’s type 3 bowl, such as found at Monte Abatone, Cerveteri (Fig. 140). However, even though both have the same profile of a rolled rim and sloping carination, Cat. 29 is a much larger example of this type 3 bowl. Other examples found at Gravisca and Roselle. The diameter of the Cerveteri example measures 11.1 cm. Bibliography Bucci, 1965, 144, 116; Pianu, 2000, 19-20, 59; Rasmussen 1979, 125, 203; th
Date: End of the 6P P century BC by Rasmussen’s comparanda
30 C-93-100 Fig. 25, 86 Provenance: 24N/15W.2.1 Part: Rim and body fragment Measurements: 4.1 x 2.6 x 0.5 cm, diameter of rim: 15cm. Rim sherd preserving 6% of the circumference. Paste: A smooth, slightly chalky, fine, well-levigated paste, micaceous inclusions throughout. The core is a medium gray color (Munsell GLEY N 6 “gray”) and the interior and exterior surfaces are a dark gray color (Munsell GLEY N 4 “dark gray”). Condition: The surfaces appear worn, with chipping and scratches evident. A small amount of dirt/soil is apparent on the exterior surface. Discussion: Striations and burnishing present on surfaces. An incised band runs directly below the rim on the exterior surface of the vessel. The profile is comparable to Rasmussen’s type 3 bowl, such as found at Monte Abatone, Cerveteri (Fig. 141). Both have the same profile of a rolled rim and sloping
31 carination, as well as having similar rim diameters, with the Cerveteri example measuring 17.3 cm. Other comparable examples have been found at Gravisca and Roselle. Bibliography: Bocci 1965, 114, 116; Pianu 2000, 19-20, 59; Rasmussen 1979, 125, 205. th
Date: 5P P century BC by Rasmussen’s comparanda
31 C-99-34 Fig. 26, 87 Provenance: 24N/12W.pedestal removal Part: Rim and body fragment Measurements: 5.3 x 2.7 x 0.6 cm, diameter of rim: 21 cm. Rim sherd preserving 5% of the circumference. Paste: A smooth, fine paste, soapy texture, micaceous inclusions throughout. The core is a pale brown color (Munsell 10YR 7/3 “very pale brown”). The exterior surface is a medium gray color (Munsell 2.5Y 5/1 “gray”), the interior surface is a dark gray color (Munsell 2.5Y 4/1 “dark gray”). Condition: A small amount of chipping and scratching is present on the surfaces. Discussion: Striations and burnishing present on surfaces. A wide groove runs directly below the rim on the exterior surface of the vessel, with smaller grooves present on the interior surface. The profile is comparable to Rasmussen’s type 3 bowl, such as found at Cerveteri (Fig. 141). Both have the same type of rolled rim seen through the profile, as well as comparable rim diameter size, 17.3 cm. Other examples are seen at Gravisca, and Roselle. Bibliography: Olivotto 1994, 23; Pianu 2000, 19-20, 59; Rasmussen 1979, 125, 203. th
Date: End of the 6P P century BC by Rasmussen’s Comparanda
32 C-99-281 Fig. 88 Provenance: 24N/12W.8.10 Part: Rim and body fragment Measurements: 3.8 x 3.3 x 0.6 cm, diameter of rim: 14 cm. Rim sherd preserving 7% of the circumference.
32 Paste: Soft, fine, slightly chalky texture, micaceous inclusions throughout. The core is a light brownish gray (Munsell 2.5Y 6/2 “light brownish gray”). The interior and exterior surfaces are a medium gray color (Munsell GLEY N 5 “gray”) Condition: A moderate amount of dirt/soil is present on the edges and surfaces and they show some wear. Discussion: Striations and burnishing present on surfaces. The profile is comparable to Rasmussen’s type 3 bowl, such as found at Monte Abatone, Cerveteri (Fig. 140). Both have the same profile of a rolled rim and sloping carination, as well as having a comparable rim diameter, 11.1 cm. Other comparanda has been found at Caere, Gravisca, and Roselle. Bibliography: Bocci 1965, 114, 116; Pianu 2000, 19-20, 59; Rasmussen 1979, 125, 205. th
Date: End of the 6P P century BC by Rasmussen’s comparanda
RasmussenU Type 4 33 C-98-66 Fig. 27, 89 Provenance: 24N/9W.1.4 Part: Base and body fragment Measurements: 6.3 x 4.6 x 0.8 cm, height of vessel preserved: 1.9 cm, diameter of base: 8 cm. 15% of the base remains intact. Paste: Smooth, fine, well-levigated, micaceous inclusions. Fired dark throughout. The core is a dark gray color (Munsell GLEY N 4 “dark gray”) and the surfaces are a darker gray (Munsell GLEY N 3 “very dark gray”). Condition: Wear and scratching are present on the surfaces and the edges. Discussion: Striations and evidence of burnishing present on all surfaces. The profile shows a ring-foot base with a small foot projecting outwards. Comparable to Rasmussen’s bowl type 4 (Fig. 142), showing a very similar profile in the ring-foot base, as well as similar base diameter, with the base measuring 11.4 cm. Other examples come from Cerveteri, Poggio la Croce, Marzabotto, and Roselle. Bibliography: Bocci 1965, 187, 190; Rasmussen 1979, 125, 203; Tripponi 1970, 89; Valenti 1995, 187, 271. th th
Date: End of the 6P P – 5P P centuries BC by Rasmussen’s comparanda
33
34 C-99-282 Fig. 28, 90 Provenance: 24N/12W.8.10 Part: Rim and body fragment Measurements: 4.6 x 3.1 x 0.6, diameter of rim: 13 cm. Rim sherd preserving 7.5% of the circumference. Paste: Soft, fine, slightly chalky texture, micaceous inclusions, paste rough on interior with small sandy inclusions. The core is a light brownish gray (Munsell 2.5Y 6/2 “light brownish gray”). The interior and exterior surfaces are a dark gray (Munsell 2.5Y 4/1 “dark gray”). Condition: The edges and surfaces show some wear and the surfaces have a small amount of scratches and pockmarks present. Discussion: Striations and evidence of burnishing present on all surfaces. The profile shows a plain rim with a small, shallow groove running directly below the rim on the exterior surface. This vessel is similar to Rasmussen’s type 4 bowl, such as found at Monte Abatone, Cerveteri (Fig. 142). The dimensions of the rim diameter are similar, with the Ceveteri example measuring 11.4 cm; however, the indentation on the exterior surface makes the profile slightly different from Rasmussen’s example. Other comparanda come from Poggio la Croce and Marzabotto. Bibliography: Rasmussen 1979, 125, 203; Valenti 1995, 187, 271; th th
Date: End of the 6P P – 5P P centuries BC by Rasmussen’s comparanda
35 C-01-478a Fig. 29, 91 Provenance: 24N/12W.34.2 Part: Rim and body fragments Measurements: 10.5 x 3.6 x 0.4 cm, diameter of rim: 18cm. Rim sherd preserving 10% of the circumference. Paste: Smooth surface, fine paste, micaceous inclusions, paste rough on interior with small sandy inclusions. The core is a light gray color (Munsell 2.5Y 7/1 “light gray”). The exterior and interior surfaces are a dark gray (Munsell GLEY N 3 “very dark gray”) but the interior surface is slightly lighter.
34 Condition: The surfaces and edges show wear. The interior surface especially shows wear/chipping of the surface. Discussion: 6 fragments joined together. Striations and evidence of burnishing are present on the surfaces, especially on the interior surface. The rim has an ovoid shape. A similar example in its profile comes from Monte Abatone, Cerveteri, but is much smaller; its diameter measures only 11.4 cm. Bibliography: Pianu 2000, 59, 21; Rasmussen 1979, 125, 205; Tripponi 1970, 100, 108. th th
Date: End of the 6P -P 5P P centuries BC by Rasmussen’s comparanda
36 C-02-42 Fig. 30, 92 Provenance: 24N/12W.22.1 Part: Base and wall fragment Measurements: 6.6 x 3.7 x 0.7 cm, preserved height of vessel: 2.0 cm, diameter of base: 8.5 cm. Base preserving 28% of the circumference. Paste: Smooth paste on the surfaces, micaceous inclusions, paste rough on interior with small sandy inclusions. Most of core is discolored by dirt/soil. Core is a light brown color (Munsell 2.5Y 6/2 “light brownish gray”). The interior and exterior surfaces are a dark gray color (Munsell GLEY N3 “very dark gray”) Condition: Scratching and wear is evident on all the surfaces. Discussion: Striations and evidence of burnishing present on all surfaces. The profile shows a ring-foot base with a small foot projecting outwards. Comparable to Rasmussen’s bowl type 4 (Fig. 142), with an example hailing from Monte Abatone, Cerveteri, showing a very similar profile in the ring-foot base, as well as a similar base diameter of 6.4 cm. Bibliography: Rasmussen 1979, 125, 203. th th
Date: End of the 6P P – 5P P centuries BC by Rasmussen’s comparanda
37 C-95-79 Fig. 31, 93 Provenance: 27N/15W.2.3 Part: Rim and body fragment
35 Measurements: 4.1 cm x 3.3 cm x 0.5 cm, diameter of rim: 15 cm. Rim sherd preserving 7.5% of the circumference. Paste: Fine, slightly chalky paste, micaceous inclusions throughout. The core has a medium gray color (Munsell GLEY N 5 “gray”). The interior and exterior surfaces are dark gray (Munsell GLEY N 4 “dark gray”). Condition: The edges and surfaces seem worn. A small amount of chipping and scratches are present on the interior and exterior surfaces. Discussion: The carination is located 0.9 cm below the rim on the exterior surface of the vessel. Between the rim and the carination are two faint grooves. Other striations are present on the interior surface and especially on the rim. The surfaces show evidence of burnishing. a slight carination with a slightly everted rim. Similar to Rasmussen’s type 4, with a slightly smaller example coming from Cerveteri, with its rim diameter measuring 11.4 cm (Fig. 142). Bibliography: Bocci 1965, 141; Rasmussen 1979, 125, 203; Valenti 1995, 187, 271. th th
Date: End of the 6P -5P P P centuries BC by Rasmussen’s comparanda
38 C-98-173 Fig. 94 Provenance: 24N/9W.6.1 Part: Rim and body fragment Measurements: 3.5 x 3.0 x 0.5 cm, diameter of rim: 15 cm. Rim sherd preserving 4% of the circumference. Paste: Soft, slightly chalky paste, micaceous inclusions, paste rough on the interior with sandy inclusions. The core is a light yellowish brown (Munsell 2.5Y 6/3 “light yellowish brown”). The exterior and interior surfaces are a dark gray (Munsell GLEY N 4 “dark gray”). Condition: The edges and surfaces show evidence of wear. There is a small amount of soil/dirt present on the surfaces and edges. A small amount of scratching is evident on the surfaces. Discussion: Striations and evidence of burnishing are present on the surfaces, and faint grooves are evident on the interior surface. The rim has a rounded edge. Similar to
36 Rasmussen’s type 4, with a slightly smaller example coming from Cerveteri, with its rim diameter measuring 11.4 cm (Fig. 142). Bibliography: Bocci 1965, 138-9; Rasmussen 1979, 125, 203; Valenti 1995, 187, 271. th th
Date: End of the 6P -5P P P centuries BC by Rasmussen’s comparanda
TypeU Unknown
39 C-95-164 Fig. 32, 95 Provenance: 27N/15W.1.6 Part: Rim and body fragment Measurements: 4.0 cm x 2.5 cm x 0.5 cm, diameter of rim: 16 cm. Rim sherd preserving 5% of the circumference. Paste: Fine, slightly chalky paste, micaceous inclusions. The core is a light gray color (Munsell 10YR 7/1 “light gray”). The interior surface of the vessel is a medium gray color (Munsell 10YR 5/1 “gray”) and the exterior surface is dark gray (Munsell GLEY N 4 “dark gray”). Condition: The edges and surfaces appear well worn. The exterior surface has chipping and scratching present. Discussion: Striation marks are present on the surfaces of the vessel. The rim has an incised band/groove located directly underneath the rim on the exterior surface. Slightly everted.
40 C-98-71 Fig. 33, 96 Provenance: 24N/9W.1.6 Part: Rim and body fragment Measurements: 5.4 x 4.0 x 0.6 cm, diameter of rim: 18 cm. Rim sherd preserving 5% of the circumference. Paste: Slightly chalky, fine, well levigated paste. Micaceous inclusions. The core is a light gray color (Munsell 5Y 7/1 “light gray”). The exterior surface is a dark gray color (Munsell GLEY N 4 “dark gray”) and the interior surface is a medium gray (Munsell 2.5Y 5/1 “gray”).
37 Condition: The edges are worn, and slight scratching is evident on the interior and exterior surfaces. Discussion: Striations are present on all the surfaces, especially directly below the rim on the exterior surface. Faint grooves are present on the exterior surface. The carination is located 1.5 cm from the bottom of the rim on the exterior surface. Carinated with everted rim.
41 C-99-179 Fig. 34, 97 Provenance: 24N/12W.8.7 Part: Rim and body fragment Measurements: 3.8 x 3.6 x 0.5 cm, diameter of rim: 17 cm. Rim sherd preserving 5% of the circumference. Paste: Smooth, fine, well-levigated paste, micaceous inclusions throughout. The core is a grayish-brown color (Munsell 2.5Y 5/2 “grayish brown”). The interior and exterior surfaces are a dark gray color (Munsell GLEY N 4 “dark gray”). Condition: The surfaces and edges show some wear, and the surfaces have a small amount of scratching. There is a small amount of dirt/soil present on the interior surface and the edges. Discussion: Faint striations and evidence of burnishing are present on the surfaces. Shallow grooves are evident on the interior surface. The edge of the rim has an ovoid shape. Unknown in Rasmussen’s typology (Fig. 154). Bibliography: Pianu 2000, 24, 61. th
Date: 6P P century BC by Pianu’s comparanda
VII. Minature Bowl
RasmussenU Type 3 42 C-94-47 Fig. 35, 98 Provenance: 24N/15W.3.5 Part: Rim and body fragment
38 Measurements: 2.8 cm x 2.6 cm x 0.5 cm, diameter of rim: 10 cm. Rim sherd preserving 7% of the circumference. Paste: A smooth, fine, well-levigated paste, micaceous inclusions throughout. The core of the fabric is a medium gray color (Munsell 7.5 YR 6/1 “gray”) and the interior and exterior surfaces are a dark gray color (Munsell GLEY N 4 “dark gray”) Condition: The edges and surfaces appear worn. The interior surface has some minor chipping and the exterior surface has some minor chipping and scratches. A small amount of dirt/soil is evident on the rim. Discussion: There are striation marks and evidence of burnishing on the surfaces of the vessel. Faint grooves are present on the interior surface. The tip of the rim has an ovoid shape. Miniature bowls, as opposed to regular bowls, typically have smaller dimensions, which are especially seen in the diameter of the rim. Additionally, according to Rasmussen, miniature bowls also have more of a variety in their rim types. The fragment from Cetamura has a similar profile as an example from Monte Abatone, Cerveteri; although that example is a bit smaller, with the rim diameter measuring 7.0 cm. Bibliography: Pianu 2000, 22-23, 60; Rasmussen 1979, 126, 204; Date: 520-400 BC by Rasmussen’s comparanda
VIII. Cup
RamussenU Type 5 43 C-84-565 Fig. 36, 99 Provenance: Structure G. Room 1 Part: Rim and body fragment Measurements: 2.4 x 2.6 x 0.4 cm, diameter of rim: 23 cm. Rim sherd preserving 3% of the circumference. Paste: Smooth, fine, well-levigated paste, micaceous inclusions, fired dark throughout. The core and the interior and exterior surfaces are a dark gray color (Munsell GLEY N 4 “dark gray”)
39 Condition: The surface and edges seem worn and a small amount of dirt/soil is present on the edges and surfaces. Discussion: Faint striations are present on the exterior surface. Evidence of burnishing can be seen on the surfaces. The tip of the rim has an ovoid shape, and the thickness of the vessel diminishes approaching the edge of the rim.Rasmussen’s example, found at Monte Abatone, Cerveteri, is smaller, with a diameter of 18 cm (Fig. 148). The profile of the rim still lends it as a viable comparison. Bibliography: Malnati 1990, 48, 60, Rasmussen 1979, 121, 202; Regter, 2003, 11, 54, 63, 82; Date: 525-475 BC by Rasmussen’s comparanda
44 C-03-164 Fig. 37, 100 Provenance: 30N/18W.9a.4 Part: Rim, handle, and body fragment Measurements: 2.9 x 2.4 x 0.4 cm, extension of handle from body: 4.0 cm, greatest thickness where rim joins handle: 1.5 cm, diameter of rim: 17-18 cm. Rim sherd preserving 2.5% of the circumference. Paste: Smooth, fine, well-levigated paste, micaceous inclusions. The paste is fired dark throughout. The core is a black color (Munsell GLEY N2.5 “black”) and the exterior and interior surfaces of the vessel and handle are a very dark gray (Munsell GLEY N3 “very dark gray”). Condition: Three joining fragments, one with part of rim, handle, and body intact; the second preserves part of the handle; and the third preserves part of the wall. The fragments have a small amount of dirt/soil remaining, especially around the edges. The exterior and interior surfaces and the rim have evidence of wear and scratching. Discussion: Striation marks and evidence of burnishing are present on the surfaces of the wall. Faint grooves are present on the exterior surface near the rim. Light grooves are present running the length of the handle, starting at its base. The thickness of the wall diminishes near the edge of the rim. Referred to in Rasmussen 1979 as a kylix. The profile of this fragment has a very distinctive appearance, especially considering the
40 relationship between the handle and the rim (Fig. 148). Rasmussen’s example from an unknown provenance also is of the same size, measuring 18 cm in diameter. Bibliography: Malnati 1990, 48, 60; Minoja 2000, 98-99; Rasmussen 1979, 121, 202; Regter 2003, 11, 53, 64, 82; Date: 525-475 BC
45 C-01-363 Fig. 38, 101 Provenance: 24N/12W.33.2 Part: Rim and body fragment Measurements: 3.0 x 2.1 x 0.5 cm, diameter of rim: 17 cm. Rim sherd preserving 5% of the circumference Paste: Fine, slightly gritty/sandy paste, micaceous and sandy inclusions throughout. The core is a light gray color (Munsell 2.5Y 7/1 “light gray”) and the interior and exterior surfaces are a dark gray color (Munsell GLEY N4 “dark gray”) with the interior surface being slightly lighter. Condition: Wear is evident on the surfaces and edges and some scratches are present on the interior surface. Dirt/soil is evident on the edges and on the rim. Discussion: Striation marks are evident on the interior surface and the rim. Also burnishing is evident on the interior and exterior surfaces and on the rim. The tip of the rim has an ovoid shape. Rasmussen’s example, found at Monte Abatone, Cerveteri, is a similar size, with its diameter measuring 18 cm, and it has a similar profile of the rim. Bibliography: Malnati 1990, 48, 60; Rasmussen 1979, 121, 202; Regter, 2003, 11, 53, 64, 82; Date: 525-475 BC by Rasmussen’s comparanda.
46 C-01-407 Fig. 102 Provenance: 24N/12W.34.1 Part: Rim and body Measurements: 2.6 x 1.8 x 0.5 cm, diameter of rim: 24 cm. Rim sherd preserving 3% of the circumference.
41 Paste: Fine, smooth, well-levigated paste. Micaceous inclusions throughout. The core is a light gray color (Munsell 2.5Y 7/1 “light gray”). The exterior and interior surfaces are a dark gray color (Munsell GLEY N4 “dark gray”) Condition: Wear is evident on the edges and a small amount on the surfaces. Discussion: Faint striation marks and evidence of burnishing are present on the exterior surface and the rim of the vessel. The edge of the rim has a round/ovoid shape, and the tip of the rim curves slightly inwards. Rasmussen’s example, found at Monte Abatone, Cerveteri, is smaller, with a diameter of 18 cm (Fig. 148). The profile of the rim still lends it as a viable comparison. Bibliography: Malnati 1990, 48, 60; Rasmussen 1979, 121, 202; Regter 2003, 11, 53, 64, 82; Date: 525-475 BC by Rasmussen’s comparanda
UnidentifiableU form 47 C-94-48 Fig. 39, 103 Provenance: 24N/15W.3.5 Part: Rim and body fragment Measurements: 3.2 cm x 3.8 cm x 0.5 cm, diameter of the rim: 19 cm. Rim sherd preserving 4% of the circumference. Paste: A smooth, fine, well-levigated paste, micaceous inclusions throughout. The core is a medium gray color (Munsell GLEY N 5 “gray”) and the interior and exterior surfaces are a dark gray color (Munsell GLEY N 4 “dark gray”) Condition: The edges and surfaces show wear. The interior and exterior show a small amount of scratches and chipping. Discussion: Striations and evidence of burnishing are present on the surfaces. Some faint grooves are visible on the interior surface. The rim has a gentle inward curve with the tip of the rim having a slightly bulbous, ovoid shape. Rasmussen’s example, found at Monte Abatone, Cerveteri, is smaller with a diameter of 12.9 (Fig. 147). The profile of the rim still lends it as a viable comparison.
48 C-94-49 Fig. 40, 104
42 Provenance: 24N/15W.3.5 Part: Rim and body fragment Measurements: 4.0 cm x 2.7 cm x 0.7 cm, diameter of rim: 24-26 cm. Rim sherd preserving 2% of the circumference. Paste: A smooth, fine paste, with micaceous inclusions. The core is a medium gray color (Munsell 7.5 YR 5/1 “gray”). The interior surface of the vessel is a medium gray (Munsell GLEY N 5 “gray”) and the exterior surface is a slightly darker gray (Munsell GLEY N 4 “dark gray”) Condition: The edges and surfaces show wear. A small amount of scratches are present on the surfaces. A moderate amount of dirt is preserved on the edges and surfaces, especially on the interior surface. Discussion: Striations are present on the surfaces. Shallow grooves are present on the interior surface. Markings are present on the exterior surface, possibly from stacking. The exterior surface of the vessel is curved and the interior surface has a straighter shape. The edge of the rim has an ovoid shape and the thickness of the wall diminishes as it approaches the edge of the rim. This is a form not found in Rasmussen’s typology, and is possibly a regional form, particular to northern Etruria.
IX. Chalice
49 C-88-124 Fig. 41, 105 Provenance: AA.6.1 Part: Rim and body fragment Measurements: 5.9 x 4.8 x 0.6 cm, diameter of rim: 15 cm. Rim sherd preserving 6% of the circumference. Paste: Slightly chalky, fine, well-levigated paste, micaceous inclusion throughout. The core is a medium gray color (Munsell 10YR 6/1 “gray”) The exterior surface is a medium gray color (Munsell GLEY N 5 “gray”) and the interior surface is a medium gray color (Munsell 5Y 5/1 “gray”).
43 Condition: Glued together from four pieces. Edges and surfaces appear worn, some discoloration and soil/dirt is on the edges and especially part of the interior surface. The surfaces show some chipping and scratches. Discussion: Faint striation marks and evidence of burnishing are present on the surfaces and rim. The edge of the rim has an ovoid shape. Vessels with similar profiles are found in Roselle and Poggio Buco. Bibliography: Bocci 1965, 120, 146-7; Matteucig 1951, 24. Date: Uncertain
50 C-90-74 Fig. 42, 106 Provenance: 18N/18W.12.2 Part: Rim and body fragment Measurements: 4.2 x 4.2 x 0.5 cm, diameter of rim: 15 cm. Rim sherd preserving 7% of the circumference. Paste: A smooth exterior surface, the interior surface is slightly rough with small inclusions, fired dark throughout. The core and exterior and interior surfaces are black (Munsell GLEY N 2.5 “black”). Condition: Wear is present on the edges and surfaces, especially on the interior surface. Scratches and a small amount of chipping are present on the surfaces. Discussion: Striations and evidence of burnishing are present, as well as small, shallow grooves, on the exterior surface. An incised line is present 1.8 cm below the everted rim. The profile seen here is similar to Rasmussen’s chalice, type 2d, although not an exact match (Fig. 149). Bibliography: Pecchiai 1967, 488; Rasmussen 1979, 98-99, 190. Date: 625-550 BC by Rasmussen’s comparanda
51 C-94-90 Fig. 43, 107 Provenance: 24 N/15W.3.8 Part: Rim and body fragment Measurements: 5.6 cm x 4.1 cm x 0.7 cm, diameter of rim: 23 cm. Rim sherd preserving 4% of the circumference.
44 Paste: A very smooth, fine paste, with a small amount of micaceous inclusions. The core and the surfaces of the vessel are a medium gray color (Munsell 10YR 5/1 “gray”). A medium, reddish-brown color runs through part of the core (Munsell 2.5 YR 6/4 “weak red”). Condition: The edges have sharp, angular breaks. Chipping is present on a moderate amount of the exterior surface of the vessel. There is some small pockmarking on the exterior surface and small amounts of scratches present on the interior and exterior surfaces of the vessel. Discussion: Striations and evidence of burnishing is evident on both the interior and exterior surfaces. An indentation is present directly underneath on the exterior surfaces, which is possibly an incised line. The everted rim has a circular/ovoid shape. The profile seen here is similar to Rasmussen’s chalice, although not an exact match (Fig. 149). Bibliography: Pianu 2000, 28, 63; Rasmussen 1979, 98-99, 190. th
Date: 6P P century BC by Rasmussen’s comparanda
52 C-98-158 Fig. 44, 108 Provenance: 24N/9W.6.2 Part: Rim and body fragment Measurements: 12.2 x 7.0 x 0.7 cm, diameter of rim: 14 cm. Rim sherd preserving 30% of the circumference. Paste: Smooth, fine, well levigated paste, micaceous inclusion throughout. The core is a light yellowish brown color (Munsell 2.5Y 6/2 “light yellowish-brown”). The exterior and interior surfaces are a dark gray (Munsell GLEY N 3 “very dark gray”) with the interior surfaces being slightly darker than the exterior surface. Condition: The piece is comprised of 3 fragments glued together. The edges and surfaces show wear, and the surfaces show scratches. A small amount of dirt/soil is present on the surfaces and edges. Discussion: Striations and burnishing are present on the surfaces, as well as bands/marks possibly from stacking the vessel. Numerous faint, shallow grooves are present on the surfaces. The everted rim has a round/ovoid edge and is slightly bulbous (Fig. 149). Bibliography: Bocci 1965, 155-6; Rasmussen 1979, 98-9, 190.
45 th
Date: 6P P century BC by Rasmussen’s comparanda
53 C-99-283 Fig. 45, 109 Provenance: 24N/12W.8.10 Part: Rim and body fragment Measurements: 5.1 x 4.0 x 0.5 cm, diameter of rim: 19 cm. Rim sherd preserving 4% of the circumference. Paste: Smooth, fine, well-levigated paste. The core is a medium gray color (Munsell 2.5Y 5/1 “gray”). The interior and exterior surfaces are a very dark gray (Munsell GLEY N 3 “very dark gray”). Condition: A moderate amount of soil is present on the edges and surfaces, especially the rim. A small amount of wear is evident on the surfaces and edges. Discussion: Striations and burnishing are present on the surfaces, especially on the interior surface. The edge of the rim is slightly everted and has an ovoid, slightly bulbous shape. Bibliography: Regter 2003, 33, 103; th
Date: 6P P century BC by Regter’s comparanda
54 C-02-203 Fig. 46, 110 Provenance: 30N/18W.5a.4 Part: Rim and body fragment Measurements: 5.4 x 4.7 x 0.5 cm, diameter of rim: 15 cm. Rim sherd preserving 6% of the circumference. Paste: A smooth, soft, well-levigated paste, micaceous inclusions. The core is a medium gray color (Munsell 10YR 5/1 “gray”). The interior and exterior surfaces are mottled with a medium gray color (Munsell GLEY N5 “gray”) and a dark gray (Munsell GLEY N4 “dark gray”) Condition: The edges are well worn and the surfaces are well worn and chipped. Some dirt/soil is evident on the edges and the interior surface. Discussion: Some very faint striation marks are extant under the exterior surface of the rim. The tip of the rim has a round/ovoid, slightly bulbous shape.
46 Bibliography: Regter 2003, 33, 103. th
Date: 6P P century BC by Regter’s comparanda
55 C-03-86 Fig. 47, 111 Provenance: 24N/9W.21.17 Part: Rim and body fragment Measurements: 5.4 x 5.0 x 0.4 cm, diameter of rim: 15 cm Rim sherd preserving 14% of the circumference. Paste: Smooth, fine, well-levigated paste, micaceous inclusions; the paste is fired dark throughout. The core and the exterior surface are a medium gray color (Munsell GLEY N5 “gray”). The interior surface is a darker gray color (Munsell GLEY N4 “dark gray”). Condition: Wear is evident on the edges and on the surfaces. Scratching and a small amount of pockmarking is evident on the surfaces. A small amount of dirt/soil is evident on the surfaces and edges. Discussion: Light striation marks and burnishing are present on the interior and exterior surfaces. Marks are present on the surfaces, possibly from stacking. Similar paste and form as Cat. 56. Slightly everted rim and gently sloping walls. Bibliography: Pecchiai 1967, 488; Pianu 2000, 28, 63; Regter 2003, 33, 103. th
Date: 6P P century BC by Pianu’s comparanda
56 C-03-22 Fig. 48, 112 Provenance: 24N/9W.21.14 Part: Rim and body fragment Measurements: 5.3 x 3.5 x 0.5 cm, diameter of rim: 21 cm. Rim sherd preserving 3% of the circumference. Paste: Smooth, fine, well-levigated paste, micaceous inclusions, fired dark throughout. The core is a medium gray color (Munsell GLEY N5 “gray”), the interior and exterior surfaces are a dark gray color (Munsell GLEY N4 “dark gray”) Condition: Dirt/soil is apparent, especially on the edges. The edges are worn, as are the surfaces. Some chipping and scratching are present on the interior and exterior surfaces.
47 Discussion: Burnishing and striation marks are evident on the interior surface, the slightly everted rim, and the exterior surface. Marks are extant on the interior surface, possibly from stacking. Paste and form is similar to Cat. 55. Bibliography: Regter 2003, 33, 103; th
Date: 6P P century BC by Regter’s comparanda
C. SPECIAL EXAMPLES
I. Stamp
RasmussenU Bowl Type 4U
57 C-99-31 Fig. 49, 113 Provenance: 27N/15W.1.5 Part: Base and Body fragment Decoration: Two oval 5-petalled palmette stamps almost completely intact, partial remains of a third stamp, connected by a central circle, located in the center of the interior 22
surface.TP PT Measurements: 11.6 x 7.7 x 0.5 cm, preserved height of vessel: 2.7 cm, diameter of base: 7 cm; 75% of the original base is preserved. Paste: Smooth and fine exterior paste, rougher on interior surface with sandy inclusions, micaceous inclusion throughout. The core is a medium gray color (Munsell 5Y 5/1 “gray”). The interior and exterior surfaces are a dark gray (Munsell GLEY N 3 “very dark gray”). 23
Condition: Part of the vessel is conserved, including part of the base and the body.TP PT The surfaces and edges show wear and some chipping and scratches. Discussion: Five pieces are joined together, including C-95-78 and C-99-31. Faint striations and grooves are evident on the vessel’s surfaces, as well as burnishing. A ring- foot base is present with a flat surface on the top of the foot. A similar stepped foot profile is seen in Rasmussen 1979, in a type 4 Bowl from Cerveteri. (See Fig 142) Although that vessel has a slightly smaller base diameter, measuring 6.6 cm, its profile
22
TP PT Restoration drawing of the stamp by Jessica Buchanan. 23
TP PT Restored by Angelo Allegretti, 2000
48 shows a very similar ring-foot which is also flat on the top of the floor. Other vessels with comparable shapes come from Gravisca. The stamped decoration has parallels in other Etruscan sites. In particular, Poggio Civitate (Murlo) has other examples of palmette stamps on bucchero. There are two examples of bucchero vessels, a pyxis and pyxis lid, with this type of 5-petalled palmette stamp, as well as impasto vessels with 7-petalled palemettes. The bucchero with the 5- petalled palmettes at Murlo is firmly dated to c. 600 BC. This dating also corresponds to th
Rasmussen’s dating of the type 1 Miniature Bowl, hailing form the 6P P century and later. Another example comes from a stemmed bowl from Vulci, using a 5-petalled palmette, with scalloped lines linking the stamps together. An additional example of a comparable 5-petalled palmette stamp comes from Roselle. Bibliography: Berkin 2003, 54-55; Bucci 1965, 190; De Puma 1986, 44; Phillips 1972, 252; Phillips 1994, 34, 42; Pianu 2000, 21, 59; Rasmussen 1979, 63, 203. Date: c. 600 BC by form and decoration using comparanda by Rasmussen and Phillips
II. Sigla
RasmussenU Bowl Type 3
58 C-91-176 Fig. 50, 114 Provenance: 76.5N/0.14.5 Part: Base and body fragment Measurements: 6.3 cm x 5.2 cm x 1.9 cm, diameter of base: 5 cm. Siglum: Incised, crossed straight lines are located on the interior surface of the vessel in the center. The lines of the siglum measure 4.2 cm and 5.4 cm. Paste: A fine, slightly gritty paste, with micaceous and sandy inclusions. The fabric is fired dark all the way through. The exterior surface is a dark gray color (Munsell GLEY N 4 “dark gray”) while the interior surface is a lighter gray (Munsell GLEY 5B 5/1 “bluish gray”). Condition: The entire ring-foot base is preserved, as is part of the interior of the vessel and a small part of the wall. The exterior surface inside the ring base is intact. The
49 interior of the vessel is intact with a well preserved siglum and it shows minor wear. All surfaces appear worn, and contain some chipping. Discussion: Striation marks are very evident on the exterior surface, especially inside the ring-foot base. These also appear more faintly shown on the interior of the vessel. Burnishing is also very evident on the exterior. A similar profile to the ring-foot base is seen in Rasmussen Bowl type 3 from Monte Abatone, Cerveteri (Fig. 140). Not only is the profile of the foot similar, but the diameter of the base is comparable as well. This shape is also seen at other sites, such as at Gravisca. The “X” shaped siglum is a relatively common shape of sigla seen on Etruscan pottery and other types of artifacts. Both Keyser 1988 and especially de Grummond et al. 2000 discuss the use of the symbol to represent the number 10. According to de Grummond et al., this mark could have been utilized here for the purpose of identifying the object, or as a way to bring good luck to the owner or user of the object. Another example of bucchero with an “X” comes from Gravisca, while this sign has been found on a variety of other types of pottery and hailing from a variety of places, such as Tarquinia, Veii, Bologna, Roselle, Marzabotto, and even other vessels and artifact types at Cetamura. Bibliography: Bocci 1965, 176-7; de Grummond et al 2000, 31, 37-8; Keyser 1988, 533, 541-2, 544-5; Pianu 2000, 20 59; Rasmussen 1979, 125, 203; Valenti 1995, 187, 271; th th
Date:6P P and 5P P centuries BC by Rasmussen’s comparanda
RasmussenU Plate Type 2U 59 C-01-399 Fig. 51, 115 Provenance: 24N/12W.34.1 Part: Rim, base, and body fragment Siglum: A straight line, incised, running 5.4 cm long on the bottom of the base. Measurements: 13.0 x 11.3 x 0.6 cm, preserved height of vessel: 4.3 cm, diameter of base: 6.5 cm, diameter of rim: 15 cm; 100% of the base is intact, rim sherd preserving 28% of the circumference
50 Paste: Smooth exterior, fine, micaceous inclusions throughout, paste is rougher on interior with sandy and other small inclusions. The core is a light brownish gray (Munsell 2.5Y 6/2 “light brownish gray”). The interior and exterior surfaces are a dark gray (Munsell GLEY N 3 “very dark gray”). Condition: The surfaces and edges show light wear and a small amount of scratches and chipping. Discussion: Four joining fragments; striations and shallow grooves are evident on all the surfaces of the vessel from manufacture, with a solid base bowing upwards to 0.5 cm in the center. Evidence of burnishing is present on all surfaces. Some similar features are seen here as in Rasmussen’s plate, type 2, from Cerveteri, although their form is not a direct match. This type shows an everted rim, although the Cetamura example curves outwards and downwards further than the Cerveteri example. Both vessels have similar dimensions, in their rim and base diameter, although the height of the Cerveteri example is shorter. The siglum on this vessel, in the shape of a single tally mark, “I”, likely indicates the number one. As discussed in Cat. 58, this kind of mark could have been added as a way to show ownership, as this incision was added after the vessel’s construction. This also may have been added to give the vessel luck or to indicate some sort of measurement. Other examples of this type of siglum are seen in Etruria, at sites such as Gravisca. Bibliography: Bocci 1965, 168-9; de Grummond et al. 2000, 31-2; Keyser 1988, passim; Pianu 2000; Rasmussen 1979, 124, 202. th
Date: 5P P century BC by Rasmussen’s comparanda
III. Problem pieces
60 C-93-106 Fig. 52, 116 Provenance: 15N/30W.14.5 Part: Rim and body fragment Measurements: 2.5 x 2.1 x 0.4 cm
51 Paste: Smooth, fine, well-levigated paste, micaceous inclusions, fired dark throughout. The core and surfaces are a black color (Munsell GLEY 2.5 “black”). Condition: Rim sherd is in a very fragmentary condition. A small amount of dirt/soil is present on the edges. The surfaces and edges show a small amount of wear. Discussion: Striations and evidence of burnishing are present on the surfaces. The wall slopes upwards gently until near the rim where a more vertical profile is seen. The rim has a narrow, ovoid shape. Too fragmentary to discern vessel type or diameter of rim.
61 C-01-681a Fig. 53, 117 Provenance: 24N/12W.32.1 Part: Rim and body fragment Measurements: 2.3 x 1.2 x 0.4 cm. Rim sherd preserving 1.2 cm of the circumference. Paste: Fine, smooth, well-levigated, micaceous inclusions throughout, paste slightly rougher on the interior with sandy inclusions. The core is a light yellowish brown (Munsell 2.5Y 6/3 “light yellowish brown”). The surfaces are a dark gray (Munsell GLEY N 3 “very dark gray”) Condition: The surfaces and edges show wear. A small amount of scratches are present on the surfaces. Discussion: Faint striations and evidence of burnishing are present on the surfaces. The edge of the rim has an ovoid shape. Not enough is preserved to determine any definite vessel type.
62 C-01-681b Fig. 54, 118 Provenance: 24N/12W.32.1 Part: Rim and body fragment Measurements: 2.2 x 1.5 x 0.5 cm. Rim sherd preserving l.1 cm of the circumference. Paste: Fine, smooth, well-levigated, micaceous inclusions throughout, paste slightly rougher on the interior with sandy inclusions. The core is a medium gray (Munsell 2.5Y 6/1 “gray”). The interior surface is a dark gray (Munsell GLEY N 4 “dark gray”) and the exterior surface is a darker gray (Munsell GLEY N 3 “very dark gray”).
52 Condition: The surfaces and edges show wear, and a small amount of chipping is present on the exterior surface. Discussion: Striations and evidence of burnishing are present on the surfaces if the vessel. An incised band runs 0.7 cm underneath the edge of the rim on the exterior surface. The edge of the rim has an ovoid shape. Not enough is preserved to determine any definite vessel type.
63 C-01-681c Fig. 55, 119 Provenance: 24N/12W.32.1 Part: Rim and body fragment Measurements: 1.5 x 1.3 x 0.3 cm Paste: Fine, slightly bumpy, well-levigated, micaceous inclusions throughout, paste slightly rougher on the interior with sandy inclusions. The core is a light gray (Munsell 10YR 6/2 “light brownish gray”) and the interior and exterior surfaces are a dark gray (Munsell GLEY N 3 “very dark gray”). Condition: Rim sherd preserving .9 cm of the circumference. The edges and surfaces show wear, and a small amount of dirt is present on the edges and surfaces. Discussion: Striations and evidence of burnishing are evident on the surfaces. A wide groove runs .5 cm underneath the edge of the rim. The edge of the rim has an ovoid shape. Not enough is preserved to determine any definite vessel type.
64 C-99-51a Fig. 56, 120 Provenance: 24N/12W. pedestal removal Part: Rim fragment Measurements: 1.7 x 1.1 x 0.4 cm, diameter of rim: 16 cm. Rim sherd preserving 3% of the circumference. Paste: Smooth, slightly chalky, fine well-levigated paste, micaceous inclusions, fired dark throughout. The exterior and interior surfaces and the core are a dark gray (Munsell GLEY N 4 “dark gray”). Condition: Wear is apparent on the edges and surfaces, and a small amount of dirt/soil is present on the edges.
53 Discussion: Striations and evidence of burnishing are present on the rim. The rim has an ovoid shape at the edge. Not enough is preserved to determine any definite vessel type.
65 C-99-235 Fig. 121 Provenance: 24N/12W.8.9a Part: Base and body fragment Measurements: 5.3 x 4.4 x 0.8 cm, height preserved of the vessel: 1.3 cm Paste: A smooth, fine, well-levigated paste, micaceous inclusions throughout, paste rough on interior with sandy inclusions. The core is colored a light brown (Munsell 10YR 6/3 “pale brown”). The interior surface is a dark gray color (Munsell GLEY N 3 “dark gray”) and the exterior surface is also a dark gray color (Munsell 2.5Y 4/1 “dark gray”) Condition: The fragment is broken on all sides, leaving very little of the base intact. The edges and surfaces are well worn, the surfaces show scratching and chipping, and a small amount of dirt/soil is present on the edges and surfaces. Discussion: Faint striations and burnishing is evident on the surfaces of the vessel. Shows some similarities to the other base fragments found at the site and included in this catalog (C-91-176, C-95-163, C-98-62, C-98-66, and C-02-42; see Cat. 58, 28, 16, 36, respectively). This is part of the base of a vessel, but all that remains is the area where the vessel meets the body. The remains are too fragmentary to discern a definite vessel type.
54 CHAPTER 3
CONCLUSION
Bucchero pottery has been identified at Cetamura from A. Tracchi’s earliest investigations of the site in the 1960s to the present day excavations. A study of this important material not only supplies more information and evidence regarding the Archaic Etruscan period at Cetamura, but also may provide the means to date materials and features found at the site. A range of vessels in bucchero has been found at Cetamura. These include nine identified vessel types: miniature kyathos, small jar, plate- cover, kantharos, plates, bowls, miniature bowls, cups, and chalices. Of these nine identified vessel forms, a number of distinguishable subtypes are represented in the collection of bucchero found at the site. A primary goal with the investigation of the Cetamura bucchero was to relate it to the publication on bucchero regarded as most authoritative in categorization, that of T. Rasmussen, Bucchero Pottery from Southern Etruria (1979). Of the nine form types found at Cetamura, the bowl was undoubtedly the most common, with 26 examples. Although most of the forms were comparable to Rasmussen’s forms, three of these were not (Cat. 39-41); they show some deviation from his South Etruria-based typology. All twelve of the plate fragments can be fitted into Rasmussen’s typology. Two of the cup forms, out of seven total, were not found in Rasmussen’s typology (Cat. 48). Five out of the eight of the chalice fragments (Cat. 49, 53, 54, 55, 56) also did not match. The remaining chalices (Cat. 50, 51, 52) are comparable to Rasmussen’s chalice type 2d (Fig 149), but not an exact match. Additionally, Rasmussen does not include the small jar (Cat. 2) or plate cover (Cat. 3) in his catalog; these forms were discussed primarily by Pianu (Fig 151, 152), as well as other sources. Along with the examination of the typology of the Cetamura materials comes the question of their origin. It remains uncertain exactly where the Cetamura bucchero originated; there is as yet no evidence of a center of production at Cetamura. The relatively few examples of fragments, as well as the absence of a worksite, suggest that
55 the residents of Cetamura imported their bucchero from elsewhere. It is possible that the bucchero came from a regional production center in the north, instead of being transported from a southern site. Rasmussen mentions that the production of bucchero pottery was first confined to 24 the southern site of Cerveteri.TP PT Because of this, there probably were a limited number of th workshops for the first 20 years of bucchero production, in the 7P P century BC. The standard of craftsmanship at this time was at its highest, while the range of shapes was limited. Later, production spread to other areas in South Etruria, such as Tarquinia and Veii, and these southern sites began exporting materials to North Etruria, to sites such as Roselle, Vetulonia, and Poggio Civitate (Murlo), and possibly Cetamura as well. Although no production center existed at Cetamura, it was likely, at the very least, that a 25 site existed near Poggio Civitate for local production of bucchero.TP PT Berkin uses as part of his evidence, not only the quantity of bucchero found at Poggio Civitate, but also the logistical problems that producers would have encountered in moving a large quantity of bucchero to this location from distances, for example, from production centers in southern Etruria. Further evidence supporting this idea comes from the fact that Poggio Civitate was the production center for other items, such as objects of ivory, metal, bone, 26 and antler.TP PT It also seems likely that other North Etruscan sites, as yet unidentified, produced bucchero. Other evidence that proves northern production centers includes the differences in bucchero forms. There were a number of forms found at Poggio Civitate that lacked any good comparanda from southern Etruria. Similarly, some of the bucchero at Cetamura, especially the chalice forms, are not found in southern Etruria, further indicating that there were regional variations. It remains likely that Cetamura was supplied by regional centers such as Poggio Civitate, perhaps even more than this one, which would account for the variation of the quality of bucchero found at Cetamura, as well as the different forms, such as the kantharos, plate and plate cover. th
According to Rasmussen, during the period at the end of the 7P P century, c. 625- 600, the distribution of bucchero from South Etruria was at its widest, being exported to
24
TP PT Rasmussen 1979, 3-5 25
TP PT Berkin 2003, 128-9 26
TP PT Berkin 2003, 114
56 central and northern Etruria, and inspiring local production. It was also during this period that bucchero was found at Greek sites all around the Mediterranean. Interestingly, a large percentage of the bucchero pottery from Cetamura dates to this period of expansion. By examining the corpus of material in this catalog, it is apparent that there were northern variations in the pottery forms found at Cetamura. This was especially noticeable in the chalice types found at the site. Most of the chalice types found in central and southern Etruria, as documented by Rasmussen, seem to have either straight walls or slightly concave vessel walls. The chalice forms found at Cetamura, however, all tended to have convex walls, either to a slight degree (Cat. 27, 29, 30, 31) or significantly (Cat. 49, 52). Rasmussen has only one comparable example of this type of chalice (Fig. 149). Additionally, other types of pottery found at Cetamura that seem to have been imported include the miniature kyathos and the kantharos. Both are vessel types of which a large number have been found in southern Etruria. Additionally, kantharoi are 27
found throughout Etruria, and are in fact the most largely distributed bucchero type.TP PT Furthermore, the miniature kyathos has demonstrated a wide distribution and numerous examples have been found throughout Etruria at sites such as Cerveteri, Poggio Buco, Roselle, Poggio la Croce, and Veii. The fact that only one of each of these forms has been identified at Cetamura suggests that perhaps these were not widely used in the area. Additionally, the paste of each of these vessels is of a finer quality than is seen throughout a number of the fragments from Cetamura, especially in the bowls and plates. This difference in quality could also indicate a different place of manufacture. Although most of the bucchero found at Cetamura was undecorated, there are a few significant pieces discussed in this catalog that do show sigla or decoration (Cat. 57- 59). Two of these pieces have sigla, likely in the form of the numerals “X” and “I” (the numbers 10 and 1, respectively). Comparanda for these pieces come not only from other vessels at Cetamura but all throughout Etruria. Only one fragment at Cetamura, however, has stamped decoration, in the form of a 5-petalled palmette, and this piece has far fewer comparanda. To date, the only other 5-petalled palmette stamps have been found at
27
TP PT Berkin 2003, 108-9
57 28
Poggio Civitate, Vulci, and Roselle.TP PT That three of the four instances appear in northern contexts could imply that this stamp was a northern type of decoration. Other stamp forms, which were used more regularly in southern Etruria, include the rosette, concentric 29
circles, triangle, diamond, swastika, guilloche, animals, and human figures.TP PT Phillips suggests that it was likely that some types of fine stamped and impressed bucchero at Poggio Civitate were imported from production centers in southern Etruria. But he also argues, as did Berkin later, that there was a production center at Poggio th th
Civitate that turned out very fine quality bucchero in the 7P P and early 6P P centuries BC. Phillips also believes that other northern sites were likely to have had their own potters who also created stamped pieces of a high quality, such as at Vetulonia, Roselle, Vulci, 30 th th
Volterra, Chiusi, Asciano, and Montalcino.TP PT He writes that during the 7P P and early 6P P centuries there was a high local production rate and limited importation and exportation of bucchero in Etruria, and because of this it seems highly unlikely that all the stamped pieces found in northern Etruria were imported from the south. As mentioned above, most of the bucchero pottery found at Cetamura does in fact th th date to the 6P -5P P P centuries BC. The comparanda used to determine this dating comes largely from Rasmussen, who includes descriptions, drawings, and in some instances, photographs of bucchero in his work. Rasmussen specifically mentions the existence of fifth-century bucchero; it consists, however, of relatively limited forms, mainly bowls and plates, most of which are undecorated. This does seem to remain consistent with many of the materials found at Cetamura, since, as mentioned above, the majority of the diagnostic materials at the site are in fact plates and cups and many of them date to this time period. Although there is a corpus of information that can be determined from the Cetamura bucchero at this time, this study is limited by a number of factors. The first challenge is the fragmentary nature of most of the bucchero found at Cetamura. Out of the 146 bucchero fragments found between 1978-2003, only 65 were diagnostic pieces, Furthermore, most of these pieces are small rim sherds. Because of their size or
28
TP PT Phillips 1994, 34, 42; Berkin 2003, 54-55; Bucci 1965, 190; De Puma 1986, 44; 29
TP PT Rasmussen 1979, 137-138 30
TP PT Phillips, Jr. 1994, 44, 45
58 condition, it proved difficult to ascertain certain kinds of information about the vessels, including the presence of decoration, level of use, and variations in the overall shape. The second main restriction lies in the relative lack of published information about bucchero found at domestic sites and about sites in northern Etruria in general. In total, comparanda were found for the materials in the catalog from a variety of locations throughout Etruria, which include Poggio la Croce, Poggione, Poggio Civitate, Poggio Buco, Vulci, Roselle, Tarquinia, Marzabotto, Capua, Cerveteri, Gravisca, and Veii. Unfortunately, there is material from a number of other excavations in northern Etruria that remains unpublished or is in the process of publication, which has greatly limited the 31 sources available.TP PT This study necessarily depends on publications from southern sites. Poggio Civitate, a non-funerary northern site, remains the most useful and relevant source from a site comparable to Cetamura. Future work on the bucchero from Cetamura will pertain to newly excavated material from the year 2005 and following, and bucchero excavated before 1978, which was not accessible for this study since the pottery excavated between 1973 and 1978 by 32
John J. ReichTP PT has never been cataloged. Additionally, further work on the bucchero from Cetamura should include the physical examination of bucchero found at other local Etruscan sites. It is necessary to examine first-hand the materials from other sites in order to compare the fabric and the texture of the vessels with those at Cetamura. More information can be gathered in this manner beyond reading a physical description and seeing photographs and drawings. Ideally, this would include the study and comparison of materials from sites that have yet to be published, but which are essential in understanding the bucchero production in North Etruria.
31
TP PT Berkin 2003, 108; Berkin mentions these sites as including Castelnuovo Berardenga, Artimino, Massarossa, and Massa Marittima. 32
TP PT Cf. de Grummond 2000, 6, on the history of excavations at Cetamura.
59
APPENDIX A
CATALOG OF CETAMURA IMPASTO POTTERY
The following are the only three impasto pieces identified at Cetamura between 1978 and 2003. These pieces are included in this thesis because they are also Etruscan pottery from the Archaic period. Although the collection of these pieces is minute, the impasto does give further evidence of activity at Cetamura in the Archaic period.
66 C-88-102 Fig. 122, 125
Provenance: str.bcc.2.5 Part: Handle and body fragment Measurements: 6.6 x 5.8 x 0.8 cm, 3.2 cm of the handle is intact. Paste: Smooth feel, bumpy texture, small and medium-sized inclusions throughout. A pinkish-brown color (Munsell 7.5YR 6/4 “light brown”), with a dark gray color (Munsell GLEY N 3 “very dark gray”) covering major parts of the surfaces. Condition: The sherd is broken on all edges; all are well worn, with pock-marking present. A moderate amount of discoloration is visible on the surfaces. Discussion: An ovoid, hollow handle is connected to a section of the body of the vessel. No striation marks are evident, and some slight indentations on the interior surface might possibly be finger marks, showing the location where the handle was joined with the body of the vessel.
67 C-95-171 Fig. 123, 126
Provenance: 21N/21W.15.2 Part: Base and body fragment Measurements: 9.5 x 7.4 x 1.3 cm, height of vessel preserved: 4.1 cm, diameter of base: 12 cm, Base preserving 25% of the circumference. Paste: A rough, bumpy paste, micaceous, with small and medium-sized inclusions throughout. The paste is a consistent color throughout, a light yellowish-brown (Munsell
60 10YR 6/4 “light yellowish brown”, with areas of red (Munsell 2.5YR 5/6 “red”) and dark gray (Munsell 10YR 3/1 “very dark gray”) on the surfaces. Condition: The edges and surfaces are very well worn, and all surfaces exhibit pock- marking, chipping, and scratches. Discussion: Very rough clay, indentations present on the interior of the vessel, possibly from fingermarks.
68 C-99-80 Fig. 124, 128
Provenance: 24N/12W.8.4 Part: Rim and body fragment Measurements: 5.1 x 4.7 x 1.3 cm, diameter of rim: 24-26 cm, rim sherd preserving approximately 5% of the vessel intact. Paste: Smooth surfaces, small and medium-sized inclusions throughout. Same fabric throughout the vessel; a grayish-brown color (Munsell 2.5Y 5/2 “grayish brown”), with a pinkish-brown color (Munsell 7.5YR 5/3 “brown”) covering part of the exterior surface and a dark gray color (Munsell GLEY N 3 “very dark gray”) covering major parts of the interior surface. Condition: The surfaces and edges are well worn, some pock-marking is present on the surfaces Discussion: Some slight indentations on the interior surface may indicate that the vessel was
61
APPENDIX B
PROVENANCE LIST OF ALL BUCCHERO FROM CETAMURA
15N/30W.14 C-93-084 C-93-106 C-93-107 C-93-108 C-93-115 C-93-116 C-93-140
18N/18W.10 C-90-103
18N/18W.12 C-90-74 C-90-75
18N/21W.4 C-90-61
21.5N/12W.10 C-87-344
21N/21W.15 C-95-171
24N/12W.22 C-02-42 C-02-44
24N/12W.27 C-01-192
24N/12W.32 C-01-681 C-01-716
24N/12W.33 C-01-311
62 C-01-362a C-01-363
24N/12W.34 C-01-406 C-01-407 C-01-405 C-01-478a C-01-478b C-01-478c C-01-478d C-01-478e C-01-478f C-01-478g C-01-478h C-01-478i C-01-478j C-01-478k C-01-478l C-01-478m
24N/12W.8 C-99-041 C-99-042 C-99-050 C-99-066 C-99-067 C-99-068 C-99-078 C-99-080 C-99-081 C-99-082 C-99-127 C-99-128 C-99-129 C-99-138 C-99-151 C-99-154 C-99-176 C-99-178 C-99-179 C-99-230 C-99-231 C-99-232 C-99-233 C-99-234
63 C-99-235 C-99-236 C-99-237 C-99-238 C-99-280 C-99-281 C-99-282 C-99-283 C-99-284 C-99-316 C-99-317 C-99-318 C-99-320
24N/12W. pedestal removal C-99-030 C-99-031 C-99-034 C-99-051a C-99-051b
24N/15W.2 C-93-100
24N/15W.3 C-94-020 C-94-047 C-94-048 C-94-049 C-94-050 C-94-079 C-94-090 C-94-107 C-94-108 C-94-129 C-94-303
24N/15W.4 C-93-145
24N/18W.2 C-91-375
24N/21W.1 C-93-24
64 24N/9W.1 C-98-018 C-98-060 C-98-066 C-98-068 C-98-069 C-98-071 C-98-114 C-98-116 C-98-125 C-98-126 C-99-528
24N/9W.17 C-99-492 C-01-48
24N/9W.21 C-03-22 C-03-86
24N/9W.4 C-99-160
24N/9W.6 C-98-083 C-98-084 C-98-085 C-98-158 C-98-159 C-98-160 C-98-161 C-98-173
26N/10.5E.6 C-88-249
27N/15W.1 C-95-011 C-95-163 C-95-164
27N/15W.2 C-95-057 C-95-066 C-95-078
65 C-95-079
27N/18W.3 C-93-012
30N/18W.4a C-03-009
30N/18W.5a C-02-203
30N/18W.6a C-03-032
30N/18W.9a C-03-164
54N/9W.1 C-99-530
5N/18W.19 C-98-062
5N/18W.45s C-01-260
73.5N/4W.6 C-90-055
76.5N/0 C-91-176
Structure B.4 C-88-34
Structure B(CC).2 C-88-102
NPR C-88-172
Structure G. Room 1 C-84-565
Zone 1. Area G. Balk Removal C-96-046
66 C-96-047
25N/8.5E.6 C-88-124
25N/8.5E.7 C-88-169
67 APPENDIX C
FORM INDEX OF CATALOGED BUCCHERO AND IMPASTO FROM CETAMURA
(An Asterisk indicates a drawing of that entry is provided)
Bucchero
Kyathos (miniature) C-02-044*
Small Jar C-99-236*
Plate-Cover C-88-249*
Kantharos C-88-169*
Plate Type 1 C-98-116 C-99-030 C-99-081* C-99-151* C-99-238 C-99-318* C-01-406* C-01-716*
Type 2 C-99-050* C-99-528* C-01-399* C-03-032*
Bowl Type 1
C-87-344* C-93-024
68 C-94-079 C-94-108 * C-98-062* C-98-114 C-99-231* C-99-316 C-99-317* C-01-362a* C-01-731
Type 2 C-99-116
Type 3 C-93-100 * C-95-163* C-99-034* C-99-281 C-01-478c*
Type 4 C-95-79* C-98-66* C-98-173 C-99-31* C-99-282* C-02-42* C-01-478a*
Unknown C-95-164* C-98-71* C-99-179*
Minature Bowl C-91-176* C-94-47*
Cup Type 5 C-84-565* C-01-363* C-01-407 C-03-164* Unid C-94-48*
69 C-94-49*
Chalice C-88-124* C-90-074* C-94-90* C-98-158* C-99-283* C-02-203* C-03-022* C-03-086*
Problem C-93-106* C-99-51a* C-99-235 C-01-681a* C-01-681b* C-01-681c*
Impasto:
C-88-102* C-95-171* C-99-80*
70
APPENDIX D
PART INDEX OF CATALOGED BUCCHERO AND IMPASTO FROM CETAMURA
Bucchero:
Base:
C-91-176 C-95-163 C-98-57 C-98-62 C-98-66 C-99-235 C-01-399 C-02-42
Handle:
C-88-169 C-02-44
Handle & Rim:
C-03-164
Rim:
C-84-565 C-87-344 C-88-124 C-90-74 C-93-100 C-93-106 C-93-24 C-94-108 C-94-47 C-94-48 C-94-49 C-94-79 C-94-90 C-95-164 C-95-79 C-98-114
71 C-98-116 C-98-158 C-98-173 C-98-71 C-99-151 C-99-179 C-99-231 C-99-236 C-99-238 C-99-281 C-99-282 C-99-283 C-99-30 C-99-316 C-99-317 C-99-318 C-99-34 C-99-50 C-99-51a C-99-528 C-99-81 C-01-362a C-01-363 C-01-406 C-01-407 C-01-478a C-01-478c C-01-681a C-01-681b C-01-681c C-01-716 C-01-731 C-02-203 C-03-22 C-03-32 C-03-86
Unid:
C-88-249
Impasto:
Rim: C-99-80
72
Base: C-95-171
Handle: C-88-102
73
APPENDIX E
CONCORDANCE
C-84-565 Cat: 43 Fig. 36, 99 C-87-344 Cat: 17 Fig. 18, 73 C-88-124 Cat: 49 Fig. 41, 105 C-88-169 Cat: 4 Fig. 8, 60 C-88-249 Cat: 3 Fig. 7, 59 C-90-74 Cat: 50 Fig. 42, 106 C-91-176 Cat: 58 Fig. 50, 114 C-93-24 Cat: 18 Fig. 74 C-93-100 Cat: 30 Fig. 25, 86 C-93-106 Cat: 60 Fig. 52, 116 C-93-116 Cat: 27 Fig. 83 C-94-47 Cat: 42 Fig. 35, 98 C-94-48 Cat: 47 Fig. 39, 103 C-94-49 Cat: 48 Fig. 40, 104 C-94-79 Cat: 19 Fig. 75 C-94-90 Cat: 51 Fig. 43, 107 C-94-108 Cat: 20 Fig. 19, 79 C-95-79 Cat: 37 Fig. 31, 93 C-95-163 Cat: 28 Fig. 23, 84 C-95-164 Cat: 39 Fig. 32, 95 C-98-62 Cat: 16 Fig. 17, 72 C-98-66 Cat: 33 Fig. 27, 89 C-98-71 Cat: 40 Fig. 33, 96 C-98-114 Cat: 21 Fig. 77 C-98-116 Cat: 9 Fig. 65 C-98-158 Cat: 52 Fig. 44, 108
74 C-98-173 Cat: 38 Fig. 94 C-99-30 Cat: 10 Fig. 66 C-99-31 Cat: 57 Fig. 49, 113 C-99-34 Cat: 31 Fig. 26, 87 C-99-50 Cat: 13 Fig. 14, 69 C-99-51a Cat: 64 Fig. 56, 120 C-99-81 Cat: 5 Fig. 9, 61 C-99-151 Cat: 11 Fig. 13, 67 C-99-179 Cat: 41 Fig. 34, 97 C-99-231 Cat: 22 Fig. 20, 78 C-99-235 Cat: 65 Fig. 121 C-99-236 Cat: 2 Fig. 6, 58 C-99-238 Cat: 12 Fig. 68 C-99-281 Cat: 32 Fig. 88 C-99-282 Cat: 34 Fig. 28, 90 C-99-283 Cat: 53 Fig. 45, 109 C-99-316 Cat: 23 Fig. 79 C-99-317 Cat: 24 Fig. 21, 80 C-99-318 Cat: 6 Fig. 10, 62 C-99-528 Cat: 14 Fig. 15, 70 C-01-362a Cat: 25 Fig. 22, 81 C-01-363 Cat: 45 Fig. 38, 101 C-01-399 Cat: 59 Fig. 51, 115 C-01-406 Cat: 7 Fig. 11, 63 C-01-407 Cat: 46 Fig. 102 C-01-478a Cat: 35 Fig. 29, 91 C-01-478c Cat: 29 Fig. 24, 85 C-01-681a Cat: 61 Fig. 53, 117 C-01-681b Cat: 62 Fig. 54, 118 C-01-681c Cat: 63 Fig. 55, 119 C-01-716 Cat: 8 Fig. 12, 64
75 C-01-731 Cat: 26 Fig. 82 C-02-42 Cat: 36 Fig. 30, 92 C-02-44 Cat: 1 Fig. 5, 57 C-02-203 Cat: 54 Fig. 46, 110 C-03-22 Cat: 56 Fig. 48, 112 C-03-32 Cat: 15 Fig. 16, 71 C-03-86 Cat: 55 Fig. 47, 111 C-03-164 Cat: 44 Fig. 37, 100
76
From de Grummond, N. T. 2000. Cetamura Antica: Traditions of Chianti. Tallahassee: Florida State University, plate 1
Fig. 1
77
Fig. 2
78
Fig. 3
79
Fig. 4
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112 113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124 125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
Fig. 57 Cat. 1
Fig. 58 Cat. 2
133
Fig. 59 Cat. 3
Fig. 60 Cat. 4
134
Fig. 61 Cat. 5
Fig. 62 Cat. 6
135
Fig. 63 Cat. 7
Fig 64 Cat. 8
136
Fig. 65 Cat. 9
Fig. 66 Cat. 10
137
Fig. 67 Cat. 11
Fig 68 Cat. 12
138
Fig. 69 Cat. 13
Fig. 70 Cat. 14
139
Fig. 71 Cat. 15
Fig. 72 Cat. 16
140
Fig. 73 Cat. 17
Fig. 74 Cat. 18
141
Fig. 75 Cat. 19
Fig. 76 Cat. 20
142
Fig. 77 Cat. 21
Fig. 78 Cat. 22
143
Fig. 79 Cat. 23
Fig. 80 Cat. 24
144
Fig. 81 Cat. 25
Fig. 82 Cat. 26
145
Fig. 83 Cat. 27
Fig. 84 Cat. 28
146
Fig. 85 Cat. 29
Fig. 86 Cat. 30
147
Fig. 87 Cat. 31
Fig. 88 Cat. 32
148
Fig. 89 Cat. 33
Fig. 90 Cat. 34
149
Fig. 91 Cat. 35
Fig. 92 Cat. 36
150
Fig. 93 Cat. 37
Fig. 94 Cat. 38
151
Fig. 95 Cat. 39
Fig. 96 Cat. 40
152
Fig. 97 Cat. 41
Fig. 98 Cat. 42
153
Fig. 99 Cat. 43
Fig. 100 Cat. 44
154
Fig. 101 Cat. 45
Fig. 102 Cat. 46
155
Fig. 103 Cat. 47
Fig. 104 Cat. 48
156
Fig. 105 Cat. 49
Fig. 106 Cat. 50
157
Fig. 107 Cat. 51
Fig. 108 Cat. 52
158
Fig. 109 Cat. 53
Fig. 110 Cat. 54
159
Fig. 111 Cat. 55
Fig. 112 Cat. 56
160
Fig. 113 Cat. 57
161
Fig. 114 Cat. 58
162
Fig. 115 Cat. 59
163
Fig. 116 Cat. 60
Fig. 117 Cat. 61
164
Fig. 118 Cat. 62
Fig. 119 Cat. 63
165
Fig. 120 Cat. 64
Fig. 121 Cat. 65
166
167
168 169
Fig. 125 Cat. 66
Fig. 126 Cat. 67
170
Fig. 127 Cat. 68
Fig. 128
Rasmussen miniature kyathos (with strut) Type 1e
171
Fig. 129
Rasmussen miniature kyathos (without strut) Type 1e
Fig 130
Rasmussen kantharos Type 3a
172
Fig. 131
Rasmussen kantharos Type 3e
Fig. 132
Rasmussen kantharos Type 3e
173
Fig. 133
Rasmussen plate Type 1
Fig. 134
Rasmussen plate Type 1
Fig. 135
Rasmussen plate Type 2
174
Fig. 136
Rasmussen plate Type 2
Fig. 137
Rasmussen bowl Type 1
175
Fig. 138
Rasmussen bowl Type 1
Fig. 139
Rasmussen bowl Type 2
176
Fig. 140
Rasmussen bowl Type 3
Fig. 141
Rasmussen bowl Type 3
177
Fig. 142
Rasmussen bowl Type 4
Fig. 143
Rasmussen miniature bowl Type 1
178
Fig. 144
Rasmussen miniature bowl Type 2
Fig. 145
Rasmussen miniature bowl Type 2
Fig. 146
Rasmussen miniature bowl Type 3
179
Fig. 147
Rasmussen cup Type 2b
Fig. 148
Rasmussen cup Type 5 (kylix)
180
Fig. 149
Rasmussen Chalice Type 2d
Fig. 150
Rasmussen beaker
181
Fig. 151
Pianu’s small jug
Fig 152
Pianu’s plate-cover Type 3
182 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Amorelli, M. T. F. 1971. “Materiali archaeologici da Vulci.” StEtr 39:194-216
Beazley, J. D. & Filippo Magi. 1939. La Raccolta Benedetto Guglielmi nel Museo Gregoriano Etrusco. Vatican City.
Becker, J. A. 2004. Review of Imitation and Creation: Development of Early Bucchero Design at Cerveteri in the Seventh Century, by W. Regter. JRS 94:223-4
Berkin, J. 2003. The Orientalizing Bucchero from the Lower Building at Poggio Civitate (Murlo). Archaeological Institute of America Monographs, New Series, Number 6. Philadelphia.
Bocci, P. 1965. “Catalogo della ceramica di Roselle.” StEtr 33: 109-190.
Bonghi-Jovino, M. 1993. Atti del Colloquio internazionale Produzione artigianale ed esportazione nel mondo antico--il bucchero etrusco : Milano, 10-11 maggio 1990. Milano : Edizioni ET.
Brijder, H.A.G. 1984. “De Etrusken.” Griekse, Etruskische en Romeinse kunst. Amsterdam.
Camerini, E. 1985. Il bucchero etrusco. Rome.
Camporeale, G. 1970. La collezione Alla Querce. Florence.
Camporeale, G. 1972. Buccheri a cilindretto di fabbrica orvietana. Florence
Ciampoltrini, G. 1993. “Observations generales aur l’evolution et la diffusion du bucchero” In Bonghi-Jovino 1993:97-104
Cristofani, M. 1972. “Contributi alla classificazione del più antico bucchero decorato a rilievo. II. Osservazioni sul kyathos di Monteriggioni.” StEtr 40:84-94.
Cristofani, M. and K. M. Phillips, Jr. 1971. “Poggio Civitate. Etruscan Letters and Chronological Observations.” StEtr 38:409-30. de Grummond, N. T. 2000. Cetamura Antica: Traditions of Chianti. Tallahassee: Florida State University. de Grummond, N.T., Ceil Bare, & Amy Meilleur. 2000. “Etruscan Sigla (“Graffiti”): Prolegomena and Some Case Studies” Miscellanea Mediterranea. Archaeologia Transatlantica 18. Providence: Brown University.
Del Vita, A. 1927. “Osservazioni sulla tecnologia.” StEtr 1:187-194
De Puma, R.D. 1971. Etruscan and Villanovan Pottery: A Catalogue of Italian Ceramics
183 from Midwestern Collections. Iowa City: University of Iowa Museum of Art.
De Puma, R. D., 1986. Etruscan Tomb Groups: Ancient Pottery and Bronzes in Chicago’s Field Museum of Natural History. Mainz.
De Puma, R. D. and J. P. Small, eds. 1994. Murlo and the Etruscans: Art and Society in Ancient Etruria. Philadelphia.
Di Caprio, N. C. 1993. “Annotazioni tecniche circa la cottura del bucchero.” In Bonghi- Jovino 1993: 217-222.
Forte, M. 1993. “Qualche esempio di classificazione di immagini digitalizzate a proposito del bucchero di Marzabotto.” In Bonghi-Jovino 1993:73-86
Gambari, F. M. 1993. “Il bucchero etrusco nei contesti piemontesi della Prima Età del Ferro.” In Bonghi-Jovino 1993:127-134.
Gercke, W. B. 1996. Etruskische Kunst in Kestner-Museum Hannover. Hannover.
Gjerstad, E. 1966. Early Rome. Vol. 4, part 1. Synthesis of Archaeological Evidence. Lund.
Gran-Aymerich, J. 1993. “Observations generales aur l’evolution et la diffusion du bucchero” In Jovino 1993: 19-42.
Grieve, L. J. 1982. “Le bucchero nero d’Étrurie” Latomus 41:773-784.
Gualterio, G. 1993. “Contributo al riconoscimento della produzione tarquiniese di bucchero.” In Bonghi-Jovino 1993:135-146
Hayes, J. W. 1985. Etruscan and Italic Pottery in the Royal Ontario Museum. Toronto.
Keyser, P. 1988 “The Origin of the Latin Numerals 1 to 1000.” AJA 92:529-546.
Malnatti, L. 1993. “Il bucchero in Emilia: elementi per una catalogazione preliminare.” In Bonghi-Jovino 1993:43-72.
Matteucig, G. 1951. Poggio Buco. Berkeley.
Melli, P. 1993. “Bucchero ed “impasti buccheroidi” in Liguria.” In Bonghi-Jovino 1993:105-126.
Minoja, M. 2000. Il bucchero del Museo Provinciale Campano. Pisa.
Moser, M. E. 1984. Etruscan Pottery: The Meeting of Greece and Egypt. Carlisle, Pennsylvania.
Olivotto, V. 1994. Caere, Necropoli di Monte Abatone. Milan
184 Pecchiai, I. 1967. “Monumenti etruschi e italici nei musei italiani e stranieri.” StEtr 35: 487-514
Phillips, K.M., Jr. 1972. “Bryn Mawr College Excavations in Tuscany, 1971.” AJA 76:249-255
Phillips, K. M., Jr. 1993. In the Hills of Tuscany: Recent Excavations at the Site of Poggio Civitate (Murlo, Siena). Philadelphia.
Phillips, K. M., Jr. 1994. “Stamped Impasto Pottery Manufactured at Poggio Civitate.” In De Puma and Small:24-46.
Pianu, G. 2000. Gravisca, scavi nel santuario Greco: Il bucchero. Bari.
Ramage, N. H. 1970. “Studies in Early Etruscan Bucchero.” PBSR 38:1-61
Rasmussen, T. B. 1979. Bucchero Pottery from Southern Etruria. Cambridge.
Regter, W. 2003. Imitation and Creation: Development of Early Bucchero Design at Cerveteri in the Seventh Century B.C. Amsterdam: Allard Pierson Museum.
Richter, G. M. A. 1936. “The Technique of Bucchero Ware.” StEtr 10:62-65.
Robertson, M.L. 1989. “Cetamura del Chianti.” In Rivista di Epigrafia Etrusca, StEtr 55:279-309.
Sassatelli, G. 1993. “Il bucchero e le ceramiche affini come supporto per iscrizioni e graffiti in area padana.” In Bonghi-Jovino 1993:195-206.
Tracchi, A. 1978. Dal Chianti al Valdarno. Rome.
Tripponi, A. 1970. Marzabotto, saggio di classificazione della ceramica locale. Bologna.
Valenti, Marco. 1995. Carta Archaeologica della provincia di Siena. Vol I: Il Chianti senese. Siena.
Vilucchi, S. 1991 “I ritrovamenti archeologici nei territori di Gaiole e Castelnuovo Berardenga.” In Gli Etruschi nel Chianti XV: 69-77.
von Eles, P. 1993. “La ceramica buccheroide della Romagna: prime considerazioni..” In Bonghi-Jovino 1993:87-96
von Mercklin, E. 1935. “Etruskische Keramik in Hamburgischen Museum für Kunst und Gewerbe.” StEtr 9: 311-324.
Walters, H.B. 1912. Catalogue of the Greek and Etruscan Vases in the British Museum. Vol I, Part II: Cypriote, Italian, and Etruscan Pottery. London
185 Wisseman, S. U. 1978. “Observations on the Technique of Etruscan Bucchero Pesante: Selected Examples from the University Museum, Philadelphia.” ArchNews 7:45-60.
186 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
Stephanie A. Layton is a native of Marietta, Georgia. She received her Bachelor’s degree from The George Washington University, where she majored in both Classical Humanities and Archaeology, with a minor in Art History. There she was the recipient of the Classics Department’s John H. Latimer Prize in Classics. Stephanie Layton has excavated at Shuter’s Hill in Alexandria, Virginia with the George Washington University field school, as well as with Florida State University’s field school at Cetamura, in Italy. During the four summers that she has worked at Cetamura, 2003-2006, Stephanie has served as trench supervisor, lab director, and most recently, as the assistant site director, working closely with site director Dr. Nancy de Grummond. Other activities at Florida State University involved teaching two years of undergraduate classes as the instructor of record, which included Classical Mythology and Introductory Latin. Stephanie Layton plans to further her academic studies by pursuing a Ph-D at the University of Virginia in the Art History department’s Classical Art & Archaeology program, where she will continue the study of ceramics in the Ancient Mediterranean World.
187