This PDF file of your paper in Deliciae Fictiles III belongsto the publishers Oxbow Books and it is their copyright.

As author, you are licensed to make up to 50offprints fromit, but beyond that you may not publish it on the WorldWide Web or in any other form.

i

Deliciae Fictiles IIIArchitectural Terracottas in Ancient Italy

fff

Deliciae Fictiles IIIArchitectural Terracottas in Ancient Italy:

New Discoveries and Interpretations

Proceedings of the international conferenceheld at the American Academy in Rome

November 7–8, 2002

Edited by

Ingrid Edlund-Berry, Giovanna Greco,and John Kenfield

Oxbow Books

Published in cooperation with the American Academy in Rome

iv

Published byOxbow Books, Park End Place, Oxford OX1 1HN

© Oxbow Books, Ingrid Edlund-Berry, Giovanna Greco,John Kenfield, and the individual contributors 2006

ISBN 1-84217-208-5 978-1-84217-208-7

A CIP record for this book is available from the British Library

This book is available direct from

Oxbow Books, Park End Place, Oxford, OX1 1HN(Phone: 01865-241249; Fax: 01865-794449)

and

The David Brown Book CompanyPO Box 511, Oakville, CT 06779, USA

(Phone: 860-945-9329; Fax: 860-945-9468)

and

via our websitewww.oxbowbooks.com

Front cover: Pagliaroli di Cortino: lastra con fiori e frutta ad altissimo rilievo(Strazzulla Fig. 3.21)

Printed in Great Britain byShort Run Press Ltd, Exeter

v

Acknowledgements .......................................................................................................................................................... ix

Introduction ....................................................................................................................................................................... xi

I. NEW RESEARCH ON ARCHITECTURAL TERRACOTTAS

1 Osservazioni sulle associazioni e sulla distribuzione delle antefisse di II fase appartenenti ai sistemidecorativi etrusco-laziali – Claudia Carlucci ........................................................................................................... 2

2 Dipoinos, Skyllis and an Antefix in Houston – John Kenfield ........................................................................... 22

3 Le terrecotte architettoniche nei territori italici – Maria Josè Strazzulla ............................................................ 25

4 Architectural Terracottas in Theory and Practice. Reflections on Thirty Years of Experience –Charlotte and Örjan Wikander ................................................................................................... ................................ 42

5 The Origin of the Recessed Gable in Etruscan Architecture – Nancy A. Winter ............................................ 45

II. ETRURIA

6 Veio: l’abitato di Piazza d’Armi. Le terrecotte architettoniche – Gilda Bartoloni, Valeria Acconcia,Alessandra Piergrossi, Iefke van Kampen, and Silvia ten Kortenaar ........................................................................ 50

7 Ikonographisch bemerkenswerte Fragmente von spätarchaischen Terrakottafriesen aus Cerveteriin der Berliner Antikensammlung – Volker Kästner ............................................................................................ 77

8 Terrecotte architettoniche da Cerveteri (Vigna Parrocchiale): nuove acquisizioni –Adriano Maggiani and Vincenzo Bellelli .................................................................................................................. 83

9 Late Hellenistic-Roman Terracottas from Cortona – Helena Fracchia and Maurizio Gualtieri ....................... 97

10 Vulci: materiali architettonici di vecchi e nuovi scavi – Anna Maria Moretti Sgubini andLaura Ricciardi ......................................................................................................................................................... 103

11 The Function of the Terracottas from Selvasecca – Martin Söderlind ............................................................ 116

12 Herakles revisited. On the interpretation of the mould-made architectural terracottas fromAcquarossa – Margareta Strandberg Olofsson ...................................................................................................... 122

13 The Social and Political Context of the 7th Century Architectural Terracottas at Poggio Civitate(Murlo) – Anthony Tuck ................................................................................................................. ........................ 130

Contents

vi

14 Le terrecotte architettoniche dal tempio etrusco del Piazzale del Cassero (Castiglion Fiorentino) –Paola Zamarchi Grassi, Laura Paoli and Margherita Scarpellini ............................................................................ 136

III. UMBRIA AND ABRUZZO

15 Le terrecotte architettoniche dall’area del palazzo del Capitano del Popolo a Orvieto –Anna Eugenia Feruglio ............................................................................................................................................ 152

16 Note sulla tecnica di esecuzione di alcune terrecotte della Civitella di Chieti – Gabriele Iaculli ............... 164

17 Terracotta dolphin plaques from Monte Pallano (Abruzzo) – Susan Kane ................................................... 176

18 Le terrecotte architettoniche della Civitella di Chieti: il frontone delle Muse – Daniela Liberatore ........... 181

19 Un santuario lungo la ‘via Plestina’: le terrecotte architettoniche da Pale di Foligno (Perugia) –Maria Romana Picuti ............................................................................................................................................... 194

20 Volsiniensia disiecta membra – Simonetta Stopponi .......................................................................................... 210

IV. THE FALISCANS, ROME, AND LATIUM

21 Le terrecotte architettoniche del tempio di Giunone Moneta a Segni: la fase tardo-repubblicana –Francesco Maria Cifarelli ......................................................................................................................................... 224

22 La ricomposizione del frontone da Via di San Gregorio – Laura Ferrea ........................................................ 232

23 ‘Roofs from the South’: Campanian Architectural Terracottas in Satricum – Patricia Lulof ...................... 235

24 Considerazioni su un gruppo frontonale da Falerii – Françoise-Hélène Massa Pairault ............................... 243

V. CAMPANIA AND MAGNA GRAECIA

25 Ionismo e ionismi in Magna Grecia. Le terrecotte architettoniche dell’Heraion Lacinio –Gregorio Aversa ........................................................................................................................................................ 252

26 Modellino votivo e rivestimenti fittili di Pithekoussai – Lucia A. Scatozza Höricht ..................................... 259

Cuma:27 Pithekoussai e Kyme: il contesto produttivo e una nuova testa femminile da Kyme –

Carlo Rescigno .......................................................................................................................................................... 268

28 Gronda arcaica da Cuma – Mariarosaria Borriello .............................................................................................. 278

29 Cuma, Foro. Le terrecotte architettoniche arcaiche e classiche dai riempimenti del podio delCapitolium – Carlo Rescigno and Teresa Caputo .................................................................................................. 280

30 Cuma. Le terrecotte architettoniche arcaiche dall’area dell’anfiteatro (scavi 1991–1998) –Paolo Caputo ............................................................................................................................................................. 294

31 Lastre Campana dallo scavo della cd. Masseria del Gigante a Cuma – Carmela Capaldi ........................... 306

Contents

vii

Capua:32 Terrecotte arcaiche dai nuovi scavi del fondo Patturelli di Capua. Una prima proposta

interpretativa – Barbara Grassi and Valeria Sampaolo ......................................................................................... 321

Teano:33 Sistemi di copertura campani di età arcaica da Teanum Sidicinum. Contesti e architetture –

Francesco Sirano ....................................................................................................................................................... 331

34 Tegole piane e kalypteres da edifici tardo-arcaici di Teanum Sidicinum – Silvia Svanera ......................... 349

Naples:35 Terrecotte architettoniche dall’Italia meridionale nel Museo Archeologico Nazionale di Napoli –

Ilaria Maddaluno ...................................................................................................................................................... 355

Velia:36 Terrecotte architettoniche del sistema campano da contesti di scavo dell’Acropoli di Elea –

Luigi Cicala .............................................................................................................................................................. 362

37 L’antefissa a nimbo di tipo campano. Circolazione e sopravvivenza di un modello –Giovanna Greco ........................................................................................................................................................ 378

VI. SICILY

38 Riflessioni su due antefisse gorgoniche di Gela – Marina Castoldi ................................................................. 388

39 Tegole “de rive” da Siracusa – Concetta Ciurcina .............................................................................................. 393

40 Palmette con volute da un santuario extraurbano di Leontini – Massimo Frasca ........................................ 399

41 Terrecotte plastiche dai santuari di Naxos di Sicilia – Maria Costanza Lentini ............................................. 407

42 Terracotta architectural fragments from ancient Palikè (Rocchicella di Mineo, Sicily) and placesnearby – Brian McConnell .............................................................................................................. ........................ 426

43 Tipi inediti o rari di antefisse arcaiche tra Sicilia e Magna Grecia. Soggetti e culti –Paola Pelagatti .......................................................................................................................................................... 433

44 Bemalte Terrakottaplatten aus Naxos. Überlegungen zu Figurenfriesen an archaischen Bauten inSizilien – Hermann Pflug ................................................................................................................ ........................ 452

Bibliography ................................................................................................................................................................... 473

Colour plates

Contents

viii

ix

Acknowledgements

The study of ancient roofs and roof decoration haslong been recognized as an important component ofarchitectural history. The first conferences on Greekarchitectural terracottas were organized by Dr. NancyWinter at the American School of Classical Studies,and were followed in 1990 by a conference on thearchitectural terracottas in ancient Italy, DeliciaeFictiles I, held at the Swedish Institute in Rome. Asecond conference, Deliciae Fictiles II, was held at theDutch Institute in Rome, in 1996. Both the Greek andItalian conferences resulted in proceedings publishedin Hesperia, the Acta of the Swedish Institute in Rome,and Scrinium.

Thanks to the generosity of the American Academyin Rome, a third conference, Deliciae Fictiles III, washeld on November 7–8, 2002 at the invitation ofProfessor Lester Little, Director, and Professor IngridD. Rowland, Mellon Professor. Organizers of theconference were Professor Ingrid E.M. Edlund-Berry(University of Texas at Austin), Professor John F.Kenfield (Rutgers University), and Professor GiovannaGreco (University of Naples, Federico II).

Following in the tradition of previous conferences,the organizers invited key scholars in the field ofarchitectural terracottas, ranging from scholars fromItalian and other universities to representatives frommuseums in Italy and elsewhere, and Soprintendenzein Italy. Due to space constraints, the number ofspeakers was limited, and poster sessions were addedto include topics not presented as papers. The finalprogram included over forty contributions rangingfrom papers to posters, and papers read by title. Thepapers and posters included material from all areas ofancient Italy, grouped according to regions. Thespeakers represented seven different nationalities, andpapers were given in Italian, English, and German.The audience included Professor Giovanni Colonnaand Professor Fausto Zevi of the University of Rome,Professor Dieter Mertens, Director of the German

Institute in Rome, and Dr. Madeleine Mertens Horn,Professor Piero Orlandini of the University of Milan,as well as Fellows and guests from the AmericanAcademy, other foreign institutes in Rome, and theuniversities in Rome. We were honored to receive anote with greetings from Dr. Guglielmo Maetzke,nestor of Etruscan archaeology and formerSoprintendente of antiquities of the Soprintendenzadella Toscana in Florence. The total number ofparticipants and guests was estimated to over sixty onboth days of the conference. The program and abstractsof the papers were available in advance to theparticipants on the conference webpage, http://ccwf.cc.utexas.edu/~iemeb/restrict.html.

Thanks to Professors Giovanna Greco and CarloRescigno, the Superintendent of Naples, Dr. StefanoDe Caro, and the Superintendent of Salerno, Dr.Giuliana Tocco, over twenty of the conferenceparticipants were able to examine in person some ofthe new discoveries of architectural terracottas inspecial exhibits displayed at the Castello di Baia andat the excavations at Velia. The two-day post-conference excursion also included a visit to thefascinating new museum at the Heraion at Foce delSele near Paestum. In addition to the support providedby Dr. De Caro and Dr. Giuliana Tocco, this eventowes its success to Professor Fausto Zevi, Dr. MariaRosaria Borriello, Dr. Paolo Caputo, Dr. Elio DeMagistris, Dr. Antonella Fiammenghi, Attilio Cortiglia,Dr. Paola Miniero, Gennaro Carandente, AngeloGaudino, Cesare Giordano, and Pietro D’Agostino andmany others. Ingrid Edlund-Berry and John Kenfieldare personally indebted to Giovanna Greco for her‘stroke of genius’ in making the Campanianarchitectural terracottas a major focus of DeliciaeFictiles III and in sharing her time, energy, generosity,and scholarly vision in all aspects of the conferenceand the proceedings.

The organizers are indebted to a number of

x

individuals and institutions who made this conferencepossible, in particular Professor Lester Little andProfessor Ingrid D. Rowland of the AmericanAcademy in Rome, Dean Richard Lariviere, College ofLiberal Arts, and Professor Cynthia Shelmerdine,Department of Classics, of the University of Texas atAustin, Professor Tod Marder and The Department ofArt History at Rutgers University, Dr. Nancy Winter,Rome, Dr. Charlotte Wikander of Lund University,Christina Huemer, Archer Martin, Milena Sales, AnneCoulson, and Giovanni Cimoroni of the AmericanAcademy, Megan McNamee, Rome, Professor KarlGalinsky, Professor Tim Moore, Joey Walker, KathrynSamec, Marques Kem and Beth Orr of the Universityof Texas at Austin, and Theresa Grupico of RutgersUniversity.

The manuscript text was prepared for publicationwith the able assistance of Theresa Grupico, RutgersUniversity and Monica Castillo, University of Texas atAustin. Lynne Chapman and Regina Fuentes, Univer-sity of Texas Press, provided sage and muchappreciated advice about the bibliography and intro-duction. Shiela Winchester, University of Texas atAustin General Libraries, and Chris Williams, Instituteof Classical Archaeology, University of Texas atAustin, gave generously of their time to give helpfuladvice. The difficult process of processing theillustrations was undertaken by Jane Moore, Univer-sity of Texas at Austin. We appreciate her keen eye inascertaining the best quality possible in the black andwhite illustrations in the text and the color plates.Nancy Winter generously provided advice and guid-ance based on her extensive experience from previousconferences.

The expenses for the conference were covered byseveral institutions and individuals to whom theorganizers extend their gratitude and thanks. Theseinclude the Department of Classics and the College ofLiberal Arts at the University of Texas at Austin; Prof.Karl Galinsky, Dept. of Classics, the University ofTexas at Austin; the Department of Art History,Rutgers University; and the Università degli Studi diNapoli “Federico II”, Dipartimento di DisciplineStoriche.

The publication of the papers was made possiblethrough funding generously provided by the Depart-ment of Classics and the Office of Vice President, TheUniversity of Texas at Austin; the Lucy Shoe Meritt,FAAR ’37, ’50, Publication Fund of the AmericanAcademy in Rome; a University Cooperative SocietySubvention Grant awarded by The University of Texasat Austin, and a publication subsidy granted by theLoeb Classical Library Foundation, Harvard Univer-sity.

We are further indebted to the Publicationscommittee of the American Academy for acceptingthis volume of proceedings to appear under the nameof the American Academy in Rome and especially toElaine Gazda for providing guidance throughout thepublication process.

We dedicate this volume to the many mentors andfriends who have supported our work through theyears. In particular, we would like to honor thememory of Dinu Adamesteanu, Arvid Andrén, andLucy Shoe Meritt.

Ingrid Edlund-BerryGiovanna GrecoJohn F. Kenfield

Acknowledgements

xi

Introduction

I. Background

The study of architectural terracottas examines allaspects of ancient roofing systems in that material, notonly the utilitarian tiles that form the working surface,but also the decorated revetments, often paintedsculpture, that adorned temples and important civicbuildings and even private houses. Since bothutilitarian and decorative architectural terracottaswere usually made in molds, roofs of this material donot appear in the Mediterranean until the Greeks, andperhaps others, acquired the technology of reusablemolds from the ancient Near East. According to bothliterary testimonia and archaeological evidence, thisinvention occurred in Corinth in the first half of theseventh century B.C., and, within a generation, almostevery building in the ancient Mediterranean, Greekand non-Greek, had a roof of terracotta tiles instead ofthatch or wooden shingles, the presumed earliermaterials. The tremendous expense involved in thistransition must have been deemed necessary becauseof the superior fire retardant qualities of terracottaroofs used on buildings often huddled together forreasons of security and in which cooking, heating, andartificial light were provided by open flame fires.

In the third quarter of the seventh century B.C., asthis technology spread rapidly throughout both theGreek and non-Greek world, regional systems andstyles arose. Though highly creative, these invariablybetray the influence of other pre-existent systems,evidence suggesting cultural exchange, trade patterns,workshop itineraries, and worker origins andexperience. This macroscopic, interregional approachto the visual influences is matched by another moreintimate approach. For example, architectural terra-cottas produced in single molds, later generationmolds, and in molds of a similar series suggestworkshop movement as well as a trade in molds.Occasionally, the order in which a mold moved from

site to site can be determined by the degree of wear onthe surviving positives.

A useful check on some of the assumptions basedon this evidence of external appearance is provided byphysical scientists examining the particulate matter ofthe clay to determine whether its components are localor imported. Another more physical rather thanaesthetic approach is provided by studies of manu-facturing technique. In this area of inquiry, forexample, there are said to be Greek and Italic tech-niques, but evidence from Sicily and southern Italyshows mixed techniques used within the sameroof.

Since roofs of many of these regional systems areplentiful, estimates of their sequential developmentand accompanying dates have been established. Thus,since terracotta roofs are practically ubiquitous, theirrevetments, in conjunction with diagnostic pottery andcoins, can be used as dating evidence by excavators.The continued research and discussions afforded bythe Delicieae Fictiles and other conferences onarchitectural terracottas have allowed scholarsincreasingly precise knowledge of the sequence anddating both within and between regional systems.

Another area of scrutiny has been the meaning ofthe images presented on the decorated revetments.These images, when considered in conjunction withthe shape of the building they decorated and asso-ciated small finds, can be used as evidence for thefunction of a building and the identity of the cult towhich it belonged.

Architectural terracottas can also be used asevidence for the construction technique employed inthe building they roofed and decorated. The walls ofthese buildings have often disappeared, leaving onlya few foundation courses behind. It is often unclearwhether these courses are the remains of walls oncecomposed completely of stone, or of a socle for wallsof unbaked mud brick. In this circumstance, the type

xii

of revetments can suggest the material used in wallconstruction.

II. The study of architectural terracottasThe appearance of major studies of architecturalterracottas was at first sporadic. H. Koch’s initialcontribution, Dachterrakotten aus Campanien mitAusschluss von Pompeji (Berlin 1912) was succeeded byE. D. Van Buren’s Figurative Terra-cotta Revetments inEtruria and Latium (London 1921), Archaic FictileRevetments in Sicily and Magna Graecia (London 1923)and her Greek Fictile Revetments in the Archaic Period(London 1926). Arvid Andrén’s monumentalArchitectural Terracottas from Etrusco-Italic Temples(Lund and Leipzig 1939–1940) and Åke Åkerström’sDie architektonischen Terrakotten Kleinasiens (Lund 1966)as well as Ch. Le Roy’s volume in Fouilles de Delphes:Les Terres cuites architecturales (Paris 1967) formed thenext two generations.

III. Current research and internationalconferencesWhile these major studies demonstrated the inter-dependence of all regional roofing systems in theancient Mediterranean, excavations continued toproduce a rapidly growing corpus of this ubiquitousmaterial. Nevertheless, no conferences presenting thisnew material in a single venue or grappling with theissues raised by their interconnections were ever helduntil Nancy Winter, then head of the Carl BlegenLibrary of the American School of Classical Studies inAthens, organized the First International Conferenceon Archaic Greek Architectural Terracottas, inDecember of 1988. The proceedings of this remarkableevent appeared as a part of Hesperia 59 (1990). Afterthree days of talks, the participants boarded busses,and, led by the archaeologists who had excavated andpublished the material, spent several days visiting thecollections in Athens, as well as at Delphi, Thebes,Nemea, and Corinth. The high quality of the reportspresented, the information exchanged, the inter-national camaraderie engendered, and eventually, thequality of the published proceedings, now a standardreference work in the field, led all the participants tohope that this initial conference would be followedregularly by others.

Among these inspired participants was an inter-national (Italian, Swedish, Dutch, German, Austrian,and American) contingent of scholars specializing incolonial Greek architectural terracottas from southernItaly and Sicily who agreed that the next gatheringshould be in Rome. This event happened at the

Swedish Institute in Rome in December of 1990,organized by Eva Rystedt, Charlotte Wikander, andÖrjan Wikander, who also edited the proceedings,Deliciae Fictiles: Proceedings of the First InternationalConference on Central Italic Architectural Terracottas(Stockholm 1993). Dealing with Etruscan and otherItalic revetments, it was, as its title implies, muchbroader in scope than the colonial Greek interests ofthe originating contingent.

This second conference was quickly followed byanother in Athens, the International Conference onGreek Architectural Terracottas of the Classical andHellenistic Periods, in December of 1991, again at theAmerican School and again under Nancy Winter’smost capable direction. The proceedings were pub-lished, as they have invariably been for theseconferences, as Hesperia, supplement XXVII (Princeton1994). In addition to organizing these conferences,Nancy Winter published her own fundamental study,Greek Architectural Terracottas from the Prehistoric to theEnd of the Archaic Period in 1993, and is currentlycompleting a parallel work on the terracotta roofdecoration in central Italy during the Etruscan period.In May of 1991, Jacques des Courtils and Jean-CharlesMoretti of l’Institut Français d’Etudes Anatoliennesd’Istanbul organized yet another conference titled LesGrands Ateliers d’Architecture dans le Monde Égéen duVIe Siècle av. J.-C. , and the proceedings were publishedunder that title as Varia Anatolica III (Paris 1993).

The most recent of these conferences was organizedby Patricia Lulof and Riemer Knoop of the NetherlandsInstitute in Rome and was held in June of 1996. It, too,dealt with Italian material, both indigenous Italic,Etruscan, and colonial Greek. Edited by Patricia Lulofand Eric Moormann, the proceedings appeared asDeliciae Fictiles II: Proceedings of the Second InternationalConference of Archaic Architectural Terracottas from Italyin Sirmium (Amsterdam 1997). The published pro-ceedings of all of these subsequent conferences havebeen so informative and well produced that they, likethose of the first conference, have become standardreference works in the field.

Following in the footsteps of previous conferences,the third international conference on Italianarchitectural terracottas was held at the AmericanAcademy in Rome in November of 2002. The AmericanAcademy, the most important American scholarlyinstitution in Italy with the requisite spaces andinfrastructure, was the ideal venue. The conferencelasted two days, and was followed by an excursion toCastello di Baia, Foce del Sele, and Velia, where theparticipants were able to study some of the finestrecent discoveries of architectural terracottas in Italy.This material suggests that Campania’s Greek and

Introduction

xiii

indigenous communities shared equally in thedevelopment of the Campanian system which exertedimportant influence to the north, into Latium andsouthern Etruria, and to the south, into Magna Graeciaand even Sicily. Papers presenting these Campanianarchitectural terracottas form a major component ofthe proceedings, and the fact that so many of theconference papers presenting south Italian and Sicilianarchitectural terracottas make reference to Campaniancomparanda is testament to the importance of thatregion’s production.

IV. Summary of the papers presented atDeliciae Fictiles IIIAs the previous conferences have documented veryclearly, the continuity of excavation and research isprovided by an international community of scholarsrepresenting a wide variety of interests. Although onlythe first section of the papers contains the word “new”in the title, the focus of the whole conference was onboth new discoveries and new interpretations basedon ongoing field work, study in storerooms, andresearch within museum and university settings.Indeed, new discoveries continue to be made, even asthis volume is being prepared for publication, and newpublications have appeared which indicate theimportance of the study of architectural terracottas inunderstanding architecture in ancient Italy. Forexample, the exhibit catalogue, Scavo nello Scavo, ed. A.M. Moretti Sgubini (Viterbo 2004), demonstrates theimportant new information provided to scholars,students, and the public by the continuing study ofarchitectural terracottas, even the smallest fragments.

In the text of the proceedings, the papers are listedin alphabetical order within each geographical section(with some exceptions). The following summariesattempt to highlight the main themes of each sectionand the individual contributions.

The first section on New Research on ArchitecturalTerracottas includes papers by the organizers ofprevious terracotta conferences, Nancy Winter andCharlotte and Örjan Wikander, the co-organizer ofDeliciae Fictiles III, John Kenfield, and two Italianscholars, Claudia Carlucci and Maria Josè Strazzulla,presenting overviews of Etrusco-Italic and Italic terra-cottas.

Nancy Winter, whose work on architectural terra-cottas spans Greece, Asia Minor, and Italy, identifiesThe Origin of the Recessed Gable in Etruscan Architecture.Using della Seta’s Second Phase, Winter connects theuse of a recessed gable in Etruria with examples fromSatricum and Campania, thus highlighting theincreasing awareness of borrowing and adaption from

the Greeks in Campania to the peoples of central Italyand Etruria.

Charlotte and Örjan Wikander, whose archaeo-logical base is Acquarossa, near Viterbo, discussArchitectural Terracottas in Theory and Practice.Reflections on Thirty Years of Experience. They addressboth the importance of stylistic analysis which, whileuseful and necessary, tends to overlook the archaeo-logical context, and an apparent similarity in tech-niques and clays used in the production of roofs andof pottery.

Based on an early female head antefix, believed tobe from Crete and now in the Menil collection inHouston, John Kenfield, in Dipoinos, Skyllis and anAntefix in Houston, discusses a possible connectionbetween the production of female head antefixes atThermon in Greece, on the island of Crete, and inMagna Graecia.

Claudia Carlucci’s contribution, Osservazioni sulleassociazioni e sulla distribuzione delle antefisse di II faseappartenenti ai sistemi decorativi etrusco-laziali, includesa discussion of two sets of antefixes depicting seventypes of heads and four types of full figures. Asindicated in the accompanying charts and maps, thedistribution of each type can be tracked from Tarquiniaand Falerii to the north of Rome to sites in Latium asfar south as Satricum and Circei.

In Le terrecotte architettoniche nei territori italici MariaJosè Strazzulla analyzes material from sites such asPietrabbondante, Schiavi d’Abruzzo, and Pagliaroli diCortino. Although the use of architectural terracottasis often considered evidence of Romanization andcontact with Etruria and Latium, Strazzullaemphasizes that the Italic regions show distinctpreferences in terms of motifs and techniques (such asanimal and vegetal motifs shown on plaques in highrelief). Significant, too, is the use of antefixes ratherthan pediments or akroteria to represent the deityvenerated at a temple.

The second section focuses on new discoveries fromEtruria. The sites discussed range from Caere/Cerveteri and Veii in the south to Vulci and Selvasecca,Acquarossa, Cortona, Castiglion Fiorentino, andMurlo/Poggio Civitate further inland and north.

In Veio: l’abitato di Piazza d’Armi. Le terrecottearchitettoniche, Gilda Bartoloni and her students reporton discoveries from Piazza d’Armi at Veii. In additionto the recent discoveries of streets connecting thedifferent structures at the site, architectural terracottashave added to the documentation by Stefani and otherearlier excavators, allowing for a reconstructin of theroofs of buildings with both ritual and residentialfunctions.

Two papers discuss material from Caere/Cerveteri.

Introduction

xiv

In the first, Ikonographisch bemerkenswerte Fragmente vonspätarchaischen Terrakottafriesen aus Cerveteri in derBerliner Antikensammlung, Volker Kästner selects fivefragments of plaques from the original collection inBerlin of 246 objects from Caere. Four of these depictmounted archers, and one a section of an Etruscanstepped altar. In both cases, the iconography finds itsclosest parallel in Greek art, including vasepainting(though the altar displays characteristic Etruscanmoldings).

The second paper on Caere/Cerveteri, Terrecottearchitettoniche da Cerveteri (Vigna Parrocchiale): nuoveacquisizioni, by Adriano Maggiani and VincenzoBellelli, presents a selection of architectural terracottasfrom the recent excavations at Vigna Parrocchiale.Although many of the fragments cannot be assigned toa specific architectural context, they provide examplesof raking simas, cut-out akroteria, and frieze plaques.

In Vulci, materiali architettonici di vecchi e nuovi scavi,Anna Maria Moretti Sgubini and Laura Ricciardiintroduce some of earliest of the architecturalterracottas from a third major Etruscan city, Vulci.These include a gorgon antefix and a frieze plaquewith a guilloche design, as well as silen and maenadantefixes, found in different areas of the city, andfragments of Hellenistic plaques.

Located within the territory of Tarquinia is ruralSelvasecca. This site has attracted much attentionbecause of the interpretation that it served as a localproduction center of architectural terracottas. Basedon a re-evaluation of the architectural remains of anEtrusco-Roman villa and the terracottas found there,Martin Söderlind, in The Function of the Terracottas fromSelvasecca, proposes that the terracottas produced atthe site were used exclusively on the villa itself.

Margareta Strandberg Olofsson, in Herakles revisited.On the interpretation of the mould-made architecturalterracottas from Acquarossa, suggests that of the fourtypes of frieze plaques from this site, the two depictingHerakles with a bull (type A) and with a lion (type B)reflect stories from Greek mythology popular amongthe Etruscans. In this instance, these images should beseen as part of an iconographic program representinga religious celebration involving processions,banquets, and dancing.

Iconography is also the subject addressed byAnthony Tuck in The Social and Political Context of the7th Century Architectural Terracottas at Poggio Civitate(Murlo). The Archaic monumental building, known forits lavish decoration of akroterial sculptures andrevetments, was preceded by a complex of threebuildings, decorated with lotus-palmette cut-outakroteria. One of the three buildings, identified as aworkshop, also preserves a lateral sima with female

antefixes alternating with feline water spouts. Tuckinterprets this schema as part of a hierogamos with themale component represented by bearded maleantefixes.

Two Etruscan sites closest to Umbria, Ossaia nearCortona, and Castiglion Fiorentino, are discussed inthis section. In Late Hellenistic-Roman Terracottas fromCortona, Helena Fracchia and Maurizio Gualtieripresent the recent discoveries from an extra-urbansanctuary at Camucia and a rural sanctuary at Ossaia.The locations of both indicate their importance for thelocal population as well as for travelers along the viaCassia.

The Medieval town of Castiglion Fiorentino hadnot even been recognized as an Etruscan settlementuntil remarkable recent discoveries at the Casserorevealed remains of a city wall, an Etruscan templewith terracotta revetments from the fourth centuryB.C. and later, and votive material including buccheroas well as Greek pottery. In Le terrecotte architettonichedal tempio etrusco del Piazzale del Cassero (CastiglionFiorentino), Paola Zamarchi Grassi and her colleaguespresent the evidence for the architectural remains andthe terracottas, currently displayed in the new localmuseum.

The third section covers areas in Umbria and Abruzzo.The material comes from well-known sites such asOrvieto and Chieti, as well as new discoveries fromMonte Pallano (Abruzzo) and Pale di Foligno(Umbria).

The first paper on Orvieto, by Anna Feruglio,presents Le terrecotte architettoniche dall’area del Palazzodel Capitano del Popolo a Orvieto. The terracottas foundat this location include fragments of eaves-tiles withpainted designs, revetment plaques, and male andfemale antefixes, all part of the same building and of auniform ‘Orvietan’ style, dating from the last periodof the city’s existence between the end of the fourthand beginning of the third century B.C.

The second paper on Orvieto focuses on the site ofCampo della Fiera. In Volsiniensia disiecta membra,Simonetta Stopponi, in addition to presentingimportant material from the ongoing excavations atthe site, illustrates the importance of comparing thesenew discoveries to Orvietan objects housed inmuseums the world over. Connections betweenpresent-day explorations at Campo della Fiera andearlier excavations there can thus be made withfragments now in Philadelphia, Toronto, and Berlin.

The important discoveries from Chieti are discussedby Gabriele Iaculli in Note sulla tecnica di esecuzione dialcune terrecotte della Civitella di Chieti, and by DanielaLiberatore in Le terrecotte architettoniche della Civitelladi Chieti: il frontone delle Muse.

Introduction

xv

Iaculli presents material from a ‘dump’ (scarico) atChieti. Its fragments of plaques and simas providedocumentation that the repeated use of the same moldultimately resulted in a declining quality of thepositives. A series of antefixes depicting a PotniaTheròn displays a mixed production technique, theuse of different molds as well as modeling by hand.Other finds from Chieti (ancient Teate) include theterracotta sculptures that adorned the pediment of atemple on the citadel, or arx. Although the sculpturesare quite fragmentary, Liberatore has been able toidentify three main groups: the Capitoline triad, theDioscuri, and Apollo and the Muses, the last being thefocus of the paper presented here.

Maria Romana Picuti presents the terracottas fromPale di Foligno in Un santuario lungo la ‘via Plestina’: leterrecotte architettoniche da Pale di Foligno (Perugia). Thetwo main types consist of revetment plaques with arelief design of five palmettes and of two palmettesand two spirals. The building which these architecturalterracottas decorated and the deity worshipped thereincannot be identified and the evidence on hand doesnot permit us to identify the cult as one connectedwith water.

In Terracotta dolphin plaques from Monte Pallano(Abruzzo), Susan Kane introduces material from theongoing excavations in the Sangro valley in Abruzzo.Of the over 300 pieces of architectural terracottas, themost numerous (over 100 fragments) belong to mold-made plaques depicting a pair of dolphins separatedby a floral design. Although the sanctuary to whichthey belonged is located high up in the mountains, thepresence of a maritime motif, known on coins fromTaras/Tarentum and other Greek sites, suggests thatthe Samnite patrons had far-flung cultural aspirations.

The fourth section on The Faliscans, Rome, and Latiumillustrates Rome’s cultural and economic environment,with examples from Segni and Satricum to the south,and Falerii to the north of the city. Material from Romeis represented by the pediment from via di SanGregorio.

In Le terrecotte architettoniche del tempio di GiunoneMoneta a Segni: la fase tardo-repubblicana, FrancescoCifarelli presents the revetments from the temple ofJuno at Segni. Although architectural terracottas fromthe Archaic period document the earliest phase of thetemple, this paper focuses on the material from thelate second century B.C. Find circumstances andlimited excavation provide only a random sample ofthe roof decoration from this period. In addition to thetwo types, a strigilated sima and cornice, that can bereconstructed most completely, isolated examplespreserve simas with a gorgoneion and a head with aPhrygian cap in relief, fragments of the pedimental

sculptures, and an antefix of a type known also atArdea. The presence of these late terracottas at thetemple documents the architect’s conscious decisionto use a wooden superstructure rather than the stonealternative seen in other contemporary Tuscan-styletemples.

In ‘Roofs from the South’: Campanian ArchitecturalTerracottas in Satricum, Patricia Lulof discusses the so-called Campanian roof system from temple 1 datingto ca. 525 B.C. and containing over twenty-two classesof architectural terracottas, ranging from plain tiles toantefixes, simas, and akroteria. Based on the mineralcomposition of the clays used, Lulof here introducesnew evidence for a Campanian workshop, furtherpostulating that not just molds or isolated pieces wereproduced in Campania and transported to Satricum,but that entire roofs were transported as cargo on shipstraveling along the coast of Campania and Latium.

Based on an analysis of the temple of Juno at Falerii(in the location known as Celle), Françoise-HélèneMassa Pairault, in her paper Considerazioni su un gruppofrontonale da Falerii, addresses the Greek artistictradition in Etrusco-Italic pedimental sculpture.Because of the fragmentary state of the sculptures, theinterpretation has varied among previous scholars,including Andrén and Cristofani. The group discussedhere by Massa Pairault preserves the right and left legof a young man and traces of a woman’s left thigh andgarment. A reconstruction drawing depicts a standingmale holding a female who is turned towards him butattempting to push him away with her left arm. Greekparallels for the composition may be found in groupsdepicting Peleus and Thetis or Eos and Kephalos, butMassa Pairault interprets the group at Falerii asdepicting Halesus, the founder of Falerii, embracing alocal nymph.

In La ricomposizione del frontone da Via di San Gregorio,Laura Ferrea presents a new reconstruction of thepedimental sculptures from via di San Gregorio inRome, first discovered in 1878 and displayed in theMusei Capitolini as of November 2002. As recon-structed, the pediment shows a sacrifice to Mars andtwo goddesses in the center, flanked by sacrificialanimals and their handlers, with a toga-clad manofficiating in front of a small offering table with thesacrificial vessels.

The fifth section covers the area of Campania andMagna Graecia. Eleven papers discuss Campanianmaterial from Kyme (Cumae) and Pithekoussai,Capua, Teano, and Elea (Velia). Two present materialfrom Kroton (Crotone) and other sites in MagnaGraecia.

Five papers address revetments from Kyme. Ofthese, Carlo Rescigno’s Pithekoussai e Kyme: il contesto

Introduction

xvi

ff

produttivo, deals with related material both from Kymeand its nearby mother city, Pithekoussai. Theserevetments are a series of female head antefixes. Withtheir surrounding nimbus of tongues (leaves), somepainted and modeled, some simply painted, all con-form generally to the Campanian type, but one has noattachment for a cover tile and must have beenmounted above a sima. Another applies a female headto the face of a sima, while a third replaces the femalehead with the head of Herakles wearing the scalp ofthe Nemean lion.

In Modellino votivo e rivestimenti fittili di Pithekoussai,Lucia Scatozza Höricht presents fragments of twoimportant new finds from that site. The first fragmentsapparently belong to a votive model of a temple datedby Scatozza to the end of the eighth century B.C. Likeits contemporary from Perachora, it is apsidal at therear, the gable at the front open. The roof is painted ina checkerboard pattern, reminiscent of tiles, but theroof’s steep pitch suggests thatch or wooden shingles,and the proposed early date for the model wouldpreclude the use of tiles. Like the model from theArgive Heraion, the walls of the building were paintedin what appears to be a metopic system, one of thepanels containing a human figure. These are located atthe base of the wall and might represent orthostatslabs, on analogy with the early one-room temples ofIron Age Crete. The second set of fragments belongsto an early example of a Western Greek sima andgeison revetment combination which joins Sicilianexamples from Syracuse, Grammichele and Himeraand culminates in the roof of the temple of Artemis atCorfu. In the Pithekoussan example, the preservedtubular rain spout is in the form of a ram’s head.

This unusual rain spout also appears at Kyme andis the subject of Mariarosaria Borriello’s Gronda arcaicada Cuma. A recurrent motif in Etrusco-Italicarchitectural terracottas (M. Bonghi Jovino in DeliciaeFictiles I, 45-54 and G. Aversa in Deliciae Fictiles II, 3-11), the ram’s head now has at least a conceptualSicilian counterpart in the bull’s head antefix fromNaxos presented here by Paola Pelagatti (see below,Tipi inediti o rari di antefisse arcaiche tra Sicilia e MagnaGrecia. Soggetti e culti).

Paolo Caputo in Cuma. Le terrecotte architettonichearcaiche dall’area dell’anfiteatro (scavi 1991–1998) ,presents the fragmentary revetments of a late Archaictemple that occupied the site. These revetments fitgenerally into the contemporary Campanian systemwith female head antefixes and modeled palmetteantefixes, both surrounded by a nimbus of modeledtongues (leaves). There are also fragments of a geisonrevetment with a painted single guilloche at the bottomand modeled tongues (leaves) on the cavetto at the

top, and of kalypteres hegemones. Several particularlyinteresting fragments from this excavation include alion’s head in high relief as well as fragments of whatmay be the base for an akroterion or a ridge pole statue.

In Cuma, Foro. Le terrecotte architettoniche arcaiche eclassiche dai riempimenti del podio del Capitolium, TeresaCaputo and Carlo Rescigno present revetments thatinclude modeled and painted palmette antefixes andeaves-tiles decorated with painted motifs on thebottom. This type of revetment is now recognized inSicily as reported by Concetta Ciurcina (see below,Tegole ‘de rive’ da Siracusa).

Carmela Capaldi in Lastre Campana dallo scavo dellacd. Masseria del Gigante a Cuma presents the latestKymean material to be addressed here, a series ofCampana plaques with many new scenes. The subjectmatter includes both mythological and genre scenesof the amphitheater and the circus. Interestingly, eventhe genre scenes incorporate iconography drawn frommythological representations such as that of ahelmeted gladiator fighting a lion. This image is clearlyadapted from the group of Herakles and the NemeanLion by Lysippos, in his Alyzian Cycle of Herakles’Labors, removed as booty from Akarnania in the LateRepublic and put on display in the Roman Forum.

In Terrecotte arcaiche dai nuovi scavi del Fondo Patturellidi Capua. Una prima proposta interpretativa BarbaraGrassi and Valeria Sampaolo add important newmaterial to the already bountiful corpus from Capua,a site where architectural terracotta production haslong been recognized as closely related to that ofnearby Kyme and, by extension, Pithekoussai. Themost numerous among these pieces are the femalehead antefixes. Stylistically these appear to be ofwidely variant date, from sub-Daidalic to late Archaic,and if they come from the same building, indicate anumber of successive roofs. Their forms are as variedas their dates. Some display a nimbus, usually withtongues (leaves) in relief, but once with a lotus flowerchain. Some appear not as heads but busts in relief ina semicircular field framed by a semicircular torusmolding. Some of the female busts have their armslowered but away from the torso, suggesting rapidmovement. Another, with wings apparently growingfrom her waist, raises her arms with the palms up inwhat appears to be a ritual gesture. Perhaps the mostinteresting of these female antefixes presents a smallDaidalic head in the center of a semicircular field witha nimbus of two successive rows of tongues (leaves)separated by semicircular torus moldings. Fragmentsof a series of gorgoneion antefixes well-known inCampania, Latium, and southern Etruria have alsobeen found at Capua, as well as a variety of palmetteantefixes with a nimbus, both upright and pendant.

Introduction

xvii

Francesco Sirano in Sistemi di copertura campani di etàarcaica da Teanum Sidicinum and Silvia Svanera in Tegolepiane e kalypteres da edifici tardo-arcaici di TeanumSidicinum present the roof of a handsome and idio-syncratic Archaic temple at Teano, like Capua, anindigenous center. Sirano introduces two types offemale head antefixes, one sub-Daidalic in style, theother late Archaic and unusual in form, the two typessuggesting that the temple had successive roofs. Onthe late Archaic examples, the female head appears inthe crotch of voluted tendrils. Lotus flowers dependfrom the outer volutes of these tendrils. The femalehead is surrounded by a nimbus of modeled tongues(leaves). This type seems to have been accompaniedby gorgoneion antefixes with a nimbus of a series thatappears elsewhere in Campania (for example atCapua), in Latium, and southern Etruria. Siranosuggests that the female heads and gorgoneia alter-nated along the eaves. These antefixes are accompaniedby eaves-tiles painted on the underside in typicalCampanian fashion, evidently visible from below. Thewalls of this remarkable building were of stone anddecorated with engaged pilasters surmounted by Ioniccapitals. A molding crowned the top of the wall, itsvertical fascia decorated with a carved tongue patternmuch like that appearing on the abacus of the Ioniccapitals. Svanera presents the roof’s utilitarian tilesincluding the kalypteres hegemones. These were foundin great quantity and variety, especially with regard tothe moldings at the leading ends. As these moldingsare mold-made, Svanera has usefully included profiledrawings of each.

As might be expected, what is known of thearchitectural terracotta production at Elea (Velia), themost southern of the Greek settlements in Campania,indicates that decorated roofs at that site, too, fit intothe Campanian roofing system. Luigi Cicala inTerrecotte architettoniche del sistema campano da contestidi scavo dell’Acropoli di Elea presents elements of a roofdiscovered on Elea’s acropolis with a discussion of theprovenience of the architectural terracottas. Theserevetments are the utilitarian tiles, kalypteres hegemones,eaves-tiles painted on the underside in the typicalCampanian fashion, and two types of antefixes with animbus, the pendent palmette and the female head.Giovanna Greco, taking a macrocosmic view in herpaper L’antefissa a nimbo di tipo campano. Circolazione esopravvivenza di un modello, provides an overview ofthe formation of the female head and palmette andnimbus antefixes; the model is created in Campaniaand is distributed widely to Elea (Velia) and theindigenous centers of Samnium, Lucania, and Apulia.The Archaic typology is picked up and reformulatedin the Hellenistic period both at the indigenous centers

and at Elea (Velia), and the model survives for a longtime as an affermation of a peculiar culturalconnotation, clearly defined as Campanian.

Two papers address south Italian architecturalterracottas that, with the exception of Poseidoniatematerial, are not Campanian in either provenience ortype. In the first, Terrecotte architettoniche dall’Italiameridionale nel Museo Archeologico Nazionale di Napoli,Ilaria Maddaluno presents hitherto unpublishedmaterial from Taranto, an Archaic gorgoneion antefix;from Lokroi, an archaic Silenos head antefix and a simafragment, probably of Classical date, with a modeledpalmette and lotus flower chain in relief; fromPoseidonia, fragments of two simas of Geloan typedecorated with floral chains in relief and apparently ofHellenistic date, as well as two capitals, one of stoneand unknown order with an abacus decorated with achain of alternating acanthus flowers, palmettes, andfemale busts, the other of terracotta and Corinthian inorder. Finally, Maddaluno presents two molds forpalmettes, one that is complete, clearly for the pro-duction of antefixes and of unknown provenience, theother more fragmentary example from Metapontionand of indeterminate architectural use.

Gregorio Aversa’s paper, Ionismo e ionismi in MagnaGrecia. Le terrecotte architettoniche dell’Heraion Lacinio,addresses the revetments from the sanctuary of HeraLakinia at Kroton (Crotone), both those discovered inPaolo Orsi’s early excavations of the site and thosediscovered more recently. This body of material, lateArchaic and Classical in date and consisting offragments of simas with lion head water spouts,gorgoneion appliqués, modeled moldings, and evenseveral molds, is by far the most international in itsconnections of any of the material presented in thisvolume. Aversa points out the close affinities withother revetments from both Magna Grecia and Sicily,but also with comparable material from Asia Minorand even Olympia. In fact, the conclusion afforded bythese architectural terracottas is important andsymptomatic: proven workshop range of activity isusually local or regional, but the experience of thecoroplasts is apparently international.

The sixth section covers Sicily, with materials fromGela, Syracuse, Leontini, Naxos, and Palikè(Rocchicella di Mineo). In Reflessioni su due antefissegorgoniche di Gela, Marina Castoldi presents twoantefixes from Gela. The first combines the facialfeatures of a lion and a gorgoneion. Often interpretedas having the same meaning, this Geloan antefix, theonly known conflation of the two images, seems toprove the point. The second is a gorgoneion antefixand, in its unadorned Archaic simplicity, is comparedto the previously known examples from Monte

Introduction

xviii

Bubbonia, Morgantina, and Montagna di Ramacca, allto the east and in what is usually considered aKhalkidian cultural sphere. Even further afield andmore generally, these gorgoneia are also compared toan antefix series known at both the Ptoan sanctuary inBoeotia and on the Athenian Akropolis.

In Tegole “de rive” da Siracusa , Concetta Ciurcinaexpands the corpus of known Sicilian eaves-tiles withthree examples from Syracuse. The first two are of awell-known type in which the pan tile at the eavesmakes a turn of 90 degrees to form a drip. Thedecoration on one is identical to that appearing onexamples from both Morgantina and Megara Hyblaia,suggesting workshop activity at all three sites. Ciurcinaalso presents a fragment of a gorgoneion antefix foundin association with these eaves-tile fragments. Thethird eaves-tile is of a type previously unknown inSicily; its underside is painted with a palmette in cream,set against a dark background. The vertical fascia atthe eaves edge of the tile is painted with a swastikaand box meander and is cut back to provide a seat fora sima (or perhaps an antefix) resting atop and flushwith the edge. As a comparandum, Ciurcina presents areconstruction of a tile discovered by Orsi at Reggio diCalabria, and the type is well-known in Campania,Latium, and southern Etruria. Finally, Ciurcinapresents a fragment of a sima of a well-known Siciliantype found in association with this eaves-tile fragmentand perhaps belonging to the same roof.

In Palmette con volute da un santuario extraurbano diLeontini, Massimo Frasca presents fragments ofgorgoneion antefixes with a corona of snakes in theirhair, an image hitherto confined to Morgantina amongSicilian antefixes. The Leontini examples appear tohave been made in the same mold as those thatdecorated Archaic Morgantina’s most prominenttemple, the Farmhouse Hill naiskos. In addition, Frascapresents fragments, also from the same sanctuary, oftwo types of eaves-tile palmettes, a revetment typealso formerly unique to Morgantina. One of these wasalso used on the Farmhouse Hill naiskos, suggestingthat Leontini be added to the list of cities where ‘theFarmhouse Hill Workshop’ was active.

In Tipi inediti o rari di antefisse arcaiche tra Sicilia eMagna Grecia. Soggetti e culti, Paola Pelagatti expandsthe corpus of published Archaic Sicilian antefixespaying special attention to those that have comparandain Magna Grecia. The antefixes are of the followingtypes in order of frequency: gorgoneion, female head,and Silenos head, though there are also interestingsingle examples, one of a bull’s head in very high reliefand reminiscent of ram’s head antefixes fromCampania, the other a profile sphinx in low relief. Mostof the antefixes come from Megara Hyblaia, Naxos,

and Syracuse, but there are single examples fromSelinous, Monte Casale, and Francovilla di Sicilia.Among the gorgoneion antefixes from Naxos, the typewith snakes flanking the face, which appears in manyvariations at Morgantina, predominates. Pelagatticompares these Naxian examples to one from nearbyFrancovilla di Sicilia and a nearly complete examplefrom Syracuse. At this point the type seems rare atSyracuse, known only in this one example, and thereis no evidence for its appearance at Megara. Of thethree female head antefixes, the first, from Megara, isa small fragment of a previously unknown type. Thesecond, from Syracuse, is of a well-known late Archaictype. The third, from Monte Casale, consists of a moldrather than a positive, and is Daidalic in style. The twoSilenos head antefixes as well as the bull’s head andsphinx antefixes come from Naxos.

Two other papers augment the corpus of unusualarchitectural terracottas from Naxos. In the first,Terrecotte plastiche dai santuari di Naxos di Sicilia, MariaCostanza Lentini presents fragments of terracottasculptures executed in the round. These includecrouched sphinxes, a siren, a flying Nike, equestriangroups, and a lion. Most of these may have served asakroteria, others perhaps as free-standing agalmatawithin the sanctuary. As an appendix, Lentini discussesin detail and reconstructs the fragments of a remarkablepedimental gorgoneion whose writhing hair is piecedtogether using tenons, a technique apparently adoptedfrom monumental sculpture in stone.

In the second paper on Naxos, Bemalte Terra-kottaplatten aus Naxos. Überlegungen zu Figurenfriesenan archaischen Bauten in Sizilien, Hermann Pflugpresents fragments of two terracotta friezes found inan extraurban sanctuary to the northwest of the ancienturban center and some additional fragments of a thirdfrieze found in the urban center and first presented byMaria Costanza Lentini in Deliciae Fictiles II, 123–134.The decoration of all three is executed exclusively inpaint without relief. The subjects of these friezesappear to be mythological, but may include an animalcombat and perhaps a ritual scene. Dating the friezesto the transition from the seventh to the sixth centuryB.C., Pflug compares the figure style to that appearingon contemporary locally made pottery and thetechnique to the painted metopes at Thermon andKalydon. Associated with buildings without peri-styles, Pflug suggests that these friezes decorated theupper parts of the walls.

In Terracotta architectural fragments from ancient Palikè(Rocchicella di Mineo, Sicily) and places nearby, BrianMcConnell presents the fragmentary revetments thatdecorated the excavated buildings in the indigenousSikel Sanctuary of the Divine Palikoi in the interior of

Introduction

xix

southeastern Sicily. The buildings with which theserevetments are associated seem to be a hestiaterion, twostoas, and a temple without peristyle. All seem to dateto the mid-fifth century B.C., and McConnell associatesthem and the monumentalization of the sanctuary withthe rise of the Sikel nationalist, Douketios. Thefragmentary decorated tiles from these buildingsinclude painted palmette antefixes, ridge pole tiles,eaves-tiles and sima fragments. Though apparentlycontemporary with the buildings they protected anddecorated, these revetments seem Archaic inappearance, mirroring the situation at Morgantinawhere the decorated buildings were Archaic inappearance until the city was taken by Douketios in459 B.C. The decoration of these revetments and theirmorphology appear typical of late Archaic Sicilianproduction, but their combinations are unparalleled atother sites, a fact which McConnell attributes to theinterplay of indigenous Sikel and colonial Greekcultural influences.

V. Editorial commentsThanks to the understanding of David Brown, OxbowBooks, it has been possible to preserve theindividuality of each paper in terms of both language

and format. The papers are published in the languagein which they were presented, and the technical format(endnote abbreviations, punctuations, etc.) reflects thepreference of each author. While we have made everyattempt to achieve accuracy of information, we havenot aimed for consistency of presentation, includingspelling of proper names and placenames. Likewise,the bibliography reflects a mixture of the formats usedby the different authors, and does not adhere to anyone style preference.

The illustrations are reproduced in black and whitein the text, and a selection of color plates appearsseparately within the volume. Again, the imagesprovided to us by the authors were produced indifferent formats and scales, and we have not tried toachieve uniformity. Illustrations in color are indicatedwith an asterisk next to the caption in the text (forexample, Fig. 1.5*).

The authors are responsible for the informationcontained in their respective papers. The editors haveattempted to make references to the illustrations andbibliography as consistent as possible.

Ingrid Edlund-BerryGiovanna GrecoJohn Kenfield

Introduction

xx

Anthony Tuck130

Chapter 13

The Social and Political Context of the 7th CenturyArchitectural Terracottas at Poggio Civitate (Murlo)

Anthony Tuck

Excavations at Poggio Civitate (Murlo) began in 1966under the direction of K. M. Phillips, Jr. of Bryn MawrCollege. Throughout the successive years of work onthe main plateau of the hill, Piano del Tesoro,excavators have recovered substantial portions of theroofing systems of two major building phases, the firstdateable to the 7th century BCE and the second to the6th century BCE. Elements of the sculptural decor-ations of these roofing systems have already receivedconsiderable scholarly attention.1 However, the recentidentification of a new structure, dateable to theOrientalizing phase of the site, provides anopportunity to reconsider the potential social andpolitical implications of some of the decorativeelements of these roofing systems.2

During the 6th century, the plateau of Piano delTesoro was dominated by the construction of amonumental building. This building consisted of fourwings, each approximately 60m in length, surroundinga courtyard with the western façade extended by adefensive work and tower that added an additional30m to this side of the building (Fig. 13.1). The roof ofthis building was ornamented with terracottasculpture in the round. This decorative programconsisted of the well known “Seated Statues;” maleand female figures, some wearing distinctive broadbrimmed hats.3 Joining these seated figures on the roofwere examples of standing and running human figuresas well as numerous images of animals. Some werefantastic, such as sphinxes, griffons and hugehippocamps, others such as lions which were probablyequally fantastic to the Etruscan viewer, as well asanimals that were certainly well known in Etruria,such as horses, bulls, goats, and boars.4 Adding to thebuilding’s adornment were a sculpted lateral sima,5

antefixes in the form of gorgons,6 as well as a series ofmold produced frieze plaques displaying a banquetscene,7 a horse race,8 a procession,9 and a fourth sceneshowing a series of seated and standing human

figures, each holding attributes that may have helpedthe Etruscan viewer identify each figure in spite of thestylized rendering of the scenes.10

The remarkable scale and form of this building wasanticipated by a complex of structures that preceded iton the Piano del Tesoro plateau. This complex, whichappears to have been destroyed by fire around the endof the 7th century BCE, consisted of three buildings,each monumental in scale.11 The current state ofevidence suggests that each of these buildings serveda different function: a residence, a workshop, and atripartite building that perhaps served a religiousfunction (Fig. 13.2).12

Independently, each of these buildings offersfascinating views into the world of the seventh centuryat the site. However, given the scope of this paper, Iwould prefer to comment on a few intriguing aspectsof their similarities.

First and most importantly, all three buildings aremonumental in scale, and assuming the area was moreheavily deforested than it is today, all would havebeen highly visible from the surrounding region.Moreover, like the Archaic Period building thatreplaced them on the plateau, all seem to have beenelaborately decorated with terracotta sculpture. Thecurrent state of evidence suggests that the three wereoriginally decorated with sculptures in the form ofcut-out akroteria attached directly onto the apex ofridgepole tiles. The residence appears to havedisplayed human and animal forms, such as a horseand rider as well as additional fragments, whichperhaps depicted a feline.13 The terminus of at leastone end of the building may have been adorned witha terracotta element in the form of snake-necked felinesbiting into the body of a man.14 But the most commondecorative form was the lotus palmette. This design,which is known through hundreds of fragmentaryexamples, also decorated the Workshop.15 Fragmentsrecovered from the environs of the tripartite building

The Social and Political Context of the 7th Century Architectural Terracottas at Poggio Civitate 131

Fig. 13.1. CAD Rendered reconstruction of Piano del Tesoro Archaic Period Building (rendering by Phillip Membrano).

Fig. 13.2.* Reconstructed view of Piano del Tesoro Orientalizing Period Complex (watercolor by Joseph McKendry).

Anthony Tuck132

suggest that it displayed these images as well.16

The Workshop, positioned on the edge of theplateau and apparently largely undisturbed by theconstruction of the Archaic period building, alsopreserves substantial evidence of a sculpted lateralsima.17 This sima consisted of female antefixesalternating with feline waterspouts (Fig. 13.3). Whenviewed in isolation, the grouping of felines flanking afemale figure provides us an identity of this woman.She is the Etruscan translation of the Potnia Theron, theancient eastern fertility divinity, whether she is knownas Artemis, Astarte, or Ishtar (Fig. 13.4).18

As mentioned above, the workshop is situated onthe extreme southeastern edge of the plateau in anarea that does not appear to have been overlydisturbed by the later building of the Archaic period.This fact may explain why the roofing system of theWorkshop is better preserved than that of theResidence and the Tripartite building, both of whichare situated directly beneath the western and southernwings of the 6th century building respectively. In theabsence of evidence to the contrary, it is inviting,although by no means secure, to see the sima systemof the workshop as a form echoed on one or both of

the other buildings of the Orientalizing periodcomplex. Regardless, with the Workshop we canunderstand an iconographic message implicit in thisarrangement. The viewer, looking from below, wouldapproach the building and see the Potnia Theronimages of the sima with the lotus palmette design ofthe akroterial sculpture above, crowning the roof’spitch.

The pairing of the iconography of the Potnia Theronwith that of the lotus palmette is certainly commonthroughout Etruria. An example of such iconographymay be found on kyathos handles such as one,probably from Chiusi, where the Potnia Therondisplays the lotus palmette in the position of hergenitalia (Fig. 13.5).19 Therefore, it seems plausible toassume that the Etruscan viewer would understandthe lotus palmette as expressive of the genitalia of thegoddess and therefore an implicit reference to thesalient manifestation of her divinity – fertility andfecundity.

Why a workshop would display such images is abit puzzling. However, the building was home to themanufacture of numerous kinds of materials, such asbronze working, bone, antler and ivory carving,

Fig. 13.4. Orientalizing Period Sima (illustration by Ellen Nielsen).

Fig. 13.3. Orientalizing Period Sima, Murlo Archaeological Museum (photography by Erik Nielsen).

The Social and Political Context of the 7th Century Architectural Terracottas at Poggio Civitate 133

Fig. 13.6. Orientalizing Period Sima, Full Reconstruction (illustration by Ellen Nielsen).

Fig. 13.5. Bucchero Handle, Chiusi Archaeological Museum.

textiles, and food production.20 It was also in thebusiness of the production of architectural terracottas.In addition to the manufacture of roofing tiles, theworkers in the building were producing paintedterracotta plaques as well as a type of bearded, maleantefix, demonstrated by the recovery of a mold forthe production of these antefixes from the floor of thebuilding.21 Because of stylistic similarities between theform of this male antefix and the cephalomorphicelements of contemporary “canopic” cinerary urnsfrom Chiusi, this antefix type has often been referredto as a “canopic” antefix.

This male antefix has been seen by several scholarsas related to apotropaic ancestral masks, similar toRoman ancestral masks or those masks known fromthe region around the city of Chiusi.22 However, if themale antefix were used in conjunction with felinewaterspouts, as assumed here in this reconstruction,then he must also be seen as a Master of Beasts, aconsort figure to the Potnia Theron (Fig. 13.6).23

But the interpretation of these antefixes as ancestralmasks or as a Master of Beasts consort figure need notbe viewed as mutually exclusive. As Patricia Lulof hasrecently argued, a Roman tradition of politicalmythology held that a special relationship existedbetween King Servius Tullius and the goddessFortuna, an Italic fertility divinity related to Astarte.24

Moreover, we should also remember that Rome’sfounding hero, Aeneas, was himself the product ofsuch a relationship between a mortal man and agoddess.

By viewing the male antefixes from Poggio Civitateas both ancestral masks and as consort figures, webegin to see an underlying trend in the iconography ofpolitical power at this early Etruscan site. The elites ofthis proto-urban community underscore the socialrelationships among a monumental residence, aproduction center and a building that may have serveda religious function by visually linking them withhighly visible, monumental expressions of the twofundamental concerns of any aristocratic community:ancestry, which is the source of any particular leader’s

Anthony Tuck134

Fig. 13.8. Archaic Period Seated Figures Frieze Plaque (illustration by Margaret Butterworth).

Fig. 13.7. Piano del Tesoro Archaic Period Building Roof Reconstruction, Murlo Archaeological Museum (photograph by ErikNielsen).

The Social and Political Context of the 7th Century Architectural Terracottas at Poggio Civitate 135

political and social authority, and fertility, which isobviously the mechanism whereby that political andsocial authority is handed down from generation togeneration. These two ideas are neatly conjoined bythe iconography of the hierogamos, the sacred marriagebetween a mortal man and a divinity.

It is, of course, tempting to see reverberations ofthese themes in the later, 6th century iconographicprogram, with the clear continuation of fertilitygoddess iconography in the Archaic lateral sima.Instead of antefixes, the female goddess is depictedwith mold made appliqués and flanked by theadditional element of rosettes, then the felinewaterspouts (Fig. 13.7).25 We might then see themonumental seated figures above as ancestral images,amplifications of an idea implicit in the male,“canopic” antefixes, as Nielsen has suggested.26

A more explicit representation of this idea mighteven be seen on the seated figures frieze plaque fromthe building, where a female figure is shown in a bridalgesture – opening her veil – seated behind a malefigure holding a litus, an apparent emblem of civic orsocial authority (Fig. 13.8).27 By viewing her as adivinity, we can perhaps better understand why she isthe only figure in the frieze seated on a bronze throneas opposed to a campstool. We might also interpretthe gesture of such a divinity, the opening of her veil,as explicitly linked to the political authority of malefigure seated ahead of her.

It may seem surprising to some that a site as earlyas Poggio Civitate would utilize so cogent anexpression of an eastern inspired iconography as thatof the hierogamos. However, I personally find itplausible that in the context of the emergentaristocracies and urban centers of the 8th and 7thcenturies, Etruscan rulers sought to utilize easternmotifs not simply as a matter of fashion or preference,but specifically because leaders at sites like PoggioCivitate understood their usefulness and suitability asexpressions of longstanding, divinely sanctionedpolitical authority.

Professor Anthony TuckTufts University, Bostonatuck01@granite.tufts.edu

Notes1 See Case e palazzi 1985, 69–74 and 98–127. See as well the

recent publication Goggioli 2002 which is one of a series ofwell documented and beautifully illustrated museumguides published through the efforts of the Province ofSiena.

2 E. Nielsen and Tuck 2001 and Tuck 2000, 110–111.3 Case e palazzi 1985, 102–110 and Edlund-Berry 1992.4 Case e palazzi 1985, 110–114.5 Case e palazzi 1985, 118–121.6 Case e palazzi 1985, 114–116 and Neils 1976.7 Case e palazzi 1985, 125 and Small 1971.8 Case e palazzi 1985, 123–124 and Root 1973.9 Case e palazzi 1985, 125–127 and Gantz 1974.10 Case e palazzi 1985, 125 and Gantz 1971.11 Case e palazzi 1985, 69.12 E. Nielsen and Tuck 2001 and Tuck 2000.13 Case e palazzi 1985, 111. Rystedt 1983, 38, originally

identified these fragments a portions of an equine, butsubsequently agreed with Lacy’s opinion expressed in Casee palazzi 1985. See Rystedt 1994, 77.

14 Case e palazzi 1985, 72.15 E. Nielsen 1987, 94.16 E. Nielsen and Tuck 2001.17 E. Nielsen 1987, 94–119.18 E. Nielsen 1994, 65.19 Valentini 1969, 421–422.20 E. Nielsen 1993, Id. 1995, and Id. 1998.21 E. Nielsen 1987, 116.22 Phillips 1984, 416–417.23 E. Nielsen 1987, 116. Here Nielsen suggests the male antefix

might have been used on the same roof as a replacementfor old or broken versions of the female antefix.

24 Lulof 2000, 215.25 Case e palazzi 1985, 118–121. This development has already

been noted by E. Nielsen, 1987, 116–117.26 E. Nielsen 1994, 70.27 Gantz 1971, 9 and 11. Gantz interprets the opening of the

veil as a gesture specifically attributed to the goddess Hera.However, as Gantz later notes, we cannot assume that theEtruscan viewer understood the divinity to represent aspecific Greek goddess. I would amplify his caution andposit that the similarity of representation is a reflection ofa similar or shared conception of a female divinityassociated with matrimony.