THE MUSEUM OF MEDITERRANEAN AND NEAR EASTERN ANTIQJUITIES MEDELHAVSMUSEET jiiANrOKU UüilAftT ÜLC 'SJ 1964 BULLETIN Number 3 1963 Digitized by CONTENTS Supplementary Notes on Finds from Ajia Irini in Cyprus EINAR GJERSTAD 3 Kreta, Tiber und Stora Mellösa Bemerkungen zu zwei Bronzeschwertem aus dem Tiber EVERT BAUDOU 41 A Black-Figured Neck-Amphora of the Leagros Group TULLU RÖNNE'UNDERS 54 A Republican Portrait from the Sabina OLOF VESSBERG 67 Editorial and Distribution OfiBoe: Medelbavsmuseet. Stoigatan 41, Stodtbolm ö, Sweden. Digitized by v^ooQle The Museum of Mediterranean and Near Eastern Antiquities MEDELHAVSMUSEET BULLETIN Number 3 1963 Published by The Museum of Mediterranean and Near Eastern Antiquities (Medelhavsmuseet) Digitized by LjOOQle Published with the aid of a grant from Humanistiska Forskningsrädet. ® 1963 Medelhavsmuseet, Stockholm. Stockholm 1963 Victor Pettcrsons Bokindustri AB Digitized by Supplementary Notes on Finds from Ajia Irini in Cyprus EINAR GJERSTAD Introdnction The village of Ajia Irini is situated not far from the shore of the N.W. coast of Cyprus. A sanctuary dose by this village was excavated by the Swedish Cyprus Expedition in 1929—1930. These excavations yielded results important for our knowledge of the history of Cypriote religion and the sculptural art of the island. The evidence bearing upon the history of religion has been studied by Erik SjöqvistS the architectural remains and the objects found are published in Swed, Cyp. Exp, II, pp. 642 ff. In time the finds ränge from the final period of the Bronze Age, Late Cypriote III, to c. 500 B.C., i.e. a short time before the end of the Cypro-Archaic epoch, with the addition of an insignificant revival of the cult in the Hellenistic period after a com- plete intemiption during the Cypro-Qassical time. The cult practised in the sanctuary was from the beginning a fertility cult and the deity was conceived in the shape of a buU in the religious ideas of the worshippers. In Late Cypriote III (c. 1200—1050 B.C.) the sanctuary consisted of a complex of rectangular houses along the sides of a large, open court, with the central building as the cult house proper, where ' Arch,f. ReL Wiss. XXX, 1932, pp. 308 ff. all the cult requisites were found. In the be- ginning of the Cypro-Geometric period, c. 1050 B.C., this sanctuary was covered by a thick layer of sterile, red earth and on top of the same a sanctuary of quite another type was constructed: an open temenos of an irregularly oval shape, surrounded by a peribolos wall of red earth and with a low altar and a libation table, dose by the altar, as a sacred centre. The majority of the ex votos consisted of terra- cotta bulls and from this we may infer that the cult remained a cult of fertility and that the deity was still conceived in the shape of abuU. This Geometrie temenos lasted to the middle of Cypro-Geometric III, c. 775 B.C., when the sanctuary was subject to some modifications. The peribolos wall was heightened and the earlier altar was replaced by a new one in the shape of a rectangular pillar. The majority of the ex yotos deposed in this new temenos consists of three dasses of sculptures: bull statuettes, minotaurs, and human figures. The minotaurs are composed of a bull’s body and a human torso and head. They are represented as adorants of the deity worshipped, as his attendants. They indicate that for the strictly theriomorphous conception of the deity had been substituted an initial anthropomorphic 3 Digitized by v^ooQle idea of the same, as also confirmed by the statuettes of human shape. They are the first ex votos of human sculptures at Ajia Irini and in the subsequent periods this new category of ex votos was developcd into the great art sculp- ture of Cypro-Archaic I and II. Both in cult and art the anthropomorphic idea becomes pre- dominant. The great number of armed figures among the votive sculptures, the chariot sta- tuettes, etc. indicate that the deity was a god of war as well as a god of fertility, whose attributes, the thunderbolts (pp. 27, 40) show that his ca- pacity of fertility also included the fertilizing rain: in other words, he was a god of general protection for the society, a theos sosipolis. The particular importance of the votive sculptures of Ajia Irini for the elucidation of the history of Cypriote sculptural art during the Archaic period lies in the fact that these sculp- tures were found in stratigraphically distinct contexts*, so that, for their chronological deter- mination, we are not dependent solely on stylistic criteria but have also supplementary stratigraphical evidence. In the excavation re- port the art sculpture* has been classified in a * The stratification, as described in detail in the excava- tion report, op. dt. II, pp. 797 ff., was in the Cypro-Archaic period to a large extent formed by alluvial sand and gravel brought down by heavy winter rains flooding the open air sanctuary on several occasions: in the early part of Cypro- Archaic II, about the middle of that period and at the beginning of its final phase, in absolute figures, c. 560, 540, and 500 B.C. After the inundations of c. 560 and 540 B.C. the new floor of the sanctuary was levelled on top of the alluvial material but the earlier sculptures were left on their original level, and new sculptures were deposed on the each time raised level. The small statuettes Standing on the floor inundated c. 560 B.C. were finally entirely covered by the alluvium and the larger sculptures almost entirely, or up to the breast, or waist etc. dependent on their height. * In op. dt. p. 777, the various categories of sculptures represented at Ajia Irini have been distinguished: the ma- jority of the small and larger statuettes are pure idol plastic, i.e., they are not of an artistic, but only a sacred nature, not produced with artistic intentions, but only for religious purposes, to be used as votive offerings; only the sculptures bering the impress of an incontestable and clearly artistic character may be classified as art sculpture, only these sculptures are stylistically determinable, if by style is meant an artistic norm producing an intended artistic shape; within the idol plastic no styles, only types can be distinguished; there are also several mixed speci- mens between these two categories (cf. pp. 36 f., 39). number of local styles and the stratified levels have been used to mark the sequence of the local periods. In the general Classification of the material imdertaken in Swed. Cyp. Exp. IV:2, these local styles have been grouped together into a number of general styles and for the local periods general chronological periods have been substituted. The general styles of the art sculp- ture in question are: First Proto-Cypriote, Second Proto-Cypriote, Neo-Cypriote, and Ar- chaic-Greek. For the interrelations of these local and general styles I refer to Swed. Cyp. Exp. IV :2, p. 93^. In this paper I shall use the terms of the general Classification when dealing with the art sculpture but for the aninud statuettes and the human figurines belonging to the category called idol pla- stic (pp. 38 f.) I shall use the terms of the minute Classification of the different types of this plastic made in the excavation report, because these types are more confined to a specific locality than the styles of the art sculpture and the terms for denoting the types of the idol plastic in the general Classification made in Swed. Cyp. Exp. IV comprise necessarily too many varieties and cannot therefore be used to indicate pre- cisely one local variety. For the relation of the local Ajia Irini periods and those of the general chronology I refer to Swed. Cyp. Exp. IV:2, pp. 191, 197 f., 207«. It goes without saying that these periods overlap each other, the intervals of the local periods, as mentioned (n. 2), being dependent on the time of inundations caused by winter floods. In cases *’ From the diagram, loc. dt., it can be seen that the Ajia Irini styles I and II correspond to the First Proto-Cypriote style, the Ajia Irini styles III and IV correspond to the S^ond Proto-Cypriote style, the Ajia Irini styles V and VI correspond to the Neo-Cypriote style, the i^ia Irini style VII corresponds to the Archaic Q^ro-Greek style. ‘ Op. dt., pp. 125 ff. * It can be seen that the local Period 1 falls within Late Cypriote III, Period 2 covers Cypro-Geometric I. II and lasted until the middle of Cypro-Geometric III, F^od 3 from the latter date until about the middle of Q^ro- Archaic I, i.e. c. 650 B.C., Period 4 from that date untü the early phase of Cypro-Archaic II, or in absolute figures c. 560 B.C., Period 5 from c. 560 to 540 B.C. and Period 6 from c. 540 to 500 B.C. 4 Digitized by LiOOQle where required for a chronological precision reference to the local periods will be made in this paper, otherwise the terms of the general chronology will be used. ln accordance with the principles of the publication of the excavation reports of the Swedish Cyprus Expedition, the finds from the sanctuary at Ajia Irini were published when the fragmentary objects had becn mended to such an extent that a material had been obtained that was considered to be sufficient to form a basis for the chronological and historical con- clusions. When the objects found on every ex- cavation site had been prepared for publication in this way there remained, however, consider- able fragments of pottery, sculptures, etc., which were brought to Sweden for studies and for further mending. It will take a long time before all this fragmentary material has been thoroughly examined and mended but it is work that is profitable from a scientific point of view and will also supply the Museum of Medi- terranean Antiquities with many valuable new acquisitions obtained from the material already existing in the museum. For some time Mr. Toulis Souidos has been systcmatically working on the fragments of lerracottas from Ajia Irini for the purpose of putting together the still disjecta membra and the results of his efforts are very satisfactory from several points of view. When Dr. Vessberg invited me to publish a paper on these partly new, partly restored finds from Cyprus I accepted his Invitation with pleasure as it offered me a desirable opportunity to retum for a while to my old hunting grounds. A well known proverb says: ”Love does not tamish with age.” I wish to emphasize that the sculptures dealt with here do not include all those from Ajia Irini restored by Mr. Souidos. The restored terracotta figures not considered here belong, however, entirely to the category of idol plastic which is already represented by many similar specimens and their restoration includes only minor details, falling within the sphere of museal preservation but of no particular scien- tific interest. On the other hand it should be noted that some interesting fragmentary sculp- tures have been left out of consideration in this paper, in the hope that the missing parts will be found in the course of continued restoration work. It is therefore not out of the question that there will be material for a second supplementary note on the Ajia Irini sculptures to be published on a later occasion. Surveying the scientific results of the res- toration work we can sum them up in the foUowing way: no evidence has appeared in- consistent with the historical conclusions drawn from the material existing at the time of the publication of the excavation report but several interesting particulars have been added to our picture of the section of ancient life in Cyprus as revealed by the finds from Ajia Irini. These particulars will be summed up in the final chapter of this paper. Düring my work in preparing this paper Mr. Bror Millberg, draughtsman at the Museum of Mediterranean Antiquities, has rendered me invaluable Service in many ways for which I wish to express my sincerest thanks to him, and it is also a pleasure to acknowledge a very instructive discussion with Mr. Tom Möller, sculptor and teacher at Konstfackskolan, Stock- holm, about some technical problems connected with the sculptures from Ajia Irini. Object register N. B. Clay and slip are described only when not mcn- tioned in the excavation report and measures are given only in case the parts added to the objects have changed their principal dimensions. POTTERY No. 2414 (Swed. Cyp. Exp. II, p. 763;. White Painted IV— V amphora; the second handle and parts of the shoulder and rim added; somewhat drooping rim; the vertical lines dividing the metope decoration on the shoulder are more or less rippled; the outer line of the concentric circles, both those on the shoulder and the neck, is often thicker than the others but there 5 Digitized by v^ooQle are also circles formed by concentric lines of uniform width; the bodies of the female figurines on the handles are modelled by hand but the heads are made in a mould, a variety of Type 7 (op. dt, p. 788), with oval face, curved nose, thick lips, elliptic eyes and wig-shaped hair; the anns (in part broken off) were bent upwards with the hands below the breasts; dressed in a long tunic, painted red, with black border and black girdle across waist, shoes painted red with black top-border; hair black; traces of red paint on lips and ears, black on eyes. Incisions of signs indicating marks of capacity: iZZZlllUlll: The dots indicate the beginning and end of the marks of capacity and serve to prevent the additions of further signs (Fig. 1). BULL STATUETTES Type 1 No, 2770 {op, dt, p. 774). Horns reconstructed from a fragment of a similar Statuette with one hom entirely preserved (Fig. 2 b, right) found in Square D3; left hind leg added; lower part of right hind leg reconstructed (Fig. 2 a and b, left). Type 4 No, 2034 {op, dt, p. 749). Right hom added and left hom reconstructed in plaster; traces of snake curling also from base of right foreleg up to neck; small part of back reconstructed in plaster as well as left hind leg and base of right hind leg (Fig. 3). No, 2045 {op, dt, p. 150)+Suppl, No, 2809, To the bulFs head, No. 2045, the body, Suppl. No. 2809, has been added. This Statuette was assigned to Type 4 in the excavation report owing to the fact that at the time of the publication of that report only the head of the Statuette was known to exist and that is very similar to those of Type 4. The discovery of fragments of the body joined to the head shows, however, that this Statuette fonns properly a type of its own, but Fig. I. White Painted IV-V amphora, No. 2414 (a); one of the handles (b); indsed signs of capadty (c). may also bc considered as a variety of Type 4. The body is short and barrel-shaped without back-bone; cylindrical legs with somewhat widening base; forelegs with knees marked by projections; hind legs with ridges marking their bony structure; hole on buttock; tail missing, but must have been freely hanging; short neck with ridged top and brisket in front; triangulär head with tubulär mouth; prominent eyes; pointed pellet ears; curved homs; traces of black paint on mouth. Tail missing and parts of ridges on hind legs; left foreleg, parts of body and left hom restored in plaster. Brown clay; greenish grey-yellow slip. Length 25.3 cm.; height 33.0 cm. (Fig. 4). Type 5 No, 2027 {op. dt, p. 749). Left hom added; upper part of right hom reconstructed in plas- ter; tail falling along left hind leg, instead of right hind leg, as stated erroneously in loc, dt, (Fig. 5). Type 7 No, 2349 {op. dt. p. 761). Homs and left foreleg added; right foreleg reconstructed in plaster (Fig. 6). MINOTAUR STATUETTE No. 1775 {op. dt. p. 740). Tail falling along right hind leg; female breasts deflected aside beneath the arms and seen in profile; two holes, one on ehest and one on buttock (correction of misprint in loc. dt.)\ traces of genitalia above front hole, similar to those of No. 2320 {op. dt. PI. CCXXVn:2); traces of two snakes (not one as stated in the excavation report) coiling on the sides of the animafs body to human part of the body, passing the female breasts behind to the neck, perhaps lifted by the hands of the minotaur as on No. 2031+2361 {op. dt, PI. CCXXVII:!), a minotaur figure that is very simi- lar to the one here in question; left arm added; left foreleg added; right hind leg reconstmeted in plaster; in op. dt. PI. CCXXVII only the human part of the Statuette reproduced (Fig. 7). 7 Digitized by v^ooQle Fig. 4. Bull Statuette, No. 2045 ’\-Suppl.No. 2809, Fig. 3. Bull Statuette, No. 2034. *ir 1 > 1 Digitized by v^ooQle Fig, 5. Bull Statuette, No. 2027. Fig. 6. Bull Statuette, No. 2349. Fig. 7 . Minotaur Statuette, No. 1775 Fig. 8. Rider Statuette, Suppl.No. 2789. GooqIc Digitized by RIDER SuppL No. 2789. Fragment of ridcr Statuette; the horse with flattened cylindrical body; peg- shaped legs; short, somewhat lifted tail; neck and head missing; horseman naked; upper part of body and left leg missing. Red-brown clay and brown slip. Hand-made. Length of horse (including tail) 19.0 cm. (Fig. 8). CHARIOTS No. 1998 {pp. dt. p. 748). Front-cover and side- cover of the outer right horse added; left arm of warrior resting on shoulder of driver (Fig. 9). No. 249+115 (op. cit. p. 683). Front-covers of horses added; they are decorated with crescent omament in relief and fringed border below; the two figures of which only traces were remained when op. cit. was published have been largely recovered: to the right is the driver, with lower part of arms missing; his head is moulded, similar to those of the female figurines on the amphora, No. 2414 (Fig. 1), and of the sphinx, No. 2331 (Fig. 52), with large leaf-shaped eyes, full lips, wig-shaped hair-dress, plain beard of which the point is broken off; to the left is the warrior; head missing; left arm advanced and hand resting on left front corner of chariot; traces of shield remain on front part of chariot; the right arm of warrior resting on back and right shoulder of driver; reins of left pair of horses and beam and yoke of right pair of horses restored in plaster (Fig. 10). No. 1123+ 789+1864+1971 (op. cit. p. 711). Behind the archer, something has been broken off on the chariot, probably remains of a quiver with arrows similar to those of No. 2000; body of chariot with somewhat concave flanks and front (Fig. 11). No. 1168 (op. cit. p. 714). The fragments of the chariot have been joined as far as possiblc 10 Digitized by v^ooQle Fig. 10. Chariot, No. 249+115. showing the body of the chariot with concave rear; dome-shaped part excised in front and front, slightly curved flanks and open rear; flanks; longitudinal partition wall in the chariot plain wheels with projecting hubs; no remains with an erect Support ending in a loop at the of driver and warrior; four horses with short, rear; plain wheels, of which only fragment of Ihin bodies; peg-shaped legs; roughly shaped, one wheel remains, attached to the flanks of the plain front-covers; flattened necks; ”bird’s” chariot. Fragments of two figurines, one in each heads with bulging eyes; pellet ears. Beams, compartment: to the left a figurine with the left yokes, reins and parts of horses’ bodies missing, arm advanced; most of right arm missing; face in part restored in plaster as also small missing damaged; pointed beard and pellet ears; to the parts of chariot. Red-brown clay; brown slip. right only cylindrical torso of figurine preserved Hand-made. Length 21.0 cm. (Fig. 12). and small part of left arm. No remains of Suppl. No. 2790. Fragments of a chariot with horses. Brown clay and slip. Hand-made. concave front, slightly curved flanks, and open Length 19.0 cm. (Fig. 13). 11 Digitized by v^ooQle 12 Digitized by v^ooQle No, 2388 {op. cit, p. 162)+SuppL No. 2791. No. 2388 includes only the charioteer; the resl (Suppl. No. 2791) is composed of fragments. The chariot is oval in shape, open in the rear; it rested by means of two cylindrical, low Supports on the disc, which is now missing; the chariot has a longitudinal partition wall I cnding in the rear with a loop-shaped, erect Support; no wheels, only an axis projecting from the flanks of the chariot; finger-prints are prescrved on the ends of the axes and also in part on the light sUp showing that there had been no wheels broken off from the axes; either the wheels were indicated by paint on the flanks of the chariot (there are faint traces of black paint on the right flank) or were not indicated at all, the axis serving as pars pro toto; in the left compartment the charioteer, No. 2388; four horses with short bodies; peg-shaped legs; wedge-shaped necks with flat front; narrow, long heads; incised mouth and nostrils; pellet ears; plain head-cover; nose-band; cheek-bands; front-covers with crescent-shaped omament in relief; outer horse also with similar side-covers; tails attached to left legs; yokes across the necks and two beams from yokes to chariot; pieces missing and in part restored in plaster. Brown clay; light-coloured slip, mostly effaced. Hand- made. Length 24.5 cm. (Fig. 14). No. 804+944+1338 {pp. cit. pp. 696, 702, 720). No. 804 refers to the warrior, No. 944 to the outer left horses and No. 1338 was described as fragments of a chariot. This is rectangular in shape and rests directly on the base plate; longitudinal partition wall with remains of Support in the rear; plain wheels (only one preserved) with projecting hubs and attached to the flanks of the chariot; in the right compart- ment Stands the driver with advanced arms; trunk-shaped body; pellet ears; pinched nose; pointed cap; in the left compartment is the warrior of similar type; arms missing; helmet with cheek-pieces; four horses with flattened bodies; peg-shaped legs; bodies united with 15. Chariot, No. 804 + 944 ■¥ 1338. 13 Digitized by v^ooQle Fig. 16. Group of ring dancers and musician, No. 1693 +2083. joined pieces of clay; cylindrical, flattened necks; plain front-cover; narrow, bird-Uke heads; eyes indicated by plain elevations; Winkers; neck- covers with plumes broken off; head- and neck- cover; neck-band with plain tassel in front; freely hanging tails, broken off; yokes, beams and reins missing as well as pieces of horses, in part restored in plaster. Red-brown clay; light- coloured slip, in part effaced. Hand-made. Length 24.0 cm. (Fig. 15). Suppl, No, 2792, Chariot, fragmentary; only base-plate and horses (part missing) preserved; the horses are of the type represented in the preceding group. Similar clay and slip. Height 15.8 cm., length 26.5 cm. No, 1687 {pp, dt, p. 735). When described in loc, dt, only part of the body was preserved and erroneously identified with that of a bull Sta- tuette. The neck and head have now been joined to the body making the bull into a horse. This has formed part of a four in hand drawing a chariot. The body of the horse is cylindrical, short, peg-shaped legs; wedge-shaped neck with flattened front; narrow head with prominent eyes; head-cover; tail (restored partly in plaster) 14 attached to right hind leg; nose missing as well as left foreleg, both restored in plaster. Brown clay and slip. Hand-made. Length 15.5 cm. Suppl, No, 2793, Similar horse with nose pre- served, showing incised mouth and nostrils; left hind leg and lower part of right fore leg restored in plaster. Clay and slip as preceding. Hand- made. Length 15.4 cm. RING DANCERS No. 1693+2083 (op, dt, p. 735). Only three figurines had been identified when the descrip- tion was made in loc, dt, The group consists now of five figurines, two female and two male dancers Standing opposite each other along the periphery of the disc plate; in the middle is a male musician wearing a strap around his left Shoulder; this strap probably served to suspend a String instrument. The figurines are all made in the ”snow-man” technique, with trunk- shaped bodies; pellet female breasts; pellet ears and noses; the female dancers have long, plain hair falling behind; all the figurines have bands wound round the head; the dancers have their arms outstretched (parts missing). Red-brown Digitized by v^ooQle day and slip. Hand-made. Disc diam. 16.0 cm.; height of figurines 8.5— 9.5 cm. (Fig. 16). SCULPTURES OF THE FIRST PROTO- CYPRIOTE STYLE .Vo. 1726 (pp. dt. p. 737). The head is somewhat similar to No. 1 as stated in loc. cit. but shows several distinct fcatures of its own. The eyes are ev'enly elliptical; the nose has been added and is rather thin and protniding as the lips; chin with rounded beard and moustache painted in black as iris of eyes and eye-brows; hair behind indicated as elevated surface, probabiy also painted black but all traces of paint are effaced; face and neck painted red; head and helmet made in one piece; helmet without cheek-pieces, with straight top, broken off; plain ears, in the left one fragment of pierced bronze ring, the right one with earring of terracotta of which also only a fragment is preserved. Brown clay; traces of wheel inside, but the facial features modelled by hand. (For the probable connexion of this head with the torso No. 1843, cf. pp. 35 f.). Height 18.5 cm. (Fig. 17). Suppl. No. 2794. Fragment of head of statue, with the face fairly well preserved. The face is quite similar to those of Nos. 1 + 1618+ 1619 and 1728+1740. Only small fragments of eyelids preserved but traces of them are visible all round the eye-balls; double-spiral incised below mouth; ear-rings of terracotta in the fairly carefully modelled ears; pointed beard, with converging, longitudinal grooves; end of beard missing; fragments of conical helmet; traces of black paint on beard. Red-brown clay; l»^own slip. Traces of wheel inside, but facial features made by hand. Height 20.2 cm. (Fig. 18). Suppl. No. 2795. Statuette composed of six fragments with joints at neck, waist, lower right arm, beneath hips and at ankles; Standing on rectangular plaque with the left leg somewhat advanced; feet wearing shoes; tubulär legs with tibia and knees indicated; narrow waist; some- wfaat bulging ehest; broad shoulders; arms vertical, stuck to body; plain hands; narrow. trapezoid face; plain, pointed beard; incised mouth; almost straight nose; prominent cheeks; long, lancet-shaped eye-balls and ridged brows; peUet ears; conical helmet with top falling along the back of head and neck; dressed in a jerkin, probabiy of leather, with short sleeves and a tunic with overlapping flaps, held by a plain band in relief around the waist indicating a girdle. Red-brown clay and slip. Hand-made. Height 34.5 cm. (Fig. 19). No. 1071 (op. cit. p. 708). Upper part of right arm and adjoining part of body added; lower part of body added and in part restored in plaster (Fig. 20). No. 1843 (op. cit. p. 743). Added vertical arms with slightly curved fingers and advanced thumb; erect collar ending the leather jerkin in front and at the back of neck; the head (cf. below) was attached separately. The jerkin was provided with side-flaps; no girdle indicated plastically but probabiy in paint now effaced; beneath this supposed girdle vertical folds grooved. Back- hole. Red-brown clay; jerkin covered with a light slip; arms and hands painted in red; part of fingers and thumb of right hand missing as well as part of fingers of left hand. Hand-made; upper part of body and neck-collar built up of superimposed Strips. Height 42.0 cm. (Fig. 21; Fig. 22 shows the statue with the head, No. 1726, probabiy belonging to it; cf. pp. 35 f.). SCULPTURES OF THE SECOND PROTO- CYPRIOTE STYLE No. 1748+2053 (op. cit. pp. 739, 751). The head, No. 2053, has been joined to the torso, No. 1748. Added lower part of left arm. Red-brown clay; brown slip. Lower part of body wheel-made; upper part hand-made; head attached separately. Traces of black paint on hair and red on face. Height 35,0 cm. (Fig. 23). No. 1098 (op. cit. p. 710)+Suppl. No. 2796. Body with two holes, one on each side near the base; lower part of body wheel-made; upper part hand-made, in the Strip technique. Added part of head (Suppl. No. 2796), in part restored 15 Digitized by v^ooQle Figs. 17—22. Sculptures of the First Proto- Cypriote Style. Fig. 18. Head, Suppl.No. 2794, front view (a) and pro- fite(b). Fig. 17. Head. No. 1726. Digitized by Fig. 19. Statuette, Suppl.No. 2795. Fig. 20. Statuette, No. 1071. Fig. 21. Torso of statue, No. 1843. Fig. 22. Torso of statue, No. 1843, with the head, No. 1726, added. Digitized by Fig. 24. Statuette, No. 1098+Suppl.No. 2796, front view (a) and profile (b). Fig. 23. Statuette, No. 1748+2053. Fig. 25. Head, Suppl.No. 2797. Digitized by Google Figs. 23— 27. Sculptures of the Second Proto Cypriote Style. Fig. 27. Head, Suppl.No. 2798. Fig. 26. Statuette, No. 1276. Digitized by Fig. 28. Statuette, No. 1049-{- 1054 + I325+Suppl.No. 2799. 20 in piaster, made in the same mould as the head of Nos. 936, 1724 and 1725 {pp. dt. PI. CCIX 1 - 4, 6); pendants in the ears. Right eye, righ and central parts of forehead and top of hea< missing. Black paint on hair, ears, and pendants Red-brown clay; buff grey-yellow slip. Heigh 48.0 cm. (Fig. 24). Suppl. No. 2797. Head of Statuette as that o No. 1 141 {op. dt. PI. CCXII: 3, 6, 7); around th. neck a string with a pendant indicating a woman beneath the pendant horizontally grooved fold of the dress; small part of hair with vertica narrow incisions visible beneath flat band ar ound the head; traces of black paint on the haii and the eye-brows. Red-brown, hard clay an< light slip. Moulded. Height 15.0 cm. (Fig. 25) No. 1276 (op. dt. p. 717). Added end of bearc with traces of the periphery of a round shield there are also traces of the shieid on the right upper arm; from these traces the diameter ol the shield can be estimated at c. 8.0 cm.; the left hand of the figure has apparently seized the handle of the shield; the right hand has prob- ably had a spear of which there are traces in front beneath the strap in which the sword is hanging below the left arm. For the hole cut on top of the head mentioned in the excavation report, cf. p. 37. Red-brown clay and slip. Lower part of body wheei-made; ehest hand- made; face moulded. Height 35.5 cm. (Fig. 26). Suppl. No. 2798. Head of life-size Statue; face of trapezoidal shape with long beard tapering towards the straight-cut end, its hair indicated by small, dose incisions, and continuing along the cheeks; protruding lips damaged; nose with somewhat uptumed tip; bow-shaped, large eyes; eye-brows with narrow, vertical incisions; small part of hair with narrow, vertical indsions visible beneath remains of helmet or cap; roughly mo- delled ears with double earrings; parts missing. restored in plaster. Hand-made. Brown, sifted clay. Traces of black paint on face; red slip on face and helmet. Height 22.0 cm. (Fig. 27). Figs. 28—29. Sculptures of Neo-Cypriote Style. Digitized by v^ooQle Fig. 29, Fragment of head, No, 915, SCULPTURES OF NEO-CYPRIOTE STYLE No, 1049+1054+1325 (op. cit, pp. 706 f., 719) ^Suppl. No, 2799, To thc upper part of the body, No. 1049, the lower part of the legs, No. 1054, the left arm, No. 1325, and the upper part of legs and the body below the waist, Suppl. No. 2799, have been added. The lower part of the legs join to their upper part and the body below the waist; that this part of the body belongs to the upper part is proved by the fact that the dimensions fit exactiy and the clay is identical; that the left arm belongs to the Statuette is indicated by the fact that the arm is marked by a roughly circular groove made when the clay was wet and that the same sign is found on the left side-flap, these signs evidently made by the artist in Order to facilitate the association of the arm with the Statuette after the firing, if that took place on different occasions or in different kilns which seems to have been the case to judge by the fact that the clay of the arm is more light-coloured than the rest of the Statue; this difference in colour was counterbalanced with a reddish paint added to the surface of the exterior part of the arm while the interior part, being dose by the body and not well visible, was left unpainted; of the same reddish paint there are traces on the rest of the Statuette (cf. below). The upper part of body and lower parts of legs as described, loc, cit,; the left hand is adomed with a circular armlet and holds a circular object; the modelling of the lower apophysis of the cubit-bone is similar to that of the right arm and also the partition of the fingers by grooved lines and the careful modell- ing of the nail of the thumb are features charac- teristic of both arms forming additional evi- dence of their association. The part of the Chiton on the lower part of the body is provided with side-flaps and a plain girdle at the waist; below that are grooved pendent folds; the chiton ends with a central flap between the thighs, proved by a border marked by a grooved line and continuing at the sides by vertical grooves to the side-flaps; the lower border of the left sleeve of the chiton is marked by clear traces and has been restored in piaster corresponding to the preserved border of the right arm; there are faint traces of black colour on the hair and on the brows and of a reddish colour both on the chiton where it may have formed a pattem and on the naked parts of the body, e. g. on the feet and on the ears. Height 98.0 cm. (Fig. 28). No, 915 (op, cit, p. 701). Not illustrated in op, cit, (Fig. 29). SCULPTURES OF CYPRO-GREEK STYLE No, 2502 (op, cit, p. 767). The parts described as missing in loc, cit, have been restored in piaster. The following details may be added to the description given in loc, cit, The chin is pointed; lips protruding and a concave modelling around the mouth emphasizes these features; traces of red upper border of the chiton in front and also of band decorated with ladder-pattem along 21 Digitized by v^ooQle Fig. 36 a. Head, No. 2469. Fig. 34. Statuette, No. 2497 + 2477 2478, profilc (a) and front view (b). Figs. 30 — 38. Sculptures of Cypro-Greek Style Fig. 35 a. Statuette, No. 2467 +Suppl.No. 2802 Fig. 30 b. Profile of head, No. 2502. Fig. 36 b. Profile of head, No. 2469. Fig. 32 b. Profile of Fig. 35 b. Profile of head, No. 2456. head, No. 2467. Digitized by CjOOQIc Fig, 37. Statuette t No. 2434"^Suppl.No. 2803, front view (a), profile (b). Fig. 38. Statuette, No. 2446+2448. left side of body; ears and naked parts of arms with traces of red colour; traces of black colour on the hair which falls in a compact mass on thc back of head, with slightly concavc sides. Lower part of body wheel-made; upper part hand-made; head with traces of wheel inside, but facial features hand-made (Fig. 30). No. 2169+1603+2475 (op. cit. pp. 733, 755, 766). Added to the head, No. 2169, a fragment of the body, with the left arm, No. 1603, and the right arm with part of the body, No. 2475. The body is restored in plaster below. Lower part of body tubulär, wheel-made; upper part is flattened with broad, sloping shoulders and built up by Strips; arms vertical with closed hand; of fingers only thumb modelled; part of right thumb and of left hand missing. Brown clay; light-brown slip. Lower part of body wheel-made; upper part 24 built up of superimposed Strips as also the head. Height 49.0 cm. (Fig. 31) No. 2456 (op. cit. p. 765)+5i^p/. No. 2800. To the Statuette as described in loc. cit.j the right arm and lower part of left arm have been added as well as small parts of the body, Suppl. No. 2800; parts of the body below restored in plaster; dressed in a chiton with short sleeves indicated by shallow, grooved line on upper part of arms; below that the muscles of the arm roughly in- dicated by a concavity. Brown clay; buff-grey slip. Lower part of body wheel-made; upper part built up of superimposed Strips as also the head. Height 53.0 cm., part added in plaster not included (Fig. 32). No. 2462 (op. cit. p. 76S)+Suppl. No. 2801. To the head, No 2462, described in loc. cit. the rest of the Statuette has been added from fragments, Digitized by v^ooQle Suppl. No. 2801. Figure Standing on a base tablet with almost isolinear feet, but left foot slightly advanced; feet with pointed shoes; ankles well indicated; lower part of body tubu- lär, wheel-made; upper part is built up by Strips; female breasts and pellet nipples indicated; broad, sloping shoulders; vertical arms with closed hand; of the fingers only thumb modelled and nail indicated; dress with short sleeves indicated by ridges across upper arms; in front the dress ends somewhat above the instep; at the back it falls with side-flaps widening towards the ground and ending only a little above it; chin with an impressed dimple; traces of black lines indicating eyelids. Lower part of right arm and part of hand of left arm missing; parts of body restored in plaster. Brown clay; buff grey and grey-brown slip. Lower part of body wheel-made; upper part hand-made, built up of strips as also the head. Height 71.5 cm. (Fig. 33). No. 2497+2477+2478 (op. dt. p. 766). The arms, Nos. 2477 and 2478, have been added to the bust, No 2497. Two fingers of the right hand and part of all the fingers of the left hand are missing; lower part of body restored in plaster. Traces of red paint on arms. Baking holes in arms, back of body and back of head. Lower part of body probably tubulär and wheel-made; upper part hand-made, built up of strips; head added separately and inside with traces of wheel, but features of face modelled by hand; helmet, with remains of ridged crest, added separately. Red-brown clay; buff-white slip; red paint on face. Height 51.0 cm. (Fig. 34). No. 2467 {op. dt. p. 165)+Suppl. No. 2802. Two pieces of the right part of the bust have been added (Suppl. No. 2802). The preserved part of the bust and the head hand-made, in the Strip technique. Dress painted with a reddish colour on which converging black lines and deep-red bands. Brown clay. Height 26.0 cm. (Fig. 35). No. 2469 (op. dt. p. 766). Head of Statuette. Four small pieces have been added to the part de- scribcd in loc. dt.: face of trapezoidal shape with pointed chin; protruding, smiling lips; concave part around mouth; prominent, straight and thin nose; bulging, almond-shaped eye- balls; ridged brows; roughly shaped, plain ears with double earrings; helmet or cap; neck bclow and right part of cap and small part at right temple restored in plaster. Brown clay; light buff- grey slip. Lower part wheel-made; upper part hand-made; features of face modelled by hand. Height 18.0 cm. (Fig. 36). No. 2434 {op. dt. p. lfA)+Suppl. No. 2803. Fragments of the head, Suppl. No. 2803, have been added to the body, No. 2434. Lower part of body tubulär, wheel-made; upper part flattened and hand-made; broad, sloping shoulders; verti- cal arms; hands closed with modelled fingers and straight thumb; long, tapering neck; almost tri- angulär face; pointed chin; smiling, full lips; concave part around mouth; curved, thin nose; prominent, almond-shaped eyes; roughly shaped ears with double earrings; helmet or cap; hair falling at back of head and neck in a compact mass. Red-brown clay; light slip. Traces of wheel inside, but features of face hand-made. Height 67.5 cm. (Fig. 37). No. 2446+2448 {op. dt. p. 765). Missing parts restored in plaster. This figure is a repräsentative of the Cypro-Greek style in the idol Version, corresponding to the large idols related to Proto-Cypriote and Neo-Cypriote styles (cf. p. 37). Brown clay; light yellow slip. Hand-made (Fig. 38). SMALL HUMAN IDOLS Type 1 Suppl. No. 2804. Female idol; cylindrical body splaying towards the plain base; breasts indicated by conical projections; arms uplifted; face roughly triangulär with rounded chin; incised mouth; thick nose; circular pellet eyes; thick brows; flat, rectangular hair-dress, covered with black paint in front, hair indicated by vertical black lines behind; encircling black lines on body. Part of nose, of left arm and of body missing. Light-brown clay. Body wheel-made. Height 10.5 cm. (Fig. 39). 25 Digitized by v^ooQle Figs. 39—41. Small Human Idols. Fig. 39. Female idol, No. 2804, front (a) and back- side (b). Fig. 41. Statuette, No. 1421, profile (a), front view (b). Digitized by Type 3 Siq>pL No. 2805. Statuette with tubulär body; splayed base; arms once attached on shoulder but now missing; head of triangulär shape; roughly shaped nose; large pellet eyes; heavy brows; narrow, tall helmet, similar to Nos. 1503, 1994, 2363. Red-brown clay and slip. Wheel- made. Height 29.3 cm. (Fig. 40). Type 7 No. 1421 {pp. dt. p. 733). In the second diagram, op. cit. foUowing p. 812, this Statuette has been crroneously classified as ”Large human idol”. It belongs instead to the category of ”Small human idols”, Type 7 {op. dt. p. 788), i.e. idols with moulded heads, similar to those of the statuettes illustrated in op. dt. PI. CCXXXII: 6-8. Red-brown clay and light yellow slip. Body wheel-made; face moulded (Fig. 41). LARGE HUMAN IDOLS Type 1 No. 2316 {op. dt. p. 759). Added: upper part of both arms (Fig. 42). No. 2372 {op. dt. p. 762). Added: lower part of left arm; base restored in plaster (Fig. 43). Type 2—3 No. 3+1773 {op. dt. pp. 675, 740). Head, No. 3, added to body No. 1773. Lower part of body wheel-made, upper part hand-made. Brown clay; buff, light-brown slip. Height 62.5 cm. (Fig. 44). Type 3 No. 1017 (op. cit. p. 704)+5i(Rp/. No.2806.TYic Upper part of body, arms, and head, Suppl. No. 2806, have been added to the lower part of body, No. 1017. Lower part of body wheel-made, upper part hand-made; head wheel-made but features of face modelled by hand. Body elliptical in section; flattened ehest; sloping shoulders; vertical arms with closed hand; modelled fingers, straight thumb; long cylindrical neck; head trape- zoidal; pointed beard; incised mouth; thin nose; slightly elevated eye-balls; ridged brows; roughly shaped ears with earrings; hair in compact mass falling at the back of neck; conical helmet of which upper part missing. Back-hole. Dark-grey to brown clay; greenish-yellow to buff grey slip. Height 67.0 cm. (Fig. 45). No. 1065 {op. dt. p. 708). Added: right arm (Fig. 46). No. 1143 {op. dt. pp. 712 f.). Added: left arm (Fig. 47). No. 1643 {op. dt. p. 734). Added: lower part of left arm; part of both hands missing (Fig. 48). No. 1980 {op. dt. p. 747). Not illustrated in op. dt. (Fig. 49). Type 4 No. 1021 {op. dt. pp. 704 f.). Not illustrated in op. dt. (Fig. 50). No. 909 {op. dt. p. 700). Not illustrated in op. dt. (Fig. 51). VARIOUS Lateral part of throne No. 2331 {op. dt. p. 760). Top of Banking side of throne reconstructed in plaster; not illustrated in op. dt. (Fig. 52). Flower Suppl. No. 2807. Four peripherical leaves and one central leaf, probably offered by votaries. Two specimens. Length 7.3 and 7.8 cm. Found in D 4 (Fig. 53). Thunderbolt Suppl. No. 2808. Spirally wound thunderbolts, four complete specimens and two fragments, one with preserved alternately red and black painted bands. One thunderbolt with bent shaft- hole and incised lines between ridges of the spiral windings and on the part of the thunder- bolt between the windings and the shaft-hole. Found in K-L 11. Length 16.0—19.3 cm. (Fig. 54). Detail Detail of ear of No. 1356 {op. dt. p. 720), show- ing ear pierced by four holes (Fig. 55). Vase Suppl. No. 2810. Vase in the shape of an astra- galos; neck broken off; fragment of handle from body to neck. Found in E 9. Brown clay; buff- yellow slip. Length 8.5 cm. (Fig. 56). 27 Digitized by v^ooQle Figs. 42—51. Large Hurrtan Idols. Fig, 42, Bisexual idoL No. 2316. Fig. 45. Statuette, No. (a), front view (b). 28 Fig. 44. Statuette, No.3+1773, profile (a), front view (b). Digitized by Google Digitized by v^ooQle Remarks and conclusioiis The amphora, No. 2414, was in the excavation report (pp. dt. p. 763) classified as White Painted IV— V. Such a Classification is still warranted. Contact with Type IV is shown by the fairly similar shape of the Bichrome Red I (IV) amphora, op. dt. IV:2, Fig. XLII:7, but the amphora No. 2414 has a drooping rim and an angular biconical body, characteristic fea- tures of Type V, whereas the rim of the Bi- chrome Red I (IV) is flat and its body rounded biconical. The parts added to the body of the amphora No. 2414, as a result of the mending Work, have increased the stylistic tendencies of Type V by the fact that the shape of the body can be proved to be angular-biconical. A date of about the middle of the 6th Century B.C. is indicated on ceramic evidence and this is con- firmed by the style of the female figurines attached to the handles. Their moulded heads indicate the initial phase of the Neo-Cypriote style. We know that the stylistic features of the Proto-Cypriote faces were transformed and modified in the Neo-Cypriote style, which tends towards a canonic form, with less individual variations than before; the modelling is smooth and shallow, no details are accentuated, and the different parts of the face merge softly into one another. The transition between the last phase of the Second Proto-Cypriote and the initial phase of the Neo-Cypriote style is gradual and these phases of the two styles are in fact Contemporary as shown by the find-contexts’. On the other hand the difference between the latest specimens of the Second Proto-Cypriote style and the earliest representatives of the Neo- Cypriote style is equally clear; it is instructive to compare the faces of the Neo-Cypriote figurines here in question with those of the Second Proto-Cypriote style illustrated in op. ’ Op. dt. pp. 208 f.: the Second Proto-Cypriote style lasted from c. 600 to 540 B.C. and the Neo-Cypriote style from c. 560 to 520 B.C. 32 dt. II, PI. CCIX: the softly modelled faces of the Neo-Cypriote figurines, with the flabby cheeks, fleshy, round chin, full lips and narrow, leaf- shaped eyes contrast with the firmer structure of the Second Proto-Cypriote faces, with their wide, leaf-shaped or semi-lunar eyes and thia, straight lips. As mentioned above (p. 4), the initial date of the Neo-Cypriote style is c. 560 B.C. and the chronological evidence given by the style of the amphora, c. 550 B. C., is thus confirmed by its sculptural adomment. The capacity of the amphora can be calculated to have been between c. 38 and 41 1., the neck not included. The incised signs indicate the capacity of the contents, not the amphora itself, as there is nothing to show that this amphora served as a Standard measure. What we know about the System of capacity of ancient Cyprus is very little and refers to late antiquity*. No doubt the Cypriote System of capacity formed part of those of Egypt and the Near East during the Archaic period when the Cypriote cultural relations were intimate with these regions of the Mediterranean*. The basic unit has therefore most probably been equivalent to the Egyptian Hin, the Phoenician-Hebrew Log, the Babylo- nian Ka, and to the Creek xestes (dikotylon). derived from this Oriental system of capacity^*, and if we identify this basic unit with that indicated by each single stroke, the higher unit of measure indicated by the Z-shaped sign must have been the Cypriote measure of capacity equivalent to the Creek hemiamphorion, be- cause the measure equivalent to a metretes would have resulted in a capacity very much exceeding that of the amphora, and a unit minor to that of a hemiamphorion would result in a capacity much too small for that of the amphora: • ® A survey of the litcrary evidence is given by Sakjel- LARios, Ta KoKpiaxct I, pp. 634 ff. • Swed. Cyp. Exp. IV:2, pp. 226 ff. ViEDEBANTT, Forschungen zur Metrol. d. Ahert (Abh. phil.-hist. Kl. Königl. Sächs. Ges. Wiss. XXXIV. No. III. 1917), pp. 49. 60. 129, 131, 159 f. Digitized by v^ooQle it would be natural if the total measure indicated would have been somewhat, but not much, smaller than the capacity of the amphora. 8 units equivalent to the xestes and 3 units equivalent to the hemiamphorion would yield a total amount of between 36 and 37 1., a total amount, which considering the approximate exactitude of the measures used and local differences prevailing, agrees well with both the capacity of the amphora and the probable System of capacity used in Cyprus during the Archaic period. Tuming now to the scolptures we may first emphasize the fact that several sculptures have had their artistic value considerably increased by the restoration work. A bull Statuette without legs and homs is a miserable sight; from an aesthetic point of view the look of the Late Cypriote m bull Statuette, Fig. 2, has improved very much by the restoration of its homs and legs and the same holds good for the Cypro- Geometric (Figs. 3, 4) and Cypro- Archaic (Fig. 6) statnettes. If the reader is interested in the matter, she or he may compare Figs. 2—4, 6 with op. cit, Pis. CCXXIV:!, 2; CCXXV:1, 3, 6 to see the difference between the present and earlier appearance of these bull statuettes. The bull Statuette, Fig. 5, represents a new type or rather a variety of Type 4 (p. 7): the head is similar to those of Type 4, of Cypro- Geomctric I— II, but the body put together from sherds is barrel-shaped, similar to that of No. 2315 (pp. cit. PL CCXXV:5) dating from Cypro- Archaic period. The bull Statuette, Fig. 5, thus forms an intermediate specimen between the Cypro-Geometric I— II and the Cypro- Archaic I bull statuettes and would therefore probably date from Cypro-Geometric III. Such a date cannot be proved, nor is it contradicted by the find-contexts; the head and fragments of the body were all found in the lower foundation deposit around the altar erected at the beginning of the local Period 3, i. e. about the middle of Cypro-Geometric III; when this new altar was erected, ex votos originally placed around the earlier altar, which was in use from the be- ginning of Cypro-Geometric I to the middle of Cypro-Geometric III, were deposited around the new altar. The bull Statuette in question forming part of the ex votos removed from the earlier to the new altar and being typologically more advanced than the Cypro-Geometric I— II statuettes would thus probably date from the early half of Cypro-Geometric III. The minotaur Statuette, Fig. 7, has been re- published on account of the fact that its de- scription in the excavation report needs some correction in details and also because the animal part of the figure is not illustrated in that report (op. CiL PI. CCXXVII:6), although it is de- scribed in the Object Register of the report (op. cit. p. 740, No. 1775). Why only the human part of this minotaur was illustrated in the excavation report 1 am unable to explain and it is of very little interest, if any at all. Of greater interest is another fact, viz. that this minotaur Statuette is similar to that of No. 2031+2361 (op. cit. PI. CCXXVIIrl): the same shape of the head, the cylindrical human body with sharply marked top, the female breasts in profile beneath the arms. For typological reasons one would not date these two statuettes very far from each other. In view of that, it is interesting to examine their find-contexts: the Statuette No. 1775 was found on the floor of the local Period 4, laid at about the middle of Cypro-Archaic I (p. 4, n. 6) and of the stauette No. 2031+2361, No. 2031 was found in the lower foundation deposit of the new altar (cf. p. 3) and No. 2361 in the waste deposit in Square K 6 on the floor of the local Period 4. An explanation of the seemingly con- flicting find-contexts of the latter Statuette has been given in the excavation report (op. cit. pp. 807 f.). Notwithstanding whether that explana- tion is accepted or not we must accept the find- context of No. 2031 as indicating the date of the Statuette which thus cannot be later than the end of the local Period 2, i. e. about the middle of Cypro-Geometric III or c. 775 B.C. As regards the date of No. 1775 the fact that it was found 33 Digitized by v^ooQle on the floor of the local Period 4 may be con- sidered to indicate that it is assignable to the time when that floor was in use, i. e. from the middle of Cypro-Archaic I to the early phase of Cypro-Archaic II, or in absolute figures c. 650— 560 B.C. (p. 4, n. 6), but there is evidence that several ex votos which originally had been placed on the floor of the local Period 3 were removed to the floor of the local Period 4 when the sanctuary of that period was constructed (op* cit. pp. 804 ff.). The local Period 3 dates from the middle of Cypro-Geometric III to the middle of Cypro-Archaic I, i.e. it covers the time between c. 775 and 650 B.C. (pp. 3, 4, n. 6» 33). Thus it may happen that some objects found on the floor of the local Period 4 are as early as c. 775 B.C. and that may therefore be the date of No. 1775, which would bring it chronologically near the Statuette No. 2031+2361. As empha- sized already in the excavation report {op. cit. pp. 804 ff.), ”stratigraphy, like all methods, is one which must be used with discretion”. The stratigraphical method can be misused if applied mechanically. The actual case illustrates that fact and shows that the typological and stylistic criteria should not be overlooked. No complete group of dancers was represented among those available at the time when the excavation report was published. The three groups so far discovered at Ajia Irini are all of different composition; one, No. 123 (op. cit. PI. CCXXIII:6), consists of three ring dancers and one central iigurine, probably the musician; the figurines, as far as preserved (the central figurine, one of the dancers and part of a second dancer) are female; the second group, No. 1169 {op. cit. p. 714), consists of two pair-dancers (not ring dancers as stated in loc. cit.); of three figurines the heads and parts of some of their arms are missing and the whole upper part of one of the fourth figurine is missing; the pairs are Standing facing each other; on the two figurines of the one side so much of the beard is preserved that they can be identified as male; probably the opposite pair was female, although indisputable 34 female indications are missing; one figurine has however, the neck preserved up to the chii without any trace of beard. The third group here illustrated in its restored condition, Fig. 1( (No. 1693+2083), consists of four ring dancers two female and two male, the dancers of diifereni sex facing each other, and a fifth figurine, the musician, in the centre. The three groups ol dancers thus represent female ring dancers. ring dancers of both sexes, and pair dancers. The groups of ring dancers are attached to a circular base, those of the pair dancers to a roughly trapezoidal base. The groups of ring dancers are provided with a central figurine acting as a musician'^ Statuettes of riders are not particularly com- mon among the finds from Ajia Irini. So far only three specimens are known and they are all of a small size (Nos. 921, 922, 1366; op. cit. pp. 701, 721; PI. CCXXIV:!). The fragmentary Statuette here illustrated, Fig. 8, is interesting as the only specimen of a rider of a larger size and of a more elaborate, though still conven- tionalized modelling, of the same type as repre- sented at Idalion (op. cit. PI. CLXXXIIilO) and elsewhere. Some of the chariols have been restored in details (Figs. 9—11), others have been put to- gether from various fragments (Figs. 12—15). Artistically they ränge from fairly well modelled specimens with details of wheels, horse-trappings etc. minutely indicated and the heads of the charioteer and warrior made in moulds of the Second Proto-Cypriote style (Figs. 9, 10), via specimens with particulars less carefullyexecuted and with the human figiuines made in the ”snow-man” technique (Figs. 11 — 13) to fairly roughly and sununarily shaped specimens (Figs. 14, 15); in Figs. 11 — 13 the wheels are plain, the horses and horse-trappings are modelled in Similar groups of ring dancers are Ulustrated in Ohne- FALSCH-RiCHTER, K.B.H. PI. CXXVII:5 (three female ring dancers and a female flute player), 6 (ring dancers of both sexes and tambourine players). Pzir dancers seem to be less commonly represented in sculpture. I do not remem- ber of any other specimen than that mentioned here. Digitized by v^ooQle a diagrammatic manner and in Fig. 14 there are no wheels at all but only an axis projecting from the flanks of the chariot; in Fig. 15, finally, the chariot rests directly on the ground and huge plain wheels were attached to the flanks of the chariot, the top of which was below the hubs of the wheels, which are therefore without functional connection with the chariot. Of particular technical interest is the evidence givcn by some of these statuettes for the con- stniction of the coach-body of the chariot. The oval, rounded shape of Fig. 14, the somewhat concave front and flanks of Fig. 11, the concave front and slightly curved flanks of Figs. 12 and 13, the latter coach-body with dome-shaped excisions both in the front and the flanks, all these characteristics seem to indicate a con- stniction of bendable wood and plaited work for the coach-bodies mentioned and that connects them technically with the Homeric xafjmvXov or kyxvXov Another type represented among the chariots found at Ajia Irini is that with straight front and flanks. That such a type seems to be represented in Fig. 15 is not con- clusive owing to the rough and summary modelling of this chariot, but the fact that this type is also represented by Figs. 9 and 10 must be considered to prove the case in view of the careful modelling of these chariots. Both types are of Oriental derivations, the first type con- nected with the light Egyptian chariot and the second type with the more heavy Assyrian chariot“. In connection with the chariots some words may be said on the arms and armoor represented by the Ajia Irini sculptures. About helmets, shields, swords, and arrows there are sufficient notes published already in the excavation report, but some remarks may here be added on one “Homer, //. V, 231; VI, 39. “ For th^ types of chariots, cf. Nuoffer, Der Renn- wagen im Altertum, Diss. Leipzig 1904; Mercklin, Der Rennwagen in Griechenland, Diss. Leipzig 1909; Nachod, Der Rennwagen bei den Italikern, Diss. Leipzig 1909; Lorimer, Homer and the Monum., pp. 307 ff.; Wace- Stubbings, A Companion to Homer, pp. 521 f., 540 f. offensive weapon, the spear, and one defensive, the leather cuirass, both illustrated by the sculptures here considered. Fig. 26 (No. 1276) shows a warrior of the Second Proto-Cypriote style, wearing a sword, a shield and a spear of which there are traces, as it seems, in front below the strap of the sword; the spear, if this interpretation is right, has been held by the hand of the right lifted arm. On a sculpture of small size as that of Fig. 26 (No. 1276), the spear could easily be of terracotta, but on sculptures of larger size this could hardly have been the case on account of the excessive fragility of a long spear of terracotta; it is therefore likely that the spears of the warrior statues of large size were of wood. There are some sculptures showing the right hand in such a Position that it may be supposed to have held a spear, e.g. Nos. 1385+1530 (op. ciL PI. CXCIV:2), 1070+ 1072+1073+1075, 1189 {pp. cit. pp. 708, 715). For the helmet (now missing) of this figure, see p. 37. A leather jerkin provided with a neck-coUar is wom by Fig. 21 (No. 1843). The head of this torso, as mentioned in the description (p. 15) was joined separately and was probably that of Fig. 17 (No. 1726). The joining part is missing, but the head was found only 0.45 m. from the torso and on the same level (both in Square K 8, at a level of 94.4, resp. 94.9), the dimensions of the head fit to those of the torso, the clay is the same, both belong to the First Proto-Cypriote style, and no other head without association with a body and of dimensions fitting the torso in question was found in Square K 8. Fig. 22 is intended to show the reader how this statue may have looked originally and, if the head against all probability does not belong, the Impression of the reconstruction must still be principally right, since the head must be that of a warrior assignable to the first Proto-Cypriote style. The neck-coUar of the leather jerkin is unique, but a jerkin of that material is also clearly represented on other sculptures, although not pointed out in the excavation report. Thus the jerkins of e.g. 35 Digitized by v^ooQle Nos. 2106+2103 (op. dt. PL CXQ and 1728+ 1740 {op. dt. PL CXCI:2, 3) arc clearly indicated to havc bccn of leather as shown by thcir stiff contour, ridged seams, and the widening openings of the sleeves in Order to enable an easier movement of the arms. Jerkins of leather (and sometimes also of linen) were in use, as we know, in Egypt and the Near EasP^ and similar leather jerkins are also known from Grcece“. The Oriental corslets were sometimes provided with a coUar, although there is no exact parallel to the Cypriote specimen here in question^*. For the time being I must limit myself to the Observation that the Ajia Irini sculptures prove the existence of leather jerkins in the Archaic period and that these jerkins sometimes were provided with that particular neck-cover shown by Fig. 22. I wish, however, to point out that a study of the Cypriote sculptures, both those found at Ajia Irini and elsewhere, will show many varieties of the jerkins or corslets^L Such a general study of Cypriote armour is out of place here and must be postponed to a later occasion. Apart from the torso and head just discussed the most interesting specimen of the First Proto- Cypriote style obtained by the restoration work is the head, Fig. 18 (No. 2794). The general shape of this head, the eyes, nose, mouth, and beard are so closely similar to those of Nos. 1 + 1618+1619 {op. dt. PL CXCI:1) and 1728+ 1740 {op. dt. PL CXCI:2, 3) that these sculptures must have been made by the same artist: the only detail distinguishing No. 2794 from the “ Bonnet, Die Waffen der Völker d. alt. Orients, pp. 209 ff.; Lorimer, op. dt., pp. 1% ff. For Cypriote lamellar armours and their Oriental Connections, see Swed. Cyp. Exp. IV:2, pp. 379 f. ” Lorimer, op. dt. pp. 134, 153, 1% ff. Bonnet, op. dt. p. 213, Fig. 106; Lorimer, op. dt. p. 198, Figs. 16, 17. Just one example; the armour of e.g. op. dt. U, Pis. CXa:l, CXaV:2, CXCVUI, CC:1, 2etc. with the leath- er jerkin endlng at the waist and the chiton appearing below that around the hips and upper part of thighs have striking parallels in the equipment of the soldiers on the warrior Stele from Mycenae and on the warrior vase from that place (cf. Lorimer, op. dt. Pis. II, 2; III, la, b.). 36 two others is the incised double spiral indicating the part of the beard below the mouth, whereas that part of the beard is indicated by a small protuberance on the other two sculptures mentioned. No. 2106+2103 {op. dt. CXC, CXCIIil) has perhaps not been made by the same artist as the sculptures mentioned but by a member of the same school of art and the relief double spiral indicating a hair lock below the helmet of No. 2106+2103 is a characteristic detail associating this sculpture with No. 2794, with its incised double spiral of a hair tuft below the mouth. Fig. 19, No. 2795, is unique among the Ajia Irini sculptures in that it represents a small-sized figure made in the manner of the large sculptures. It has its nearest parallels in the later group of the First Proto-Cypriote style corresponding to the local style II at Ajia Irini (p. 4, n. 4), as shown by a comparison with one of the leading sculp- tures of that style, No. 1763+1845 {op. cit. PI. CXCVIII): as the helmet of this statue is missing we do not know how far it was similar to that of No. 2795, but the tubulär legs, the narrow waist, the shape of the head, nose, and beard, etc. are quite similar. Proceeding now to the sculptures of the Second Proto-Cypriote style we may first point out that the figure, Fig. 23 (No. 1748+2053), represents a group of sculptures forming an intermediate stage between the idol plastic and the art sculpture (p. 4, n. 3). The head, Fig. 27 (No. 2798), belongs to a life-size statue and was modelled entirely by hand. It has no exact parallel among the other Ajia Irini sculptures of the Second Proto- Cyptriote style but several features connect it with various representatives of that style: the protruding lips correspond to those of e.g. No. 1767 {op. dt. PL CCVI:5) and No. 2072+2075 {op. dt. PL CCX), the eyes are similar to those of the latter statue but even still more to those of No. 2021 {op. dt. PL CCVI:4) with their bow-shaped lids; the brows with their narrow, vertical incisions and the beard with its hair Digitized by v^ooQle indicated by small, dose indsions have striking paiallels shown by a head in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York (Cesnola, Atlas II, PI. XVn: 129). Many heads of the smaller sculptures are cast in moulds (Figs. 24— 26). The head of the Statuette, Fig. 24 (No. 1098+2796) has many parallels among the moulded heads of the local Style III at Ajia Irini, e.g. Nos. 936, 1037+2454, 1724, 1725 {Swed. Cyp. Exp. II PI. CCIX) and the head, Fig. 25 (No. 2797) is made in the same mould as that of the Statuette No. 1141 {op. dt. PI. CCXII:3, 6, 7) belonging to the local Style IV at Ajia Irini. The head of the Statuette, Fig. 26 (No. 1276) mentioned above (p. 20), shows a technical peculiarity: on top of the skull there is a roughly oval-shaped hole cut when the clay was still unbaked; this hole was evidently inten- ded for receiving a separately made helmet. The moulded face is 20% larger than that of No. 2384 (op. dt. PI. CCXXXII:15), which is stylistically akin to No. 1276 and may represent a second "Abformung” of that prototype**. The sculptures of the Neo-Cypriote style com- prise two spedmens: one fragment of a head, Fig. 28 (No. 915) and one entire statue, Fig. 29 (No. 1054+1325+2799), both artistic products of excellent quality. The fragment No. 915 shows a strong stylistic similarity to the helmeted Neo-Cypriote head from Salamis, in fragmentary condition illu- strated in Joum. Hell. Stud. XII, 1891, p. 149, Fig. 7 and in restored condition in Swed. Cyp. Exp. IV:2, PI. IX, below, facing p. 108. The eye-brows and helmet of No. 915 are plain, whereas the brows of the Salamis head are ’Teathered” and the helmet decorated with circular indsions but otherwise the part pre- served of the face of No. 915 is almost identical with the corresponding part of the Salamis head. The Statue No. 1054+1325+2799 represents the Neo-Cypriote Version of the terracotta sculptures with modelled legs of which the First " Cf. Opusc. arch. II, pp. 1 ff. Proto-Cypriote version is represented e.g. by Nos. 1 + 1618+1619, 1728+1740 (op. dt. II, PI. CXCI), 1385+1530 (op. dt. PI. CXCIV:2), 1763+1845 (op. dt. PI. CXCVIII), 2102 (op. dt. PI. CCII) and the Second Proto-Cypriote version by No. 1767 (op. dt. Pis. CCV:1; CCVI:1). No. 947 (op. dt. p. 702) forms another instance of a similar Neo-Cypriote sculpture with modelled legs, uncovered by the dress, but the upper part of that statue has not yet been iden- tified. It can thus be seen that sculptures with modelled legs were fairly rare at Ajia Irini after the time of the First Proto-Cypriote style and, as shown below, this type of body is, so far, altogether without repräsentatives among the Ajia Irini sculptures of the Cypro-Greek style. The Neo-Cypriote body of the sculpture here in question and that of No. 947 diifer in a characteristic way from that of the Proto- Cypriote style by its slender structure and the delicate, subtle rehnement of the details, a stylistic feature that is typical of the correspond- ing stone sculptures of the Neo-Cypriote style (op. dt. IV:2, p. 108). Among the sculptures assignable to the Archak Cypro-Greek style there are two figures, Figs. 37 and 38 (Nos. 2434 and 2446+2448), which are intermediate specimens between idol plastic and art sculpture, No. 2434 approching closer to the category of art sculpture than No. 2446+2448. The body of the Cypro-Greek sculptures, as far as preserved, is tubulär or oval in section and there is only one instance, the female statue, Fig. 33 (No. 2462+2801), with modelled feet wearing pointed shoes protruding below the Chiton. There is no evidence of moulds having been used for making the faces, which seem to have been modelled altogether by hand. The moulding technique was apparently not used at Ajia Irini by the artists working in the First Proto-Cypriote and the Cypro-Greek styles, but only by those working in the Second Proto- Cypriote and Neo-Cypriote styles (cf. above and op. dt. IV:2, pp. 99, 105, 107). The individual 37 DigitizecJ by v^ooQle traits of the Cypro-Greek sculptures from Ajia Irini are very distinct and the characteristics of each artist are quite clear. The profile of the faces of Figs. 30 (No. 2502) and 36 (No. 2469) are exactly similar and also their front views, although the face of No. 2469 is broader than that of No. 2502. The similarity of the facial features is so great that we must suppose that these two sculptures were made by the same artist. The same holds good for the figures of Figs. 32, 33 and 35 (Nos. 2456+2800, 2462+ 2801, 2467+2802); the thick, fleshy nose, the prominent, large eyes, and the protruding lips are identical as can be best seen from the profile photos of the faces; the base of helmets of the nude figures, Figs. 32 and 35 (Nos. 2456+2800 and 2467+2802), ends at the hair falling on the back of the head and in the ears of all the three figures there are earrings of exactly the same type. The dimple on the chin of the female figure, Fig. 33, and the seemingly more protruding chin of the male faces to mark the beard have of course no artistic bearing. These details as well as other differences in hair-dress etc. serve to indi- cate the different sexes, and the fact that the eyes of the male figure No. 2467+2802 are not plastically indicated, but only painted, does not effect the style but is only a question of artistic technique. It cannot therefore be doubted that these three sculptures are the work of the same artist. In discussing the sculptures of the Proto- Cypriote style we have seen that some of them are also assignable to one and the same artist or at least the same school (p. 36). Düring my studies on the Ajia Irini sculptures in connection with the presentation of the material here published I have made several observations bear- ing upon the attribution of groups of sculptures to the same artists, but I cannot tackle this Problem in this context, as it requires a compiete consideration of the whole sculptural material from Ajia Irini. This problem I intend to discuss on another occasion. Among the small human figurines of Idol plastic the female idol, Fig. 39 (No. 2804), 38 attracts particular interest, in part because it is one of the few female figures represented among the sculptures from Ajia Irini^*, in part because it is one of the earliest statuettes in human shape found at Ajia Irini. This type of Statuette may be as early as Cypro-Geometric I — II*®, but the similar statuettes found in the sanctua- ries of Ajios Jakovos” and Idalion“ cannot be proved to be earlier than Cypro-Geometric III, though they may in fact have been that, and the earliest date of the Ajia Irini Statuette, although unfortunately without known find context, seems also to be Cypro-Geometric III or, at the latest, the early phase of Cypro-Archaic®: for typological reasons a later date is quite unlikely. The Statuette, Fig. 40, belongs to Type 3; the specimens of this type with known find context belong to Cypro-Archaic I; the statuettes of this type are, however, so few that it cannot be determined whether they are restricted to that period alone or not. The Statuette, Fig. 40. is of a crude workmanship: its thick brows and large pellet eyes resemble very much those of the In Arch. Rel. Wiss, XXX, 1932, pp. 342 f. Sjöqvist mentions only two exoeptions from tbe rule that tbe soilp- tures are male, the moulded figure (op. dt. II, PI. CCXXX 111:5) and a figurine seated on a throne {pp. cit. n. CC XXXIllilO, 11). Although the exceptions are still few, we may add: the female dancers {op. dt. PI. CCXXXI11:6). the female Partners in the group of ring-dancers published here, Fig. 16; the female idol, No. 2362 {op. cit. PI. CX XXIX :2), the female idol here discussed (Fig. 39); the Cypro-Greek sculpture (Fig. 33) and, probably, the head of the Second Proto-Cypriote style (Fig. 25) on account of its wearing a pendant on a neck-string (p. 20). Whether its counter-part {op. dt. PI. CCX1I:3, 6, 7) is also female is uncertain as it wears no female attributes. Similar, though not identical, statuettes have been found in Tomb 415 and 419 at Lapithos dating from Cypro-Geometric II, resp. I {op. dt. I, PI. XLIX;4, 5). " Op. dt. pp. 361 ff., PI. LXVUI:6, 44. “ Op. dt. II, p. 587, Female figures, Type 2, assignable to the local Period 4 at Idalion {op. dt. p. 616; PI. CL XXXII: 14); this period dates from Geometrie III and the early phase of Cypro-Archaic I, although it may have in- cluded also some poor remains of Cypro-Geometric I-ll {op. dt. p. 624). ** The earliest sculptures of a human shape found at Ajia Irini belong to the local period 3, covering the later half of Cypro-Geometric III and the first half of Cypro- Archaic I (cf. p. 34). Digitized by t^ooQle female Statuette, Fig. 39, and for typological reasons the Statuette, Fig. 40, may thus be assigned to Cypro-Geometric III. Unfortunately the fragments of which it has been put together are without known find context. The Statuette, Fig. 41, of Type 7, can be associated with the late phase of the First Proto- Cypriote style, on the evidence of the features of its face**, and it can therefore be assigned to the early phase of Cypro-Archaic II {op. dt. IV:2, p. 208). Among the large human figorines of Idol ptostic the Statuette, Fig. 42 (No. 2316), is a large- sized adorant idol, a counterpart to the Statu- ette, Fig. 39, mentioned above, but it is bisexual, as indicated by the fenude breasts and the beard; further, the snake Curling along the back of the figure associates it with the adorant bisexual Minotaur figures: in fact, this idol represents an intermediate stage between the theriomorph, or semi-theriomorph, and human shape of the votive figures. It can be assigned to Cypro-Geo- metric III or the early phase of Cypro-Archaic I (cf. below), and it shows that the decisive Step towards a conception of the deity itself in human shape was taken in the period mentioned. This is further indicated by the fact that the first human figures without bisexual or theriomorph association with the time past begin to appear in this period, as proved by the small Statuette, Fig. 39, and the larger Statuette, Fig. 43 (No. 2372), which together with the bisexual figure mentioned and the Statuette No. 2321 form the three spedmens of large-sized human figurines assignable to the local Period 3 at Ajia Irini {op. dt. II, p. 814), as we know covering the later part of Cypro-Geometric III and the early phase of Cypro-Archaic I (cf. p. 34). The other large-sized statuettes (Figs. 44—51) are normal representatives of idol plastic Con- temporary with the art sculpture of the First and Second Proto-Cypriote styles. Some of these statuettes reflect vaguely, others more “a. e.g. op. dt. Pis. CXCVIII, ca. closely, the style of the Contemporary art sculp- ture, as already pointed out in the excavation report (op. dt. pp. 790 f.) and in the general Classification made in op. dt. IV:2, p. 127. In the course of time stylistic qualities mark more and more this idol plastic, so that it is often impossible to make a distinction between these categories, idol plastic and art sculpture, as also shown by the intermediate specimens mentioned above in the sections dealing with the Second Proto-Cyptriote and the Cypro-Greek styles (pp. 36 f.). Some remarks have to be added on a few Objects of various character (Figs. 52—56). It is instructive to compare the sphinx forming part of a throne, Fig. 52, with the sphinxes flanking a throne of a similar kind upon which a female figurine is seated (op. dt. II, PI. CCXXXIII:10, 11). The latter throne is assign- able to the local Period 3 at Ajia Irini (for the interesting conditions of finds, cf. op. dt. pp. 806 f.), and dates therefore from the later part of Cypro-Geometric III or, more likely for stylistic reasons, the early part of Cypro- Archaic I: the facial features of the sphinx approach those characteristic of the First Proto- Cypriote style. The facial features of the sphinx, Fig. 52, are clearly Neo-Cypriote and these stylistic criteria are confirmed by the find con- texts: the fragment was found in Square L 6 at a level of 97.7—98.7, i.e. it belongs to the local Period 5 at Ajia Irini, c. 560— 540 B.C., a period in which the Neo-Cypriote style flourished. The stylized flowers, Fig. 53, have of course been held by one or two votive statues, most probably female. The thunderbolts, Fig. 54, on the other hand, must have been attributes of a statue of the god worshipped, confirming that he was a weather god. No sculpture that can be proved to repre- sent this god has yet been identified but among the sculptural fragments there are some which look promising for such an identification. More fragments must, however, be found to ascertain the matter. The thunderbolts to the right on Fig. 39 Digitized by v^ooQle 54 have the lower terminals of the same shape as the flowers (Fig. 53), intended for being inserted into a hand. The thunderbolt, Fig. 54, to the left, cannot have been inserted directly into a hand but must have been fixed to a shaft. Sjöqvist has shown that the god worshipped at Ajia Irini has been related to the Near Eastem fertility and weather god, in the religious imagination of the worshippers conceived in the shape of a bull, and if we study the repre- sentations of the various types of thunderbolts associated with these Near Eastem gods we find that besides the double-ended thunderbolts of three or more rays, the single-ended thunderbolts with one, two or three rays are also represented and the thunderbolt with bent shaft-hole may well have formed part of such an one-sided thunderbolt with two or three rays“. Fig. 55 shows one ear of a Statuette pierced by **For these various types of thunderbolts associated with the Near Eastem fertility and weather god, cf. Jahrb, deutsch, arch. Inst. XLEI, 1928, pp. 101 ff., Figs. 12, 14—27, 32—38. Sometimes these thunderbolts are held by the god, sometimes fixed on the back of the bull. four holes, probably used for fastening an ear- omament of which no specimens have been found so far, but is often represented on the sculptures“ and is usually called ear-ciqi. Finally, Fig. 56, the vaae in the flhape of an astragalos. Its date is not later than the early phase of Cypro-Archaic II, because it was found in a layer containing potsherds of Types IV and V, corresponding to those found in the layer of the local Period 4 at Ajia Irini, covering the time between c. 650 and 560 B.C. We know that astragaloi, both real ones and imitated in various materials, were used as votive offerings in the sanctuaries and given as tombgifts to the deceased; they were also used as adomment on earrings and necklaces and as amulets. Further, they were used as weights and as vases, in Greece fairly often represented by Black Glazed pottery*’. “ Swed. Cyp. Exp. IV:2, Pis. 11:3; VD:!, 2; Vni:2. For a recent survey of the material in question see Hampe, Die Stele aus Pharsalos im Louvre (107. Winckel> mannsprogramm, Berlin 1951, pp. 12 f., nn. 3 — 11). 40 Digitized by v^ooQle Kreta, Tiber und Stora Mellösa. Bemerkungen zu zwei Bronzeschwertem aus dem Tiber EVERT BAUDOU Die zwei Bronzeschwerter Abb. 1—4 sind im Jahre 1960 in Rom im Antiquitätenhandel er- worben. Hierbei gegebenen Auskünften zufolge sind die beiden Schwerter, zusammen mit einer bedeutend jüngeren Bronzeschale, nach einer Ueberschwemmung im Strandlager am Tiber oberhalb von Rom einige Tage vor der Erwerbung gefunden^ Die Fundangaben schei- nen glaubwürdig zu sein, auch wenn sie nicht näher kontrolliert werden können. In diesem Aufsatz gehe ich davon aus, dass der Fundort richtig angegeben ist. Beide Schwerter gehören zu der grossen Gruppe der Griifzungenschwerter. lieber den Ursprung dieser Schwerter ist seit langem viel diskutiert worden. Durch ihre grosse Verbreitung vom östlichen Mittelmeergebiet und Kleinasien über Griechenland und Italien, Mittel- und Westeuropa bis hinauf nach Mittelskandinavien erhält die Frage nach dem Aufkommen und nach der Entwicklung der Gruppe grosse Be- deutung. Kaum irgendeine andere so relativ ein- heitliche Form vorgeschichtlicher Metalldenk- ' Die Schwerter (und die Bronzeschale) sind ein Ge- schenk S.M. König Gustav VI. Adolfs an das Medel- havsmuseet, Stockholm. Inv. Nr. MM 1960:25 (Abb. 2) und MM 1960:26 (Abb. 1). Ich danke Professor Axel Boöthius, Rom, für die Provenienzangaben. mäler zeigt eine so weite Verbreitung. Die Ein- heitlichkeit ist indessen zu einem gewissen Grade trügerisch. Eine genaue Prüfung zeigt, dass es zahlreiche Varianten mit lokaler, begrenzter Ausbreitung gibt. Ebenso muss man damit rechnen, dass das organische Material aus Horn, Knochen oder Holz, das die Griffzunge beklei- dete, eine etwas ungleiche Ausformung innerhalb der verschiedenen Gebiete hatte. Die Ähnlich- keit der GriSzungenschwerter über grosse Teile Europas ist somit teilweise nur scheinbar. Es ist daher von grösstem Gewicht, die kleinen Unter- schiede, die Vorkommen, im Detail nachzuweisen und die Zeitstellung der verschiedenen Varianten festzulegen. Die grundlegenden Arbeiten für das Studium der Griffzungenschwerter sind von Naue, Sprock- hoff imd Cowen geschrieben*. Naues Publikation erschien 1903 und seine TypeneinteUung ist nicht genau genug, um heutigen Ansprüchen zu genügen. Sprockhoffs Arbeit von 1931 und die von Cowen von 1956 haben die Forschung einen •J. Naue, Die vorrömischen Schwerter aus Kupfer, Bronze und Eisen, 1903. — E. Sprockhoff, Die germa- nischen Griifzungenschwerter, 1931. — J. D. Cowen, Eine Einführung in die Geschichte der bronzenen Griif- zungenschwerter in Süddeutschland und den angrenzen- den Gebieten, 36. Ber.d.Röm.-Germ. Komm. 1955, 1956. 41 Digitized by v^ooQle grossen Schritt weitergeführt. SprockhofT be- handelt die Griffzungenschwerter in Nord- europa und Cowen dieselbe Schwertergruppe in Süddeutschland und den angrenzenden Gebieten. Eine ebenso vollständige Durcharbeitung der Griffzungenschwerter im Mittelmeerraum gibt es noch nicht. Die grosse Gruppe früher Griff- zungenschwerter in Nordeuropa (Sprockhoff Typ la und Ib) mit mindestens ca. 200 Exempla- ren gehört zu Montelius’ Periode llb-c. In der mitteleuropäischen Chronologie entspricht das Reineckes Bronzezeit C sowie möglicherweise teilweise Bronzezeit D. Aus Süddeutschland und den angrenzenden Gebieten verzeichnet Cowen 32 Exemplare derselben Form. Er datiert sie in die Bronzezeit C. Reinecke hat nach- gewiesen, dass zumindest Sprockhoffs Typ la mit ausgebuchteter Zunge von Schwertemdes Keszthely (Boiu)-Typs in Ungarn hergeleitet werden kann’. Hingegen ist noch nicht klar- gelegt, wie Typ Ib mit gerader Zunge entstanden ist. In der Bz D und in der frühen Hallstattzeit A kommen in Mitteleuropa Sprockhoffs Griff- zungenschwerter „vom gewöhnlichen Typ” vor, die — zum Unterschied von der Mehrzahl derer vom Typ la und Ib — mehrere Nieten in der Zunge sowie schräge Schultern haben. Cowen nennt diese Form den „Nenzinger Typ”. Im Jahre 1931 kannte Sprockhoff ca. 350 solche Schwerter in Nordeuropa, wo sie Montelius" Periode III zugehören, und Cowen im Jahre 1956 ca. 50 Exemplare in Süddeutschland und den an- grenzenden Gebieten. Dieser Typ ist von allen Griffzungenschwertem der am weitesten verbrei- tete. Seit langem ist er auch in einer kleineren Zahl aus Griechenland und aus dem östlichen Mittelmeerraum bekannt. Es ist die erste Form von Griffzungenschwertem, die sowohl in Mittel- europa wie im östlichen Mittelmeergebiet vor- kommt. Mehrere Archäologen, u. a. Childe, haben die Idee der mitteleuropäischen Griff- zungenschwerter aus dem östlichen Mittelmeer- * P. Reinecke, Zur Geschichte der Griffzungenschwer- ter, Germania 15, 1931, 217 ff. 42 raum herleiten wollen*. Der Nenzinger Typ hat indessen in Mitteleuropa die reiche Entwicklung von Sprockhoffs Typ I als Hintergrund und ähnliche Voraussetzungen können im ägäischen Gebiet oder in Kleinasien nicht nachgewiesen werden*. Eine andere Sache ist es, dass es dort frühe Griffzungenschwerter gibt, die jedoch nicht mit den mitteleuropäischen Formen ver- knüpft werden können. Soviel wir jetzt sehen können, so dürfte es am richtigsten sein, mit einer mitteleuropäischen Entwicklung von Griff- zungenschwertem zu rechnen, die von dem ungarischen Boiu Typ ausgehen, und mit einer hiervon gänzlich getrennten Entwicklung im östlichen Mittelmeerraum, einer Entwicklung, die noch nicht völlig untersucht ist. In der Ha A-Periode treffen sich somit in der ägäischen Welt die ursprüngheh aus dem Mittelmeerraum herstammenden und die mitteleuropäischen Ty- pen, die als Import eingeführt werden oder als lo- kale Nachbildungen entstehen. Das gilt nicht nur für die Griffzungenschwerter sondern auch für andere Bronzeformen, wie Lanzenspitzen und Messer. Man kann zur gleichen Zeit mitteleuro- päische Typen im östlichen Mittelmeergebiet aufspüren und Impulse und Importstücke aus Griechenland nördlich über den Balkan nach dem östUchen Mitteleuropa und westlich über das Mittelmeer nach Westeuropa hin nach- weisen. In diesem Aufsatz soll untersucht wer- den, wie sich die zwei Tiberschwerter in diesen Zusammenhang einfügen. Das wohlerhaltene Schwert Abb. 1 und 3 ist 61,1 cm lang. Die Zunge ist in der Mitte schwach ausgebuchtet und das Heft hat V-Form. Die Zunge wird von niedrigen Rändern begrenzt 1,0 bis 1,1 cm hoch, die in ihrem obersten Teil ausgesprochene Hörner haben. Am Knaufende *V. G. Childe, The Final Bronze Age in the Near East and in Temperate Europe. Proc. of the Prehist. Soc. N.S. XIV, 1948, 183 ff. - Vgl. auch H. W. Catling, Bronze Cut-and-Thrust Swords in the Eastem Medi- terranean. Proc. of the Prehist. Soc. N.S. XXIl, 1956, 102 ff., der jedoch ganz von Naues alter Einteilung aus- geht. » Cowen, 1956, 68 f. Digitized by LjOOQle Abb, 3-4. MM 1960:26 und 25. Detail. M. ca. 1:2. Abb. 1—2. Am Tiber gefundene Schwerter , MM 1960:26 und 25. Medelhavsmuseety Stockholm. Etwas kleiner als 1:4. des Griffes befindet sich ein 3,2 cm langer spatenförmiger Zungenfortsatz. Die Zunge weist 4 und das Heft 2x3 Nietlöcher auf. Das erste und das dritte Nietloch ist grob von derselben Seite her eingeschlagen, das zweite und vierte von der entgegengesetzten Seite. Die Nietlöcher im Heft sind sämtlich von der gleichen Seite her eingeschlagen ausser dem untersten links auf Abb. 3. Die Zunge ist 0,45 cm dick. Der Ueber- gang vom Heft zur Klinge ist weich geschwungen. Die Klinge ist breit und nach unten zu ausge- buchtet, d. h. blattförmig. An ihrer breitesten Stelle ist sie 4,1 cm und am schmaleren oberen 43 Digitized by v^ooQle Teil unter dem Heft 3,5 cm breit. Die Klinge hat nahezu rhombischen Querschnitt, der untere Teil ist jedoch flacher. Die Schneide ist vom Rücken der Klinge durch eine scharfe Kante abgesetzt. Die Patina ist abgeschliifen ausser auf der Zunge und auf Teilen der Schneide. Die erhaltene Patina ist blauschwarz. Das zweite Schwert, Abb. 2 und 4, ist 72,3 cm lang. Auch dieses ist wohlerhalten. Die Zunge buchtet im unteren Teil aus. Die Ausbuchtung ist gut markiert und viel deutlicher als bei dem ersten Schwert. Das Heft hat nahezu U-Form. Die Zunge wird von niedrigen Rändern begrenzt, 0,9— 1,0 cm hoch, die in ihrem oberen Teil in ausgesprochene Hörner auslaufen. Die Zunge hat eine 3,8 cm lange Verlängerung. Im unteren Teil der Zunge befindet sich ein Nietloch und im unteren Teil des Heftes 2x1 Nietlöcher. Die Nietlöcher sind gut gearbeitet und abgeschliifen. Die Zunge ist 0,45 cm dick. Der Uebergang zwischen Heft und Klinge geschieht in schärfe- rem Winkel als beim Schwert Abb. 1. Die Klinge ist blattförmig, an ihrer breitesten Stelle 3,7 cm und am schmaleren oberen Teil 3,1 cm breit. Die ganze Klinge hat deutlich rhombischen Quer- schnitt. Die Schneide ist vom Rücken durch eine schwach markierte Kante abgesetzt. Das Schwert ist mit gleichförmiger, blauschwarzer Patina von gleicher Art wie beim ersten Schwert belegt. Auf der abgebildeten Seite, Abb. 4, sieht man die Grenze für den Heftbelag. Cowens Arbeit über die süddeutschen Grilf- zungenschwerter kann zum Ausgangspunkt für die Diskussion dienen. Beide italische Schwerter gehören zur Hauptgruppe unverzierte Griff- zungenschwerter mit blattförmigen Klingen*. Diese Schwerter werden in drei Typen eingeteilt, den Erbenheimer Typ (20 Exemplare und eine Gussform), den Lettener Typ (9 Exemplare) und den Hemigkofener Typ (49 Exemplare). Vom Erbenheimer Typ weist Cowen auch eine Variante nach, die Ennsdorfer Variante (3 Exemplare). Der Erbenheimer und Lettener • CowEN, 1956, 72 ff. 44 Typ hat einen markierten Griffzungenfortsatz geradeso wie die zwei hier besprochenen ita- lischen Schwerter. Das Schwert Abb. 1 gehört zum Lettener Typ, der durch eine sehr schwach ausbuchtende Zunge mit 3—5 Nieten und 4-6 Nieten am Heft gekennzeichnet ist (Abb. 5—6). Die Länge variiert zwischen 62,4 und 59,5 cm. Das italische Schwert fügt sich sehr gut hier ein. Kein Schwert vom Lettener Typ ist in einem datierbaren Zusammenhang gefunden worden. Die grosse Ähnlichkeit mit dem Hemigkofener Typ (Abb. 8-10) einerseits und dem Erben- heimer Typ andererseits lässt, nach Cowen, ver- muten dass der Lettener Typ eine Hybridform zwischen diesen beiden darstellt. Da beide Haupt- formen mittels datierbarer Grabfunde zur Ha A gerechnet werden können, ist eine Datierung des Lettener Typs in die gleiche Zeit durchaus glaublich. Cowen versucht den Erbenheimer Typ in die „frühe Ha A”-Periode zu begrenzen und teilt hierdurch auch den Lettener Typ der frühen Ha A-Periode zu. Diese Begrenzung dürfte nicht möglich sein, da der eine der beiden Grabfunde vom Erbenheimer Typ (Erbenheim bei Wiesbaden) in die frühe Ha A-Zeit (Ha A 1) und der andere (Wollmesheim in der Rhein- pfalz) in die späte Ha A-Periode (Ha A 2) gehört. Das Schwert Abb. 2 kommt dem Erbenheimer Typ am nächsten (Abb. 11 — 13). Bezeichnend ist eine in der Mitte weich ausbuchtende Zunge mit zahlreichen Nietlöchem sowohl am Griff wie am Heft. Das Heft hat nahezu U-Form. Die Klinge hat einen flachen rautenförmigen Quer- schnitt, ist lang und elegant geschwungen. £>ie Länge ist zwischen 74,5 und 64,5 cm, im Durch- schnitt 69,0 cm. Das italische Schwert unter- scheidet sich von den übrigen durch eine un- gewöhnlich kleine Anzahl Nieten, nur drei, und dadurch, dass die Ausbuchtung der Zunge tiefer als normal liegt. Die U-Form des Heftes ist ebenfalls deutlicher als bei den von Cowen ab- gebildeten Schwertern. Wie erwähnt wird der Erbenheimer Typ in die Ha A-Periode datiert. Ein Verzeichnis von in Italien gefundenen Digitized by v^ooQle Abb. 5—7. Lettener Typ. Fundorte: Basel; Birsfelden bei Abb. 8—10. Hemigkofener Typ. Fundorte: Zihlkanalj Basel; Rouen. M. etwas grösser als 1:4. Nach Cowen 1956. Schweiz; Venlo, Holland; Boppard, Rheinprovinz. M. etwas grösser als 1:4. Nach Cowen 1956. 45 Digitized by v^ooQle Schwertern aus der Bronzezeit ist 1926 vor Rellini veröffentlicht und 1942 von Caprino er- gänzt worden’. Die Verzeichnisse enthaltet alles in allem 332 Schwerter, von denen 12( auf dem Festland, 23 auf Sizilien und 189 aui Sardinien gefunden sind. Selbst wenn nocl: einige weitere Schwerter in kleineren Samm- lungen erhalten sind, so ist man berechtigt, die grosse Menge der von Rellini-Caprino publi- zierten Schwerter als repräsentativ für den Gesamtbestand anzusehen. Folgende Schwerter gehören dem Lettener Typ an oder nähern sich ihm: 1. Am Trasimenischen See, Umbria, Länge 75 cm, gerade Klinge. Schwach U-förmiges Heft. 4-f 2 x2 Nietlöcher. Jetzt in unbekannter Samm- lung. — A. Ancona, Le armi, le fibule e qualche allo cimelio della sua coUezione archeologica. 1886. Nr. 44 (Foto). Naue 1903, Taf. VI12 (Zeichnung). Abb. 14 in diesem Aufsatz. Von Rellini-Caprino nicht aufgeführt. 2. AleronOy Umbria, Länge 64 cm, gerade Klinge. V-förmiges Heft. 5+2x2 Nietlöcher. Mus. Preist, di Roma. — Montelius, La civil, prim, en Italic 11,1, 1904, PI. 126,11. Rellini 1926, Nr. 77. 3. Am Tiber, nördlich von Rom, Lazio, Schwert Abb. 1 und 3 in diesem Aufsatz. 4. Fucino, Abruzzi, Länge 62 cm. Gerade oder blattförmige Klinge? V-förmiges Heft. 4+2x3 Nictlöchcr. Mus. Preist, di Roma. — Monte- lius 1904, PI. 142,9 (nur Oberteil). Rellini 1926, Nr. 87. 5. Fucino, Abruzzi, Länge 63 cm. Gerade oder blattförmige Klinge? V-fÖrmiges Heft. 2-r2x2 ’ U. Reluni, Per lo Studio dcllc spade di broozo scopertc in Italia, Bull, di Paletn. It. XLVI, 1926, 73 ff.- C. Caprino, Spada trovata presso lenne (Arsoli), Bull, di Paletn. It. N.S. V-VI, 1941-42, 198 ff. - Vgl. K. R. Maxwell-Hyslop, Notes on some distinctive types of Bronzes from Populonia, Etruria. Proc. of ihe Prehist. Soc. N.S. XII, 1956, 127. Anm. 1. Abb. 11 — 13. Erbenheimer Typ. Fundorte: Steinamagfr, Urgarn: Bönnigheim, Württemberg; Heilbronn, Württem- berg. M. etwas grösser als 1:4. Nach Cowen 1956. Digitized by LjOOQle Karte 1. Verbreitung des Lettener Typs und nahestehender Variante mit gerader Klinge in Italien. Nietlöchcr. Mus. Preist, di Roma. — Montclius 1904, PL 142,10 (nur Oberteü), Rellini 1926, Nr. 88. 6. Colle Brignile di S. Benedetto in PerilliSy Abruzzi. Länge 65 cm. Gerade oder blattförmige Klinge? 10 Nietlöcher. Keine Abbildung publi- ziert, aber Rellinis Beschreibung ist so genau, dass das Schwert trotzdem mit grosser Wahr- scheinlichkeit dieser Gruppe zugeteilt werden kann: „Spada a codolo piatto munito di 10 fori pei chiodi, 6 rimasti; in capo linguetta verticale fra due brevi appendici divergenti.” Als Typ gibt Rellini Montelius 1904, PI. 142,10, d.h. das oben erwähnte Schwert Nr. 5, an. Mus. Preist, di Roma. — Rellini 1926, Nr. 89. 7. Puglie. Länge 61 cm, gerade Klinge, V-för- miges Heft. 3+2x3 Nietlöcher. Jetzt in un- bekannter Sammlung. — Naue 1903, Taf. VII,6, Abb. 15 in diesem Aufsatz. Bei Rellini-Caprino nicht aufgeführt. Folgende Gussform und zwei Schwerter ge- hören am ehesten dem Erbenheimer Typ an: 1. Piverone bei IvreOy Piemonte. Gussform aus Steatit in zwei Hälften, Länge 83 cm. Für Schwerter in drei Längen: 75, 72 und 65 cm. Blattförmige Klinge. Das Heft beinahe U-förmig. Die Form gibt keine Nietlöcher an. Wurde 1942 in der Chiesa Parrochiale aufbewahrt. — P. Barocelli, Bullet. Paletn. di It. N.S. II, 1938, 130 f. Caprino 1942, Nr. 5. Cowen 1956, 131, Nr. 13. 2. Casaley Veneto. Länge nach der angege- benen Skala ca. 44 cm, (ist das möglich?). Schwach blattförmige Klinge. Heft schwach U-förmig. 4+2x2 Nietlöcher. Museo Civico di Treviso. — R. Battaglia, Bull. Paletn. di It., Vol. fuori Serie 67-68, 1958-59, 284, Abb. 98 b. Von Rellini-Caprino nicht genannt. 3. Am Tibety nördlich von Romy Lazio. Schwert Abb. 2 und 4 in diesem Aufsatz. Aus FucinOy Abruzzi liegt ein weiteres Schwert vor, das die Kennzeichen des Erbenheimer Typs 47 Digitized by v^ooQle zeigt, die in der Mitte ausbuchtende Zunge, zahlreiche Nietlöcher (3+2x2), lange ge- schwungene Klinge (Montelius 1904, PI. 142,5. Rellini 1926, Nr. 86). Die Länge beträgt nach der Abbildungsskala 69 cm, d. h. genau die Länge, die für den Durchschnitt des Typs an- gegeben wird. Die Klinge buchtet nur schwach aus, wie bei dem Exemplar vom Tiber Abb. 1. Die einzige Abweichung besteht darin, dass der Griffzungenfortsatz fehlt. Dieses Exemplar ist die Ennsdorfer Variante, von der Cowen nur drei Exemplare angibt, eines aus Österreich (Ennsdorf, Grab aus Ha A), eines aus der Tschechoslowakei (Karpathorussland) und eines aus Polen (Galizien)®. Diese Form ist so selten und so zerstreut, dass sie kaum verdient als eigene Variante bezeichnet zu werden. Es ist eine rein zufällige Form, die hier und da einmal innerhalb oder ausserhalb der Grenzen des Ver- breitungsgebietes des Erbenheimer Typs vor- kommt. Nichts ist über die näheren Fundumstände aller dieser Schwerter bekaimt. Nichts in datier- barem Zusammanhang liegt vor. Mit Vorbehalt für eine kleinere zeitliche Verschiebung kann man für die italischen Schwerter dieselbe Ge- brauchszeit annehmen wie für die mitteleuro- päischen, d. h. Ha A. In absoluten Jahreszahlen würde dies, nach Müller-Karpe, das 12—11. Jahrhundert v. Chr. bedeuten und in italischer Periodenbezeichnung die ältere „Protovillanova- Periode”. Mit Ausnahme des Schwertes von Puglie liegt die erste Gruppe gut in Mittelitalien gesammelt (Karte 1). Auch ihrem Typ nach gehört sie eng zusanunen. Einige haben jedoch gerade Klinge, während eines oder einige die für den Lettener Typ charakteristische Blattform zeigt, ln Nordueropa gibt es ebenfalls eine kleine Schwertgruppe, die dem Lettener Typ nahesteht aber durch eine gerade Klinge gekennzeichnet ist. Mindestens vier Schwerter gehören hierhin, darunter eines von Stora Mellösa in Närke in •Cowen 1956, 76 ff. Mittelschweden (Abb. 16) und eines aus Spandau bei Berlin (Abb. 17)*. Sowohl Sprockhoff wie Cowen halten es für das wahrscheinlichste, dass die nordische Gruppe einer einheimischen Werk- statt entstammt. Cowen nimmt an, dass diese Schwerter einheimische Abwandlungen impor- tierter Beispiele des Erbenheimer Typs sind (Schwerter von Parum in Mecklenburg und Bremen). Die nordeuropäische und die mittelitalische Gruppe sind auffallend ähnlich, was darauf beruht, dass diese Varianten unter gleichen Vor- aussetzungen entstanden sind, trotz ihres grossen geographischen Abstandes. Die für grosse Teile Europas gemeinsamme Schwertform wäh- rend Bz D und früher Ha A-Zeit ist, wie erwähnt, das Griffzungenschwert von Cowens Nenzinger Typ. Die Zunge ist sehr schwach ausgebuchtet, ohne Fortsatz, aber oft mit kleinen Hörnern versehen. Der Uebergang zwischen Heft und Klinge ist weich und gerade. In Italien gibt es mindestens 8 Exemplare, von denen die Mehr- zahl in Mittelitalien liegt^®. Irgendwo in Mittel- europa, vielleicht in Süddeutschland, entsteht in der frühen Ha A-Periode eine Tendenz, diese Schwerter mit einer blattförmigen Klinge aus- zuformen, eine Tendenz, die im Norden während Ha A nicht durchschlägt und die eine sehr geringe Rolle in Mittelitalien gespielt zu haben scheint. In Mitteleuropa entsteht derHemigko- fener Typ (Abb. 8— 10), wovon man in Italien nur schwache Spuren findet. Ein Schwert von Montegiorgioy Ascoli-Piceno, in Mittelitalien ist eine Variante dieses Typs (Montelius 1904, PI. 131,13; Rellini 1926, Nr. 64). Für das Aussehen des Schwertes kann es • Sprockhoff 1931, 21 ff. und 95 f Die restlichen zwei Schwerter sind von Bevensen, Kr. Ülzen, Hannover und vom Goplo-See, Polen. 1. Cherasco, Piemonte. Caprino 1942, Nr. 4. — 2. Casale, Veneto, Battaglia 1958—59, Abb. 98 c. — 3—5. Beiverde di Cetonoy Toscana, Caprino 1942, Nr. 13 — 15. — 6. Am Trasimenischen See^ Umbria, Rellini 1926, Nr. 74. Hier Abb. 18. — 7. Sulmona, Abruzzi. Naue 1W3, Taf. VII, 1. Hier Abb. 19. — 8. Poggio Berni, Forli, Emilia. Hortfund, Ha A. Tosi, Bull, di Paletn. It. N.S. 3, 1939, 51 ff., Abb. 1, h, m. 49 Digitized by v^ooQle keine Rolle gespielt haben, ob die Schwertzunge einen Fortsatz hatte oder nicht. Die funktionelle Aufgabe des Zungenfortsatzes war, dem Schwert- knauf eine Stütze zu geben. Wenn auch den meisten Schwertern ein solcher Fortsatz fehlt, so hat man doch keinen Anlass, einen wesent- lich anderen Knauf anzunehmen. Was dieses Detail betrifft, so können die Schwerter in un- beschädigtem Zustand durchaus gleichartig aus- gesehen haben. Einen wesentlichen Unterschied zwischen den Typen stellt indessen die kräftig blattförmige Klinge, verglichen mit der geraden, dar. Der Zungenfortsatz kann als eine tech- nische Verbesserung für eine bessere Befestigung des Schwertknaufes angesehen werden. Durch Angabe einiger Ziffern kann gezeigt werden, welche Rolle dieses Detail innerhalb der ver- schiedenen Gebiete gespielt hat. Von den ca. 375 von Sprockhoff aufgeführten nordeuropäi- schen Ha A-Schwertem mit Griffzunge haben 9 Zungenfortsatz, von den ca. 135 von Cowen angegebenen Ha A-Schwertem mit Griffzunge aus Mitteleuropa (einschliesslich zweier hier nicht genannter Typen) haben 29 Zungenfortsatz und von den in diesem Aufsatz aufgezählten ca. 20 italischen Ha A-Schwertem mit Griffzunge haben 9 (und eine Gussform) Zungenfortsatz. Die mittelitalische Gmppe von Schwertern mit Zungenfortsatz kann auf ähnliche Weise wie die nordische betrachtet werden. Die Schwer- ter mit gerader Klinge sind von lokaler Her- stellung, während das Tiber-Schwert mit seiner leicht geschwungenen Klinge am wahrschein- lichsten ein mitteleuropäisches Produkt ist. Cowen bUdet zwei fast gleiche Schwerter ab, das eine aus Birsfelden bei Basel (hier Abb. 6) und das andere aus Rouen (hier Abb. 7). Damit kann man drei Gruppen von sehr gleichartigen und nahe verwandten Schwertern unterscheiden: 1. Lettener Typ mit blattförmiger Klinge im eigentlichen Verbreitungsgebiet des Erbenheimer Typs in Mittel- und Westeuropa; 2. Die nordeuropäische Gmppe mit gerader Klinge ausserhalb des eigentlichen Verbreitungs- gebietes des Erbenheimer Typs; 50 3. Die mittelitalische Gmppe mit gerade Klinge ausserhalb des eigentlichen Verbreitungs gebietes des Erbenheimer Typs. Der Erbenheimer Typ hat seinen Schwerpunl am Rhein, vor allem im mittleren Teüe de Flussgebietes^'. Von den 8 Exemplaren de Lettener Typs mit bekanntem Fundort liege drei in der Schweiz am obersten Lauf des Rheine zwei in Süddeutschland, zwei in Frankreich a der Seine und eines in Belgien. Die mitte italischen Griffzungenschwerter mit Zungenfor satz knüpfen über das mittlere Alpengebiet a das obere Rheintal an. Die italische Gruppe voi Nenzinger Typ gehört mit Mitteleuropa ii weiteren Sinne zusammen. Aus Griechenland ist noch eine kleine Gmpi publiziert worden, die mit Erbenheim-Letu in Zusammenhang steht. Drei Grifizunge Schwerter von Kreta, eines von Patras auf d Peloponnes und eines aus Phokis haben Zunge fortsatz'*. Das Schwert von Anthea bei Patt und mindestens eines der kretensischen Schwei sind vom Lettener Typ (Abb. 20)“. Ausserdc gibt es noch einige Schwerter vom Nenzinj Typ sowie einige Bmchstücke von GrifTzimg« Schwertern von nicht näher bestimmbare Typ“. Einige Schwerter von Nenzinger T sind, worauf Milojöic hingewiesen hat, etw "CöwEN 1956, 77, Karte C. Es gibt noch ein p weitere hierhergehörige Schwerter auf osteuropäisch Gebiet, aber das KartenbUd wird nicht wesentlich \ ändert. '• V. Milojöiö, Einige „mitteleuropäische'* Fremdlii auf Kreta, Jahrb. d. Röm.-Germ. Zentralmus. Maim 1955, 159 fif., Abb. 3:1, 4 und 21. - N. Kyparis Praktika 1938, 118 f. (Anthea bei Patras). — X. Tsoi TAS, Ephemeris Arch. 1897, 110, Abb. 1 (Phokis). “ S. A. Xanthoudides, Ephemeris Arch. 1904, 45 — Abb. 11. — G. Maraghiannis, Antiquitds cr^oises 1912, PI. XXXV, 4. “ H. W. Catung i956, 109 ff. - J. Naue, Die Brona zeit in Oberbayem, 1894, Abb. 13 (Bruchstück Korinth). — P. Reinecke 1931, 220 Anm. 12 (Ithaka). Pendlebury, Brit. School at Athens, Ann. 38, 1937- Pl. 29 No. 500 (Bruchstück aus Karphi auf Kreta). Das Schwert von Kallithea, Catung 1956, 112, No hat eine kleine Spitze zwischen den zwei Hörnem. B hier nicht zu den Schwertern mit Zungefortsatz gerec^ worden. Abgebüdet von N. Yalourb, Ath. Mitteü. 1960 (1962), Beü. 31. Digitized by v^ooQle Abb. 20—21, Fundorte: Mouliana^ Kreta; Schiste, Phokis, M. Nr, 20 ca, 1:3, Nr, 21 etwas kleiner als 1:2, Nr. 20 nach Maraghiannis 1912, Nr, 21 nach Tsountas 1897. zierlicher und leichter als die mitteleuropäischen. Das kann darauf hindeuten, dass es sich dabei um lokale Produkte handelt, die durch Ein- flüsse von den mitteleuropäischen Formen her entstanden sind. In diesem Zusammenhang ist es ausreichend zu konstatieren, dass mindestens zwei Griffzungenschwerter vom Lettener Typ sind und dadurch nahe Verbindung mit Mittel- europa bezeugen. Anscheinend sind sie in Mitteleuropa hergestellt. Ein wahrscheinlich lokal verfertigtes, nur 45 cm langes Schwert ist bei Enkomi auf Cypem gefunden“. Das zweite Schwert vom Tiber, Abb. 2 und 4, kommt dem Erbenheimer Typ am nächsten. Es imterscheidet sich von den ganz typischen Schwertern dieses Typus durch eine geringere Anzahl Nieten, durch die Ausbuchtung der Zunge unterhalb der Mitte und durch die deut- lichere U-Form des Heftes. Unter den von Cowen abgebildeten Schwertern findet sich nicht eines was in diesen Details mit dem Tiber- Schwert übereinstimmt. Näher konunt das Schwert aus Phokis mit kleiner Anzahl Nieten, U-förmigem Heft und der etwas unterhalb der Mitte ausbuchtenden Zunge (Abb. 21). Die Klinge des griechischen Schwertes ist nicht abgebUdet, wird jedoch im Text als gerade an- gegeben“. Die Klinge unterscheidet sich hierin vom Tiber-Schwert. Wo die beiden Schwerter hergestellt sind, kann nicht entschieden werden. Beide können lokale Produkte darstellen. Selbst wenn sie aus lokalen Werkstätten herstammen, so zeigen sic durch ihre Form eine innere Zu- sammengehörigkeit und nahe Anknüpfung zum Erbenheimer Typ in Mitteleuropa. Die mittelitalische Gruppe von Griffzungen- schwertem mit Zungenfortsatz liegt innerhalb “ Catling 1956, 115, PI. XI, 1. Die Länge des Schwer- tes wird S. 115 mit 45 cm angegeben, im Text zur Tafel mit 42 cm. H. Peake, The Bronze Age and the Celtic World, 1922, PI. XII, 3 bildet ein Schwert ab, das aus Levadeia, Griechenland, herstammen soll. Der obere Teil des Schwertes is genau gleich Tsountas 1897, 110, Abb. 1, und die Klinge ist gerade. Es scheint eine Verwechslung stattgefunden zu haben. Vgl. Catling 1956, 113, No. 10. 51 Digitized by LjOOQle des zentralen Gebietes der apenninischen Kultur während der „Protovillanova-Zeit”, und die Schwerter vom Nenzinger Typ liegen teilweise im gleichen Raum. Wie schon lange bekannt, ist das italische Bronzehandwerk auf dem Fest- land zu dieser 2^it in hohem Grade unselbstän- dig und wird von mitteleuropäischen Vorbildern geprägt. Zu den mitteleuropäischen Formen aus derselben Zeit wie das Tiber-Schwert gehören z. B. jüngere Violinbogenfibeln, Blattbügel- fibeln, Grifizungenmesser vom Matreier Typ und mittelständige LappenbeUe^^ Ohne genaue Untersuchungen ist es unmögUch, in Italien ver- fertigte Bronzegegenstände von importierten zu unterscheiden. Solange solche Untersuchungen nicht in grösserem Masstab ausgeführt worden sind, fehlt es an Unterlagen für Theorien dar- über, wie dieser starke mitteleuropäische Ein- fluss zustandegekommen ist, ob er Völker- wanderungen mit kriegerischen Eroberungen oder friedliche Landnahme, die Tätigkeit wan- dernder Metallgiesser, entwickelte Handelsver- bindungen oder eine Kombination dieser Fak- toren wiederspiegelt. Auch in Griechenland gibt es eine Reihe von Funden derselben Gegenstandstypen, die in Italien als mitteleuropäisch bezeichnet worden sind. Ueber sie ist eine lebhafte Diskussion geführt und verschiedene UrsprungsmögUch- keiten sind angegeben worden. Zumindest ein Teil dieser Gegenstände ist seinem Ursprung nach zweifellos mitteleuropäisch, während es sich bei anderen um ägäische Umformungen mitteleuropäischer Typen handelt**. Gewöhnlich wird der Weg über den Balkan für diesen mittel- europäischen Einfluss angeführt. Vor kurzem wies Sp. Marinatos mit neueren Funden aus dem Mittelmeerraum als Ausgangspunkt auf einen anderen wichtigen Weg hin**. Er hebt *^ H. Müller-Karpe, Beiträge zur Chronologie der Urnenfelderzeit nördlich und südlich der Alpen, 1959, 191, Abb. 26. *• Mnxuöie 1955, 153 ff. *• Sp. Marinatos, The Minoan and Mycenaean Civi- lization and its Influence on the Mediterranean and on Europe. Atti del VI congresso intemazionale delle 52 Lipari mit sehr reichen Wohnplatzfunden als Station auf dem Wege nach dem westlichen Mittelmeer und nach Westeuropa hervor. Von Lipari kommt num leicht nach Sardinien und den Balearen oder nordwärts zum Golf von Neapel. Esist sicher kein Zufall, sagt Marinatos, dass man mykenische Spuren gerade auf Ischia imd bei Vivara findet. MUojöic hat betont, dass die auf Kreta gefundenen Peschiera-Dolche ihre nächstverwandte Analogie in Norditalien haben. Nach Marinatos erhält diese Beobachtung ihre Erklärung durch den angegebenen Seeweg via Ischia- Lipari— Griechenland**. Man muss aber auch die Verbindung über Puglie beachten. Auf dem Wohnplatz bei Scoglio del Tonno bei Tarent wurden unter anderem spätmykenische Vasenscherben, Bronzen in Typen vom östlichen Mittelmeergebiet und Bronzen vom gleichen mitteleuropäischen Typ gefunden, wie man ihn in Griechenland findet**. Unter den Bronzen war auch ein Peschiera-Dolch. Die griechische Gruppe von Griffzungen- schwertem mit Zungenfortsatz erhält auf Reiche Weise ihre Erklärung, wenn man eine direkte Seewegverbindung zwischen der mittelitalischen, apenninischen Gruppe und hierdurch indirekt mit dem Hauptgebiet des Typs im westlichen Mitteleuropa annimmt. Ein auflallender Zug in der Verbreitung der Schwertformen in der Ha A-Zeit ist, dass die Vollgriffschwerter im östlichen Mitteleuropa und die Griffzungen- schwerter im westlichen Mitteleuropa domi- nieren**. In Mittelitalien oder auf dem südlichen Balkan sind keine Vollgriffschwerter vom Ha A-Typ gefunden. Dieser Umstand gibt dem westlichen Weg für die griechischen Griff- zungenschwerter mit Zungenfortsatz eine noch grössere Wahrscheinlichkeit. Hierdurch erhält man auch eine Erklärung für die Ähnlichkeit des Tiber-Schwertes Abb. 2 mit dem Schwert scienze preistoriche e protoistoricbe, 1962, 161 ff. ••MiLOJÖie 1955, 158. - Marinatos 1962, 170. ** Müller-Karpe 1959, 30 ff., Taf. 13. “H. Müller-Karpe, Die Vollgriffschwcrtcr der Umenfelderzeit aus Bayern, 1961, 86 f., Karte 1 —4. Digitized by LjOOQle aus Phokis Abb. 21. Die erwähnten Messer vom Matreier Typ, die in Griechenland nicht unge- wöhnlich sind, haben die gleiche westliche Ver- breitung. Nach Müller-Karpe kommen sie in Bayern, Tirol, Schweiz und in Ober- und Mittel- italien, aber nicht im östlichen Mitteleuropa vor**. Hier geht cs nicht um die Frage, ob oder wie die verschiedenen ägäischen Typen einschneidiger Messer entstanden sind, ebensowenig wie es sich früher um die Entstehung der frühesten Grifizungenschwerter gehandelt hat. Selbst wenn wir mit dem hier skizzierten Weg des mitteleuropäischen Einflusses über Mittel- Itafaen nach Griechenland rechnen können, so spielt doch natürlich auch der nördliche Weg über den Balkan nach Griechenland eine wich- tige Rolle. Es war meine Absicht, auf eine bisher wenig beachtete Möglichkeit hinzuweisen. Die beiden Bronzeschwertcr vom Tiber gliedem «Müller-Karpe 1961, 41. - Vgl. N. K. Sandars, The Antiquity of the One-edged Bronze Knife in the Acgcan, Proc. of the Prehist. Soc. N.S. XXI, 1955, 174 ff. sich daher in einen wichtigen Zusammenhang ein. Mit dem Ausgangspunkt von verschiedenen Varianten von Griffzungensch wertem mit Zung- enfortsatz erhält man eine Andeutung eines Einflusses vom westlichen Mitteleuropa über die Alpen nach Mittelitalien und von dort weiter über die westliche Küste Mittelitaliens oder über Puglie auf dem Seewege nach Grie- chenland. Die west-mitteleuropäischen Impulse erreichen gleichzeitig den Norden und spiegeln sich in Mittelschweden im Schwerte von Stora Mellösa wieder. Ein Grabfund aus Hovby in Schonen, der einen cyprischen Griflangeldolch mit geraden Schultern und mit durchlochter Angel, einen Peschiera-Dolch, ein nordisches Miniaturmesser und eine nordische Fibel aus der frühen Periode III der nordischen Bronze- zeit enthielt, deutet denselben Weg zwischen dem östlichen Mittelmeer und Nordeuropa an“. “O. Monteuus, Minnen frän vär fomtid, 1917, Abb. 885, 886, 922, 1024. — E. Sprockhoff, Ein Peschiera- dolch aus Nic^ersachsen, Germania 20, 1936, Taf. 33,2. Digitized by v^ooQle 53 A Black-Figured Neck-Amphora of the Leagros Group TULLIA RÖNNE-LINDERS The vase here publishcdS Figs. 1-7,20,21, which was presentcd to Medelhavsmuseet by His Majesty the King, was acquired in Rome, in 1961 . Nothing was then known of its provenance. In shape it is a neck-amphora, the height being 0.408 m. It is unbroken and vcry well preserved, except for slight dents in the suiface in places. There is no repainting. As will bc explained below, this is ABV^ p. 374, no. 197. A. Apollo in a chariot drawn by four horses, accompanied by Artemis and Hermes. A young man Stands in a light chariot with two whcels (of which one only is seen) drawn by four horses, holding the reins of the horses. His head overlaps into the tongue-pattem above the picture. He has a short beard, is dressed in a himation and wears a fillet round his head. The ^ Inv. no. MM 1962:7. My thanks arc duc to Dr. O. Vessber^ Director of Medelhavsmuseet, for permission to publish this vase. 1 have also to thank the Staatliche Museen, Antikenabteilung, West-Berlin, the British Mu- seum, Department of Gmk and Roman Antiquities, London, the Direktion der Antikensanunlungen, Munich, II Soprintendente alle Antichitä, Naples, the Royal On- tario Museum, Toronto, and the Martin von Wagner Museum, Würzburg, which sent photographs of their vases and allowed me to publish them, and Sir John Beazley for Information conceming the Stockholm vase. 54 horses have all four hooves on the ground, yet give the Impression of moving. They bend their heads in various ways so that three of them are clearly seen, while the ear is all that shows of the fourth, behind the head of the third. On the further side of the horses a woman tums to- wards the charioteer, lifting her right hand in a gesture of sorrow or greeting. She wears a long Chiton and a mantle over her shoulders, a fillet is tied round her head. At the horses’ heads and half-hidden by them Hermes walks to the right but tums round looking at the charioteer. He is dressed, in the usual way, in a short chiton, cloak, winged boots tied with String, and a peaked petasos; his long plait of hair is tied up by means of a ribbon. The head of Hermes cuts into the palmette of the handle-omament.- Undemeath the horses a small deer grazes. Neither the charioteer nor the wonum have any attributes to identify them with certainty. Since, however, the deer is an animal sacred to Artemis, it seems most likely that the woman is to be identified with her. The man to whom she bids farewell is then most probably her brother, Apollo. — In fact, the deer is also his sacred animal so that this too points to Apollo as the charioteer; again, the woman is Artemis (or possibly his mother). One notes that the similar Digitized by v^ooQle Fig. 1. Neck-amphora, Medelhavs- museet, Stockholm, MM 1962:7. sccnes refcrred to below, arc all taken from the sphere of the gods and heroes. There is red in ApoUo’s beard and fillet and on Artemis’s fillet; Apollo’s himation is de- corated with red dots and Hermes’s cloak with red borders; further, there are red strokes along the horses" manes and tails. White was used for the face of Artemis, but this has for the most part faded. B. Dionysus and Ariadne with two Satyrs. Dionysus is seated on a folding-chair with animals’ feet, with Ariadne on his hither side. Both are dressed in long chitons and big mantles and wear wreaths of ivy; Dionysus has a long beard. He holds the kantharos in his left hand, the vine in his right (though this is not rendered in a wholly clear manner). At either side of them, a Satyr prances; both dance away from them but turn round and look at them. The Satyr to the right shouts or sings (his mouth is half open); he wears a panther’s skin knotted around his Shoulders, the panther’s head showing above 55 Digitized by v^ooQle Fig. 3. MM 1962:7, Fig, 4 . MM 1962:7, bis left Shoulder. The vine, with bunches of grapes, spreads out at both sides in the background of the picture. Since the woman is crowned with ivy and is accompanied by Satyrs, she is more probably Ariadne than, for instance, Semele (cf. ÄBV^ p. 374, no. 197). Incision is used for the stars decorating the garments of Dionysus and Ariadne and for the short strokes on the panther’s skin. Red is used in the hair and beards of the male figures and for the decorative dots and borders of the garments; further for the tenons of the chair. White was used for the face, hands, and feet Fig. 2, MM 1962:7, of Ariadne. This has mostly faded so that her figure is now a iittie difficuit to distinguish. Further decoration: On the neck, a lotus-and- palmette-omament with much incision and red detail. On the shoulder, a tongue-pattern with altemating black and red tongues; a break is made in it under each handle, i. e. it was painted after the handles were attached. Below the handles, a scroll of conventional type, painted without incision. This was evidently painted after the pictures. It is indicated for instance by the manner in which Hermes conceals part of it (Figs. 3, 6); further (Figs. 4, 5), by the fact that the palmette, on the other side of the vase, makes allowances for the wheel of the chariot, and, especially, by another feature of the same scroll. Thus, the upper right hand palmette shows 57 Digitized by v^ooQle only the tip of a tendril, above the shoulder of the chariotcer, as if the rest wcre hidden behind him. This is, however, done so that it clearly Shows that the charioteer was thcre before the scroU and that the artist had to take it into account. Below the hgure zone, which is bordered underneath by a black line, forming a ground line for the figures, there is a chain of lotus buds, with dots, and below that, a zone of rays. The foot is black, except for the ridge and a narrow band at the bottom. The lip of the vase is also black, inside and out, except for the upper side. The inside of the vase is black as far down as the shoulder. The triple handles are painted black on the outside. The black paint has smeared in places, e.g. on one of the handle-ornaments and on the vine on B; there is further a blot of black paint on A, below the horses’ reins. The black glaze has misfired and tumed into red on A on the right-hand Satyr and handle, and on B on Hermes and in a large area on and around the other handle (where it shows on the photographs). On the underside of the foot there are two grafliti, an arrow-like shape and another which is probably a ligature of A and ff; see Fig. 21. It is at once clear that the vase here published, although made by very competent and skilful craftsmen, is not the work of any of the great artists. Further, its style shows it to belong to the later Black-figure,. towards the end of the sixth Century. The dosest stylistic afBnities are found within the Leagros Group* and, morc espedally, among those vases which J. D, Beaz- ley has assembled under the name of the Group of Würzburg 210*. The question arises whether this vase, the previous fortunes of which are un- known, is not identical with the ncck-amphora listed by Beazley in ABV, p. 374 as no. 197 of • Beazley, ABV, pp. 354 ff., where refercnces to the ear- lier literature are given. Cf. also Rumpf, Malerei u. Zeichn., p. 77 with note 2. » Pp. 354, 357 f. 58 the Leagros Group. It has the caption ''Roman Market’’ and is defined as being "near the Group of Würzburg 210”; the description, although not quite complete, seems to point to this. Sir John Beazley has kindly confirmed by letter that it "is indeed the samc vase”. Thus, the present study wiU not bring forward much that is new. 1 take the opportunity, however, to discuss a little known group of vases, some of which have never been reproduced before, and to Show, I hope, that the neck-amphora now in Stockholm, is not mercly "near the Group of Würzburg 210”, but a proper member of it. The Group of Würzburg 210 comprises four- teen vases. The majority are neck-amphorae, like the one here published, two are Panathenaic in shape. On four of them, namely Würzburg 210 and 214*, Toronto 927.39.3* and London B 206 (Panathenaic)*, Figs. 8, 10— 12, the motif on the main side is a god or hero setting out in a chariot, accompanied by other mythical figures. On the first of these vases the charioteer is Herakles with lolaos beside him, on the others Dionysus, in one case, on the Toronto vase, with Ariadne at his side.— ln general, the composition is strikingly similar to that of the corresponding picture on our vase. Further, the general render- ing as well as many details of the latter vase are identical with those of the others. Thus, the charioteers on the five vases, whether they re- present lolaos and Herakles, Dionysus and Ariadne, or Apollo, have exactly the same stance and drapery; the horses correspond closely in the rendering of anatomical details and in their bearing (note espedally the heads). Hermes on the Stockholm vase recurs almost exactly on the one in Toronto. The deer present in two of the pictures, beside our own, are all very like each other. * ABV, p. 373, DOS. 178, 179, Lanolotz, Griech. Vasen in Würzburg, pls. 52 and 58; our Figs. 8 — 10. * ABV, p. 373, no. 180, Robinson and Harcum, Cat. of Greek Vases in the Royal Ontario Mus. of Arch., Toronto, no. 306, pl. 41, our Fig. 11. * ABV, p. 369, no. 120, CV British Mus. 4, III He pl. 46, our Figs. 12—13. Digitized by LjOOQle Ftg. 9. Würzburg, Martin von Wagner Museum, neck- amphora K 2 JO, Fig, 8, Würzburg, Martin von Wagner Museum, neck- amphora K 210, Fig. 10. Würzburg, Martin von Wagner Museum, neck amphora K 214. Fig. 11. Toronto, Royal Ontario Museum, neck- amphora 927.39.3. Digitized by The second picture on the Stockholm vase, Dionysus Holding kantharos and vine, with Ariadne, flanked by two Satyrs, recurs in a similar form on two of the vases just described, Würzburg 210 and London B 206, Figs. 9 and 13. On the latter, Dionysus and Ariadne sit side by side on a folding-chair, as on our vase, while the Satyrs and Maenads dance along. On Würz- burg 210, however, Dionysus Stands upright between two Satyrs, with a man-headed goat at his side. This motif of the god Standing motion- less between Satyrs, or Satyrs and Maenads, is further represented on five other vases of the group, namely the neck-amphorae Berlin F 1845% Fig. 15, Munich 1568®, Fig. 16, Vogell 61% New York 41.162.179^® and the Panathenaic amphora Munich SL 459“, Fig. 19. In spite of the difference in Dionysus’s position, the resem- blance to our picture is apparent in the compo- sition, the stance of the figures, the drapery, and a number of details. Note, for instance, the Satyrs. Those of Munich 1568, and still more those on the New York vase, are extremely like the Stockholm Satyrs. These pictures are further closely intercon- nected by other details. Thus, the goat on Würz- burg 210 is also found on the Vogell and on the New York vase and on Munich SL 459. On these four vases and on the one in Berlin, Dionysus holds the vine, which spreads to both sides in a decorative way. In most other pictures of this group, including our own, Dionysus does in fact hold the vine, although the design does not give as decorative and pleasing an effect. The four neck-amphorae which Beazley “com- ’ ABV, p. 370, no. 136, our Figs. 14-15. • ABV, p. 371, no. 145, our Fig. 16. * ABV, p. 372, no. 155. Gerhard, Auserlesene griech. VasenbUder, pl. 32; [Boehlau] Griech. Altertüiner aus dem Besitze d» Herrn A. Vogell, Karlsruhe: Cassel 26— 30 Mai 1908, pl. 2,8. “ABV, p. 373, no. 174, Gaz. Arch. 1875, pl. 29, CV Gallatin Coli., pl. 38,2. “ABV, p. 369, no. 121. Sieveking, Bronzen, Terra- kotten, Vasen der Samnü. Loeb, pl. 40; our Figs. 18 — 19. pares” with the Group of Würzburg 210“ and to which he adds our vase as a fifth, all have similar scenes in which Dionysus is the centre. The similarities in composition, stance, drapery, etc., between them and those around Würzburg 210, are apparent. In fact it is easier to define the conunon features than to explain the differences, although these too are apparent. The four vases are, moreover, not all connected with the main Group of Würzburg 210 in exactlythe same way. Two, Villa Giulia M. 486 and Vatican 393, seem to me to be closer to each other than to the rest. On both, the outlines are less distinct than on the vases just discussed. Compare, for instance, the goats in both pictures“; if set side by side with the rather magnificent goats on Würzburg 210, Munich SL 459 (Figs. 9 and 19) and New York 41.162.179“, it is at once clear that the quality of the first two is inferior and that they are very alike. — It is further evident that the Stockholm vase does not resemble these, nor in fact the other two. Of the other two, Naples Stg. 148, Fig. 17, is said by Beazley to “recall the Group of Würz- burg 210 and the Acheloos Painter”“, while about the other, Villa Giulia 50619, he says *‘B is very like the Acheloos Painter, A recalls the Group of Würzburg 210”“. An example of these Connections with the Acheloos Painter is the picture of revellers on the latter vase. It recalls, for instance, the komos by the Acheloos Painter on an amphora in New York“. “Naples Stg. 148, ABV, p. 371, no. 141, our Fig. 17. Vüla Giulia (M. 486), ABV, p. 373, no. 184, Minoazzini, Vasi della CoU. Castellani, no. 486, pl. 77,2 (wrongly given as 77,1 in the tcxt), pls. 69,4 and 71,3 (A). Vatican 393, ABV, p. 374, no. 191, Mus. ctr. Greg. 2, pl. 35,2; Albiz- ZATi, Vasi ant. dipinti del Vaticano, fase. 6, pl. 56. Villa Giulia 50619, ABV 374, no. 193, Minoazzini, op. cit., no. 497, pls. 77,1 (wrongly given in the text as 67,1) and 74,8 (komos). “ Minoazzini, pl. 77,2 and albizzati, pl. 56. “ See above, note 10. “ABV, p. 371, no. 141. “ ABV, p. 374, no. 193. Kevorkian Coli. ABV, p. 383, no. 10, Beazley, Development of Attic B.-f., pl. 43,1, Cat. Christie March 26 1953, pl. 2. 61 Digitized by LjOOQle Fig. 12. British Museum, Panathenaic amphora B 206. Fig. 13. British Museum, Panathenaic amphora B 206. Fig. 14. West-Berlin, Staatliche Museen, neck-amphora F 1845. Fig. 15. West-Berlin, Staatliche Museen, neck-amphora F 1845. This brings up the question of the Connections between this vase-painter“ and the Group of Würzburg 210. In fact, two of the vases dis- cussed earlier, belonging to the main group, are still nearer the Acheloos Painter, namely the neck-amphora Berlin 1845 and the Panathenaic Munich SL 459, Figs. 14-15, 18-19. On both, Herakles is represented on the main side be- tween Athena and Hermes, about to mount a platform holding a kithara, while on the other side Dionysus Stands in the midst of his followers. ** For the works of the Acheloos Painter, see ABV, pp. 354, 382 ff., with references. 62 According to Beazley, the latter was made by the Acheloos Painter himself, while the former is “near” him'*. Certainly the Munich Panathe- naic is a very fine work, finer than the other vases in the group— the difference is, however, only slight— and finer than its companion in Berlin, although this too is of high quality. The resemblance to the works of the Acheloos Painter is borne out for instance by his amphora Louvre F 272*®, which has the same motif. On the other hand, the scenes with Dionysus on »• ABV, p. 369, no. 121 and p. 370, no. 136. ABV, p. 383, no. 6, CV Louvre 5, III Hc pl. 56,4. Digitized by v^ooQle Fig. 16, Munich, Museum antiker Kleinkunst, neck- Fig. 17. Naples, Museo Nazionale, neck-amphora Sant- amphora 1568. angelo 148. Fig. 18. Munich, Museum antiker Kleinkunst, Pan- Fig. 19. Munich, Museum antiker Kleinkunst, Pan- athenaic amphora SL 459. athenaic amphora SL 459. 63 Digitized by v^ooQle the Munich and Berlin vases are not to be separated from the other works in the Group of Würzburg 210, in the same way as Naples Stg. 148 and Villa Giulia S0619, mentioned above, recall this group. The fact is that, if one goes through the works of the Acheloos Painter, the general resemblance between them^ and those of our group is striking. It may be that the figures of the latter are in general a little less vigorous and fleshy than those of the Acheloos Painter. If one compares the pictures with revellers of, or like, him, mentioned above, with the same motif on New York 41.162.179“, one may perceive something of this; in any case, the rendering of the folds seems not quite so voluminous. It should be stressed, however, that the difference is very small. Further, the most characteristic works of the Acheloos Pain- ter Show a drastic sense of humour and a boisterousness“ which the pictures of our group seem to lack. On the other hand, many of his works lack these features just as much as do those of our group. Thus, through all this Beazley’s words are bome out, “The fact is that the two groups are sometimes indistinguish- able”». Indeed, it seems easier to define the difference between them in terms of subject than of style. Characteristic motifs of the Acheloos Painter are the exploits of Herakles, and revellers, while Dionysus is the favourite subject of the Group of WUrzburg 210. It is probably also typical that, when the subjects of the formet, for instance Herakles playing the kithara, or re- vellers, are found on works of our group, then the resemblance between the groups is especially evident. — One may ask oneself whether the pictures of Dionysus and those that go with them were painted by an artist, or artists, who had studied the style of the Acheloos Painter so closely as to be almost indistinguishable from “ See above, notc 10. “ Cf. c.g. Beazley, Development p. 86. “ABV, p. 369, no. 121. him; or whether the Acheloos Painter made them himself, but at those moments when he was not quite at his highest level. Be that as it may, the neck-amphora of Medd- havsmuseet 1962:7 is a characteristic work o the Group of WUrzburg 210, its nearest com- panions being the two neck-amphorae in Würz- burg, the one in Toronto, and the Panathenaic amphora in London. The shape of the vase Medelhavsmuseet 1%2:7 is a neck-amphora of Standard type, with comparatively straight shoulders and body tapering to a narrow base (Fig. 20). Its general type points to the late sixth Century and may be compared, roughly, with Richiier & Milne. Shapes and names of Athenian vases, Fig. 14, and Caskey, Geometry of Greek vases, nos. 10 and 11“. “ The neck-amphora Richter and Milne Fig. 14, dated to the end of the sixth Century, is a little more slender than our vase. Caskey nos. 10 and 1 1 have more similar pro- portions; no. 11, Boston 89.258, is a work of the Anii- menes Painter, Beazley, ABV p. 276 no. S (above), and thus roughly Contemporary with our vase. 64 Digitized by v^ooQle Fig. 21. Medelhavsmuseet 1962:7, graffiti. Fig. 22, Naples, Museo Nazionale, Santangelo 148, graffiti. The development of the neck-amphora, as well as of the amphora and the hydria, in the late sixth Century has been traced by Hansjörg Bloesch“. He summarizes the development down to ca. 510 as a tendency to change stout forms into slender ones; at that time a renewed preference for stoutness arises which is again followed by a tendency towards lighter and more refined forms. He further isolates the works of three individual potters or groups of potters among the late Archaic neck-amphorae, in the main through the characteristic shapes of the feet and lips of the vases, namely the Group of Lea-neck-amphorae, the Club-foot Potter and the Canoe Potter. The shapes of pots can only be studied with Profit on the pots themselves or from drawings and photographs taken so as to render the shape “JHS71 1951 pp. 29 ff. without distortions**. The material of this sort available to me is slight, yet it seems to me that the Stockholm vase is not to be attributed to any of these potters. Thus, the Club-foot Potter is excluded on account of the different feet of his vases. This is interesting since the name- piece of our group, Würzburg 210, is one of his works*’. Further, the Lea-neck-amphorae, and those of the Canoe Potter, although they have more in common with our vase, yet differ too much in shapes and profiles. It is to be noted that Würzburg 214, another member of our group, is attributed to the Lea-neck-am- phorae**. It is probably significant that the •• The requirements are defined by Bloesch, op. cit. p. 29 notc 2. Bloesch, p. 38 and p. 33, Fig. 17 (profiles). •• The Lea-neck-amphorae, Bloesch, p. 38, with exam- ples of profiles, p. 33, Fig. 16. The Canoe Potter, p. 38, with typical profiles, p. 33, Figs. 18—20, and shapes, pl. 19 d, e, f. Digitized by LjOOQle 65 Stockholm vase, as regards the shape, has more in common with the vases placed at the be- ginning of the three groups than with the later ones**. Further, the foot and, to some extent the lip, has a counterpart in, for instance, the neck-amphora Munich 1486, dated around 510 B.C., which in its tum is very like Munich 1480 A, in this respect, of the preceding decade*®. I would suggest that the potter of the Stockholm neck-amphora used forms like these as his models'; he varied them a little but in a more moderate way than the potters studied by Bloesch. It has already been noted that two of the vases of the Group of Würzburg 210 have been identified as the works of two different potters. Even if my theory conceming the Stockholm vase should be wrong— so that it belongs to, let US say, the Lea-neck-amphorae*^ — one must admit the possibility that one or more of the unattributed members is the work of some other potter. Thus, the vases of the Group of Würzburg 210, so few and so closely inter- connected, were made by at least two potters, probably three and more. While our knowledge of the vase-paintings and their artists has been brought nearly to perfection in later years, we know far less about the potters. A study of their work and of the co-operation between them and the painters would be of great interest”. The graffiti on the underside of the vase (Fig. 21) are carelessly drawn: one notes that in the ligature the Stylus has slipped; they were probably engraved after firing. Both figures found on the •• Cf. c.g. WUrzburg 214, no. 1 of the Lea-neck-am- phorae, Würzburg 210, no. 2 of theClub-foot Potter, and London B 220, no. 1 of the Canoe Potter, CV British Mus. 4, III He pl. 53,4, Bloesch, pl. 19 d. •® Bloesch, p. 37; the profiles of Munich 1486 are seen on p. 33, Fig. 15, and those of Munich 1480A on Fig. 13. ” The Club-foot Potter seems to be excluded, on ac- count of the widely different profiles of his feet. “ This has often been stressed, see e.g. Bloesch, op. cit. p. 29.— An interesting picture of the work in an Athenian pottery is given by Bei^ey in Potter and painter in ancient Athens, pp. 25 ff Stockholm vase occur also on two other vases of the Group of Würzburg 210, namely the neck-amphorae Naples Stg. 148 (Fig. 22) and Würzburg 214”. They have been discussed by Hackt in Merkantile Inschriften auf attischen Vasen, who lists thirty-six instances of the ligature and twenty-one of the “arrow””; the latter is in every case but one combined with the ligature. Hackt put forward the theory that the ligatures and other signs, of the same type as on our vase, were in general made by, or on behalf of, the traders. He suggested that they were usually put on one vase in every ordered tot, to serve as a reminder for the maker, or as a sort of address. A certain number of the marks may further have been made by the potter, for his own or his colleagues' benefit”. While there seems no groimd to doubt that Hackfs theories are essentially correct, a renewed study of the graffiti would probably add much of interest. Thus, the material now available is more extensive; the chronology of the Attic vases is securely established, through the study of the vase-paintings; our knowledge of ancient industry and trade has increased. Through all this a comprehensive study of the graffiti would probably be more profitable now than it was at the beginning of the Century. Greek vases are in fact-beside their importance for the history of art — a source of information about practices in industry and trade, probably also about social and economic conditions in the ancient world. ” The ^aifiti of Würzburg 214 arc illustrated in Lang- LOTz, Griech. Vasen in Würzburg, p. 174. — Three more vases of this group have graffiti of a different shape, namely Würzburg 210, Lanolotz, p. 174, Berlin F 1M5, Furt- wÄNOLER, Beschr. der Vasensaniml. im Antiquarium, pl. 1, and Munich SL 459, a carelessly engraved alpba (information from the museum). ”Hackrs work was published in Münchener aicb. Studien dem Andenken Adolf Furtwänglers gewidmet, in 1909. The graffiti here discussed are listed on pp. 39 f. and 46 f., the Würzburg vase under nos. 393 and 526, the Na- ples vase, possibly, imder 402 and 532. (WÜrzburg 210 is no. 508 and Berlin 1845 no. 509.) ” Op. cit., pp. 94 f. A summary is given by Richter, Attic red-fig. vases, pp. 19 ff. 66 Digitized by LjOOQle A Republican Portrait from the Sabina OLOF VESSBERG The portrait that is reproduced in Figures 1 — 3, a gift to Medelhavsmuseet from His Majesty the King, was bought in Rome in November 1960. It arrived in Stockholm in February 1961 and its accession number is MM 1961:2. The portrait is executed in a white, fine-crys- talline, very hard marble, presumably Grecian. It has a narrow portion of the bust and was probably inserted in a Statue^. Naturally it is also conceivable that it was mounted as a bust also in classical times. Its height is 32 cm. This head is extraordinarily well preserved and has only a few minor injuries: the nose-tip is missing as well as pieces of the Shells of the ears, especi- ally in the case of the right ear. While the surface of the left half of the face is quite fresh, the right side is slightly abraded by water or sand erosion. The portrait represents what one would call a true Roman, depicted in the unadomed man- ner that was fashionable in Roman portraiture in the time of Pompey and Caesar. It is the image of an elderly but still vigorous man with ^ Such small busts with rather unevenly hewn rims are common during the last Century B.C. Of. O. Vessberg, Studien zur Kunstgeschichte der römischen Republik, Taf. LVI:2, LX, LXX:2, LXXXIV:!, 2, LXXXVI. grim features which nevertheless leave room for a certain good-naturedness. The face is lean with strong jaws and prominent cheek-bones. The mouth with the thin, tight lips is framed by deep furrows. The nose, unusually well pre- served despite the missing tip, is broad and fleshy, and has a sweUing at the side of the left nostril. The eyes are overhung by shaggy, jutting eyebrows curving outwards. The wrinkles of the forehead are carefully noted and the V-shaped vein in the middle of the brow makes an effective crown-piece to the architecture of the head. Realistically rendered are also the veins at the temple. A bunch of wrinkles radiales from the comers of the eyes and two long, parallel wrinkles define the cheek in relation to the ear. The neck is scraggy with several horizontal wrinkles and sharply marked tendons. The hair is faintly marked like a hood, which only just rises above the skin of the face. The surface of the hair is roughly carved with shallow chisel cuts and grooves. Here it is quite clear that the hair must have been painted. This is, as we see, a face depicted with great realism in detail, but the details are put together with the firm intention of giving a synthesis of the Personality. Indeed, he comes to us life-like and very much alive, this grim old man with a 67 Digitized by v^ooQle glint of goodness and humour in the slightly screwcd-up eyes. Now what is his time? To begin with, it is easy to see where his dosest stylistic counterparts are. Among many possibilities I will mention as particularly strik- ing examples the foUowing: two busts in the Museo Nazionale in Naples*, two heads in the Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek in Copenhagen*, one portrait head, probably from a tomb relief, in the Museo Nuovo in Rome^ (Fig. 4), one head from Palestrina in the Museo delle Terme in Rome^, and one head from a tomb relief in the Villa Colonna in Rome* (Fig. 5). These are exam- ples of Late Republican verism in its original form. For the broad structure of the face with the powerful jaws the two busts in Naples provide particularly good parallels. Note the drawing of the wrinkles on the head in Glyptoteket 561 (espedally of the furrows in the cheek) and on the head from Palestrina in the Museo delle Terme, and compare particularly the treatment of the hair on the Glyptoteket head 564: “flat hood, whose details would be rendered by painting” (F. Poulsen). This hair type in the form of a hood with the hair almost graphically sketched, is very characteristicof Late Republican portraiture and indicates that painting was a fundamental element in these portraits. The above-dted parallels to the Medelhavs- museet’s most reccnt portrait acquisition are Late Republican works from the closing decades of the Republic. The two portrait busts in * A. Ruesch, Guida illustrata del Museo Nazionale di Napoli, No. 1104; Vessbero, Studien, Taf. LX111:2 and 3— 4. * F. Poulsen, Katalog over antike skulpturer, Nos. 561 and 564; V. Poulsen, Les portraits Romains 1 (Public- ations de la Glyptoth^ue Ny Carlsberg No. 7), Nos. 20 and 22; Vessbero, Studien, Taf. LXVII:l-2, 3-4. * H. Stuart Jones, The Sculptures of the Palazzo dei Conservatori, p. 233, No. 17; D. Mustilli, II Museo Mussolini, p. 5, No. 5; Vessbero, Studien, Taf. LXIX. * B. M. Felletti Maj, Museo Nazionale Romano, I Ritratti, No. 59; Vessbero, Studien, Taf. LXXXII:4; E. Buschor, Das hellenistische Bildnis, p. 63. •Fr. Matz— F. v. Duhn, Antike Bildwerke in Rom mit Ausschluss der grösseren Sammlungen, No. 3816; Vessbero, Studien, Taf. XXXVIII: 1. 68 Naples represent an eariier group characterized by a less rigid modelling, a less emphasized bony framework and a strong link with the purely Hellenistic line in Contemporary portrait art, while the two heads 561 and 564 in the Glyptotek in Copenhagen belong to a later line of evoludon that is characterized by a drier and somehow harder verism. It is to this line that our portrait belongs. The portrait stems from the Sabina. It was o interest to us to clarify its provenance, and Axel Boethius— who first saw the head in Rome— and the author of these lines made a little trip to- gether in the autumn of 1961 to the eariier home of the portrait, the little town of Montopoli di Sabina. We could there verify the facts given by the art-dealer in Rome about the place where the head had been kept before he acquired it It had previously been located in a villino outside Montopoli, built in 1831 and belonging to the Torlonia family. There, together with other heads, it had stood on the balustrade of a terrace. Socles and postaments for the heads still exist and metal rods for fixing them. But the heads themselves were removed after an attempted theft about fifteen or twenty years ago. The terrace borders the road and was passed by the peasants from Montopoli when they went out to their fields. Legends seem to have grown up roimd the heads. An octogenarian in Monto- poli relates that // co/vo, as he called our portrait, represented un gran signore^ govematore della Sabina, who was surrounded by il suo consiglki ^ . Thus, the head stood for a long time in this Position and may perhaps have been part of the original decoration of the house. After the attempted theft the head was kept inside the ^ For information I am grateful to Axel Boöthius, who on a subsequent visit to Montopoli di &bina leamed more about the eariier history of our head. Fig, /. Roman male portrait, MM 1961:2, Medelhavs' museet, Stockholm, Digitized by LjOOQle Fig. 2. MM 1961:2. Fig. 3. MM 1961:2. villino in the care of one of the two families who live in the house and it was sold by this family to the Roman art-dealer from whom it passed into the possession of our Museum. Of the other sculptures that were on the terrace before the attempted theft, there remain two herms, which are still kept inside the house^. Naturally, there is much to suggest that the portrait was found in this district. It is a natural find-site for a work of this kind. The veristic Late Republican portraiture has in Italy a very uniform distribution throughout Latium and Etruria, while in the rest of the country, espe- cially in the south of Italy, its occurrence is rare. A group of portrait statues in Chiusi provide some parallels, locally quite dose*, and they also • Greek portrait types with prototypes from the 4th Century B.C., perhaps from the libraiy of some Roman Villa in the Sabine Mountains (A. Boethius). • Vessberg, Studien, Taf. LXXXV. 70 give certain suggestions with regard to the dating. For judging by the toga types they are from the time of transition to the Imperial sculpture and at all events belong to the second half of the last Century The most striking parallel, however, is the above-mentioned portrait on a relief in the Villa Colonna in Rome. This relief is made up of two parts, one comprising two portrait busts, a woman named Manlia Rufa and a man, Manlius Stephanus, the other consisting of the bust of an elderly man without inscription. This latter por- trait comes remarkably dose to our head. The powerful structure of the head with the empha- sized breadth across the cheek-bones, which gives the face an almost Mongol look, is the O.C., pp. 240 f. Digitized by v^ooQle same in both. We may further compare the form of the mouth with the enclosing curved fuiTOws and the powerfully marked jaws, the naiTOw and quite small eyes with thin lids overhung by strong brows, the arrangement of the hair in a thin hood with roughly hewn surface. The strongly marked wrinkles of the neck are also a feature common to both portraits, which is particularly characteristic of the style of the time. 1 have earlier dated the portrait in the Villa Colonna to c. 40 The basis of the chrono- logical System lies at this time to an exceptional degree in the coin-types. They show that the Late Republican realism in portraiture reaches its height in the middle of the Century, particular Support for this being provided by the coin- types of Postumius Albinus^*, Antius Restio^^ Pompey'^ and Caesar^*. With regard to the first three of these, one has to reckon with an interval between the time of the original prototype and that of the coin-type which may, at most, run to three or four decades^®. Consequently, the portraits of Caesar are of paramount impor- tance. A large group of these constitute the first example of Roman coin portraits that are not posthumous, and where on the whole there is identity of time between the original proto- type and the coin-type. They provide the reliable evidence for the development of Caesar’s por- trait from the last year of his life and the decades immediately after his death. They not only reflect the changed opinion about Caesar but also the stylistic evolution in the important period, also from the art historian’s point of view, “ Vessberg, Studien, pp. 198 ff. H. A. Grueber, Coins of the Roman Republic in the British Museum I, pp. 507 ff.; E. A. Sydenham, The Coinage of the Roman Republic, p. 158; Vessberg, Studien, pp. 132 ff. “Grueber, o. c. I, p. 521; Sydenham, o. c., p. 162; Vessberg, Studien, p. 134. “Grueber, o. c. II, pp. 366 f., 560 f., 564 f., 370 ff.; Sydenham, o. c., pp. 171 ff.; Vessberg, Studien, pp. 135 ff. “Grueber, o. c. I, pp. 542 ff.; Sydenham, o. c., pp. 176 ff.; Vessberg, Studien, pp. 138 ff. “ Cf. Vessberg, Studien, pp. 132 ff. Fig. 4. Roman male portrait. Museo Nuovo, Rome. Fig. 5. Tomb releif in the Villa Colonna, Rome. Detail. 71 Digitized by v^ooQle of the Second Triumvirate. They span Republi- can to Augustan portraiture. However, thcy arc not alone in this function, being supported by a number of other important coin portraits from the Second Triumvirate, and thus we have an unusually clear picture of the portrait art of this period. The most realistic group of coin-typcs with Caesar, mainly belonging to the issues of coinage from 44 and 43 B.C., continue in their piain rendering of the dictator's prematurely aged countenance the tradition of the portraits of Postumius Albinus and Antius Restio. But they also mark the end of a style, for at the same time there already appears on the coins struck by Flaminius Chilo^’ a portrait of Caesar in which the realism has been toned down and sub- ordinated to a firmer and more synthetic form. Our portrait from Montopoli, like the portrait in the Villa Colonna and the stylistically very similar portrait in the Museo Nuovo, is probably at the same stage in the evolution, and all three might suitably be grouped with Chilo’s image of Grubber, o. c. I, pp. 565 f.; Sydenham, o. c., p. 180; Vessberg, Studien, p. 142. Caesar^*. A datmg of our head to the beginning of the Second Triumvirate, to c. 40 B.C., would therefore seem natural. However, as, inter alia, the series of tomb reliefs shows^*, the late Republican realism con- tinues for a long time side by side with the classi- cism, and if all extemal criteria for dating, such as form of the bust, dress, inscription and so forth, are lacking in identifying a portrait, then one must exercise a certain caution. It is dangerous to regard the Republican realism as an exclusi- vely Republican style. Hence I think we have to reckon with a certain margin for the date of our head. Our association of i7 cälvo with the reiief in the Villa Colonna, which in all probability was found in or near Rome, and with the head in the Museo Nuovo, which is undoubtedly of Roman provenance, makes it perhaps most likely that our portrait was also a Roman find, which by way of the Torlonia collections came to be placed in that family's villino at Montopoli di Sabina. “ Cf. Vessberg, Studien, pp. 199 f. ” Cf. Vessberg, Studien, pp. 201 ff. 72 Digitized by v^ooQle Photos: O. Ekberg, pp. 11, 18 (Fig. 24a). 28 (Fig. 4Sb), 29 (Figs. 47a, 49b), 55 —59, 69 —70, and photo on tbe cover. N. Lagergren, pp. 6-10, 12-17, 18 (Figs. 23, 24b, 25), 19-26, 28-29 (excq>t Figs. 45b. 47a, 49b), 30-31, 43, 65 (Fig. 21). Drawing: B. Mfflberg, p. 64. DigitizecJ by v^ooQle Price: 20 Sw. crowns Digitized by Google