HOUSE URNS.pdf

ROBERT LEIGHTON

HOUSE URNS AND ETRUSCAN TOMB PAINTING:

TRADITION VERSUS INNOVATION IN THE NINTH–SEVENTH

CENTURIES BC

Summary. The ﬁrst painted tombs in Etruria date to about 675–650 BC, as

attested by a few examples at Veii and Caere, which pre-date those of Tarquinia

(mainly sixth–third centuries BC). At ﬁrst glance, tomb painting has no obvious

connection with the Early Iron Age or Villanovan period (tenth/ninth–eighth

centuries BC), when burial in shaft or trench graves predominated.

Nevertheless, some links can be suggested with Villanovan house urns, which

reinforce the point that indigenous traditions merit greater consideration than

is usual in discussions of Etruscan artistic and cultural development.

INTRODUCTION

Etruria’s debt to Greece is a pervasive theme in Etruscan scholarship, especially in

discussions about art. It ﬁrst emerged in the eighteenth century when the riches of Etruscan

cemeteries, including painted frescoes, began to illuminate an as yet little known civilisation.

Piranesi and his successors in the early nineteenth century argued about the Etruscan, as opposed

to the Greek, ancestry of Roman architecture and about the source of painted vases found in

tombs. In the twentieth century, discussions of Etruscan art often dwelt on questions about its

origins and originality, Greek or Near Eastern sources of inspiration, links with the art of

adjacent native peoples (or Italic art) and with Roman art (e.g. Cristofani 1978, 18–25; Pallottino

1985, 46–53; Harari 1992, with further references).

Sometimes regarded as a rather derivative phenomenon, Etruscan art broadly

followed trends in Greek art between the eighth and third centuries BC, at least in terms of

stylistic development. The speciﬁcally Etruscan dimension is generally sought in the persistence

of local traditions, or in the expression of ideas and themes that had counterparts or may

have originated elsewhere, but were adopted and adapted locally in a selective and distinctive

manner. Some links between Etruscan and Early Iron Age art, or what is sometimes

called symbolic visual imagery, have been acknowledged. For instance, the origins of Archaic

cremation ‘canopic’ urns of Chiusi are easily traced back to Villanovan jar urns with

anthropomorphic connotations imparted by such devices as helmet covering-lids. Similarly, one

can readily chart the development of Etruscan metalworking from the abundance and

sophistication of Early Iron Age production onwards, and the persistence of Villanovan

ceramic traditions well into the seventh century BC (e.g. Camporeale 2000). In fact, there is

OXFORD JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY 24(4) 363–380 2005

and 350 Main Street Malden, MA 02148, USA.

363

HOUSE URNS AND ETRUSCAN TOMB PAINTING

growing evidence that even the elite continued to live for much of the seventh century in

traditional ‘long-houses’, which were not markedly different from those of their Villanovan

predecessors (Waarsenburg 2001).

However, the Early Iron Age is accorded less than four per cent of the text in several

inﬂuential works on Etruscan art (Brendel 1995; Cristofani 1978; Torelli 1985), even though it

represents at least a quarter of the time span (tenth–second centuries BC) usually treated in

general syntheses of Etruscan history and archaeology. 1 One would infer, therefore, that its

relevance is slight. This perception is encouraged by the notion of a profound cultural and artistic

disjuncture in Italy due to Greek and Phoenician colonisation, and by the prominence of the

more familiar arts and crafts of fully ﬂedged Etruscan city-states. In fact, the equivalent of a

Big Bang Theory has remained inﬂuential in the study of Etruscan art, which has been described

as evolving ‘. . . from virtually nothing in the Greek Orientalizing period’ (Boardman 1967,

155). This statement may seem more contentious today than at the time when it was written,

and yet there have been few serious attempts in recent years to challenge several undeveloped

or potentially biased ideas in the literature, which are ripe for revision including, for example,

Brendel’s comments on the ‘psychology of Italian Geometric design’ (Brendel 1995, 35). Italy

noticeably lacks any major synthesis comparable with that of Whitley (1991) for contemporary

Greece.

Undoubtedly, the various traditions of prehistoric and classical archaeology have also

emphasised contrasting perspectives and priorities. If classicists, followed by a wider public,

have gravitated to the more familiar or Hellenic aspects of Etruscan art, prehistoric

archaeologists have tended to neglect Iron Age visual imagery in favour of more traditional

concerns with dating, socio-economic reconstruction and landscape archaeology. Nevertheless,

it is generally accepted that the late prehistoric Villanovan period ( protostoria in Italian

terminology) is an appropriate starting point for the study of Etruscan civilisation. This also

accords with the currently prevalent autochthonous model of Etruscan origins, in contrast to the

theory of a migration from Lydia (Herodotus 1.94). In recent years, attention has focused on

issues which require a longer time perspective, such as state formation and urbanism, prompting

contributions from varied standpoints (for example, Harris 1989; Wilkins 1991; Bietti Sestieri

1997; Pacciarelli 2000, with bibliographies). At the same time, visual symbols from later

prehistory have periodically been incorporated, albeit sometimes rather controversially, into

theories about cultural origins or about the mythic, religious and artistic traditions of later

societies (for example, Torelli 1997; Carandini 2002; and Bietti Sestieri 2000 for a recent

critique).

As far as the origin of Etruscan tomb painting is concerned, detailed studies by Naso

(1990, 1996) have highlighted fairly widespread analogies and potential sources of inspiration

in the arts and crafts of the eastern Mediterranean (notably Phoenicio-Cypriot and Cretan) during

the Orientalizing period, but also noted some connections with Early Iron Age house urns (or

hut urns). 2 In this article, I explore a wider range of possible links with house urns and contingent

issues in order to promote an indigenous perspective on early Etruscan art.

An earlier start to the Iron Age (in at least the tenth century BC) has been proposed by several individuals in

recent years (e.g. Bietti Sestieri 1997, 375).

I prefer to call them house urns, rather than adhere to a widespread convention (e.g. Brandt and Karlsson 2001)

which labels Villanovan dwellings as huts, and those of the Etruscan or later periods as houses.

OXFORD JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY

364

ROBERT LEIGHTON

URN AND HOUSE DECORATION

First, however, some potentially prejudicial viewpoints in the existing literature should

be mentioned, including the following:

‘For the Iron Age...one cannot speak of a monumental art, either with regard to architecture,

which probably remained within the limited repetition or elaboration of primitive house-hut

types...or with regard to plastic arts and painting. The taste for decorative or ﬁgurative

representation of peoples at this level is manifested almost exclusively by the forms and

decoration of small objects...’(Pallottino 1985, 59, my translation). 3

While small objects are an important source of evidence, this statement risks undervaluing

timber architecture and implying that there were no larger-scale forms of expression in the Early

Iron Age. In addition, it tends to be assumed that life-size sculpture of the human form ﬁrst

appeared in Etruria in the seventh century BC (e.g. Torelli 1985, 57). Admittedly, we lack large

works in stone, wood or clay prior to this time, but this should not rule out their existence.

Here of course is a familiar conundrum: does absence of evidence signify a real

absence? One can at least argue the point. If we take Italic house urns, characteristic of Etruria

and Latium, as models of real buildings, then we can make some claims for a kind of

‘monumental art’. In fact, some Early Iron Age houses are no less impressive in size than their

Etruscan successors. Moreover, their roof timbers were evidently carved with animal- or bird-

headed terminations. Especially noteworthy are house urns with comparatively large modelled

human ﬁgures set on the roof (Fig. 1a; Bartoloni et al . 1987, nos. 180–2). These provide a

credible basis for inferring the existence of large-scale sculpture of the human form. In fact,

they have often been cited as local precedents for the late seventh/sixth-century Etruscan rooftop

terracotta statues from Murlo, variously interpreted as ancestors or divinities (e.g. Bartoloni

et al . 1987, 190; Damgaard Andersen 1993, 28–9; Edlund-Berry 1993).

New discoveries also encourage a reassessment of Iron Age art. The richly carved

wooden chair from Verucchio (von Eles 2002) has heightened our awareness of its capacity for

explicit ﬁgurative representation and narrative, which Brendel (1995, 48) presumed did not exist

prior to about 630 BC. Although fairly late in date (around 700 BC), the chair could derive from

an otherwise unknown and potentially ancient local tradition of elaborate wood carving. It is

generally agreed that the subject matter is based entirely on local themes and images (Torelli

1997, 52–86; von Eles 2002). Of particular relevance is the depiction of humans (or possibly

monkeys) and birds on the roof tops of the two houses shown on the chair (Fig. 1d, e). The

humans are in a different position to those on the urns, facing each other with arms raised,

perhaps holding the cross beams. Although most authors regard them as sculpted images (e.g.

Damgaard Andersen 2001, 251), as in the case of the house urns, alternative interpretations

might be that they are entirely imaginary (spirits for example) or else real beings: perching birds

or persons engaged in roof repairs or decoration, for example. The huge adjacent looms shown

on the Verucchio chair, interwoven with ﬁgures, also illustrate considerable creativity in the

‘Per l’età del ferro...non si può parlare di un’arte monumentale: né a proposito dell’architettura, rimasta

probabilmente nei limiti di una ripetizione o di una elaborazione dei tipi delle primitive case-capanne ...né a

proposito della plastica o della pittura. Il gusto decorativo e ﬁgurale dei popoli di questo livello si manifesta

pressoché esclusivamente nelle forme e nella decorazione degli oggetti minori...’

OXFORD JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY

365

HOUSE URNS AND ETRUSCAN TOMB PAINTING

Figure 1

House urns from: a. Uncertain provenance (Height 26.8 cm), b. Bisenzo (H 29 cm), c. Tarquinia (H 42 cm), after

Bartoloni et al . 1987, nos. 182, 57, and Ghirardini 1882, pl. II:14. Verucchio throne houses (d, e) after von Eles

2002, ﬁgs. 126 and 128.

OXFORD JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY

366

ROBERT LEIGHTON

design of utilitarian equipment. Plainly, a ﬁgurative style of sculptural modelling and relief

carving existed alongside a strong geometric tradition of incision and painting, at least in the

later part of the Early Iron Age (eighth century). In fact, this should not surprise us given the

relative frequency of pottery animal and human ﬁgurines in Villanovan graves.

The publication of nearly two hundred house urns from Etruria and Latium (Bartoloni

et al . 1987), dated between the tenth and eighth centuries BC, facilitates a review of many

aspects of Iron Age architecture and symbolic expression. Several issues are discussed in the

volume, including chronology, function, origins, social signiﬁcance and regional variations,

although little is said about painted decoration. This is partly because the modelled and incised

motifs, or those represented by applied metal foil, have survived better than any paint, which

is invariably badly worn. Traces remain on only about ten examples. An urn from Tarquinia

(Fig. 1c) exempliﬁes the problem: at the time of discovery in the late nineteenth century it was

seen to be painted with elaborate white geometric and anthropomorphic motifs (Ghirardini 1882,

291–2, pl. II:14; Hencken 1968, 61, ﬁg. 48e, f ), but these have now faded or vanished. Another

example from the Roman forum was originally painted in white and red, although white or

yellow seems to have been more common (Bartoloni et al . 1987, nos. 64, 124). The use of white

paint on Etruscan seventh-century pottery, including painted roof tiles from sites such as

Acquarossa and the white on red ware of Caere, probably derives from this earlier tradition.

Villanovan geometric decoration has a striking capacity for subtle variation and

elaboration in what one might infer to be the visual equivalents of allusions, metaphors or

wordplay. Even the human body, or parts of it, such as heads and limbs, appears in variously

codiﬁed and carefully juxtaposed forms (e.g. Fig. 4a–e). The house urn motifs include triangles,

zig-zags, swastikas or other versions of crosses, meanders, hooks, circles, wavy lines, hatched

bands and checkerboards. They frequently surround architectural features such as doors, ﬂoors,

eaves and roof beams, although the most prominent are the panels around the walls. The

signiﬁcance of individual motifs has always been hard to infer (see also below), although some

recurrent patterns and regional preferences have been observed (e.g. Guidi 1980; Toms 1992–93;

De Angelis 2001). However, in the case of biconical jar urns, which are often ﬁnely decorated,

no clear link could be established between the gender or status of the deceased and the panel

motifs. The presence of the latter on house urns (e.g. Fig. 3a–c), and so perhaps on real houses,

suggested to Guidi (1980, 56) that they might represent badges or emblems of group or kinship

afﬁliation, but this remains largely speculative.

It is reasonable to infer that house urns were inspired by real buildings; several

correspondences with excavated structures have been noted, although the faithfulness of all

details to life-size counterparts is debatable. For example, some authors have reasoned that the

roof timbers were only visible on the inside of actual buildings, while others have suggested

that they helped to hold down thatching (Bartoloni et al . 1985; Bartoloni et al . 1987, 135–43). 4

Can we infer that the decoration of the urns is based on that of real houses? This is a common

assumption. For example, the walls of a reconstructed Villanovan house at Bologna (Margherita

However, it is hard to see how this would have been effective in securing thatch, which is normally held by cords

or netting. Heavy timbers so placed would more likely crush and be detrimental to thatching, which needs to air

and be placed evenly. For the possible use of clay plaster on rooﬁng, see Moffa (2002, 38–9). Alternatives to

thatching might be the use of tree bark, wooden planks or shingles (ﬂat wooden slabs resembling ceramic tiles),

hand split from logs, as found on Anglo-Saxon and Viking buildings, and also more widely on traditional wooden

houses.

OXFORD JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY

367

Plik z chomika:

Inne pliki z tego folderu:

Inne foldery tego chomika: