An Attic Red-figure Kylix from Veii and the

An Attic Red-figure Kylix from Veii and the

An Attic Red-figure Kylix from Veii and the
Distribution of the Zalamea Group in Etruria
Laura Ambrosini
The excavation conducted by the Sapienza – Università di
Roma at Piano di Comunità,the southern urban district of Veii,
has yielded interesting data concerning the topographical
layout of the site and its use.1 Among the most significant
artefacts from the site is a red-figure kylix, identical to one
from Spina,which is considered to be Etruscan.2 A detailed
analysis is necessary to decide whether the two can be assigned
to the Attic red-figure Zalamea Group.
The kylix from Veii, preliminarily published,3 was found in
the filling of a well, discovered within room A, on the southwest of the late Republican domus.4 The well, probably dug into
a court-yard, seems datable to the phase of occupation of the
city plateau during the 6th century bc.
The filling of the well is organized in regular subdivisions.
In the deepest part, where there are three small radial
compartments, a large quantity of broken vases and densely
compressed bucchero cups and kantharoi were accumulated.5
Inside the cups and kantharoi firstlings and animal parts had,
it seems, been deposited intentionally as offerings. This deposit
was well sealed by a layer of fragmentary tiles.6 The shaft was
filled with mixed material, less abundant and more fragmented
than in the compartments. This second accumulation is sealed
over with a concentration of crushed bones, largely made up of
pig skulls. Immediately above, there was a variety of broken
pieces of tufa blocks, perhaps resulting from the deliberate
dismantling of the fourth level of the lining of the well. At the
mouth of the well was a layer of earth, contaminated by the
general levelling of room A of the domus.
Study of the finds showed that, despite the division into two
main levels marked by deliberate sealing, the filling of the well
took place on one occasion, using partially crushed material
from previous fills, in a sequence of highly ritualised
procedures.
At the lower level of the shaft the base of a stemless kylix
(Fig. 1) was found,7 which has a bird (goose, duck or swan) in
the medallion, within a border of two reserved lines: the bird is
moving to the right, and seems to be shaking its open wings.
The fragment may be classified as the type of stemless kylix
with large plain rim.8
The decorative circle on the underside is well attested in
Attic red-figure kylikes from the mid-5th century bc onwards,9
mainly between 430–420 bc, as in the late production of the Lid
Painter,10 but also in other examples such as the Cástulo Cups.11
In the shaft of the well (from -1.80 to -3.50m) fragments of
another kylix (Fig. 2) of the same type12 and two rim
fragments, belonging to one or more kylikes, were retrieved;
these can probably be related to the same Attic production.13
The kylix with the bird is of considerable interest from
several points of view.
Soon after its discovery, it seemed justifiable to compare
the kylix from Veii (Fig. 1) to one from Spina (Fig. 3),14 judged
by Gilotta to be Etruscan, and to connect both with an Attic
red-figure kylix found in the Athenian Agora (Fig. 4).15
It is highly probable that the kylix from Spina, dated to the
end of the 5th or early 4th century bc, was produced in the
same workshop, and almost certainly by the same craftsman,
as suggested by certain details (in particular, the shape of the
eye and feathers). The subject matter of the medallion of the
kylix from Spina, considered ‘apparently not Attic’,16 very
closely recalls the stamnos Bologna 824: it has therefore been
considered an ‘attache padana’ to this group of vases collected
by Gilotta under that name (stamnos Bologna 824).17 The
morphology of the vase and the device of the double line
delineating the medallion suggest a connection between the
Figure 1 Veii, Piano di Comunità, domus, room A, kylix, inv. no. VPC 469/63.1,
from the well-filling. Drawing and photo by L. Ambrosini
Figure 2 Veii, Piano di Comunità,
domus, room A, kylix inv. no. VCP
469/9.1, from the well-filling.
Drawing and photo by L. Ambrosini
Figure 3 Ferrara, Museo
Archeologico Nazionale, kylix inv. no.
29838, from Spina (after Gilotta
1998 (2001), pl. XXIV.e-f)
Etruscan by Definition | 25
Ambrosini
Figure 4 Athens, The Agora Museum, kylix inv. no. P18495, from a well in the
ancient Agora of Athens. Photo L. Ambrosini
Figure 6 Spain, Zalamea de la Serena, Badajoz, palace-sanctuary of Cancho
Roano, kylix (after Gracia Alonso 2003, pl. 2.1)
two kylikes (the one from Veii and the one from Spina) and the
‘coppe apode’ studied by Piera Bocci.18 The workshop, which
according to Gilotta might be located in northern Etruria
(probably in the Val di Chiana), exported its products to the
territory of Siena, Volterra, the Ager of Volsinii19 and Etruria
Padana (Bologna). The distribution of these ceramics
highlights the existence of an inland waterway towards the
south, as already proposed by Jolivet and Gilotta. This
hypothesis would fit well with the new kylix from Veii.
Recently, Gilotta has been inclined to locate this workshop
production in the Tiber Valley, at Chiusi/Clusium or Volsinii,
not excluding the existence of other centres of production,
perhaps satisfying the demands of a clientele over a wide
area.20 It should be noted that a fragment of a cup with a double
concentric line on the interior, comparable to that on our kylix
from Veii, was recently found in Ferento and attributed by
Micozzi to Attic production, though not excluding the
possibility of its being Etruscan.21
Looking further afield, we see that stemless kylikes of this
type, featuring the representation of a bird inside a medallion
rimmed by two concentric lines, are produced in Athens in the
last quarter of the 5th century bc, as indicated by a kylix from a
well in the ancient Athenian Agora (Fig. 4), dated to this
period. The fragment was reused as an ostrakon for
Hyperbolos between 417 and 415 bc (Fig. 5).22 The kylix from
Athens has a bird facing left and bears on the underside a
graffito inscription, indicating its use as an ostrakon:
‘Υπέρβολος Αντιφάνος, that is Hyperbolos Antiphanos
Perithoides, the radical democrat, whose ostracism is dated to
417 bc according to Theopompus, or to 416 or 415 bc according
to other evidence.23 The kylix was found together with two
Attic red-figure oinochoai of the last quarter/end of the 5th
century bc.24 The device of the single bird facing left also
appears on Attic red-figure lekythoi of the same period from
the Athenian Agora,25 but is also found in Ampurias and Ibiza.26
Geese of the same type are depicted on the squat lekythoi from
tomb 36 of the Athenian Kerameikos (dated to 410 bc)27 or
preserved in various museums, e.g. Karlsruhe,28 Milan,29
Krakow,30 and Würzburg.31 The goose, sometimes alternating
with female heads, and perhaps identifiable as the attribute of
a deity (Aphrodite?),32 appears on the lids of Attic red-figure
type A pyxides, dating to the second quarter of the 4th century
bc. It should also be emphasized that the motif of goose or
swan fits within the typical repertoire of Attic red-figure
pottery from the end of the 5th to the beginning of the 4th
century bc.33 In this context we can include also the several
askoi from Spina34 belonging to the Ia Class of Massei,35 which
bear the figure of a bird and a cat and are datable to the first
quarter of the 5th century bc. The attribution of the kylix from
Veii to Etruscan red-figure production, on the basis of the
example from Spina as proposed by Gilotta, seems to be
problematic.
In fact, the kylix from Veii is identical not only to the kylix
from Spina, but also, for example, to the kylix (Fig. 6) from the
palace-sanctuary of Cancho Roano36 (Zalamea de la Serena,
Badajoz), in Extremadura, Spain. The destruction of the
sanctuary is dated to the end of the 5th/early 4th century bc,
but its use dates back to at least the 6th century bc. The kylix
found in Cancho Roano in 1989, but published only recently by
Gracia Alonso, is decorated in the medallion and also on the
underside. The vase has been attributed to Attic production
and dated to 430–425 bc. Also from the sanctuary of Cancho
Roano comes another fragmentary kylix of the same type,
preserving part of a bird’s wing (Fig. 7).37 When compared, the
representation of the bird is almost identical to that on the
kylix from the Athenian Agora. The device of the bird occurs
Figure 5 Athens, The Agora Museum, kylix inv. no. P18495, from a well of the
ancient Agora of Athens. Left: drawing by H.S. Whipple, after Thompson 1948,
186, fig. 8; right: drawing after Lang 1990, fig. 11309
Figure 7 Spain, Zalamea de la Serena, Badajoz, palace-sanctuary of Cancho
Roano, kylix (after Gracia Alonso 2003, pl. 7.3)
26 | ETruscan by Definition
An Attic Red-figured Kylix From Veii and the Distribution of the Zalamea Group In Etruria
Figure 8 Attic Pottery from Spain – Extremadura: decorative
motifs of the medallion on red-figure kylikes (type Stemless
Large Plain Rim) (after Jimenez Villa and Ortega Blanco 2004,
117, fig. 32)
frequently on Attic red-figure kylikes found in Spain and
Rousillon: for example, from Château Roussillon/Ruscino38
(eastern Pyrenees) dated to 400 bc and from the necropolis of
Las Madrigueras (Carrascosa del Campo, Guadalajara),39 two
examples from Ampurias (one of which is very fragmentary),40
another from Illeta dels Banyets (Campello, Alicante)41 and the
unpublished piece in the Museum of Elche.42
The kylikes from Cancho Roano are defined as ‘copas de pie
bajo de tipo Plain Rim’, i.e. Stemless Large Plain Rim.43 Initially
linked to the production of the Marlay Painter, they were later
attributed by Gracia Alonso to the Circle of the Painter of
London E 777 and to the Circle of the Painter of Bologna 417,
which is in turn linked to the Circle of the Penthesilea Painter.
This is a group of kylikes of inferior quality to those produced
by the Circle of the Marlay Painter, in the same period, but by
different hands.44 The uniformity and uniqueness of the group
led Gracia Alonso to detect an artist responsible for this
production who was possibly independent of those mentioned
above, and whom he called the ‘Zalamea Painter’.45 This
production is dated to the second half of the 5th century bc.46
The technical and stylistic features allowed Gracia Alonso to
identify a group of artisans working with the Zalamea Painter
in the Athenian Kerameikos, influenced by the major artists of
the time (Fig. 8).47 Furthermore, the kylikes of the Zalamea
Group, together with the Cástulo Cups, the glaukes, the
skyphoi with garland, the St Valentin kantharoi, and the
Delicate Class kylikes, make up a pottery set that enables the
identification of a specific commercial profile from the end of
the 5th century bc; what P. Cabrera called the ‘horizonte
ampuritano’.48
The discovery made in the Tartessic centre of Cancho
Roano is important. In the indigenous sites bucchero and
Etruscan amphorae are completely absent, but Greek pottery
(e.g. in the fortified site of Castro Marim) is widespread.49 The
Tartessic populations were regulating the flow of exotic goods
inwards to Extremadura50 through the course of the Guadiana,
as evidenced by the two Etruscan bronze infundibula (one of
type 1 ‘lyre type’ and one of type 3 ‘palmette type’)51 from
Cancho Roano.52 As is known, the flow of Etruscan pottery to
the Iberian coast seems to have stopped altogether in the
second half of the 5th century bc.53 A recent study on the
circulation of Greek pottery in Extremadura54 has revealed that
the Attic pottery in Cancho Roano appears in the final phase of
the palace-sanctuary at the end of the 5th century bc. It is also
interesting to note that the Stemless Large Plain Rim kylikes
have, in Extremadura, their highest concentration especially in
Cancho Roano, with 45 vases, of which at least 22 bear a redfigure decoration in the medallion. Outside Cancho Roano the
Stemless Large Plain Rim kylikes were found only in the great
tumulus of El Turuñuelo de Guereña.55
Etruscan by Definition | 27
Ambrosini
Table 1 'Analysis by x-ray fluorescence on ceramics found in well contents. The analysis of the kylix from Veii is given in the first row (A.C. Felici)
Inventory
Number
Class
VPC 469/63.1
Object
K
Ca
Ti
Cr
Mn
Fe
Ni
Cu
Zn
Rb
Sr
Zr
Pb
To
Cup fragment
determine
1.30
3.90
1.23
0.17
0.67
89.16
0.00
0.10
0.42
0.74
1.25
0.85
0.21
VPC 469/5.1
Attic redfigure
pottery
Kylix wall
fragment
1.03
8.14
1.09
0.18
1.52
81.79 0.30
0.45
1.08
1.14
2.12
0.90
0.26
VPC 469/12.61
Banded
pottery
Cup
1.08
3.85
1.39
0.06
1.81
85.66 0.00
0.41
0.92
1.43
2.22
0.99
0.18
VPC 469/13.92
Banded
pottery
Thymiaterion
fragment
1.20
6.17
1.31
0.00
1.08
83.66 0.00
0.33
0.79
1.48
2.55
1.20
0.23
VPC 469/11.55;
VPC 469/12.59;
VPC 469/12.60;
VPC 469/12.66
Banded
pottery
Cup with
vertical rim
1.41
5.86
1.38
0.00
1.79
83.13
0.00
0.36
0.72
1.40
2.36
1.37
0.22
VPC 469/38.49
Banded
pottery
Wall
fragment
1.42
9.20
1.50
0.00
3.17
75.21 0.00
0.38
0.55
3.22
3.86
1.16
0.32
My own recent examination of the kylix in Athens56
prompted observations about the kylix from Veii. The different
colour of the clay (gray in the kylix from Cancho Roano, red in
the example from Veii, dark pink in that from the Athenian
Agora) prevents automatic attribution of the vases to the same
production. Of course the differently coloured clay may be
explained by accidental factors (firing defects, sourcing from
different areas of the same quarry, supply from different
quarries, etc.). However, the presence of miltos (red ochre),
noted both on the Athenian Agora kylix and on the kylix from
Veii, leads to the same surface appearance, achieving
standardisation of colour and effecting a more vibrant red.
The analysis by X-ray fluorescence of Attic pottery from the
well at Veii revealed the presence of both nickel and chromium,
but the kylix showed only chromium (Table 1). If compared to
the archaeometric features of local pottery also shown in the
Table, the kylix reveals noticeable differences: a higher iron
content, and a lower content of manganese, rubidium,
strontium and zirconium. Unfortunately it was not possible to
obtain a sample of clay from the Athena Agora kylix for
analysis, due to its historical importance as an ostrakon.57
However, further examination of the kylix from Veii is merited
in order to determine whether it is actually an Attic product, as
I believe, rather than Etruscan ‘Attic-style’, aiming to satisfy the
demand for figured pottery.58
In conclusion, there are criteria, some evidential and some
circumstantial, that can be used as pointers to the Attic
production of the kylix from Veii. The most important factors
are the morphology of the vase, the decoration and the surface
treatment. It has to be stressed, however, that the Attic kylix in
question is not common in Etruria and that therefore it seems
highly unlikely to be an Etruscan imitation. The requirement of
an imitation is that it should be linked to demand for a
‘surrogate’ that looks like a well-known and sought-after
product from abroad. That is the case with the widespread
Attic pottery in Etruria such as the glaukes and the St Valentin
kantharoi, etc. These productions are widely imitated in
Etruria, but with the technique of over-painting and with the
addition of variants (as is evident in the decoration of St
Valentin kantharoi). In our case, though, it seems rather
difficult (though not impossible) to imagine an Etruscan
production of stemless kylikes with a bird in the medallion,
28 | Etruscan by Definition
since such kylikes had limited circulation, not only in Etruria
but also in the rest of the Mediterranean area, and also in
consideration of the lack of variants (stylistic or technical) in
the Attic prototypes. In this respect the contemporary
production of over-painted black-glaze kylikes should be taken
into account, bearing the same bird in the medallion; the six
kylikes collected by Bruni come from Fiesole (the kylix found at
the southern side of the Etruscan wall, with the Etruscan
inscription 'rarulpuia' incised under the foot (Fig. 9)), from the
ager of Volterra, of Arezzo, from the Clusium/Chiusi area, from
Volsinii and Greifswald.59 I take this opportunity to point out an
unpublished stemmed kylix,60 with a bird to the left, overpainted in pink on black glaze, in a medallion rimmed by two
lines, which was found in Rome on the north-eastern slopes of
the Palatine hill in the excavation directed by Panella.61
It is well known that the flow of Attic pottery continued in
great quantity in the 5th century bc, and was not hindered even
by the Peloponnesian War. In addition, possible transit points
of goods through the Apennines have been identified, both to
the north and to the south, enabling access to the inland and
Tibertine Etruria.62 In my opinion, Veii provides another key
point to understanding the movement of Attic pottery in
Etruria between the last decades of the 5th and the first
decades of the 4th centuries bc.63 The circulation of Attic redfigure pottery in Veii during this period is little known. From
Beazley’s lists we know about a pelike of the Painter of London
E 395, a fragment of the Manner of the Meidias Painter and
four kylikes of the sub-Meidian Cup Group.64 To these vases I
Figure 9 Fiesole, Baccio Maria Bacci
private collection, from Fiesole (after
Bruni 2003, pl. XXII, 4a-b)
An Attic Red-figured Kylix From Veii and the Distribution of the Zalamea Group In Etruria
should like to add a fragment from the Macchiagrande
excavation,65 recently published and generally dated to the
second half of the 5th century bc. Attic vases also come from
the necropolis of Picazzano and from tomb IX of Macchia di
Comunità.66 It seems to me that the discovery of the kylix of
Veii not only opens up new perspectives regarding the spread
of Attic pottery in Etruria in the last quarter of the 5th century
bc, but also allows better analysis of the influence it had on
local production, with respect to pottery shapes but especially
the iconographic heritage.67 Further research in this area may
increase our understanding of patterns of exchange and
manufacture during the Classical era both in Etruria and the
Athenian sphere.
Notes
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
The complete bibliography for the site and excavation is available
in Ambrosini and Belelli Marchesini in press b. The excavation was
undertaken as part of the ‘Progetto Veio’, run by the Sapienza –
Università di Roma (co-ordinated by Prof. G. Bartoloni), under the
supervision of Prof. G. Colonna. I would like to thank Sam Alberts
and Barbara Belelli Marchesini for the revision of my English
translation of the text.
Gilotta 1998 (2001), 141, pl. XXIV, e–f. See the discussion below.
Ambrosini and Belelli Marchesini 2009, 274–6, fig. 7.1, 286, fig.
15.6a–b; Ambrosini, in Ambrosini et al. in press a; in Ambrosini
and Belelli Marchesini, in press b; in Ambrosini and Belelli
Marchesini, in press c.
Study of the well’s structure can be found in Belelli Marchesini, in
Ambrosini and Belelli Marchesini, in press b.
The botanical analysis of the remains from inside the bucchero
vases was prepared by Dr A. Celant of Sapienza - Università di
Roma. We must reiterate that the vases are not whole; if our
interpretation is correct, the vessels were thrown into the well
along with the offerings.
The placing of tiles of roughly even thickness corresponds to a
method commonly used in the filling of cavities, to ensure their
consolidation.
Inv. no. VPC 469/63.1. Clay 2.5YR5/6 red, black iridescent glaze,
there remains only 39% of the foot; ht.2cm; diam. of foot 8.7cm;
ht.of foot 1.15cm.
Sparkes and Talcott 1970, 102.
See, e.g., the stemless Attic red-figure kylix from Gravisca in Huber
1999, 75, no. 296.
Stemless Attic red-figure kylix of the Lid Painter in Huber 1999,
106, no. 493.
E.g. from Cancho Roano: Gracia Alonso 2003, 52–3, fig. 6.1.I and
M; Jiménez Villa and Ortega Blanco 2004, 30–1, PAJ/1, fig. 1, 126,
fig. 35.I.
Inv. no. VPC 469/9.1.
Inv. no. VPC 469/25.1 and inv. no. VPC 469/54.495.
Gilotta 1998 (2001), 141, pl. XXIV e-f. Ferrara, Museo Archeologico
Nazionale, inv. no. 29838.
Ambrosini and Belelli Marchesini 2009; Ambrosini et al., in press
a; Ambrosini and Belelli Marchesini, in press b; Ambrosini and
Belelli Marchesini, in press c.
Gilotta 1998 (2001), 141.
Gilotta 1986, 5; Gilotta 1998 (2001), 139–42; Gilotta 2003, 207–8;
Ambrosini 2005a, 163, with bibl.
Bocci 1979, 61 s.
Gilotta 2003, 208.
Gilotta 2003, 210–11.
Micozzi 2004, 124–5, pl. XXXVI.8.
Moore 1997, 315, no. 1390, with bibl., pl. 128.1390, Attic, dated to
the last quarter of the 5th century bc. Inv. no. P18495, int. diam. of
foot 6.9cm, ext. diam. of foot 8.6cm, wall thickness 0.8cm. Miltos
(red ochre) is present right across the outside of the foot; dark pink
clay and gloss opaque. This is an ostrakon: Lang 1990, 64, no. 309,
fig. 11, with bibl. For the complete photographic documentation of
the vase, see Thompson 1948, 186, fig. 8, pl. 66.3.
From the Athenian Agora come two other ostraka with the name of
Hyperbolos Antiphanos; the form of letters and context allow
dating of the ostraka to the last quarter of the 5th century bc (Lang
1990, 64).
24 Moore 1997, 233, no. 633, 244, n. 719, pls 68.633 and 76.719: the
first with a depiction of a komos is dated to the last quarter of the 5th
century bc, the second with an athletic scene is dated to c. 400 bc.
25 Moore 1997, 266, no. 933, pl. 92933.
26 Trias De Arribas 1967, 192, no. 615, 303, no. 29, pl. CXI.1 and 2, CL.9.
27 See Schlörb-Vierneisel 1968, 93, pl. 32.1; CVA Stuttgart 1, pl. 31.3.
28 CVA Karlsruhe 1, pl.29.5.
29 CVA Milan 1, pl. 11.5.
30 CVA Cracow, tav. 13.5.
31 Thompson 1948, 187. For Würzburg: Langlotz 1932, 117, no. 589, pl.
209589.
32 For the association of the bird with gods and mortals, consider for
example Apollo, Zeus and Iacynthus, etc.
33 Moore 1997, pl. 98.1021.
34 Massei 1978, XXXIII ss.
35 In this connection see also Gracia Alonso 2003, 35.
36 See, e.g., Sassatelli 1993a, 22 (color photograph), 99–100, no. 124,
with bibl.
37 Gracia Alonso 2003, 34–5, 81, pl 2.1, 124, 127, pl. 7.3; Jiménez Villa
and Ortega Blanco 2004, 26–8, CR3. Inv-Campaña 1989, ht. 2.2cm,
diam. foot 9.5cm; red clay, compact and purified with micaceous
inclusions.
38 Gracia Alonso 2003, 82, pl. 7.3, inv. no. Campaña 1994, ht. 1.8cm,
diam. of foot 8cm, gray clay, hard, compact, purified with
micaceous inclusions. Dated 430–425 bc.
39 Jully 1983, 254.
40 Mena Muñoz 1984, 165. I was unable to consult Almagro Gorbea
1965 and Almagro Gorbea and Olmos 1981, as the books kept in
Rome’s libraries (only the Spanish and the Swedish), are not
available (in closed boxes for transfer of the library or for
restructuring).
41 Trias De Arribas 1967, 145, nos 439 and 441, pl. LXXIX.3 and 5;
Jimenez Villa and Ortega Blanco 2004, 120; Miro I Alaix 2006, 249,
260, fig. 706.2587 and 739.
42 García Martín 2003, fig. 12.76; Jiménez Villa and Ortega Blanco
2004, 120–1. The interpretation as the owl, is, according to the
authors, debatable.
43 I would like to thank Prof. R. Olmos for this information.
44 Jiménez Villa and Ortega Blanco 2004, 115–23.
45 See also Domínguez Sanchez and Sánchez 2001, 440–1.
46 Gracia Alonso 2003, 35–6; Jiménez Villa and Ortega Blanco 2004,
116. For the bibliography on the Painter: Domínguez Sanchez and
Sánchez 2001, 440.
47 The spread of these kylikes in Spain affects not only the coastal
sites as Ampurias and Illeta de Banyets, but also the inland sites:
Jiménez Villa and Ortega Blanco 2004, 119, fig. 33.
48 Jiménez Villa and Ortega Blanco 2004, 154.
49 Gracia Alonso 2003, 37; Jiménez Villa and Ortega Blanco 2004, 155,
with bibl.
50 Botto and Vives Ferrándiz 2006, 130.
51 For the distribution of pottery through the course of the Guadiana
see Jiménez Villa and Ortega Blanco 2004, 213–24.
52 Celestino and Zulueta 2003, 57, fig. 17.1-2; Botto and Vives
Ferrándiz 2006, 129–30, fig. 23.
53 Sanmartí et al. 2006, 202.
54 Jiménez Villa and Ortega Blanco 2004, 26.
55 Jiménez Villa and Ortega Blanco 2004, 115–16, 119, fig. 33122.
56 Carried out 31 December 2007 at the Agora Museum. I would like
to thank Dr K. Lazaride, Dr N. Saraga, Dr M. Geraniou (Ephoria of
Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities), Dr J. Jordan (American
School of Classical Studies). For more extensive discussion see
Ambrosini et al., in press a.
57 According to the Ministry of Culture regarding my request of
9/11/2007. It would be difficult to arrange x-ray fluorescence
analysis of the fragment in Athens using the same apparatus as
used in Rome for the analysis of the kylix from Veii, which would
be desirable to obtain directly comparable results.
58 Gilotta 2003, 207–8.
59 Bruni 2003, 283–4, pl. II.4b.
60 Found in 2003 in US 2353 (road resurfacing near the Meta Sudans)
and dated to the second quarter of the 3rd century bc.
61 I would like to thank Prof. C. Panella and Dr A. Ferrandes for
inviting me to examine the Attic red-figure, Faliscan and Etruscan
red-figure pottery found in the excavation.
62 Sassatelli 1993b, 195, with bibl.
Etruscan by Definition | 29
Ambrosini
63 Ambrosini 2005b, 325, n. 169.
64 ARV2, 1140.12, 1329.113, 1396.7-10.
65 G. Cifani, in Moretti Sgubini 2001, 19, IC5. The fragment is
generally dated to the second half of the 5th century bc; see
Ambrosini 2005, 325, n. 169.
66 Drago Troccoli 1997, 265, 271.
67 See, e.g., Ambrosini 2005.
Bibliography
Almagro Gorbea M. 1965, La necrópolis celtibérica de ‘Las Madrigueras’,
Carrascosa del Campo (Cuenca), Madrid.
Almagro Gorbea M. and Olmos R. 1981, ‘Observations sur l’assimilation
de l’iconographie classique d’époque préromaine dans la Péninsule
Ibérique’, in Kahil. L. and Auge C. (eds), Mythologies périferiques.
Etudes d’iconographie, Colloques Internationaux du CNRS n. 593,
Paris, 57–66.
Ambrosini L. 2003 (2004), ‘L’urnetta fittile dipinta di Tarquinia ed una
copia moderna della Collezione Gorga. Un’analisi
pluridisciplinare’, StEtr LXIX, 77–112.
Ambrosini L. 2005a , ‘Sull’uso di modelli iconografici attici in
un’officina di specchi etruschi tardo-classici’, StEtr LXX (2004),
161–82.
Ambrosini L. 2005b, ‘Circolazione della ceramica attica nell’agro
volsiniese e falisco: un confronto’, in G. della Fina (ed.), Orvieto,
l’Etruria meridionale interna e l’Agro Falisco, (Atti XII Convegno
Internazionale di Studi sulla Storia e l’Archeologia dell’Etruria),
AnnFaina XII, 301–36.
Ambrosini L. and B. Belelli Marchesini 2009, ‘Ceramiche a Veio tra V e
III secolo a.C.: i materiali da un pozzo di Piano di Comunità’, in V.
Jolivet, C. Pavolini, M. Tomei and R. Volpe (eds), Suburbium II. Il
Suburbio di Roma dalla fine dell’età monarchica alla nascita del
sistema delle ville (V-II sec. a.C.), (Atti Convegno Roma 2005),
(MEFRA Supplemento), Rome, 261–87.
Ambrosini L., A. Argentieri, B. Belelli Marchesini, A.C. Felici, A.
Generosi, C. Giampaolo, S. Lo Mastro, B. Paci, M. Piacentini, V.
Rossi Albertini, M. Vendittelli, in press a, ‘Studio archeometrico su
ceramiche rinvenute nello scavo di Piano di Comunità a Veio’, in
X Giornata di Archeometria della Ceramica. Le classi ceramiche:
situazione degli studi, (Atti Convegno Roma 2006).
Ambrosini L. and B. Belelli Marchesini in press b, ‘Il contributo degli
scavi di Piano di Comunità alla conoscenza dell’abitato di Veio:
materiali dal riempimento di un pozzo sul pianoro sommitale’, in
G. Bartoloni (ed.), L’abitato di Veio. Scavi dell’Università di Roma La
Sapienza.
Ambrosini L. and B. Belelli Marchesini in press c, ‘Veio - Piano di
Comunità’, in M. Bentz and C. Reusser (eds), Etruskisch-italische
und römisch-republikanische Wohnhäuser. Kolloquium in Bonn,
23–25. Januar 2009.
ARV2: Beazley J.D. 1963, Attic Red-figure Vase Painters, 2nd edn,
Oxford.
Botto M. and J. Vives Ferrándiz 2006, Importazioni etrusche tra le
Baleari e la Penisola Iberica (VIII- prima metà del V sec. a.C.), in G.
Della Fina (ed.), Gli Etruschi e il Mediterraneo. Commerci e politica,
(Atti XIII Convegno Internazionale di Studi sulla Storia e
l’Archeologia dell’Etruria, Orvieto 2005), AnnFaina XIII, 117–96.
Bruni S. 2003, ‘REE’, StEtr LXIX, 283–4.
Celestino Pérez S. and P. Zulueta de la Iglesia 2003, ‘Los Bronces’, in S.
Celestino Pérez (ed.), Cancho Roano. IX, Los Materiales
Arqueológicos II, Mérida, 9–123.
CVA: Corpus Vasorum Antiquorum.
30 | ETruscan by Definition
Domínguez A.J. and C. Sánchez 2001, Greek Pottery from the Iberian
Peninsula. Archaic and Classic Periods, Leiden-Boston.
Drago Troccoli L. 1997, ‘Le tombe 419 e 426 del sepolcreto di Grotta
Gramiccia a Veio. Contributo alla conoscenza di strutture tombali
e ideologia funeraria a Veio tra il VI e il V secolo a.C.’, in
Berardinetti A., Drago L., Nardi G. and Pandolfini M. (eds), Etrusca
et Italica. Scritti in ricordo di Massimo Pallottino, Pisa, 239–80.
Gilotta F. 1986, ‘Appunti sulla più antica ceramica etrusca a figure
rosse’, Prospettiva 45, 2–18.
Gilotta F. 1998 (2001), ‘Addenda alla più antica ceramica etrusca a
figure rosse’, StEtr LXIV, 135–48.
Gilotta F. 2003, ‘Aspetti delle produzioni ceramiche a Orvieto e Vulci
tra V e IV sec. a.C.’, in G. Della Fina (ed.), Tra Orvieto e Vulci, (Atti X
Convegno Internazionale di Studi sulla Storia e l’Archeologia
dell’Etruria, Orvieto 2002), AnnFaina X, Rome,205–40.
García Martín J.M. 2003, La distribución de céramica griega en la
Contestania Ibérica: El puerto comercial de la Illeta dels Banyets,
Alicante.
Gracia Alonso F. 2003, ‘Las cerámicas áticas del Palacio-santuario de
Cancho Roano’, in S. Celestino Pérez (ed.), Cancho Roano. VIII, Los
materiales arqueológicos I, Mérida, 23–194.
Huber K. 1999, Le ceramiche attiche a figure rosse, Gravisca 6, Bari.
Jiménez Villa J. and J. Ortega Blanco 2004, La cerámica griega en
Extremadura, Mérida.
Jully J.J. 1983, Céramiques grecques ou de type grecque et autres
céramiques en Languedoc méditerranéen, Roussillon et Catalogne
(VII–IV s. av. C.), Paris.
Lang M.L. 1990, Ostraka, The Athenian Agora XXV, Princeton.
Langlotz E. 1932, Griechische Vasen in Würzburg, Munich.
Moore M.B. 1997, The Athenian Agora, XVIII. Attic Red-figured and
White-ground Pottery, Princeton.
Massei L. 1978, Gli askoi a figure rosse nei corredi funerari della
necropoli di Spina, Milan.
Mena Muñoz P. 1984, Catálogo de céramicas de nécropolis de la Edad del
Hierro del Museo de Cuenca, Cuenca.
Micozzi M. 2004, ‘Ferento etrusca?’, Daidalos 6, 113–32.
Miró i Alaix M.T. 2006, La cerámica ática de figures roges de la ciutat
grega d’Emporion, Barcelona.
Moretti A.M. (ed.) 2001, Veio, Cerveteri, Vulci. Città d’Etruria a
confronto, (exhib. catalogue Rome), Rome.
Sanmartí J., D. Asensio and M.A. Martín 2006, ‘Etruscan imports in the
indigenous sites of Catalonia’, in Gli Etruschi da Genova ad
Ampurias, (Atti XXIV Convegno di Studi Etruschi e Italici,
Marseille-Lattes 2002), Pisa-Rome, 193–202.
Sassatelli G. (ed.) 1993a, Le ceramiche greche ed etrusche. Museo
Internazionale delle Ceramiche in Faenza, Faenza.
Sassatelli G. 1993b, ‘La funzione economica e produttiva. Merci,
scambi, artigianato’, in F. Berti and P.G. Guzzo (eds), Spina. Storia
di una città tra Greci ed Etruschi, (Catalogo mostra Ferrara, 1993),
Ferrara, 179–217.
Schlörb-Vierneisel B. 1968, ‘Drei Neue Grabreliefs aus der Heiligen
Strasse’, AM 83, 89–110.
Sparkes A.B and L. Talcott 1970, The Athenian Agorà, XII. Black and
Plain Pottery, Princeton.
Stefani E. 1944–45, ‘Scavi archeologici a Veio in contrada Piazza
d’Armi’, MonAnt XL, 177–290.
Thompson H.A. 1948, ‘The Excavations of the Athenian Agora. Twelfth
Season: 1947’, Hesperia XVII, 149–96.
Trías de Arriba G. 1967, Las cerámicas griegas de la Península Ibérica,
Valencia.