AIMS

Bucchero has been called the national pottery of Etruria (H.B.Walters, History of Ancient Pottery ii (London, 1905), 301). In the archaic period it is a common feature of most Etruscan sites, over an area extending from the river Arno in the north to the river Sele south of Salerno. Within this area there are several regional styles of bucchero, of which the S. Etruscan is the first to be established. In this study ‘S. Etruria’ is applied in a narrow sense to that part of Etruria of which the most important centres are Cerveteri, Veii and Tarquinia. Vulci, which is usually described as a city of S. Etruria, belongs, as far as bucchero pottery is concerned, more to Central Etruria, which includes the area around Lake Bolsena and Orvieto and westwards to the coast (see Chapter 5, and FIGS.427–8). Technically the bucchero of Central and N. Etruria and of Etruscan Campania is inferior to that of S. Etruria: the fabric is generally heavy and the shapes less harmonious. Unlike the relief ware of the North, the bucchero of S. Etruria relies to a great extent on shape alone for its visual appeal. It is often pleasing to the eye, and at its best it has a considerable elegance. But quite apart from this its widespread occurrence in deposits of all types makes its study of considerable value for Etruscan chronology.

This study is a revised version of a thesis presented in 1975 to Cambridge University for the degree of Ph.D. In that work the bucchero was illustrated twice over: both according to archaeological context, and in typological order. For reasons of cost and bulk, only the latter arrangement is possible here. As many of the tomb-groups are published here for the first time, I have tried to illustrate all the significant pieces. For bucchero, profile-drawings yield the most information, and I have included these where possible. Unless otherwise stated, all drawings are reduced to one-third scale. The photographs, however, are not to scale, and for dimensions the reader is referred to the Catalogue. All the drawings and photographs were made by me, with the exception of FIG.352 which was kindly supplied by the Lerici Foundation, Rome. Throughout the text, asterisks signify that an item is illustrated; ‘GROUP 1’ etc. refers to the tomb-groups catalogued in Chapter 2; and all dates are BC.

As regards terminology, I refer to the amphora, oinochoe etc. as ‘shapes’, which may be subdivided into ‘types’. The term ‘cup’ is restricted to drinking-vessels equipped with U-handles; though, of course, there are other shapes here which are cups in the general sense. ‘Domestic bucchero’ is used as a loose term with reference to bowls and dishes and other unpretentious shapes of generally late date.

INSCRIPTIONS

1. GROUP 13:2 (FIG.426.1): mi aranth ramuthasi vestiricinala muluvanice

2. GROUP 7:3 (FIG.426.2): mi hirumesi mulu

3. GROUP 31:3 (FIG.426.3): tetaia

4. GROUP 39:10 (FIG.426.4): ve

5. GROUP 39:3 (FIG.426.5): venel

These are the legible inscriptions. I do not include illegible ones, nor incised crosses etc. Nos.1, 2 and 3 are published: see Catalogue for references; and for no.5 see SE 30 (1962), 297, no. 18.

Only nos. 1 and 2 are of any length. No. 1 is a dedication. Aranth is the subject, and at the end is the verb in the past tense. In between is a feminine name (praenomen and nomen) in the genitive (the person to whom the gift is made?). No.2 is also a dedication. But here mulu probably has more the force of a noun than a verb (‘gift’, ‘dedication’); in which case Hirumesi is likely to be the name of the dedicator – in the genitive, as often with this formula.

However, the purpose of this note is not to discuss problems of language, but to draw attention to an important article by Colonna. In this he has collected together the published inscriptions of seventh-century date from Cerveteri (MEFR 82 (1970), 637ff.). Noting the find-contexts where known, Colonna arranges the examples in chronological order. In this way it can be seen that certain letters undergo small changes, and that these developments are of chronological significance. Among the most conspicuous of these changes, mu and nu grow long vertical stems, and sigma becomes 4-bar instead of 3-bar.

CENTRAL ITALY (for location of sites see FIGS. 427–8)

The lists are by no means comprehensive: to make them so would not only be an almost impossible task but would also require an inordinate amount of space. They include most of the major sites where bucchero of S. Etruscan type has been found, but many important sites are omitted. Even from the sites included there is sometimes only a small quantity of material accessible or published. For the survey information was gathered (mainly in 1971–2) from the following collections:

I cannot be sure about the provenance of the bucchero in the old Faina Collection at Orvieto, or that from the Tuscania museum. I therefore omit references to them.

Generally no attempt is made here to draw clear-cut distinctions as to whether individual items are imported from elsewhere or locally made. The lists do no more than show the area of distribution of S. Etruscan bucchero as a whole, although from them it is often possible to draw limited conclusions about the centre(s) of manufacture of individual types.