This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
LARISSA BONFANTE WARREN
The importance of dress as historical documentation, as a means of dating a monument and identifying the sex, nationality, rank and even name of figures represented,is evident in studying another culture through its artistic monuments. The manner of dressing--in certain cases, of not dressing-visually demonstrates such distinctions; Persian "feather crowns," Aegean, Egyptian or Mycenaean kilts, Roman togae praetextae and shoes represented on ancient monuments have all figured prominently as evidence in recent historical discussions.2 Since certain problems come up repeatedly in the interpretation of this kind of evidence, I should like to discuss some questions, arising from my own study of Etruscan dress, which may be of wider import. These problems are especially urgent in Etruscan studies, where we are limited to the direct evidence of art and inscriptions for any reconstruction of Etruscan history. When, as happens occasionally, Latin literature gives us a clue about Etruscan matters, such as the later development of some originally Etruscan type of dress, the problem of interpretation becomes crucial. We are then not only comparing a figured representation with a literary description, but dealing with two different civilizations. What is true in one context may not hold in another. All too often Etruscan evidence
1 This article, in a different form, was presented as a paper at the Symposium on Etruscan Art held at the Worcester Art Museum in May 1967 on the occasion of their exhibit, Masterpieces of Etruscan Art. At that time I received much help and advice from Otto Brendel, David Mitten and Richard Teitz. Members of the Ancient Civilization Group at New York University also made helpful suggestions concerning the question of the possible use of the himation as a sign of heroization. 2 "Feather Crown": R. D. Barnett, "The Earliest Representation of Persians," in Ch. 8o, Assyria and Iran, Reprint of Survey of Persian Art 14 (1967) 2997-3007: ". . . a contribution to one small aspect of the study of dress in ancient Near Eastern art, and its historical implications, which in general are much neglected by archaeologists" (2997). Andrew Alf6ldi uses the distinction between the pallium of the Greek philosopher and the toga of Roman envoys in interpreting a scene on some gems, Early Rome and the Latins (Ann Arbor 1963) 219. See also his interpretation of the figures on the fresco from the Tomb, 221-224; here Francois
has been interpreted according to later, Roman standards. Instead we must derive whatever clues we can from direct observation of the material, notice certain distinctions, and attempt to explain these within their own context. The following distinctions are fairly regularly shown by Etruscan artists, consciously or unconsciously, in their representation of Etruscan dress. Correctly interpreted, they can give us important information about Etruscan history and culture. I) The difference between a real costume, copied from life and familiar to the artist, and a costume imitated from another artistic representation. 2) "National," or at least cultural differences. 3) Differences in date, implied in any study of fashion, which by definition changes in form and meaning. Since fashions change at different rates, the most useful for dating purposes are those styles or accessories fashionable only for a short time. 4) Social differences: between men and gods, masters and slaves, men and women; and perhaps live men and dead as well. Specific examples will illustrate these distinctions and allow a discussion of the type of problem involved.
I. DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A REAL COSTUME AND A
COPY OF AN ARTISTIC REPRESENTATION. IMITATION OF
IN A FOREIGN COSTUME ETRURIA. Thisis illustrated by
I do not agree, however, with conclusions drawn from the significance of the toga praetexta in a Roman context. For a recent exchange concerning the significance of the Roman trabea and calcei, A. Momigliano, "Procum Patricium," JRS 56 (1966) 16-24, in which is discussed Alf6ldi's use of this evidence in his Der friihr'mische Reiteradel und seine Ehrenabzeichen (Baden-Baden 1952) and Early Rome and the Latins 44; see also Alf6ldi, Historia 17 (1968) 444-460, and Momigliano's answer, Historia 18 (1969) 385-388. For a reconstruction of early magistracies in the Etruscan cities, based on a study of the dress and insignia of figures on monuments of the late 6th and early 5th century B.C., S. Mazzarino, Dalla monarchia allo stato repubblicano (Catania 1945) Ch. 4, "Su un rilievo di Velletri," 58-75; and see bibliog. in M. Pallottino, Etruscologia (Milan 1968') 208. The interpretation of the "Master of Animals" from the "Aegina Treasure" depends on the style of both art and costume; R. A. Higgins, Greek and Roman Jewellery (London 1961) 64-65, 201, pl. 3B and color pl. BI.
LARISSA BONFANTE WARREN
the problematic costume of the Morgan statuette in the Metropolitan Museum (pl. 65, fig. I),3 made in the early fifth century B.c. by an Etruscan artist who carefully depicted various details of the dress: a soft Ionian chiton, ornamented with decorative borders on neckline, hem and sleeves, pointed shoes, and what looks like a himation worn over the chiton. The Ionian chiton was the standard garment for archaic figures in Etruria and in Greece, and presents no problem. The shoes are a typically Etruscan fashion, to which we shall return. It is the construction of the himation that concerns us here. This rectangular mantle was, in the archaic period in Greece, normally draped diagonally across the body on female figures, like the Ionic mantle illustrated on an archaic kore from the Acropolis, No. 674 (pl. 65, fig. 2).4 In fact it was obviously this type of figure, with its dress, pose, and long loose hairstyle, which inspired the Etruscan artist. In copying his Greek model, however, the artist misunderstood the complicated, unfamiliar fashion of the mantle, and misinterpretedit on the statuette because it was unfamiliar. On the Attic kore, close to the Morgan statuette in time, the fashion, though stylized, is recognizable (pl. 65, figs. 2-5). A mantle can actually be worn like this in real life: the midway point of the cloth is held under the left arm, while the rest is draped around the body, front and back, up to the right shoulder. The upper edge is all gathered into folds, front and back (pl. 65, figs. 2, 4), and is pinned or buttoned along the top of the right arm to form a kind of sleeve (pls. 65, 68, figs. 5-6).-5 Gisela Richter long ago pointed out that the artist of the Morgan statuette completely misunderstood this draping of the himation (pl. 65, fig. I),6
3 G. M. A. Richter, "An Archaic Etruscan Statuette," AJA
16 (1912) 343-349, pls. III-Iv, is the principal publication.
apparently visualizing instead a garment somewhat like an apron with two symmetrical points, worn only in front over the chiton and held up by a belt or strap. Instead of showing the himation "sleeve" over the right arm he shows the chiton sleeve, and treats what should be a diagonal fold over the breast as though it were a flat band. The artist, who was completely dependent on his model, was presumably working from a two-dimensional drawing, perhaps an Attic vase painting, rather than a statue. In back, where his model failed him, he simply imagined that the mantle did not extend there, and left the surface of the chiton blank (pl. 65, fig. 7). The contrast between this representation and the stylized rendering of a contemporary Etruscan statuette in the Archaeological Museum in Turin (pl. 68, figs. 8-9)' is striking. Here the artist apparently had a three-dimensional model, and the costume is simplified but not misinterpreted. The artist was probably no more familiar with this fashion than was the artist of the Morgan statuette, but he was content to follow his model, perhaps another statuette. The artist of the Morgan statuette attempted a more realistically conceivedthough ultimately misunderstood-rendering. He was led astray by his desire to show in detail what he thought the mantle really looked like, and made several errors in his imaginative reconstruction of a three-dimensional piece from a two-dimensional depiction. There are only a few renderings of this himation fashion, whether misunderstood or not, on Etruscan monuments of ca. 500-475B.c. At least one is a forgery. Obviously in Etruria this was not a local fashion in dress, but an artistic motif which Etruscan artists imitated from Greek models.8
way, AIA 74 (1970) 110o-12. 6 Richter (supra n. 3) 343f; Handbook of the Classical Collection, MetropolitanMuseum (New York 1927) 78.
Later bibliography in Richard Teitz's catalog of the exhibit, Masterpieces of Etruscan Art (Worcester Art Museum I967)
44, no. 30, ill. 146-147. Cf. bronze statuette from Sparta in
Berlin, Staatl. Mus., Misc. 7933, of the mid-sixth century. U. Gehrig, A. Greifenhagen, N. Kunisch, Fiihrer durch die
Antikenabteilung (Berlin 1968) 132, pl. 12.
7Turin, Museo Archeologico. Museum photograph courtesy of the Soprintendente,Carlo Carducci. 8 Bronze statuette, A. Boethius, ed., Etruscan Culture, Land
and People (New York and Malm6 1962) figs. 400-403. S.
4G. Dickins, Catalogue of the Acropolis Museum (Cambridge I912) no. 674. H. Payne and G. M. Young, Archaic Marble Sculpture from the Acropolis (London 1936) no. 674, pls. 75-76. 5 Fig. 6 from M. Bieber, "Die Herkunft des tragischen Kostiims," Idl 32 (1917) 99. On this diagonally draped Ionic
himation fashion in Greece and its development, H. Herdejiirgen, Untersuchungen zur thronenden G6ttin aus Tarent in Berlin und zur archaischen und archaistischen Schrigmanteltracht (Waldassen-Bayern1968), and review by B. S. Ridg-
Haynes, Etruscan Bronze Utensils (B.M., London 1965) pl. in. The terracottastatuette of a girl in the Ny Carlsberg Glyptothek, Copenhagen, is a forgery, M. Pallottino, The Meaning of Archaeology (London 1968) fig. 53For copyists' misunderstanding of the dress of the original Greek statues, see M. Bieber's forthcoming book on Roman copies, some of whose conclusions are summarized in "Roman
Copies as Roman Art," Columbia University Forum 13 (1970)
36-39. Forgers (cf. Pallottino figs. 52-54) and copyists often have the same problems; for example, as Bieber points out,
ETRUSCAN DRESS AS HISTORICAL SOURCE
Strangely, Attic artists of an earlier age committed similar errors when confronted with this fashion, before it had actually found its way to Athens from Ionia. The Ionic fashion in dress was adopted in Athens only after the middle of the sixth century, but the style in art caught on earlier. Enterprising artists were forced, between 550 and 530, to copy the latest Ionian artistic models without understanding what this costume really looked like. The artist of Acropolis statue No. 678 (pl. 68, fig. io),' for instance, has the same mistakenly symmetrical folds, the same center "slit"as the Morgan statuette. A comparison between these two artists is instructive. Although both show the same folds in front, the Attic artist does not treat the back in the same way. Instead of representing the garment as an apron, he attempts to reconstruct the back by repeating the same symmetrical arrangement of the folds; we might almost say he fakes it. A few years later, the fashion was well known in Athens, and artists had plenty of live models.'" In a much later period, however, when this costume was no longer worn in Athens, Attic artists misinterpreted it once more. Archaizing Attic artists, in fact, turned the misunderstandings and stylizations of archaic artists into a conscious style. They imitated earlier representationsof a dress no longer worn, not only for its exotic and venerable antiquity, but for the graceful quality of its linear, symmetrical pattern."
it is the sides that are particularlydifficult to "fake." There were other misinterpretationsof costumes the Etruscans neither used nor understood. The Greek Doric peplos is represented only once on archaic Etruscan art known at present; more often in the classical period, but only as a special costume for the goddess Athena: E. H. Richardson,The Etruscans (Chicago 1964) 105, pls. xxiv b, xxxvii. For the "Cretan capelet," see L. Bonfante Warren, "Riflessi Cretesi in Etruria," Studi in Onore di Luisa Banti (Rome 1965) 81-87. 9 Dickins (supra n. 4) no. 678. Payne and Young (supra n. 4) 21, pls. 34-35. G. M. A. Richter, Korai (Phaidon 1968) 71-72, no. 112, figs. 345-348. Dickins dates this statue at the very beginning of Ionian influence on the basis of this misunderstanding: "a travesty of Ionian costume, the result of faulty copying." 10 This particular fashion never caught on in Etruria. Etruscan women preferred to wear the chiton alone, without himation; or they wore the himation hanging straight down in back, with the ends over the shoulders, or pulled over the head like a veil, as on a bronze statuette in Worcester, Teitz (supra n. 3) 43-44, no. 29, ill. p. 145, with previous bibl. 11 E. B. Harrison, Archaic and Archaistic Sculpture. The Athenian Agora ii (Princeton 1955), most recently discusses the problems of the archaistic style, with a section on the kinds of dresses preferred by these artists. Good illustrations of the "swallowtail" motif, formed by the stylization of this costume, in C. M. Havelock, "Archaistic Reliefs of the Hellenistic Period," AJA 68 (1964) 43-58, and "The Archaic as
This preceding illustration implies the second type of difference on my list. 2. CULTURAL DIFFERENCES. Obviously ordinary Etruscan dress of the archaic period looked quite different from contemporary Greek fashion, or the artist of the Morgan statuette would have had no trouble. Around the middle of the sixth century the fashion changed in both Athens and Etruria, but the results were not the same. We have seen what happened in Athens. At the same time there appeared in Etruria two fashions never adopted in Athens, which give Etruscan figures in the art of this period, as they must have given the real Etruscans wearing them, a typical "Etruscan look." These two fashions are the rounded mantles and the pointed shoes. The latter, because of the enthusiasm with which they were adopted and the limited period of their popularity, provide a useful dating criterion, and bring us to the third type of difference. 3. CHRONOLOGICAL DIFFERENCES. POINTED SHOES. The date of their adoption can be fixed within a few years. They first appear soon after 550 B.c. on monuments illustrating the transition from the Dedalic to the Ionic style. The so-called Campana plaque from Cerveteri in the Louvre (pl. 66, fig. II)12 depicts a man and a god, dressed in different costumes. The man, seated on a folding stool and holding a scepter, is dressed in the new fashion:13
Survival Versus the Archaisticas a New Style," AJA 69 (1965) 331-340, pls. 73-74; previous bibl. in both. 12F. Roncalli, Le lastre dipinte di Cerveteri (Florence 1966) 22, no. 6, pl. vI. P. Ducati, Storia dell'arte etrusca (Florence 1927) pl. 81, fig. 231. A. Neppi Modona, Emporium 67 (I928) o02ff, fig. II. G. Q. Giglioli, L'arte etrusca (Milan 1935) pl. io8, 2. P. Ducati, Pittura etrusca, italo-greca e romana (Novara 1942) pl. 4. Alf6ldi, Reiteradel (supra n. 2) 36, pl. I. M. Pallottino, Etruscan Painting (Skira 1952) 33f (not ill.). L. Banti, Il mondo degli etruschi (Rome I960) pl. 66 below (hereafter Banti, 11 mondo). J. Heurgon, La vie quotidienne chez les 6trusques (Paris I96I) 59, 219, fig. 9. Date 540-530, Pallottino, loc.cit. 13 An even earlier instance of the pointed shoes occurs on the "Boccanera"plaques, which I believe date just after 550, ca. 540 B.c. London, British Museum. Five terracotta slabs from a small chamber tomb in Cerveteri, of which three are decorated with figures wearing high pointed shoes. Roncalli (supra n. 12) 30-33, 69-77, nos. 18-20, pls. xIII-xV, with previous bibliography (for which see also n. 12) and summary of dates suggested, ranging from 600 to 500 B.c. but tending to settle around 560-55o0.Murray, JHS Io (1889) 243f, pl. 7. R. P. Hinks, Catalogue of the Greek, Etruscan and Roman Paintings in the British Museum (London 1933) 3f, pls. I-ni. Pallottino (supra n. 12) 25f; and review by A. Rumpf, AJA 60o (1956) 75. L. Banti, "Bronzi arcaici etruschi: i tripodi Loeb," Tyrrhenica (Milan 1957) 85f, pl. viIi, 3, accepts a date around 550.
LARISSA BONFANTE WARREN
white Ionic chiton, rounded mantle and pointed boots. Such boots appear on practically every type of figure until ca. 475 B.c.: even the Morgan statuette, theoretically dressed in Greek style, wears Etruscan pointed shoes. To the right stands the goddess, on a pedestal or altar, with a snake below. Because she is a goddess, she wears the dress of an earlier age: the heavy, colored "Dedalic" chiton hangs straight and narrow, with only an inch or two of Ionic chiton showing below the hem, above bare feet or sandals. With its two different styles of dress, the Cerveteri plaque not only reflects the moment of transition between two fashions, but also illustrates another function of costume, according to which the gods are dressed in the fashions of the past. We shall come back to this later. At least two other monuments dating around 540 or 530 B.c. confirm the transition to pointed shoes at this time, and show the overlap of the two fashions. In the Tomba dei Tori in Tarquinia (pl. 67, fig. 12),14 showing the ambush of Priam's young son Troilus, Achilles, hiding in ambush behind the fountain at the left, is armed, and wears the perizoma of the seventh and early sixth centuries."5Etruscan youths and warriors appear in this perizoma only to about the middle of the sixth century, when the local fashion gave way in art to the Greek convention of male nudity; in the Tomba dei Tori we see one of its last appearances. Troilus, in contrast, is naked, on horseback, unsuspecting and unarmed. He wears only a pair of
14 Ducati, Arte (supra n. 12), pl. 76, fig. 224. M. Pallottino, "Tarquinia," MonAntLinc 36 (1937) 302f, fig. 70. Ducati, Pittura (supra n. 12), pl. I. Pallottino, Etruscan Painting (supra n. 12) 31 (color pl.). Banti, 11 Mondo, pl. 62 below. 15 Two types of perizoma have been distinguished. I. A "cod-piece" type, represented on a series of bronze statuettes recently collected and studied by M. F. Briguet, "Deux groupes de figurines 6trusques archaiques," Revue des Arts 9 (1959) and J. Balty, "Un centre de production de bronzes figures I3Iff, de l'Italie septentrionale (deuxi'me moitid du VIIe-premiere moiti6 du VIe s. av. J.-C.): Volterra ou Arezzo?" BullInstHistBelgeRome 33 (1961) 5-68, cat. 39ff. 2. A simple bathingtrunk type, worn by figures erroneously called "skirted kouroi," F. Magi, StEtr 8 (1934) 415 n. I. G. M. A. Hanfmann, Altetruskische Plastik I (Wiirzburg 1936) 88-90. K. A. Neugebauer, "Der ilteste Gladiatorentypus," BerlMus 61 (1940) 7ff. P. J. Riis, Tyrrhenika (Copenhagen 1941) 120, 141, 164. A. Hus, MilRom 71 (1959) 9-1o; and Recherches sur la statuaire en pierre dtrusque archaique (Paris 1961) 129. Balty 57-59. For Greek and Etruscan kouroi types, Richardson (supra n. 8) 62, 93, 1o5. 16 From Monteleone di Spoleto, discovered in 1902. A. Furtwiingler, text to Brunn-Bruckmann, nos. 586-587; Kleine
light blue pointed shoes, a new fashion at the time. In the Monteleone Chariot in the MetropolitanMuseum,16 also, the principal figures are still dressed in the straight, heavy Dedalic chiton, while the two nude kouroi at the corners already wear decorated pointed boots." Soon after 550 B.c., as these monuments show, the appearance of the Etruscan pointed shoes provide us with a terminus ante quem non. Such a criterion is most valuable in dating figures which on stylistic grounds would be dated much earlier, for example a bronze statuette in Florence (pl. 66, fig. 13)18 often called a xoanon or idol because of its primitive look, and in the past dated as early as the seventh century." More recently Massimo Pallottino has lowered the date to the mid-sixth century, on stylistic grounds and particularly because of the Ionic features of the face.20 The pointed shoes provide a convincing argument for the lower date. In fact a date around 540, 530, or even later would be possible, when pointed shoes were so well established that they were automatically represented on any figure, even an otherwise "primitivizing" one.
A. Goddesses and Pointed Shoes. The date, rigid frontal pose and primitive appearance of this bronze statuette bring us back to the other statue of a goddess depicted on the Cerveteri plaque, who owes her archaic quality to traditional dress rather than artisticstyle. We have already noted, in Greek and Etruscan art, this tendency to represent gods
G. M. A. Richter, Handbook of the Schriften II, 314-330. Etruscan Collection, Met. Mus. of Art (New York 1940) 26, fig. 58. L. Goldscheider, Etruscan Sculpture (Phaidon 1941) 31, pl. 81. U. Scerrato, "Considerazioni sul carro di Monteleone di Spoleto," ArchCl 8 (1956) 162f. R. Hampe, E. Simon, Griechische Sagen in der frdihen etruskischen Kunst (Mainz 1964) 53f, pls. 22-25. 17 For the Etruscan custom of adding shoes to nude figure types, P. Bocci, StEtr 28 (1960) II8f. Cf. Banti, 11 Mondo 318; M. Pallottino, ed., Mostra dell'arte e della civilta etrusca (Milan 1955) no. 351; Teitz (supra n. 3) nos. 68 (?), 78, 81, 87, 90, among many others. 18 Florence, Mus. Arch. 678. L. A. Milani, 11 R. Museo Archeologico di Firenze (1912) 138, no. 27; pl. 29, 1. Ducati, Arte (supra n. 12) 187, fig. 196. H. Miihlestein, Die Kunst der Etrusker: Die Ursprunge (Berlin 1929) fig. 178. A. Solari, Vita pubblica e privata degli etruschi (Florence 1931) 101, fig. 28. Giglioli (supra n. 12) 85, 5. Goldscheider (supra n. 16) 80. Riis (supra n. 15) 142 n. I. O. W. Von Vacano, Die Etrusker (Stuttgart 1955) pl. 65 a. Pallottino, Mostra (supra n. 17) 25, no. 79, pl. xvi. 19 Solari (supra n. 18). 20Pallottino, Mostra (supra n. 17).
ETRUSCAN DRESS AS HISTORICAL SOURCE
in archaic dress. Evelyn Harrison has recently traced archaizing motifs in Athens to a desire to distinguish statues from living persons by representing them in artificial costumes no longer worn in real life; these archaistic designs were shown, as early as the end of the fifth century, on gods, nymphs, graces and seasons.21It is not surprising therefore to find in Etruria that when pointed shoes became archaic they became the dress of the gods; nor is it without interest to see how this happened. During the period of their popularity, ca. 540475 B.c., points were represented on all shoes, the laced high boot as well as the soft, low, slipper-like soccus, and pointed shoes were worn by men and women alike. After about 475, however, boots and shoes lose their points: even the calceus the Romans adopted from the Etruscans as their special senatorial costume is not the pointed shoe of the late sixth century, but a square-toed laced boot.22 Much later, in Roman times, only the image of a goddess was represented wearing such pointed shoes: Cicero says that not even in one's dreams does one see the image of Juno Sospita of Lanuvium without her calceoli repandi, or pointed slippers23-the diminutive form of the word describing them as feminine, since Cicero of course thought of the calceus as strictly for men. This passage seems to show that the Romans took over pointed shoes from the Etruscans and kept them as an attribute for a female divinity. It is hard to find the precise moment or the context, however, when they became exclusively the costume of a divinity
21 Harrison (supra n. II) 61-66. B. S. Ridgway has a number of valuable remarks on the distinction between male and female garments, and on dress as an indication of divinity in Greek archaic art, in "The East Pediment of the Siphnian Treasury," AJA 69 (1965) 3. 22The Romans themselves claimed their Senatorial calcei derived from Etruscan models. References in RE, ThLL s.u., and Heurgon (supra n. 12) 222f. The question has been thoroughly studied by Alf6ldi, Reiteradel (supra n. 2) 54ff. I am not sure whether the fact that the Roman calceus was a squaretoed model means that the style was adopted after 475 or 450, or that the fashion was originally adopted around 500 with a point, and then changed shape-while still keeping the original color and type of lacing, including the characteristic of continued contact with Etruscan culture lunula-because even after the middle of the 5th century. The change could also have taken place independently in Rome; several other changes in the honorary triumphal dress, for example, took place in the Hellenistic period. 23 Cicero, de natura deorum 1.29.82. Tam hercle quam tibi illam vestram Sospitam, quam tu numquam ne in somnis quidem vides nisi cum pelle caprina, cum hasta, cum scutulo, cum calceolis repandis. . ... Cf. J. C. Hofkes-Brukker, "Iuno Sospita," Hermeneus (1956) 16I-I69. 24Florence, Mus. Arch. E. Gerhard, Etruskische Spiegel
in Etruria. What significance did pointed shoes have between the time when they stopped being generally worn and the time they were one goddess' specific attribute? In Etruscan art from 475 on pointed shoes appear only on female figures, often as attributes of goddesses and mythological figures identified by inscriptions on mirrors. They are clearly a mark of status. Hera (Juno, Uni in Etruscan), on the famous third century mirror from Volterra showing the adoption of Hercules (pl. 66, fig. I4), is clearly identified by a sign reading "Hercle Unial Clan," Leda (Leto or or "Heracles is the son of Juno."24 not a goddess, to be sure, but a mythoLatona), logical figure, is named in an inscription on a mirror of the late Hellenistic period (pl. 66, fig. 15),25 while certain winged figures, though not specifically identified by name, also appear to have had a special significance and therefore to deserve a special attribute.2 Less clear is the case of a group of bronze statuettes representing female figures wearing a special costume often-though not always-including pointed, laced shoes. There is considerable difference of opinion concerning the interpretation of these figures, which belong to the classical period in Etruria and wear a costume reserved for ladies of rank; thin chiton with a peculiar tassel at the shoulder, thick mantle or himation, wide diadem and necklace, and, usually, pointed shoes (pl. 67, figs. 16-17).27 Do they represent gods or humans?
(completed by A. Kliigman and G. K6rte, Berlin 1840-97) V, 6o (hereafter E-S). Ducati, Arte (supra n. 12) 499, fig. 588. J. D. Beazley, JHS 69 (I949) 14, fig. 19. M. Pallottino, Testimonia Linguae Etruscae (Florence 1954) 399; Mostra (supra n. 17) no. 359. K. Schauenburg, "Herakles unter G6ttern," Gymnasium 70 (1963) II3f. M. Pallottino, Etruscologia' (Milan 1968) pl. 28. 25A. De Agostino, StEtr 12 (1938) 292 n. II, with bibl. Gerhard, ES 5, 77. 26Winged figures on mirrors, e.g. Gerhard, ES 38; J. D. Beazley, "The World of the Etruscan Mirror," JHS 69 (I949) 2, fig. 2. Wings do not necessarily signify divinity in Etruscan art, however: Roncalli (supra n. 12) 90. 27 Fig. 16: Teitz (supra n. 3) 71, no. 59, ill. p. 155 (with bibl.). G. M. A. Hanfmann, "An Etruscan Goddess," Archaecompares it to a similarly dressed ology 9 (I956) 230-232, figure, clearly labeled Turan, on a mid-fifth century mirror (Pallottino, Mostra [supra n. 17] 73, no. 281, pl. 50) E. H. Richardson, however, in a review of Hanfmann, Etruskische Plastilk (Stuttgart 1956), AJA 62 (1958) 444, doubts this attribution, since neither dress nor pomegranate is exclusively connected with Turan; cf. Semele, for example, on a mirror in Berlin, J. D. Beazley, JHS 69 9, fig. 7. (I949) Fig. 17: D. K. Hill, Catalogue of Classical Bronze Sculpture in the Walters Art Gallery (1949) 107, no. 240, pl. 46. Teitz
LARISSA BONFANTE WARREN
The clue, if we could read it, might be given by one such statuette in the Archaeological Museum in Florence (pl. 67, figs. I8-I9)28 with an inscription mi: fleres: atis: ilithiial, meaning something like "I am the statue (?) of (the goddess) Ilithia." Unfortunately this does not bring us much nearer a solution, since we cannot tell whether the statue indeed represents Ilithia, or whether-and this is more probable-the statue is dedicated to, and therefore belongs to Ilithia.29 This is the crux of the problem: how does one tell gods from men? Since neither costume nor inscription gives a decisive answer here, we are left with the original question concerning the moment when pointed shoes become symbolic of divinity. I believe that the change in meaning begins early, as soon in fact as pointed shoes cease to be regularly worn by men and women. Even if the bronze statuettes, in the fourth century, represent women making an offering, rather than goddesses, theirs is certainly already a special costume (perhaps indicating they are priestesses?), an archaic fashion eventually reserved exclusively for divine figures. I wonder whether sometimes ladies wearing such
(supra n. 3) 79, no. 69, ill. p. 170 (with bibl.). A date ca. 400 B.C. is suggested by the style of the drapery, emphasizing the contrast of heavy mantle over crinkly pleated chiton, so fine that the breasts show through. This date is confirmed by figures wearing such thin chitons, in conjunction with the typical "classical" 4th century dress with tassel, e.g., on two mirrors, Gerhard, E-S I, I I2; Gerhard-K6rte, V, 107. Thin chiton in Greek art, G. M. A. Richter, The Sculpture and HimaSculptors of the Greeks8 (New Haven 1950) 1o2-1o3. tion over thin chiton, "Kore Albani," Ch. Picard, Manuel d'Archeologie Grecque, II, PNr. Classique, V siecle (Paris 1939) figs. 138, 141, 142. 322-330, 28 Recently shown in Turin, and published in the catalog of the exhibit, Arte e Civilta' degli Etruschi (Turin 1967) II8, no. 328. Inscription, M. Pallottino, Testimonia Linguae Etruscae (= TLE) (Florence 1954) 34. M. Buffa, StEtr 7 (I933) 445450. 29 The meaning of the word fleres-the root is surely fler-, "to offer," or "give"-might be connected with the question of the identity of these statuettes and the significance of the dress they wear, but it presents quite a problem on its own merits. Flere (-s, -4, -ri), related to the word fler (-4), meaning "votive offering," seems to mean either "statue" or "divinity." On the nine bronze statuettes where the word occurs, including the larger statue of the Arringatore, a logical translation would be "statue," or even perhaps "bronze statue." On the mummy wrappings from Zagreb, on the other hand, it is found before the names of gods, such as Neptune, and there "divinity" has seemed to most scholars the more probable translation. The word also occurs on a stone inscription (TLE which might have been used as a statue base, and on a 202) statue base represented on a mirror (Gerhard, E-S 2, 170). Buffa explains the sense of the word in the last two examples as a proper name; on the mirror, which depicts the story of Tyro with the young Pelias and Neleus, his suggestion that the figure on the statue base represents the cruel stepmother
pointed shoes, for example the woman (and her maid) in the third century Tomba degli Scudi in Tarquinia (pl. 67, fig. 20), may not be represented as belonging to the world of the dead, or in some way heroized, thus between the world of the living and that of the gods.3"In any case, we can be sure that after 475 B.c. in Etruria pointed shoes were worn only by women. Some time after the third century, when non-divine figures are still shown wearing pointed shoes, and the second century, when they were solely a divine attribute, they acquired a special significance. I cannot at present pin down the moment more closely. B. Himation and Tebenna. The rounded, togalike tebenna was the everyday dress of Etruscan men from the last third of the sixth century on, as we see from Etruscan monuments of the archaic period and later. Its shape is most clearly illustrated on a bronze statuette of a kouros (pl. 67, figs. 21-22);"1 he is wearing it as war dress, since his greaves show he is dressing for battle. Yet though the tebenna was the normal Etruscan dress, a number of Etruscan artistic monuments, mostly of the classicaland Hellenistic periods, show
Sidero, "hard as bronze," seems unnecessarily subtle. In favor of a translation as "divinity, numen," are G. Sigmont, Glotta 8 (1916) 159-165; Olzscha, Interpretation der Agram. Mumienbinden (I939) 24ff, 159, 163; and most recently M. Pallottino, "Nota sull'iscrizione dell'Arringatore," BdA 49 (1964) and the 6th edition of his Etruscologia (1968) 431. 115-II6, Examples listed in Buffa (supra n. 28) 447; F. Slotty, StEtr 19 186-187, n. 78. Previous bibl. can be found in (I946-47) Slotty, and Pallottino, BdA. Bronze statues: male, TLE 651, 737, 624, 653; female, TLE 738, 739, 734, 629; 735 (?). 30Tomba degli Scudi, Tarquinia; Ducati, Pittura (supra n. 12) pl. 32. Pallottino, Etruscan Painting (supra n. I2) IO5. Heroization and "divinization": see the discussion concerning the interpretation, as either divinities or heroized dead men, of figures of horsemen on certan reliefs in Roman Gaul, P. Lambrechts, "Divinises 6questres celtiques ou d6funts h6rois's?" AntCl 20 (I95I) Io7; and F. Benoit, "L'h6roisation 6questre," Annales de la Faculte de Lettres d'Aix (I954); both cited by A. Piganiol, RHist 120 (1956) 341. Concerning the inscription of the Arringatore, Pallottino writes, BdA 49 (1964), that if we accept a sense of dead parents or funerary gods for the word sanjl, the dedication of the offering is to be understood as made to the Manes of Aule Meteli, or to Aule Meteli as the "divinized deceased, in the Etruscan sense." T. Dohrn points out, however, in the first part of the same article"L'Arringatore, Capolavoro del Museo Archaeologico di Fithe statue is Roman in renze," BdA 49 (1964) 97-II4-that dress and pose, contrasting with its Etruscan inscription (97); in the text that follows I suggest that the Etruscans did in fact have a different special costume for dead men represented as heroized. 31 E. Babelon, J. A. Blanchet, Catalogue des bronzes antiques de la Bibl. Nat. (Paris 1895) 413, no. 938. Photographs Bibl. Nat. B 23834-35. L. Heuzey, Histoire du costume antique (Paris 1922) 235, drawing; 5th century B.c.
ETRUSCAN DRESS AS HISTORICAL SOURCE
male figures wearing the rectangular Greek himation. Now the toga, originally borrowed from the Etruscans-an adaptation of the tebenna--early became an official garment in Rome. We don't know when this happened in Etruria: at what date did the Italians consciously become the gens togata?2 Margarete Bieber has pointed out the difference between Roman toga and Greek himation in Roman art: it agrees with what literary sources tell us about the symbolic significance of the toga. Emeline Richardson studied the so-called Etruscan "togati," and brought out the distinction between tebenna and himation in Etruscan art; but here, of course, we can adduce no literary evidence to tell us what this distinction meant to the Etruscans at various times in their history.33Only from their art can we try to deduce something on this point. Some, at least, of the bronze votive figures represent divinities. When they wear the himation, as a number of them do, it might be because images of Greek gods, first imported towards the end of the sixth century B.c., were shown wearing their own Greek dress, the himation. Only Jupiter, identified with the local divinity, Tinia, wears the Etruscan tebenna.34 A number of Etruscan funerary representations show the rectangular himation instead of the tebenna. On the front panel relief of a Hellenistic sarcophagus from Vulci (pl. 67, fig. 23),"5 for example, the figure of the deceased man, apparently the owner of this ambitious sarcophagus, is shown as an important personage, followed by attendants carrying his insignia of office. His wife wears a dress with a tassel, a sign of importance her maids
32Gens togata: Mommsen, Ram. Gesch. (Berlin 18685) I, n. I. See RE and DarSag, s.u. toga. 33 M. Bieber, "A Bronze Statuette in Cincinnati , ProcPhilSoc 1o0 (1957) 70-92, esp. 89. Recently, in ... shorta ened version, "Bronzestatuette des Asklepios in Cincinnati," Antike Plastik io (1970) 55-56. Richardson (supra n. 8), e.g. Io6; but she does not feel that there is any special significance in this distinction: "they seem to have worn the himation or the toga almost indifferently" (171; cf. 145). Certainly this is true on many archaic wall paintings from Tarquinia. These, however, reflect Attic vase paintings, and also Attic dress, of the period around 500 B.c. 34 Tinia as Jupiter: Richardson (supra n. 8) 132. Banti (supra n. 12) 122-123 expresses a doubt as to whether statuettes of a bearded figure such as Zeus or Jupiter were actually meant to represent Tinia, who is at other times shown as a young beardless god such as Apollo. 5 Boston Museum of Fine Arts 1281. R. Herbig, Die jiingeretruskischen Steinsarcophage (Berlin 1952) 13-14, no. 5, pl. 40. G. M. A. Hanfmann, "Etruscan Reliefs of the Hellenistic Period," JHS 65 (i945) 47, pl. 8. Banti, II Mondo 340, pls. o12-o13. CIE II, 1.2, 175, no. 5312. Richardson (supra n. 8)
do not have. Yet he himself wears the Greek himation, while his attendants wear the rounded toga. Why the himation? Does the distinction have a particular significance? The tebenna certainly did not yet mean what the toga later meant to the Romans, or the servants would not be shown wearing it. The himation, however, could be a special costume. Since the man's wife is dressed in a special costume and the rest of the scene depicts a formal occasion, I should like to suggest that the dead man may be representedas heroized. Greek dress is apHeroized Roman emperpropriatefor such a state."6 ors were shown in classicalGreek heroic nudity; Napoleon, in Roman dress. For the Etruscans, as for the Romans, the himation apparently represented classical Greek dress-stood for a type of universal, unworldly dress, the traditionalgarb of heroes. The importance of the Etruscan underworld, from the fourth century B.c. on, perhaps gives us the context for this special mode of dressing. Another point, which has generally been misunderstood, might also strengthen this interpretation. The husband does not join hands with his wife in the dextrarum junctio; he grasps her wrist, in the gesture of leading away."'He may indeed be leading her away to the life beyond, on a journey for which he is already dressed in the himation of the hero, and for which he carries the traveling staff so often pictured on funerary scenes of this period."s The brightly decorated, rectangular mantle on the contemporary figure of Vel Sathies, from the Frangois Tomb (pl. 66, fig. 24),"9is also unexpect144-145, pl. XLuI. It has been variously dated in the 4th or Banti, 3rd century. Herbig, 4th century. Hanfmann, 290-280. first half of 3rd (300-250). Richardson, late 4th. 36 J. Bayet, "Ideologie et Plastique. II. La sculpture funeraire de Chiusi," MelRome (1960) 35-88, esp. 81-83. M. Bieber, "Roman Men in Greek Himation (Romani Palliati)," ProcPhilSoc 103 (1959) 388f, 404f, on the frequent appearance of Roman men wearing the pallium or himation on tombstones and sarcophagi. 37 Dextrarum iunctio: Herbig (supra n. 32) 14. R. Brilliant, Gesture and Rank in Roman Art (New Haven 1963) 35, fig. 156. Instead, see Menelaus taking Helen by the hand to lead her away as his wife, on a Boeotian-Tenean relief pithos, M. Ervin, "Pithos from Mykonos," Deltion 18 (1963) 37ff. The deceased is led away by the wrist on vases from Orvieto (see n. 38). 38 Cf. scenes on three vases from Orvieto, Beazley, Etruscan Painting (Oxford 1947) 9, 196. Arte e CiviltW (supra n. 28) 118-119, nos. 330-332. 0. W. von Vacano, "Vanth-Aphrodite," Hommages a Albert Grenier, ed. Marcel Renard (Collection Latomus i8, 1962) 1531-53. 39The considerable bibliography is most recently summarized by M. Cristofani, who argues for a date in the 4th
LARISSA BONFANTE WARREN
edly a himation (rather than a toga picta, as it is often incorrectly called). Possibly, again, this funerary representation of an important personage shows him in heroized dress. In contrast Admetus, who, in scenes depicting his farewell to Alcestis on Etruscan vases of this period, is still very much alive, normally wears a toga.40 CONCLUSION. brief survey of problems in the inThis terpretation of Etruscan dress leaves several questions still open. I hope these will be answered some day either by further study of the material or by new evidence. I have merely tried to indicate certain types of differences meaningful to the Etruscan artist, distinctions which exist also in the artistic representation of dress in other cultures, but which can only be understood in context. I. The difference between an artist's representation of a real style of dress which he had actually seen and one familiar to him only from artistic
in his article, "Ricerche sulle pitture della Tomba di Vulci. I fregi decorativi," Dialoghi di Archeologia Francois I (1967) 186-219. M. Pallottino, Mostra (supra n. 17) 128, no. 420, had suggested a later date, in the 2nd or Ist century B.C. century
representations.In the second case this also often involves the translation of a motif from one medium to another: in the case of the Morgan statuette, for example, from painting to sculpture. 2. Cultural differences between the dress of one people and another. For the artist of the Morgan statuette, the difference between Greek and Etruscan dress in the archaic period resulted in his misunderstanding of a real, but foreign fashion. 3. Changes in style, most useful as dating criteria if the fashion was popular for a short time. The appearanceof pointed shoes in Etruria around 540 B.c. gives us a fixed point of reference for the start of a fashion which was so taken for granted while in vogue that it was represented even on otherwise "archaistic"figures. 4. The symbolic significance of clothes no longer worn for daily use, illustrated in Etruscan art by pointed shoes for female figures and, perhaps, the himation for men on funerary representations. NEWYORK UNIVERSITY
40 G. Q. Giglioli, "I1 vaso volcente di Admeto e Alcesti nella Bibliotheque Nationale di Parigi," StEtr 4 (1930) 365-369. Richardson (supra n. 8) 150-151, pl. 42. An inscription near Alcestis is read by Slotty (supra n. 29): "She goes off as an offering to the Underworld (Acheron)."
Acropolis 674 (courtesy National Museum, Athens)
and 7 courtesy Metropolitan Museum of Art, gift of J. P. Morgan, 1917
3-5 courtesy Deutsch. Arch. Inst., Athens
Tomba Francois, Vuci (D. Arch. Inst. neg 63.790)
Portraitof Vel Sathies,
Painted terracotta plaque from Louvre (Alinari 22791) Cerveteri,
Florence (courtesy Soprintendenza alle Antichiti' d'Etruria)
M F 1 er
Cstor Polux Turn Gehar
Clan" (Gerhard 5,60) Unial
F. Vo " FIG.14.Mirrorfrom a 5. eM ir
FIc. 17. Courtesy The Walters Art Gallery
FIGS. 18-19. Statuette in Florence, Mus. Arch. (courtesy Soprintendenza alle Antichita d'Etruria)
FIG. 16. Courtesy Fogg Art Museum, Harvard University
FIG. 20. Tomba degli Scudi, Tarquinia (Alinari 26o98)
Tomba dei Tori, Tarquinia (Alinari 26105)
Sarcophagus from Vulci, Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, FIG. 23. on deposit from Boston Athenaeum (courtesy MFA)
FIGS.21-22. Statuette of youth dressing in tebenna, Bibl. Nat., Paris
FiG. 6. Draping, archaic Ionic himation, Bieber, Idl 32 (1917) 99 FIcs. 8-9. Statuette in Turin, Mus. Arch. (courtesy the Soprintendente, Carlo Carducci)
Acropolis 678 (D. Arch. Inst.