The Archaic warrior from Metaponto

STUDIA HERCYNIA XXIV/1, 78–113 The Archaic warrior from Metaponto Raimon Graells iFabregat ABSTRACT The chalcidic helmet with ram’sprotome in the Saint Louis Art Museum comes from atomb in Metaponto. The grave assemblage has been reconstructed and displays the helmet wearer as aremarkable warrior, with the most complete panoply preserved in the Archaic Greek world. The work presents the panoply, discusses why this warrior has not been reconstructed until now, and proposes areading of the role of this figure in Magna Grecia of the period following the destruction of Sibaris. KEYWORDS Arms and armour typology; Restoration criticism; Greek ‑epicorian interaction; Archaic period; hoplite. INTRODUCTION: MORE THAN JUST AHELMET In the beginning of September 1942, atomb in Metaponto (in the area of località Crucinia– Casa Ricotta) was plundered, which contained aspectacularly decorated helmet with azoomorphic protome. Shortly after, the archaeologists from the Soprintendenza of Taranto intervened to save what little the tombaroli (grave robbers) had left.1 While this was happening, the helmet and aset of metallic fragments, which had been recovered with it, began ajourney through antique shops, which continued until 1949, when they reached Saint Louis (Missouri, USA). Subsequently, the helmet was recorded through publications and exhibited in the Saint ‑Louis Art Museum (SLAM), where it has become an icon for Archaic toreutics, creating aseries of myths based on the uncritical acceptance of its restoration and its current appearance. Both factors, atoo interpretative restoration and the undisputed acceptance of the result, have given importance to the helmet while silencing its context and associated objects. Although there are only two, the studies which tried to understand the set formed by the helmet, the fragments in Saint Louis, 2 and the extra materials excavated by the Soprintendenza of Taranto 3 have been forgotten. The helmet has been, paradoxically, both asymbol and an obstacle: aref‑ erent for the iconography in Metaponto and the Archaic period, but its decontextualization has hindered an understanding of the most complex Late Archaic panoply of the Greek world and the Magno ‑Greek panoply productions. This has also resulted in imprecise datings and social interpretations, with efforts trying to force amatch between the helmet’stomb and 1 The official handwritten manuscript with date 12th September 1942 is still unpublished (Kunze 1991, 114; De Siena 2008, 13, n.8; Graells iFabregat 2019, 200, n.12). 2 Hoopes 1953. Once acquired by the SLAM, the fragments preserved were published on, together with some other pieces (s. below) attributed to the tomb for commercial interests. 3 Lo Porto 1977–1979. F.G. Lo Porto tried to offer an overall view of the helmet and its tomb from Italy, unfortunately without having directly accessed the materials in the SLAM. He had Hoopes’ publications as aguide and added material preserved in Metaponto, which had not been reported in the literature. 79RAIMON GRAELLS IFABREGAT the written sources in order to contextualize it. The result has affected the understanding of several series of metallic objects, but especially that of Metaponto and Magna Grecia. The following study focuses on the helmet and the other pieces of armour found togeth‑ er with it.4 The exceptional nature of the objects and their combination requires adouble perspective for their study, Greek and Southern ‑Italic, because, as we will see, both cultural realities can inform them, but paradoxically they do not fit completely in either. This duality requires awork proposal divided into two well ‑differentiated parts: firstly, the identification of all the funerary objects, for which all the available documentation (from the plundering, the subsequent emergency excavation, and the restoration) needs to be examined, and secondly, comparison of the panoply with other panoplies known in the Italic (‘anhellenic’) world and the other Magno ‑Greek realities. This latter part will open the discussion of whether it is asingular example of aparade panoply,5 ahoplite6 (or functional) panoply,7 or acombination of both to allow participation in: war, social representation, and the dialogue between Greeks and between Greeks and Italics.8 THE DISCOVERY: METAPONTO The tomb was discovered in the beginning of September 1942,9 in an area where other tombs had already been documented during some gravel extraction works (Fig. 1). The date can be deduced from the moment when the R. Soprintendenza alle Antichità della Puglia e del Materano intervened to organize asalvage excavation, which was between the 12th and 19th September 1942.10 The objective was to enlarge the area surrounding the tomb, where the helmet with plastic decoration was discovered, document its structure and recover whatever may remain there. Unexpected finds included the recovery of many iron arms fragments and parts of asilver and bronze metallic plate, found beneath one of the flat stones that covered the tomb.11 The tomb belonged to the semicamera type and measured 2.20 × 1.15 × 1.35 metres.12 The fea‑ tures and measurements of the sepulchre are slightly inferior to other tombs discovered in the same necropolis but correspond with other tombs chronologically. However, we should highlight that this type of construction is exclusive to aprivileged group. Many materials were recovered during the rescue excavation (Fig. 2).13 Some were wrongly interpreted, including bronze fragments from acuirass, asilver belt with palmette decoration and an appliqué in the shape of a‘bovine head’. Others were correctly identified as afragment of agreave, and iron, wooden and amber fragments of ashaft. Only acomparison of the aforementioned with 4 This work reviews and extends the monographic study of the panoply of the tomb of Metaponto (Graells iFabregat 2019). Recent syntheses on the achaean Polis of Metaponto and its origins in Bottini 2020; De Stefano 2020; Tornese 2020. 5 Tagliamonte 1994, 86; Mertens 2006,163; Robinson 2011, 62. 6 Bottini 1986, 110; Rocchietti 2002, 173. 7 Hoopes 1953, 833. 8 Graells iFabregat 2019, 320. 9 De Siena (2008, 4) suggests that the plundering took place in 1942, while Robinson (2011, 62) suggests awider dating during the Second World War. 10 Lo Porto 1977–1979, 171; De Siena 2008, 4, note 8. 11 Lo Porto 1977–1979, 171. 12 Lo Porto 1977–1979, 173, fig. 2; Graells iFabregat 2019, 198, fig. 2/2. 13 Graells iFabregat 2019, 200–201, tav. 2/1, tav. 2/16, tav. IX. 80 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXIV/1 Fig. 1: Metaponto, map and location of the necropolis in relation to the polis (Map Author, drawing after Carter 2005). 81RAIMON GRAELLS IFABREGAT the helmet and other plundered fragments in ajoint study can reconstruct the grave goods and panoply of the tomb. The necropolis was investigated between 1991 and 1993 under supervision of A. De Siena (Soprintendenza per iBeni Archeologici della Basilicata). 14 Those campaigns allowed the identification of the grave of the panoply. Its location is proposed to the northeast of graves 590–595 and south of grave 238.15 THE JOURNEY: FROM METAPONTO TO SAINT LOUIS After the plundering, the helmet and fragments did not reach Saint Louis directly. 16 They changed hands multiple times until they were acquired by the SLAM in 1949, although de‑ tails of how many times and whose hands are unknown. We do not know who discovered and plundered the tomb of Metaponto, who acted as an intermediary for the first sale, who photographed and gave those images to Curtius, director of the Deutsches Archäologisches 14 Bottini– Vullo 2019, 61; Bottini 2020, 72–74; Tornese 2020, 154. 15 Verger 2019, 397. The relationship between the two tombs (that of the armour and tomb 238) does not go beyond this supposed spatial proximity. The chronological distance between the two makes their relationship impossible in any other way (Bottini 2020, 91). 16 This detailed study has been possible thanks to the documentation preserved in the SLAM, which has been made available to me with utmost transparency and generosity, but with some restrictions regarding its circulation and reproduction, according to American legislations. Therefore, as for my previous work (Graells iFabregat 2019), Ioffer acomment on the documents. The correspondence and documents in the SLAM archive do not have any specific numbering and can be found in the helmet’sdocumentary dossier no. 282:1949. Fig. 2: Metaponto, rescue excavation between the 12th and 19th September 1942: bronze and silver fragments from the plundered semicamera grave. Without scale (after Lo Porto 1977–1979, tav. LXVa). 82 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXIV/1 Institut of Rome between 1928 and 1937 (Fig. 3), or who was the collector, who kept the objects in Switzerland until 1949 (or if such acollector even existed). However, what we do know is sourced from acomplete documentation of the protagonists of the American acquisition of the pieces: Perry T. Rathbone, director of the SLAM and responsible for the acquisition of the helmet; Thomas T. Hoopes, curator of the SLAM and first researcher to publish on the helmet; Joseph Ternbach, restorer of the helmet and other elements acquired by the SLAM, and Adolph Loewi, the antiques dealer, who sold the panoply.17 Fig. 3: The helmet from Metaponto before any restoration. Note the absence of eyes and decorative caps (after Kunze 1967, Abb. 61–62). The sequence we have reconstructed shows that at acertain moment after the plundering, the helmet and other fragments were sold in Switzerland, where an unknown collector (men‑ tioned in one of Loewi’sletters with the initial ‘B’ and the city of ‘Basel’) preserved them until 1949, the year when the helmet and the silver and bronze plate fragments arrived in America. According to Hoopes, the collector did not sell all the materials associated with the helmet; he kept abronze square ‑section ‘spearhead’. It is not easy to characterize this piece with just this information, but thanks to other details added by Hoopes we can consider it as asauroter (s. below).18 17 Graells iFabregat 2019, 203–204. 18 It is possible that the sauroter was sold in 1958 by H. A. Cahn (Graells iFabregat 2019, 267, fig. 2/43). 83RAIMON GRAELLS IFABREGAT In 1949, the helmet and fragments of the metallic plate arrived in Los Angeles, where they were displayed in Loewi’santique shop until Rathbone agreed to purchase them for $ 6,500.00. This price included Loewi’srestoration and cleaning of the helmet, estimated at $800.00. On the 14th October 1949, the helmet was sent to the SLAM19 and on the 4th November, Hoopes requested the remaining associated plate fragments also be restored. 20 During November 1949,21 the helmet and other pieces of the set were shipped to New York so that the restorer, Ternbach, could work on them. The final cost of the helmet’srestoration was $2253.84, plus $615.05 for the shield, plus the costs of transport and pictures made during the process. In total, the costs were close to half of the price paid for the helmet. On the 5th June 1950, the helmet and non ‑restored fragments were shipped back to the SLAM. THE RESTORATION: TERNBACH’SCREATIVITY The helmet’srestoration process spanned little more than six months and took place in Tern‑ bach’sworkshop in New York, where the other fragments were also present. During this time, the restorer could only clean and reconstruct parts of the helmet and assemble some elements of asilver plate, which he and director Rathbone had interpreted as fragments of asilver crest (Fig. 4). The rest of the fragments could not be restored and Ternbach clearly communicated that recognizing any other object was impossible. The helmet was cleaned and restoration completed, the missing parts were created ex novo by Ternbach (with Rathbone’sconsent) assuming some slightly inaccurate parallels with other artefacts (Fig. 5–8). Further details on this are discussed later, but an important point is that absence of the plates that decorated the cheekpieces or the upper part of the protome were of special interest in this restoration. Evidence of this absence is provided in Curtius’ unpublished study of the helmet, pictures from before the restoration and aletter sent by Rathbone asking Loewi if he or the previous owner had other fragments that could help restore the helmet, or if he could contact the tomb’splunderers.22 Loewi’sreply included some impossible information, Rathbone was, however, satisfied. Loewi said that new exca‑ vations had been completed in the tomb after Curtius’ report (dated 10th October 1948) and several fragments had been recovered, among them ‘the two decorated ear ‑pieces’.23 However, according to the documentation available up to that date (from the antiques dealer and the Soprintendenza), there are some inconsistencies: the tomb had been discovered in 1942 and Loewi had come into contact with the helmet through the Swiss collector in order to take it to America between 1948 and 1949, so it does not seem likely that Loewi knew details about the original plundering. Moreover, aletter dated 18th October 1949 from Loewi’sassistant to Rathbone mentions that there were no remains of those elements among the fragments kept by the antique dealer. 24 Furthermore, it is more than certain that the Soprintendenza had already completely excavated the tomb where the helmet was found. 19 Letter from Robertson to Rathbone, 18th October 1949 (SLAM archive, 282:1949). 20 Letter from Rathbone to Loewi, 4th November 1949 (SLAM archive, 282:1949). 21 Letter from Hoopes to Ternbach, 14 th November 1949 (SLAM archive, 282:1949), informing about ship‑ ment of the pieces. Reply from Ternbach to Hoopes, 30th November 1949 (SLAM archive, 282:1949), with the confirmation of receipt and an estimate for the restoration. 22 Letter from Rathbone to Loewi, 12th January 1950 (SLAM archive, 282:1949). 23 Letter from Loewi to Rathbone, 17th January 1950 (SLAM archive, 282:1949). 24 Letter from Robertson to Rathbone, 18th October 1949 (SLAM archive, 282:1949); Graells iFabregat 2019, 205. 84 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXIV/1 Fig. 4: Lophos reconstruction process by J. Ternbach: a– fragments; b– composition on apredetermined drawing. ©Saint Louis Art Museum, Archive, Museum Purchase 282:1949.1. a b 85RAIMON GRAELLS IFABREGAT Fig. 5: Protome’shorns reconstruction by J. Ternbach: a– pieces made of brass: horns, plate to be fixed in the interior of the protome, plate with ears for external adjustment and for holding the horns; b– protome with the inner and external plates before assembling the horns; c– outside pieces; d– Set of assembled reconstructed elements. ©Saint Louis Art Museum, Archive, Museum Purchase 282:1949.1. a b c d 86 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXIV/1 Fig. 6: Restored appearance of the protome. Present condition: side view and back view (photos by G. Zuferri, with permission of the SLAM). Fig. 7: Nasal protector reconstruction by J. Ternbach. Front view with distinction between the original helmet and the added piece, made of brass. Note the decorative inconsistency. ©Saint Louis Art Museum, Archive, Museum Purchase 282:1949.1. 93RAIMON GRAELLS IFABREGAT The reconstruction becomes invalid due to incorrect choices from parallel works, but also due to ignorance of other fragments belonging to the helmet, which were recovered during the salvage excavation of the 12th September 1942. These fragments included: azoomorphic silver plate (MAN ‑Metaponto inv. no. 54.121) (s. above Fig. 1–2) used to cover the left cheek‑ piece;55 asmall silver ‑gilt horn (MAN ‑Metaponto inv. no. 54.124)56 similar to that of ayoung goat, though it cannot be ruled out that it was just the end part of alarger horn, and other silver ‑gilt plate fragments that may have belonged to the plastic ears fixed over the helmet (MAN ‑Metaponto inv. no. 54.124).57 The lack of communication between the SLAM and the Italian academic world and the result of the restored helmet was why Lo Porto connected the silver plate fragment with aram protome to other silver plate fragments preserved in the SLAM; this connection was made, however, without taking into account that they were no longer thought to be part of alophos but of an episema. For this reason, Lo Porto suggested integration of the protome with the lophos in aunique and unusual way that resembled alying ram.58 The false lophos was made of two silver sheets with divergent directions, which had been fitted as the two sides of the same object by Ternbach. The silver protome fragment could only be fitted correctly after the published documentation of the helmet with inv. no. 124508 from the MANV. Capialbi of Vibo Valentia.59 This latter is atype III Chalcidian helmet without anasal protector, the left cheekpiece of which was covered with an ‘oroargentato’ (sic) plate in the shape of aram pro‑ tome, with the horn covered by agold plate. The morphology of this plate fully matches with what was found in the tomb of Metaponto, with the addition that the horn of the latter shows acurved rim, possibly also gold plated (Pl. 2/3), as can be seen in some fragments preserved in the MAN ‑Metaponto.60 The fact that the helmet from Metaponto did not have anasal protector arises from its comparison with the Scrimbia ‑Hipponion helmet and the iconography of the prometopidia, which are decorated with the head of awarrior wearing aChalcidian helmet with decorated cheekpieces with ram protomes, usually without anasal protector (Fig. 13).61 The helmets without this protection are the precursors to the models that were developed in southern Italy with the fully local Chalcidian variants. The group IIIb chronology is based on two parallels dating from the end of the 6th century BC: the helmet from the complex tomb 103 in Ruvo di Puglia,62 whose funerary goods included up to nine bronze panoplies,63 and two helmets from Hipponion, avotive deposit in Scrim‑ bia– Vibo Valentia,64 one of which has ‘oroargentato’ appliqués.65 The chronologies have been confirmed with iconographic parallels regarding the prometopidia. Nothing is preserved from the top of the ram’sprotome. So the system of horns and ears reconstructed by Ternbach is completely hypothetical (Pl. 2/4). 55 Lo Porto 1977–1979, 180–183, tav. LXV.b.7, fig. 4, no. 9; Graells iFabregat 2019, 226–227, tav. 2/1E, 2/16:7, tav. IX. 56 Graells iFabregat 2019, 227, tav. IX. 57 Lo Porto 1977–1979, 178–179, tav. LXV.b.8, no. 7; Graells iFabregat 2019, 227, tav. 2/16:8, tav. IX. 58 Lo Porto 1977–1979, fig. 4. 59 Sabbione 1992, 215; Cardosa 2014b, 52, no. 47. 60 Graells iFabregat 2019, 269–270, tav. IX. 61 Graells iFabregat 2019, 290, fig. 2/51:g–l; Mödlinger– Tsirogiannis 2020, 326. 62 Identified by Montanaro as an Italian ‑Chalcidian helmet (Montanaro 2007, 123, 454, figs. 347–348). 63 For the analysis of the funerary goods cf. Montanaro 2004; Montanaro 2007, 123, 440–488. 64 Sabbione 1992; Sabbione 1996, 642; Sabbione 2014a; Cardosa 2014b. 65 Sabbione 1992, 215; Cardosa 2014b, 52, no. 47. 94 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXIV/1 It is evident that the image we have of the helmet nowadays is completely conditioned by Ternbach’sbrutal creation and is absolutely false and incorrect. We propose adrastic inter‑ vention that could go in two directions. The first would be to recover the original preserved shape, which would require removing all the restorations. The second would be to reconstruct acopy of the helmet without the nasal protector, with silver and gold decorative plates over the cheekpieces, with areconstruction of the eyes in the protome and in the cheekpieces made of bone and vitreous paste; the upper part of the protome should remain without decoration due to the lack of any reliable evidence (Pl. 2/5–6). SHIELD Other fragments are part of abronze round shield that belongs to the series Achtzeilig zu mehreren verflochtene, den Rand füllende Flechtbänder, Type A(Aussenbeschläge nach randor‑ namenten), Variant 4 (Flechtbänder).66 There are only afew fragments and those which were part of the chálkoma are missing. Among the fragments recovered, there are rim fragments (SLAM inv. no. 282:1949; MAN ‑Metaponto, inv. no. 54125–54126) (Fig. 14),67 inner appliqué fragments like Rundscheibe (MAN ‑Metaponto, inv. no. 54123) (Fig. 15:a),68 and afragment of the figurative Schildband (MAN ‑Metaponto, inv. no. 54122) (Fig. 15:b)69 of the type IV of Kunze.70 Some willow (salix) wood pieces were recovered from inside some of the fragments in the SLAM.71 66 Bol 1989, passim. 67 Hoopes 1953, 833–834, pl. 82a–b; Lo Porto 1977–1979, 174, tav. LXV.b.3–4, no.1. 68 Lo Porto 1977–1979, 174–175, tav. LXV.b.5, no. 2. 69 Lo Porto 1977–1979, 175, tav. LXV.b.6, no. 3. 70 Kunze 1950; Bol 1989. 71 Hoopes 1953, 834. Fig. 13: Bronze south -italian prometopidia decorated with the head of awarrior wearing aChalcidian helmet with decorated cheekpieces with ram protomes. From left to right: unknown provenance (Getty Museum), unknown provenance (British Museum), couple from Ruvo di Puglia (MAN Napoli) (after Graells iFabregat 2019, fig. 2/51). 95RAIMON GRAELLS IFABREGAT Fig. 15: Fragments of the shield: a– Rundscheibe appliqué; b– Schildband fragment (Drawings R. Graells iFabregat and M. Weber). In contrast to Ternbach’swork on the helmet, his reconstruction of the shield was correct. He mounted the shield fragments on asolid wood core and recreated ametallic support system, which although it lacked any archaeological evidence, was inspired by what he had observed in vase iconography. The decoration of the Schildband fragment is especially interesting, because it can be connected to other similar Greek compositions that have aparallel in Italy in the shield from the sacred area of Scrimbia at Hipponion (MANV. Capialbi di Vibo Valentia, inv. no. 89540).72 The decoration around the perimeter, with avertical braid on the side and horizontal tongues, finds precise counterparts in the shield in tomb 545 of Banzi73 and the one in Scrimbia.74 The shield from Banzi is considered to be aGreek import and has been dated in the first half of the 72 Cardosa 2002, fig. 3, no. 43.11; Cardosa 2014a, fig. 4. 73 Bottini 2008, fig. 8–15; Bottini 2012, 186, n. 8. 74 Cardosa 2002, 103; Cardosa 2014a, 53–54, no. 57, fig. 3 (in p.27) and 4 (in p.28). Fig. 14: Fragments of the shield. Fragment of the rim; without graphic scale (Drawing R. Graells iFabregat and M. Weber). 96 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXIV/1 5th century BC,75 while the shield from Scrimbia, which belongs to the type XXXI of Olympia, dates from the end of the 6th century BC.76 To reinforce these datings, we should note that the shields lacking Schildbänder are dated in the second half of the 6th century BC, while the ones with Schildbänder77 are dated at the turn from the 6th to the 5th century BC.Examples of the latter are the shield from tomb 101 in Serra di Vaglio, dated between the last quarter of the 6th century BC and the first quarter of the 5th century BC, and the two shields from tombs 652 in Chiaromonte and 545 in Banzi.78 EPISEMA As mentioned above, the two silver plates that Ternbach restored as alophos were, in fact, the episema of ashield.79 This could not have been fixed over the metallic chálkoma of the Argive shield we have just analysed, so it must belong to asecond shield. In our reconstruction we have not limited the shield to the two plates from the SLAM (Fig. 16), but have also added some silver and silver ‑gilt plates from the MAN ‑Metaponto (Fig. 17:a–c). Von Bothmer and Kunze have already suggested that it was an episema,80 but the details for this identification are in the rivets and holes around the perimeter of these plates. This is atypical feature of this type of shield’sdecorative elements,81 whose purpose was to fix each plate over an organic support. As has already been suggested, Lo Porto’sreconstruction, which integrated the ram pro‑ tome decoration with just one plate from the SLAM, was accepted, which obscured the fact that there were indeed two plates that formed an episema. Interestingly, the lying ram proposed by Lo Porto has no iconographic correspondence. The only criticism came from Philipp,82 who suggested an incomplete reconstruction of aquadruped animal, possibly asheep or goat, which included the other three silver ‑gilt plate fragments that Lo Porto had reported: 83 these were two appliqués in the shape of apalmette (inv. no. 54127–54128),84 which should be part of the anti‑ labes 85 and astripe decorated with embossed lotus flowers 86 . However, Philipp’sproposal had the same problem of identifying the plate with the ram protome (s. above Fig. 2), which (as already stated) is part of the helmet’sdecoration, as part of the episema. Nevertheless, the important part of her criticism was to draw attention to the possibility of integrating other fragments preserved in the MAN ‑Metaponto. As we have corroborated, some (MAN ‑Metaponto inv. no. 316.2000, 316.203, 316.204, and 316.205) may be part of the episema, especially one showing the hoof of abovine, sheep or goat leg that has the letter Aengraved on it (inv. no. 316.2000). This fragment certainly completes one of the two plates from the SLAM and is essential to 75 Bottini 2008, 20. 76 Cardosa 2014a, 53–54, no. 57. 77 Documented in the tomb 101 from Braida di Vaglio, tomb 652 in Chiaromonte, tomb 545 in Banzi, tomb IV in Noicattaro, and in the sanctuaries of Mannella (3?), Scrimbia (3?), Mottola (1) and Athe‑ naion in Poseidonia. 78 Graells iFabregat 2019, 238. 79 Ternbach 1952; Hoopes 1953, pl. 81, 86. 80 Kunze 1967b, 163. 81 Philipp 2004; Philipp 2014. 82 Philipp 2004, 409, Nr. K, Taf. 112:2. 83 Philipp 2004, 409 Nr. K, Taf. 112:2. 84 Lo Porto 1977–1979, tav. LXVb:1–2. 85 With parallels in Olympia (Bol 1989, 119, D21–26, Taf. 18). 86 Lo Porto 1977–1979, tav. LXVIb. 97RAIMON GRAELLS IFABREGAT understand them as the representation of the hindquarters of aquadruped animal. However, there is no evidence supporting identification of the head or body of such an animal. Philipp suggested and we share this suggestion, that the stripe with embossed lotus flow‑ ers was also part of the episema. It would be located over the shield shell and below the main motif, which would be made of the two plates from the SLAM and the hoof fragment from the MAN ‑Metaponto in the shape of hindquarters.87 This formula corresponds with some known shields representing animals in the Badisches Landesmuseum in Karlsuhe, in the sanctuary of Olympia (Brunnen 18 StN)88 and is especially recurrent in episemata painted over Attic vases from the beginning of the 5th century BC.89 87 This is arecurrent motif in the beginning of the 5th century BC and includes representations of goats, sheep, felines, and equids (Graells iFabregat 2019, 240–241, fig. 2/26). 88 Philipp 2014. 89 Graells iFabregat 2019, 240–241, fig. 2/25. Fig. 16: Episema consisting of two sheets of silver (fragmented and very partially preserved) with simplified decoration in relief; without graphic scale (Drawings R. Graells iFabregat and M. Weber). 98 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXIV/1 CUIRASS The fragments of two plates from aGlockenpanzer ‑type cuirass are preserved in the SLAM. These fragments were correctly identified as acuirass by Hoopes, who requested its resto‑ ration although there was no typology to assign it to.90 Ternbach replied saying he did not understand which cuirass fragments Hoopes was referring to,91 because none of the metallic sheet fragments sent together with the helmet could be assembled with another and none of them belonged to acuirass. He was so vehement that Hoopes apologized for insisting on what he thought must have been amisunderstanding.92 Luckily, Hoopes published the existence of these cuirass fragments, although he could not display arestored and almost complete cuirass (Fig. 18). Acareful reading of Hoopes publication93 confirms that the number of metallic plate fragments in aphotograph (without graphic scale) is the same number mentioned by Tern‑ bach in his letter to Hoopes; this was the letter in which he argued that he could not restore the fragments because none belonged to acuirass.94 Some years later, with aclear commercial purpose, Schefold published an anatomical cuirass preserved in aSwiss collection, which he related to that found next to the helmet exhibited in Saint Louis.95 This association of aLate Archaic helmet with aLate Classical and 90 Letter from Hoopes to Ternbach, 27th November 1950, and atelegram, 27th November 1950 (SLAM archive, 282:1949). 91 Letter from Ternbach to Hoopes, 27th November 1950 (SLAM archive, 282:1949). 92 Letter from Ternbach to Hoopes, 29th November 1950 (SLAM archive, 282:1949). 93 Hoopes 1953, pl. 82.c. 94 Letter from Ternbach to Hoopes, 27th November 1950 (SLAM archive, 282:1949). 95 In the file, Schefold described: ‘Soll aus dem gleichen Grab bei Metapont stammen, aus dem ein Helm nach St. Louis gekommen ist’, even quoting Hoopes’ work as areference for his statement (Schefold 1960, 216, Nr. 242). Fig. 17: Complementary decoration of the episema (silver and silver -gilt plates): a– stripe decorated with embossed lotus flowers; b– two appliqués in the shape of apalmette; c– animal hoof with engraved letter A(Drawings R. Graells iFabregat and M. Weber). 99RAIMON GRAELLS IFABREGAT early Hellenistic anatomical cuirass was broadly accepted without much criticism.96 Luckily, the chronological discrepancy between the funerary goods and an anatomical cuirass was observed by Lo Porto and Bottini, who described the association as ‘cosa molto dubbia’.97 How‑ ever, only Tagliamonte has interpreted that Schefold’scuirass could belong to another tomb from one of the urban necropolises in Metaponto, without ruling out that it could belong to the same necropolis of località Crucinia– Casa Ricotta, 98 ahypothesis that was considered impossible by Cahn99 and Guzzo.100 The fragments preserved correspond to: twelve fragments almost complete the dorsal plate (Fig. 19:a). The frontal plate, however, is more incomplete and only seven fragments are preserved, which also provide apartial reconstruction (Fig. 19:b). The typology of the cuirass 96 Despite the doubts, Lo Porto 1977–1979, 182. Later, also Guzzo (1990, 138), who identified it with the cuirass published by Cahn (1989, W.9 = to the one by Schefold). More recently, Tagliamonte 1994, 86; Burkhart 2014, 254. Regarding anatomical cuirasses, v. Graells iFabregat 2018. 97 Lo Porto 1977–1979, 182; Bottini 1992b, 147–148. 98 Tagliamonte 1994, 86–87. The arguments for such astatement are not presented in the cited work, but an interpretation of Schefold’stext that would correct the impossibility of an association between an anatomical cuirass and the famous Chalcidian helmet is suggested. At the same time, Tagliamonte accepts that both warrior tombs belong to the necropolis of Metaponto, which is extraordinary considering the archaeological documentation from the Achaean polis or any other Magno ‑Greek colony. 99 Cahn 1989, W9. 100 Guzzo 1990a, 138–139. Fig. 18: First published image of the cuirass fragments acquired by SLAM. 100 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXIV/1 belongs to the Greek type called bell cuirass (Glockenpanzer) (Pl. 2/7), in particular to the last group, 101 which is contemporary with the other objects from the panoply of the tomb and with the iconography from the end of the 6th century BC and the beginning of the 5th century BC. The presence of this cuirass in the funerary goods from Metaponto gives us the possi‑ bility of dating precisely the later period of the Greek Archaic bell cuirass. Evidently, this new chronology has relevant historical implications and also implications for the history of art. In fact, it is from the year 475 BC that painted cuirasses evolved from the previous bell shape to show for the first time the detail of the abdominal muscles.102 This had already been observed abit earlier in the bronze hoplite figures and in some terracottas and sculptures, like the small altar of Metaponto103 or the metope F.IV from the temple F of Selinus.104 None of these representations was afaithful reflection of human anatomy, but they expressed the moment of transition from the Archaic concept of the body tradition to the Classical model. Either way, the substitution process of the bell ‑shaped model for the fully anatomical cuirass did not finish until the end of the 5th century BC when due to social needs the civilizing myth of Heracles was reassumed, the episode of his apotheosis having been quite successful. This justified the value and realism of the anatomical cuirasses as aprivileged inheritance of the immortal body of ahero, who was now agod.105 101 Graells iFabregat forthcoming. 102 For acatalogue, cf. Muth 2008. 103 MAN ‑Napoli inv. no. 200.553 (Dobrowolski 1972; Neils 1994, n. 226; De Caro– Borriello 1996, 35, 65–66, Cat. no. 6.5). 104 Lippolis 1992, 180; Marconi 2009, 261, fig. 124. Dated by Marconi in the year 490 BC. 105 Graells iFabregat 2015, passim. Fig. 19: Bell cuirass: a– Fragments of the dorsal plate; b– fragments of the front plate. Note on both plates the presence of pieces in different colours due to incomplete restoration and cleaning of the metal (photos by G. Zuferri, with permission of the SLAM). ba 101RAIMON GRAELLS IFABREGAT GREAVES Afew fragments belong to two anatomical greaves that are incomplete. Atotal of 11 fragments with anatomical details are preserved in the SLAM (Fig. 20 above), while an upper fragment of aleft greave, with embossed decoration of snakes and afrontal view of an armed horseman on ahorse, is kept in the MAN ‑Metaponto (inv. no. 54120) (Fig. 20 below).106 The fragments in the SLAM have never been identified as greave fragments, and were even confused with cuirass fragments (!).107 Fig. 20: Fragments of greaves. The decorated fragment (preserved in the MAN -Metaponto) does not match the fragments preserved in the SLAM, which are not decorated (photos by G. Zuferri, with permission of the SLAM; and N. Armento). Greaves with figurative decoration are very rare. All the decorated greaves documented in southern Italy are located in the same chronological framework, between the end of the 6th century BC and the beginning of the 5th century BC.Among them is the frontal image of ahorseman, which is completely atypical and has some parallels in the baltei from the tombs 103 and 108 in Brada di Vaglio.108 In fact, the iconographic model109 is probably ader‑ 106 Lo Porto 1977–1979, 175–178, no. 4, tav. LXVI:a, fig. 3; Kunze 1991, 59, n. 117, 64–65, n. 126–127, 114, AnhangIII.h. 107 Letter from Goldstein to Cahn, 16th May 1988 (SLAM archive, 282:1949). 108 Bottini– Setari 2003, 100–101, tav. XXX; Bottini 2012, 178. 109 Kunze 1991, 64–65, n. 126. 102 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXIV/1 ivation of the decoration in the plates that embellish the porpax110 in the Archaic shields, with ‘hoplites on horseback’ seen from the front. This is also valid for Attic black ‑figure ceramic. We should remember that these types of productions are dated in the second half of the 6th century BC.111 The horseman decoration on the baltei in Braida di Vaglio was the reason why Bottini suggested that the matrices for these greaves were Greek originals being used in the Italic world.112 However, the absence of this type of decoration in Greece raises the question of whether the greaves were of Italic or Greek production. We cannot go on with the discussion without referring to Kunze’sremarks.113 The concentration of these elements with embossed representations of warriors (sometimes called hoplites) on horseback or Gorgoneia and their combination with other decorative elements such as felines, date them in the last quarter of the 6th century BC.This proposal, based on the chronologies offered by the contexts of the arm ‑guards and prometopidia,114 aligns completely with the chronology of the greaves decorated with snakes from the so ‑called Club Variant group 115 (Pl. 2/8) and with other decorative details found near the greave of Metaponto.116 FUSSPANZER Two fragments with parallel embossed decorations, preserved in the SLAM, were interpreted by Hoopes117 as Fußpanzer fragments. Hoopes could only compare them to the Fußpanzer from Ruvo di Puglia, preserved in the British Museum. Fußpanzer are protections that completely cover the foot, made with abronze plate that adheres to the feet as asecond skin, thanks to the hammering process that reproduced the foot’sanatomy realistically. The catalogue of Fußpanzer is extremely limited; just two were found in tomb 103 in Ruvo di Puglia,118 three in the sanctuary of Olympia119 and at least one in the tomb of Metaponto. Jarva suggested they dated from the second half of the 6th century BC,120 adating later proved by the study of the tomb 103 in Ruvo.121 110 For asynthesis of the artefacts in Olympia, cf. Kunze 1958, 97–107. 111 Bottini– Setari 2003, 100–101. 112 Bottini 2012, 178. 113 Kunze 1991, 65: ‘Es handelt sich gewiß um ein schon in seiner Zeit auffalendes, irgendwie exzep‑ tionelles, hinter der allgemeinen Entwicklung der griechischen Beinschiene etwas zurückge‑ bliebenes Werk. Die zügelos Krause Fülle der Dekoration aber, die sich auf der Ausenseite ausbreitet, ist gewiß nur an der Peripherie des Griechentums denkbar: Ein Hoplit des Mutterlandes hätte daran schwerlich Gefallen gefunden’. 114 Bottini– Graells iFabregat 2019, 845–848; Graells iFabregat 2019, 276–296. 115 Jarva 1995, 95. 116 Like the ones in Campo Scavo ‑Armento (Russo 1995, 26, fig. 30), Braida di Vaglio (Basileis 1995, 44; Bottini– Setari 2003) or the sanctuary of Olympia (Kunze 1967a, 95–96, 98–100, tav. 46–47; Jarva 1995, 95). 117 Hoopes 1953, 834. 118 BM B2870. Kunze 1967c, 208, Nr. 1–2; Jarva 1995, 105–106, fig. 59, no. 4; Montanaro 2007, 457–458, fig. 351, no. 103.12. 119 Olympia B5092, B6027, Athens NM6431. Kunze 1967c, 208–209, fig. 58, pl. 99:3, Nr. 2, 3, 5; Jarva 1995, 105–106, fig. 58, no. 1–3. 120 Jarva 1995, 105–106. 121 Montanaro 2007, 457. 109RAIMON GRAELLS IFABREGAT tum’sparticipation in the war between Croton and Sybaris (510 BC)162 or just asubsequent event to the destruction of Sybaris,163 which has no testimony in written sources, or maybe the reflection of focus on Greek interaction with Italic populations in amoment of crisis among other Greeks. Regardless of one or the other option, or even acombination of both, the political formula tried by the warrior of the panoply of Metaponto was not successful and, shortly after his burial, was diluted in adifferent and homogeneous political mainstream in alarge part of Magna Grecia. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Iam much indebted to Giacomo Bardelli, Angelo Bottini, Antonio De Siena, Markus Egg, Azzurra Scarci for their many comments to this research, and also to Nunzia Armento, Giulia Gioia, José Quesada, Moni Weber, and Georgina Zuferri for their pictures and drawings. Many other colleagues have contributed to particular topics: Holger Baitinger, Vincenzo Capozzoli, Massimo Cardosa, Alessia D’Antonio, Pier Giovanni Guzzo, Fausto Longo, Claudio Sabbione, Reinhard Senff, Alastair Small, Francesco De Stefano, Maria Luisa Tardugno, Calogero Ivan Tornese, Marek Verčik, Mariasilvia Vullo. Especial thanks to Lisa Çakmak (SLAM curator) as well as Antonietta Dell’Aglio, Maria Piccarreta and Assunta Cocchiaro from the Soprintendenza Archeologia Belle Arti e Paesaggio delle Province di Brindisi, Lecce e Taranto. Iwould like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their comments. This study was supported by the DFG Project EG‑64/4‑1 Antike Panzer. Untersuchungen zur Entwicklung von Rüstung und deren Anwendungsmöglichkeiten (soziale, funktionale und sym‑ bolische) und ihre Interaktion im Mittelmeerraum zwischen dem 8. und 3. Jh. v. Chr., DFG Project 327468989 Olympia: Diachrone Entwicklung der Votivgaben vom 10. bis 5. Jahrhundert v. Chr. im Zeusheiligtum and the Ramón y Cajal Project RYC2018‑024523‑I. BIBLIOGRAPHY Basileis 1995 = Basileis. Antichi re in Basilicata. Catalogo della Mostra, Roma 1995–1996. Napoli. Anderson, G. 2005: Before Turannoi Were Tyrants. Rethinking aChapter of Early Greek History. Classical Antiquity 24/2, 173–222. Baitinger, H. 2001: Die Angriffswaffen aus Olympia. Olympische Forschungen 29. Berlin– New York. Bol, P.C. 1989: Argivische Schilde. Olympische Forschungen 17. Berlin– New York. Born, H.– Hansen, S. 1994: Frühgriechische Bronzehelme. Sammlung Axel Guttmann 3. Mainz. Bottini, A. 1986: Greci e Indifeni nel sud della penisola dall’VIII sec. a.C. fino alla conquista romana. In: C. Ampolo– A. Bottini– P.G. Guzzo eds.: Popoli dell’Italia antica VIII. Roma. 9–251. Bottini, A. 1992: Metallotecnica. In: L. Todisco– G. Volpe– A. Bottini– P.G. Guzzo– F. Ferrandini– M. Chelotti eds.: Introduzione all’artigianato della Puglia antica. Dall’età coloniale all’età romana. Bari, 139–160. Bottini, A. 1993a: L’attività archeologica in Basilicata: 1992. In: Sibari e la Sibaritide. Atti del 32° Convegno di studi sulla Magna Grecia, Taranto ‑Sibari, 7–12 Ottobre, 1992. Taranto, 755–768. 162 Guzzo 1996, 76; Mele 2011, 334; De Stefano 2020, 32. 163 Verger 2019, 402. 110 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXIV/1 Bottini, A. ed. 1993b: Armi. Gli strumenti della guerra in Lucania. Bari. Bottini, A. 1999: Una spada da Banzi. Ostraka 8/1, 9–20. Bottini, A. 2008: Nuovi Schildbänder in contesti italici della Basilicata. Ostraka 17/1‑2, 11–24. Bottini, A. 2012: Nuove ricerche sulla Basilicata indigena di VI sec. a.C.– gli Schildbänder. In: M. Osanna– V. Cappozzoli eds.: Lo spazio del potere II. Nuove ricerche nell’area dell’anaktoron di Torre di Satriano. Atti del terzo e quarto convegno di studi su Torre di Satriano, Tito, 2009 e 2010. Venosa, 177–186. Bottini, A. 2012: In search of the origins of Metapontion– the tombs of Fondo Giacovelli. Annuario della Scuola archeologica italiana di Atene 98, 72–101. Bottini, A.– Graells iFabregat, R.2019: Armi ed armamento nella mesogaia fra VI e IV secolo. In: O. de Cazanove– A. Duplouy eds.: La Lucanie entre deux mers. Actes du colloque international, Paris 5–7 Novem‑ bre 2015. Collection du Centre Jean Bérard 50. Napoli, 831–863. Bottini, A.– Graells iFabregat, R.– Vullo, M.S. eds. 2019: Metaponto. Tombe arcaiche della necropoli urbana nord ‑occidentale. Polieion 7. Venosa. Bottini, A.– Setari, E. 2003: La necropoli di Braida di Vaglio in Basilicata. Materiali dello scavo del 1994. Mo‑ numenti Antichi serie miscellanea VII. Roma. Bottini, A.– Vullo, M.S. 2019: Le tombe del Fondo Giacovelli. In: Bottini– Graells iFabregat– Vullo eds. 2019, 59–168. Burkhart, N. 2014: Bestattungssitten zwischen Tradition und Modifikation. Kulturelle Austauschprozesse in den griechischen Kolonien in Unteritalien und Sizilien vom 8. bis zum 5. Jh. v. Chr. Italiká 2. Wiesbaden. Cahn, D. 1989: Waffen und Zaumzeug. Antikenmuseum Basel und Sammlung Ludwig. Basel. Cardosa, M. 2002: Il dono di armi nei santuari delle divinità femminili in Magna Grecia. In: A. Giumlia‑ ‑Mair– M. Rubinich eds.: Le Arti di Efesto. Catalogo della mostra, Trieste 2002. Milano, 99–103. Cardosa, M. 2014a: Hipponion. Armi da difesa. Armi miniaturistiche. Armi da offesa. In: Iannelli– Sab‑ bione eds. 2014, 51–56. Cardosa, M. 2014b: Medma. Armi da difesa miniaturistiche. Armi da offesa. In: Iannelli– Sabbione eds. 2014, 75–79. Cardosa, M. 2018: Armi dai santuari di Locri Epizefiri, Hipponion e Medma. In: R. Graells iFabregat– F. Longo eds.: Armi votive in Magna Grecia. Atti del convegno internazionale di studi, Salerno 2017. Mainz, 127–140. Cellini, P.1956: Storia di una statua fittile. Paragone 7, 54–58. Cook, B. 1998: Greek Inscriptions. London. De Caro, S.– Borriello, M. eds. 1996: IGreci in Occidente. La Magna Grecia nelle collezioni del Museo Archeo‑ logico di Napoli. Catalogo della mostra, Napoli 1996. Napoli. De Siena, A. 1998a: Metaponto. Problemi urbanistici e scoperte recenti. In: E. Greco ed.: Siritide e Metapontino. Storie di due territori coloniali. Atti dell’incontro di studio, Policoro 1991. Napoli, 141–170. De Siena, A. 1998b: Intervento. In: E. Greco ed.: Siritide e Metapontino. Storie di due territori coloniali. Atti dell’incontro di studio, Policoro 1991. Napoli, 313–316. De Siena, A. 2001: La realtà militare nelle colonie greche. In: Genti in arme. Aristocrazie guerriere della Basilicata antica. Catalogo della Mostra, Roma 2001. Roma, 29–33. De Siena, A. 2008: Metaponto, località Crucinia, proprietà Giacovelli. Osservazioni su alcune tombe monu‑ mentali arcaiche della necropoli occidentale. Bollettino d’Arte 143, 1–14. De Stefano, F. 2020: Continuità e trasformazioni nella storia di Metaponto tra VII e Vsecolo a.C. Archeologia Classica 71, 1–40. Dobrowolski, W. 1972: La descente de Thésée au fond de la mer. Bulletin du Musée National de Varsovie 13, 1–19. Duplouy, A.– de Polignac, F.– Mariaud, O. 2010: Sociétés grecques du VIIe siècle. In: R. Etienne ed.: La Méditerranée au VIIe siècle av. J.‑C. Essais d’analyses archéologiques. Paris, 275–311. Echeverria, F. 2012: Hoplite and Phalanx in Archaic and Classical Greece, areassessment. Classical Philology 107, 291–318. Emiliozzi, A. 2011: The Etruscan Chariot from Monteleone di Spoleto. Metropolitan Museum Journal 46, 9–132. 111RAIMON GRAELLS IFABREGAT Fontcuberta, J. 2016: La furia de las imágenes. Notas sobre la postfotografía. Barcelona. Foxhall, L. 1997: AView from the Top. Evaluating the Solonian Property Classes. In: The Development of the Polis in Archaic Greece. London, 113–136. Gauer, W. 1975: Die Tongefässe aus den Brunnen unterm Stadion ‑Nordwall und im Südost ‑Gebiet. Olympische Forschungen 8. Berlin. Giangiulio, M. 2013: Per una nuova immagine di Cipselo. Aspetti della tradizione storica sulla tirannide di Corinto. In: P.A. Bernardini ed.: Corinto luogo di azione e luogo di racconto. Atti del Convegno Internazionale Urbino, 23–25 settembre 2009. Quaderni urbinati di cultura classica 9. Pisa– Roma, 225–237. Graells iFabregat, R.2015: Herakles’ thorax. Archeologia classica 66, 447–466. Graells iFabregat, R.2019: La tumba de la armadura de 1942 y la panoplia defensiva arcaica en Magna‑ ‑Grecia. In: Bottini– Graells iFabregat– Vullo eds. 2019, 193–379. Graells iFabregat, R.2020: Aproposito dei due elmi calcidesi da Locri (MANN Inv. 5736–5737). In: C. Mala‑ crino– P.Giulierini– D. Costanzo eds.: Tesori dal Regno. La Calabria nelle collezioni del Museo Archeologico Nazionale di Napoli MArRC Cataloghi 22. Reggio Calabria, 225–241. Graells iFabregat, R.2021: Greek Archaic and Classical Panoplies. An Archaeo ‑iconographic diachronic Approach. In: G. Bardelli– R. Graells iFabregat eds.: Ancient Weapons. New Research Perspectives on Weapons and Warfare in the 1 st Millenium BC.Proceedings of the International Conference, Mainz, 20–21 September 2019. RGZM ‑Tagungen 44. Mainz, 175–203. Graells iFabregat, R. forthcoming: Die Panzer aus Olympia. Olympische Forschungen. Guzzo, P.G. 1990: Armi antiche di qua e di là delle Alpi. Aproposito di due recenti cataloghi. Bollettino d’Arte 62‑63, 138–145. Guzzo, P.G. 1996: Cronache dall’impero. In: S. Bianco– A. Bottini– A. Pontrandolfo– A. Russo– M. Tagliente– E. Setari eds.: IGreci in Occidente. Greci, Enotri, Lucani nella Basilicata meridionale. Napoli, 69–78. Guzzo, P.G. 2008: Metaponto, località Crucinia, proprietà Giacovelli. Oreficerie ornamentali dalla tomba 238 in località Crucinia. Bollettino d’Arte 143, 15–26. Han, B.‑C. 2019: Vom Verschwinden der Rituale. Eine Topologie der Gegenwart. Berlin. Handke, P.1983: Phantasien der Wiederholung. Frankfurt am Main. Hoopes, T.T. 1952: ACrested Helmet from Italy. American Journal of Archaeology 56, 174. Hoopes, T.T. 1953: The Greek Helmet in the City Art Museum of Saint Louis. In: G.E. Mylonas– D. Rayomonds eds: Studies presented to David Moore Robinson on His Seventieth Birthday 2. Saint Louis, 833–839. Iannelli, M.T. –Sabbione, C. eds. 2014: Le spose e gli eroi. Offerte in bronzo e in ferro dai santuari e dalle necropoli della Calabria greca. Vibo Valentia. Irazábal, F. 2015: Teatro Anaurático. Espacio y representación después del fin del arte. Córdoba. Jarva, E. 1995: Archaic Greek Body Armour. Studia Archaeologica Septentrionalia 3. Rovaniemi. Jucker, H. 1965: Sachliches zur Echtheitsfrage des Bostoner ‘Throns’ oder Kassation des Urteils gegen die Götter. Museum Helveticum 22, 117–124. Kορρε, Γ.Σ. 1970: Τα μετὰ κεφαλῶν κριῶν κράνη (ἡ κεφαλή κριοῦ ώς ἔμβλημα ἀρχῆς). Ethnikon ke kapodhistri‑ akon panepistimion Athinon. Philosofiki Scholi 4. Athina. Kunze, E. 1967a: Waffenweihungen. In: Bericht über die Ausgrabungen in Olympia 8, 83–110. Kunze, E. 1967b: Helme. In: Bericht über die Ausgrabungen in Olympia 8, 111–183. Kunze, E. 1967c: Fusspanzer. In: Bericht über die Ausgrabungen in Olympia 8, 208–212. Kunze, E. 1950: Archaische Schildbänder. Ein Beitrag zur frühgriechischen Bildgeschichte und Sagenüberlieferung. Olympische Forchungen 2. Berlin. Kunze, E. 1958: Schildbeschläge. In: Bericht über die Ausgrabungen in Olympia 6, 74–117. Kunze, E. 1991: Beinschienen. Olympische Forschungen 21. Berlin– New York. Lippolis, E. 1992: Armi. In: A. Dell’Aglio– E. Lippolis eds.: Catalogo del Museo Nazionale Archeologico di Taran‑ toII.1. Ginosa e Laterza. La documentazione archeologica dal VII al III sec. a.C. Scavi 1900–1980. Taranto, 178–180. 112 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXIV/1 Lo Porto, F.G. 1977–1979: Una tomba metapontina e l’elmo di Saint Louis nel Missouri. Atti e Memorie della Società Magna Grecia 18–20, 171–187. Marconi, C. 2009: Arte e insularità. Il caso delle metope del tempio F di Selinunte. In: C. Ampolo ed.: Atti delle seste giornate internazionali di studi sull’area elima e la Sicilia occidentale. Pisa, 259–268. Marconi, C. 2016: The Greek West. Temples and their Decoration. In: M.M. Miles ed.: ACompanion to Greek Architecture. Chichester, 75–91. Mele, A. 2011: Atridi aMetaponto. In: S. Cagnazzi– M. Chelotti– A. Favuzzi– F. Ferrandini Troisi– D.P.Orsi– M. Silvestrini– E. Todisco eds.: Scritti di storia per Mario Pani. Documenti e Studi 48. Bari, 329–339. Mele, A. 2013: Pitagora filosofo e maestro di verità. Roma. Menichetti, M. 2009: Le armi magiche della guerra e della seduzione. Imodelli omerici. Incidenza dell’Antico 7, 137–157. Menichetti, M. 2012: Magica arma (Ov. Met. 5 197). Il volto e il riflesso di Medusa tra letteratura e arti figurative in Grecia. In: I. Colpo– F. Ghedini eds.: Il gran poema delle passioni e delle meraviglie. Ovidio e il repertorio letterario e figurativo fra antico e riscoperta dell’antico. Atti convegno, Padova 2011. Padova, 65–72. Mertens, D. 2006: Città e monumenti dei Greci d’Occidente. Dalla colonizzazione alla crisi di fine Vsecolo a.C. Roma. Mödlinger, M. 2015: Rezension: Marek Verčik, Die barbarischen Einflüsse in der griechischen Bewaffnung. Internationale Archaologie 125, Verlag Marie Leidorf, Rahden/Westfalen 2014. Archaeologia Austriaca 99, 259–264. Mödlinger, M.– Tsirogiannis, C. 2020: Recent Cases of Unprovenanced Armour in the Antiquities Market and its Clients. Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 50/3, 323–337. Montanaro, A.C. 2004: Una tomba principesca di Ruvo. Taras XIX/2, 217–252. Montanaro, A.C. 2007: Ruvo di Puglia e il suo territorio, le necropoli. Icorredi funerari tra la documentazione del XIX secolo e gli scavi moderni. Studia archaelogica 160. Roma. Muth, S. 2008: Gewalt im Bild. Das Phänomen der medialen Gewalt im Athen des 6. und 5. Jahrhunderts v. Chr. Image & Context 1. Berlin– New York. Neils, J. 1994: Theseus. LIMC VII, 922–951. Philipp, H. 2004: Archaische Silhouettenbleche und Schildzeichen in Olympia. Olypische Forschungen 30. Ber‑ lin– New York. Philipp, H. 2014: Glanzvolle Silhouetten. Meisterwerke archaischer Toreutik im Badischen Landesmuseum Karls‑ ruhe. Lindenburg im Allgau. Picón, C.A.– Mertens, J.R.– Milleker, E.J.– Lightfoot, C.S.– Hemingway, S. eds. 2007: Art of the Classical World in the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Greece, Cyprus, Etruria, Rome. New York. Pucci, G. 2013: Dall’hic et nunc all’ubique et semper? Rivista di Estetica 52, 181–191. Richter, G.M.A. 1953: Handbook of the Greek Collection. The Metropolitan Museum of Art. Cambridge. Richter, G.M.A. 1939: Greek Bronzes recently acquired by the Metropolitan Museum of Art. American Journal of Archaeology 43/2, 189–201. Robinson, T. 2011: Identity in the Tomb of the Diver at Paestum. In: M. Gleba– H. Horsnaes eds.: Communi‑ cating Identity in Italic Iron Age Communities. Oxford, 50–72. Rocchietti, D. 2002: Aree sepolcrali aMetaponto. Corredi ed ideologia funeraria fra VI e III sec. a.C. Potenza. Russo, A. 1995: Armento, archeologia di un centro indigeno. Bollettino d’Archeologia 35–36. Roma. Sabbione, C. 1992: Intervento nel dibattito. In: La Magna Grecia e igrandi santuari della Madrepatria. Atti del 31° Convegno di studi sulla Magna Grecia, Taranto 1991. Taranto, 214–217. Sabbione, C. 1996: Deposito votivo in contrada Scrimbia di Vibo Valentia. In: G. Pugliese Carratelli ed.: Igreci in occidente. Catalogo della mostra, Venezia 1996. Milano, 641–642. Sabbione, C. 2014: L’area sacra di Scrimbia aHipponion. In: Iannelli– Sabbione eds. 2014, 48–70. Schefold, K. 1960: Meisterwerke griechischer Kunst. Basel. Snodgrass, A.M. 2013: Setting the Frame Chronologically. In: D. Kagan– G.F. Viggiano eds.: Men of Bronze. Hoplite Warfare in Ancient Greece. Princeton– Oxford, 85–94. 113RAIMON GRAELLS IFABREGAT Stadter, P.A. 2011: Competition and its Costs. Φιλονικία in Plutarch’sSociety and Heroes. In: G. Roskam– L. Van der Stockt eds.: Virtues for the People. Aspects of Plutarchan Ethics. Leuven, 237–255. Tagliamonte, G. 1994: Ifigli di Marte. Mobilità, mercenari e mercenariato italico in Magna Grecia e Sicilia. Roma. Ternbach, J. 1952: The archaic greek helmet in St. Louis. Archaeology 5/1, 40–46. Tornese, C.I. 2020: Metaponto e il Metapontino. Pelargòs 1, 153–164. Treister, M.Y. 2001: Hammering techniques in Greek and Roman jewellery and toreutics. Leiden– Boston– Köln. Van Wees, H. 1992: Status Warriors. War, Violence and Society in Homer and History. Amsterdam. Van Wees, H. 2000: The Development of the Hoplite Phalanx. Iconography and Reality in the Seventh Century. In: H. Van Wees ed.: War and Violence in Classical Greece. London, 125–166. Van Wees, H. 2004: Greek Warfare. Myths and Realities. London. Vannicelli, P.2010: L’uno e imolti. Ἁπαξός in Erodoto 2,79,1 e 7,96,2. Quaderni Urbinati 96, 87–97. Verčík, M. 2014: Die barbarischen Einflüsse in der griechischen Bewaffnung. Internationale Archaologie 125. Rahden. Verger, S. 2019: La place des tombes archaïques de la nécropole nord de Métaponte dans l’histoire des aris‑ tocraties grecques de la côte ionienne au VIe siècle avant J.‑C. In: Bottini– Graells iFabregat– Vullo eds. 2019, 383–405. Vermeule, C.C. 1955: Armor and Arms by Thomas T. Hoopes [Book review]. American Journal of Archaeology 59/2, 190–191. Weidig, J. 2014: Bazzano. Ein Gräberfeld bei L’Aquila (Abruzzen). Die Bestattungen des 8.–5. Jahrhunderts v. Chr. Untersuchungen zu Chronologie, Bestattungsbräuchen und Sozialstrukturen im Apenninischen Mittelitalien. Monographien des Römisch ‑Germanisches Zentralmuseum zu Mainz 112. Mainz. Raimon Graells iFabregat Universitat d’Alacant Dept. Prehistoria, Arqueología, Hª. Antigua, Fª. Griega y Fª. Latina Edifici Filosofia i Lletres, III Carretera de San Vicente del Raspeig s/n E‑03690 San Vicente del Raspeig orcid.org/0000‑0002‑9057‑7510 199PLATES Pl. 2/1: Detail of the ivory and painted eyes that decorate the protome, restored by J. Ternbach (photos by G. Zuferri, with permission of the SLAM). Pl. 2/2: 3D reconstruction of the assembly sequence of the eyes that decorated the protome. This sequence is also applicable to the Cheekpiece appliqués with the only difference being the position of the central nails: present in the structure of the protome and applied from the outside for the Cheekpieces (3D drawing M. Sánchez). 200 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXIV/1 Pl. 2/4: 3D reconstruction of the protome with arealistic system of horns and ears. Nothing of the original system is preserved. Only the two fragments commented on in Fig. 17 could be related, without certainty (3D drawing M. Sánchez). Pl. 2/3: 3D reconstruction of the original cheekpiece with acombination of silver, gilded silver appliqué, with an ivory and glass paste eye, on the bronze helmet (3D drawing M. Sánchez). 201PLATES Pl. 2/5: 3D exploded drawing of the parts that shaped the original helmet, in order of assembly (3D drawing M. Sánchez). 202 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXIV/1 Pl. 2/6: 3D reconstruction of the original appearance of the helmet (3D drawings M. Sánchez). 203PLATES Pl. 2/7: 3D reconstruction of the bell cuirass (3D drawings J. Quesada).