shake rattle and rôle: sistra in etruria? - british museum swaddling-pp.pdf · etruscan by...

Etruscan by Definition | 31

Introduction

For almost 100 years an ivory sistrum or ceremonial rattle, believed to belong to the Orientalising period (Figs 1, 5),1 has resided in the Etruscan collections of the British Museum. Resembling a Y-shaped catapult, it has a bronze rod between the mouths of the panther- or lioness-head terminals, and on this are threaded five ivory discs that would have made a soft rattling noise when the instrument was shaken. A lion’s head forms the terminal of the turned handle, at the opposite end of which the two arms of the semi-circular frame are slotted into a double-sided palmette. The handle is not in fact of ivory but of bone and shell and may be a later replacement; this will be discussed below and in the scientific report.

The sistrum appeared to be a unique, very fine object, but it was ignored in the literature, even after it was put on permanent display in the ‘Italy before the Roman Empire’ gallery in 1991. It seemed plausible as an Etruscan piece of the 7th century BC, with the style of the feline-head terminals and palmette seemingly suited to that period, as was the material, ivory,2 which along with amber, shells and ostrich eggs was a typical exotic import of the time. It was a period of marked affluence in Etruria due to the exploitation of natural mineral

resources, and increased trade as a result of this made it the time of the greatest influence on Etruria of the Near Eastern cultures, with many luxury objects imported from Egypt, Syria and Asia Minor, often as a consequence of trade with the Phoenicians. The sistrum had no provenance information, however, other than that at the time of purchase from the London branch of Rollin and Feuardent it was stated to have come from Orvieto.3 It was perhaps this lack of detailed context and comparanda which made it an awkward topic for discussion. It has appeared neither in archaeomusicology publications nor in ivory studies, even that of Huls on Etruscan ivories.4 The Etruscans made musical instruments such as pipes from various materials including ivory, but sistra in Etruria are otherwise unheard of, either in ivory or any other material. The Etruscans were known in antiquity for their love of music and, as in Greece, it accompanied almost every aspect of daily life. Their large repertoire of instruments included the lyre, tuba, lituus, tibia, aulos, cornu, syrinx or pan-pipes, bells, tintinnabula, castanets and tympanum,5 so it may seem strange that the sistrum is otherwise absent in Etruria, but its specific religious function, to which we shall return, may be responsible.

Shake Rattle and Rôle: Sistra in Etruria?

Judith Swaddling

Figure 1a-b Sistrum made of ivory, bone and shell. Ht. 25.5cm; ht. of handle 14.7cm. British Museum 1910,0417.1

32 | Etruscan by Definition

Figure 3a (left) The sistrum in 2004, before it was acquired by the British Museum3b (above) Profile of the top of the handle, showing the masks back to back. Both images courtesy of Veronica Noble

Figure 2a Sistrum made of ivory. Ht. 31.5cm, ht. of handle 21.6cm. British Museum 2005, 0707.1. Photo Bonhams2b Other side of the sistrum handle

2a 2b

Swaddling

2c

2d



It was a great surprise when another similar ivory sistrum appeared in 2004 (Figs 2, 3). It was not readily recognisable as such when it was brought to the Greek and Roman Department at the British Museum in October that year for an opinion, since it was in an extremely fragmentary state, wrapped in aged tissue in an antique velvet-lined box, with virtually the only clue to its identification being the feline-head terminals, very similar to the those of the sistrum which was already in the collections (Fig. 3a). The identification of the fragments as elements of a sistrum created considerable excitement. This new example seemed to have been larger and even more ornate than the first, with inlaid gold maeander or key-pattern around the arms and handle and intriguing masks, back-to-back at the top of the handle, resembling, at least superficially, traditional representations of comedy and tragedy. The object was to be sold at Bonhams and the idea of acquiring it was very appealing, as it would enable comparative research regarding material, technique and possibly a means of dating both pieces. After much consideration and due diligence in accordance with the Museum’s acquisition policy and the guidelines laid down by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport for combating illicit trade, we set about seeking funds to bid for the sistrum when it came up for auction at Bonhams in April 2005.6 With the generosity of the British Museum Friends and the Caryatids (supporters of the Department of Greece and Rome), we were able to make the successful bid.7 The sistrum, however, had by now changed dramatically in appearance, as it had been conserved and restored to its current form using the other sistrum as a guide. Conservation was in the interests of the object, which had been in a very damaged and vulnerable state, but the restoration has made the investigation of the fabric rather more difficult than it might have been. We are grateful to Veronica Noble, who had been commissioned by Bonhams on behalf of the vendor to undertake the restoration, for providing a copy of her report and a series of photographs and drawings showing the restoration in progress. These, together with x-rays (Figs 4a–d, 16–17), give a firm indication of the extent of the original fragments. Unfortunately we have no information about the findspot of the new sistrum; research into even its modern history has proved a demanding task, to be discussed below.

The challenge presented by the ivory sistra in the British Museum is that not only are there no parallels in Etruria, but that there is none anywhere in the classical world. The basic premise on which we must begin is that sistra are normally

considered to have originated in Egypt, and are very often linked with the Egyptian goddess Isis, whose religion arrived in Italy in the 3rd century bc.

A visual comparison of the two ivory sistra

The construction of both sistra will be evident from the x-rays (Figs 16, 17) and discussion in the Scientific Report, below: what follows is a comparison between the visual appearances (Figs 1–3, 5).

The new sistrum is about one third taller than the old, some 33cm as opposed to 25.5cm,8 though, as it will be explained below, the arms of both sistra have been cut down at some stage. Both sistra have fluted arms, imitating bound palm bundles, a common Egyptian architectural motif. The old sistrum has the palm stalks bound with a plain band with narrow borders denoted by an incised line, while the new sistrum has bands with narrow raised collars to either side and inset with 1mm-wide strips of gold wire forming a maeander pattern, matching bands at either end of the fluted section of the handle. The bands on the old sistrum are set slightly higher. The arms of the new one are thicker and more rounded in section than those of the old which are much flatter, being on average only just over 6mm thick, tapering to c. 2mm at the base, while the new sistrum arms are 13mm at their midpoint (just above the band), tapering to c. 3mm thick where they narrow towards the junction with the palmette. The feline heads of the new sistrum are commensurately chunkier (1.6cm as opposed to 1.0cm in thickness). Though much less well preserved, it is evident that they lacked the small beard beneath the lower jaw, present on all three heads of the old sistrum, and also the distinctive fold of flesh descending from the inner corner of the eye to the outer corner of the mouth, seen on the head on one of the arms and also the handle of the old sistrum (Figs 5a–d). The feline heads of both sistra have horizontally-wrinkled muzzles, creating a snarl as the lions ‘bite’ the ends of the metal rod. Both pairs have folded-back ears, drooping slightly more on the new sistrum. The felines of the old sistrum have two narrow incised bands around the neck, absent on those of the new one. The palmette of the handle of the old example has 11 lobes, the new, 9 lobes.

The handle itself, decorated with incised bands, swells towards the middle then narrows again, ending with a rounded lip from which emerges what looks like a circle of lotus petals but is probably meant to represent the tips of palm bundles, to match those of the arms, and from them issues the lion’s head.

Figure 4a-d Drawings showing the extent of the new restoration (hatched areas) of the sistrum 2005,0707.1. Courtesy of Veronica Noble


Swaddling

Where the handle of the old sistrum ends in a gaping lion’s head, the new has what seems to be a ram’s head terminal (see below p. 40). Though the old sistrum handle is possibly a replacement, there is no indication that it had a mask feature like the new one, but we cannot discount the possibility that a similar feature once existed and was cut down when the palmette was prepared for insertion into its new handle.

The new sistrum has only four surviving discs, two of which are slightly larger, and unlike its companion, the metal rod is now lost. The discs of the new sistrum are relatively plain, slightly curved in section and decorated round the middle with four concentric grooves; round the edges, the smaller ones have one groove and the larger two grooves. The concave inner sides have narrow flat borders. The discs are between 4.3 and 4.6mm in diameter. The discs of the old sistrum are much more carefully designed for the purpose. The central disc is larger and fixed in place by a small bronze washer to either side, while the other discs were free to slide along the rod. The outer, smallest pair are convex and like the new sistrum discs have four decorative grooves round the middle but the resulting bands to either side are slightly convex; they have raised borders with a groove running round the outer edge. The inner couple are flat with raised borders and two grooves running round the outer edge. The large central disc is also flat but has a larger more elaborate border, trilobate in section. It is 5.5mm in diameter, the remainder 4.3–4.4mm.

Interpreting the decorative elements

The feline heads

Unlike the palm-bundle design of the arms, the feline-head decoration on both the sistra (Figs 1, 2, 5c–d) is not a common Egyptian motif and we must look elsewhere for its derivation. Though the lion’s head is common in Etruscan art and well-explored in Brown’s The Etruscan Lion, no Etruscan examples seem particularly close to those of the sistra. There are however several small ivory feline heads which in profile and in the details of the muzzle resemble a simplified version of the sistra panther or lioness-heads, and though they come from the

Bernardini and Barbarini Tombs at Praeneste they are thought to be Phoenician imports.9 They are of the date first proposed for the ‘old’ sistrum in the British Museum, that is the 7th century bc, and were probably a strong factor in the reasoning behind that dating. The question arises, why panther or lioness rather than lion heads? This may be the result of a cultural assimilation. Sistra were a vital part of the paraphernalia of Isis, both in Egypt and in those parts of the classical world to which her religion spread. In those regions Osiris, the husband and brother of Isis, was often assimilated with Dionysos, one of whose most frequent companions is the panther. In addition, the dramatic masks on the new sistrum provide a link with theatrical performance which from its origins was performed in honour of Dionysos.

There seems also to be some Persian influence. Similar felines to those of the sistra occur in Achaemenid art, but the latter often have stylised lobes of flesh around the eyes and muzzle which ours lack.10 Perhaps closer are examples from Nimrud, in particular on 8th-century ivories and bowls, looted by the Assyrians from the Levant. They have similar facial features, and sometimes show the elongated folds of flesh descending from the eyes to the mouth, as already noted on two of the felines of the old sistrum (Fig. 5). The Nimrud lions however have rounded ears, whereas the Achaemenid ones have laid back pointed ears, like the sistra felines. A selection of 8th/7th century feline heads illustrated by Barnett, from other areas of Mesopotamia, are however very close indeed to those of the old sistrum.11 These latter look rather more archaic than those of the new sistrum, perhaps because of their more linear style; but this may be more to do with the thinner ‘slice’ of ivory that the craftsman was using (see below: ‘The fabric of the sistra: hippopotamus or elephant tusk?’).

Imagery of lions, rams (as on the handle of the new sistrum), palm bundles with bindings and palmettes are found widely on Syro-Phoenician material. The existence of Syro-Phoenician ivory workers in Etruscan territory has long been suggested though simply on the basis of stylistic grounds.12

More importantly, there is growing evidence for the interest of the Etruscans in their past, both in terms of prizing ancient artefacts and reviving ancient motifs.13 This coupled

Figure 5a-d Profile views of the shell lion’s head handle terminal and feline heads on the arms of the sistrum, British Museum 1910,0417.1



with the newly-revived possibility of a Near Eastern origin for the Etruscans (see Perkins in this volume), could be compatible with an Etruscan origin for the sistra. It is unfortunate that the condition of the sistra does not allow for samples to be taken for radio-carbon dating since of course it would be very interesting to know whether parts of the sistra did indeed belong to what were then already heirlooms.

Masks or faces

Perhaps the most striking feature of the new sistrum are the masks. Roman sistra, like the Egyptian, also sometimes bear back-to-back masks, but the two faces are often identical. Even when they are sometimes slightly different the expressions are bland and in no way as contrasting as those on the ivory sistrum (Figs 2c–d, 6). Particularly significant are some remarks by Plutarch in his discussion on sistra used in the worship of Isis:14

….and at the bottom, below the things that are shaken, the face of Isis on one side, and on the other the face of Nephthys. By these faces they symbolize birth and death, for these are the changes and movements of the elements.

The reference to Nephthys is fascinating: this ubiquitous Egyptian deity was the sister, counterpart or doppelganger of Isis. Furthermore both sisters were represented in annual rites where two chosen females or priestesses played the rôles of Isis and Nephthys and performed the elaborate ‘Lamentations of Isis and Nephthys’ – a liturgical collection of songs that formed a crucial part of a sort of Passion Play in honour of Osiris, husband of Isis who was brutally murdered.

Perhaps in the exceptional ivory sistra the craftsman was conflating the ideas of the two Egyptian deities in the region where sistra originated and the dual aspects of drama

prevalent in the classical world. It is interesting that there was a guild of the ‘Artists of Dionysos’ in Egypt in the reign of Ptolemy II, and Webster refers to ‘Egyptian fancy playing with Attic models’, which could well suit the tone of the sistrum.15 The origin of the masks on the sistra (Fig. 2c–d) may have been in these two different aspects of the Egyptian goddess but they are undeniably linked to the symbols of comedy and tragedy, and since, as will be discussed below, these motifs were not popular simply as decoration before the 4th century bc, both sistra must now be down-dated.16

Despite the forlorn look of the serious face, it seems to me that both masks may be associated with New Comedy types (in vogue from about c. 320 bc onwards), the grinning face being akin to the ‘leading slave’ types17 though the trumpet mouth has been muted away, and the distraught face to the ‘maiden’.18 The rites associated with Isis included festivities meant to entertain and humour the goddess and distract her from the grief of mourning her murdered husband, and it may be in this manner that we can account for the insinuation of the comic aspect into Isaic religion in Italy.

There also seems to be an element of Bes in the ‘comic’ face, the dwarf deity with African features and occasionally menacing grin. On the sistrum the expression is almost a snarl, and the grimace could perhaps be interpreted as mimicking the snarl of the feline heads, particularly since Bes is often represented with a lionskin and lion mask. In Egypt Bes has an apotropaic function which might also be significant here. There are in fact representations of Bes with a trumpet-shaped mouth which could have put the craftsman in mind of a comic actor’s mask, though the surviving examples are of a much earlier date: there are two examples on the ceremonial chariot from the tomb of Tutankhamun in the Cairo Museum. 19

Figure 6a–c Roman bronze sistrum with female busts, slightly differing, back to back, and surmounted by a wolf suckling Romulus and Remus. 1st–2nd century AD. Ht. 28cm. British Museum 1893,0626.1, Walters BM Bronzes no. 872


Swaddling

cementum, is more brittle than the inner dentine, which is relatively soft and smooth. The choice of hippo tusk for the handle and arms of the new sistrum, as well as reflecting Egyptian tradition, may have been made for practical reasons, as hippo tusk is considerably harder than elephant ivory.23

An additional reason for this choice of material could be the scarcity of elephant ivory remarked upon by Pliny (mid–late 1st century ad), due to insatiable demand, though supplies were still occasionally available from India.24 It is tempting to suggest that as a result the makers of these prestige sistra looked elsewhere for their raw materials, perhaps using the tusks of victims from the circus where hippopotami are known to have been featured.25 The fact that they were such exotic and powerful creatures would make their tusks all the more prized. Hippopotami were sacred in Egypt, and they are represented with varying degrees of artistic licence in nilotic scenes on several wall-paintings and mosaics from Pompeii.26

The Egyptian clappers mentioned above date back to at least as early as the Middle Kingdom, c. 2000 bc. Often they are in the shape of hands and arms, and the decoration can include animal or human heads, sometimes the head of Isis or Hathor, such as a pair in the British Museum (Fig. 9).27 The shape of the tusk is more than likely the reason for the choice of a feline head other than a lion’s, since the curve of the base of the incisor (inverted to form the sistrum arm) would not allow for the modelling of any mane. Two pairs of clappers are often shown in use at one time, one in each hand, as on the wall-painting from the Tomb of Amenemhet at Thebes (Fig. 10).28 Here, although the terminals are formed by human and not feline heads, the curvature of the back of the heads is similar, again probably influenced by the shape of the tusks, giving the impression that the heads are bent forwards. It is out of the question that the sistra are pastiches employing re-used clappers since clappers always have completely flat backs while the arms of the sistra are carved on both sides.

Sistra in the ancient world

A great many sistra and representations of them survive from Egypt and the classical world, but they are all of the type with a closed frame, either oval or rectangular, with several rods (Fig. 6).29 In ancient times the only version of the sistrum to have a Y-shaped frame comes from Mesopotamia, from the 3rd millennium bc: due to its shape it is sometimes called the spur sistrum,30 and a similar form occurs in Coptic Egypt,

The fabric of the sistra: hippopotamus or elephant tusk?

The Egyptian connotations of the two British Museum sistra are undeniable. In addition to the Isis association, there are the stylistic features and shape of the arms. These bear a remarkable likeness to Egyptian ivory clappers which can be straight but are very often curved, the reason being that they were made from hippopotamus tusk, specifically the incisors (Figs 9–10).20 It was therefore of prime importance to discover whether the arms of the sistra were also of hippopotamus tusk. Identification can be problematic but there are certain key criteria, which, if the investigator is lucky enough to find them, are clear indications.

A section through elephant tusk, for example, will show ‘Schreger lines’, a lattice work of curved lines radiating outwards and crossing each other at 115° angles, formed by growth patterns.21 These are often visible to the naked eye and sometimes easier to distinguish without a microscope. They occur plainly on the discs of the new sistrum, though curiously not those of the old sistrum which are more porous and of uncertain material. The fabric of the arms of the old sistrum, too, is a little hard to identify, though there are very fine parallel striations above and below the ear of one of the felines which could indicate growth curves suggesting hippo tusk.

The vital finding was that the arms of the new sistrum are almost certainly made from hippo tusk incisors. This was identified by the fact that the incisors form a very shallow triangle in section (they are flat on one side and ridged on the other), and this must surely account for the skewed, asymmetric feline heads on the new sistrum (Fig. 7a–c).22 There are other less certain indicators for the identification, such as that the arms of the new sistrum demonstrate a glossiness seen on hippo tusk, though admittedly this could be due to buffing during one of the restorations. Another feature is a slight greenish tinge, which hippo tusk can show towards the centre of the tusk, but alternatively this could be the result of contamination from copper or bronze, perhaps from the now missing rod which held the discs (cf. the feline heads on the old sistrum, Figs 1a–b, 5c–d). Much more certain, however, is the fabric of the handle of the new sistrum, since a section cut through a hippo canine will often reveal concentric circles, again indicating growth patterns, and these are very clearly evident looking down on the top of the palmette above the masks (Fig. 7d). The longitudinal cracks on the handle could also be indicative of hippo tusk since the outer layer, the

Figure 7a–d Details of the asymmetric, skewed feline heads (a–c) and top of the palmette(d) of the new sistrum, suggesting that they are carved from hippopotamus tusk

a b

c

d



1200 bc), are of bronze, and of very simple design. The scarcity of finds may be due to the fact that early Mesopotamian sistra may actually have been jaw-bones, perhaps going by the same name as for a jawbone, Sumerian me-zé or Akkadian manzû. In American cultures jawbones of horses, mules and donkeys have been used as rattles, with the jawbone being struck and causing the teeth to rattle.35 The shape of our ivory sistra may be harking back to these primitive prototypes.

Examples of sistra from the Prehistoric Aegean are also few and far between. The best known is a primitive clay example from Archanes, Crete, which seems to have had two rods, probably of wood, on which were threaded three clay discs. It belongs to the MMIA period, about 2100–1950 bc.36 The use of the sistrum later in the Minoan period is famously attested by the Harvester Vase from Agia Triada, where a man leading a group of three singers holds up a sistrum in front of him. In the Linear B pictograms two kinds of sistra are shown, one a closed oval type like the clay example, and the other an open version known as the kalyx type, rather more akin to the Mesopotamian than the Egyptian examples. The early Cretan sistra are nonetheless regarded as important evidence for early relations between Crete and Egypt.37

The Egyptian name of the instrument comes from the onomatopoeic word for the instrument, sesheshet,38 while in Greek it was seistron (thing shaken), whence the Latin sistrum. Shaking the sistrum rhythmically produced a soft, rattling noise, and the three syllables of sesheshet may reinforce the comment of the Roman writer Apuleius that it was normally a triple shake (tergeminos ictus).39 Sometimes the sistra had no discs and the noise was made simply by the bent ends of the metal rods, often snake-headed, protruding through the arms of the sistra and tapping on their sides. Playing the sistrum was probably more difficult than it at first seems: it is commonly known among musicians that the simpler an instrument the more challenging it is to play effectively. Women in Egypt used them primarily for religious and ritual purposes. Rattles and jingling bells were used widely in ancient cultures to ward off evil spirits,40 as they still are in Christian Ethiopia, where the bishop shakes a sistrum to all four corners of the church.41 In Egypt and Rome sistra were usually made of bronze but occasionally silver, and Plutarch also mentions sistra of gold,42

considerably later than the two ivory sistra, where examples are more like large tuning forks, with angular arms.31 The most frequently represented illustration from Mesopotamia is the decorated panel of the Great Lyre from Ur in the University of Pennsylvania Museum, dating to the middle of the 3rd millennium bc, with animals playing musical instruments, including a jackal playing the Y-shaped sistrum (Fig. 8).32 In Mesopotamia Y-shaped sistra seem to have been very common over a long period, and we hear of them being used in their hundreds as part of religious festivals,33 but we have no evidence for any as elaborate as the pair of ivory sistra in the British Museum. There is only a handful of iconographic representations of the Mesopotamian sistra: interestingly, the sistrum is always accompanied by another flat, unidentified percussion instrument resting on the knees of the player and in two of those scenes the sistra are associated with the kalū, or performers of prayers. As in Egypt, the sistra seem to have been shaken to pacify or please a goddess, here the battle goddess Inana. Though it is often stated that sistra originated in Egypt the Mesopotamian examples would appear to be equally as early.34 The surviving sistra from Mesopotamia, very few in number, dating mainly to the Late Bronze Age (about 1550–

Figure 8 Decorated panel from the Great Lyre from the ‘King’s Grave’ at Ur, Iraq, showing animal musicians, including a jackal with a sistrum, c. 2650–2550 BC. Gold, bitumen and wood. University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology & Anthropology, object B17694, image 150106

Figure 9 Pair of Egyptian ivory clappers, from Thebes, Egypt, 18th Dynasty, c. 1300 BC. Ht. 32.7cm. British Museum EA 20779; EA 20780

Figure 10 Wall painting from the Tomb of Amenemhet, Thebes, Egypt, showing the annual festival of Hathor, with (left) two priests holding pairs of clappers, the shape bearing an overall resemblance to the arms of the British Museum sistra. 18th Dynasty, 1550–1307 BC. After Wreszinski 1923, 267B


Swaddling

so they could clearly be very prized pieces. There are several fine examples in faience, one of which is illustrated here, arguably the most exquisite of its kind, and belonging to the so-called naos or temple sistrum type, because the enclosed shape resembles a temple (Fig. 11). It is a matter of debate whether the faience examples were actually used or made as dedications.43 I am not aware of any Egyptian examples in ivory but there are some surviving ivory discs like those on our two sistra which could have belonged to sistra now lost.

In the classical world the sistrum is always associated with Isis, though in Egypt it is linked strongly also with other deities, – prinicipally Hathor, Bes, and the cat-headed goddess Bastet.44 In Egypt (and under the influence of Egyptian religion, in Rome, too) cats and the cat-goddess Bastet are often linked with sistra. As an example, a bronze figure in the British Museum of Bastet, the Egyptian cat-headed goddess, holds a sistrum decorated with a Hathor head (Fig. 12).45 Bastet was sometimes known as the ‘Mistress of the Sistrum’, although this title more properly belonged to Hathor, whose identity widely overlapped with that of Isis. Bastet and Sekhmet were dual forms of the daughter of the sun-god Ra, the one friendly, the other fierce, defender of her father and the pharaoh. In the Egyptian depictions Bastet also sometimes carried a lion’s head or wore it on her aegis to warn of her potential ferocity: in our example she holds the aegis to her chest. This reflects the increasing association of the other goddesses with Sekhmet, particularly from about 500 bc, who could threaten to destroy mankind or be pacified and benevolent (the Myth of the Eye of Ra). In sacred cat cemeteries Bastet takes the appeased form of a cat or cat-headed woman. When the Greeks occupied Egypt they changed her name to Ailuros, Greek for cat, identifying her as a version of the moon-goddess Artemis. There is just conceivably a possibility that the half-moon shape of the sistra arms is an acknowledgment of this. The goddess Isis, typically also associated with the sistrum46 is of course often depicted with cow horns as a head-dress or pendant, but these turned outward at the ends; it is only when her worship arrived in the classical world that the horns took on the crescent form. Interestingly in later Roman cult, Io, legendarily the lover of Zeus, was transformed by him into a heifer to protect her from

the anger of his wife Hera, and is shown as a woman with small cow horns. She becomes identified with the goddess Isis, a rôle famous from the wall-painting from the Temple of Isis at Pompeii where Io is welcomed by Isis at Canopus.47 The cow horns of Isis derived from the Egyptian assimilation of her rôles with those of Hathor, who was often depicted in this way.

Tiny figures of cats and kittens often decorate sistra from Egypt and Rome: Plutarch, in his discussion of sistra, explained the presence of the cat on the arch of enclosed sistra as an emblem of the moon. He offers illuminating remarks on this:48

At the top of the circumference of the sistrum they construct the figure of a cat with a human face … by the cat they symbolize the moon because of the varied colouring, nocturnal activity, and fecundity of the animal. For the cat is said to bring forth first one, then two and three and four and five, thus increasing the number by one until she reaches seven, so that she brings forth in all 28, the number also of the moon’s illuminations. Perhaps, however, this may seem somewhat mythical. But the pupils in the eye of the cat appear to grow large and round at the time of the full moon, and to become thin and narrow at the time of the wanings of that heavenly body. By the human features of the cat is indicated the intelligence and the reason that guides the changes of the moon.

Because cats were considered good, protective mothers, figures of the sistrum-bearing Bastet accompanied by kittens were often dedicated by women (and sometimes men), the number of kittens echoing the number of children that they desired. Similarly, fertility rituals performed by women in Egypt and associated with the goddess Isis often involved sistra. Though we cannot be sure of details, we may perhaps reasonably infer that our ivory sistra were somehow involved with the worship of a female deity by priestesses or female votaries. In Egypt, however, kings were also shown using sistra, and it appears to have been a male priest who taught priestesses the art of sistrum-shaking in Middle Kingdom Egypt.49

It might be worth noting one further reference to the use of the sistrum, which Plutarch says was also used to avert storm

Figure 12 Bronze figure of the cat-headed goddess Bastet, carrying a sistrum with Hathor head (damaged) and aegis with the forepart of a feline; two kittens at her feet. Late Period, c. 900–600 BC. Ht. 15.4cm. British Museum 1903,0511.5

Figure 11 Egyptian faience sistrum showing the head of Hathor. Late Period, Saite, 26th Dynasty, c. 664–525 BC. Handle broken and missing, preserved ht. 19.0cm. Helen M. Danforth Acquisition Fund. Photo Erik Gould, courtesy of the Museum of Art, Rhode Island School of Design, Providence, Rhode Island 5



winds or volcanic activity, in their manifestation as Typhon:The sistrum also makes it clear that all things in existence need to be shaken, or rattled about, and never to cease from motion but, as it were, to be waked up and agitated when they grow drowsy and torpid. They say that they avert and repel Typhon by means of the sistrums, indicating thereby that when destruction constricts and checks Nature, generation releases and arouses it by means of motion.

This seems to have been a specifically Roman usage, though it could hark back to the Etruscans, given their interest in meteorological phenomena as omens, and that Typhon was commonly represented in Etruscan art.50 As well as in the worship of Isis, it may be an additional reason for the frequency of findings at Pompeii, with its proximity to volcanic activity.51

The connection between religion and drama: the true context

of the sistra

While the feline heads point to the East, the masks or faces on the new sistrum are distinctly ‘westernising’, and it is on these that the contextualisation of the sistra must heavily depend. The Phoenicians made widespread use of masks as ornamentation as is clear for example from the faces on their glass pendants and their decorative terracotta masks. The sistrum masks must take their influence from those of Greek and Roman theatre, but elements of these also found their way into Phoenician art, and the influence of a Phoenician hand at some stage cannot be discounted.52 The popularity of tragic and comic masks as a decorative motif around the Mediterranean

from the early 4th century bc was clearly an inspiration for the masks on the ivory sistrum,53 even though the primary allusion must have been to the Hathor masks on Egyptian sistra. Our craftsman was clearly not averse to concocting a heady mix of cultural elements. Or was it rather that the sistra, the new one in particular, reflect a complex evolution of beliefs?

When the worship of Isis came to Italy in the 3rd century bc the new religion had immense impact. The ‘Egyptomania’ of the period and its influence on culture and production, particularly in Campania, has been the topic of recent important exhibitions and the Isaic religion in Italy has been discussed in numerous publications, prime among which are those of Tram Tan Tinh.54 One of the consequences of its arrival in Italy was the introduction of a dramatic ritual in honour of the goddess, recalling those enacted at the Egyptian festivals mentioned above, where rites were performed to the accompaniment of music and some at least of the participants wore masks. Our main evidence for this performance, and what seems to be a striking piece of evidence for the context of the two sistra, is the wall-painting from Herculaneum showing an Ethiopian priest accompanied by musicians performing some kind of ritual in honour of Isis (Fig. 13).55 What is particularly relevant here is that the priest is not only wearing a phallic costume but also, remarkably, a comic mask. He appears to be dancing; why he wears a military cuirass and foliage on his head is unclear. It may be worth noting that the figure on the Roman bronze sistrum (Fig. 6) looks as though

Figure 13a Wall painting from Herculaneum, showing a ritual performance in front of a temple, in honour of Isis, and accompanied by sistra, timpana and double pipes. Mid-1st century AD, found 1745, exact findspot unknown, 74 x 52cm. Museo Archeologico Nazionale, Napoli, Inv. 891913b Detail of priest wearing a comic mask and phallic costume, perhaps masquerading as Bes


Swaddling

perfectly feasible, the weakest point would have been at the junction of the handle with the base of the arms, where the ivory was thinnest and most likely to break. Secondly this area, being the most fragile, would be least likely to survive well over the centuries, hence a possible repair in modern times. We can only assume that at this stage the sistrum was in a much better state of repair and that its fragmentary state in 2004 (Fig. 3a) was due to an accident suffered subsequently or poor storage conditions.

It is a little misleading that on the new sistrum the hole for the rod (now missing) goes straight through the heads, from the mouth to the back of the head, but this hole was merely created during the repair of 2004–5 using the old sistrum for guidance.59 In fact on the old sistrum the rod did not penetrate through the heads but originally ended inside the felines’ mouths. It was only at the stage when the arms were cut down at the base and re-fitted to the handle that the distance between the felines’ heads was decreased, necessitating the rod also to be cut down, but for some reason the restorer chose to make holes in the backs of the heads and insert the cut-off rod ends into them.

As for the bone handle of the old sistrum, with the lion’s head carved from shell, this could be an ancient replacement and would have been practical, as bone is harder and would have been more readily available than elephant ivory. It is interesting that two bronze sistra found in a grave at Arta (ancient Ambrakia in Epirus, Greece) both have bronze handles taken from other objects; the matching handles have a schematic capital at one end, what are described as six auloi or flutes as decoration along the length of the handle, and while one sistrum has a bull’s head terminal, the other has a lion’s head reminiscent of that on the old ivory sistrum. They are dated to the early 2nd century bc and the grave is considered as that of a priestess of Isis. The worship of Isis seems to have been introduced to this region by King Pyrrhus who had spent some time at the court of the Ptolemies in Egypt.60 Another feature in favour of the bone handle of the old sistrum being ancient is that the swelling form of the handle which resembles the handles of bronze sistra or the ‘club’ type of handle on Egyptian mirrors, which could be made from various materials including wood, ivory and horn.61

There remains the puzzle of what fitted into the lion’s mouth, which is deliberately fashioned open wide to hold something. Judging by a small sketch in the Departmental Register made at the time of acquisition in 1910, the handle was attached with the orientation it has nowadays, but at some stage in its museum life the handle was wrongfully restored upside down, with the lion’s head gripping the junction of the arms and with the palmette as a finial. Before the object was put on display in 1991, this was reversed, as it was observed that the arms slotted neatly into the sides of the palmette. One explanation for the lion’s gaping mouth could be that it gripped the end of an extension to the handle that enabled the sistrum to be held aloft. At any rate care has been taken to match the lion’s head and palm leaf collar decoration of the handle to that of the arms, the difference in style perhaps being due to a different hand or different materials.

she is adjusting or supporting a foliate headdress, akin to the palmette on the new sistrum (Fig. 2c–d). The scene on the wall-painting is however impressive evidence for the link between Isis and classical drama, particularly comic performance, and it is this above all which suggests that the sistra are not of Etruscan origin but belonged to the 2nd or 1st century bc, and perhaps specifically Campania, when the worship of Isis was at its height.

The sistra could have been made in Egypt in a consciously westernised style for the Roman market (just as the bronze sistrum (Fig. 6) is Romanised by the apparent substitution of the wolf suckling Romulus and Remus for the cat, with or without kittens). Alternatively they could have been made in Italy, harnessing Egyptian motifs and beliefs to create an air of authenticity. That the period is most likely to be Roman Imperial is also supported by the grooved handle and what seems to be a ram’s head motif at the end of the handle of the new sistrum (Fig. 2). These features are extremely common on Roman bronze paterae or handled pans, and sometimes these handles are not fluted but resemble palm bundles like the handle of the new sistrum.56 Though very fragmentary, the plumpness beneath the head across the width of the jaw seem to suggest a ram rather than a doe, deer, hound or lion, the other animal heads frequently found on the handles. A ram’s head can form the terminal of the handle on Etruscan bronze mirrors from the early 4th century bc, when Etruscan mirrors first began to be cast in one with the handle as opposed to the earlier form with a tang for fitting into a separate handle. The ram’s head terminal seems to have originated along with the pear-shaped mirror typical of Praenestine production and to have continued perhaps as late as the 1st century bc.57 The combination, however, of the ram’s head with the fluted or palm-bundle handle is a Roman characteristic and seems to push the new sistrum into the later period. This dating very likely then also applies to the old sistrum, which on the grounds of its rarity and the striking resemblance it bears to the new sistrum almost certainly came from the same workshop or production place.

With regard to chronology, therefore, it seems likely that these pieces are Roman. It is puzzling that there have been no similar finds, and also puzzling that, although the arms of the sistra so closely resemble Egyptian clappers, there have been no recognised finds of these from the classical world. I suggest that it would be well worth re-examining certain ivory so-called appliqués of similar shape that have tentatively been identified as furniture fittings. Several in the Museo Nazionale Archeologico, Naples, have flat backs and Dionysiac decoration (a seilenos head and a figure of Dionysos) and could be seen as appropriate candidates.58

The relationship between the two sistra and indications of

use in antiquity

It is not impossible that both sistra appeared on the market around the same time: both have evidence of old (19th/early 20th century ?) repairs, during which the arms were cut down at the base, perhaps to ‘tidy’ them up where they had become too damaged to restore. There are two possible reasons for the deterioration of the lower part of the arms. Firstly if the sistra were actually used in antiquity and repeatedly shaken, as is



The modern history of the sistra

Where were the sistra found?

There is no hard evidence for where the sistra were found: all we have is the stated findspot of Orvieto for the old sistrum, which it is no longer possible to corroborate. Although the catalogues survive for the Rollin and Feuardent sales in Paris, there appear to be no remaining records for their business in London, initially in Haymarket and later at two addresses in Bloomsbury Street across the road from the British Museum. We have only the Minutes of the Department of Greek and Roman Antiquities, the Report to the Trustees for 1910, and subsequently the entry in the Departmental Register, which state it to be from Orvieto.62 This could be a ‘dealer’s findspot’, with no validity, but then why choose a location in Etruria? There are rattles from Iron Age Italy, including an Etruscan one found in Tarquinia and another at Hochdorf,63 but very little to suggest that Etruria should be considered a likely findspot other than the small feline heads from the Praeneste tombs mentioned above. Etruscan priests certainly officiated at certain Roman ceremonies but whether this would have happened in the worship of Isis is uncertain. There is little evidence for the worship of Isis in Etruria while the Dionysiac religion thrived, and could tenuously be used to support the reason for the inclusion of the dramatic element of the new sistrum, the masks. The cult of Dionysos was introduced into Etruria as early as the 7th century bc and spread from there to Rome, where its licentious rituals led to its being regarded as a plague on society. Ultimately it was banned by a decree, the senatusconsultum ultimum de Bacchanalibus of 186 bc.64 Even though the archaeological evidence for theatrical structures in Etruria is extremely scanty, there is ample evidence for knowledge of Greek plays in Etruria. A sizeable number of terracotta masks have been found in Etruscan tombs from the 4th century bc onwards. Comic performances became part of the Italian funerary tradition from at least the second century bc. Therefore if there was any link between the sistra and Etruria, a funerary context seems most probable; the likelihood of this is increased by the fact that in the 19th and early 20th centuries, when the sistra were probably found, only burial sites were being excavated. Since sistra were normally used in pairs, we could perhaps be looking at the grave goods of a

priestess, but this can only be hypothesis, and her rôle would almost certainly have been played in the Campanian area rather than in Etruria. Nonetheless, there is indication that the guilds of musicians operative in Rome consisted predominantly of Etruscans.65 Therefore even if the instruments themselves are not Etruscan, perhaps we need not discount altogether the authenticity of a findspot of Orvieto, and with some stretch of the imagination accept the possibility that the deceased was an officiator or initiate in the worship of Isis, returned to their homeland for burial.

Tristram and the mystery of the new sistrum

The new sistrum was put up for sale at Bonhams by a collector, Mr J.B. Charlesworth who had acquired it from Capes Dunn Auctioneers, Manchester, in July 2003. It was then in much the same fragmentary state as seen in Figure 3a, and formed part of a lot together with a miscellaneous collection of metal objects, currently still in the possession of Mr Charlesworth (Fig. 14).66 Given the importance and rarity of the new sistrum it would be of great interest to learn how it arrived in England and reached Manchester, but a thorough investigation has proved intriguing yet frustratingly elusive.

According to Mr Charlesworth’s own investigations, all the pieces had stemmed from a house clearance in north-east Manchester some years previously and had been given to the previous vendor, perhaps from Rochdale, who sold them at Capes Dunn. Despite repeated enquiry, no further information has come to light regarding this part of the sistrum’s history and the location of the house clearance remains undisclosed, but there has been some insistence that the bronzes and the sistrum constituted a small but complete collection retrieved from the clearance. The metal objects range from a Roman boss brooch to a medieval buckle and a spoon, possibly of 15th–17th century date and are typical of a local British archaeological collection of the 19th or early 20th century. What is interesting however are the labels applied to the metal objects, indicating that they are from the collection of ‘Tristram, FSA’ (Fig. 15). The initials FSA denote a Fellow of the Society of Antiquaries of London. No such label accompanied the sistrum fragments but given its state of preservation this is not surprising.

The entry compiled for the Bonhams sale catalogue concluded that the Tristram recorded on the labels was Professor William Ernest Tristram, a well-known painter and English medieval art historian (1882–1952), who in 1925 was appointed Professor of Design at the Royal College of Art. There is no surviving indication however, that he had an interest in earlier antiquities. Although as a student he visited France and Italy on a travel scholarship studying medieval

Figure 15 Detail of labels on two of the objects in Figure 14. Courtesy of Mr J.B. Charlesworth

Figure 14 Miscellaneous metal objects from the Tristram collection. Courtesy of Mr J.B. Charlesworth


Conclusion

To sum up, though the old sistrum was said to come from Orvieto the most likely context for both sistra is provided by the paraphernalia of the worship of Isis in the Campanian area of around the 2nd/1st centuries bc. Though both have undergone modification and repair definitely in modern times and possibly in antiquity, their original form is likely to have been much the same as now (though the arms have been cut down and the handle of the old sistrum may be a replacement). The sistra are full of complex allusion, most strongly to aspects of Egyptian religion, but they also manifest a deliberate attempt to blend them into the culture of the classical world. Much as it was appealing to assign such wonderful objects to Etruscan production, which is so remarkably eclectic and creative, and especially in this volume which focuses on Etruscan culture, it is equally important to establish what the sistra are not. Eliminating what is not Etruscan from our perception of Etruscan production is in itself a clarification. As for the sistra, in the light of this research probably to be seen as Roman in date, they form an exciting new addition to our knowledge of the worship of Isis in Italy.

Acknowledgments

I am very grateful to the following colleagues who have discussed these intriguing objects with me and provided helpful information and suggestions: Janet Ambers, Giovanna Bagnasco Gianni, Gina Borromeo, Donald Bailey, Caroline Cartwright, Christopher Catling, Rupert Chapman, J. Barry Charlesworth, Maxwell Craven, John Curtis, Joan Davies, Vivian Davies, Richard Dumbrill, Irving Finkel, Lesley Fitton, Florence Dunn Friedman, Steven Freeth, Adrian Harrison, Mary Louise Hart, Sybille Haynes, Peter Higgs, Peter Holmes, Ralph Jackson, Thomas Kiely, Martha Lawrence, Jean MacIntosh Turfa, Kate Morton, Veronica Noble, Richard Parkinson, Phil Perkins, John Prag, Corinna Riva, Paul Roberts, James Robinson, Emma Sabre, Julia Schottlander, Axel Seeburg, Andrew Shapland, Neal Spencer, Clare Starkie, Nigel Tallis, Vicky Turner, Josephine Turquet, Alexandra Villing, Clare Ward, Dyfri Williams, Susan Woodford, Susanne Woodhouse.

ornament in preparation for his design degree, his links seem firmly rooted in the south of England.67

Could there have been another Tristram? Enquiry to the Society of Antiquaries brought some promising news: there had been another Fellow, also an E. Tristram, who had been secretary of the Derbyshire Archaeological Society. He was a lawyer and archaeologist who wrote various articles for the Journal of the Derbyshire Archaeological Society. This was Edward Tristram, who a little confusingly also seems to have gone by the name of Trustram for much of his time as a Fellow of the Society of Antiquaries, though for the Journal he wrote as E. Tristram. His articles are all on local archaeology and do not touch on anything as exotic as the sistrum.68 The fact that he was active and publishing articles on local archaeology in the early 1900’s implies that he could have acquired the sistrum at about the same time that the other came on the market in 1910, but this is of course merely supposition and it seems to be as far as we can go at present. He died in 1919 at Chorlton, Cheshire, aged 63.

The likelihood that the Derbyshire Tristram was the owner of the small collection of metal objects sold with the sistrum is further increased by the fact that another small miscellaneous collection of five metal objects can also be linked with him. These are now in the Buxton Museum, and all came from the site of the Old Mansion House at Castlefield/Castle Field, Crowdecote, near Hartington, south west of Buxton.69 Though recorded as being from Tristram’s collection, the Buxton objects were all given to the museum by Micah Salt, a well-known early excavator of British barrows, who must have purchased them from or been given them by Tristram.70 None of the items bear labels, as do the Manchester objects, but it is interesting that labels on some of the Manchester objects record that they are from the collection of Tristram, implying that the labels were not applied by Tristram himself but by a later owner or dealer: a dealer is perhaps more likely as some have a notation which is probably a dealer’s code for pounds, shillings and pence (Fig. 15). The labels and the handwriting both appear to be 19th or early 20th century. It must however be admitted that the sistrum may not have originally belonged to the Derbyshire Tristram but have been added to the rest of the objects by a subsequent dealer or collector, perhaps indeed by the owner of the house in which the objects were found in Manchester. Therefore sadly we cannot with certainty refer to this remarkable object as ‘Tristram’s sistrum’.71

Swaddling



Scientific Report on the Two Sistra

Janet Ambers, Caroline Cartwright, Clare Ward and James Parker

Introduction

The Department of Greece and Rome at the British Museum holds two sistra, one purchased in 1910 (1910,0417.1) and the other in 2005 (2005,0707.1). Both are of white materials and have been assumed to be of ivory. These objects are the only known examples of this type of sistrum.

The early conservation records on 1910,0417.1 are imprecise, but it is known that at one time it existed in a different configuration to its current form, with the handle reversed. It is also possible that it was substantially reconstructed at some time in the past. Examination of the object during recent conservation treatment showed that some areas, particularly the arms and discs, appeared to be very degraded. Several old adhesives, consolidants and fills were also present providing evidence of early attempts at restoration. As these materials were contributing to loss of surface flakes, particularly from the arms and discs, conservation was carried out to secure the flakes and stabilise the object.

In contrast 2005,0707.1 is known to have been in an extremely fragmentary state until shortly before it was auctioned in 2005. At this point it was extensively restored by Veronica Noble prior to sale. Ms Noble has kindly supplied records of her work on the object which show extensive reconstruction and surface treatments (see for example Fig. 6a–d).

Examination; methodology

a, Radiography

A series of radiographs of the objects were taken from different angles using exposure conditions of 60kV and 25 mA mins. In all cases both Kodak Industrex MX and AA films were used for each exposure, with 0.125mm lead screens at both the back and front of the films.

The radiographs were then scanned using an Agfa RadView digitiser with a 50 micron pixel size and 12 bit resolution to allow digital manipulation and enhancement of the images. The figures shown are slightly enhanced with an ‘unsharp mask’ filter to emphasize edges and discontinuities, and have been subject to manipulation of greyscale levels, but all reflect features detectable on the unenhanced films.

b, Raman spectrometry

Raman spectroscopy was carried out using a Jobin Yvon Infinity spectrometer with green (532 nm) and near infrared (785 nm) lasers, with maximum powers of 2.4 mW and 4 mW at the sample respectively. Spectra obtained were identified by comparison with the British Museum in-house reference database. All analysis was carried out directly on the surface of the samples without any preparatory cleaning.

c, Fourier Transform Infrared spectrometry (FT/IR)

FTIR was carried out using a Nicholet Avatar spectrometer

with a diamond cell.

d, Optical microscopy

A visual examination of both sistra under a Leica binocular microscope was carried out in order to assess the feasibility of identifying the materials used without recourse to sampling. This examination revealed that the heavy restoration and surface treatment of sistrum 2005,0707.1 prevents precise identification of the materials used without further surface cleaning and/or invasive sampling. Therefore the identification of the materials rests on the the visual observations discussed in the main body of this paper. The microscopic examination of sistrum 1910,0417.1 showed that identification of the materials was feasible, albeit only for the handle. Tiny samples were taken from unobtrusive or already damaged areas on each of the component parts of the handle and submitted for analysis by Raman spectroscopy (see below). They were then identified under a high-powered Leica Aristomet biological microscope in conjunction with reference collection materials.

Results and observations

Sistrum no. 1910,0417.1

i, Radiographic imagesIt was not possible to disassemble any of the components of this piece, making some areas difficult to access. However clear images were produced (Fig. 16). These show some unexpected features. Probably the most surprising is that the holes drilled into the arms to hold the metal rod and discs do not completely pierce the feline heads as suggested by external appearance. Instead, in both cases they extend inwards by between 0.8 and 1.0cm on the outward facing sides and by 1.6cm in the inward, leaving a central unpierced area of c. 0.8cm. A metal rod of c. 13.5cm, threaded with five circular discs, has been fitted between the mouths of the feline heads which top the arms. Smaller metal sections (of 1.3cm and 1.0cm), ending in small knobs, have been placed in the piercings facing outwards. No fixing materials are visible around any of the metal rods, which seem to be held in place largely by the closeness of the fit. In fact, a small amount of rotation of the rod is possible, although concern for the object has limited exploration of this phenomenon. While three of the metal rod sections are well positioned within the piercings, one is distinctly crooked (Fig. 16, left terminal).

The images of the arms themselves are somewhat fuzzy, and attempts to produce clearer versions by adjusting the geometry and exposure conditions failed, probably because of previous conservation treatments, which seem to have involved the application of filler across the flat surfaces. This masks the internal structure of the material used (see below).

Two small circular holes have been drilled into the end of one of the arms next to the handle, with one similar feature visible on the other. The absence of a second hole on this section may relate to a small area of damage. It is not possible to determine if these are ancient features or the result of modern intervention.

It had previously been assumed from the external appearance of the handle that the main part was of a different material to the rest of the object. The radiograph confirms this.


Ambers, Cartwright, Ward and Parker

The central part of the handle is considerably more cancellous than the other components, suggesting that it is made of bone (this has been confirmed by both chemical and microscopic analysis; see below for a fuller discussion). The bone section is in the form of a hollow decoratively shaped cylinder, with secondary components fitted to each narrow end. At one end a piece culminating in a palmette which currently holds the arms has been attached. Below the joint with the bone part of the handle a broken shaft is clearly visible inside the hollow bone tube. The joint itself is masked by a quantity of radio-opaque material (shown as bright white on the radiographs) which seems to have been used as an adhesive (see below for an identification). Whilst the presence of this material makes it impossible to be absolutely sure, it seems mostly likely that the broken shaft is a continuation of the section above. At the other (lower) end of the bone piece a second section ending in a lion head has been fixed, apparently using the same radio-opaque material. The presence of small areas of white inside the lion’s mouth almost certainly reflects the use of the same adhesive during a known earlier configuration when the handle was reversed and the arms held inside the lion’s mouth. Whilst visual examination suggests that this bottom piece may consist of two separate sections, the lion’s head and a decorative collar, there is no join visible on the radiographs and it appears to have been manufactured as a single piece.

ii, adhesive/fillerA small sample of cream/white material was collected from the area of radio-opacity inside the lion’s mouth in the handle of 1910,0417 1. Investigations using Fourier Transform Infrared (FT/IR) and Raman spectrometry showed this to be composed

of lead white (basic lead carbonate, 2 Pb(CO3)2 · Pb(OH)2) and gypsum (CaSO4·2H2O). This seems to have been used as a filler/adhesive in the reconstruction of the handle.

iii, materialsUntil this examination the sistrum had been considered as ivory with a possibly bone section in the handle. On microscopic examination it became evident that the construction was rather more complicated than this. The heavy surface treatments meant that it was not possible to conclusively identify the nature of components by simple surface examination. Instead tiny samples were removed from the surface of the object. These were first screened by Raman spectroscopy and divided into two groups, those made of calcium phosphate (the main chemical constituent of ivory, bone or other skeletal material) and aragonite (the main chemical constituent of shell). Subsequent optical microscopy of these samples confirmed the presence of bone for part of the handle (as described above). Although this is animal bone, it is not possible to specify from which animal as no diagnostic features are present. This high-powered optical microscopy also confirmed that at the lower end of the bone piece, where the section with the lion head had been inserted, the material was marine shell. Its structure, when compared with reference collection samples of marine shell, mostly closely matched that of Lambis sp., (spider) conch. Species of conch within the Lambis genus suitable for such carving and working have a distribution in the Red Sea, Arabian Gulf and Indian Ocean region, so could be obtained in Mediterranean Europe through trade.

Figure 16 X-radiograph of 1910,0417.1 Figure 17 X-radiographs of 2005,0707.1; a, all components with handle at right angles to film, b, handle flat to film

17a 17b



Notes1 GR1910,0417.12 The orientalising ivories of the time are well-documented: cf.

Torelli 2000, 472–5; Nicosia F. and Bettini M.C. 2000, in Principi Etruschi, 246–67; Aubet 1971; Huls 1952.

3 In the minutes of the Department of Greek and Roman Antiquities for April 1910 it is recorded as an ‘Ivory rattle, somewhat in the form of a sistrum, early Etruscan work, influenced by Egyptian models. From Orvieto. £120’. In the Reports to the Trustees for the same period it is referred to as ‘a striking piece of ivory work from Orvieto’.

4 Huls 1957.5 On Etruscan music see Lawergren, 2004–7, 119–38; Landels 1999,

172–81; Powley 1996. 6 Bonhams sale catalogue 21 April 2005, 76–9, lot no. 172.7 GR 2005,0707.1; Swaddling J., British Museum Magazine 2005, no.

53, p.51.8 The new sistrum is no longer intact (following the restoration, the

arms were left separate, though they were positioned in place for the photographs). Its handle alone is 21.6cm high (old sistrum, 14.7cm), and the arms 13.0 and 13.5cm (old, 12.0cm), so allowing for the depth of the palmette at the junction with the handle it would have been at least 33cm high.

9 The Etruscan ivory examples illustrated by Huls, 1957, pl.3 are rather different in style from the sistra felines. The Phoenician examples from Praenestine tombs: Moscati 1988, nos 937, 938, 405, 743.

10 Curtis and Tallis 2005, for example nos 39, 95, 96, 112, 118.11 Barnett 1957 pl. II, from the North Western palace at Nimrud; close

examples from Mesopotamia in general, pl. CXXVI; Barnett and Wiseman 1960, 42–3, 60–1; bronze bowl from Nimrud, British Museum 118780, Frankfort 1954, 326, fig. 388; stele from Beisan, Jerusalem, Palestine Archaeological Museum, Frankfort 1954, 256, fig. 295.

12 Torelli 2000, 472; Boardman J., Cambridge Ancient History, vol. 6, 1994, 663.

13 For prehistoric flint arrowheads and other early stones used in Etruscan jewellery: Balzac 1989. For decorative detail regarding elements of a shield from Tarquinia: Bonghi Jovino 1987. For an early type of pitcher preserved in Caeretan tombs: Geroli 2002. For linguistic imports surviving on Etruscan mirrors: Cassio 1999.

14 Plutarch, Moralia.Isis and Osiris, vol. V, Loeb Classical Library, 1936, 63–4. Commentary: Griffiths 1970, 525–8. Isis: OEAE 2001, sv Isis. Nephthys: OEAE 2001, sv Nephthys.

15 Webster 1995, 49.16 Dunn Friedman 1998, 215–16.17 Webster 1995, Mask no. 22, pp. 26–9 and Mask no. 27, pp. 32–4.18 Webster 1995, Mask no. 33, pp. 41–2.19 Wilson 1975, 93–100; Bes masks from the tomb of Tutenkhamun:

al-Misri 1987, no. 165.20 For the use of hippopotamus tusk in Egypt, see Béal and Goyon

2000, 147–53. 21 Penniman 1952, pl. 1, below.22 Kryzkowska 1990, 38–47; Espinoza and Mann 1999.23 Krzyzkowska 1990, 2. Hippo tusk is 6–7 on the Mohs hardness scale

whereas elephant is only 1.5–2.5. 24 Krzyskowska 1990, 13; Pliny, NH VIII 7.25 Futrell 2006, 34, 89, 116.26 Cf. Collezioni Napoli 1986, Le pitture no. 354, 69; I mosaici no. 10,

from the House of the Faun, 117, 172 fig. 10.27 Also al-Misri 1987, no. 263.28 Porter and Moss 1960, 166, no. 16; Davies and Gardiner 1915, 94–6.29 Roman sistra: De Caro 2006, 168–71; Egyptian sistra, see

Manniche 1991, esp. 62–5; Hickmann 1949, 76–104; DarSag, sv sistrum. For sistra in general see Blayds 1992, 161–3.

30 See below n. 35.31 Manniche 1991, 63. I am grateful to Julia Schottlander for drawing

my attention to a Coptic example in the Cairo Museum.32 Schauensee 2002, ch. 3. 33 Galpin 1929, 108–23. 34 The earliest Egyptian example is from the reign of King Teti (c.

2345–2333 bc), Manniche 1991, 63.35 Gubbay, 2008, 31–6, with n. 32. Drawing from Akkadian cylinder

seal, British Museum 65217, 66616, showing y-shaped or spur sistrum, 3rd millennium bc, Dumbrill 1998, pl. 13, 415.

36 Sakellerakis and Sapouni Sakelleraki 1997, 350–7, with

Sistrum no. 2005,0707.1

i, Radiographic imagesAs this object is still separated into individual components it was possible to take radiographs of the handle at two angles, separated by 90° (Fig. 17a–b).

This piece shows fewer unexpected features. Unlike 1910,0417.1, the holes in the arms extend completely through the feline heads. Also unlike 1910,0417.1 no holes are present at the lower ends of the sidepieces, although given the heavy reconstruction of the object, it is possible that some may originally have existed. There is evidence that one of the feline heads (on the left in the figures) has been completely detached at some point, and a small metal pin is evident in the handle (Fig. 17).

ii, materialsThe heavy restoration and surface treatments meant that it was not possible to ascertain the materials used.

Conclusions

Whilst the bulk of both sistra appears to be authentic, both have been very heavily restored over time. This makes it difficult to comment on their original forms. In the case of 1910,0417.1 most of the handle is made of materials other than ivory and the possibility that some or all of this section may be later reconstruction (either ancient or relatively modern) must be considered.


Swaddling

and for unearthing various details about Edward Tristram, including his addresses: in 1907 at The Paddock, Poynton, Cheshire; by 1910 at Farringdon, College Road, Buxton, and by 1916 at Fern (perhaps Fern Road) Buxton. These comprise ‘Fin Cop Prehistoric Site’ (1912); ‘Costrel found in Darley Dale Church’ (1912); ‘Mam Tor Earthwork’ (1915); ‘The Stone Circle at Dove Holes’ (1915) and ‘Roman Buxton’ (1916). I thank also Maxwell Craven of the Derbyshire Archaeological Society who researched the name of Trustram in Buxton and came upon an Alfred Trustram at an address in Buxton in 1926. Further genealogical research found Edward Trustram at Great Barford on the Electoral Register for 1874. I am grateful to my colleague Paul Roberts and Steven Freeth, FSA, for assistance with genealogical research and to Adrian James of the Society of Antiquaries of London for checking records.

69 I am grateful to Martha Lawrence, Assistant Museums Manager, Buxton Museum and Art Library, for this information.

70 That is with the exception of a lead weight which it is recorded was given by Tristram to Micah’s son W.H. Salt, also a local archaeologist, in 1896. The other objects from the Tristram collection in Buxton comprise a bronze buckle, a lead figure of a man in hat and waistcoat, an iron arrowhead and a key. We cannot know whether the Manchester objects also passed through the hands of Salt or his son, but we can of course be certain that the sistrum was not a local find and must have stemmed from the Mediterranean area.

71 On the suggestion of Steven Freeth I looked into the possibility of the new sistrum stemming from the important collection of archaeological material, including some classical and Egyptian, belonging to Thomas Bateman, like Tristram, a resident of Buxton, and otherwise known as the ‘Barrow Knight’ because of his pioneering work in excavating barrows. The collection was auctioned at Sotheby’s by his son of the same name to pay family debts in the 1890s. Material from the Bateman collection is now in the Sheffield City Museum, including watercolours that he commissioned of his favourite pieces from the watercolourist Llewellyn Jewitt, but there is regrettably no link to the sistrum. I am grateful to Clare Starkie, Senior Curator of Humanities at Museums Sheffield for checking the relevant records.

Bibliographyal-Misri, M. 1987, The Egyptian Museum, Cairo: official catalogue,

Munich.Anderson R.D. 1976, Catalogue of the Egyptian Antiquities in the British

Museum. III Musical Instruments, London .Aubet M.E. 1971, Los marfiles orientalizantes de Praeneste, Universidad

de Barcelona, Instituto de Arquelogia y Prehistoria, Publicaciones Eventuales no. 19.

Balzac H. 1989, ‘Keraunia’, ArchCl 41, 329–82.Barnett R.D. 1957, A Catalogue of the Nimrud Ivories in the British

Museum, London.Barnett R.D. and Wiseman D. J., 1960, Fifty Masterpieces of Ancient

Near Eastern Art in the Department of Western Asiatic Antiquities, British Museum, London.

Béal J.-C. and Goyon J.-C. 2000, Des Ivoires at des Cornes dans les Mondes Anciens (Orient-Occident), Collection de l’Institut d’Archéologie et d’Histoire de l’Antiquité, Universitaire Lumière-Lyon 2, vol. 4, Paris.

Betancourt P. P. and Muhly J.D. 2008, The Sistra, p. 577 in ‘Excavations in the Agios Charalambos Cave’, Hesperia 77, 539–605.

Bischop D. 2007, ‘Der zerbrechlicher Luxus. Tafelluxus aud Edelstein und Glas’, in Luxus und Dekadenz, Römische Leben am Golf von Neapel, Darmstadt.

Blayds J. 4th edn 1992, Percussion Instruments and their History, London.

Bonghi Jovino M. 1987, ‘Gli scavi nell’abitato di Tarquinia e la scoperta dei “bronzi” in un preliminare inquadramento’, in Bonghi Jovino M. and Chiaramonte Treré C. (eds), Tarquinia. Ricerche, scavi, prospettive (Atti del Convegno Internazionale di Studi ‘La Lombardia per gli Etruschi’, Milano 24–25 giugno 1986), Milan, 59–77.

Brocato P. and Zhara Buda, C. 1996, ‘Phormiskos o platage? Crepundia? Sulla funzione di un oggetto fittile in ambito greco, etrusco e latino’, Istituto Universitario Orientale: Annali (Archeologia e Storia Antica) new series 3, 73–90.

bibliography. Karetsou, Andreaki-Blazaki, Papadakis 2000, no. 265, 267; Philips 2008, 35–6, no. 53. Zachos 2004, 106, no. 7 (the Harvester Vase) and 107, no. 8 (the sistrum). Six more clay sistra were found at Lasithi: Betancourt and Muhly, 2008, 577, no. 4.

37 Hieroglyphs: Olivier and Godart, 1996, 17, no. 057; Evans 1909, 191, no. 28. On relations between Crete and Egypt: Philips 2008.

38 This term was used for the naos or temple-shaped sistrum, as opposed to the arched type, the shem, Manniche 1991, 62–3. The soft noise may also recall the rite to Hathor in which stems of papyrus were pulled up and shaken before the goddess to produce a rattling sound, recalling the myth of Hathor taking refuge with her baby son in the papyrus swamps of the Delta.

39 Apuleius, Met. Xi, 119, 121.40 Villing 2002. 41 Manniche 1991, 63.42 See above, n. 14.43 Dunn Friedman 1998, no. 91, pp. 215–16.44 Oxford Encyclopaedia of Ancient Egypt, sv sistrum.45 EA 25565. Ht. 27cm.46 Ovid, Met. IX, 784, Amor. II.13.11, III.9.34, ex Ponto, I.1.38. See

Smith 1875, sv sistrum.47 Wall-painting, Museo Nazionale Archeologico, Naples, 9558;

LIMC, sv Io, no. 65*. For the cult of Isis in general see Heyhob 1975, 98–100, 125; Witt 1971; Iside 1997.

48 Plutarch, see above, n. 42.49 Manniche 1991, 63, 86.50 Plutarch, ibid. LIMC, sv Typhon und schlangenbeinige Dämonen in

Etruria. MacIntosh Turfa 2006; MacIntosh Turfa 2004–7.51 For bronze sistra found at Pompeii, see Egittomania 2006, 168–71.52 Ciasca A. ‘Masks and protomes’, 354–69, in Moscati 1988, nos 590–

595.53 Perhaps signalled by the use of dramatic masks on Gnathian

pottery: Webster 1951.54 See references in the extensive bibliography of De Caro 2006, esp.

Tram Tam Tinh 1990. See also sections V and VI in Iside 1997; Heyob 1975; Witt 1971.

55 Inv. 8919, MN 938, De Caro 2006, illustrated p. 120; pp. 124, 127, catalogue entry II 87; Iside 1997, 447; Collezioni Napoli no. 270. Unfortunately the exact findspot of the painting is unkown.

56 Tassinari 1993, 58–60, types H2311–H2332a, vol. II 132–40. 1st century bc/ad. For Cnidian pottery types, see Enciclopedia dell’Arte Antica Classica e Orientale, Atlante delle Forme Ceramiche 233–5, tav. CXVIII 1. For a rare glass example, with hexagonal handle and ram’s head: Bischop 2007, Inv. 13688, no. 6.39, 257, pl. p. 162, 163–77.

57 De Grummond 1982, 11–13.58 Collezioni Napoli 1986, nos 10–11, 230–1, and no. 13, 232–3,

decorated with the head of a heron.59 Pers. comm., the independent restorer, Veronica Noble.60 Zachos 2004, 179–181, nos 71, 72.61 de Grummond 1982, 26–27 and sistrum, fig. 4 top left. It also very

much resembles, in Egyptian architecture, an inverted palmiform column, some of which had entasis: see Phillips 2002, 248–9.

62 See above, n. 3.63 Brocato and Zhara Buda 1996, 73–90; Iaia 2001, 93. For the

Hochdorf find, Koch 2006, 930. For a discussion of the significance of Etruscan and Iron Age examples, all from tombs, and connected with children, death in childbirth and apotropaic usage, see Smith 1996, 78–9, 83–4.

64 Introduction of Dionysiac religion into Etruria: Haynes 2003; Cristofani 1978; Palaeothodoros 2004–7; decree: Stefani 1979/80, an important article on masks and the theatre in Etruria. I am indebted to Francesca R. Serra Ridgway for drawing this article to my attention. Similar fears of the adverse effects of foreign religions, including the worship of Isis, kept them far from Rome, at least before the time of Augustus. See Merkelbach 2001, ch. 11, ‘Die ägyptischen Götter in Rom’, 131–46.

65 Landels 1999, 173.66 Capes Dunn & Co, lot m1127, 8 July 2003. I am grateful to Mr

Charlesworth for sharing information about his enquiries and for providing images of the objects acquired with the sistrum.

67 DNB; http://www.dictionaryofarthistorians.org/tristrame.htm Tristram 1944; 1950; Tristram and Borenius 1929; Tristram, Tristram and Bardswell 1955.

68 I am much indebted to Joan Davies of the Derbyshire Archaeological Society for providing copies of Tristram’s articles



ägyptische Religion nach den Quellen dargestellt. Munich and Leipzig.

Moscati S. 1988, The Phoenicians, exhib. cat. Palazzo Grassi, Venice. Milan.

OEAE 2001, Redford D.B. (ed.), The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt, New York.

Olivier J.P. and Godart L. 1996, Corpus Hieroglyphicarum Inscriptionum Cretae, Études Crétoises 31, École Française d’Athènes/ École Française de Rome, Paris.

Palaeothodoros D. 2004–7, ‘Dionysiac imagery in archaic Etruria’, EtrStud 10, 187–201.

Penniman T.K. 1952 (reprint 1984), Pictures of Ivory and other Animal Teeth, Bone and Antler, Pitt Rivers Museum, University of Oxford, Occasional Paper on Technology 5, Oxford.

Phillips J.P. 2002, The Columns of Egypt, Manchester.Phillips J.S. 2008, Aegyptiaca on the Island of Crete in their

Chronological context: A Critical Review, vol. II. Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Denkschriften der Gesamtakademie Band XLIX, Vienna.

Porter L.B. and Moss R.L.B 1960, Topographical Bibliography of Ancient Egyptian Hieroglyphic Texts, Reliefs and Paintings I. The Theban Necropolis, Part 1 The Private Tombs, Oxford.

Powley H. 1996 , ‘The Musical Legacy of the Etruscans’, in J.F. Hall (ed.), Etruscan Italy. Etruscan Influences on the Civilizations of Italy from Antiquity to the Modern Era. Seth and Maurine D. Horne Center for the Study of Art, scholarly series. Brigham Young University Museum of Art, Utah.

Principi etruschi tra mediterraneo ed Europa, exhib. cat. Museo Civico Archeologico, Oct. 2000–Apr. 2001, Bologna.

Rashid S.A. 1984, Musikgeschichte in Bildern, Band II, Musik des Altertums/Lieferung 2, Mesopotamien, Leipzig .

Sakellarakis Y. and Sapouna Sakellaraki E., 1997, Archanes. Minoan Crete in a New Light, vol. I, Eleni Nakou Foundation, Greece.

Schauensee M. de 2002, Two Lyres from Ur, University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology series, ch. 3, ‘The lapis-bearded lyre’, Philadelphia.

Smith C. 1996, ‘Dead dogs and rattles’, in Wilkins J.B. (ed.), Time, Space and Ritual Sacrifice in Iron Age Latium, Approaches to the Study of Ritual: Italy and the Ancient Mediterranean, Accordia Specialist Studies on the Mediterranean 2, London, 73–89.

Smith W. 1875, A Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities, London.Stefani G. 1979/80, ‘Maschere fittili etrusche di età ellenistica’, in

Annali della Facoltà di Lettere e Filosofia, Università di Perugia, XVII, new series III, Perugia, 243–332.

Tassinari S. 1993, Il Vasellame Bronzeo di Pompeii, Rome.Tibiletti T. 1997, ‘Il sistro’, Iside, 1997, 660–1.Torelli M. (ed.) 2000, The Etruscans, exhib. cat. Palazzo Grassi, Venice.Tram Tan Tinh 1986, sv Bes, in LIMC III 1, 98–108.Tram Tan Tinh 1990, sv Isis, in LIMC V 1, 761–96.Tristram E.W. 1944, English Medieval Wall Painting. vol. 1, London,

1944; vol. 2, London, 1950.Tristram E.W. and Borenius T. 1929, English Medieval Painting, New

York.Tristram E.W., Tristram E. and Bardswell M. 1955, English Wall

Painting of the Fourteenth Century, London.Villing, A. 2002, ‘For whom did the bell toll in ancient Greece? Archaic

and Classical Greek bells in Sparta and beyond’, BSA 97, 223–95.Webster, T.B.L. 1951, ‘Masks on Gnathia vases’, JHS LXXI, 222–32.Webster T.B.L. 1995, Monuments Illustrating New Comedy, 3rd edn,

revised and enlarged by Green J.R. and Seeberg A., vols 1 and 2, Institute of Classical Studies, London.

Wellesz E. 1957, The New Oxford History of Music I Ancient and Oriental Music, Oxford 1957.

Wilson V. 1975, ‘The iconography of Bes with particular reference to the Cypriot evidence’, Levant 7, 77–103, pls XV–XVII.

Witt R.E. 1971, Isis in the Graeco-Roman World, London.Wreszinski W. 1923, Atlas der Ältägyptischen Kulturgeschichte, I, 2,

Leipzig.Zachos K. 2004, in E. Andrikou, A. Goulaki-Voutira, C. Lanara, Z.

Papadopoulou (eds), Gifts of the Muses. Echoes of Music and Dance from Ancient Greece, Exhib. cat. Megaron, The Athens Concert Hall, 1 July–15 Sept. 2004. Athens.

Cassio A.C. 1999, ‘Epica greca e scrittura tra VIII e VII secolo a.C.: madrepatria e colonie d’Occidente’, in Bagnasco Gianni G.and Cordano F (eds) Scritture mediterranee tra il IX e il VII sec. a.C. Atti del Seminario (Milano, 23–24 feb. 1998), Milan, 67–84.

Collezioni Napoli 1986, Pedicini R.and L. (eds), Le collezioni del Museo Nazionali di Napoli. I mosaici, le pitture, gli oggetti di uso quotidiani, gli argenti, le terracotte invetriate, i vetri, i cristalli, gli avori, Rome.

Cristofani M. and Cristofani M. 1978, ‘Fufluns Paχies. Sugli aspetti del culto di Bacco in Eturia’, StEtr 46, 119–34.

Curtis J. and Tallis N. (eds) 2005, Forgotten Empire. The World of Ancient Persia, London.

Davies N. de G. and Gardiner A.H. 1915, The Tomb of Amenemhet, The Theban Tomb Series, no. 82, London.

Duchesne-Guillemin M. 1981, ‘Music in Ancient Mesopotamia and Egypt’, World Archaeology 12, no. 3, 287–97.

Dumbrill R. 1998, The Musicology and Organology of the Ancient Near East, London.

Dunn Friedman F. 1998, Gifts of the Nile. Ancient Egyptian Faience, exhib. cat. 1988–89, Museum of Art, Rhode Island School of Design, New York.

De Caro S. (ed.) 2006, Egittomania. Iside e il mistero, exhib. cat. Museo Archeologico Nazionale, Napoli, 12 Oct. 2006–26 Feb. 2007. Milan.

de Grummond N.T. 1982, A Guide to Etruscan Mirrors, Tallahassee 1982.Espinoza E.O. and Mann J.-M. 1999, Identification guide for ivory and

ivory substitutes, WWF/Traffic/CITES.Evans A.J., 1909, Scripta Minoa, vol. I, Oxford.Frankfort H., 1954, The Art and Architecture of the Ancient Orient,

Harmondsworth-Baltimore.Futrell A. 2006, The Roman Games. A Sourcebook, Oxford.Galpin F. W. 1929, ‘The Sumerian Harp of Ur, c. 3,500 bc’, in Music and

Letters, vol. 10, no. 2 (Apr.), London, 108–23.Geroli M. 2002, ‘Le anfore e la lekythos di importazione della tomba

237 della necropoli della Banditaccia, Laghetto II’, in Bagnasco Gianni G. (ed.), Cerveteri. Importazioni e contesti nelle necropoli ceretane, Quaderni di Acme 52, Milan, 129–43.

Griffiths J.G. 1970, Plutarch’s De Iside et Osiride, Cardiff.Gubbay U. 2008, ‘The ancient Mesopotamian sistrum and its

references in cuneiform literature: the identification of šem and meze’, ICONEA 1, 31–6.

Haynes S. 2003, ‘A miniature bronze statuette’, StEtr 69, 71–5.Hermary A. 1986, sv Bes in Cyprus and Phoenicia, LIMC III 1, 108–12.Heyob S.K.1975, The Cult of Isis among Women in the Graeco-Roman

World, Leiden.Hickmann H. 1949, Instruments de Musique, Catalogue Général des

Antiquités Égyptiennes du Musée du Caire, Cairo, 76–104.Huls Y. 1957, Ivoire d’Etrurie, Brussels/Rome.Iaia C. 2001, in Sgubini Moretti A.M. (ed.) Tarquinia etrusca. Una nuova

storia. Exhib. cat. Tarquinia, Museo Archeologico Nazionale, Palazzo Vitelleschi, 4 Oct.–30 Dec. 2001, Rome.

Iside 1997, Iside. Il mito, il mistero, la magia. Exhib cat. Palazzo Reale, Feb.–June 1997, Milan.

Karetsou A, Andreadaki- Blazaki M, Papadakis N. 2000, Κρήτή – Αίγυπτος. Πολιτισμικοί δεσμοί τριών χιλιετιών, exhib. cat. National Archaeological Museum of Heraklion, 21 Nov. 1999–21 Sept. 2000, Heraklion.

Koch J.T. 2006, Celtic Culture. A historical encyclopedia, Santa Barbara.Krzyszkowska O. 1990, Ivory and related materials. An illustrated

guide, Classical Handbook 3, Institute of Classical Studies Bulletin Supplement 59, London.

Landels J.G. 1999, Music in Ancient Greece and Rome, London.Lawergren, B. 2004–7, ‘Etruscan musical culture and its wider Greek

and Italian context’, EtrStud 10, 119–38.LIMC ongoing, Lexicon Iconographicum Mythologiae Classicae, Zurich

and Munich.MacIntosh Turfa J. 2004–7, ‘The Etruscan brontoscopic calendar and

modern archaeological discoveries’, EtrStud 10, 163–74.MacIntosh Turfa J. 2006, ‘The Etruscan Brontoscopic Calendar’, in

Thomson de Grummond N. and E. Simon (eds), The Religion of the Etruscans, Austin, 173–90.

Manniche L. 1991, Music and Musicians in Ancient Egypt, London.Merkelbach R. 2001, Isis Regina – Zeus Sarapis. Die griechische-

shake rattle and rôle: sistra in etruria? - british museum swaddling-pp.pdf · etruscan by...

Documents