Shake Rattle and Rôle: Sistra in Etruria?
Judith Swaddling
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.
Figure 1a-b Sistrum made of ivory, bone and shell. Ht. 25.5cm; ht. of handle 14.7cm. British Museum 1910,0417.1
Etruscan by Definition | 31
Swaddling
Figure 2a Sistrum made of
ivory. Ht. 31.5cm, ht. of
handle 21.6cm. British
Museum 2005, 0707.1.
Photo Bonhams
2b Other side of the sistrum
handle
2c
2a
2b
2d
Figure 3a (left) The sistrum in 2004,
before it was acquired by the British
Museum
3b (above) Profile of the top of the
handle, showing the masks back to
back. Both images courtesy of
Veronica Noble
32 | Etruscan by Definition
Shake Rattle and Rôle: Sistra in Etruria?
Figure 4a-d Drawings
showing the extent of the
new restoration (hatched
areas) of the sistrum
2005,0707.1. Courtesy of
Veronica Noble
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.
Etruscan by Definition | 33
Swaddling
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
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 wellexplored 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
34 | Etruscan by Definition
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 SyroPhoenician 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
Shake Rattle and Rôle: Sistra in Etruria?
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
Etruscan by Definition | 35
Swaddling
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
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 wallpainting 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,
c
a
b
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
36 | Etruscan by Definition
d
Shake Rattle and Rôle: Sistra in Etruria?
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
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 9 Pair of Egyptian ivory clappers, from
Thebes, Egypt, 18th Dynasty, c. 1300 BC.
Ht. 32.7cm. British Museum EA 20779; EA 20780
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
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
Etruscan by Definition | 37
Swaddling
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
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
38 | Etruscan by Definition
Figure 12 Bronze figure of the catheaded 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
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
Shake Rattle and Rôle: Sistra in Etruria?
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. 8919
13b Detail of priest wearing a comic mask and phallic costume, perhaps masquerading as Bes
Etruscan by Definition | 39
Swaddling
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
40 | Etruscan by Definition
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.
Shake Rattle and Rôle: Sistra in Etruria?
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
Figure 14 Miscellaneous
metal objects from the
Tristram collection.
Courtesy of Mr J.B.
Charlesworth
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
Etruscan by Definition | 41
Swaddling
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 wellknown 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
42 | Etruscan by Definition
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.
Shake Rattle and Rôle: Sistra in Etruria?
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 images
It 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.
Etruscan by Definition | 43
Ambers, Cartwright, Ward and Parker
17a
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
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/filler
A 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
44 | Etruscan by Definition
17b
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, materials
Until 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.
Shake Rattle and Rôle: Sistra in Etruria?
Sistrum no. 2005,0707.1
i, Radiographic images
As 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, materials
The 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.
Notes
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
GR1910,0417.1
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.
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’.
Huls 1957.
On Etruscan music see Lawergren, 2004–7, 119–38; Landels 1999,
172–81; Powley 1996.
Bonhams sale catalogue 21 April 2005, 76–9, lot no. 172.
GR 2005,0707.1; Swaddling J., British Museum Magazine 2005, no.
53, p.51.
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.
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.
Curtis and Tallis 2005, for example nos 39, 95, 96, 112, 118.
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.
Torelli 2000, 472; Boardman J., Cambridge Ancient History, vol. 6,
1994, 663.
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.
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.
Webster 1995, 49.
Dunn Friedman 1998, 215–16.
Webster 1995, Mask no. 22, pp. 26–9 and Mask no. 27, pp. 32–4.
Webster 1995, Mask no. 33, pp. 41–2.
Wilson 1975, 93–100; Bes masks from the tomb of Tutenkhamun:
al-Misri 1987, no. 165.
For the use of hippopotamus tusk in Egypt, see Béal and Goyon
2000, 147–53.
Penniman 1952, pl. 1, below.
Kryzkowska 1990, 38–47; Espinoza and Mann 1999.
Krzyzkowska 1990, 2. Hippo tusk is 6–7 on the Mohs hardness scale
whereas elephant is only 1.5–2.5.
Krzyskowska 1990, 13; Pliny, NH VIII 7.
Futrell 2006, 34, 89, 116.
Cf. Collezioni Napoli 1986, Le pitture no. 354, 69; I mosaici no. 10,
from the House of the Faun, 117, 172 fig. 10.
Also al-Misri 1987, no. 263.
Porter and Moss 1960, 166, no. 16; Davies and Gardiner 1915, 94–6.
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.
See below n. 35.
Manniche 1991, 63. I am grateful to Julia Schottlander for drawing
my attention to a Coptic example in the Cairo Museum.
Schauensee 2002, ch. 3.
Galpin 1929, 108–23.
The earliest Egyptian example is from the reign of King Teti (c.
2345–2333 bc), Manniche 1991, 63.
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.
Sakellerakis and Sapouni Sakelleraki 1997, 350–7, with
Etruscan by Definition | 45
Swaddling
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
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.
Hieroglyphs: Olivier and Godart, 1996, 17, no. 057; Evans 1909, 191,
no. 28. On relations between Crete and Egypt: Philips 2008.
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.
Apuleius, Met. Xi, 119, 121.
Villing 2002.
Manniche 1991, 63.
See above, n. 14.
Dunn Friedman 1998, no. 91, pp. 215–16.
Oxford Encyclopaedia of Ancient Egypt, sv sistrum.
EA 25565. Ht. 27cm.
Ovid, Met. IX, 784, Amor. II.13.11, III.9.34, ex Ponto, I.1.38. See
Smith 1875, sv sistrum.
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.
Plutarch, see above, n. 42.
Manniche 1991, 63, 86.
Plutarch, ibid. LIMC, sv Typhon und schlangenbeinige Dämonen in
Etruria. MacIntosh Turfa 2006; MacIntosh Turfa 2004–7.
For bronze sistra found at Pompeii, see Egittomania 2006, 168–71.
Ciasca A. ‘Masks and protomes’, 354–69, in Moscati 1988, nos 590–
595.
Perhaps signalled by the use of dramatic masks on Gnathian
pottery: Webster 1951.
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.
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.
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.
De Grummond 1982, 11–13.
Collezioni Napoli 1986, nos 10–11, 230–1, and no. 13, 232–3,
decorated with the head of a heron.
Pers. comm., the independent restorer, Veronica Noble.
Zachos 2004, 179–181, nos 71, 72.
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.
See above, n. 3.
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.
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.
Landels 1999, 173.
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.
DNB; http://www.dictionaryofarthistorians.org/tristrame.htm
Tristram 1944; 1950; Tristram and Borenius 1929; Tristram,
Tristram and Bardswell 1955.
I am much indebted to Joan Davies of the Derbyshire
Archaeological Society for providing copies of Tristram’s articles
46 | Etruscan by Definition
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.
Bibliography
al-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 LumièreLyon 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.
Shake Rattle and Rôle: Sistra in Etruria?
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-
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 lapisbearded 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.
Etruscan by Definition | 47