Livy VIII, 10, 12 and the Warrior from
Capestrano: A Re-Evaluation

Joseph J. Basile

In 1934 a farm laborer ploughing vineyard fields in the vicinity of the town of Capestrano in the Abruzzi region of Italy came across a sculpted stone "disk" and what appeared to be a female torso, smaller than life-sized but still monumental, carved out of local limestone. The find attracted the attention of archaeologists who identified the pieces as works of native Italic sculpture datable to the pre-Roman period of the Adriatic coast. An excavation was soon begun by the noted prehistorian G. Moretti, the result of which was the important discovery of the life-sized standing figure known today as the Capestrano Warrior.

The Capestrano Warrior can be considered one of the few monumental stone sculptures in a naturalistic human form from the Italian peninsula not from the Etruscan, Colonial Greek, or Roman spheres, but rather from the artistic tradition conventionally known as "Italic," or "native Italian." The figure itself is that of a standing male warrior over two and one-half meters tall,[1] remarkably well-preserved, arms folded across the chest, and wearing a detailed panoply depicting a disk-type armor protecting the chest and back; a short sword, knife, and axe; a wide belt encircling the waist; a necklace and armlets; a stiff apron over the groin with a shorter version covering the small of the back; and a pair of sandals on the feet. On the head in a separate piece the figure wears a wide-brimmed discoidal helmet, that sculpture which was found first with the small female torso. The statue stands on a plinth and two struts run from base to elbows; on each is sculpted the representation of a short javelin in low relief and on the one to the right of the figure there is a short inscription. The Warrior is sculpted with unnaturally wide hips and buttocks and a thin, wasp-like waist, and the facial features are highly schematized; nevertheless the figure represents one of the most naturalistic efforts of the Italic sculptor.

The native origin and chronology of the figure are relatively sound. The panoply of the Warrior, depicted in an exacting detail which cannot be accidental, is central Italic: the disk armor for instance is of a type the Greeks called kardiophylakes, actual examples of which are to be found for instance in the large Abruzzese necropoleis of Aufidena.[2] The leather apron was known to the Greeks as the mitra; it also was a defensive garment and can be seen in an example from the Villa Giulia Museum in Rome.[3] The short sword carried by the Warrior is part of the strong metalworking tradition of the Abruzzi,[4] with parallels once again at Aufidena and also at Campovolano.[5] The dagger and small axe have various comparanda throughout the Abzuzzo region,[6] as do the personal ornaments.[7] Beyond the "artifactual" evidence of the Warrior's trappings the short inscription on the right strut also suggests a local origin; while the decipherment of this message is disputed its identification as South Picene, a local dialect, is generally accepted.[8] The chronology of the panoply of the figure, the letter-forms of the inscription, and material from the small necropolis surrounding the findspot of the Warrior,[9] all suggest a date in the second half of the 6th century B.C.

Thus it would seem that the Capestrano Warrior is meant to represent a native fighter, probably of high social standing, from the period before Roman occupation, approximately 550 to 500 B.C. The function of the figure, however, is not as readily suggested by the evidence, and has been a point of contention since the discovery of the figure in 1934. The most popular theory which evolved from debate over the use of the monument arose from its "stele-like" configuration and proximity to a contemporary necropolis: the figure could plausibly be a grave marker or effigy representing a specific deceased individual, and perhaps a focal point for certain rituals involving the cult of the dead. This hypothesis was stated in its classic form by A. Boëthius, who interpreted the schematized facial features as a funerary mask of Italic type and the javelins on each of the figure's struts as representing the propping up of the deceased for public display before burial.[10][ Both of these practices are well-attested to in Polybios' Histories (VI, 53) and in the Natural History of Pliny (XXXV, 6). There are inconsistencies in the grave marker theory, however. The figure was found standing over no one grave specifically, and there was no rich warrior tomb found; one might expect such a grave if a monument as grand as the Capestrano Warrior were to stand over it. Also, the state of preservation of the monument suggests that it was buried very soon after it was made. No extant grave marker theory adequately addresses these problems.

An innovative attempt at answering these questions, also based upon literary sources, was advanced in 1949, and again in 1956. Silvio Ferri, in his article in the Bollettino d'Arte, advanced the notion that the Capestrano Warrior represented a victim of the devotio, an Italic and Roman superstition attested to by early historians;[11] this was later followed by the more developed theory of Louise Holland in the American Journal of Archaeology[12]. In times of desperate need in battle, a warrior may choose to "devote" himself, offering up his own life to the gods (particularly Tellus, the earth-mother) in return for victory over the enemy. The devotus then, after proper rites, goes out to meet the enemy host alone in ritual garb. It is in Livy, VIII, 4-13, that the ritual of the devotio is described in most detail, in connection with the historically recorded devotio of one P. Decius Mus, a Roman commander. It is not the successful devotion, however, but the failed attempt (in which the devotus somehow survives) which is pertinent to this discussion:[13]

. . . si is homo qui devotus est moritur, probe factum videre; ni moritur, tum signum septem pedes altum aut maius in terram defodi et piaculum caedi; ubi illud signum defossum erit, eo magistrum Romanum escendere fas non esse.

Thus we see that when a devotus is spared, an effigy must replace his body. Ferri sees the Capestrano Warrior as this effigy.

In her 1956 article in the American Journal of Archaeology, Louise Holland once again advances the idea of the Capestrano Warrior functioning as substitute for a devotus. Holland rejects the idea of the statue as grave marker,[14] stating that the figure was buried soon after it was made, the wide, unwieldy headdress being designed to be removable specifically so that the statue could be reclined on its back.[15] The weapons and armor are clearly "laid out," as if for burial.[16] The care taken in carving the back of the figure, and the javelins on the side props, indicate that the figure was indeed displayed standing before burial however, probably as part of the public display ceremonies described in the early Roman histories, as a substitute for the living devotus.[17] Thus the Warrior ". . . represents two poses at once . . . ," standing in the marketplace so that he could be seen by his countrymen, and reclining to assume the place of the devotus in the grave.[18]

While the theories of Ferri and Holland present innovative views of the purpose and function of the Capestrano Warrior, the archaeological evidence does not seem to be able to go beyond supporting the fairly conservative interpretation of the figure as a grave marker (for a specific grave) or funerary stele (marking the entire cemetery, perhaps). One of the weaknesses inherent in the devotus theory is the seemingly necessary assumption that the Capestrano Warrior is a kind of unicum, as would be expected if the theory were correct, since the practice of the devotio was rare and obscure (only two recorded instances in Livy, VIII, 9, 12 and VIII, 10, 12); that a devotus would survive and need to bury an effigy would be an even rarer occurrence. Yet this view of the Warrior is outdated. While the figure is the only fully preserved piece approaching statuary in the round from the pre-Roman Abruzzi, there are several fragments of statues and flat stelae clearly related to the Warrior in form and decoration, and chronologically and geographically are in the vicinity of the Capestrano figure. Furthermore, dozens of flat grave stelae from Apulia and Liguria also show parallels with the Capestrano Warrior. Do all of these pieces represent the surrogates of spared devoti? The devotus theory, so clearly dependent on the unique nature of the Warrior figure and its relation to a rare and arcane practice, seems highly unlikely in light of this evidence.

One need look no farther than the Abruzzi for convincing comparanda in regard to the Capestrano Warrior and its place within a well-established Italic tradition of warrior stele and statuary. The first and most obvious example is that of the Guardiagrele stele, a flat marker with some remarkable affinities to its more three-dimensional cousin. The mask-like nature of the face of the stele is a clear parallel with the Warrior; even more clear is the representation of the disk cuirass that the stele wears, and the leaf-bladed javelin incised upon the thin right flank of the flat stele. The piece is dated by Cianfarani as being roughly contemporary to the Capestrano Warrior.[19]

The connections between the Guardiagrele stele and the Capestrano Warrior are clearly in the sculpted details; the forms of the figures have little to compare. Two other pieces from the Abruzzi can almost be seen however as "intermediary" steps between the nearly three-dimensional figure from Capestrano and the flat stele from Guardiagrele. The Leopardi head and the so-called "Gambe del Diavolo" are both pieces sculpted in a very high relief that stand in the middle between the flat funerary stele and the statue-in-the-round. The former is the fragmentary remain of a head, discovered near Loreto Aprutino.[20] It is characterized by highly stylized facial features as well as a tooth or protrusion preserved on the top of the head, as seen on the top of the head of the Capestrano Warrior, which perhaps was meant to fasten some kind of headgear to the figure. The "Gambe del Diavolo," found near Collelongo, are sculpted in similar fashion. Life-sized or slightly smaller, they represent a pair of legs, preserved from just below the groin area to a low plinth.[21] They are well-rounded, as are the legs of the Capestrano Warrior, although there is no evidence of footgear or the other details seen on the legs of the Capestrano piece. The dating of these pieces is problematic, but it is likely that they are contemporary to the Capestrano Warrior.

There is evidence elsewhere on the Italian peninsula that the stylistic language seen in the Capestrano Warrior was known to other inhabitants of the region, raising once again the question of the role of a native tradition. In Apulia, the famous Daunian stelae (sometimes called the Sipontine stelae) have several points of comparison with the Capestrano figure. These remarkable pieces are for the most part anthropomorphic, two-sided stelae of a rough local limestone, rectangular, rarely preserving an aniconic or naturalistic head.[22] Sometimes the head is sculpted to resemble that of a soldier wearing a conical helmet; the famous Manfreddonia Warrior is one such example. The roughly anthropomorphic bodies of the stelae also often preserve incised details such as arms folded across the abdomen, with hands juxtaposed, depictions of personal ornament, and the weapons and armor of a local fighter.[23]

The most remarkable parallels between the Capestrano Warrior and the Daunian stelae involve this native panoply, which consists not only of the sword/dagger combination seen on the Warrior but also in accurate depictions of the kardiophylax armor.[24] The figures also wear wide belts, and on their backs, decorated disks.[25] The armed stelae sometimes preserve a tooth or pin protruding from the neck of the figure, ostensibly used to fasten a head.[26] M.L. Nava dates the stelae as ranging from the 7th century to the end of the 6th century B.C.[27]

Far north and west of Apulia, in the province of Liguria, stelae can be found which also seem to preserve the native sculptural tradition seen in the Capestrano Warrior. The Lunigiana stelae, as they are called, are interesting in that the also imply connections to the more ancient sculptural traditions of southern France, Corsica, and Sardinia. These statue-stelae are made of local stone and depict the rough anthropomorphic representations of figures bearing a panoply of short sword, dagger, lance (often in pairs), axe (held across chest), and girdle or belt. There are some female figures too, identified by disk-like breasts. Arms bent at the elbow and flat hands are "suspended" from bar-like shoulders separating a semi-circular or dome-shaped head from the rest of the body. These figures clearly preserve the same kind of concern for the depiction of native attributes of warrior-hood that we have seen in the Capestrano Warrior, the stele from Guardiagrele, and the Daunian warrior stelae, and perhaps, through important parallels with the menhir traditions of the Western Mediterranean, represent a tradition of monumental stonecarving as early as the beginning of the Bronze Age.

Thus we see that the devotus theories of Silvio Ferri and Louise Holland must be rejected on the basis of the archaeological evidence. The Capestrano Warrior is part of a relatively common, well-attested tradition, that of the warrior stele with detailed native panoply, and cannot represent an item as uncommon as the surrogate of a failed devotus.

Some important problems remain unresolved, however. If the Warrior was indeed a grave marker, why wasn't it associated with a specific tomb? And if it stood as a grave stele, why is there little weathering, and even that only on the front? These questions are difficult to answer. It seems clear that the Warrior was buried on its back before significant weathering occurred. This does not necessarily preclude the use of the figure as a marker, however. It would be possible that after use as a marker for a short period the figure was removed from over its grave, its helmet removed and the figure buried. Perhaps this was done when the cemetery went out of use, although this does not explain the placement of the helmet and female torso above ground. It is also possible that the figure was used as a substitute for the deceased in a more generic way; the Pietrera statues from Vetulonia are postulated to have been effigies replacing actual bodies in the tumuli there, without the unnecessarily elaborate trappings of the devotus theory.[28] This would better explain the number of effigies with strong parallels to the Capestrano Warrior, which as we have seen are various and scattered throughout Italy. This is speculation, however. The answer to the question of function of the Capestrano Warrior, it would seem, must wait for further archaeological investigation and the discovery of one of these warrior stele in its primary archaeological context.

Notes

[1] Moretti, G. Il Guerriero Italico di Capestrano, Rome, 1936, pg. 6; Cianfarani, V. Antiche Civiltà d'Abruzzo, Rome, 1969, pg. 78.
[2] Mariani, L. "Aufidena" in Monumenti Antichi dei Lincei, Vol. 10, 1901, col. 225 ff.
[3] Cianfarani 1969, pp. 18-19.
[4] Stary, P. F. Zur Eisenzeitlichen Bewaffnung und Kampfweise in Mittelitalien, Mainz, 1981, pp. 283-4.
[5] Cianfarani, V. Introduzione all Antichità Adriatiche, Chieti, 1975, pg. 43.
[6] Stary, pp. 284-5.
[7] Cianfarani 1969, pp. 53-61.
[8] Moretti 1936, pp. 17-18; Pisani, V. Le Lingue dell'Italia Antica Oltre il Latino, Turin, 1964, pg. 225; De Voto, G. The Languages of Italy, Chicago, 1978, pg. 29.
[9] See Moretti, G. "Il guerriero italico e la necropoli di Capestrano" in Bullettino Paletnologia Italiana, 1936-7, pp. 94-112; Franchi dell'Orto, L. "Schede. Capestrano" in Culture Adriatiche Antiche di Abruzzo e di Molise, Rome, 1978; and Salvia del Rosario, R. "Necropoli archaiche d'Abruzzo: La Necropoli di Capestrano" in Papers in Italian Archaeology IV: Part iii, Patterns in Protohistory (B.A.R. International Series No. 245), Cambridge, 1985.
[10] See "Il guerriero di Capestrano: due ipotesi" in Critica d'Arte, 1939, pg. 50; "Der Krieger von Capestrano" in Die Antike, Vol. 17, 1941, pp. 177-8; "Livy 8, 10-12 and the Warrior Image from Capestrano" in Eranos, Vol. 54, 1956, pp. 203-4.
[11] "Osservazioni intorno al guerriero di Capestrano," 1949, pg. 3.
[12] "The Purpose of the Warrior Image from Capestrano," Vol. 15, 1956, pp. 243-7.
[13] Livy VIII, 10, 12.
[14] pp. 243-44.
[15] op. cit., pg. 243.
[16] ibid.
[17] ibid.
[18] ibid.
[19] 1969, pg. 21.
[20] op. cit., pg. 76.
[21] op. cit., pp. 76-7.
[22] op. cit., pp. 11-12.
[23] op. cit., pp. 11-12.
[24] Nava 1980, pp. 21-2. Note that some figures wear a square or rectangular pectoral with straight or concave sides; this is also a native armor type seen early on in Latium and Etruria (Colonna 1974, pg. 193; Stary, pg. 25).
[25] op. cit., pg. 22. Is this disk the back plate of the kardiophylax, or a shield slung at the back? This rear disk is generally bigger than the breastplate disk. It also appears sometimes in combination with the quadrilateral pectorals.
[26] op. cit., pg. 27.
[27] op. cit., pp. 43-44.
[28] Brendel, O. Etruscan Art, Harmondsworth, 1978, pp. 92-3.