doi: 10.2143/AWE.9.0.2056300 AWE 9 (2010) 43-61

GREECE, AND : RELATIONSHIPS AND RECEPTIONS*

DAVID RIDGWAY

for Sybille, and in memory of Francesca Romana

Abstract This paper is inspired by the hope that a permanent teaching post in Etruscan and Early Italic Studies will be established at Oxford University in the foreseeable future. Its aim is to illustrate some of the reasons why it is singularly appropriate to include the study of the Etruscans and their civilisation in university-level teaching and research in Classical and European . In particular, certain aspects of the relationship between the Etruscan civilisation and its Greek and Roman counterparts are reviewed; so too are modern attitudes to the Etruscans, some of which (especially in Britain) are giving cause for concern.

Background My first task, and it is a very pleasant one, is to thank my fellow members of the Board of Management of the Sybille Haynes Fund for inviting me to deliver this first Sybille Haynes Lecture. I felt very honoured – but also delighted that I could actually do something, not only to salute Dr Haynes’s magnificent scholarly achievements in the Etruscan field and beyond,1 but also to express my heartfelt gratitude to her for many acts of personal and professional kindness to my late wife and myself. I am aware that my gratitude is matched by that of countless others: had he been lucky enough to know her, I feel sure that Voltaire would have said: ‘If Sybille Haynes did not exist, it would be necessary to invent her.’

* The following pages carry the text, only very slightly adjusted, of The Sybille Haynes Lecture in Etruscan and Early Italic Studies that I was privileged to deliver in the Auditorium of St John’s Col- lege, Oxford on 27 April, 2009; I have taken the opportunity to add, I hope usefully, a certain amount of annotation. I am most grateful to Nicholas Purcell and Irene Lemos for their organisation and hospitality, and for scheduling my lecture as the first in the otherwise distinguished graduate seminar series (‘Etruscan Archaeology, , and Art’) that they had arranged for the Oxford Uni- versity Faculty of Classics during Trinity Term (April–June) 2009. The subsequent papers were read by G. Camporeale (Florence), C. Riva (London), A. Romualdi (Florence), S. Stopponi (Perugia) and A. Naso (Innsbruck) – for Naso’s paper, see pp. 63–86 below. 1 See further Swaddling and Perkins 2009, vi–vii.

993510_AWE9_2010_03.indd3510_AWE9_2010_03.indd 4433 22/12/10/12/10 13:1613:16 44 D. RIDGWAY

It remains to note here that Dr Haynes has recently added to her many services to her subject by generously causing Oxford University to set in train the proce- dures that will result – soon, let us hope – in the endowment there of a permanent university teaching post in Etruscan and Early Italic Studies. This good news was very much in my mind when I chose a title for this lecture, and even more so when I began to assemble its contents. Oxford has acquired a reputation that is second to none for the attention it has paid since time immemorial to the civilisations of ancient and Rome: so I thought it would be useful to review some of the reasons why – I will not presume to suggest ways in which – Etruria and its deni- zens could, and should, be permanently integrated with those existing fields under the inseparable headings of teaching and research.

The Land, Origins and Language of the Etruscans First things first. The land of Etruria is bounded on the western seaboard of the Italian peninsula by the Tiber (the river of Rome) and the Arno (the river of Flor- ence). Easily the best description of the immensely variegated landscape thus enclosed is still that first provided in 1848 by an English civil servant, George Dennis, as The Cities and Cemeteries of Etruria; his book was substantially revised 30 years later, and is now usually consulted in its so-called ‘third edition’ (the 1883 reprint).2 As well as being a thoroughly ‘good read’, Dennis’s book is also important – still: for not everything that he saw and described in the 19th century has survived until the 21st. This is not the time or place to comment on the fact that Dennis had not followed a university course in Etruscan Studies or indeed in anything else: I only mention it because I think it reflects great credit on the Uni- versity of Oxford that in 1885 it conferred upon him an honorary Doctorate of Civil Law. I suspect that there were those in Oxford at the time who thought it very suitable that Dennis was honoured at the instance of Archibald Henry Sayce, the distinguished Oxford Orientalist:3 after all, no less an authority than Herodo- tus, writing in the 5th century BC, had noted in passing that the Etruscans had

2 George Dennis (1814–98) was employed in the London Excise Office from 1829 until the first publication of his masterpiece (Dennis 1848), when he transferred to the Colonial Office. He served in British Guiana (1849–63) prior to consular appointments in Benghazi, Sicily and (from 1879 until his retirement in 1888) Smyrna. Rhodes 1973 is a fascinating account of his career, travels, writings and excavations. 3 1845–1933. Fellow of the Queen’s College, Oxford; Professor of Assyriology 1891–1915. In 1875, Sayce and a friend (‘with [Dennis 1848], one of the most delightful archaeological books ever written, in our portmanteaux’) spent ‘an exceedingly pleasant month among the tombs and museums of Etruria’: Sayce 1923, 124–25. He later stayed with Dennis in Smyrna: Sayce 1923, 167–68, 200–01; Rhodes 1973, 140–46.

993510_AWE9_2010_03.indd3510_AWE9_2010_03.indd 4444 22/12/10/12/10 13:1613:16 GREECE, ETRURIA AND ROME: RELATIONSHIPS AND RECEPTIONS 45

migrated to from the East, specifically from in western Asia Minor ( 1. 94).4 But life is never as simple as that. Writing more than four centuries after Hero- dotus, Dionysius of Halicarnassus declared that the Etruscans were indigenous to Italy (Antiquitates Romanae 1. 30. 2). This fundamental difference of opinion between two Greek historians was naturally the occasion of much vigorous ancient and modern debate until the middle of the 20th century,5 after which Massimo Pal- lottino, the father of modern Etruscan Studies, showed that ‘the formative process of the Etruscans can only have taken place on the territory of Etruria itself; and we can witness the final stages of this process thanks to the rich archaeological docu- mentation we possess for the period from the ninth to the seventh centuries’.6 This conclusion was reinforced in 1991 by Dominique Briquel’s demonstration that the Lydian hypothesis was deliberately fabricated by the themselves, not long before Herodotus’ day, for reasons connected with their own foreign policy at the time.7 It is worth pointing out, incidentally, that ‘the authority of Herodotus’8 is not involved: the Father of History was merely recording what he had been told – his all-too-famous note on the Etruscans begins with the fatal words ‘the Lydians say’. While I am about it, I had better mention the .9 It cannot be said too often that decipherment is not an issue, because the is instantly recognisable as a slightly adjusted version of its Greek counterpart. The real problem is that no Etruscan literature has survived; which means (among other things) that we have no Etruscan historical narratives to set against the largely hos- tile Greek and Latin sources. The Etruscan texts that we do have range in date from the 7th to the 1st century BC, and consist of several thousand short inscriptions, mainly funerary or votive, and fewer than a dozen longer religious and legal pre- scriptions of a highly technical nature. Etruscan texts can be read with confidence, although they cannot always be fully understood. It is true that unlike Greek, and unlike the Italic languages, the basis of the Etruscan language is not Indo-Euro- pean: but, even within the excruciatingly limited conceptual range that is available, it is also clear that regional differences in expression were well established by the time the first Etruscan inscriptions appear.

4 Fehling 1989, 193; Munson 2006, especially 259; Asheri et al. 2007, 146 (but it is not true that ‘among modern scholars the oriental theory [of ] still prevails’: see n. 6, below). 5 Aigner Foresti 1974. 6 Pallottino 1975, 79. So too Barker and Rasmussen 1998, 44: ‘the development of Etruscan culture has to be understood within an evolutionary sequence of social elaboration in Etruria’. 7 Briquel 1991, especially 3–89 (and see Ridgway 1993). Another view is that of Drews 1992 (but see Pritchett 1993, 228). 8 Scullard 1966, especially 226. 9 Penney 1988, 721–26; Bonfante and Bonfante 2002; Wallace 2008.

993510_AWE9_2010_03.indd3510_AWE9_2010_03.indd 4455 22/12/10/12/10 13:1613:16 46 D. RIDGWAY

Etruscans and Romans As I approach the subject indicated by my title, I cannot help recalling a name that comes to the mind of anyone who talks in public about the Etruscans. It is that of a probably quite competent historian who seems to have been regarded by his immediate family as a half-wit. He was encouraged in his youth by to study, and write, history, and then, at the age of 50, he somewhat unexpectedly became the Roman emperor Claudius.10 He reigned as the third successor of from AD 41 until his death in AD 54 (and Claudius it was who caused the island beyond the Oceanus, Britannia, to be added to the Roman empire – an event that was celebrated in sculpture as far away as Aphrodisias in Caria11). Time and chance have not preserved any of the historical works that Claudius wrote before his acces- sion to the Principate, although it seems that in later life he occasionally drew on them in his speeches to the Roman Senate – indeed, his ‘unexpected elevation gave Claudius unheard-of opportunities for the publication of his research’.12 Among his works, his biographer Suetonius tells us, were 20 books of Tyrrhenika: ‘Etruscan matters’, written in Greek; and Suetonius also tells us that those books were read aloud in public once a year in the Museum at Alexandria.13 The books themselves have not survived, and no-one seems to have taken any notes. I like to think of that remarkable annual event in Alexandria as in effect the first Lectureship in Etruscan Studies: and I wish we knew how Claudius had filled his books. Although some interesting suggestions have been made,14 times have changed so much in the last 2000 years or so that it is easier to list the ‘Etruscan matters’ that he will surely not have treated. We need only scan the chapter-headings of any modern general book about the Etruscans. Looking at the best one, which by com- mon consent is currently that by Sybille Haynes,15 I doubt if Claudius had much to say about , tomb painting, sculpture, pottery, metalwork- ing – or indeed anything in the material record, either for its own sake or for what it can tell us about Etruscan economic history, or about the Etruscans’ interactions with their contemporaries in and beyond the Italian peninsula. Still less is Claudius likely to have concerned himself with field-survey or excavation, and the hypothe- ses they generate regarding settlement location, urbanisation, state-formation, land- scape as agent, phenomenology and the like – although as a good Greek scholar he would certainly have known what the word ‘phenomenology’ actually means.

10 Levick 1990, especially 11–20 (on ‘the education of a prince’). 11 Erim 1982; Levick 1990, 144 with figs. 20–21. 12 Cornell 1995, 133. 13 Suetonius Divus Claudius 42. 2, with Hurley 2001, 232–33. 14 Heurgon 1953; Cornell 1976; Briquel 1988. 15 Haynes 2000a (see n. 56, below); 2005.

993510_AWE9_2010_03.indd3510_AWE9_2010_03.indd 4466 22/12/10/12/10 13:1613:16 GREECE, ETRURIA AND ROME: RELATIONSHIPS AND RECEPTIONS 47

But how did Claudius come to occupy himself with ‘Etruscan matters’? The subject was one that he was certainly well placed to tackle: the Claudii, of which his grandmother (Livia, the wife of Augustus) was the ‘senior and most influential member’, seem to have had ancient links with Etruria, specifically with (modern );16 and Claudius himself had acquired a set of high-born in-laws of Etruscan descent by his first marriage to the grand-daughter of an Etruscan noblewoman who was a friend of Livia.17 It is worth remembering, too, that Augus- tus’ own rise to power had been supported by no fewer than 19 distinguished individuals of Etruscan origin:18 such men may well have been glad to co-operate with a member of the Imperial family – even a supposedly half-witted one – in the hope that he would be willing and able to demonstrate that their families were no less illustrious than those of the old Roman nobility (and perhaps rather more illustrious than those of some contemporary ‘new men’). And one can see their point. Already in Augustus’ time, Horace (a native of Apulia) had told his contemporaries everything that he thought they needed to know about the subject I have undertaken to discuss in this section: ‘The capture of Greece took her brutish victor captive/and civilized rustic Latium’ (Horace Epis- tulae 2. 1. 156–157).19 Or, in plainer language, it is the relationship between the Greeks and the Romans that matters, and the Etruscans need not be mentioned. There was nothing new about this. Long before Horace produced his elegant soundbite, Cicero (a native of Arpinum, a hill town in the modern province of Frosinone, south of Rome) had declared that ‘… it was no tiny stream that flowed into this city [i.e. Rome] from Greece, but rather a rich flood of moral and artistic teaching’ (de Republica 2. 19. 34).20 Cicero attributed this process to the arrival in Italy of one Demaratus of Corinth, who had escaped the tyranny of his native city and taken up residence at in the mid-7th century.21 His surviving son, Lucius Tarquinius [Priscus], became king of Rome between the traditional dates of 616 and 579 BC. But Demaratus’ son, born and bred in Etruscan Tarquinia, was only half-Greek; his mother was Etruscan, and so was his wife, , who (or

16 Livia: Levick 1990, 16; Hall 1996, 169–70. Caere: Holleman 1984. 17 Plautia Urgulanilla: Suetonius Divus Claudius 26. 2; 27. 1. See Tacitus Annales 2. 34; 4. 21–22 for the friendship between her grandmother (Urgulania) and Livia. 18 Hall 1996, especially 167–69; the list includes Augustus’ cultural henchman (and Horace’s patron) Gaius Maecenas. 19 Graecia capta ferum victorem cepit et artes / intulit agresti Latio; tr. Macleod 1986, 68. 20 influxit enim non tenuis quidam e Graecia rivulus in hanc urbem, sed abundantissimus amnis illarum disciplinarum et artium; tr. Rudd 1998, 45. 21 Blakeway 1935; Ampolo 1977; Musti 1987; Ridgway 1992; Ridgway and Ridgway 1994; Zevi 1995 (see n. 29, below); Torelli and Menichetti 1997; Ridgway 2006a; 2009; forthcoming.

993510_AWE9_2010_03.indd3510_AWE9_2010_03.indd 4477 22/12/10/12/10 13:1613:16 48 D. RIDGWAY

so Polybius tells us) was well suited by nature to assist in any political enterprise (Polybius 6. 11a. 7). Livy put it a little differently, and thereby played his part in establishing the stereotype of redoubtable Etruscan womanhood. For him, Tanaquil was

A lady of high birth who did not easily brook marrying into a rank in society beneath the one into which she had been born. Unable to endure the degrading snub given her husband by the Etruscans for being the son of an alien exile, and unmoved by any inborn love of her native city, her one aim was to see her husband elevated to high posi- tion. So she determined to leave Tarquinia and fixed on Rome as the most promising new home: a brave and energetic man would make his mark in this new city where nobility could be quickly acquired and came from one’s own worth (Livy 1. 34).22

Livy seems to see Tanaquil in much the same way as Claudius saw her Etruscan mother-in-law, Demeratus’ anonymous wife. Speaking to the Roman Senate in AD 48, and citing the early history of Rome (unsuccessfully) in support of a project of his own, the emperor defined her as ‘from Tarquinia, a lady noble but poor, as she must have been if she needed to give her hand to such a husband’.23 What I find particularly interesting here is the assumption by both Livy and his pupil Claudius that by marrying respectively a Greek and a half-Greek, both Etruscan ladies had married beneath them. Tanaquil, according to Livy, clearly resented this, and she persuaded her husband to do something about it. However that may be, Cicero’s bland suppression of ‘the Etruscan connection’ in his account of the formative stages of Roman culture is surely worthy of a mod- ern dodgy dossier.24 At a stroke, it eliminates what in his time must still have been the visible Etruscan features of the Eternal City. Republican Rome was (in Tim Cornell’s happy phrase) ‘a kind of living museum’;25 we know, for example, that Lucius Tarquinius had summoned from in southern Etruria to make the statue of Jupiter for the Capitoline temple – for that very reason, incidentally, Vulca is the only Etruscan artist whose name has come down to us.26 For Varro, everything in the temples of Rome was Etruscan work prior to the Tem- ple of Ceres (dedicated in 493 BC).27 In our own time, Ingrid Edlund-Berry has

22 Tr. Luce 1998, 42. 23 ILS 212. 1. 8–27 (the ‘Table of Lyons’); tr. Cornell 1995, 133. See too Tacitus Annales 11. 24. 24 This is by no means the only example of Ciceronian désétrusquisation: Briquel 1995. 25 Cornell 1986, 82. 26 Pallottino 1945 (= 1979, 1003–24). 27 Tuscanica omnia in aedibus fuisse, quoted by Pliny NH 35. 45. 154 (and see 34. 16. 34 on Etruscan statues).

993510_AWE9_2010_03.indd3510_AWE9_2010_03.indd 4488 22/12/10/12/10 13:1613:16 GREECE, ETRURIA AND ROME: RELATIONSHIPS AND RECEPTIONS 49

found good reason in the study of Etruscan and Republican Roman architectural mouldings to propose that ‘the architectural evidence from Rome proper and the surrounding area in Latium suggests a unified architectural tradition which’, she believes, ‘we should continue to call “Etruscan” as long as we recognise that it includes the territory of both Etruscan and Latin speakers’.28 Nevertheless, Cicero’s (and Horace’s) Hellenocentric version of the facts of Early Rome has survived remarkably well. It is regrettably easy to cite distinguished modern authorities for whom Lucius Tarquinius was the bearer of Greek, not Etruscan, culture to Rome. One of them indeed published a paper in 1995 under the title ‘Demaratus and the “Corinthian” kings of Rome’.29 And that is the Roman position: ancient, and modern too (at least in some quarters). So much for the first Etruscan king of Rome – or the first king of Rome ‘who happened to be Etruscan’, as another modern authority has rather grudgingly put it.30 Of the Greek authors, Dionysius of Halicarnassus refers in passing to the ‘Greek and Tyrrhenian [i.e. Etruscan]’ learning of Demaratus’ sons; and the Greek geographer mentions the transmission to Rome of certain specifically Tyrrhenian features. Inevitably, perhaps, such snippets are often regarded as no more than anomalies that do not need to be dignified by explanation – an attitude that also seems to apply to Livy’s statement that workmen were recruited ‘from all over Etruria’ to complete the Capitoline temple (Dionysius of Halicarnassus Antiquitates Romanae 3. 46. 5; Strabo 5. 2. 2; Livy 1. 56. 1). My own view is that references like these can in fact be regarded as sadly incomplete literary reflections of the picture that has emerged in the last half-century or so from the archaeological record of Etruria itself.

The Etruscans Now: I That picture should leave us in no doubt that, for most of the nine centuries prior to the Augustan settlement of Italy in 27 BC, the Etruscans were the most impor- tant indigenous inhabitants of the Italian peninsula. At its height, the prosperous Etruscan civilisation, established in the 7th century BC and enjoyed to the full in the 6th and 5th, amounted to a great deal more than a pale reflection of the glory that was contemporary Greece, or an eccentric prelude to the grandeur that was destined to suffuse Republican and especially Imperial Rome. Treated in its own

28 Edlund-Berry 2000, xxii. 29 Zevi 1995, defined as ‘splendid’ by Wiseman 2003, 21 (= 2008, 293). Another view (‘dan- gereuse’): Poucet 2000, 164–65, n. 112. On A. Carandini’s excavations and hypotheses regarding ‘the palace of Tarquinius Priscus in the grove of Vesta at Rome’, see Wiseman 2008, 271–92. 30 Cornell 1995, 158.

993510_AWE9_2010_03.indd3510_AWE9_2010_03.indd 4499 22/12/10/12/10 13:1613:16 50 D. RIDGWAY

right and on its own terms, the archaeological, architectural, artistic, historical, political and religious record of the largely autonomous is indispen- sable to the proper understanding of the Mediterranean and Classical worlds: and of ancient , too. This is fighting talk! And fighting talk requires justification – the kind of justi- fication that cannot be provided in a single lecture: it needs a whole lecture-course, delivered every year by a permanent and properly recognised Lecturer. There are a couple of other things that I should like to say at this point, too. First of all, it simply would not be enough for the Lecturer in question to give the same course of lectures every year – which is what seems to have happened with Claudius’ Tyrrhenika in the Museum at Alexandria. Indeed, perhaps the biggest single difference between our times and those of the scholar-emperor is the fact that modern Etruscan and early Italic scholars have to revise their thinking in the light of the archaeological and other evidence and exegesis that enriches our under- standing of the field every year. In spite of the appalling obstacles placed in their way by an ungrateful government, our Italian colleagues in the regional Archaeo- logical Superintendencies, along with their collaboratori esterni, are conducting excavations, post-excavation work, field-survey and research on a variety of fronts – and exhibiting and publishing the results at home and abroad – at a truly impres- sive rate that compels the degree of constant revision that can only come from permanent, close, and reliable contact. Secondly, the Etruscans and their civilisation should not be regarded as the exclusive business of Classical Studies: they are European, too. That is why, read- ing for the Oxford Postgraduate Diploma in European Archaeology many years ago, I was introduced to Italy in general, to the Etruscans in particular, and to by Christopher Hawkes31 – who would, I feel sure, have been delighted to learn of the recent appointment of an Etruscan scholar, Alessandro Naso, to the Innsbruck Chair not of Klassische Archäologie but of Ur- und Frühges- chicte. This brings me to a question that I must clearly try to answer. We saw just now that for Cicero and Horace, Rome was civilised by Greece, and that for them there was no role for the Etruscans: but we know better. What, then, was the relation- ship between the Etruscans and the Greeks?

31 1905–92; Fellow of Keble College, Oxford; Professor of European Archaeology 1946–72. Obituaries: Ridgway and Pallottino 1992 (with Italian bibliography); Harding 1994.

993510_AWE9_2010_03.indd3510_AWE9_2010_03.indd 5500 22/12/10/12/10 13:1613:16 GREECE, ETRURIA AND ROME: RELATIONSHIPS AND RECEPTIONS 51

Etruscans and Greeks: I32 Until quite recently, that relationship could be expressed in a single word: ‘Hel- lenisation’. This is a suspiciously simple (indeed diffusionist) process that involved civilised Greeks educating, not least by the example of their own superior products, the ‘barbarians’ they encountered when they came to the Central Mediterranean: ‘In the West, the peoples with whom the Greeks came into contact were at a more primitive stage of development than they themselves; in the East, for a long time and in many respects, the position was the reverse.’33 It is indeed true that Greeks (and some of their Eastern neighbours) came to Italy and Sicily in increasing numbers from the end of the 9th century onwards, but they did not come as high-minded cultural missionaries: they were hard-nosed prospec- tors and traders, who needed to investigate the news they had heard of Italian natu- ral resources, and particularly the mineral resources in the Colline Metallifere of – to say nothing of the local skilled human resources that were already experienced in the vital activities of extraction and exploitation. The first post-Myc- enaean Greeks in Italy were Euboeans: Tuscany demonstrably provided some of the raw materials that were processed in the early metalworking area of the international emporion known as Pithekoussai, established by Euboeans before the middle of the 8th century on the island of Ischia in the Bay of Naples; I believe that the same may well turn out to be true of Lefkandi and Eretria in Euboea itself, and probably too of Oropos (within sight of Euboea on the coast of the Greek mainland).34 This sort of activity does not strike me as a particularly convincing foundation for ‘Hellenisation’, any more than the early Etruscans themselves strike me as par- ticularly convincing ‘barbarians’: technically, of course, they were (because they did not speak Greek), but that certainly does not mean that they were the passive and presumably grateful recipients of whatever crumbs of culture came their way from the outside world. We ought to remember, too, that ‘there is not even a word for [Hellenisation] in classical or Byzantine Greek’ – an observation once made by Glen Bowersock in connection with a very different period and area of the ancient world. He went on to point out that for his purposes Hellenism (for which there is a Greek word) was a medium of expression that provided a remarkably effective new way of expressing local traditions.35

32 I have discussed some of the issues at stake in this and in the following section in more detail elsewhere: Ridgway 2002; 2004. 33 Beazley 1957, 5. 34 On the attractions of the mineral resources of Etruria for Euboean and other entrepreneurs and craftsmen from the eastern Mediterranean, see Hawkes 1959; Ridgway 1998; 2006b; 2007; Doonan and Mazarakis Ainian 2007, especially 372 (Oropos). 35 Bowersock 1990, 7.

993510_AWE9_2010_03.indd3510_AWE9_2010_03.indd 5511 22/12/10/12/10 13:1613:16 52 D. RIDGWAY

I suggest that here we have the makings of a model that would work very well as a description of the Etruscan-Greek relationship in the full flowering of Etruscan civilisation: not so much Hellenised as definitely, and extensively, au fait with Hel- lenic ways. In the matter of , I think it has much in common with Penny Small’s characteristically succinct diagnosis of the Etruscan view of Greek art: ‘the Etruscans not only pick and choose those elements of Greek art that please them, but they also make those elements very much their own’36 – a statement that is not necessarily at odds with John Boardman’s view that Etruscan art is no more than a ‘showy blend of Greek, oriental, and barbarian taste which can still inspire or impress those who cannot come to terms with the more controlled achievements of Greek art’.37 I hope that the distinguished author of those words will forgive me if I insist that Greek priorities and perceptions cannot reasonably be applied in an assessment of the art of a non-Greek civilisation that used Greek techniques and styles for non-Greek purposes. After all, if (and especially in their art) the Etruscans were trying (not very successfully) to be Greeks, why bother with them? Why, to put it bluntly, study the monkey when you can study the organ-grinder? The fact of the matter is, of course, that the word ‘Etruscans’ is the English translation of one or other of the collective nouns (Tyrrhenoi / Tyrsenoi; Tyrrheni / Etrusci) that the Greek and Latin written sources used to signify the externally perceived Veientines, Caeretans, Tarquinians, Vulcentines and the rest: and none of them were trying, successfully or otherwise, to be Greeks – which is the collec- tive noun that we use to signify Euboeans, Corinthians, Athenians and so on. On the contrary, it seems to me that Bowersock’s preference for Hellenism over Hellenisation accords well with the growing conviction that the Etruscans should be recognised (and are worth recognising) as something more than the purveyors of a second-hand version of Greek culture that is sadly lacking in Greek genius. On the contrary: the Etruscans had their own distinct culture, and their genius was to express it with whatever means came to hand: and, not least, to specify precisely what they wanted from the foreign specialist craftsmen who gravitated towards Etruria from the 7th century onwards. This was not a new phenomenon: the figure of the émigré craftsman using his skills to serve the purposes and priori- ties of his new environment had been a familiar one in Italy since the .

36 Small 1992, 51; see further Small 1994; 1995; 2008. 37 Boardman 1964, 211 (= 1999, 200). Elsewhere, Boardman has quoted the ‘condemnation, as of a Michelangelo who despised the Gothic’ of this statement sent to him by ‘an angry correspond- ent’, noting that harsh views of Etruscan art ‘are prejudiced but this does not mean that they are altogether wrong’ (Boardman 1994, 225 with 342, n. 2, where Small 1992 is cited as ‘a useful cor- rective’).

993510_AWE9_2010_03.indd3510_AWE9_2010_03.indd 5522 22/12/10/12/10 13:1613:16 GREECE, ETRURIA AND ROME: RELATIONSHIPS AND RECEPTIONS 53

Indigenous potters and their incoming Mycenaean counterparts were exchanging not only ceramic models but also ceramic technology on the Plain of Sybaris in southern Italy as early as the 13th century; much the same sort of thing was hap- pening under the aegis of the first Western Greeks at Pithekoussai on the Bay of Naples in the 8th;38 and similar procedures in the 7th were clearly responsible for the nature and appearance of much that is ‘Orientalising’ in Etruria. And of Oriental(ising) motifs in Etruscan art, it has indeed been observed that ‘… whether [individual artists] came from Greece or anywhere else, the work they did in Etru- ria for Etruscan customers and Etruscan audiences can only be called Etruscan art, and the definition of Greek or Etruscan “hands” is as meaningless as it is invariably elusive and subjective’.39 With that, I must turn to another vital element in the Greek-Etruscan relation- ship: the purchasing power of the Etruscan centres.

Etruscans and Greeks: II The extraction, exploitation and exchange of minerals, metals and finished prod- ucts brought considerable material wealth to the Etruscans, and it was not long before that began to be exploited too – by Greek entrepreneurs among others: carriers of luxury goods, and craftsmen who could make them (and train local pupils, too). The demand from Etruria for Attic vases, of what (largely thanks to Etruscan preferences) we have come to regard as the ‘best’ period was enormous: and it must have been of considerable economic significance for Athens. In fact, the Attic vases recovered from the vast cemeteries in the environs of Caere, Tar- quinia, and many other centres were regarded by the patriotic 18th-century Tuscan antiquaries (following Thomas Dempster, a Scot) as ‘Etruscan’, until Johann Winckelmann decreed in 1764 that their Neapolitan colleagues were in fact right in regarding them as Greek.40 We can all, I think, agree with the late Sir John Beazley that ‘the world owes the Etruscans an immense debt for admiring, treasuring, and causing to be preserved so many masterpieces of Greek art’;41 but let us also remember that a great many of those masterpieces were acquired for use in Etruscan ceremonial and other activities about which we would understand a great deal more than we do if the early antiquarian investigators (to say nothing of

38 Plain of Sybaris: Levi 1999. Pithekoussai: Deriu et al. 1986. 39 Serra Ridgway 2002, 117. On matters arising from the Etruscan Orientalising phenomenon, see Prayon and Röllig 2000; Riva 2006 (in the wider context treated in Riva and Vella 2006). 40 Masci 2007. Dempster (Aberdeenshire?1579– 1625): Leighton and Castelino 1990. 41 Beazley 1947, v.

993510_AWE9_2010_03.indd3510_AWE9_2010_03.indd 5533 22/12/10/12/10 13:1613:16 54 D. RIDGWAY

their modern clandestine, that is criminal, successors) had treated Etruscan ceme- teries as something more than repositories of ‘treasures’ that did not need to have their contexts or even their provenances recorded. George Dennis reported an Ital- ian estimate that by 1856 more than 15,000 tombs had been opened in this way at Vulci alone;42 and the process has continued, there and elsewhere, in the last century and a half. If contexts and provenances had been recorded more often, we would know a great deal more than we do about Etruscan preferences for the scenes painted on Attic vases, to the point where we could make informed guesses as to the reasons for those preferences – were certain scenes, or even individual painters and their workshops, as popular at Caere as they were at Tarquinia or Vulci, for example?43 We should be much better informed about a great many mainstream topics if we had access to more evidence of the kind once deployed by János György Szilágyi in respect of an Attic red-figure column-krater, now in Budapest but known to have been found between Cerveteri (Caere) and Santa Severa (): the scenes on it ‘meant something quite different to its Caeretan public in the years of the battle of [474] than to an Athenian citizen after Plataiai and Salamis [480]’ – an awareness of context, or at least provenance, that also illuminates the same author’s distinguished treatment of figured Etrusco-Corinthian ware between ca. 630 and ca. 550 BC.44 As it is, even where the archaeologically essential information about the Etrus- can provenance and context of Greek vases has been recorded, as it has in respect of the 4000 or so corredi from the (largely unpublished) cemeteries of (the Etruscan foundation at the mouth of the Po in northern Italy), the Greek vases in question are more often than not assessed in exclusively Greek terms – specifically as evidence for the Greek perceptions of the subjects depicted on them, with no regard for the fact that the images concerned, though indeed created by Athenian craftsmen, were seen and surely appreciated by Etruscan owners, and may actually have been chosen (or perhaps even commissioned) by them – or for them, by enterprising middlemen who knew the Etruscan market.45

42 Dennis 1883, I, 452; and see Buranelli 1991. 43 English readers will find detailed and reliable accounts of these two major Etruscan centres in Leighton 2004 (Tarquinia) and Riccioni 1979 (Vulci). 44 Szilágyi 2000, 46; and see further Rystedt 2006. Etrusco-Corinthian: Szilágyi 1992; 1998. 45 Thus Serra Ridgway 1993, 389–90, reviewing the catalogue of a major exhibition of material from Spina (Berti and Gasparri 1989) and the associated volume of conference proceedings (Berti 1991).

993510_AWE9_2010_03.indd3510_AWE9_2010_03.indd 5544 22/12/10/12/10 13:1613:16 GREECE, ETRURIA AND ROME: RELATIONSHIPS AND RECEPTIONS 55

The Etruscans Now: II Not surprisingly, the traditional tendency to ignore the Etruscan point of view long had a profoundly negative effect on the appreciation and understanding of Etruscan civilisation as a whole. Happily for scholarship, those days are largely over, as a result of what we might call the ‘new wave’ of investigations, mainly pioneered by our truly benemeriti Italian colleagues in the second (post-war) half of the last century. This remarkable phenomenon is characterised in the field by atten- tion to non-funerary contexts – ranging from religious sanctuaries to small farms46 – and in libraries and museums at home and abroad by the production of corpora of Etruscan artefact categories. Even if I had decided to do nothing else in this lecture, I would have needed rather more than an academic hour simply to read out a complete list of the Italian and foreign projects – major, longstanding and highly productive ongoing excavations and publications – that have come to frui- tion under these headings in recent years, or are in the pipeline now. Here I will mention, briefly, only the corpora. Under this heading, pride of place must surely go to the international Corpus Speculorum Etruscorum, established in 1981 to do for the 3,000 or so Etruscan bronze mirrors in collections all over the world what the Corpus Vasorum Antiquorum has been doing for Classical vases (including Etruscan ones) since 1922. In the present context, it is particularly good to see that excellent fascicules have been devoted to the Etruscan mirrors in the British Museum, and most recently to the 27 specimens (21 of them previously unpublished) in the Oxford collections.47 It is good, too, to be able to salute the British Museum, in the person of Judith Swaddling, who (in addition to her own fascicule of Etruscan mirrors) has recently played a major role in the achievement of what I can only describe as an extraordi- nary double whammy in British Etrusco-Italic studies: two remarkable catalogues of the British Museum’s holdings, both published in 2007. In one of them, Philip Perkins has in effect turned the Museum’s distinguished collection of pottery into an illustrated encyclopaedia of the Etruscans’ only independent inven- tion; while Anna Maria Bietti Sestieri and Ellen Macnamara (an exemplary and most effective combination) have done the same for the Museum’s extensive hold- ings of Italian metal artefacts48 down to the dawn of Etruscan civilisation vis-à-vis the groups, categories and types retrieved by regular excavation and published in

46 Sanctuaries: see Haynes 2000a, index ss.vv. Gravisca, Pyrgi, etc. Farms: Perkins and Attolini 1992; Perkins 1999. 47 Various fascicules of the Corpus Speculorum Etruscorum are discussed by Serra Ridgway 1992; 2000. British Museum and Oxford: Swaddling 2001; de Grummond 2007. 48 Perkins 2007; Bietti Sestieri and Macnamara 2007.

993510_AWE9_2010_03.indd3510_AWE9_2010_03.indd 5555 22/12/10/12/10 13:1613:16 56 D. RIDGWAY

modern excavation reports – an outstandingly useful service for the material of the 9th and 8th centuries, defined long ago (as I mentioned earlier: p. 45 above) by Massimo Pallottino as the crucial stage in the formative process of the Etruscans ‘on the territory of Etruria itself’. There is more, much more, Etruscan research going on in Italy and elsewhere: and it is working wonders for our perception of the Etruscans and of their stand- ing. As I have remarked elsewhere of the Italian Early , so too in the full Etruscan period

Decades of unremitting discovery, reliable excavation, progressively better-informed exegesis, and even the publication of a number of definitive excavation reports have provided us with so much information that the material record… can be examined in its own right and on its own terms. If we find ourselves comparing and contrasting the evidence retrieved by archaeology with that in the ancient written sources, it is usually because we are now more interested in testing than in merely illuminating the latter; and if the sources do not pass the tests we devise for them, we want to know why.49

I cite one major result by way of example: our changing view of , a sector that has attracted a great deal of new and increasingly well-informed atten- tion in the wake of a memorable conference held in Paris in 1992 and published five years later.50 In the absence of any Etruscan accounts of beliefs and usage, much ink and ingenuity used to be expended on identifying which Etruscan gods and sacred attributes had Greek and/or Roman equivalents. In 2006, however, Nancy de Grummond published a most remarkable book in which these things are at last seen from the inside – from the Etruscan point of view. As she puts it, ‘it is important to remember that Etruscan gods did not inhabit an Olympus, but dwelled instead in particular houses of a 16-part sky. Their cosmos was radically different from that of the Greeks;….’51

Etruria and Britain52 The Etruscan cosmos is where I should like to stop: but there is one more thing that I feel bound to say before I do.

49 Ridgway 2004, 9. 50 Gaultier and Briquel 1997. 51 de Grummond 2006, xiii. I have discussed this work elsewhere (Ridgway 2008), together with Bonfante and Swaddling 2006; de Grummond and Simon 2006; and Jannot 2005. See too the plen- tiful Etruscan material in ThesCRA; and most recently Gleba and Becker 2009; Stevens 2009. 52 This brief final section is in effect a postscript to Haynes 2000b.

993510_AWE9_2010_03.indd3510_AWE9_2010_03.indd 5566 22/12/10/12/10 13:1613:16 GREECE, ETRURIA AND ROME: RELATIONSHIPS AND RECEPTIONS 57

Thirty-five years ago, writing of a much earlier period in Italy than the one I have been concerned with here, the two most distinguished British prehistorians of their generation (which is also mine) affirmed that ‘any theory needs at least a few supporting facts’.53 With great respect, I think there is more to it than that. In all the humanities, as in all the natural sciences, I believe strongly that any theory – that is, any explanation – must account for all the relevant known facts when it is proposed, and must be subjected thereafter to fine-tuning, major revision or even substitution as relevant new facts are discovered. With that in mind, I confess that I am increasingly unhappy with some (though certainly not all) current English writing on Etruscan and Early Italic topics. So too are a number of Italian colleagues. One of the latter has recently concluded her thoughtful and well-informed remarks concerning a substantial English book on a potentially important and informative Etruscan subject with the telling (and in my view wholly accurate) observation that the undoubted value of the ‘strong theo- retical basis’ of the author’s work is effectively negated by the lack of ‘in-depth research’ into the ever-expanding archaeological record.54 These days, in fact, too many English colleagues in Etruscan studies (or so it seems to me) feel the need to display a self-righteous (and surely by now rather anachronistic?) zeal for some- thing called ‘a theoretically informed perspective’. There is of course absolutely nothing wrong with this in itself: but there is if it is combined with the explicit assumption that English readers will be unable to assess the evidence for themselves because ‘most of the publication of results and analysis is in Italian’.55 Yes, indeed it is: che sorpresa! But, as with the ancient Etruscan language, deci- pherment is not an issue with modern Italian: and I feel strongly that any teacher of Etruscan and Early Italic Studies in a British university should be fluent in that language, and require her or his pupils to become so, too – not (please not) by a qualifying examination, but by experience in the library, in the field, in the muse- ums and their store-rooms, and in the conference hall. Only thus will they be able to keep abreast of what, emulating Cicero, I will call the ‘rich flood… of teaching’ that is now flowing out of Italy; only thus will they be able to make their own use- ful contribution; and only thus will they be able to compare their own work with that of their Italian and other European peers in the most appropriate way. In conclusion, let me use the words with which I began my brief review of Sybille Haynes’s ground-breaking cultural history of Etruscan civilisation: ‘there is a lot more to Etruscans than case-studies for theoreticians and light relief for

53 Renfrew and Whitehouse 1974, 381 (on the Italian Copper Age). 54 Ciuccarelli 2008, 109. 55 Bradley et al. 2007, 127.

993510_AWE9_2010_03.indd3510_AWE9_2010_03.indd 5577 22/12/10/12/10 13:1613:16 58 D. RIDGWAY

classicists’.56 Indeed there is, and the prospects have never been better for progress, international no less than national, in Etruscan and Early Italic Studies: and for the permanent incorporation of this fascinating field into the Classical and Euro- pean programmes of a world-class university.

Bibliography

Abbreviations ILS H. Dessau, Inscriptiones Latinae Selectae (Berlin 1892–1916). ThesCRA Thesaurus Cultus et Rituum Antiquorum, 5 vols. (Los Angeles 2004–06).

Aigner Foresti, L. 1974: Tesi ipotesi e considerazioni sull’origine degli Etruschi (Vienna). Ampolo, C. 1977: ‘Demarato. Osservazioni sulla mobilità sociale arcaica’. DialArch 9–10, 333–45. Asheri, D., Lloyd, A. and Corcella, A. 2007: A Commentary on Herodotus Books I–IV (Oxford). Barker, G. and Rasmussen, T. 1998: The Etruscans (Oxford). Beazley, J.D. 1947: Etruscan Vase Painting (Oxford). —. 1957: ‘Foreword’. In Dunbabin, T.J., The Greeks and their Eastern Neighbours (London), 5–6. Berti, F. (ed.) 1991: Dionysos: mito e mistero. Atti del Convegno internazonale, Comachio 3–5 novembre 1989 (Comacchio). Berti, F. and Gasparri, C. (eds.) 1989: Dionysos: mito e mistero (Exhibition Catalogue) (Bologna). Bietti Sestieri, A.M. and Macnamara, E. 2007: Prehistoric Metal Artefacts from Italy (3500–720 BC) in the British Museum (London). Blakeway, A. 1935: ‘“Demaratus”: a study in some aspects of the earliest Hellenisation of Latium and Etruria’. JRS 25, 129–49. Boardman, J. 1964: The Greeks Overseas (Harmondsworth). —. 1994: The Diffusion of Classical Art in Antiquity (London). —. 1999: The Greeks Overseas, 4th ed. (London). Bonfante, G. and Bonfante, L. 2002: The Etruscan Language: An Introduction, 2nd ed. (Manchester). Bonfante, L. and Swaddling, J. 2006: Etruscan Myths (London). Bowersock, G.W. 1990: Hellenism in Late Antiquity (Ann Arbor). Bradley, G., Isayev, E. and Riva, C. (eds.) 2007: Ancient Italy: Regions without Boundaries (Exeter). Briquel, D. 1988: ‘Que savons-nous des Tyrrhenika de l’empereur Claude?’. Rivista di Filologia e di Istruzione Classica 116, 448–70. —. 1991: L’origine lydienne des Étrusques. Histoire de la doctrine dans l’Antiquité (Paris/Rome 1991). —. 1995: ‘Cicéron et les Étrusques’. Acta Classica Universitatis Scientiarum Debreceniensis 31, 21–32. Buranelli, F. 1991: Gli scavi a Vulci della società Vincenzo Campanari – Governo Pontificio (1835– 1837) (Rome). Ciuccarelli, M.R. 2008: ‘Recent developments in the archaeology of pre-Roman Italy’. EurJA 11, 105–36. Cornell, T.J. 1976: ‘Etruscan historiography’. Annali della Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa. Classe di lettere e filosofia, series 3, 6, 411–39. —. 1986: ‘The formation of the historical tradition of early Rome’. In Moxon, I.S., Smart, J.D. and Woodman, A.J. (eds.), Past Perspectives: Studies in Greek and Roman Historical Writing (Cam- bridge), 67–86.

56 Ridgway 2001.

993510_AWE9_2010_03.indd3510_AWE9_2010_03.indd 5588 22/12/10/12/10 13:1613:16 GREECE, ETRURIA AND ROME: RELATIONSHIPS AND RECEPTIONS 59

—. 1995: The Beginnings of Rome. Italy and Rome from the Bronze Age to the Punic Wars (c.1000– 254 BC) (London). de Grummond, N.T. 2006: Etruscan Myth, Sacred History, and Legend (Philadelphia). —. 2007: Corpus Speculorum Etruscorum: Great Britain 3. Oxford: Ashmolean Museum, Claydon House, Pitt Rivers Museum (Rome). de Grummond, N.T. and Simon, E. (eds.) 2006: The Religion of the Etruscans (Austin). Dennis, G. 1848: The Cities and Cemeteries of Etruria, 2 vols. (London). —. 1883: The Cities and Cemeteries of Etruria, 3rd ed., 2 vols. (London). Deriu, A., Buchner, G. and Ridgway, D. 1986: ‘Provenance and firing techniques of Geometric pottery from Pithekoussai: a Mössbauer investigation’. AION ArchStAnt 8, 99–116. Doonan, R.C.P. and Mazarakis Ainian, A. 2007: ‘Forging identity in Early Iron Age Greece: impli- cations of the metalworking evidence from Oropos’. In Mazarakis Ainian 2007, 361–78. Drews, R. 1992: ‘Herodotus 1. 94, the drought ca.1200 BC, and the origin of the Etruscans’. Histo- ria 41, 14–39. Edlund-Berry, I.E.M. 2000: ‘Etruscan architecture and architectural mouldings: new discoveries and interpretations from 1965 to the present’. In Shoe Meritt, L.T. and Edlund-Berry, I.E.M., Etrus- can and Republican Roman Mouldings: A Reissue of the Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome XXVIII, 1965 by Lucy T. Shoe (Philadelphia/Rome), xxi–xxix. Erim, K.T. 1982: ‘A new relief showing Claudius and Britannia from Aphrodisias’. Britannia 13, 277–81. Fehling, D. 1989: Herodotus and his ‘Sources’: Citation, Invention and Narrative Art (Leeds). Gaultier, F. and Briquel, D. (eds.) 1997: Les plus religieux des hommes: État de la recherche sur la religion étrusque (Paris). Gleba, M. and Becker, H. (eds.) 2009: Votives, Places and Rituals in Etruscan Religion: Studies in Honor of Jean MacIntosh Turfa (Leiden/Boston). Hall, J.F. 1996: ‘From Tarquins to Caesars. Etruscan governance at Rome’. In Hall, J.F. (ed.), Etrus- can Italy: Etruscan Influences on the Civilizations of Italy from Antiquity to the modern Era (Provo, UT), 149–89. Harding, D.W. 1994: ‘Charles Francis Christopher Hawkes, 1905–1992’. ProcBrAc 84, 323–44. Hawkes, C.F.C. 1959: ‘The problem of the origins of the archaic cultures in Etruria and its main difficulties (sketch for an address)’. StEtr 27, 363–82. Haynes, S. 2000a: . A Cultural History (London). —. 2000b: ‘Etruria Britannica’. In Ridgway, D., Serra Ridgway, F.R., Pearce, M., Herring, E., Whitehouse, R.D. and Wilkins, J. (eds.), Ancient Italy in its Mediterranean Setting: Studies in Honour of Ellen Macnamara (London), 319–25. —. 2005: Kulturgeschichte der Etrusker (Mainz). Heurgon, J. 1953: ‘La vocation étruscologique de l’empereur Claude’. CRAI, 92–97. Holleman, A.W.J. 1984: ‘Considerations about the tomb of the Claudians at Cerveteri’. Historia 33, 504–08. Hurley, D.W. 2001: Suetonius, Divus Claudius (Cambridge). Jannot, J.-R. 2005: Religion in Ancient Etruria (Madison). Leighton, R. 2004: Tarquinia: An Etruscan City (London). Leighton, R. and Castelino, C. 1990: ‘Thomas Dempster and ancient Etruria: a review of the auto- biography and De Etruria regali’. BSR 58, 337–52. Levi, S.T. 1999: Produzione e circolazione della ceramica nella Sibaritide protostorica, I: e dolii (Florence). Levick, B. 1990: Claudius (London). Luce, T.J. 1998: Livy: The Rise of Rome. Books 1–5 (Oxford). Macleod, C. 1986: Horace. The Epistles, translated into English verse with brief comment (Rome). Masci, M.E. 2007: ‘The birth of ancient vase collecting in Naples in the early eighteenth century. Antiquarian studies, excavations and collections’. Journal of the History of Collections 19, 215–24.

993510_AWE9_2010_03.indd3510_AWE9_2010_03.indd 5599 22/12/10/12/10 13:1613:16 60 D. RIDGWAY

Mazarakis Ainian, A. (ed.) 2007: Oropos and Euboea in the Early Iron Age (Volos). Munson, R.V. 2006: ‘An alternate world: Herodotus and Italy’. In Dewald, C. and Marincola, J. (eds.), The Cambridge Companion to Herodotus (Cambridge), 257–73. Musti, D. 1987: ‘Etruria e Lazio arcaico nella tradizione (Demarato, Tarquinio, Mezenzio’. In Etru- ria e Lazio arcaico. Quaderni del Centro di Studio per l’Archeologia Etrusco-Italica 15, 139–53. Pallottino, M. 1945: La scuola di Vulca (Rome) (= Pallottino 1979, 1003–74). —. 1975: The Etruscans, 2nd ed. (London). —. 1979: Saggi di antichità, 3 vols. (Rome). Penney, J.H.W. 1988: ‘The languages of Italy’. In CAH vol. IV, 2nd ed., 720–38. Perkins, P. 1999: Etruscan Settlement, Society and Material Culture in Central Coastal Etruria (Oxford). —. 2007: Etruscan Bucchero in the British Museum (London). Perkins, P. and Attolini, I. 1992: ‘An Etruscan farm at Podere Tartuchino’. BSR 60, 71–134. Poucet, J. 2000: Les Rois de Rome. Tradition et histoire (Brussels). Prayon, F. and Röllig, W. (eds.) 2000: Akten des Kolloquiums zum Thema ‘Der Orient und Etrurien. Zum Phänomen des “Orientalisierens” im westlichen Mittelmeerraum (10.–6. Jh. v. Chr.)’ (Pisa/ Rome). Pritchett, W.K. 1993: The Liar School of Herodotos (Amsterdam). Renfrew, A.C. and Whitehouse, R. 1974: ‘The Copper Age of peninsular Italy and the Aegean’. BSA 69, 343–90. Rhodes, D.E. 1973: Dennis of Etruria: The Life of George Dennis (London). Riccioni, G. 1979: ‘Vulci: a topographical and cultural survey’. In Ridgway, D. and Ridgway, F.R. (eds.), Italy before the Romans. The Iron Age, Orientalizing and Etruscan Periods (London), 241–76. Ridgway, D. 1992: ‘Demaratus and his predecessors’. In Kopcke, G. and Tokumaru, I. (eds.), Greece between East and West: 10th–8th centuries BC (Mainz), 85–92. —. 1993: Review of Briquel 1991. ClRev 43, 109–10. —. 1998: ‘L’Eubea e l’Occidente: nuovi spunti sulle rotte dei metalli’. In Bats, M. and d’Agostino, B. (eds.), Euboica: L’Eubea e la presenza euboica in Calcidica e in Occidente (Naples), 311–22. —. 2001: Review of Haynes 2000a. AntJ 81, 425. —. 2002: The World of the Early Etruscans (Jonsered). —. 2004: ‘The Italian Early Iron Age and Greece: from Hellenization to interaction’. MedArch 17, 7–14. —. 2006a: ‘Riflessioni su Tarquinia. Demarato e “l’ellenizzazione dei barbari”’. In Bonghi Jovino, M. (ed.), Tarquinia e le civiltà del Mediterraneo (Milan), 27–47. —. 2006b: ‘Aspects of the “Italian connection”’. In Deger-Jalkotzy, S. and Lemos, I.S. (eds.), Ancient Greece: From the Mycenaean Palaces to the Age of (Edinburgh), 299–313. —. 2007: ‘Some reflections on the early Euboeans and their partners in the Central Mediterranean’. In Mazarakis Ainian 2007, 141–52. —. 2008: ‘New books on Etruscan myth and religion’. AWE 7, 334–38. —. 2009: ‘Eroi segreti della storia preromana d’Italia’. In Brun, J.-P. (ed.), Artisanats Antiques d’Italie et de Gaule: Mélanges offerts à Maria Francesca Buonaiuto (Naples), 15–21. —. forthcoming: ‘Demaratus of Corinth and the Hellenization of Etruria’. In Hermary, A. and Tset- skhladze, G.R. (eds.), From the Pillars of Hercules to the Footsteps of the Argonauts (Leuven). Ridgway, D. and Pallottino, M. 1992: ‘C.F.C. Hawkes’. StEtr 58, 667–71. Ridgway, D. and Ridgway, F.R. 1994: ‘Demaratus and the Archaeologists’. In De Puma, R.D. and Small, J.P. (eds.), Murlo and the Etruscans: Art and Society in Ancient Etruria (Madison), 6–15. Riva, C. 2006: ‘The in Etruria: sophisticated communities’. In Riva and Vella 2006, 110–34. Riva, C. and Vella, N.C. (eds.) 2006: Debating Orientalization: Multidisciplinary Approaches to Change in the Ancient Mediterranean (London).

993510_AWE9_2010_03.indd3510_AWE9_2010_03.indd 6600 22/12/10/12/10 13:1613:16 GREECE, ETRURIA AND ROME: RELATIONSHIPS AND RECEPTIONS 61

Rudd, N. 1998: Cicero: The Republic and The Laws (Oxford). Rystedt, E. 2006: ‘Athens in Etruria. A note on Panathenaic amphorae and Attic ceramic imagery in Etruria’. In Herring, E., Lemos, I., Lo Schiavo, F., Vagnetti, L., Whitehouse, R. and Wilkins, J. (eds.), Across Frontiers: Etruscans, Greeks, Phoenicians and Cypriots. Studies in Honour of David Ridgway and Francesca Romana Serra Ridgway (London), 497–506. Sayce, A.H. 1923: Reminiscences (London). Scullard, H.H. 1966: ‘Two Halicarnassians and a Lydian: a note on Etruscan origins’. In Ancient Society and Institutions: Studies presented to Victor Ehrenberg on his 75th birthday (Oxford), 225– 31. Serra Ridgway, F.R. 1992: ‘Etruscan mirrors in the Louvre, and the Corpus’. JRA 5, 279–83. —. 1993: Review of Berti and Gasparri 1989, Berti 1991 and other items. ClRev 43, 389–91. —. 2000: ‘Etruscan mirrors and archaeological context’. JRA 13, 407–18. —. 2002: ‘Oriental(izing) motifs in Etruscan art’. OpRom 27, 109–22. Small, J.P. 1992: ‘The Etruscan view of Greek art’. Boreas 14–15, 51–65. —. 1994: ‘Scholars, Etruscans, and Attic painted vases’. JRA 7, 34–58. —. 1995: ‘New views on Greek artifacts found in Etruria’. JRA 8, 317–19. —. 2008: ‘Looking at Etruscan art in the Meadows Museum’. In Warden, P.G. (ed.), From the Tem- ple and the Tomb: Etruscan Treasures from Tuscany (Exhibition Catalogue) (Dallas), 41–65. Stevens, N.L.C. 2009: ‘A new reconstruction of the Etruscan heaven’. AJA 113, 153–64. Swaddling, J. 2001: Corpus Speculorum Etruscorum: Great Britain 1. The British Museum, 1: Archaic and Classical Mirrors (London). Swaddlng, J. and Perkins, P. (eds.) 2009: Etruscan by Definition: The Cultural, Regional and Personal Identity of the Etruscans. Papers in Honour of Sybille Haynes MBE (London). Szilágyi, J.G. 1992: Ceramica etrusco-corinzia figurata, I: 630–580 a.C. (Florence). —. 1998: Ceramica etrusco-corinzia figurata, II: 590/580–550 a.C. (Florence). —. 2000: ‘“Les adieux”: a column-krater of the Syracuse Painter’. Bulletin du Musée Hongrois des Beaux-Arts 92–93, 23–46. Torelli, M. and Menichetti, M. 1997: ‘Attorno a Demarato’. In Corinto e l’Occidente: Atti del XXXIV Convegno di Studi sulla Magna Grecia, Taranto, 7–11 ottobre 1994, 2 vols. (Taranto), 625–54. Wallace, R.E. 2008: Zikh Rasna. A Manual of the Etruscan Language and Inscriptions (Ann Arbor). Wiseman, T.P. 2003: ‘The legend of Lucius Brutus’. In Citroni, M. (ed.), Memoria e identità: la cultura romana costruisce la sua immagine (Florence), 21–38 (= Wiseman 2008, 292–305). —. 2008: Unwritten Rome (Exeter). Zevi, F. 1995: ‘Demarato e i re “corinzi” di Roma’. In Storchi Marino, A. (ed.), L’incidenza dell’Antico: Studi in memoria di Ettore Lepore, vol. 1 (Naples), 291–314.

Institute of Classical Studies University of London Senate House, Malet Street London WC1E 7HU UK [email protected]

993510_AWE9_2010_03.indd3510_AWE9_2010_03.indd 6611 22/12/10/12/10 13:1613:16