Les Carnets de l’ACoSt Association for Coroplastic Studies
14 | 2016 Varia
Édition électronique URL : http://journals.openedition.org/acost/797 DOI : 10.4000/acost.797 ISSN : 2431-8574
Éditeur ACoSt
Édition imprimée Date de publication : 5 mars 2016
Référence électronique Les Carnets de l’ACoSt, 14 | 2016 [En ligne], mis en ligne le 15 avril 2016, consulté le 13 octobre 2020. URL : http://journals.openedition.org/acost/797 ; DOI : https://doi.org/10.4000/acost.797
Ce document a été généré automatiquement le 13 octobre 2020.
Les Carnets de l'ACoSt est mis à disposition selon les termes de la licence Creative Commons Attribution - Pas d'Utilisation Commerciale - Pas de Modifcation 4.0 International. 1
SOMMAIRE
Research Perspectives in Greek Coroplastic Studies: The Demeter Paradigm and the Goddess Bias Jaimee P. Uhlenbrock
Chroniques
Brevi note di coroplastica siracusana: due esemplari di statuette con bambino Angela Maria Manenti
Experimental Archaeology Workshop Terracotta Female Figurines from the Ancient Near East (The Levant and Mesopotamia, II–I Millenium B.C.E.) Régine Hunziker-Rodewald
Dans les musées
The Collection of Greek Terracotta Figurines at The Metropolitan Museum of Art Kyriaki Karoglou
The Study Collection of Figurative Terracottas in the Metropolitan Museum of Art: A Critical Review Jaimee Uhlenbrock
Le terrecotte della collezione di Raffaele Gargiulo al Museo Archeologico Nazionale di Napoli Riccardo Berriola
Les terres cuites à la une
Terracottas in the News. A Bronze-Age Terracotta Figurine Discovered by a Seven-Year-Old Boy Jaimee Uhlenbrock
Annonces
Musées archéologiques d’Istanbul. Catalogue des figurines en terre cuite grecques et romaines de Smyrne Isabelle Hasselin Rous
Sounion Revisited: The Sanctuaries of Poseidon and Athena at Sounion in Attica Zetta Theodoropoulou Polychroniadis
Les Carnets de l’ACoSt, 14 | 2016 2
Revue de Presse
Physionomies d’une cité grecque. Développements stylistiques de la coroplathie votive archaïque de Tarente Michael Anthony Fowler
Les Carnets de l’ACoSt, 14 | 2016 3
Research Perspectives in Greek Coroplastic Studies: The Demeter Paradigm and the Goddess Bias1
Jaimee P. Uhlenbrock
1 The iconographic interpretation of Greek figurative terracottas from sacred and secular contexts increasingly has occupied the attention of researchers, often to the exclusion of any other avenues of inquiry. While it is true that terracottas could have much to offer for an understanding of religious practices, one also should recognize their usefulness for exploring other aspects of life in the ancient world, such as the identification of cultural exchange, political dependencies, possible social and economic changes, changing religious attitudes, as well as shifting social patterns and artistic influences. It is important to note that most often it is these explorations rather than those purely iconographic in nature that may reveal with greater clarity the motives hidden behind the presence of certain types of figurines found in specific Greek contexts. For this reason the researcher must be aware not only of the idiosyncratic nature of terracotta production, but also the mechanisms and impulses behind market demand, before attributing to a given figurine a historical or religious significance. It has become obvious that a significant revision in attitudes and approaches to the study of mass-produced terracottas is needed so that the researcher does not concentrate unduly on isolated figurines or figurine attributes without having a good understanding of all the determining factors behind the production of these figurines.
2 This lack of understanding historically has resulted in the development of certain research perspectives and biases carried over from the early 19th century that still persist in certain quarters to this day. This is nowhere more evident than in the archaeological literature that has focused on the terracottas of Sicily, particularly for the Archaic period, where terracotta figurines have been used as the primary vehicle for identification of cult. And given the persistence of these 19th century attitudes, the archaic cult places have almost exclusively been assigned to Demeter, or to aspects of the chthonic goddesses Demeter and Persephone.2
Les Carnets de l’ACoSt, 14 | 2016 4
3 The modern researcher familiar with votive deposits containing terracottas at archaic sanctuaries elsewhere around the Greek world, such as on the Greek mainland, or in the Greek East, would not be surprised to find many similarities between the votive practices of a mainland or East Greek worshipper, who chose to dedicate at a sanctuary a terracotta figurine, a protome, or a plastic vase perhaps filled with perfumed oil, and those worshippers at the sanctuaries of Sicily. This researcher would also discover how the artisans at the Sicilian centers borrowed or reinterpreted motifs furnished by figurative terracottas that came from the Greek East, which also provided important evidence for the nature of international trade in the Archaic period.
4 However, the researcher of terracotta figurines coming from fieldwork on the Greek mainland or at East Greek sites to conduct fieldwork in Sicily would be perplexed by the repeated references to sanctuaries of Demeter and/or Persephone in Sicilian archaeological literature of the 20th and early 21st centuries, given the similarities in votive goods that characterized both the archaic Sicilian and the mainland/East Greek sanctuaries. This surely was not the case for archaic terracottas from mainland or East Greek sites, where sanctuaries were identified epigraphically as places sacred to Athena, Aphrodite, Artemis, Apollo, Zeus, or the Nymphs were worshipped,3 not to mention the terracotta protome from Delos inscribed with a dedication to Hera.4 So deeply ingrained in the archaeological literature on archaic Sicily was this bias that almost all archaic sanctuaries belonged to some chthonic aspect of Demeter and/or Persephone that it was impossible to see any other aspect of Greek religion in practice. From a certain perspective this is understandable since this chthonic interpretation was based on a statement of Cicero, for example, for which all Sicily belonged to Persephone.5 But that notwithstanding, until very recently the notion has persisted that no other divinity but Demeter or Persephone could be the object of an act of veneration in the Archaic period in Sicily that involved a figurative terracotta.6
D’Hancarville and the culture of romanticism.
5 This notion was born in the early 19th century out of a philological approach to the interpretation of Greek monuments, again an understandable attitude since the first archaeologists were philologists by training.7 Among the most influential in this regard were Eduard Gerhard and Theodor Panofka, both co-founders of the Instituto di Corrispondenza Archeologica in Rome.8 They saw in almost all the material they studied a very close association with the procreative forces of life and the mystery religions associated with death and the underworld. This point of view was itself a product of the culture of romanticism that had taken hold in northern Europe in the later 18th century and that matured in the early 19th century. Within this context there were two factors that contributed to what ultimately emerged as the Demeter paradigm. The first was a fixation on death and a morbid fascination with underworld spirits, ruins, caves, and tombs, all represented within gloomy environments and with an apprehensive foreboding.9 The second was an obsession with erotic subject matter that had taken hold in Europe with the discoveries at Pompeii and Herculaneum in the middle decades of the 18th century of explicitly sexual representations.10 Together these provided fertile ground for the evolution of the so-called symbolic school of iconographic study that had been fuelled by the late-18th century publications of Pierre-François Hugues, otherwise known as the Baron d’Hancarville. His Recherche sur
Les Carnets de l’ACoSt, 14 | 2016 5
l’origine, l’esprit et les progrès des arts de la Grèce, published in London in 1785, had a profound effect on the interpretation of Greek art for several generations. Of singular importance was his predictable hypothesis that Greek religion was intensely erotic in origin and had rituals associated with it that were conducted under the veil of secrecy at night.11 His emphasis on procreative forces and their symbolism even lead him to see in the rather innocent ovoid forms of Greek vases a reflection of the original egg of creation.
6 D’Hancarville’s insistence on the sexual basis of Greek religion was conflated with the fixation on death and decay to become a critical bias in scholarship that was absorbed into the works of classical scholars of the early 19th century. As has been noted, this re- emerged as an exaggerated emphasis on fertility and underworld cults, and especially on the secretive rites associated with them. The more inexplicable an artefact, the greater was the tendency to assign it to some aspect of a mystery cult, or at the very least an underworld or earth goddess, if not a death goddess.12 The idea that these figurines could have been adaptable, generic images simply was not compatible with the philological approach of the early 19th century that demanded that all monuments be explained in strict relation to the ancient sources, either Greek or Latin. It also is not unexpected that all texts that were consulted favoured associations with the underworld and cults of fertility, for which Dionysos, Demeter, and, a little less, Persephone were the most important divinities. In the early 19th century there was a compelling drive to find the one key that could open the door to the mystical secrets of ancient religions, the key that above all Friedrich Creuzer sought in his Symbolik und Mythologie der alten Völker besonders der Griechen, originally published in Leipzig in 1810. This inclination, practically a prejudice, coloured all archaeological work and scholarly attempts at the interpretation of Greek art in the 19th century. Nor was this bias limited to the scholarly world. The tourist’s guide for the archaeological material housed in the then Royal Museum of Naples, published in French in 1844, was entitled Le Mystagogue.
Paolo Orsi and the Demeter Paradeigm.
7 Into this intellectual climate entered Paolo Orsi, a highly regarded archaeologist of the late 19th and early 20th century, in particular for Sicily and south Italy. Although he was one of the first truly scientific archaeologists for Sicily, his archaeological research also was carried out from a philologist’s perspective, having studied at the Historisches- Epigraphisches Seminar in Vienna with Otto Benndorf and Eugen Bormann, himself a student of Gerhard. Orsi’s meticulous archaeological fieldwork and rapid publication paved the way for all subsequent studies on Greek, Roman, and Byzantine culture in Sicily and south Italy. But his philological approach to an interpretation of finds resulted in an excessive iconographic importance for certain archaic coroplastic types that gave birth to the Demeter paradigm in Sicily. For example, when Orsi discussed archaic protomai from a votive deposit at Megara Hyblaia, he repeated an idea that had been implanted in the archaeological consciousness by Gerhard several decades earlier, whereby the motif of the isolated head could refer to Demeter Kidaria. As soon as this idea appeared in print, it became embedded in the archaeological literature for Sicily, with references to Demeter Kidaria and her cult growing more and more absurd with every successive publication.
Les Carnets de l’ACoSt, 14 | 2016 6
8 What Gerhard proposed was that the terracotta protome and the bust, as well as the isolated head on painted vases, could be embodiments of the anodos of Demeter, or Persephone, since they appeared to be emerging from the earth.13 But the protome, in particular, with its mask-like form, also recalled to him a passage in Pausanias14 that refers to the celebration of the Greater Mysteries at Pheneus in Arcadia when a priest wearing a mask of Demeter Kidaria smites the underground spirits with rods. This idea gained considerable traction by the later 19th century when Léon Heuzey incorporated it into a discussion of protomai from Rhodes for the Louvre catalogue of ancient terracottas in 1882.15
9 Ten years later Orsi reiterated this notion, stating that the presence of protomai in graves at Megara Hyblaia was incontrovertible proof that also in Sicily there was a cult of Demeter Kidaria.16 That these protomai were not masks in the proper sense, being much smaller than life size and lacking eye holes, was not problematic for Orsi, who viewed their funerary context as a priori proof of their association with Demeter or Persephone. He maintained the same position for types of figured alabastra representing a standing female holding a dove that occasionally were found alongside protomai in both graves and votive deposits. The presence of the dove, for Orsi a symbol of Aphrodite, in the hand of this standing female type accompanying images of Demeter Kidaria initially was problematic. But Orsi’s solution was to see in both types a representation of a Persephone-Aphrodite. Utilizing the same logic, Orsi held that discovery of protomai in a votive deposit at Megara Hyblaia could only indicate a cult of Demeter Kidaria. In the description of these protomai, Orsi attributed that which seemed to be closed eyes to “la fredda solennità della morte,”17 or the cold solemnity of death. Orsi could never have imagined that what appeared to him as closed eyes was nothing more than a lack of detail that commonly is associated with a long serial production, or that perhaps the painted details that often were applied to terracottas simply did not survive.
10 Given that Orsi’s excavations at Megara Hyblaia were among the first to be considered truly modern and systematic for Sicily, the finds from Megara Hyblaia, indissolubly linked to the interpretations of Orsi, became the contesto operativo through which all other coroplastic finds were interpreted. In this way, the notion that the protome represented Demeter Kidaria was embedded in the archaeological literature concerning Sicily, a notion that has persisted throughout the better part of the 20th century. Forty years after Orsi’s discussion of the protomai from Megara Hyblaia, Pirro Marconi, among other scholars, continued to reinforce the idea that all protomai from Sicily represented Demeter Kidaria.18 But Marconi advanced this notion a step further by implying the presence of a hypothetical sanctuary of Demeter Kidaria on Rhodes because he believed that the protome as a type was invented there.19 In 1982 Tamburello pushed this idea to an absurd extreme when she referred to an Archaic figurine from Palermo representing a seated female as Demeter Kidaria, since this type often was found alongside protomai. She further postulated that this was proof that Demeter Kidaria was worshipped in Punic Palermo in the same form in which she was worshipped in the Greek colonies in Sicily.20
11 Following the discoveries and publications of Orsi, more than 30 archaic sanctuary sites in Sicily have been identified by archaeologists over the course of the 20th century as chthonic, sacred to Demeter, or to Demeter and Persephone, most on the basis of the coroplastic repertoire alone.21 The reasoning behind this represents a classic example
Les Carnets de l’ACoSt, 14 | 2016 7
of a circular fallacy, whereby the goal of the argument is to prove a premise that is already known and accepted at the beginning of the argumentation. Thus, the argument that figurines from a given sanctuary represent Demeter and that therefore the sanctuary must be chthonic rests on the premise that chthonic sanctuaries have figurines that represent Demeter. Of course, the evidence used to identify these figurines in the first place is the fact that they are found in chthonic sanctuaries. Without questioning this mode of reasoning, Valentina Hinz listed all the Sicilian sanctuaries said to be chthonic in her 1998 study of the cult of Demeter and Kore in Sicily and Magna Graecia,22 and this study has become embedded in the archaeological literature for cult identification in Sicily, thus unwittingly furthering a research bias that rests on very tenuous foundations.
Léon Heuzey and the Demeter Paradeigm
12 By the late 19th century Léon Heuzey had become a particularly influential voice regarding the Demeter paradigm with his 1873 to 1874 publications “Recherches sur les figures de femmes voilées dans l'art grec,” I and II,23 and his “Recherches sur le type de la Déméter voilée dans l'art grec.”24 His initial intention in these discussions was to prove that terracotta figurines, particularly those of the Tanagra style, could be vehicles for an understanding of a veiled female head from a monumental sculpture that he discovered in Epirote Apollonia in 186325 that he believed represented Demeter because of its veil and its expression of a divine sadness. For Heuzey, the veil was a “veritable vestment of suffering and the sign of the somber sadness that the goddess wished to display to mortals.”26 But the bulk of his discourses centered around his thesis that all female figurines could represent some aspect of Demeter, including Demeter Kourotrophos, the Earth Nourisher; or Demeter Europé, the nurse of Trophonios; the sorrowful goddesses Demeter Achaea, recognized by the perceived melancholy expression of some Hellenistic figurines; Demeter Thesmophoros, worshiped in the temple of Cadmus in Thebes in the form of a half figure, according to Pausanias;27 or the old nursemaid type, in which he recognized an image of Demeter Graia.28 Protomai, which he called busts, he believed were specifically funerary in intent since their suspension holes indicated that they were intended to be hung on the walls of tombs, while their truncated form made them appear to be emerging from the earth.29 They could only be images of Demeter, as was proven without question by their funerary context.
13 This thesis was strengthened in his 1882 publication of the Catalogue des figurines antiques de terre cuite du musée du Louvre, which became the most authoritative source for an understanding of ancient terracottas toward the end of the 19th century. Heuzey promoted an idea that had already been suggested by de Witte, that the tall, cylindrical headdress of some of the Louvre’s newly-acquired, archaic figurines from Rhodes was a kidaris. This, combined with Gerhard’s misguided suggestion that archaic protomai depicted Demeter Kidaria, lead Heuzey to conclude that all archaic figurines represented this goddess.30 In any case, as in his contemporary discourses on the iconography of the veiled woman, he again relied heavily on the funerary context of most of the figurines and related terracottas that had been acquired by the Louvre by the later 19th century, believing that this context, and the abbreviated form of the
Les Carnets de l’ACoSt, 14 | 2016 8
protome and bust suggestive of the anodos, were sufficient proof that the underworld goddess Demeter was the subject of what he called funerary idols.
14 What Orsi and Heuzey failed to recognize is that these archaic types, believed to have been created exclusively for veneration of the goddess Demeter, probably arrived in Sicily for more banal reasons. The archaic types noted above all belong to the so-called Aphrodite Group of Reynold Higgins.31 These types, mostly plastic vases, were introduced in Sicily in the second quarter of the 6th century from East Greece and in large measure were commercial products originally created as containers for scented oil. The protomai, produced in the same East Greek workshops, appear to have been nothing more than abbreviated versions of the female alabastra, whose face was shared by some of the oldest of the protomai. Consequently, because the East Greek artisan could not know of the final deposition of the products, by necessity these had to have been created as generic images. Perhaps for reasons of prestige, these East Greek perfume vases and figurines, including protomai, were then extensively copied at local workshops throughout the Greek world.
15 Nonetheless, the notion of funerary exclusivity for certain terracotta types persisted well into the 20th century, regardless of the fact that, until the Hellenistic period, figurative terracottas in graves were the exception rather than the rule, and the protome, regardless of date, was a rare occurrence in tombs at best.32 The protome, in particular, was viewed by a number of scholars as having been made exclusively for the grave and therefore was exclusively chthonic in nature,33 while they overlooked the hundreds of examples known from votive deposits throughout the Greek world that are epigraphically confirmed as belonging to every major Olympian goddess, as well as the nymphs.34 Even though Heuzey appears to have been the first to stress the funerary context of protomai over the sanctuary context,35 it was Orsi who pushed this idea forward when he spoke of numerous protomai, found by the hundreds in all the necropoleis from the 6th to the 3rd centuries.36 This mistaken notion was then reiterated by Langlotz,37 followed by Verhoogen, 38 who completely disregarded the evidence of protomai in sanctuaries, and focused exclusively on their funerary context, and finally by Barra Bagnasco,39 who commented on the “discovery of many protomai in tombs, especially in Greece.”
The Goddess Bias
16 Closely related to the Demeter paradigm, and one that is also deeply rooted in the archaeological literature for Greek terracottas, as well as for all forms of Greek art, is the goddess bias, which is based on the unquestioned notion that all figurative terracottas representing females must have been images of goddesses,40 or, at the very least, non-mortal beings, such as nymphs or muses. By association, male representations, much less frequent within Greek coroplastic corpora, have to be gods. As a notion this too came into prominence with the erudite writing of the 17th century by learned amateurs who sought to demonstrate their knowledge of ancient texts by applying them to ancient monuments. Even though figurative terracottas were hardly mentioned in these early discourses, when they were noted the reliance on ancient texts compelled the authors to see only representations of divinity,41 since the ancient authors did not write about mortals. For discussions of small-scale sculpture of the Archaic or early Classical periods, such as terracotta or bronze figurines, the terms
Les Carnets de l’ACoSt, 14 | 2016 9
“seated goddess,” or “standing goddess” were used indiscriminately to refer to any female image, and this habit distinguished coroplastic research throughout the 19th, the 20th, and into the 21st centuries.
17 Frequently, it was the presence of a polos, often referred to as a modius, that was of singular importance in the interpretation of which divinity was represented. Demeter was the most obvious choice because of the superficial resemblance of the polos to the Roman grain measure, the modius, even though the so-called Demeter images were all Greek. In early scholarship, the polos was also referred to as a kalathos, the cylindrical basket that was used by the ancient Greeks for a variety of purposes, but significantly for collection of the harvest. This reference was based on a mistaken interpretation of the polos, with its cylindrical form, but one that became firmly embedded in the archaeological literature of the 19th century. Iconographic references to the kalathos were so frequent in early studies of Greek art that the word kalathos was used randomly and interchangeably for the word polos.42 In the archaeological literature that deals with Black Sea sites, for example, the word kalathos was, and still is, habitually used to refer to the cylindrical, or slightly flaring, headdresses of all female images believed to be divinities to the exclusion of the word polos, a fact that continues to bias all attempts at iconographic interpretation.43
18 The notion that all female images represented goddesses because of the presence of a specific headdress was argued by Gerhard as early as 1828,44 who, for example, perceived in a series of late archaic terracotta figurines from the Athenian Acropolis compelling symbols of a linguistic interrelationship between the words “polos,” “polis” and “polias.” This led him to conclude that Athena Polias was both a sky goddess and a mother goddess, in addition to being a state, as well as a mystery, goddess. This was based on the iconography of these figurines that presented a seated female wearing a high stephane, a headdress that was interpreted by Gerhard to be polos, notwithstanding the lack of a cylindrical form. He saw in the rounded contour of the stephane a symbol of the vault of the heavens, a feature that indicated the celestial realm of Athena Polias.45 On the other hand, the seated posture of these figurines was indicative of Athena’s role as a mother goddess.
19 In 1842 Panofka published the terracotta figurines in the then Royal Museum of Berlin, 46 and assigned to each one a specific divine personification, although discussions of the significance of a polos, modius, or kalathos were less important than exploring other iconographic symbols. While Panofka interpreted a type of archaic Attic figurine of a seated female as Gaea Olympia, he further proposed that this figurine type represented the ethereal and life-giving principal of the collective creation of the universe, simultaneously evident in the moon and the earth.47 But his originality is even more evident in his investigations of seemingly-unrelated iconographic details that then were explained by references to passages in Pausanias, Hesychius, or Herodotus, among other sources. In this way, a Hellenistic figurine of a Nike crowned with an ivy wreath and holding a phiale and oinochoe was identified as Hebe, or Ganymeda, the cupbearer wife of Dionysos Hebon. This was based on a statement of Pausanias, who noted that Hebe was worshipped at Phlius during an ivy festival, the kissotomoi,48 while the presence of the oinochoe in the hand of the Nike confirmed the identification of Hebe/ Ganymeda, since she alone was the cupbearer.
20 While Gerhard and Panofka, among others, sought answers in the writings of ancient authors in support of a divine identification for most figurative terracottas, other
Les Carnets de l’ACoSt, 14 | 2016 10
scholars appeared to attribute terracotta figurines to certain divinities in a manner that appears today to be arbitrary or fanciful. This seems to have been the approach of Jean de Witte when in 1866 he was discussing archaic figurines from Thebes in the collection of François Lenormant. He wrote, “If it is a question of giving a name to these goddesses, one can think of Harmonia, the heroic form of Astarte, rather than of Venus.”49 Earlier, in 1840, he identified all the terracotta figurines of seated females in the sale catalogue of the Beugnot collection as Ceres, for no apparent reason,50 and in the sale catalogue for the de Janzé collection he preferred to see Artemis Paidotrophos in a figurine of a woman holding an infant,51 rather than Venus, as he noted that Panofka had advocated for similar figurines.52 A typically fanciful interpretation of de Witte’s concerns a figurine of a knucklebone player in the de Bourville collection who appeared to him to be crouching to collect flowers. “One can think,” he mused, “that this is Proserpine in the fields of Enna, who turns her head waiting to see Pluto.”53
21 Even though the academic approach of Gerhard and Panofka that was rooted in the theory of a universal symbolism was the norm in the first half of the 19th century, there also were critics. One of these was Ernest Vinet, who in an 1845 review of Panofka’s Berlin terracotta catalogue, accused Panofka of resorting to any convenient iconographic element in a work of art to strengthen his symbolic interpretation, if supporting passages from ancient texts could not be found.54 He then asked:
22 Can sound judgment elevate a mythological problem about a hairstyle or a gesture? Do we assume further that the painters of vases, engravers of gems, or sculptors working, in most cases, for trade and for luxury, will be mired in the depths of a mythical cosmic or Orphic mythology? Is this idea not a little more German than Greek?”55
23 Vinet’s criticism of the symbolic school of interpretation notwithstanding, this belief in a universal symbolism left an indellible imprint on all subsequent scholarly investigations of Greek art. And as figurative terracottas increased in importance in private and museum collections over the course of the second half of the 19th century, so these too became subject to the same rules of scholarly discourse that continued to see divinity in every human image.
24 However, with the discoveries of high-quality, Hellenistic figurines at Tanagra in Boeotia and at Myrina in Asia Minor in the 1870s and 1880s that appealed to a bourgeois sentiment, the suggestion began to take root that some figurative terracottas, at least, could be genre representations of mortals. Wilhelm Froehner, among others, referred to such figurines as jeune fille, fillette, or jeune femme in the 1883 sale catalogue of the Leycuyer collection,56 using these generic terms as a means of minimizing the religious associations that were once so tenacious an aspect of scholarly investigation. A review of the debate between the symbolistes and the réalistes was made by Ernst Babelon in 1890,57 who supported an earlier thesis of Edmond Pottier that figurines in general, at the moment of creation, were designed to be generic images that could be used for a variety of purposes.58 But this argument too was overwhelmed by the monolithic body of scholarship that was based, in one way or another, on the ancient sources. In fact, so entrenched was this goddess bias that scholars completely ignored early suggestions that certain figurines could represent mortals,59 a suggestion that had been ridiculed by Heuzey,60 or even that there could be representations of mortals in the guise of the heroized dead.61
25 Additional emphasis was given to the goddess bias by Valentin Müller in 1915. He made an exhaustive survey of representations of the polos on every conceivable type of
Les Carnets de l’ACoSt, 14 | 2016 11
monument, from gems, coins, and figurines, to vase painting, monumental sculpture, and reliefs for his PhD thesis entitled Der Polos: die Griechische Götterkrone.62 While he recognized that the identity of the goddess, or heroine, represented by these monuments was not easy due to the lack of attributes in many cases, he also believed that all female imagery involving the polos reflected the universal concept of Mother Earth.63 While Müller’s study of the iconography of the polos is indeed useful as a compendium of all the available polos imagery at that time, his argument is weakened considerably by his basic assumption at the outset that the very presence of the polos indicates a divinity, as is demonstrated by the title of his study, and also by his blind acceptance of the interpretations of other scholars regarding the identity of the females wearing the polos in these representations. This lack of a critical approach to the evidence has resulted in another meaningless circular argument, whereby the polos represents a given goddess because it is found on representations of that goddess.
26 The idea that terracotta figurines were not necessarily intended to represent goddesses at all, but rather could be mortals, was argued at length by Dragendorf in his 1903 analysis of the terracottas from the “massenfund” of the Sellada necropolis on Thera.64 He believed that in many cases the terracottas served as companions for the dead and consequently embodied mortal representation, not divine. A different argument in favour of human representation was offered by Blinkenberg in his discussion of the archaic figurines and plastic vases from the acropolis of Lindos.65 In his view the lack of attributes in these figurines suggested that they were mortals and that they were intended to perpetuate the presence of the adorants before the divinity, where they would be “exposées à la force divine.”66 But, at the same time, Blinkenberg also pointed out the danger in making sweeping generalizations regarding the significance of terracotta figurines, since he recognized that they did not always have a clear and precise meaning.
27 Throughout the course of the 20th and into the 21 st century the debate over divine versus mortal for interpretations of figurative terracottas continued. While those following the goddess interpretation were still in the majority, occasionally there were others who wished to see representations of mortals, at least in some types. Among those scholars was Zuntz, who, in his 1971 study of Persephone, preferred to see mortals in all figurines of standing females from south Italy and Sicily, but those represented seated had to be goddesses, since he believed the seated posture to be one of authority.67 This dual interpretation was also articulated by Sguaitamatti in 1984 in his discussion of figurines of piglet carriers from Gela.68 When Merker published the classical and Hellenistic terracottas from the Sanctuary of Demeter and Kore in Corinth in 2000, she underscored the difficulty in figurine identification, cautioning that an attribute may be either a symbol of a divinity, and therefore representative of that divinity, or merely a gift carried by a votary that would not necessarily have the same resonance. While she recognized that among the figurines there was a “blurring of identity between deity and worshipper,” she believed that all figurines of seated females wearing a polos must be goddesses, even though the type was generic.69
28 A recent article by Stéphanie Huysecom-Haxhi and Arthur Muller on the later history and present state of the divine/mortal debate70 has made a singular contribution to the broadening of our perspective on the meaning of figurative terracottas. The monolithic structure of the goddess bias has begun to crack and shift, in part as a result of the recent work of Huysecom-Haxhi and Muller,71 but also in part because of a more
Les Carnets de l’ACoSt, 14 | 2016 12
modern, anthropological and sociological approach to artifactual analysis in classical archaeology that has begun to color the archaeological literature of the early 21st century72. While philological attitudes may still prevail in some studies, the recent suggestions that the visual language of figurative terracottas could have had a broader, and more polyvalent, significance that could also include references to mortals, or to mortals assuming the natures previously exclusively attributed to divinities, has widened the door considerably to our understanding of the religious and social backgrounds of coroplastic production.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Ammerman, R.M. 2002. The Sanctuary of Santa Venera at Paestum II. The Votive Terracottas, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Babelon, E. 1884. “Terres cuites grecques de la collection de M. Bellon,” Gazette Archéologique, 325– 334.
Barra Bagnasco, M. 1986. Protomi in terracotta da Locri Epizefiri. Contributo allo studio della scultura arcaica in Magna Grecia, Torino: Il Quadrante.
Blinkenberg, C. 1931. Lindos Fouilles de l’acropole 1902–1914, I. Les petits objets, Berlin: De Gruyter.
Brommer, F. 1986, “Gott oder mensch,” JdI 101, 37–53. de Witte, J. 1840. Description de la collection d'antiquités de M. le vicomte Beugnot. Paris: Firmin Didot. de Witte, J. 1857. Choix de terres cuites antiques du cabinet de M. le vicomte Hte de
Janzé, Texte explicatif. Paris: Firmin Didot. de Witte, J. 1866. “De quelques antiquités rapportées de Grèce par M. François Lenormant,” Gazette des Beaux-Arts, 106–122.
Dragendorff, H. 1903. Thera: Untersuchungen, Vermessungen und Ausgrabungen in den Jahren 1895– 1902, 2. Theraeische Gräber, Berlin: Reimer.
Duemmler, F. 1883. “De figuris plasticis quibusdam Tarenti repertis,” Annali dell’instituto, 192–207.
Froehner, W. and C. Lecuyer. 1883. Collection Camille Lecuyer : terres cuites de Tanagra et d'Asie Mineure. Paris: H. Hoffman.
Gaetano, C. 1767. “Dissertazione del signor conte Cesare Gaetani e Gaetani siracusano Sovra un antico Idoletto di creta,” Opuscoli di autori siciliani, 6, Palermo, 245–281.
Gerhard, E. 1828. Antike Bildwerke zum ersten Male bekannt gemacht. München/Stuttgart/Tübingen: J.G. Cotta'schen.
Gerhard, O. 1857. “Teofania nuziale di Dioniso e Cora,” Annali dell’Istituto 29, 211–219.
Gerhard, E. 1866–1868. Gesammelte akademische Abhandlungen und kleine Schriften. Vols. 1–3. Berlin: G. Riemer.
Les Carnets de l’ACoSt, 14 | 2016 13
Haskell, F. 1987. “The Baron d’Hancarville: an adventurer and art historian in eighteenth-century Europe.” In Past and Present in Art and Taste: Selected Essays, 30–45. New Haven:Yale University Press.
Hinz, V. 1998. Der Kult von Demeter und Kore auf Sizilien und in der Magna Graecia Wiesbaden: L. Reichert.
Heuzey, L. 1873. “Recherches sur les figures de femme voilées,” Premier article, Monuments grecs II, 1–58.
Heuzey, L. 1874. “Recherches sur les figures de femme voilées,” Second article, Monuments grecs III, 1–28.
Heuzey, L. 1874 (2). “Recherches sur le type de la Déméter voilée dans l'art grec,” in Comptes rendus des séances de l'Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, 18:1, 19–28.
Heuzey, L. 1882 (1891). Catalogue des figurines antiques de terre cuite du musée du Louvre. I. Paris: Librairies-Imprimeries réunies.
Higgins, R.A. 1967. Greek Terracottas. London: Methuen and Co.
Huysecom-Haxhi, S. and A. Muller 2007. “Déesses et/ou mortelles dans la plastique de terre cuite. Réponses actuelles à une question ancienne.” Pallas 75: 231–247.
Huysecom-Haxhi, S. and A. Muller 2015. “Figurines en contexte, de l’identification à la fonction : vers une archéologie de la religion.”, in S. Huysecom-Haxhi, and A. Muller (ed.), Figurines grecques en contexte. Présence muette dans le sanctuaire, la tombe et la maison: 421–438. Villeneuve d’Ascq: Presses universitaires du Septentrion.
Huysecom-Haxhi, S. 2008, “La mort avant le marriage : superstitions et croyances dans le monde grec à travers les images en terre cuite déposées dans les tombes d’enfants et de jeunes gens.” In C. Bobas et al. (eds.), Croyances populaires. Rites et représentations en Méditerranée orientale: 55–81. Athens: University of Athens.
Huysecom-Haxhi, S., I.-D. Papaikonomou, S. Papadopoulos 2012. “Les figurines en terre cuite dans les sépultures d’enfants en Grèce ancienne : le cas des jeunes filles nues assises,” In L’Enfant et la mort dans l’Antiquité. 3, Le matériel associé aux tombes d'enfants: 343–366. Arles: Éditions Errance.
Langlotz, E. 1965. Ancient Greek Sculpture of South Italy and Sicily. New York: H.N. Abrams.
Laumonier, A. 1956. Les figurines de terre cuite. Exploration Archéologique de Délos, 23. Paris: De Boccard.
Marconi, P. 1929. Agrigento; topografia ed arte. Firenze: Vallecchi.
Marconi, P. 1933. Agrigento arcaica: il santuario delle divinità Chtonie e il tempio detto di Vulcano. Rome: Società Magna Grecia.
Martha, J. 1880. Catalogue des figurines en terre cuite du Musée de la Société archéologique d'Athènes. Paris: E. Thorin.
Merker, G. 2000. The Sanctuary of Demeter and Kore: Terracotta Figurines of the Classical, Hellenistic, and Roman Periods, Corinth 18,4, Princeton: American School of Classical Studies at Athens.
Miller, M. 1991. “Foreigners at the Greek Symposium?” in W. Slater (ed.), Dining in a Classical Context, 58–79. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Muller, A. 1996. Les terres cuites votives du Thesmophorion : de l’atelier au sanctuaire. 2 vols., Études thasiennes, 17. Athens: École française d'Athènes.
Les Carnets de l’ACoSt, 14 | 2016 14
Muller, A. 2009. “Le tout ou la partie. Encore les protomés : dédicataires ou dédicantes?” In Clarisse Prêtre (ed.), Le donateur, l’offrande et la déesse. Systèmes votifs dans les sanctuaires de déesses du monde grec: 81–95. Kernos Supplément 23. Liège: Presses universitaires de Liège.
Müller, V. 1915. Der Polos: die Griechische Götterkrone. Berlin: Univ., Diss.
Orrells, D. 2015. Sex: Antiquity and Its Legacy. (Ancients and Moderns). London, New York: I. B. Taurus.
Orsi, P. 1891. “Megara Hyblaea. Storia-Topografia-Necropoli e Anathemata,” MonAnt 1891, col. 689–950.
Pottier, E. 1883. Quam ob causam Græci in sepulcris figlina sigilla deposuerint. Thèse complémentaire de doctorat ès lettres. Paris: Thorin.
Pottier, E. 1990. Les statuettes de terre cuite dans l'antiquité. Paris: Hachette.
Panofka, T. 1837. “Zeus und Aegina,” in Abhandlungen der Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 153–176. Berlin: Königlich-Preußische Akademie der Wissenschaften.
Panofka, T. 1834. Antiques du cabinet du comte de Pourtalès-Gorgier, Paris: Firmin Didot.
Panofka, T. 1842. Terrakotten des königlichen Museums zu Berlin. Berlin: G. Reimer.
Sguaitamatti, M. 1984. L'offrante de porcelet dans la coroplathie géléenne : Étude typologique, Mainz: von Zabern.
Smith, H.R.W. 1949. “A Goddess from Lebadeia.” In Commemorative Studies in Honor of Theodore Leslie Shear, 353–360. Hesperia Suppl. 8. Princeton: American School of Classical Studies at Athens.
Tomasini, G.F. 1639. De Donariis Ac Tabellis Votiuis Liber Singularis. Vtini: Ex typographia Nicolai Schiratti.
Uhlenbrock, J. The Terracotta Protomai from Gela. A Discussion of Local Style in Archaic Sicily. Studia Archeologica 50. Rome: “L’ERMA” di Bretschneider.
Uhlenbrock, J. 1993. “The Study of Ancient Greek Terracottas. A Historiography of the Discipline.” Harvard University Art Museums Bulletin, 7–27.
Verhoogen, V. 1956. Terres cuites grecques aux Musées Royaux d'Art et d'Histoire. Guide sommaire, Brussels: Editions de La Connaissance.
Vinet, E. 1844–1845. “Terrakotten des Königlichen Museum zu Berlin, etc.- Description des terres cuites du musée de Berlin, par Théodor Panofka.” Bibliographie. Revue Archéologique, 1:2, 699–704.
Zuntz, G. 1971. Persephone. Three Essays on Religion and Thought in Magna Graecia, Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.
NOTES
1. This is an extract from the Handbook for Coroplastic Research, in preparation by a team from the Association for Coroplastic Studies. See Les Carnets de l’Acost 11, 2014 and 13, 2015. 2. For a review of this argument see Uhlenbrock 1988, 139–142. 3. See Uhlenbrock 1988, 141–142. 4. Laumonier 1956, 74:109. 5. In Verrem II, iv, 48, 106, “Insulam Siciliam totam esse Cereri et Liberae consecratam”; Diodorus, XVI.66; Plutarch, Timol. 8; Pindar, Nem. 1, 13.
Les Carnets de l’ACoSt, 14 | 2016 15
6. In Uhlenbrock 1988, 146–156, I argued that the presence of protomai in votive contexts was due less to cultic demands than to trading networks. 7. For 18th-century attitudes see Uhlenbrock 1993, 7–9. 8. The Instituto was formed along with Otto Magnus von Stackelberg and August Kestner. See Kurt Bittel et al. 1979. Beiträge zur Geschichte des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts 1929 bis 1979, 1. Mainz: von Zabern. 9. Late 18 th- and early 19th–century literature was rife with themes centered around the supernatural, death, and aspects of the underworld, as can be seen in Horace Walpole’s The Castle of Otranto (1764), Ann Radcliffe’s Mysteries of Udolpho (1794), Matthew Lewis’ The Monk (1796), Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein (1818), and the works of Edgar Allen Poe (1839–1845). The landscapes of the early 19th-century painter Caspar David Friedrich perhaps best express this obsessive and morbid sentiment in the visual arts with subject matter such as caves, cemeteries, and crumbling ruins. See J. Grave, Caspar David Friedrich 2012. New York: Prestel. 10. Orrells 2015, 69–72. 11. See Haskell 1987, 43. See also Orrells 2013, 199–201. 12. For example, see Panofka 1834, 80, when discussing an archaic bronze applique of a Nike: “C'est pourquoi on trouve cette pose à la fois chez des êtres mâles et chez des êtres femelles dont le costume du reste est assez analogue, et dont les rapports avec l'enfer ne sont guère contestables. Nous voyons donc ici un de ces génies infernaux pour lesquels le nom de Ker [goddess of death] est le plus convenable, et qui s’élance à la poursuite d’n criminel.” Heuzey 1883, iii, “Les partisans de cette solution ont cherché naturellement à me pousser vers l’extrémité contraire à me faire prendre pour un adepte de l’ancienne école symbolique, qui ne voyait partout, dans les mêmes images, que des divinités, portant les emblèmes d’un dogme profond et mystérieux.” 13. Gerhard 1857, 212, n. 5 14. Paus. 8.15.1–4: “The people of Pheneus have also a sanctuary of Demeter surnamed Eleusinian… Beside the sanctuary of the Eleusinian goddess is what is called the Petroma, two great stones fitted to each other… There is a round top on it which contains a mask of Demeter Kidaria. This mask the priest puts on his face at the Greater Mysteries and smites the Underground Folk with rods.” 15. Heuzey 1882, 233–234. 16. Orsi 1891, col. 936. 17. Orsi 1891, col. 935. 18. Marconi 1929, 174, 178. 19. Marconi 1933, 56, 103. 20. Tamburello, Sicilia Archeologica 1981, 38, fig., 5; Sicilia Archeologica 1982, 49–50, 51. 21. Uhlenbrock 1988, 151 22. Hinz 1998. 23. Heuzey 1873 and Heuzey 1874. 24. Heuzey 1874 (2). 25. Louvre Museum, N° usuel Ma 828. 26. Heuzey 1874, 7, “véritable vêtement de douleur et le signe de la sombre tristesse que la déesse cherchait à dérober aux regards des mortels.” 27. Paus., IX, 16, 5. 28. Heuzey 1874 (2), 25–26. 29. Heuzey 1874 (2), 22. 30. Heuzey 1891, 227–228; the earlier mention of the kidaris, or cidaris, was made by de Witte 1866, 111. For a detailed discussion of the kidaris and its possible significance see Miller 1991, 58– 71. 31. Higgins 1967, 32.
Les Carnets de l’ACoSt, 14 | 2016 16
32. See Uhlenbrock 1988, 142; Huysecom-Haxhi 2008, 57. 33. Prime among these was Smith 1949, 359. 34. Uhlenbrock 1988, 141–142. 35. Heuzey 1883, 233. 36. Orsi 1891, col. 778. 37. Langlotz 1965, 262, no. 35, “…large numbers found in Ionian, Boeotian, and Sicilian graves.” 38. Verhoogen 1956, 22. 39. Barra Bagnasco 1986, 40. 40. For example, see Ammerman 2002, passim, who uses the term “goddess” or “enthroned goddess” to indicate the female figurines from the Sanctuary of Santa Venera at Paestum. 41. Tomasini 1639, 112–116; Gaetano 1767. 42. See Heuzey 1874, 12. 43. I am grateful to Tetania Shevchenko for enlightening me about this issue. 44. Gerhard 1828, 389; see also Gerhard 1866–1868, 134. 45. Gerhard 1866–1868, pl. XII:4–6. 46. Panofka 1842. 47. Panofka 1842, 13. 48. Panofka 1842, 32. See also Panofka 1837, 155–156. 49. de Witte 1866, 108, “Maintenant, s’il s’agit de donner un nom à ces déesses, on peut penser à Harmonie, forme héroïque d’Astarté, plutôt qu’à Vénus.” 50. de Witte 1840, nos. 186–192. 51. de Witte 1850, ftn. 2 to Pl. II in the text. 52. Panofka 1842, pls. XXI, XXII. 53. de Witte 1850, 5, Pl. XII:2, “On peut penser que c’est Proserpine, dans les champs d’Enna, qui détourne la tête entendant venir Pluton.” 54. Vinet 1845, 700–701, “M. Panofka ne perd pas courage lorsque le passage classique qui lui est nécessaire ne se trouve pas sous sa main, ou qui pis est n’existe point. Il ne s'en tient pas simplement à la comparaison des monuments avec les textes ; les mille détails d’une œuvre d'art lui servent à rechercher ce qu'elle signifie…” 55. Vinet 1845, 701, “Supposer en outre, que des peintres de vases, que des graveurs sur pierre, que des sculpteurs travaillant, le plus souvent, pour le commerce et pour le luxe, se soient enfoncés dans les profondeurs de la mythologie mythique, cosmique ou orphique, n'est-ce pas là une idée un peu plus allemande que grecque?” 56. Froehner 1883, passim. 57. Babelon 1884, 325–331. 58. Pottier 1890, 278–279. 59. Gerhard 1837, 134, believed that a seated female type of the later 5th century B.C.E. found on the Acropolis of Athens represented a deceased devotee of Aphrodite, although he used the Latin term Venus, because of the type of clothing depicted; de Witte 1866, 110, in a discussion of Lenormant’s terracottas from Tegea, refers to them as the many figurines of the initiates of the mysteries of Ceres; Martha 1880, iv, makes reference to the “nouvelle école n’y cherche que des sujets de genre.” 60. Heuzey, 1883, p. iii. 61. Duemmler 1883, 194–200. 62. Müller 1915. 63. Müller 1915, 68. 64. Dragendorff 1903, 122–124. 65. Blinkenberg 1931, cols. 28–29. 66. Blinkenberg 1931, col 29. 67. Zuntz 1971, 95.
Les Carnets de l’ACoSt, 14 | 2016 17
68. Sguaitamatti 1984, 53. 69. Merker 2000, 327–328. 70. Huysecom-Haxhi, Muller 2007; Huysecom-Haxhi 2008, 63–70. 71. Muller 1996, 468–481; Huysecom-Haxhi 2008; Huysecom-Haxhi, Papaikonomou, Papadopoulos 2012; Muller 2009. 72. Huysecom-Haxhi, Muller 2015.
ABSTRACTS
The ubiquitous presence of masses of figurative terracottas in Greek sanctuaries of the Archaic and Classical periods has given rise to their almost universal use as iconographic tools for the identification of cult. A practice that has its roots in the archaeological literature of the late 18th and early 19th century, it has engendered certain research biases that have been difficult to overcome. A review of these biases and their origins could be useful in reorienting the researcher of coroplastic topics away from dangerous preconceptions.
INDEX
Keywords: Baron d’Hancarville, Eduard Gerhard, Theodor Panofka, Paolo Orsi, Demeter, goddess interpretation
AUTHOR
JAIMEE P. UHLENBROCK State University of New York, New Paltz [email protected]
Les Carnets de l’ACoSt, 14 | 2016 18
Chroniques News and Notes
Les Carnets de l’ACoSt, 14 | 2016 19
Brevi note di coroplastica siracusana: due esemplari di statuette con bambino
Angela Maria Manenti
1 Nell’ambito del lavoro di sistemazione dei depositi del Museo Archeologico Regionale Paolo Orsi di Siracusa, fra le tante terrecotte, si vuole portare l’attenzione sulla tipologia della kourotrophos, non particolarmente diffusa fra le varie statuette rinvenute nei contesti siracusani.
2 Si tratta di una figurina femminile seduta (fig. 1), alta max 12 cm, in condizioni frammentarie, con il capo coperto dal velo, benda sulla fronte, capigliatura con i dettagli poco marcati, così come per il volto ovale, dal naso appuntito, per la consunzione della matrice. La donna indossa un chitone, coperto dall’himation, siede su un trono e tiene sulle ginocchia un infante, trattenendolo con la mano, mentre succhia al seno della mamma. Particolarmente interessanti le tracce di policromia che si conservano: sull’argilla arancio-rosata della statuetta, oltre all’ingobbio bianco, particolarmente diffuso, rimane labile traccia di rosso sui capelli, sulla benda, in basso presso il trono e di azzurro, più evidente sulla parte superiore del corpo e in basso fra le pieghe del chitone. Anche i dettagli del bimbo sono poco visibili. La statuetta, liscia posteriormente, è ricomposta e frammentaria. Nell’ambito di una collaborazione scientifica con il laboratorio LANDIS dell’IBAM-CNR e dei LNS-INFN di Catania, per uno studio sistematico dei pigmenti delle terrecotte provenienti da Siracusa e da Centuripe, sulla base di analisi non invasive, che utilizzano strumentazione portatile facente uso di fasci di raggi X (XRF, micro-XRF, XRD) si è potuto stabilire dai residui del pigmento azzurro che si tratta di Blu egiziano, si sono evidenziate tracce di pigmento a base di rame. Si rimane in attesa di approfondire le analisi, investigare meglio la tecnologia antica di sintetizzazione dei pigmenti, anche per porle a confronto con le produzioni più tarde della stessa città1.
Les Carnets de l’ACoSt, 14 | 2016 20
Fig. 1.
Foto Germana Gallitto.
3 La statuetta infatti si data genericamente al V secolo per l’iconografia; non si hanno dati di scavo stratigrafico, è stata rinvenuta negli anni’60 nei primi lavori condotti nel parco della Villa Landolina, per l’edificazione del Museo Paolo Orsi2: il parco della storica villa sorgeva in un’area probabilmente abitata in età tardo- classica, con evidenza di tombe, anche precedenti.
4 L’iconografia della kourotrophos rimanda chiaramente a culti di divinità femminili, in una zona immediatamente a ridosso di piazza della Vittoria, luogo di rinvenimento negli anni’70 del più ricco e vario complesso di statuette votive, edito parzialmente ed ancora in corso di studio3. Il tipo della donna che allatta non è noto a Siracusa, ma attestato in contesto funerario a Camarina, mentre a Gela ed Agrigento si ritrova in contesti sacri4.
5 Da scavi iniziati nel 1983–1984 in un’altra area della città di Siracusa, presso piazza Adda5 proviene una statuetta femminile stante (fig. 2) su basetta dal profilo circolare, che porta un bambino, avvolgendolo con l’himation di colore rosso vivo, che copre la veste della donna. La figurina, alta max cm 9, 7, cava all’interno, poggia sulla gamba sinistra, mentre la destra è leggermente flessa, verso indietro, col braccio destro piegato al petto, per trattenere con la mano un lembo del mantello. Il volto della donna a profilo ovale appuntito, con i dettagli nitidi, è circondato dalla chioma riccia, che è coperta sulla fronte dal cercine o diadema dal profilo circolare leggermente rigonfio. Il volto e i dettagli del bambino sulla spalla della donna sono appena visibili.
Les Carnets de l’ACoSt, 14 | 2016 21
Fig. 2.
Photo: autore.
6 Evidenti le tracce dell’ingobbio e dei pigmenti in due diverse tonalità di rosso, più chiaro e più scuro, su cui non si conoscono ancora i dati delle analisi tecniche, sul mantello che copre la parte superiore e fra le pieghe della veste nella parte inferiore. Lo schema iconografico riporta alle kourophoroi più antiche di Gela6 o di Grammichele7 , ma l’orizzonte cronologico scende alla prima metà del IV secolo a. C. L’area di rinvenimento è un’area cultuale, sicuramente frequentata in età classica ed ellenistica, probabilmente anche dopo, nell’ambito di una zona articolata, importante dal punto di vista topografico ed urbanistico, di passaggio all’area della Neapolis8. Certamente la tipologia della statuetta, riferendosi ai culti femminili connessi alla maternità, ripropone ulteriori riflessioni ed approfondimenti in merito ai culti siracusani in età classica.
BIBLIOGRAFIA
Basile, B. 2012. “L’urbanistica di Siracusa greca,” Atti del Convegno di studi Siracusa greca. Archivio Storico Siracusano 48:177–224.
Ciurcina, C. 2014. “Culti a Siracusa in età ellenistica: il contributo da un’area sacra prossima al complesso monumentale della Neapolis.” In Dinamiche culturali ed etniche nella Sicilia orientale, a
Les Carnets de l’ACoSt, 14 | 2016 22
cura di T. Alfieri Tonini e S. Struffolino, 35–53. Aristonothos. Scritti per il Mediterraneo antico, Quaderni 4, Trento.
Manenti, A.M. 2012. “Le terrecotte di Poggio dell’Aquila a Grammichele. Tipi e modelli: una riconsiderazione.” In Philotecnia. Studi sulla coroplastica della Sicilia greca, a cura di M. Albertocchi e A. Pautasso, 69–84. Catania: IBAM.
Pedrucci, G. 2013. L’isola delle madri. Una lettura della documentazione archeologica di donne con bambini in Sicilia, Roma: Bardi Editore.
Voza, G. 1976–1977. “L’attività della Soprintendenza alle Antichità della Sicilia Orientale.” Kokalos 22–23.2-1:556-559.
Voza, G. 1980-1981. “L' attività della Soprintendenza alle Antichità della Sicilia Orientale. Parte I.” Kokalos 26–27.2-1:674–693.
Voza, G. 1987. Museo Archeologico Regionale Paolo Orsi, Siracusa: Museo Archeologico Regionale Paolo Orsi.
NOTE
1. Si ringrazia il dott. Paolo Romano fisico del laboratorio Landis per i dati preliminari forniti. 2. Voza 1987; vedi anche http://www.regione.sicilia.it/beniculturali/museopaoloorsi/museo/villalandolina.htm 3. Voza 1976-77, 555–558; Voza 1980–1981, 283–308. 4. Pedrucci 2013, 335, scheda 84, 336, scheda 87, 337, schede 89 e 90, con bibliografia di rimando (sebbene con qualche errore!). 5. Ciurcina 2014, 35–36, con introduzione e riferimenti bibliografici dell’area soggetta alle indagini. Si ringraziano il dott. G.Voza, Soprindente emerito e direttore degli scavi, e la dott. C. Ciurcina, già Direttrice del Museo e Soprintendente di Siracusa, per la consueta disponibilità e liberalità con cui mi danno l’opportunità di presentare dati di scavi ancora parzialmente editi. 6. Pedrucci 2013, 316, scheda 27 da Bitalemi. Si veda anche la stessa, pp. 71 ss. , per la distinzione fra kourotrophos e kourophoros. 7. Manenti 2012, 78, con note per la diffusione di questa classe di statuette fittili in Sicilia. 8. Si veda Basile 2012, pp. 178 sgg per la riconsiderazione dell’urbanistica della città, anche alla luce degli scavi più recenti, in particolare a 217–218 per quest’area di piazza Adda; si veda anche 207, fig.11, per la pianta con ubicazione dei santuari demetriaci.
RIASSUNTI
Two mold-made, terracotta figurines representing a woman holding a child are rare within the coroplastic typology of Syracuse. Although they were brought to light during earlier excavations in Syracuse they have never been the object of study. Their typology may reference female cults in the fifth and fourth centuries B.C.E.
Les Carnets de l’ACoSt, 14 | 2016 23
AUTORE
ANGELA MARIA MANENTI Museo Archeologico Regionale Paolo Orsi [email protected]
Les Carnets de l’ACoSt, 14 | 2016 24
Experimental Archaeology Workshop Terracotta Female Figurines from the Ancient Near East (The Levant and Mesopotamia, II–I Millenium B.C.E.)
Régine Hunziker-Rodewald
1 From April 8 to May 14, 2015, over a six- week period, an Experimental Archaeology Workshop financed by the Franco-German University Saarbruecken and by the University of Strasbourg (Excellence Initiative IdEx) took place at the University of Strasbourg, France. Its educational and scientific goal was the achievement of practical and theoretical insights into terracotta figurine production. This included raw material processing, kiln construction, tool manufacture, and mold production, as well as the creation of original models, and the casting and firing procedures involved in the creation and mass production of terracotta figurines. A kiln was reconstructed that was based on a kiln excavated from the temple area in Mari (Syria), and the original models for the figurines that were reproduced have been brought to light at sites in Syria, Judah, and Jordan. This workshop was a project launched by the Franco-German Figurines Project (FGFP), organized by Regine Hunziker-Rodewald and Isabelle Weygand (University of Strasbourg), and Marlies Heinz (University of Freiburg, Germany). It was directed by two local potters Catherine Remmy and Amélie Trahard (Semencerie, Strasbourg), and by the ceramic technologist Maria-Louise Sidoroff, who is associated with the Mudayna-Thamad Regional Survey Project (Director: P.M. Michèle Daviau) in Jordan. The workshop sessions were documented by the videographer Jean-Charles Mougel in
Les Carnets de l’ACoSt, 14 | 2016 25
an 8-minute video (https://vimeo.com/150722204) that has been entered into the 17th Researchers' Film Festival 2016 in Vandœuvre-lès-Nancy that is organised by CNRS (Centre national de la recherche scientifique) and the University of Lorraine.
Fig. 1–Figurine of an Ammonite drummer type molded on the front and trimmed on the back. Before drying and firing, the facial features, the hair and the jewelry can still be enhanced by hand. The model of this figurine is an Iron Age II figurine found on the Amman Citadel, Jordan.
©Jean-Charles Mougel, Semencerie Strasbourg.
Fig. 2–Two figurines of the Judean Pillar Figurine (JPF) type. Their heads have been made in a mold and their bodies have been hand modelled. The original of these figurines is an Iron Age II figurine found in Lachish, Israel.
Les Carnets de l’ACoSt, 14 | 2016 26
Fig. 3–Hand-modeled figurine. This reproduction was based on an original from the 2nd millennium B.C.E. that was excavated in 2006 by Pascal Butterlin in Mari, Syria.
©Jean-Charles Mougel, Semencerie Strasbourg.
ABSTRACTS
From April 8 to May 14, 2015, over a six-week period, an Experimental Archaeology Workshop financed by the Franco-German University Saarbruecken and by the University of Strasbourg (Excellence Initiative IdEx) took place at the University of Strasbourg, France.
INDEX
Keywords: experimental archaeology, figurine production, kiln reconstruction, Mari kiln
AUTHOR
RÉGINE HUNZIKER-RODEWALD University of Strasbourg, France [email protected]
Les Carnets de l’ACoSt, 14 | 2016 27
Dans les musées At the Museums
Les Carnets de l’ACoSt, 14 | 2016 28
The Collection of Greek Terracotta Figurines at The Metropolitan Museum of Art
Kyriaki Karoglou
1 The Metropolitan Museum of Art holds an extensive and outstanding—but not widely known—collection of figurative terracottas from ancient Greece.1 Only the briefest of a sketch, this note aims to provide an overview of its scope and offer some highlights. The collection’s core was shaped during the years 1906-1931, a formative period for the Department of Greek and Roman Art—called the Classical Department until 1935.2 The individuals most responsible for their acquisition and publication were Gisela Richter and purchasing agent John Marshall. Subsequent gifts, bequests, and acquisitions enriched the collection further. In 1953, for instance, the American Institute of Archaeology donated to the museum a large group of fragmentary relief plaques from Praisos on Crete.3
2 Approximately 800 Greek terracottas form the bulk of the collection, ranging in date from the Late Helladic IIIA (ca. 1400-1300 B.C.E.) to the late Hellenistic period and covering nearly all regional coroplastic workshops, iconographic types, and styles.4 Among the earliest are Mycenaean figurines of the standard Phi and Psi types, as well as various animal figurines. Of the several Geometric figurines of the so-called “bird- face” type,5 a seated divinity is of special interest because of the diminutive kneeling votary that supports the back of her throne (fig. 1).6 From the Archaic period, fine examples from mainland Greek, especially Attic and Boeotian, as well as East Greek and South Italian workshops abound. They include korai-like figures and seated females with mantles drawn over their heads or wearing elaborate headdresses.7 An Attic example stands apart due to its particularly well-preserved painted detail of the throne (fig. 2).8 A double-sided East Greek kore holding a dove that served as an alabastron is exceptional for its fine modeling and overall technical mastery (fig. 3).9 Equally notable is a fragment of a large scale female head from Matauron, a Locrian colony in South Italy.10
Les Carnets de l’ACoSt, 14 | 2016 29
Fig. 1–Terracotta figure in an armchair, 12.5 cm. Fletcher Fund, 1931. Attica. Eighth century B.C.E.
Fig. 2–Terracotta statuette of a seated woman, 15.5 cm. Gift of Louise Crane, in memory of her mother, Mrs. W. Murray Crane. Late 6th–early 5th century B.C.E.
Fig. 3–Terracotta alabastron (perfume vase) in the form of a woman holding a dove, 27 cm. Fletcher Fund, 1930. East Greece. Mid-6th century B.C.E.
The Metropolitan Museum of Art
3 Also noteworthy are a class of Boeotian terracottas from the first half of the 5th century B.C.E. showing women in everyday occupations,11 a life-size terracotta head of a sphinx, 12 and a series of standing peplophoroi that combine heads and torso types with varying degrees of success.13 The best among them, including a large-scale fragmentary terracotta that probably served as a model for bronze casting (fig. 4), are close in style to the Olympia pediments.14 A statuette that according to Edmond Pottier came from the Athenian Acropolis recalls the Archaic marble korai from the site with its detailed rendering of the drapery and hair as well as the gesture of pulling aside the skirt of her chiton (fig. 5).15 A western Greek example is dressed in a chiton adorned with an enigmatic winged figure in low relief.16 From the second half of the 5th century B.C.E. come two mythological groups,17 a robust Nike statuette that is missing its wings, 18 a single Locrian pinax,19 and three examples of the so-called Melian reliefs decorated with mythological scenes (fig. 6).20
Fig. 4. Terracotta figure of a woman, 45 cm. Rogers Fund, 1906. Mid-5th century B.C.E.
Fig. 5. Terracotta statuette of a woman, 30.8 cm. Bequest of Walter C. Baker, 1971. Attica. First half of the 5th century B.C.E.
Les Carnets de l’ACoSt, 14 | 2016 30
Fig. 6. Terracotta plaque, 19.7 x 18.6 cm. Fletcher Fund, 1925. Melos. Ca. 450 B.C.E.
The Metropolitan Museum of Art
4 Particularly important is a group of 14 comic actors said to come from an early, 4th- century Attic tomb. They are considered among the earliest known examples of a popular class of terracottas inspired by the stock characters of Middle Comedy—the angry old man, the cunning slave, the shrewd courtesan, the child-holding nurse, the wily merchant, the frustrated lover, and the boastful soldier (fig. 7a, 7b, 7c, 7d, 7e).21 These figures of farce, with padded bodies and grotesque masks, continued to enjoy great popularity during the Hellenistic period.
Fig. 7a. Terracotta statuette of an actor, 12.1 cm. Rogers Fund, 1913. Late 5th–early 4th century B.C.E.
Fig. 7b. Terracotta statuette of an actor, 11.0 cm. Rogers Fund, 1913. Late 5th–early 4th century B.C.E.
Fig. 7c. Terracotta statuette of an actor, 10.8 cm. Rogers Fund, 1913. Late 5th–early 4th century B.C.E.
Fig. 7d. Terracotta statuette of an actor, 8.4 cm. Rogers Fund, 1913, 8.4 cm. Late 5th–early 4th century B.C.E.
Les Carnets de l’ACoSt, 14 | 2016 31
Fig. 7e. Terracotta statuette of an actor, 8.4 cm. Rogers Fund, 1913, 9.7 cm. Late 5th–early 4th century B.C.E.
The Metropolitan Museum of Art
5 The museum’s collection is strong in “Tanagras,” the fine statuettes of young men, women, and children primarily from Athens and Boeotia that epitomize the production of painted figurative terracottas during the 4th and 3 rd centuries B.C.E. 22 Youths are rather conventional,23 while groups of young girls are engaged in games like ephedrismos (pick-a-back or piggyback) 24 and astragaloi (knucklebones). 25 But it is the young women, standing in restful, often statuesque poses, and sometimes leaning on a pillar, which showcase the coroplast’s greatest skill and sensitivity. Draped in fine chitons and with himatia wrapping around the entire body and often pulled up over the head, these women wear pointed sun hats, hold leaf-shaped fans (fig. 8a, 8b, 8c),26 or carry baskets and tambourines. They are not simply ladies of fashion, but rather their meaning and function are closely connected to marriage and wedding rituals. The pleasing diversity of “Tanagras” is achieved by a variation of clay texture, iconographic detail, and, above all, color. All were painted in bright blue, yellow, red, and pink. Applied on a white engobe after firing, these pigments more often than not, are now lost. Sometimes accessories and borders of garments were highlighted by gilding.27 This pictorial use of color is also evident in an excellent assemblage of Tarentine terracottas, especially those of the 3rd century B.C.E. that include polychrome, local Tanagra types28 and several large-scale, reclining symposiasts.29
Fig. 8a. Terracotta statuette of a draped woman, 22.2 cm. Rogers Fund, 1906. Boeotia. Third century B.C.E.
Les Carnets de l’ACoSt, 14 | 2016 32
8abc
Fig. 8b. Terracotta statuette of a draped woman, 19.6 cm. Rogers Fund, 1907. Boeotia. Late 4th– early 3rd century B.C.E.
Fig. 8c. Terracotta statuette of a woman, 29.8 cm. Gift of Mrs. Saidie Adler May, 1930. Perhaps Asia Minor. Second century B.C.E.
The Metropolitan Museum of Art
6 During the Hellenistic period the main manufacturing centers of terracottas shifted from outside mainland Greece to the cities of Asia Minor and the Black Sea, such as Myrina, Priene, Smyrna, and Heraclea Pontica. A major portion of their output duplicated imported Tanagras in local clay and endlessly re-elaborated the established Tanagra types. Following the stylistic trends of monumental sculpture of the period, the garments of these terracottas were made to appear lighter and more transparent, while some of the larger examples assume statuesque poses and a somewhat affected appearance.30 A high quality, large statuette of a goddess, said to be from Myrina, exemplifies these trends (fig. 9).31
Les Carnets de l’ACoSt, 14 | 2016 33
Fig. 9. Statuette of a goddess standing, 63 cm. Collection of Thomas Colville, Guilford, Connecticut; promised gift to The Metropolitan Museum of Art. Myrina. Mid-2nd century B.C.E.
The Metropolitan Museum of Art
7 Popular types, such as the veiled or “mantle” dancers,32 flying Nikai33 and Erotes (fig. 10)34, or genre figures from the worlds of theater and mime, are well represented in the collection.35 Later developments in Hellenistic art, including the small scale reproduction of famous 5th-century B.C.E. statues and the representation of caricature and physical deformity, are illustrated by a statuette from Smyrna that reproduces the Diadoumenos by Polykleitos, but in slender proportions (fig. 11),36 and a 1st-century B.C.E. statuette of an emaciated old woman also from Smyrna that strikingly shows the effects of debilitating disease (fig. 12).37
Fig. 10. Terracotta statuette of Eros flying, 25.7 cm. Gift of Waters S. Davis, 1928. Myrina. Ca. 200– 150 B.C.E.
Fig. 11. Terracotta statuette of the Diadoumenos (youth tying a fillet around his head), 29 cm. Fletcher Fund, 1932. Smyrna. First century B.C.E.
Les Carnets de l’ACoSt, 14 | 2016 34
Fig. 12. Terracotta statuette of an emaciated woman, 16.8 cm. Gift of Mrs. Lucy W. Drexel, 1889. 89.2.2141. Smyrna. First century B.C.E.
The Metropolitan Museum of Art
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Karageorghis, V. et al. 2004. The Cesnola Collection Terracottas. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Picón, C. A., et al. 2007. Art of the Classical World in The Metropolitan Museum of Art. New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art.
Richter, G. M. A. 1953. Handbook of the Classical Collection (7th edition). New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art.
NOTES
1. The entire collection comprises about 1200 figurative terracottas, of which 600 are currently on display in the Greek and Roman Galleries on the main floor, the Study Center and the Etruscan Gallery on the Mezzanine, and the Cypriot Galleries on the second floor. Among them are 18 Etruscan, 29 Roman, and 408 Cypriot terracottas. All are accessible on the museum’s website http://www.metmuseum.org/collection/the-collection-online. The Cypriot terracottas were published in CD-ROM format by Karageorghis et al. 2004. This publication will become available online in 2016-2017. 2. On the history of the Metropolitan’s Department of Greek and Roman Art see the succinct introduction by Carlos Picón in Picón 2007, 3-23.
Les Carnets de l’ACoSt, 14 | 2016 35
3. MMA 53.5.4-47. These relief plaques, depicting frontal, nude females wearing high poloi and helmeted warriors with spears and shields, were part of a rich deposit of offerings discovered by the excavator of the site Prof. Federico Halbherr in 1893-1894. 4. The majority are discussed in Richter 1953, as well as the respective notes on recent acquisitions in The Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin. 5. MMA 52.11.1; MMA1972.118.120; MMA 1982.232. 6. MMA 31.11.8. 7. See for example MMA 30.11.5 and MMA 35.11.7. The figurine MMA 35.11.6 from Sicily wears a high polos over the veil. 8. MMA 1980.303.5. Hundreds of similar figurines were found on the Athenian Acropolis, and perhaps represent an early cult statue of Athena. 9. MMA 30.11.6. 10. MMA 22.139.57. 11. Such as MMA 56.63 and 51.11.12. 12. MMA 47.100.3. 13. See MMA 06.1156 (Attic); MMA 53.206, MMA 59.48.23 and MMA 1975.417 (Boeotian); MMA1972.118.125 (Rhodian). 14. MMA 06.1151. H. 45 cm. 15. MMA 1972.118.121. Formerly in the Bouasse-Lebel collection in Paris, it was bequeathed by Walter C. Baker in 1971. 16. MMA 18.145.31, possibly from Medma. 17. MMA 23.73.2 representing Europa and the Bull and MMA 07.286.24 showing Hyakinthos carried by a swan. 18. MMA 07.286.23. 19. MMA 12.229.17. 20. MMA 25.78.26: Eurykleia washing Odysseus's feet. The other two are MMA 30.11.9 (mostly restored) showing Odysseus returning to Penelope and MMA 12.229.20 depicting Phrixos carried over the sea by a ram. 21. MMA 13.225.13-14 and 13.225.16-28. 22. Named after Tanagra in Boeotia where they were first discovered in large numbers during the 19th century: MMA 09.221.28; 11.212.16; 07.286.2; 30.117. “Tanagras” is also often used as a shorthand name for draped, standing, female figurines, irrespective of provenance, dating to the period 330-200 B.C.E. 23. See for example MMA 06.1064. Three terracottas of a youth with hat seated on a rock are probably made from the same mold: MMA 06.1118, MMA 06.1119, and MMA 06.1112. 24. MMA 07.286.4. 25. MMA 13.225.15. 26. MMA 06.1168; see also MMA 09.221.29. 27. MMA 07.286.2, from Boeotia. 28. Noted for their good preservation are MMA 11.212.16, MMA 11.212.18, MMA 11.212.20, and MMA 12.232.13. 29. See for example MMA 20.216-20.218. 30. See for example the two 2 nd-century B.C.E. statuettes: MMA 24.97.84 with guilt diadem, possibly from Myrina, and MMA 06.1143 from Pontus. 31. Collection of Thomas Colville, Guilford, Connecticut; promised gift to The Metropolitan Museum of Art. 32. MMA 22.138.38 from Trebizond on the Black Sea and MMA 19.192.6 probably from Smyrna, with extensive gilding.
Les Carnets de l’ACoSt, 14 | 2016 36
33. Two statuettes are representative of the sculpturally ambitious "flying figure" repertoire at Myrina: MMA 06.1077, dated to the early 3rd century B.C.E. and MMA 21.88.62, dated to the late 3rd-early 2nd century B.C.E. and attributed to the so-called Master of Tomb 112B. 34. MMA 28.55. Much of the original coloring is preserved. 35. MMA 23.259: teacher and pupil; MMA 07.286.30: Nurse; MMA 09.221.33 and 07.286.27: comic actors; MMA 06.1087: boy with cock. 36. MMA 32.11.2. 37. MMA 89.2.2141. See also the statuette of a grotesque man MMA 07.286.12.
ABSTRACTS
The Metropolitan Museum of Art’s collection of Greek figurative terracottas is little known, but its size and scope makes it one of the richest in North America. A brief overview of this collection is presented here.
INDEX
Keywords: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Greek terracottas, Greek terracotta figurines
AUTHOR
KYRIAKI KAROGLOU Assistant Curator, Department of Greek and Roman Art, The Metropolitan Museum of Art [email protected]
Les Carnets de l’ACoSt, 14 | 2016 37
The Study Collection of Figurative Terracottas in the Metropolitan Museum of Art: A Critical Review
Jaimee Uhlenbrock
1 On April 20, 2007, a spectacular installation of classical art opened to the public at The Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City. Much press was devoted to this event, and ever since then visitors have enjoyed examples of Hellenistic and Roman art displayed in a breathtaking space that rises two stories high and that is illuminated with both natural and artificial light. Incorporated into this newly-designed space is a mezzanine, whose primary purpose appears be the display of the museum’s Etruscan collection.
2 However, little visited, and critically lacking in signage, is a large section of the mezzanine to the left of the Etruscan Gallery that houses the bulk of the less-important objects in the museum’s classical collection. These objects comprise the Greek and Roman Study Collection (fig. 1), Gallery 171, where large groups of objects in all media —many never before exhibited—are crowded together in cases lit by a combination of natural and/or arteficial light.
Les Carnets de l’ACoSt, 14 | 2016 38
Fig. 1. View into the Greek and Roman Study Collection of The Metropolitan Museum of Art.
The author.
3 For our purposes it is the more than 170 terracotta figurines, along with terracotta reliefs, protomes, antefixes, and plastic vases, that are of particular importance. Most are displayed along with vases and small-scale bronze and stone sculpture to illustrate themes that occasionally correspond to a general chronological sequence. The themes, such as Heads in Classical Art, Votive Offerings, Women and Children in Classical Art, Animals, and so forth, seem more of an organizational device than an educational one. Even though one is happy to see such an large and eclectic assortment of mostly Greek terracottas, with some Etruscan, Roman, and Cypriote examples in the mix, disappointing is the absence of any text in the cases that might better orient the visitor.
4 Most of the terracottas in the Greek and Roman Study Collection belong to the late Classical and Hellenistic periods, and indeed one of the cases is simply named Hellenistic Terracottas (fig. 2). Here the viewer can find 116 Hellenistic figurines that remind us of the great drive to collect examples of this genre of Greek art that characterized connoisseurship and collecting in the early years of the 20th century, the period that saw the largest number of classical figurative terracottas coming to the museum.
Les Carnets de l’ACoSt, 14 | 2016 39
Fig. 2. A case labeled Hellenistic Terracottas.
The author.
5 In certain respects, the Study Collection is an extremely useful tool since most of the objects in the museum’s collection are no longer languishing in storerooms, but rather are accessible for study and reflection. Wall kiosks fitted with interactive touch screens (fig. 3) allow the visitor to choose a particular vitrine from a 3-dimensional map of the layout of the cases. Then the viewer is presented with a series of thumbnail images representing the objects in that particular case. When touching a particular thumbnail image the visitor sees a new screen with an enlarged image of that object accompanied by the object’s name, date, credit line and accession number (fig. 4). No other information is provided, although the Greek and Roman Department of the museum will be updating and expanding the information on individual works in the collection. For the uninformed visitor, the need to go back and forth from a vitrine to the wall kiosk to know something about particular figurines may be tiring, if not frustrating, and visitors have been seen standing in front of a kiosk going through numbers of images without once looking at any one of the actual objects that these images represent.
Fig. 3. View of the wall in the Greek and Roman Study Collection with the interactive touch screens.
Les Carnets de l’ACoSt, 14 | 2016 40
Fig. 4. An interactive touch screen.
The author.
6 The serious researcher can question the value of having direct access to several hundred figurative terracottas of the classical world that are completely devoid of archaeological context, a situation that characterizes most museum collections. It is obvious that such material cannot be the basis for the establishment of provenience or chronology. Yet, much can be learned from a careful examination of the figurines in the Study Collection that concern relative scale, coloring and gilding, molding, handmodeling and retouch, aesthetic and technical choices, and especially the expressive qualities that are inherent in a plastic medium such as clay.
7 An excellent example of this can be seen in several sections of a large, curved, terracotta relief believed to belong to a Greek funnel vase and said to have been made at Canosa in Apulia in the late 3rd or early 2 nd century B.C.E (fig. 5). 1 These relief surfaces are completely obscured by a powerfully-modeled and complex battle scene comprising warriors on horseback who trample the fallen enemy. Both warriors and horses were handmodeled in-the-round and then attached to the walls of the vase so that they appear to twist and writhe, vigorously projecting outward into space, as they advance around the vase. The dynamism of the modeling and the poses tends to obscure the somewhat clumsey treatment of the anatomy of both riders and horses, as well as the hastily incised detail, both of which can be seen as hallmarks of a provincial product. It is obvious that viewing these reliefs first-hand, rather than in the on-line catalogue of the museum, enables one to appreciate the particular character of this form of coroplastic expression.
Les Carnets de l’ACoSt, 14 | 2016 41
Fig. 5. Funnel vase, from Canosa, Rogers Fund, 1912, MMA 12.236.4.
The author.
8 While most of the vitrines in the Study Collection that contain figurative terracottas reflect a typological and chronological mix, one wall case in particular is dedicated to coroplastic material from Taranto of the 5th and early 4th centuries B.C.E (fig. 6). This presents to the viewer a sufficient enough number of stylistically similar fragments of figurines that a good understanding of the characteristic sculptural aesthetic of Taranto and its immediate vicinity as it was expressed by coroplasts can be appreciated. The range of types, all fragmentary, includes Zeus, banqueters, horsemen, kourotrophoi, and assorted male and female heads. The relative sizes of the figurines that these fragments represent, as well as the diversity of embellishment that is a typical feature of the Tarantine coroplastic expression, can still be examined, even though nothing is known of the exact context from which these fragments were brought to light.
Les Carnets de l’ACoSt, 14 | 2016 42
Fig. 6. Wall case with classical terracottas from Taranto.
The author.
9 It is obvious that a visit to the Greek and Roman Study Collection of The Metropolitan Museum of Art should certainly be on the list of any researcher of Greek coroplastic material visiting New York City. Photography is permitted in the gallery, but make sure to bring a polarizing filter to control the glare on the glass of the vitrines. The mix of tungsten and natural light will be problematic for digital photography, and the scores of shadows that are created by the crowded figurines on successive glass shelves is difficult to overcome. However, the student or scholar wishing to use any object in the museum’s collection for scholarly, non-commercial purposes may download high- resolution files directly from the museum’s website free of charge. http://www.metmuseum.org/collection/the-collection-online
10 In any case, when visiting the Greek and Roman Study Collection of The Metropolitan Museum of Art enjoy the treat of having an almost total immersion in coroplastic expression, a unique experience for most museum-goers in the United States. http://www.metmuseum.org/visit/museum-map
ENDNOTES
1. Rogers Fund, 1912, 24.5 x 30.8cm. MMA 12.236.4
Les Carnets de l’ACoSt, 14 | 2016 43
ABSTRACTS
The Study Collection at the Metropolitan Museum of Art includes over Greek 200 figurative terracottas. Committed to the accessibility of its collections to a wider audience, The Metropolitan Museum of Art has nearly emptied its storerooms of portable antiquities and set these objects on public display in a dedicated gallery. Although little information on these terracottas, vases, minor sculptures, and coins is provided in this gallery, the lack of this information does not particularly hinder the ability to engage with these objects for study purposes that then can provide the foundation for further research.
AUTHOR
JAIMEE UHLENBROCK State University of New York, New Paltz [email protected]
Les Carnets de l’ACoSt, 14 | 2016 44
Le terrecotte della collezione di Raffaele Gargiulo al Museo Archeologico Nazionale di Napoli
Riccardo Berriola
1 La collezione di terrecotte di Raffaele Gargiulo (1785-post 1864), ceramista e restauratore affermato, figura di primo piano del Museo di Napoli, grande mercante napoletano di antichità degli anni Venti e Trenta dell'Ottocento, venne acquistata dall’istituzione partenopea il 29 maggio 1855, per la cifra di seimila ducati. La raccolta, attualmente formata da 605 oggetti, risulta composta da materiali quanto mai eterogenei: oltre alla vera e propria plastica figurata di grandi e piccole dimensioni, vi sono inserite decorazioni architettoniche, lucerne, ornamenti personali e un gran numero di forme ceramiche rientranti nella classe dei vasi plastici, della ceramica acroma, della ceramica a decorazione plastica e policroma, della ceramica messapica, peucezia, megarese e della terra sigillata africana. La piccola plastica è in assoluto la classe meglio documentata, rappresentando circa i tre quarti dell’intera collezione di terrecotte. Interessanti sono anche i dati percentuali della ceramica (59 esemplari) e, soprattutto, della grande plastica (46), non sempre comune nelle raccolte ottocentesche.
Les Carnets de l’ACoSt, 14 | 2016 45
Fig. 1. Grafico relativo alla distribuzione delle classi di materiali.
2 Tra le statuette muliebri stanti dal III secolo a.C. si affermano soprattutto le numerose “tanagrine” (ben 39 esemplari), i cui tipi rappresentano la traduzione in materiale povero delle figure panneggiate elaborate dalla grande scultura della fine del IV secolo a.C., con una produzione concentrata tra il III e il II secolo a.C. Un’iconografia tipicamente greca è anche quella della figura muliebre appoggiata a un pilastrino o a una colonnina (21 esemplari), mentre piuttosto frequente è il tema della madre con bambino, la kourotrophos (11 statuette), simbolo di protezione dell’oikos e, in senso generale, di continuità della vita. Presente è anche la figura di offerente con cista o cesto di frutti e maialino o altro animale (7 esemplari, soprattutto da Paestum) di orante (4) e di hydrophorai (6). Tra le figure maschili stanti (16 esemplari) si passa dalle rappresentazioni di offerenti (3, con porcellino e cesto di frutti), a quelle di attori (3), nani (2, in atto di portare un bambino sulla spalla), gladiatori (2) ed efebi (1). Le figure muliebri assise (ben 47 statuette), diffuse sia in contesti funerari che votivi, rappresentano una delle offerte votive più conosciute in ambito magnogreco, sin dall’età arcaica, che trova grande favore in età ellenistica, in particolare nel corso del IV secolo a.C., quando i doni votivi coroplastici aumentano sensibilmente nella quantità e variano notevolmente nelle tipologie. Appena due sono invece le figure maschili assise, mentre sette sono quelle di recumbenti utilizzate come ex-voto o come offerte funerarie, secondo un’iconografia che si ritrova, oltre che nelle terrecotte, anche nei rilievi, nella ceramica e nei bronzetti. Piuttosto varie sono le rappresentazioni di divinità, di figure e scene mitologiche (68 esemplari), di sicuro prodotte per una committenza dai gusti raffinati particolarmente esigente. Tra queste le più frequenti risultano gli Eroti (10), le Menadi (10), Era seduta in trono (7), Sileno (6), Afrodite (5) e le Nikai (5), secondo schemi largamente diffusi in tutto il mondo magnogreco, che si rifanno con interpretazioni locali alla grande statuaria greca soprattutto del IV a.C. E’ spesso evidente l’impronta indigena, provinciale, che si manifesta in una certa sommarietà del modellato, in una rigidità dei movimenti, pur restando chiara la fonte
Les Carnets de l’ACoSt, 14 | 2016 46
d’ispirazione. Particolarmente interessanti da un punto di vista stilistico e per l’esecuzione curata in cui si denota una notevole incisività espressiva sono sei gruppi con scene mitologiche: Perseo e Andromeda, Teti su cavallo marino, Medea su carro, Tritone con Nereide, Europa su toro, Centauro e centaurino. Databili dal III al I a.C. provengono in due casi da ambiente apulo (Egnazia e Ruvo), in due da ambito campano (Capua) e in due da Agrigento. Numerose sono le raffigurazioni di animali (65 esemplari), tra cui cavalli o asini (17), volatili (16), maialini e cinghialetti (15), cani (6), buoi (4), felini (3) o, ancora, montoni, cervi, delfini e tartarughe (1): oggetti a basso costo, sostitutivi delle offerte reali meno durature, per loro risulta estremamente difficile arrivare a una datazione precisa in mancanza di associazioni con corredi o di dati di scavo, in quanto si tratta di motivi che non subiscono mutamenti sostanziali nel corso dei secoli. Molto differenziata è anche l’iconografia di bustini e testine isolate (29 esemplari), di ispirazione chiaramente greca, con un certo carattere provinciale nella resa dei particolari, per i quali si pone il problema della identificazione della divinità a cui sono dedicati. Una delle serie più numerose tra le terrecotte funerarie, ben documentata sia dal punto di vista quantitativo (37 esemplari) che qualitativo anche nella collezione Gargiulo, è quella delle figure umane con animali, per lo più fanciulli su cani (5), delfini (2), arieti (2), leoni (2), galli (1), e, soprattutto, maialini (13), diffuse in epoca ellenistica in tutto il bacino del Mediterraneo. Presenti sono anche i giochi, tra cui culle-tintinnabula (7 esemplari da Egnazia, con precise affinità con quelle di Taranto e di Capua), sfere (3 da Ruvo) e bambole (2, da Capua ed Egnazia), mentre piuttosto rilevante è il numero di terrecotte riproducenti alimenti (ben 18), caratterizzati da dimensioni pari al vero e da una resa fortemente naturalistica, di manifattura non particolarmente accurata probabilmente di fabbricazione locale, in particolare mele cotogne (9 esemplari) e melagrane (6). Solo tre sono le arule, di forma parallelepipeda, due dalla Campania (Cales e Cuma) e una dalla Puglia (Taranto), assenti invece del tutto le matrici, poco appetibili dal mercato antiquario ottocentesco.
Les Carnets de l’ACoSt, 14 | 2016 47
Fig. 2. Grafico relativo agli oggetti della piccola plastica.
3 Nella grande plastica oltre a quattro sarcofagi di area etrusca, che trovano riscontri in esemplari da Tarquinia e, soprattutto da Tuscania, solamente tre sono le statue di grandi dimensioni, opere di un certo impegno, anche stilistico e culturale, che rappresentano l’amplificazione, in più grandi dimensioni, della piccola plastica. Degli esemplari della collezione Gargiulo, se si eccettua un togato da Canosa (o Cales), degli altri due esemplari, uno è frutto di un pastiche ottocentesco, ampiamente reintegrato in fase di restauro, l’altro mostra una fattura decisamente scadente, opera di un artigianato locale evidentemente rimasto ai margini delle correnti stilistiche che, durante tutta l’età ellenistica, furono in grado di produrre prodotti d’eccellenza. Ben nove sono invece i busti, di cui quattro femminili, tre maschili e due raffiguranti divinità (Ermes e Zeus-Ammon). La provenienza è ancora una volta equamente divisa tra la Campania (2 da Capua e Cales, uno da Nola) e la Puglia (4 da Canosa), mentre la cronologia va dal V - IV al III - II a.C., con una netta predominanza della fascia IV - III secolo a.C. (5 esemplari). Tra gli anatomici prevalgono le teste (15 esemplari), tutte di provenienza campana (ben tredici da Cales, una da Capua e una da Nola), per una cronologia che, pur presentando tipi collocabili anche nel V e IV a.C., presenta una netta maggioranza (9 esemplari) del III secolo a.C. Solo quattro sono invece i piedi, tutti da Cales e inquadrabili genericamente in età ellenistica, così come quattro sono anche le maschere di grandi dimensioni, due da Capua, una da Canosa e una da Egnazia, del IV–III secolo a.C. Sette sono, infine, i thymiateria, per lo più di provenienza pugliese (ben sei, di cui tre da Canosa e tre da Ruvo), collocabili tra il IV e il IV–III secolo a.C. Tra le ceramiche inserite nel catalogo delle terrecotte primeggiano quelle con decorazione plastica, ben 42 oggetti in totale, pari al 71.17%, per un’evidente relazione con la coroplastica vera e propria. Segue la ceramica acroma (con 13 esemplari), verosimilmente di origine locale, testimonianza di una produzione standardizzata di discreta qualità e competitività economica, mentre isolate sono le presenze di forme
Les Carnets de l’ACoSt, 14 | 2016 48
megaresi, messapiche, peucezie e di sigillata africana. La provenienza delle ceramiche è quasi esclusivamente apula (56 vasi, pari a quasi al 95%), di cui 30 da Canosa (50.85%), 14 da Egnazia (23.73%) e 12 da Ruvo (20.34%). E veniamo, infine, agli elementi architettonici. Di gran lunga maggiore è la presenza dei rilievi (21 esemplari), seguiti dalle antefisse (10), mentre due sono le sime e solo uno il doccione. La maggioranza proviene ancora una volta dalla Campania (22 esemplari, di cui 12 da Capua, 6 da Cales, 3 da Nola e uno da Pozzuoli) e dalla Puglia (11 elementi, di cui 4 da Ruvo, 3 da Canosa e Taranto, 1 da Egnazia), mentre uno solo dalla Lucania (Anzi). Per ciò che concerne le provenienze indicate nel catalogo di vendita del Gargiulo, di gran lunga prevalgono la Puglia e la Campania con ben 578 oggetti, pari al 95.54% dell’intera collezione. Se per la Campania la spiegazione è dovuta alla presenza sul territorio del Gargiulo, non meraviglia la provenienza pugliese della maggior parte dei reperti, essendo la direttrice Puglia-Napoli del commercio di antichità nel XIX secolo estremamente diffusa. Nel dettaglio delle singole località, in ordine decrescente, si notano ai primi posti le località, sia pugliesi (Egnazia, Ruvo e Canosa) che campane (Capua e Cales), più celebri per i prodotti coroplastici.
Fig. 3. Grafico relativo alle provenienze indicate per località.
4 Mentre il materiale architettonico copre un periodo enorme che va dalla fine del VI a.C. al I secolo d.C., quello coroplastico si colloca per lo più tra la metà del IV a.C. e la fine del III a.C. Per quanto concerne la ceramica, prevale ancora un orizzonte cronologico che spazia tra il IV e il III secolo a.C., soprattutto per la ceramica a decorazione plastica e policroma e quella acroma, mentre più varia è la cronologia dei vasi plastici, con esemplari collocabili tra la fine del VI e il III secolo a.C. Le lucerne, infine si datano tutte tra la prima metà e l’ultimo quarto del I secolo d.C.
Les Carnets de l’ACoSt, 14 | 2016 49
Fig. 4. Grafico relativo alle cronologie.
BIBLIOGRAFIA
BERRIOLA, R. 2014. Les terres cuites figurées de la collection Raffaele Gargiulo au Musée National de Naples: recherches sur le goût et le marché de l'art dans la première moitié du XIXe siècle, Thèse pour obtenir les grades de Docteur de l’Université de Paris Ouest Nanterre La Défense (Histoire et Archéologie des mondes anciens) et Dottore di Ricerca in Archeologia dell’Università degli Studi di Napoli “L’Orientale”, Nanterre.
BORRIELLO, M.R. 1996. “Il collezionismo minore: dallo scavo ai negozianti di “anticaglie”.” In I Greci in Occidente. La Magna Grecia nelle collezioni del Museo di Napoli, 223–232. Napoli: Electa.
CIAGHI, S. 1993. Le terrecotte figurate da Cales del Museo Nazionale di Napoli. Sacro, stile, committenza, Roma: “L’Erma” di Bretschneider.
DELLA TORRE, O., e S. CIAGHI., a cura di. 1980. Terrecotte figurate da Capua, Napoli: Arte Tipografica.
HELBIG, W. 1864. “Terrecotte del signor Gargiulo a Napoli.” BdI:236–239.
MARTINO, E. 2005. “Il professor Raffaele Gargiulo e il Real Museo Borbonico.” CronErcol 25:231–244.
MILANESE, A. 2007. “Raffaele Gargiulo (1785-après 1870) restaurateur et marchand d’antiquités. Notices sur le commerce des vases grecs à Naples dans la première moitié du XIXe siècle.” In El vaso griego en el arte europeo de los siglos XVIII y XIX. Actas del Coloquio Internacional celebrado en el Museo Arqueológico Nacional y en la Casa de Velázquez, Madrid, 14 y 15 de febrero de 2005, a cura di P. CABRERA e P. ROUILLARD, 59–75. Madrid: Ministerio de Cultura.
MILANESE, A. 2014. In partenza dal Regno. Esportazioni e commercio d’arte e d’antichità a Napoli nella prima metà dell’Ottocento, Firenze: EDIFIR. 201–255.
Les Carnets de l’ACoSt, 14 | 2016 50
PALUMBO, M.R. 1986. Le terrecotte figurate di tipo greco in Daunia, Peucezia e Messapia, Galatina: Congedo Editore.
PANOFKA, T. 1848. “Gargiulo’s Sammlung von Terracotten.” AZ 19:297–304.
RIASSUNTI
The collection of terracottas belonging to Raffaele Gargiulo that was purchased by the Museum of Naples in 1855 was accompanied by a rich assortment of architectural terracotta fragments, pottery, plastic vases, and lamps, among other objects. Of these objects, the terracottas are in the majority (73.88%) and account for about three-quarters of the entire collection. Five hundred seventy-eight of these terracottas (95.54%) come from Apulia and Campania, areas that are well known for their coroplastic production. While the architectural terracottas date from the end of the 4th century B.C.E. to the first century C.E., the chronological range of the majority of the figurines and pottery is more limited and can be placed between the mid-4th and the end of the 3rd century B.C.E. The chronology of the plastic vessels is broader and ranges from the late 6th to the 3rd century B.C.E., with lamps dated to the 1st century C.E.
INDICE
Keywords : Museo Archeologico Nazionale di Napoli, Collezione Raffaele Gargiulo, terrecotte figurate, terrecotte architettoniche, ceramica, lucerne
AUTORE
RICCARDO BERRIOLA Museo Archeologico Nazionale di Napoli [email protected] ; [email protected]
Les Carnets de l’ACoSt, 14 | 2016 51
Les terres cuites à la une Terracottas in news
Les Carnets de l’ACoSt, 14 | 2016 52
Terracottas in the News. A Bronze- Age Terracotta Figurine Discovered by a Seven-Year-Old Boy
Jaimee Uhlenbrock
1 Many news outlets, including CNN, NBC, The Times of Israel, Haaretz, and The Nation, among others, reported on the discovery on February 25 of a terracotta plaque figurine by a seven-year-old boy during a hiking trip in the Beit She’an Valley in northern Israel. Climbing the Canaanite mound of Tel Rehov with friends Ori Greenhut kicked aside what he believed to be a mud-encrusted stone, only to find that it had a human image on it. He rubbed off the mud to reveal a mold-made terracotta sculpture of a standing, nude woman with her arms held stiffly at her sides (fig. 1).
Fig. 1
Photo: Clara Amit, courtesy of the Israel Antiquities Authority.
Les Carnets de l’ACoSt, 14 | 2016 53
2 Ori brought the figurine home, where his mother Moriya Greenhut explained to him that it was an important artifact that belonged to the cultural heritage of Israel. She convinced him that it had to be handed over to the Israel Antiquities Authority. In return, representatives of the IAA visited Ori at his school to award him a certificate of good citizenship for turning in the figurine, rather than keeping it for himself.
3 Plaque figurines such as the type represented by this new find are typical for late Bronze Age sites in the Jordan Valley, where they no doubt played a role in cultic activities. However, exactly what the nature of that role was remains unclear and is the subject of debate. The strong Egyptianizing character of the figurine reflects the Egyptian domination over Rehov, which was under pharaonic rule during the late Bronze Age.
ABSTRACTS
A seven-year-old boy discovered a late Bronze-Age plaque figurine in the Jordan Valley.
AUTHOR
JAIMEE UHLENBROCK State University of New York, New Paltz [email protected]
Les Carnets de l’ACoSt, 14 | 2016 54
Annonces Annoucements
Les Carnets de l’ACoSt, 14 | 2016 55
Musées archéologiques d’Istanbul. Catalogue des figurines en terre cuite grecques et romaines de Smyrne
Isabelle Hasselin Rous
RÉFÉRENCE
Isabelle Hasselin-Rous, M. Ece Çadiran Işık, Gülcan Kongaz, Musées archéologiques d’Istanbul. Catalogue des figurines en terre cuite grecques et romaines de Smyrne, Varia Anatolica XXIX, éditions De Boccard, 2015, 238 p. (50 €. ISBN 978-2-36245-058-7)
Les Carnets de l’ACoSt, 14 | 2016 56
1 Fruit d’une collaboration entre les Musées archéologiques d’Istanbul et le Musée du Louvre, le catalogue (fig. 1) offre une étude réactualisée de la collection stambouliote au regard des dernières recherches menées sur la coroplathie smyrniote par la spécialiste du domaine, I. Hasselin Rous.
2 La genèse du projet remonte à 2008, lorsque le musée du Louvre préparait une exposition sur la cité de Smyrne antique dans le cadre de la saison de la Turquie en France (D’Izmir à Smyrne. Découverte d’une cité antique, Musée du Louvre, 2009-2010). La demande d’étude de quelques figurines de la collection des musées archéologiques d’Istanbul, comparables à celles du Louvre, fut accueillie favorablement et entraîna le réexamen de l’ensemble du corpus smyrniote d’Istanbul, dont ce catalogue est le fruit. Le rapprochement du matériel coroplathique de ces deux institutions se justifie d’autant plus qu’il fut découvert ensemble à Smyrne dans le dernier tiers du XIXème siècle par Paul Gaudin, ingénieur des chemins de fer et responsable de la construction de l’extension de la ligne de chemin de fer « Smyrne- Cassaba et prolongements ». Donnée par l’ingénieur aux deux musées parisien et stambouliote, cette riche collection de figurines smyrniotes trouve ainsi ici une belle occasion d’être réunie à nouveau notamment pour les exemplaires issus des même prototypes.
3 Le choix de la forme du catalogue raisonné paraissait le plus adapté au regard du corpus de figurines s’élevant à 135 numéros. Le catalogue des objets est précédé d’une synthèse sur l’histoire de la collection d’Istanbul et sur les caractéristiques de la production coroplathique de la cité de Smyrne. Les terres cuites sont présentées thématiquement (types idéaux, réalistes, grotesques), bénéficient de notices détaillées, d’une abondante couverture photographique (un cahier couleur en fin de volume regroupe les pièces polychromes et dorées), enrichie par des pièces de comparaison issues d’autres collections européennes, et d’une bibliographie actualisée. Le choix a été fait de scinder le corpus en deux parties : d’une part, les figurines découvertes et produites à Smyrne, d’autre part celles de provenance inconnue et que nous avons attribuées aux ateliers de Smyrne (toutes issues de la collection Radowitz, ambassadeur d’Allemagne à Constantinople entre 1882 et 1892, et qui constitua sa collection auprès des antiquaires). Plus de la moitié des terres cuites d’Istanbul sont des figures masculines et relèvent de types idéaux. On remarque une proportion assez importante à Istanbul de figures d’enfant (20 au total), proportion élevée au regard des autres collections muséales, dont celle du Louvre.
4 Parmi les apports du catalogue, il faut noter le rapprochement systématique des figurines d’Istanbul avec celles des autres musées européens issues de mêmes moules ou dérivant des mêmes prototypes et qui sont illustrées par des photographies de comparaison. Cette confrontation permet de mettre en valeur les types
Les Carnets de l’ACoSt, 14 | 2016 57
iconographiques dont on possède plusieurs exemplaires identiques ou proches, issus peut-être des mêmes ateliers. L’idée suivant laquelle les coroplathes smyrniotes avaient assez peu dupliqué leurs figurines s’en trouve quelque peu amoindrie. C’est aussi le bienfait de la publication de ces catalogues de collection que de révéler à la communauté scientifique l’existence de ces objets afin d’enrichir le corpus d’œuvres connues.
5 L’état de fragmentation des figurines de Smyrne conservées dans l’ensemble des collections muséales est assez important et celui des musées archéologiques d’Istanbul ne fait pas exception. Le nombre de têtes sans corps y est conséquent et les corps sans tête sont aussi peu nombreux que dans les autres collections. Mais la bonne fortune a voulu que le musée d’Istanbul abrite par exemple un fragment de corps de femme aux mains posées sur les hanches et dont la tête aux traits caricaturaux de vieille femme romaine a été conservée (fig. 2).
Fig. 2 : Figurine fragmentaire de vieille courtisane (Istanbul, inv. 2319)
6 Notre documentation présentait jusqu’alors un certain nombre d’exemplaires de corps de femmes acéphales au ventre plus ou moins rebondi et aux mains posées sur les hanches (fig. 3). Elles étaient interprétées comme des femmes enceintes. Or la figurine d’Istanbul vient remettre en question cette identification pour y voir probablement le corps d’une vieille courtisane ici clairement datée grâce à sa coiffure de l’époque de Trajan.
Les Carnets de l’ACoSt, 14 | 2016 58
Fig. 3 : Figurine de femme « enceinte » (Musée archéologique d’Izmir, inv. 19941)
7 Parmi les types peu attestés jusqu’alors dans les terres cuites de Smyrne, on peut noter une petite figurine articulée de jeune fille, sans doute une poupée, munie d’une tête à haute coiffure en côtes de melon rappelant les « Aphrodite orientales » (cat. 26). Ou encore une étonnante figure entière d’esclave bossu soufflant dans une outre qui semble bien être de fabrication smyrniote mais dont la provenance est inconnue (cat. 122). Seules quelques têtes d’esclaves, dont des noirs, caricaturées pourraient se rapprocher de la figurine stambouliote. Mais comment imaginer l’action dans laquelle ils pouvaient être engagés en l’absence de leur corps ? Le jalon d’Istanbul donne ainsi un éclairage nouveau à ces types réalistes.
8 La collection de figurines smyrniotes d’Istanbul nous offre encore une belle démonstration de l’excellence doublée d’inventivité de la production des coroplathes smyrniotes dans laquelle se côtoient si intimement le beau et le laid, avec un art consommé de la perfection dans les deux registres.
RÉSUMÉS
Un peu plus d’un siècle après la publication en français par Gustave Mendel de l’ensemble des figurines en terre cuite grecques des Musées archéologiques d’Istanbul, voici une nouvelle édition bilingue franco-turque d’une partie de la collection du musée stambouliote, consacrée exclusivement au corpus des belles terres cuites de Smyrne (actuelle ville d’Izmir en Turquie)
Les Carnets de l’ACoSt, 14 | 2016 59
INDEX
Mots-clés : Smyrne, Gaudin, Istanbul, femme, esclave
AUTEURS
ISABELLE HASSELIN ROUS Musée du Louvre, département des Antiquités grecques, étrusques et romaines Halma, UMR 8164 (CNRS, Lille 3, MCC) [email protected]
Les Carnets de l’ACoSt, 14 | 2016 60
Sounion Revisited: The Sanctuaries of Poseidon and Athena at Sounion in Attica
Zetta Theodoropoulou Polychroniadis
REFERENCES
Zetta Theodoropoulou Polychroniadis, Sounion Revisited: The Sanctuaries of Poseidon and Athena at Sounion in Attica. Pp. xii + 334, figs. 62, tab. 1. Archaeopress, Oxford 2015 [ISBN 9781784911546 or ISBN 9781784911553 (EPublication)].
Les Carnets de l’ACoSt, 14 | 2016 61
1 The aim of this volume is to present, for the first time, a comprehensive examination and interpretation of a wide selection of unpublished small finds from the sanctuaries of Poseidon and Athena at Sounion. These finds, of different categories and materials, were discovered in the bothroi (pit-deposits) and the landfills of the two sanctuaries. A diverse assemblage of 177 terracotta objects, consisting of male, female, and animal figurines, protomai, and painted and relief plaques, form the majority of the finds. These are systematically studied in order to reveal information about the early cults at both sanctuaries at Sounion. In Chapter 3, which deals with the stylistic analysis and interpretation of the finds, the illustrations, some in color, are integrated with the relevant text for easier reference. A detailed catalogue of 261 entries comprising 274 objects complements the discussion. In addition, an appendix of 183 select examples of small- scale pottery is presented chronologically, according to origin, shape, and iconography.
2 The limited archaeological data concerning the excavations of the sanctuaries by Valerios Stais during the years 1897–1915 are re-evaluated; these excavations still remain the only extensive exploration undertaken to date. The author then revisits the two sanctuaries, reviewing the structures within them in order to cast light on the early phases of their establishment, their development, and their significance for the socio-economic growth of south-east Attica. This is attempted by drawing upon the evidence of both archaeological data and literary sources. This research thus provides insight into the early cults, with emphasis on the identity of the deities worshipped at Sounion from the late Geometric to the dawn of the Classical period.
ABSTRACTS
This book is the first to be published from a wider research project, still in progress, about the sanctuaries of Poseidon and Athena on the promontory of Sounion.
INDEX
Keywords: figurines, protomai, painted and relief plaques, pottery, Archaic period
Les Carnets de l’ACoSt, 14 | 2016 62
AUTHOR
ZETTA THEODOROPOULOU POLYCHRONIADIS Chair of the Greek Archaeological Committee UK [email protected]
Les Carnets de l’ACoSt, 14 | 2016 63
Revue de Presse Book Reviews
Les Carnets de l’ACoSt, 14 | 2016 64
Physionomies d’une cité grecque. Développements stylistiques de la coroplathie votive archaïque de Tarente
Michael Anthony Fowler
REFERENCES
Ágnes Bencze, Physionomies d’une cité grecque. Développements stylistiques de la coroplathie votive archaïque de Tarente, Collection du Centre Jean Bérard 41, Naples, Collection du Centre Jean Bérard, 2013, 240 pages. 36 pls (ISBN 978291887140).
Les Carnets de l’ACoSt, 14 | 2016 65
1 In the introductory chapter (p. 11-25), Bencze discusses the various challenges of her project and how they shaped her chosen approach. The greatest portion of the material was excavated in the late nineteenth century in the context of the modern city’s transformation into a major naval base for the recently unified Italian nation. A constellation of factors – unsystematic excavation methods, illicit digs, ineffective administration, and a burgeoning art market – contributed to the fragmentation and de- contextualization of artifactual assemblages and their dispersal to public and private collections around the world. In addition to being geographically disparate and devoid of contextual documentation, most collections of Tarentine figures remain partially or completely unpublished. Even the terracotta figures from the more recent scientific excavations at Saturo in the ’60s and ’70s still await publication.1 These conditions placed very real practical constraints on research, leading scholars to concentrate on specific sets of objects from individual collections and with a primary interest in iconography rather than style. To overcome this situation, Bencze traveled to most of the major European collections of Tarentine terracottas in order to inspect the objects firsthand. As for reconstructing the archaeological contexts of the objects, the author relies on the topographic study completed two decades ago by Enzo Lippolis to associate most of the material with votive deposits in three different zones of the city (Pizzone, Fondo Giovinazzi, necropolis).2
2 Another challenge is interpretative and concerns the relationship between artistic style and identity. After briefly reviewing the problems inherent in various stylistic categories (ethnic, regional, local, personal), the author indicates her preference for Francis Croissant’s view, according to which style is the product of a deliberate process of communal self-definition involving a selective synthesis (‘bricolage’) of existing formal languages.
3 The first chapter concludes with a discussion of the terms and conventions that the author will utilize in the study. A notable idiosyncrasy is the author’s use of the term ‘type’ to refer to aspects that are usually denoted by ‘series.’ Types correspond to the individual prototypes from which all generations of molds and figures derive and are identified with distinct stylizations of the physiognomy of the head and face. Bencze’s chooses to focus on this part of the figures, since it is not only the best preserved but also the least prone to modifications. For the purposes of the study, a ‘series’ constitutes a group of facial types with a shared stylistic affinity. Thus, the book’s punning title.
4 Chapter 2 (p. 27-37) essentially takes the form of a critical reappraisal of Maurizio Borda’s study of seventh-century Tarentine art,3 with certain objects being excluded from the analysis for chronological reasons and others added (e.g. type Pr3 and variant
Les Carnets de l’ACoSt, 14 | 2016 66
Pr3b). The resulting catalogue of types is extremely limited (12 total, of which only a third are attested by more than two pieces) and stylistically heterogeneous. The pieces can be divided into two different groups: lower quality, small format figures produced in multiples and more ‘monumental’ and higher-quality works produced uniquely. Given the heterogeneity of the pieces and their inaccessibility for inspection, the author prudently leaves open the possibility that some were imports. Among these twelve different types no continuous stylistic tradition could be identified. The author goes on to argue that these pieces were contemporaneous productions, contrary to Borda, who had ordered them chronologically according to perceived formal evolutions in their ‘daedalic’ style. What is more, apart from a few cases (Pr4, Pr5, Pr12) in which a Laconian connection is possible, the most pronounced stylistic analogies are to be sought in Cretan works. This presents another challenge to Borda’s view, according to which the Laconian motherland exercised a direct and predominant artistic influence on the seventh-century creations. The latter observation leads the author to call attention to certain ancient historical accounts of Tarentum, which suggest that Cretans had already been present in the area before the arrival of the Spartans. The chapter demonstrates well the importance of according equal consideration to all possible avenues of stylistic influence.
5 The third chapter (p. 39-132) accounts for nearly half the monograph, as it concerns a formative, but hitherto unstudied, phase in the development of a quintessentially Tarentine composition. This phase, which is characterized by stylistic eclecticism, begins toward the end of the first quarter of the sixth century and reaches its height of stylistic diversity during the second and third quarter of the century. It is in this phase that Tarentine coroplastic ‘industry’ begins in earnest. While the previous ‘daedalic’ phase can also be described as eclectic, its constitutive types lacked the technical consistency, recognizable stylistic families, and mass production of those created in the second, sixth-century phase. Based on detailed comparative formal analyses, Bencze proposes the existence of six different, largely contemporaneous series, each of which adapts elements from different stylistic idioms: A (Achaean), B (Cypriot), C and D (Laconian), E (autochthonous), and F (Northern Ionian). Despite this diversity in style, the works are united by their method of production, including post-mold morphological additions, and their subjects, mostly of the S. Biago – Saturo class of ‘déesse au kalathos.’ Although not enough information is available to make a firm judgment on the origins of this iconographic class (Achaean?), in the context of Tarentine coroplastic production, it seems to appear first in type D1 (p. 97, 131-132), which could suggest that Laconian art also contributed to its formation. Therefore, unlike the previous phase, Laconian stylistic influence is early and pronounced. While it constitutes one among many artistic traditions with which Tarentine artisans experiment, it is notable that the first ‘original’ style of face (series E), which may have been incorporated into the first banqueter compositions (esp. no. 32: p. 118-120), finds its closest visual parallels in the Laconianizing series D.
6 While the author demonstrates well that these six stylistically distinct series nevertheless belong to a common artisanal tradition, her proposal that they all issued from a single workshop with a forty-year monopoly on production (p. 129, 132) is difficult to accept. The diversity of coexisting styles could have resulted from a single workshop testing out which styles fared best on the market; but the same phenomenon could also be explained by competition among rival workshops. And even if one were to attribute the creation of each of Bencze’s types to one workshop, this situation would
Les Carnets de l’ACoSt, 14 | 2016 67
not exclude the possibility that molds were shared or traded. It is also worth questioning whether a single workshop could have been responsible for producing the great quantity of figures thus far excavated, particularly since these pieces were only partially mold-made (cf. p. 40-41).4 An analysis of the clay used in select specimens could have shed some light on the matter, as distinctions in fabrics may suggest the existence of multiple workshops using different raw materials and preparation methods.
7 Having already detected the possible emergence of Tarentine banqueters in the autochthonous series E (third quarter of the sixth century BCE), Bencze proceeds in Chapter 4 (p. 133-185) to a discussion of the four earliest identifiable series of facial types associated with banqueting compositions: G (Laconianizing), H (Milesian), J (Tarentine synthesis of Attic, Ionian, and Laconian elements), and K (another Tarentine innovation with stylistic affinity to the Zeus of Ugento). As in the previous chapter, the author’s careful examination of the pieces leads to a number of important observations, some of which require revisions to existing scholarly opinion. To begin, banqueting compositions seem to have been created roughly two decades earlier than once thought (that is, ca. 530 BC). Because of this, they do not abruptly replace the “déesse au kalathos,” but were rather produced alongside this form through the close of the sixth century, albeit with a different technique involving greater use of mold-made components. Within the period, the author notes an interesting phenomenon: in the fourth quarter of the sixth century, the production of the popular type G4 and series J is coincident with a decline in S. Biago – Saturo types. As in the previous phase of production, a Laconianizing type (G1) seems to be earliest in date. This fact relates well with the author’s persuasive argument that the posture of the reclining banqueter derives from cognate scenes in Laconian vase painting and not East Greek sculpture, as had long been maintained (p. 148, 184).
8 In a brief final chapter (p. 187-192), Bencze brings the results of her stylistic analyses to bear on the longstanding scholarly discussion on the identity and religious significance of the Tarentine banqueting compositions. First, the diversity in facial types, iconographic elements, and added ornaments (as well as the combination of banqueters with different attributes into a single piece: Taranto 50436; pl. XXVII) encountered in the earliest series seem to indicate that no particular subject was being depicted (p. 189-190). Second, the author returns to the Laconian graphic origins of the banqueting composition and suggests these works may have inspired not just the formal elements of the Tarentine banqueters, but also their meaning. In view of the marked presence of these objects in the depots at the cult site of Fondo Giovinazzi as well as in the necropolis, and following Reinhard Förtsch’s interpretation of Laconian banqueting scenes,5 she hypothesizes that the Tarentine banqueters represented heroized deceased citizens (p. 190-191). While such a reading is plausible, the iconographic variations in the figures of the earliest series may suggest that the basic form of reclining banqueter was being used to represent more than one thing, including specific personages (e.g. local heroes). Of a more speculative nature is the author’s revival of the view that the banqueting figures functioned within the context of a Dionysian cult of Orpheus, which she believes finds further corroboration through a comparison to the Laconian hero reliefs (like that of Chrysapha). It would be useful to know the identity of the deity/ deities worshipped and the rituals practiced in the sanctuary at Fondo Giovinazzi, but these remain matters of debate.
Les Carnets de l’ACoSt, 14 | 2016 68
9 The text is, for the most part, well edited. The reviewer highlights only those errors that interfere with ease of use: On p. 43 n. 15 the image reference should pl. VII, b (not fig. 7a); in the discussion on p. 76-77 ex. 12 is referred to as 11; the catalogue number reported in ex. no. 21 (p. 101) does not match that in the photographic registry (p. 199); the images referenced for ex. 22 and 23 of type D4 (p. 105 with pl. XVII) should be flipped; the same problem applies to ex. 38 and 39 on p. 127, with pl. XXI; on pl. XXII, ex. no. 43 should be labeled type G2, not G3; in the discussion of Type G3 on p. 144, the comparison to the possibly seated female figure of type G4 is ex. no. 45, not 46; the comparison of type H4 to the face of the Louvre Dionysermos (p. 157) should be pl. XXVI, not XXI; on plate XXXI, the figures corresponding to ex. 66 and 68 are labeled with the incorrect type (they should both be J1/b). The figures are printed in black and white and are of varying, generally serviceable, quality.
10 In general, the author succeeds in producing a sensitive portrait of coroplastic production in Archaic Tarentum, underscoring in the process the historical relevance of style. In so doing, the author exposes the inadequacy of the assumption that ‘minor’ works of art produced for votive use were simply created in imitation of more monumental creations. Without denying the influence of ‘major’ works, Bencze’s exploration of Tarentine terracottas nevertheless tells of an enterprising cadre of artisans whose diverse stylistic experiments played an integral role in the development and articulation of a communal style. Such provides a bottom-up alternative to artistic influence: the coroplastic workshop as a testing ground for which tastes appeal to the public (p. 16-17). In fact, a focus on the coroplastic productions of a given community may help identify the origin of archaeologically unprovenanced works, e.g. the hydria of Grächwil (p. 25, 100-101, 132) and the Zeus of Ugento (p. 177-183), which the author proposes were Tarentine creations. For all these reasons, it is hoped that Bencze’s study encourages similar research projects to be carried out for other artistic centers. Table of Contents Avant-propos 7 Préface (Claude Pouzadoux) 9 I- « Quelque chose de spécifiquement tarentin » : Objectifs, moyes et limites de la recherche 1.1- La question initiale et la méthode choisie 11-15 1.2- État de la documentation 15-21 1.3- Méthodes de classification et terminologie 21-25 II- La phase protoarchaïque 2.1- Introduction 27-29 2.2- Les « figurines-plaques » reproduites par moulage 29-32 2.3- Les documents isolés 32-36 2.4- Des Crétois ou des Laconiens ? Conclusions préliminaires 36-37 III- La production de terres cuites votives avant l’apparition des banqueteurs 3.1- Introduction 3.1.1- Caractéristiques générales du groupe 40-44 3.1.2- Productions comparables en Grande-Grèce : le problème de l’atelier 44-54 3.2- Série A : les types « achéisants » 54-62 3.3- Série B : une liaison chypriote 62-78 3.4- Séries C et D : deux traditions laconiennes à Tarente 3.4.1- Série C 79-94 3.4.2- Série D 94-111
Les Carnets de l’ACoSt, 14 | 2016 69
3.4.3- Deux créations de synthèse entre les traditions « achéisante » et « laconisante » 111-113 3.5- Série E : une tradition autochthone ? 113-120 3.6- Groupe F : les types liés à des centres grecs de l’Est 120-128 3.7- Conclusions 128-132 IV- Les banqueteurs tarentins et leurs compagnes au VIe siècle 4.1- Introduction 133-139 4.1.1- Caractéristiques générales 134-137 4.1.2- Origines et histoire des banqueteurs tarentins archaïques : état de la question 137-139 4.2- Série G : banqueteurs laconisants 139-151 4.3- Série H : banqueteurs ionisants 151-164 4.4- Série J : la première synthèse tarentine 164-177 4.5- Série K : la famille du Zeus d’Ugento 177-183 4.6- Conclusions 183-185 V- Considérations sur la signification du « banquet tarentin » 187-192 Abréviations bibliographiques 193-196 Table des planches et crédit photographique 197-201 Planches I-XXXVI 203-238 Table des matières 239-240
NOTES
1. That said, archaeological investigation of the cult sites at Saturo has recently been reprised: see, e.g., E. Lippolis, C.M. Marchetti, V. Parisi, “Saturo (TA). Campagna di scavo 2007-2013,” Scienze dell’antichità 20 (2014), p. 73-104. 2. E. Lippolis, “La documentazione archeologica,” in Id., S. Garraffo, M. Nafissi (eds.), Culti greci in Occidenti, 1: Taranto, Taranto, 1995, p. 29-129. 3. Cf. M. Borda, Arte dedalica a Taranto, Pordenone, 1979. This volume served as an indispensible reference for the author, as she was unable to access many of the objects treated therein (esp. those housed at the Museo Civico de Trieste). 4. A. Muller, Les terres cuites votives du Thesmophorion: de l’atelier au sanctuaire. Études thasiennes 17, Athens, 1996, p. 41, estimated that with the use of a bivalve mold an individual could produce around 30 terracotta figures per diem. The archaic Tarentine pieces were composed not just of mold-made components (single-sided) but also of wheel-made and/or hand-made ones, which would have slowed production time and required the involvement of a skilled worker. In fact, Bencze acknowledges (p. 41) that the method of production used for the S. Biago – Saturo class of figures would have been “assez lent.” On the subject of the coroplastic workshop, see the recent synthesis of scholarship on Greek coroplastic workshops, A. Muller, “L’atelier du coroplate: un cas particulier dans la production céramique grecque,” Perspective 2014.1, p. 63-82, in which the author challenges the notions of the coroplast as an “artist-artisan modeler who dominated the entire chain of production of figurines” and of the workshop as “the single place of creation and fabrication of figurines” (p. 79, 80, trans. mine).
Les Carnets de l’ACoSt, 14 | 2016 70
5. R. Förtsch, Kunstverwendung und Kunstlegitimation im archaischen und frühklassischen Sparta, Mainz, 2001, p. 142-145.
ABSTRACTS
The present monograph is a revised and expanded version of Ágnes Bencze’s dissertation, defended at the University of Paris I in December 2005. The study, the result of over a decade of research, including autopsy of relevant materials held in several museum storerooms throughout Europe, offers the first systematic stylistic classification of all extant types of mold-made votive terracottas produced in archaic Tarentum. Through the adoption of a broad chronological frame and an exhaustive approach to the corpus of evidence, the author aims to trace the stylistic development of local coroplastic production from its origins in the latter half of the seventh century to the emergence of the distinctly Tarentine form of reclining banqueter in the final decades of the sixth-century. In so doing, the author treats the diverse stylistic influences to which local artisans seem to have been exposed, whether directly or indirectly, and the (art) historical implications of their reception.
INDEX
Keywords: Agnes Bencze, Tarantine terracottas, Tarantine banqueters, Saturno, Pizzone, Fondo Giovinazzi
AUTHORS
MICHAEL ANTHONY FOWLER [email protected]
Les Carnets de l’ACoSt, 14 | 2016