Technè La science au service de l’histoire de l’art et de la préservation des biens culturels

45 | 2017 Bronzes grecs et romains : études récentes sur la statuaire antique

The Bronze Athlete from Ephesos: Archaeological Background and Aspects of Conservation L’athlète en bronze d’Éphèse, contexte archéologique et éléments de restauration

Georg A. Plattner

Electronic version URL: http://journals.openedition.org/techne/1255

Publisher C2RMF

Printed version Date of publication: 1 May 2017 Number of pages: 34-45 ISBN: 978-2-7118-6408-9 ISSN: 1254-7867

Electronic reference Georg A. Plattner, « The Bronze Athlete from Ephesos: Archaeological Background and Aspects of Conservation », Technè [Online], 45 | 2017, Online since 19 December 2019, connection on 19 December 2019. URL : http://journals.openedition.org/techne/1255

La revue Technè. La science au service de l’histoire de l’art et de la préservation des biens culturels est mise à disposition selon les termes de la Licence Creative Commons Attribution - Pas d'Utilisation Commerciale - Pas de Modifcation 4.0 International. Bronzes grecs et romains : études récentes sur la statuaire antique TECHNÈ n° 45, 2017

34

Fig. 1. Ephesian Athlete, bronze, H. 192 cm, second half of 1st cent. A.D., Kunsthistorisches Museum Vienna, Collection of Greek and Roman Antiquities, inv. no. VI 3168. © Kunsthistorisches Museum Vienna.

Techne_n45_2.indd 34 23/11/2017 11:56 TECHNÈ n° 45, 2017 Bronzes grecs et romains : études récentes sur la statuaire antique

Georg A. Plattner The Bronze Athlete from Ephesos: Archaeological Background and Aspects of Conservation

L’athlète en bronze d’Éphèse, contexte archéologique et éléments de restauration

Abstract. The Athlete from Ephesos, a Roman imperial copy of Résumé. La découverte de l’athlète d’Éphèse remonte aux premières a Greek statuary type from the 4th century B.C., was found at années de fouilles autrichiennes à Éphèse, alors que les recherches 35 the very end of the 19th century, in the first years of the Austrian se concentraient sur les principaux monuments impériaux. excavation in Ephesos, when research was concentrated on the L’effondrement de la toiture, provoquée par un tremblement major imperial monuments. In the palaestra of the Harbor Baths, de terre, avait brisé la statue installée dans un édicule au sein the statue was set up in an aedicula and was destroyed when de la palestre des thermes du port. an earthquake caused the collapse of the hall roof. Un accord entre le sultan ottoman Abdul Hamid II et l’empereur Due to an agreement between the Ottoman Sultan Abdul Hamid II d’Autriche François-Joseph Ier permet de transporter les fragments and the Austrian Emperor Franz Joseph I, the fragments could be à Vienne dans le cadre d’un don aux collections impériales. taken to Vienna as a gift to the emperor’s collections. In Vienna, À Vienne, Wilhelm Sturm se voit confier la restauration de la Wilhelm Sturm was commissioned with the restoration and statue. Il prend modèle sur la statue d’athlète conservée au musée conservation of the statue in 1897. The recomposition of the athlete des Offices, à Florence, en s’appuyant sur un rapprochement took as a model the marble athlete kept at the Uffizi, in Florence, typologique. once the similarity of the statuary type of the Apoxyomenos had Chacun des fragments fait l’objet d’un traitement physique been recognized. et chimique, avant d’être fixé sur des cordes de laiton. Les groupes The individual fragments were treated physically and chemically de fragments ainsi constitués sont montés sur des barres de fer and were fixed on brass strings. Then groups of fragments were afin de construire un squelette. Du ciment coulé dans les interstices mounted onto iron bars in order to build the “back bone”. consolide l’ensemble et comble les lacunes en surface.

The entire statue was filled with cement in order to stabilize the Une réévaluation de l’état de la statue d’Éphèse, conduite par : techniques structure and to close the gaps in the surface. le laboratoire de conservation-restauration du Kunstorisches A reevaluation of the condition of the Ephesian statue in Museum de Vienne en collaboration avec le département de cooperation with the Conservation Science Department of the conservation-restauration des Antiquités du musée J. Paul Getty, Kunsthistorisches Museum and the Antiquities Conservation Malibu, Californie, souligne la stabilité étonnante de la Department of the J. Paul Getty Museum, Malibu, California has restauration effectuée voilà plus de cent ans. shown the surprisingly good condition of the more than 100 year- Mots-clés. Éphèse, Vienne, apoxyomène, statues en bronze, old reconstruction. restauration, fouilles. Keywords. Ephesos, Vienna, Apoxyomenos, bronze sculpture, conservation, excavation.

Austrian Excavations in Ephesos front of this marble hall in the south-west corner of the palaestra, 234 fragments of a life-size bronze sculpture were In the first years of the Austrian excavations in Ephesos, brought to light, a masterpiece of ancient art known since starting in 1895, the focus of the work was set on major public then as the Athlete or the “Schaber” from Ephesos (fig. 1)3. buildings as the Grand Theatre and the so called Harbour Due to an Irade, an edict of Sultan Abdul Hamid II, some Baths, a spacious bath-gymnasium-complex from the late 1st of the excavated finds could be chosen by the Austrian century A.D. (fig. 2-3)1. Already in the second year, in 1896, ambassador, Freiherr von Calice; these were sent to Vienna the Austrian mission unearthed the palaestra of these baths, as a gift of the Sultan to the Austrian Emperor Franz Joseph I4. discovering a splendid marble hall with several sculptures The Austrian Lloyd company brought the sculptures, archi- and minor elements of architectural decoration2. Right in tectural elements and small finds to Vienna in six transports riginaux, répliques et pastiches et répliques riginaux, O Dr. Georg A. Plattner, Kunsthistorisches Museum Wien, Collection of Greek and Roman Antiquities/Ephesos Museum, Vienna, Austria et datation des grands bronzesd'élaboration grecs et romains ([email protected]). I· I·

Techne_n45_2.indd 35 23/11/2017 11:56 Bronzes grecs et romains : études récentes sur la statuaire antique TECHNÈ n° 45, 2017

36

Fig. 2. Ephesos, Harbour Baths around 1900, seen from north-east, in the background the Great Theatre. © Austrian Archaeological Institute.

until 1906. From 1907 onwards, a new law concerning the legal framework of preservation of antiquities, promoted by Osman Hamdi Bey, founder of the Istanbul Archaeological Museum, prohibited to take any archaeological heritage abroad. Today, most of the finds from Ephesos brought to Vienna are on display in the Ephesos Museum, which opened in 1978 in the former imperial palace of the Habsburg house in Vienna5.

The bronze athlete and its early conservation

As early as 1897, the fragments of the bronze athlete came to Vienna (fig. 4)6. The sculptor Wilhelm Sturm Jr. was commissioned to reconstruct the heavily damaged statue which he did in the first half of the year 1897. Later on, in 1901, he was appointed as conservator of the Antiquities Collection. Some passages of his report are cited in Benndorf’s publication7, mentioning that several fragments had to undergo a serious treatment of heating and annealing, Fig. 3. Ephesos, overview plan, marked in red: find spot of the statue cleaning the surface with dilute hydrochloric acid and in the Harbour Baths. © Austrian Archaeological Institute. reshaping. The single fragments were arranged in groups

Techne_n45_2.indd 36 23/11/2017 11:56 Georg A. Plattner The Bronze Athlete from Ephesos: Archaeological Background and Aspects of Conservation

and fixed to brass strings with screws; an invoice from Sturm kept in the Museum’s archive mentions no less than 1 800 brass screws used in the conservation project! The single groups were mounted onto a “skeleton” consisting of three square iron bars (fig. 5). To close the gaps in the surface caused by missing fragments and to stabilize the entire construction, Sturm decided to fill the hollow statue with a special cement up to the level of the neck8. The visible surface of the cement was then modelled and painted, and the original bronze surface treated with wax and partly, presumably, given an artificial patina. Once restored, the statue went immediately on display in the first exhibition of “Fundstücke aus Ephesos” in the Theseus Temple in Vienna9. This temple is a reduced copy of the “Theseion” (Hephaistieion) in Athens, built by Pietro di 37 Nobile in Vienna, in the years 1819-1823, to house the famous sculpture Theseus fighting the Minotaur from Antonio Canova. After transferring this sculpture to the main staircase of the

Fig. 4. The Athlete from Ephesos, head and shoulders before Fig. 5. Restoration of the statue by Wilhelm Sturm, 1897-1898. restoration. © Austrian Archaeological Institute. © Kunsthistorisches Museum Vienna.

Techne_n45_2.indd 37 23/11/2017 11:56 Bronzes grecs et romains : études récentes sur la statuaire antique TECHNÈ n° 45, 2017

38

Fig. 6. Exhibition of finds from Ephesos in the “Theseus Tempel” in Vienna, 1901. © Kunsthistorisches Museum Vienna.

Kunsthistorisches Museum in the 1880ies, the temporary at the Uffizi in Florence11. Today, this athlete is on display in exhibition of the first finds from the new excavation abroad the Galleria degli Uffizi with modern arms added, holding a was on display in this temple and was received with high jug in his hands. A plaster cast of this sculpture was interest (fig. 6). commissioned and Wilhelm Sturm used it as a model for Very soon, it became clear that the humid environment reshaping the Ephesian Athlete12. in the temple, also caused by the spacious substructures, did Nevertheless, it was not possible to determine the precise severe harm to the bronze sculpture, which was removed only arm and leg position as well as the position of every single 10 years later. The composition of the cement probably fragment of the upper part of the body due to the size and accounted also for the problem as it contained a certain deformation of the fragments or even their loss. In the end, amount of hygroscopic chlorides. some 10 fragments only could not be given a precise location. The restoration technique and the approach to solve this The original composition of both the Ephesian and complex three-dimensional puzzle gained international Florentine statues was early understood as that of an athlete; attention, as never before a task like this could be solved in that became particularly clear because of the short hair, a similar way. An official invitation from Athens reached slicked to the forehead, appearing wet from sweating. The Vienna, and Sturm went to Greece in 1901 to provide an statuary type was understood as a work of the (late) classical expertise for the restoration of the Antikythera-sculptures10. period and was connected to the Apoxyomenai, the scrapers, However, as neither he wanted to stay for 6 months in Greece named in ancient literature as a work of Polycleitus and his nor the sculptures could be taken abroad, he finally rejected successors (see below). The concentrated gaze at the hands the offer to work on this restoration in Athens. seemed to favour this interpretation, so the Ephesian Athlete was reconstructed cleaning his left arm or, more precisely, the back of his left hand with a stlengis, a scraper13. The athlete type Ephesos-Florence Almost at the same time, around 1900, a smaller-than- life-size sculpture found in 1896 in Frascati came to the When reconstructing the Ephesian sculpture in 1897, one of Museum of Fine Arts in Boston14. The statue followed the the major tasks was to understand the statuary type and to same type as the athletes from Ephesos and Florence. The find the position of every single fragment found in the importance of this new find was that the hands were preserved. excavation. Again, it must have been Otto Benndorf who It became clear that the athlete was not scraping the back of provided the crucial knowledge, recognizing in the well- his hand but rather cleaning the stlengis itself by using the preserved, mostly undamaged head of the statue and its thumb of his left hand15. Benndorf mentions this statue already position on the quite well preserved shoulder/back-zone, a in his publication of the Ephesian Athlete in 190616. However, statuary type already known through a famous specimen kept it was too late to incorporate these details in the restoration

Techne_n45_2.indd 38 23/11/2017 11:56 Georg A. Plattner The Bronze Athlete from Ephesos: Archaeological Background and Aspects of Conservation

way, framed by columns and gables of a palaestra architecture, on several Campana reliefs, one of them from the first half of the 1st century A.D. in the Kunsthistorisches Museum in Vienna (fig. 8). Caused by one of the numerous earthquakes that struck Ephesos, the halls of the palaestra collapsed, probably already in the 3rd century A.D. The statue was thrown off its base and fell forwards as the feet were found closest, the head furthest away from the pedestal19. The bronze fragments were buried by the wooden roof construction and the brick tiles of the hall20. Eventually, the south-west corner was the only section of the palaestra which remained untouched after this earthquake, whereas the main area of the palaestra was probably first looted and later on, presumably in the 5th century A.D., became part of the late antique town, as shown 39 by the surprisingly well preserved wealthy living houses recently 21 Fig. 7. Right shoulder unearthed . of the Viennese athlete The south-west corner was not excavated, neither in antiq- before correction uity nor in the earlier 19th century. Even John Turtle Wood, in 1953. © Kunsthistorisches discoverer of the Artemision of Ephesos in 1869, working for Museum Vienna. the British Museum, refused to carry on excavations in this area, because the remnants of the roof and of the building structures obstructed the ongoing work22. Otto Benndorf and his crew finally unearthed this south- west corner and found a solid masoned pedestal with bases of the bronze statue from Ephesos. So the right arm remained and lower parts of pilasters, being part of a (mainly lost) mounted in a quite disturbing and – finally – wrong angle to aedicula, which once framed the statue (fig. 9). The socle and the body (fig. 7). fragments of the pilasters remained in situ, the base was taken Only half-a-century later, a major correction of the to Vienna. This base is profiled on three sides and bears an position of the right arm was undertaken. In 1948, the inscription on the front from which parts of 6 lines are readable conservators took off the cement with which the right arm (fig. 10)23. It mentions a Tiberius Claudius Frugianus as had been completed. In 1951, Karl Nieschlag was commissioned gymnasiarchos and a Tiberius Claudius [Aristion?] as grammateus, with the correction of the position, which required some who is well-known as donator and builder in the late 1st serious interventions: the iron bar in the right arm could not century/beginning of 2nd century A.D. We owe the knowledge be bent; it finally had to be cut off with a saw. With this of these names and the readability of the few fragments to correction, the fragments of the right shoulder and the upper four other bases of the same type also found in the palaestra, right arm as well matched considerably better than before. naming the same officials and dedications of further sculp- Furthermore, the position of the arms corresponded much tures, which have not survived24. better with the turning of the head17. Surprising and, in the end, misleading is the surface of During the course of the preparation of the installation the base: there are no holes nor even traces for or of fixing of the Ephesos Museum in the “Neue Burg” in Vienna in the a sculpture on top of it. It is flat but not entirely even. seventies, the athlete underwent another conservation Mentioning this fact, already Heberdey doubted that the base treatment: Alois Heidel had to dismantle smaller parts of the could have been used to bear a bronze sculpture, as the statue; after reassembling them, he modeled the surface of characteristic holes to fix the legs via lead poured into the some of the missing sections with synthetic resin. In that state, feet were missing25. the Athlete has remained on display in the Ephesos Museum In contrast, Frank Willer showed lately that, in the course since 1978. of time, different techniques were used to fix bronze sculptures onto a base26. In Roman Imperial age, one of the methods consisted in fixing the statue to a metal panel or base rather The setting of the statue within the Ephesian than to the stone base itself; so in the end, the sculpture was Gymnasium “free standing” due to the enlarged platform27. It is very uncommon to discover a bronze statue with its To judge from the find spot of the Ephesian Athlete, it seemed base, as in the case of the Ephesos athlete. Furthermore, that the statue was part of the sculptural program of the statue and base are most probably from the same era. Taking palaestra of the Harbour Baths18; statues of athletes – among into consideration the relatively short lifetime of this very which also a scraping athlete – are represented in a similar corner of the Harbour Baths, this hypothesis seems likely:

Techne_n45_2.indd 39 23/11/2017 11:56 Bronzes grecs et romains : études récentes sur la statuaire antique TECHNÈ n° 45, 2017

already in the 4th century A.D., the southern rooms adjacent the famous Slope Houses of Ephesos28. Considering this, we to the palaestra were partly modified and reused in the new envision a timespan of less than 200 years of “lifetime” for atrium thermarum Constantiniarum. It seems therefore that the base. Taking into consideration the technique and mak- already in that time, the south-west corner of the palaestra ing of the bronze statue of the Athlete pointing to the late was abandoned. So, the massive earthquakes which destroyed 1st/2nd century A.D., it is most likely that it is the very and this part of the building might have been those of the later the only statue ever positioned onto this base (fig. 11)29. 3rd century A.D., recorded strikingly by the destruction of

40

Fig. 8. Campana relief in Vienna showing statues in a palaestra, clay, H. 40 cm, early 1st century A.D., Kunsthistorisches Museum Vienna, Collection of Greek and Roman Antiquities, inv. no. V 1895. © Kunsthistorisches Museum Vienna.

Techne_n45_2.indd 40 23/11/2017 11:56 Georg A. Plattner The Bronze Athlete from Ephesos: Archaeological Background and Aspects of Conservation

41

Fig. 9. Ephesos, Harbour Baths: excavations 1896-1897 in the south- west-corner of the palaestra. © Austrian Archaeological Institut (marked, the base of the athlete in situ). The archetype of the athlete

After assuming or, perhaps, wishing to have unearthed a “Greek original” in the first moment, scholars soon agreed that the Ephesian Athlete was a Roman sculpture. However, until today, there is still a vivid discussion aiming at proving whether the statue is rather a copy of a Greek original or a Roman creation. The statuary type of the Ephesian Athlete is known today through various statues/torsos30 and heads housed in different museums31. In small scale, two bronze statuettes follow this type32, but the statuette at the Louvre differs slightly as the head raises up and the athlete does not look down to his hands. Depictions of the statuary type are furthermore preserved on Campana Reliefs33 as well as on gems34, even on a statuary base from the Acropolis of Athens35. Apart from early theories suggesting to identify the Ephesian Athlete as one of the two Greek original scrapers created by Daidalos from Sikyon that Pliny mentioned36, it Fig. 10. Base found in the palaestra in Ephesos, marble, H. 30 cm, late 1st century A.D., Kunsthistorisches Museum Vienna, became soon quite clear that the statue had to be dated in Collection of Greek and Roman Antiquities, inv. no. III 1087. the Roman era. Already Benndorf named it an “excellent © Kunsthistorisches Museum Vienna. copy from early Roman times”37. The various authors differ widely in dating the original work, the range goes from the 4th century B.C. to the end of the 1st century A.D. Karin Moser von Filseck claims the Ephesian Athlete to be the link between Polykleitos and Lysippos38, while Dorothea

Techne_n45_2.indd 41 23/11/2017 11:56 Bronzes grecs et romains : études récentes sur la statuaire antique TECHNÈ n° 45, 2017

42

Fig. 11. Reconstruction of original position of the Athlete. © After Benndorf 1906, p. 185 fig. 131.

Techne_n45_2.indd 42 23/11/2017 11:56 Georg A. Plattner The Bronze Athlete from Ephesos: Archaeological Background and Aspects of Conservation

Arnold thinks of the second generation after Polykleitos (iron, hygroscopic cement) might have caused. A further (370-365 B.C.), naming – again – Daidalos from Sikyon as a series of x-ray images done by the TÜV Austria (Technischer possible artist39. Werner Fuchs explains the type as part of Überwachungsverein) and chemical analyses of the cement46 the Argive-Sikyonian tradition influenced by Lysippos (340/30 show the surprisingly high quality and stability of Sturm’s B.C.). A. F. Stewart and Steven Lattimore think of a possible reconstruction, more than hundred years after its assembling. date of origin in the 3rd century B.C., among the followers So, the focus of investigation was brought back to the of Lysippos40. Finally Erwin Pochmarski even proposes an ancient techniques of bronze casting and mounting the single Imperial original in Rome (in an eclectizing manner?) from elements as well as to art historical discussion. The possibility which a direct copy was taken41. to see both Apoxyomenoi from Ephesos and Croatia side by side provided a new impact in understanding the style and iconography of these most famous sculptures. The focus of The athlete from Lošinj an ongoing research project in cooperation with the Getty Museum will be a review of the dating of the Greek original The discovery of the “twin” of the Ephesian Athlete, the as well as of the Roman copies; furthermore it involves a Apoxyomenos from Mali Lošinj42, in 1996, turned the atten- comprehensive discussion of the “mechanisms of original 43 tion again also to the Ephesian Athlete43. For the first time, and copy” in ancient Greek and Roman sculpture. it is possible to compare two bronze statues of the same type found in completely different circumstances and even differ- ent regions of the Mediterranean. It also proves, finally, the correct reconstruction of the Ephesian Athlete. The technical aspects of both statues seem to be quite similar, which leads to the assumption that both statues are Roman Imperial, probably from the same decades. The mounting of the head is, for example, consistent in both sculptures with the char- acteristic V-shaped lower edge of the neck. The overall impression, though, differs: the Ephesian athlete seems to be slightly more muscular. Of course, fixing 234 fragments together causes as many joints, perhaps “inflating” the chest to a certain degree. However, this is not enough to explain the differences. It became possible to compare the sculptures standing next to each other during the exhibition Power and Pathos, organized by the Getty Museum in 2015, discussing and understanding issues of technique and style44.

Investigations and prospects

Last but not least, the necessity to transport the statue – and the risks involved – motivated a new and intensive investigation of the Ephesian Athlete. In the last years, the staff of the Collection of Greek and Roman Antiquities at the Kunsthistorisches Museum was concerned about the condition of the 100 year-old restoration and initiated a series of studies and thorough documentation of the surface of the bronze45. On the occasion of the exhibition “Die Griechische Klassik” in the Martin-Gropius-Bau, the Ephesian Athlete was taken to Berlin in 2002. Before its installation in the exhibition, the sculpture was brought to the Bundesanstalt für Materialforschung und –prüfung (BAM) where a series of x-ray photographs were taken (fig. 12). The images clearly show the iron bars from the first conservation work as well as the brass strings and the screws to fix the single fragments of ancient bronze to the “skeleton”. Fig. 12. X-ray-research at the Bundesanstalt für Since 2012, several investigations, of a more limited scale, Materialforschung und –prüfung (BAM) Berlin in 2002. tried to evaluate the damage that old restoration materials © Kunsthistorisches Museum Vienna.

Techne_n45_2.indd 43 23/11/2017 11:56 Bronzes grecs et romains : études récentes sur la statuaire antique TECHNÈ n° 45, 2017

Notes 16. Benndorf, 1906, p. 195-197. (Amelung, 1903, p. 114, No. 99) 17. Eichler, 1953. 5. New York (head of statue; Richter 1. Benndorf, 1906, p. 181-184; Wohlers- 18. Benndorf, 1906, p. 185, fig. 131. 1954, p. 110) Scharf, 1995, p. 79-83. 19. Heberdey, 1919, p. 250: “Der rechte 6. Bruxelles, Musée Royaux d’Art et 2. Benndorf, 1898, p. 64-69. Fuß lag etwa zwei bis drei Schritte Nordost d’Histoire (Cumon,t 1913, p. 10 fig. 5 = 3. Benndorf, 1898, p. 66-67; Benndorf, vom Ädikulasockel entfernt, an ihn Hartwig 1901, p. 158 fig. 185) 1906. schlossen sich in gleicher Richtung und The Head Dresden No. 132 is no longer 4. Wohlers-Scharf, 1995, p. 87-88 and ungestörter Folge die übrigen Bruchstücke thought to follow the same type as Dörig 98-99; Oberleitner, 1978, p. 36; among bis zu dem durch glückliche Verkeilung 1965, p. 40 proposed; see now Vorster 2011. precious gifts sent in return, the Sultan einiger großer Gebälkstücke und eine bei 32. Small scale Bronze statuettes: received Lippizaner horses. dem Fall entstandene Mulde im Fußboden 1. Trier (Furtwängler, 1989, p. 9-11, 5. Oberleitner, 1978, p. 7-10. vor stärkerem Schaden bewahrten Kopfe.” fig. 5; Benndorf, 1906, p. 201, fig. 154) 6. The annual report of the Collection 20. Benndorf, 1898, p. 65-66; Benndorf, 2. Louvre (Br 4240, Charbonneaux of Greek and Roman Antiquities, former k.k. 1906, p. 184. 1941, p. 42 fig. 1; Arnold 1969, p. 166-167 pl. Münz- und Antikenkabinett, from 1897 21. Pülz, 2010, p. 552-554. 21b) contains a short report: “Die bedeutendste 22. Wood, 1877, p. 34-35. 33. Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum, Schenkung an die Antikensammlung sind 23. Kunsthistorisches Museum, Inv. No. inv. no. V 1895, cf. Hartwig 1903; for the die von S.M. dem Sultan gewidmeten III 1087; Engelmann – Knibbe – type see Perry 1997, p. 42-45 with further Ausgrabungen von Ephesus, welche die Merckelbach, 1980, p. 89 No. 1128. examples; a Campana relief from the same 44 österreichische Expedition dort ergraben 24. Engelmann – Knibbe – Merckelbach type is also on display in the Louvre, inv. no. und nach Wien gebracht hat, darunter Teile 1980, p. 89-90 No. 1129. 1129a-c; Benndorf, CA 1500. einer überlebensgroßen bronzenen 1898, p. 65-66. 34. Furtwängler, 1893, p. 470-471 Athletenstatue, ein bronzenes Thymiaterion, 25. Heberdey, 1919. fig. 78; Benndorf, 1906, p. 198-199, fig. 148- Bruchstücke einer Bronzgruppe des 26. Willer, 1996. 149. Hercules mit den Kentauren, Säulenschäfte 27. Willer, 1996, p. 362-370. 35. Walter, 1923, p. 195-198, No. 401- aus kostbarem Marmor, einige Skulpturen 28. Ladstätter, 2002, p. 23-26. 401a. und eine große Menge von Fragmenten. 29. George Niemann, architect and 36. Hauser, 1902. Dieser Schenkung solle hier aus dem Grund draftsman of the Austrian mission, 37. Benndorf, 1906, p. 204. gedacht werden, weil sie zu Beginn des reconstructed the aedicula from the few 38. Moser von Filseck, 1988, p. 111-120. Jahres 1897 nach Wien gelangt und die remaining parts. 39. Arnold, 1969, p. 155-156. 269, No. 1; allerhöchste Annahme in diesem Jahr 30. Statues of the type Florence/ also Linfert 1990 includes the Ephesian erfolgt ist. Die Zusammensetzung der Ephesos/Mali Lošinj: Athlete in the group of Polykleitos’ school. Bruchstücke ist aber unterbrochen worden 1. Ephesos (Vienna, Kunsthistorisches 40. Lattimore, 1972; Stewart, 1978. teils durch Abwarten, ob die im Herbst 1897 Museum/Ephesos Museum, Inv. No. VI 41. Pochmarski, 1988; Pochmarski, fortgesetzten Ausgrabungen noch fehlende 3168) 1999; as a proof he mentions the unevenness Fragmente bringen möchten, teils durch das 2. Florence (Florence, Galleria degli of the surface of the Ephesian Athlete going verzögerte Eintreffen eines Gipsabgusses der Uffizi Inv. No. 1914/100; existing already back to tasselli, repair patches of the statue Florentiner Athletenstatue, die als Modell under Cosimo I, in the Gallery since 1740; copied in Rome; however, due to the für die Zusammensetzung der Bruchstücke Mansuelli 1958, p. 59-60 Cat. No. 36) condition of the fragments when they were unseres bronzenen Athleten dienen soll. Die 3. Mali Lošinj (Mali Lošinj, Muzej found and to the massive physical treatment Marmorskulpturen scheinen der römischen Apoksiomena; Michelucci 2006) they underwent when being restored, this Kaiserzeit anzugehören, während die 4. Frascati (Boston, Museum of Fine observation does not convince. Epoche der Entstehung der Bronzestatue Arts, Inv. No. 00.304; small scale; Comstock, 42. Sanader, 1999; Michelucci, 2006. noch einen Gegenstand der Erörterung in Vermeule 1976, p. 100-101 No. 155) 43. As in the strict sense of the word, den Fachkreisen bildet.” (Zl. AS 9 from Jan. 5. Tivoli (Musei Vaticani Nr. 105, the athletes are not scraping themselves but 28th 1898). Braccio Nuovo, torso; Neudecker 1988, rather are cleaning their scrapers, they are 7. Benndorf, 1906, p. 186-188. p. 236 No. 68,3 pl. 15,3) no more Apoxyomenoi but strigilis-cleaners, 8. It appears to be a type of “Sorel- 6. Rome (Musei Vaticani, Mus. cf. Weber, 1999. Cement”, a mortar based on magnesium Chiaramonti Braccio Nuovo 99, Torso with 44. The Exhibition “Power and Pathos” chloride, which was widely used as head type Torino/Braccio Nuovo; Arnold curated by Jens Daehner and Kenneth restoration material in the beginning of the 1969, p. 270 No. K7; Neudecker 1988, p. 236 Lapatin from the J. Paul Getty Museum 20th century. No. 68,4 pl. 15,2) had venues in Florence, Los Angeles and 9. Schneider, 1901, p. 1-3. 7. Castel Gandolfo (Villa Barberini/ Washington, see Exhib. Florence- 10. Svoronos, Barth, 1908, p. 15. Castel Gandolfo No. 36405, Basalt; Liverani Los Angeles-Washington, 2015. Moraitou G., 2017, p. 240. 1989, p. 59, No. 22) 45. Kurt Gschwantler, Viktor 11. Mansuelli, 1958, p. 59-60, Cat. No. 8. Louvre (Musee du Louvre, Statue Freyberger and Frank Willer made 36. Borghese; Benndorf 1906, p. 200-201 investigations, see Gschwantler 1995; 12. The cast is still kept in the fig. 153 ; Arnold 1969, p. 270, No. K8) over the last two years, Angelika Kathrein, collection of the Institute of Classical 31. Heads of the type Florence/ Michael Loacker and Bettina Vak have been Archaeology, Vienna University; Pavese, Ephesos/Mali Lošinj: involved in the project together with the 1999, compares accurately different 1. Kimbell Art Museum, Fort Worth author. dimensions and proportions of the Viennese (since 2000, before Senator Bernardo Nani 46. The samples were taken and and Florentine statue, the result – extensive [1712-1761], Venice. Lucien Guiraud [Hotel analysed by Jerry Podany and John Twilley, analogy – comes not as a surprise knowing Drouot, Paris], sale June 14 and 15, 1956, no. The Getty, and Martina Griesser and Václav that Sturm used this copy. 106 (as 16th century); Hans Calmann [1899- Pitthard, Conservation Science Department 13. For the first years of exhibition in 1982], London and Somerset; auction, of the Kunsthistorisches Museum Vienna. the Theseus temple, a Roman strigilis kept in Sotheby’s, New York, June 14, 2000, No. 60; the Kunsthistorisches Museum was mounted Daehner-Lapatin, 2015, p. 276-277) into the right hand of the Athlete to clarify 2. Eremitage Petersburg (Benndorf, the movement for the visitors, cf. fig. 6. 1906, p. 199, fig. 150-151; Arnold, 1969, 14. Hartwig, 1901; Benndorf, 1906, p. 269-207 No. K2) p. 195-197; Comstock, Vermeule, 1976, 3. Museo Torlonia Rom (Götze, 1938, p. 100-101, Cat. No. 155. p. 226; Arnold, 1969, p. 270 No. K4; 15. The Viennese reconstruction was Gasparri, 1980, p. 166 No. 86) already questioned by Hauser, 1902. 4. Head of statue in Musei Vaticani

Techne_n45_2.indd 44 23/11/2017 11:56 Georg A. Plattner The Bronze Athlete from Ephesos: Archaeological Background and Aspects of Conservation

Bibliography Jahrbuch der Kunsthistorischen (eds.), Griechische und römische Statuetten Sammlungen in Wien 91, p. 287-294. und Grossbronzen. Akten der 9. Amelung W., 1903, Die Sculpturen des Hartwig P., 1901, “Statuette eines Athleten Internationalen Tagung über Antike vaticanischen Museums I, Kommission im Museum in Boston”, Jahreshefte des Bronzen, Wien 21.-25. April 1986, bei Georg Reimer, Berlin. Österreichischen Archäologischen Instituts Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna, Arnold D., 1969, Die Polykletnachfolge: 4, p. 151-159. p. 74-81. Untersuchungen zur Kunst von Argos und Hartwig P., 1903, “Ein Terracottafries des Pochmarski E., 1999, “Neues zum Schaber Sikyon zwischen Polyklet und Octavius mit Athletenstatuen”, von Ephesos”, in Friesinger H. Lysipp. Jahrbuch des Deutschen Jahreshefte des Österreichischen and Krinzinger F. (eds.), 100 Jahre Archäologischen Instituts, Ergänzungsheft Archäologischen Instituts 6, p. 16-31. Österreichische Forschungen in Ephesos, 25, de Gruyter, Berlin. Hauser F., 1902, “Eine Vermutung über die ÖAW, Vienna, p. 585-592. Benndorf O., 1898, “Vorläufiger Bericht Bronzestatue aus Ephesos”, Jahreshefte Pülz A., 2010, “Zum Stadtbild von Ephesos über die Ausgrabung in Ephesus I”, des Österreichischen Archäologischen in byzantinischer Zeit”, in F. Daim Jahreshefte des Österreichischen Instituts 5, p. 214-216. and J. Drauschke (eds.), Byzanz-das Archäologischen Instituts 1 Beibl., Heberdey R., 1919, “Zur ephesischen Römerreich im Mittelalter: Pracht und p. 53-72. Athletenbronze”, Jahreshefte des Alltag eines Weltreiches, Monographien Benndorf O., 1906, “Erzstatue eines Österreichischen Archäologischen Instituts des RGZM 84/2/2, RGZM, Mainz griechischen Athleten”, in Forschungen 19/20, p. 247-252. am Rhein, p. 541-571. in Ephesos, edited by O. Benndorf et al., Ladstätter S., 2002, “Die Chronologie des Richter G. M. A., 1954, Catalogue of Greek p. 181-204. Forschungen in Ephesos I, Hanghauses 2”, in F. Krinzinger (ed.), Sculptures in the Metropolitan Museum of 45 Hölder, Vienna. Das Hanghaus 2 von Ephesos. Studien zu Art, New York, Havard University Press, Charbonneaux, J. 1941, “Statuette d’athlète Baugeschichte und Chronologie, ÖAW, Cambridge/Massachusetts. au musée du Louvre”, Monuments et Vienna, p. 9-40. Sanader M., 1999, “Der Meergeborene. Die mémoires. Fondation E. Piot 38, p. 40-54. Lattimore S., 1972, “The Bronze Entdeckung einer Bronzestatue in Comstock M. B., Vermeule C. C, 1976, Apoxyomenos from Ephesos”, American Kroatien”, Antike Welt 30/4, p. 357-359. Sculpture in Stone: the Greek, Roman, and Journal of Archaeology 76, p. 13-16. Schneider R. V., 1901, Ausstellung von Etruscan collections of the Museum of Fine Linfert A., 1990, “Die Schule des Polyklet”, Fundstücken aus Ephesos im Griechischen Arts, Boston, Museum of Fine Arts, in H. Beck, P. C. Bol and M. Bückling Tempel im Volksgarten, Holzhausen, Boston. (eds.), Polyklet. Der Bildhauer der Vienna. Cumont F., 1913, Musées Royaux du griechischen Klassik, Frankfurt am Main Stewart A. F., 1978, “Lysippan Studies 3. Not Cinquantenaire. Catalogue des sculptures 17.10.1990-20.1.1991, von Zabern, Mainz by Daidalos?”, American Journal & inscriptions antiques (monuments am Rhein, p. 278-281. of Archaeology 82, p. 473-482. lapidaires) des Musées Royaux du Liverani P., 1989, L’Antiquarium di Villa Svoronos J. N., Barth W., 1908, Das Athener Cinquantenaire, Vromant, Bruxelles. Barberini a Castel Gandolfo. Città del Nationalmuseum, Beck & Barth, Athens. Dörig J., 1965, “Ein Jugendwerk Lysipps”, Vaticano. Vorster Ch., 2011, “Kopf des Herakles, Typus Antike Plastik 4, p. 37-42. Mansuelli G. A., 1958, Galleria degli Uffizi. Le Landsdowne-Genzano”, in: K. Knoll, Eichler F., 1953, “Die Bronzestatue aus sculture 1, Ist. Poligrafico dello Stato, Ch. Vorster, and M. Woelk (eds.), Ephesos in verbesserter Libr. dello Stato, Rome. Skulpturensammlung Staatliche Wiederherstellung”, Jahrbuch der Michelucci M., 2006, Apoxyomenos. The Athlete Kunstsammlungen Dresden. Katalog Kunsthistorischen Sammlungen in Wien 50, of Croatia, Giunti, Florence and Milano. der antiken Bildwerke II. Idealskulptur p. 15-22. Moraitou G., 2017, “The ‘Odyssey’ of the der römischen Kaiserzeit 2, Hirmer, Engelmann H., Knibbe D., Merckelbach R., Conservation and Physicochemical München, p. 652-655. 1980, Inschriften von Ephesos IV. Research of Antiquities at the National Walter O., 1923, Beschreibung der Reliefs Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Archaeological Museum”, in im Kleinen Akropolismuseum in Athen, Kleinasien 14, Habelt, Bonn. Lagogianni-Georgakarakos M. (ed.), Hölzel, Vienna. Exhib. Florence-Los Angeles-Washington, Odysseys, exhib. cat. Athens, National Weber M., 1996, “Zum griechischen 2015: Power and Pathos. Bronze Sculpture Archaeological Museum, The Athletenbild. Zum Typus und zur of the Hellenistic World [Exhibition, Archaeological Receipts Fund, Athens, Gattung des Originals der Florence, Palazzo Strozzi, 14 March-21 p. 237-260. Apoxyomenosstatue im Vatikan”, June 2015 ; Los Angeles, J. Paul Getty Moser von Filseck K., 1988, Der Apoxyomenos Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Museum, 28 July-1 November 2015 ; des Lysipp und das Phänomen von Zeit und Instituts, Römische Abteilung 103, p. 31-49. Washington D.C., National Gallery of Raum in der Plastik des 5. und 4. Jhs. v. Weber M., 1999, “Zur Gattung des Art, 6 December 2015-20 March 2016, Chr., Habelt, Bonn. Strigilisreinigers”, in H. Friesinger Daehner J. M., Lapatin K. (eds.)], Neudecker R., 1988, Die Skulpturen- and F. Krinzinger (eds.), 100 Jahre Giunti Editore, Fondazione Palazzo Ausstattung römischer Villen in Italien, von Österreichische Forschungen in Ephesos, Strozzi, J. Paul Getty Trust. Zabern, Mainz am Rhein. ÖAW, Vienna, p. 593-596. Furtwängler A., 1893, Meisterwerke der Oberleitner W., Gschwantler K., Bernhard- Willer F., 1996, “Beobachtungen zur griechischen Plastik, Giesecke & Devrient, Walcher A., Bammer A., 1978, Funde aus Sockelung von bronzenen Statuen Leipzig and Berlin. Ephesos und Samothrake. Kunsthistorisches und Statuetten”, Bonner Jahrbücher 196, Furtwängler A., 1898, “Römische Bronzen Museum, Katalog der Antikensammlung 2, p. 337-370. aus Deutschland”, Bonner Jahrbücher Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna. Wohlers-Scharf T., 1995, Die 103, p. 1-11. Pavese C. O., 1999, “L’Atleta di Ephesos”, in Forschungsgeschichte von Ephesos: Gasparri C., 1980, “Materiali per servire allo Friesinger H. and Krinzinger F. (eds.), Entdeckungen, Grabungen und studio del Museo Torlonia di scultura 100 Jahre Österreichische Forschungen in Persönlichkeiten, Lang, Frankfurt antica”, Atti dell’Accademia nazionale dei Ephesos, ÖAW, Vienna, p. 579-584. am Main and Vienna. Lincei, Classe di scienz e morali, storiche e Perry R., 1997, Die Campanareliefs. Katalog der Wood J. T., 1877, Discoveries at Ephesus, filologiche. Memorie °8, 24, p. 33-238. Sammlung Antiker Kleinkunst des Longmans, Green, London. Götze H., 1938, “Die attischen Archäologischen Instituts der Universität Dreifigurenreliefs”, Mitteilungen des Heidelberg 4, von Zabern, Mainz am Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Rhein. Römische Abteilung 53, p. 189-280. Pochmarski E., 1988, “Zur Gschwantler K., 1995, “Der Athlet von kunstgeschichtlichen Stellung des Ephesos. Ein Projekt zur Restaurierung Schabers von Ephesos”, in K. und Konservierung der Bronzestatue”, Gschwantler and A. Bernhard-Walcher

Techne_n45_2.indd 45 23/11/2017 11:56