The Chimaera of Arezzo: Made in Etruria?

AJA Online Publications: note

P. Gregory Warden*

The J. Paul Getty Museum’s recent exhibi- findings from recent analyses of two other tion, The Chimaera of Arezzo, was reviewed in ‘Etruscan’ monuments.”2 The word Etruscan this journal by Beth Cohen,1 who provided an is here placed in quotation marks, and with it excellent account of what was a beautifully we enter the difficult and much-treaded terri- realized and extremely informative exhibition tory of what is considered Etruscan and what that contextualized the Chimaera iconographi- is considered Greek. Cohen goes on to discuss cally in a broader Mediterranean milieu and two monuments that have traditionally been historiographically in the context of early thought to be Etruscan: the Capitoline wolf modern Italy. Seen in the new context at the and the Amazon sarcophagus. The argument Getty Museum and now prominently placed is that if these two monuments are not Etrus- as a pièce de résistance in its own light, the can, then we must also question the Etruscan Chimaera’s display raises important questions attribution of the Chimaera because these three about the way we privilege a “masterpiece” yet works of art (one of which, the sarcophagus, is are still unable to be certain about the artistic entirely different in medium and function) are and cultural milieu that produced it. One very all master works. Apart from the logic of the real context, as I proposed at the symposium argument, there is also the issue that the wolf that accompanied this exhibition, is that the and the Amazon sarcophagus have in fact not statue was a religious dedication at Arezzo that been disproven to be Etruscan. It is a little too was ritually treated as a physical sacrifice. In early to put that word in quotation marks. this sense, the Chimaera has a very tangible Admittedly, there are serious questions about Etruscan cultural identity. Its artistic identity, the Capitoline wolf, or Lupa. As Cohen points however, seems more problematic. Cohen’s out, “Carruba (controversially) suggested that review of the exhibition itself is exemplary, it is a medieval work of ca. 700 C.E. cast in one and she raises challenging questions about two piece like a church bell rather than in parts, ac- famous works not on display, the Capitoline cording to ancient practice.”3 Carruba certainly wolf and the Amazon sarcophagus, as well as raised important and controversial questions, difficult issues that go beyond the scope of the even if the stylistic comparisons that have been exhibition yet are of clear scholarly importance. presented seem less than compelling. But the These issues are well worth further examina- problem is that Carruba did not present the merica tion and discussion. full scientific evidence. We were told, mostly Cohen’s premise is as follows: “The thrilling in press releases, that compelling scientific data opportunity to see the bronze Chimaera statue exist proving the Lupa to be post Antique. That Online Note afresh in Malibu invites a brief reconsideration the wolf cannot be Etruscan because it is cast of the location of its fabric in light of notable in a single piece is telling but not conclusive. nstitute of A I nstitute rchaeological

* I am grateful to several colleagues for their help- and information about the Fiesole’s so-called Lupa. ful suggestions. The responsibility for these opinions 1 Cohen 2010. is entirely my own. I also wish to express my gratitude 2 Cohen 2010, 4. to Marco De Marco, Conservatore, the Fiesole Civic 3 Carruba 2006; Cohen 2010, 4. opyright © 2011 A opyright ssue 115.1 (January 2011) 1–5 I Journal of ArchaeologyAmerican C Archaeological Museum, for providing photographs It is an argument ex silentio, given that there is Questi innegabili riferimenti al mondo magno- nothing else of similar date and scale to which greco e siceliota marcati sopratutto dalla pre- we might compare the wolf. As for other con- dilezione per il fondo rosa e, al contempo, la probabile origine locale del materiale impiegato, siderations: for those of us who work in the field l’alabastro, insieme allo stile dei rilievi della of ancient metallurgy, publishing or posting in copertura, lasciano verosimilmente pensare the popular mass media conclusions without ad una realizzazione del sarcofago in Etruria relevant supporting data is methodologically sebbene da un artista imbevuto di cultura magnogreca.9 problematic. Not only do the data need to be published, they must be submitted to rigorous peer review before anything is proven. Cohen, Brecoulaki published her data and, with however, decides that “[p]ending publication regard to the tempera paintings, concluded, of further scientific evidence, this reviewer is “I risulati delle analisi sui material pittorici inclined to agree.”4 This statement is akin to a hanno rilevato l’impiego di alcuni pigmenti 10 physicist saying that pending scientific data, poco communi, addirittura rari.” Some of cold fusion is achievable. This kind of reason- these pigments are so rare that they are not ing allows us to remove the Lupa “from the found in either Etruria or Greece, while others canon,” erasing “the supposedly earlier Etrus- are found in South Italian or mainland Greek can tradition of large bronze (animal) sculpture painting. None of this proves origin, however, before the classical Chimaera.”5 Again, serious and the Amazon sarcophagus has undergone issues have been raised about the Lupa. It may a recent, exhaustive restoration before being well turn out to be medieval, and, in fact, the put back on display in the Florence Archaeo- preponderance of opinion now leans toward logical Museum. The results of the restora- a medieval manufacture. But the onus is on tion, with yet more scientific data, have been Carruba and others to provide compelling evi- published in a catalogue edited by Bottini and dence that can be evaluated by peers before the Satari and not cited in Cohen’s review. This beast is irrevocably removed from the corpus time, the alabaster itself was analyzed, but the of ancient bronze sculpture.6 data were not conclusive: “La determinazione Cohen goes on to discuss the Amazon della provenienza di questa pietra . . . risulta 11 sarcophagus in the Florence Archaeological difficile.” Bottini himself, an expert on South Museum: “Second, in a 2001 study of the Italian material culture, confronts the thorny fourth-century B.C.E. Amazonomachy sar- problem of provenance and concludes that the cophagus of the Etruscan woman Ramtha sculptural decoration should be attributed “per Huzcnai, from Tarquinia, Brecoulaki dem- motivi iconografici e stilistici, a un artigiano 12 onstrated definitively, through comparative locale,” thus to a local (Tarquinian) artist. technical analysis, that this ‘Etruscan’ alabaster Bottini points out that painting technique is sarcophagus’ Greek-looking tempera paint- not of help in determining a point of origin for ings ought indeed be attributed to a Greek the sarcophagus: “D’altra parte, la tecnica pit- workshop of Magna Graecia, perhaps at torica, qual è stata ricostruita nel corso di queste Taranto.”7 That the Amazon sarcophagus has indagini, non induce a collocare il sarcofago been conclusively proven to be South Italian in una posizione isolata rispetto ad altri cicli 13 was a surprise to me, as I recently published pittorici.” He concludes that the most likely an article that argues that the Actaeon scenes of possibility is that the painting was produced that sarcophagus’ pediments are central to an by a Tarquinian workshop: understanding of the Etruscan belief system.8 merica Per conciliare un’almeno parziale lavorazione As it turns out, Brecoulaki actually concluded sculturea locale e la forte caratterizzazione “gre- that the sarcophagus was probably produced ca” della sua decorazione pittorica, l’ipotesi più P. G. Warden, The Chimaera of Arezzo: Made in Etruria? of Arezzo: Chimaera The Warden, G. P.

(realizzato) in Etruria: economica, e certamente non priva di possibilità

4 9

nstitute of A I nstitute rchaeological Cohen 2010, 4. Brecoulaki 2001, 24. 5 Cohen 2010, 4. 10 Brecoulaki 2001, 22. 6 A new volume, Bartoloni (2010), was presented 11 The analyses are provided by Giachi and Palecchi on 19 October 2010 in Rome. I have not had the op- in Bottini and Satari 2007, 135. portunity to see it. 12 Bottini and Satari 2007, 98. 7 Cohen 2010, 4. 13 Bottini and Satari 2007, 98. opyright © 2011 A opyright ssue 115.1 (January 2011) 8 I Journal of Archaeology, American C Warden 2009.

2 di essere inserita in un quadro di relazioni già highly classicizing Mars of Todi?17 By what ben note, appare in definitiva quella che assegna standard and in what way? Cohen cites Orlan- quest’ultima a una bottega tarquiniense diret- dini’s argument that the Chimaera resembles tamente legata alla Magna Grecia, forse diretta da un artista immigrato o comunque formato architectural waterspouts from Metaponto, in quell ambiente.14 but now we are comparing a monumental bronze statue to a waterspout. Orlandini’s Bottini’s conclusions are in line with Brecou- comparisons themselves are not convincing; laki’s suggestion of an artist imbevuto of South the only resemblance is the stylization of the Italian art, something that makes sense in the animal’s snout.18 The eyes and other parts of the artistic environment of Tarquinia, which had face, especially the ears, are quite different; in close contacts with the Greek world. In fact, fact, another of Orlandini’s illustrations, of the the Amazon sarcophagus, while outstanding in Caulonia (Metaponto) waterspouts in a three- scale, quality, and ambition, is hardly unique. quarter view, reveals that the spouts are entirely There are other Tarquinian sarcophagi with different in the shape of the head, profile, and painted decoration, some even with Ama- shape of the ears and mane.19 They look more zonomachies. Some, for instance, in the Tomb like the Cowardly Lion than the Chimaera; of the Partunu, are of Greek marble but were once again we are reminded that photogra- sculpted or painted locally. This is the problem phy can be deceptive. Cristofani’s original with a traditional art historical methodol- comparison to the Olympia waterspout is far ogy that privileges the master work—here as more compelling,20 for there is a closer resem- usual defined in Greek rather than Etruscan blance in the treatment of the snout. But here terms15—and that defines a canon; it is an ap- again we are comparing apples and oranges proach that can ignore a larger and far more and are surprised that they are both fruits. Is complex context. it fair to compare one small, very stylized part Even if one were to accept the Amazon of the animal (the snout of a waterspout) with sarcophagus and the Lupa as not being made a lively, remarkably turbulent work of bronze in Etruria, that conclusion says nothing about sculpture? There are few good comparisons for the Chimaera. They are separate objects with the Chimaera: parts are certainly Hellenizing, separate problems. Cohen states: which is to be expected, but the piece is also very Etruscan in other ways.21 The statue is a Without an earlier Lupa, the fashionably classi- singular work, which is why it is dangerous to cal Greek-looking Chimaera now must stand at talk about it as part of a tradition of monumen-

the head of the tradition of monumental bronze tal Etruscan bronze animal sculpture. There (animal) statuary. But the Chimaera is, in fact, may very well have been such a tradition, but more Greek-looking that any other Etruscan if so, it has not survived, save for the Chimaera, large bronze, and we should now seriously consider whether this Arretine dedication, like even if we do have some spectacular fragments the Tarquinian Amazonomachy sarcophagus, of large-scale bronze animals such as the Hel- might indeed be a piece acquired by Etruscans lenistic lioness or wolf in the Fiesole Civic from fine Greek artisans in Magna Graecia.16 Archaeological Museum (fig. 1).22 Moreover, there is the important evidence for Etruscan Is the Chimaera really more Greek-looking animal sculpture on a smaller scale, evidence than any other Etruscan bronze? Is it really that should not be discounted; indeed, if we more Greek-looking than the contrappostal, are going to compare the Chimaera to a water merica

P. G. Warden, The Chimaera of Arezzo: Made in Etruria? of Arezzo: Chimaera The Warden, G. P. Bottini and Satari 2007, 98. eyes differs, however.

15 For this issue, see Small 2008. 19 Orlandini 1983, fig. 259. 16 Cohen 2010, 5. 20 Cristofani 1985, 295–97. Also cited by Cohen 17 The Mars, like the Chimaera, bears an Etruscan 2010, 5 n. 14. dedicatory inscription (Sprenger and Bartoloni 1983, 21 For the remarkable contrasts of stylization and

nstitute of A I nstitute rchaeological pls. 200, 201). naturalism, see Warden 2004. 18 Orlandini (1983) compares three frontal views of 22 A large fragment of a life-sized bronze statue, lion heads: the Chimaera (Orlandini 1983, fig. 483), originally considered a “Lupa” but probably a lion- spouts from Reggio Calabria (Orlandini 1983, fig. ess, from Piazza Mino, found in 1882 (Fiesole, Museo 484), and Caulonia (Orlandini 1983, fig. 485). Not sur- Civico Archeologico, inv. no. 547). As of November

opyright © 2011 A opyright prisingly, each has a gaping mouth and similar styl- 2010, the statue will be part of a special exhibition en- ssue 115.1 (January 2011) I Journal of Archaeology, American C ization of the snout. The treatment of the nose and titled La lupa di Fiesole. Una storia ancora da raccontare.

3 Fig. 1. The so-called Lupa of Fiesole. Hellenistic life-sized bronze statue of a lioness or she-wolf. Fiesole, Museo Civico Archeologico, inv. no. 547 (courtesy Marco De Marco).

spout, why not compare it to a small bronze? inscription is dedicatory, but it is also a marker The evidence for such small bronzes is vast, and of the statue’s identity. It declares its Etruscan Etruscan production of the highest quality can parentage, even if in the globalized world certainly be documented, as in the case—for of classical Italy, much as today, something felines—of the extraordinary lion protome in might be labeled Etruscan and still have strong the Hermitage Museum23 or—for caprids—the connections to other parts of the peninsula. A Bibbona goat in the Florence Archaeological better summation was provided by one of the Museum,24 a fifth-century precursor to soft Getty’s labels that proposed that the Chimaera naturalism that is characteristic of the Arezzo “was created in a workshop that included Chimaera’s goat head. Or if the standard is the craftsmen immersed in the artistic ambience degree of Hellenizing naturalism in animal of the Greek colonies in the Southern Italian sculpture, then the horse being reined in by a peninsula as well as Etruscan metal-workers youthful male, a figural group in the Florence famed for their expertise in bronze casting.”28 Archaeological Museum,25 would certainly The scholarship that supports this conclusion qualify, as would the terracotta horses from can be found in Maggiani’s contribution to the the Ara della Regina,26 certainly a master work exhibition catalogue, an essay that examines by the same definitions as the Amazon sar- Etruscan connections with South Italy and cophagus or the Chimaera, if we are allowed to tries to find a middle ground, both literally consider different media. The most important and figuratively.29 factor, however, is that the Chimaera has that The question of how Greek-looking the Chi- pesky inscription, “TINSCVIL,” marking it as maera may be, as a way of defining origin and merica a dedication to Tinia, which, as Cohen notes, artistic identity, raises attitudes that are deeply was “rendered before casting.”27 Not only was mired in terminology that takes us back to P. G. Warden, The Chimaera of Arezzo: Made in Etruria? of Arezzo: Chimaera The Warden, G. P.

the Chimaera an Etruscan religious dedica- nationalistic polemics. And it seems somewhat tion, it was inscribed before casting. How did condescending, after laboring hard to remove this happen in South Italy? Did an Etruscan three master works from the Etruscan canon, priest from Arezzo travel to Metaponto? The to say, “In any event, the Etruscans ought to nstitute of A I nstitute rchaeological

23 Sprenger and Bartoloni 1983, pl. 178; Torelli and 26 Sprenger and Bartoloni 1983, pl. 211. Moretti Sgubini 2008, 145. 27 Cohen 2010, 5. 24 28

opyright © 2011 A opyright Goldscheider 1941, pl. 102. As quoted by Cohen 2010, 4. ssue 115.1 (January 2011) I Journal of Archaeology, American C 25 Sprenger and Bartoloni 1983, pl. 259. 29 Maggiani 2009.

4 be appreciated fully—not only as terrific art Works Cited makers but also as ambitious purchasers and commissioners of artworks to fulfill their socio- Bartoloni, G., ed. 2010. La Lupa Capitolina: Nuove pros- pettive di studio. Rome: L’Erma di Bretschneider. religious needs.”30 Demoting Etruscan artists to Bottini, A., and E. Satari, eds. 2007. Il sarcofago delle parvenu fabricators, Cohen embraces the logi- Amazzoni. Milan: Electa. cal conclusion of a hierarchical theory of artistic Brecoulaki, H. 2001. L’esperienza del colore nella pittura production that depends on masterpieces and funeraria dell’Ialia preromana (V–III secolo a.C.). the canon. Perhaps this methodology may work Naples: Electa. La Lupa capitolina: Un bronzo in fields where artistic identities can be identi- Carruba, A.M. 2006. medievale. Rome: De Luca. fied, but Etruscan art is varied, regional, and Cohen, B. 2010. “New Light on a Master Bronze from highly eclectic. Etruscan art can be compelling Etruria.” Online Museum Review. AJA 114(3): even when it does not look all that Greek, as, for 1–10. http://www.ajaonline.org. instance, with elongated bronzes or Chiusine Cristofani, M. 1985. I bronzi degli Etruschi. Novara: “Canopic” urns.31 And the Etruscan artistic Istituto Geografico De Agostini. Goldscheider, L. 1941. Etruscan Sculpture. New York: milieu is fascinating especially because of its Phaidon. complexity and intercultural sophistication. Maggiani, A. 2009. “The Chimaera of Arezzo.” In It is indeed sometimes difficult to distinguish The Chimaera of Arezzo, edited by M. Iozzo, 29–37. what is Etruscan or Italic or South Italian Greek. Florence: Edizioni Polistampa. One wonders if or how this distinction would Orlandini, P. 1983. “Le arti figurative.” In Megale Hellas: Storia e civiltá della Magna Grecia, edited have been of interest to the Etruscan patron by G. Pugliese Carratelli, 329–554. Milan: Libri and viewer, or if this is really an important Schweiller. question at all. But if the question is going to Small, J.P. 1991–1992. “The Etruscan View of Greek be asked, then we should remember that the Art.” Boreas 14–15:51–65. Amazon sarcophagus has not been proved to ———. 2008. “Looking at Etruscan Art in the Mead- ows Museum.” In From the Temple and the Tomb: be anything other than Etruscan. As to that poor Etruscan Treasures from Tuscany, edited by P.G. wolf, we will just have to wait and see, but the Warden, 41–65. Dallas: Meadows Museum. evidence that the Chimaera was manufactured Sprenger, M., and G. Bartoloni. 1983. The Etruscans: in Etruria is compelling. The origin, training, Their History, Art, and Architecture. New York: or background of the artist(s) may be debated, Harry N. Abrams. Torelli, M., and A.M. Moretti Sgubini, eds. 2008. but the inscription (in Etruscan, dedicating the Etruschi: Le antiche metropoli del Lazio. Verona: statue to the Etruscan god Tinia) tells us that it Electa. was “Made in Etruria.” Warden, P.G. 2004. “Men, Beasts, and Monsters: Pat- tern and Narrative in Etruscan Art.” In Greek Vase Painting: Form, Figure, and Narrative. Treasures of the National Archaeological Museum in Madrid, ed- department of art history ited by P.G. Warden, 51–6. Dallas, Tex.: Southern southern methodist university Methodist University Press. dallas, texas 75275 ———. 2009. “The Blood of Animals: Predation and [email protected] Transformation in Etruscan Funerary Represen- tation.” In New Perspectives on Etruria and Rome: Papers in Honor of Richard D. De Puma, edited by S. Bell and H. Nagy, 198–219. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. merica P. G. Warden, The Chimaera of Arezzo: Made in Etruria? of Arezzo: Chimaera The Warden, G. P.

nstitute of A I nstitute rchaeological

30 Cohen 2010, 5. “Canopic” urns, see Sprenger and Bartoloni 1983, pls. 31 For the elongated bronzes, see Sprenger and Bar- 49–53; Small 2008, 47–9 (with illustrations). For the opyright © 2011 A opyright ssue 115.1 (January 2011) I Journal of Archaeology, American C toloni 1983, pl. 258; Small 2008, 55, fig. 5. For Chiusine broader issues, see Small 1991–1992.