AJA ONLINE PUBLICATIONS: NOTE The Chimaera of Arezzo: Made in Etruria? 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 A 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 nstitute of nstitute I 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. rchaeological rchaeological A * 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 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 A 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 nstitute of nstitute I 4 9 rchaeological rchaeological Cohen 2010, 4. Brecoulaki 2001, 24. A 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 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.