Journal - Comune di Monteleone di Spoleto

120
suggests that they were all made by etruscans but with south
ionic influence; the workshop might have been in inner etruria
and the infundibulum might date to around 565 – 550 B.C. i would
like to emphasize — reinforcing Höckmann’s earlier impression —
that the faces of the kouroi on the monteleone chariot are clearly
different from the other two in the treatment of the hair on
their foreheads (which are broader), the treatment of the upper
lip, the distance between the eyes, and especially the handling
of the eyeball (which is large and protrudes beyond the eyelids).
if there are similarities, they are with the face of the second
sphyrelaton, which unfortunately is in too fragmentary a condition
to judge.
112. richter 1970a, p. 93, fig. 364.
113. ibid., pp. 56 – 57, no. 26, figs. 123 – 25, and see also mitten in
mitten and doeringer 1968, p. 51, no. 33 (with further bibliography).
114. See mitten in mitten and doeringer 1968, p. 52, no. 34, which
cites other very similar examples.
115. romualdi 1998, pp. 367 – 78, pls. CV – CVii.
116. references in note 61 above.
117. For Sardis, see Winter 1993, pp. 236 – 37 (dated 560 – 550 B.C.
with later versions at miletus and Gordion); and Winter 2009,
p. 398 (for later etruscan examples that depend on them).
118. Bonamici 1997, p. 189.
119. orvieto: in a roundabout way martelli Cristofani 1983, pp. 27, 29.
orvieto or Vulci: Höckmann 1982, pp. 118 – 20. Vulci: emiliozzi
1996a, p. 337; Bonamici 1997, p. 190. Bellelli (2006, pp. 51 – 54)
argues against Vulci. riis (1998, pp. 103 – 4) remains convinced
that the old hypothesis about Chiusi is correct.
120. For the first hypothesis, see Höckmann 1982, pp. 118 – 20 (who at
the time believed it filtered through Campania) and then the
majority of scholars through lowenstam 2008, pp. 128 – 39. For
the second, see Bonamici 1997, p. 190. The third, attractive,
hypothesis was advanced by Höckmann in 2005, in an illuminating
discussion of the origins of high relief in the large etruscan
repoussé bronzes of the sixth century B.C.
121. For the engravings, see emiliozzi 1996a, pp. 335ff., and 1997d,
p. 183 (at that time, before tests were done in the course of the
recent restoration, i believed erroneously that the artist traced his
lines beginning at the farthest point and working toward himself);
followed by Bonamici 1997, p. 189, where the comparison with
the engraving technique used in the equine pectoral (prosternidion)
from Samos does not seem pertinent to me. For repoussé, see
Höckmann 2005, pp. 314ff., in which she updated her statements
of 1982.
122. Höckmann 2005, pp. 314 – 15, figs. 1 – 3.
123. The lists of the “errors” in the execution of the reliefs is a recurrent
motif in the literature (see, for instance, Hampe and Simon 1964,
pp. 53 – 67), and this preamble to any discussion of the chariot
(Höckmann 1982, p. 118; lowenstam 2008, pp. 130ff.) debases
its artistic level.
124. amandry 1962, p. 46n72.
125. Pasquier 2000, p. 387.
126. Cristofani 1985b, pp. 289 – 90, no. 111, ills. p. 217.
127. This suggestion was made by me (emiliozzi 1996a) and Bonamici
(1997). Bellelli (2006, pp. 41 – 54) does not agree in his in-depth
study of the famous infundibulum with the head of a bearded
man from Capua, where he reviews the hypotheses offered in all
the preceding literature on the group of laminated and repoussé
bronzes from Castel di San mariano and monteleone di Spoleto.
But martelli Cristofani (1988, p. 27) showed that Vulci was the
primary location in etruria for other types of manufacture and that
in the second half of the sixth century B.C. various kinds of skilled
artisans from eastern Greece settled there, giving rise to a decorative
arts tradition that met the demand of aristocratic consumers
and “contributed decisively to the formation of a local figural cul-
ture.” i believe that the master of the monteleone chariot must
have arrived at the very beginning of this phenomenon.
128. it is important to remember that the cast bronze eagle head finial
at the end of the pole was attributed to Chiusi by Haynes (1985,
p. 254, no. 24, ill. p. 154) and that most scholars share this opinion
(see Colonna 1996a, p. 347, n. 51, fig. 8; Buranelli 1997, p. 202,
fig. 9; Buranelli and Sannibale 1998, pp. 350 – 51, figs. 191, 182;
and Bellelli 2006, p. 74). even if this piece was made in Chiusi,
that does not mean that the entire chariot was made there, especially
given the fact that similar accessories were interchangeable
and could have circulated in the ancient marketplace beyond
where the chariots themselves were made. i have already made
this suggestion (in emiliozzi 1992) for the cast bronze terminals on
the chassis of the orientalizing chariot from the Bernardini Tomb
in Praeneste, and this eagle only strengthens that hypothesis.
Haynes dated it to 600 – 550 B.C., but that was before the chariot
itself had been examined during the most recent campaign to
restore and reconstruct it (emiliozzi 1997e), and Colonna’s reasons
for suggesting it was made in Chiusi permit an early dating.
i would suggest that this piece was acquired somewhere else for
a chariot made and decorated in Vulci just before the creation of
the monteleone chariot.
129. Buranelli 1995, pp. 105ff.; Colonna 1996a, p. 348n54, and, for the
fragments of a quadriga from Via appia antica, pp. 349 – 50.
130. Höckmann (1982, pp. 107 – 11) suggests that it was made in Chiusi.
She is followed by, among others, martelli Cristofani 1984, p. 182,
Haynes 1985, p. 114, Bruni 2002, pp. 35ff., and indirectly also by
maggiani 2007, p. 95. riis (1998, pp. 103 – 4) said that after reading
Höckmann’s 1982 book he was convinced that almost all the
bronzes from Castel San mariano are north etruscan and either
Perusine or perhaps more likely Clusine. The small cast bronze
lion might be an exception (Höckmann 1982, p. 82, no. 37,
pl. 45.3,4).
131. Höckmann (1982, pp. 40 – 42), followed by a majority of scholars,
dates it to 560 B.C.; Bruni (2002, pp. 36 – 39) dates it to 580 –
575 B.C. maggiani (2007) thinks it should be dated after
580 – 570 B.C., that is, after the Paolozzi Sheets.
132. See Sgubini moretti 2003, p. 10, fig. 2; Sgubini moretti and
ricciardi 2006, p. 103, figs. 10.4 and 10.6; and Winter 2009,
p. 159, roof 3.9.
133. my hypothesis is not different from maggiani’s opinion (2007,
p. 95) that in the case of the oldest of the Paolozzi Sheets of
Clusine manufacture, a group of workers came to Chiusi from
southern etruria, perhaps from Vulci, and influenced the artists
who made the cart from Castel San mariano. nor does it contrast
with Höckmann’s (2005) suggestion that the introduction of a
high-relief technique by eastern Greek craftsmen occurred in a
bronze workshop that was organized ad hoc and commissioned
to create a large work that could not be accomplished by a single
metalsmith. This hypothesis seems to fit the sequence of work on
the sheets for our chariot (see Section iii.C), except that that work
is moved a decade or two back.
134. on parade chariots as gifts, see Colonna 1985, p. 242.
135. leach (1991, pp. 185ff.) made a count based on Beazley 1956.
136. For the (generally accepted) dating to about the mid-sixth century
B.C., see richter 1953, text to pls. Xii.16a – d, Xii.17a – b, XXXViii.16,
17; and leach 1991, pp. 185 – 86, nos. 3.20, 3.21.
137. Brendel (1978, p. 452n17) dates the chariot reliefs to 560 – 550 B.C.
because of the lack of drapery folds in the clothing. maggiani
(2007, p. 92, n. 594) accepts this date.
noTeS To SeCTion iV (PaGeS 63–64)
1. emiliozzi 1997c.
2. See Section iii, note 10.