Journal - Comune di Monteleone di Spoleto

50
outside wheel of achilles’s chariot was fashioned of ivory or
a precious metal. 46
The chromatic effects in the three main panels thus
served to highlight the embossed figures left the color of the
gleaming bronze against a light background, 47 to enliven
the figures in relief by providing them with eyes and mouths
inlaid with various materials, and to contain the three
scenes within ivory frames.
a different chromatic effect was sought for the rear side
panels (cat. 15) and the finials of the floor frame. on the
little rear side panels the lost ivory figures stood out against
the bare bronze, 48 and against the ivory-covered wood
finials and the inlaid frames of the side panels the bronze
rams would have been highly visible. a solution appropriate
to both the chariot box and the pole with its adjuncts seems
to have been used for the friezes below the side panels.
i refer to the pairs of small ivory lions i suggest flanked the
two kouroi (Figure iii.8b) and also to the roundels, which
i suggest were ivory, placed at the outer edges of the friezes
so as to conceal the front crossbars of the shock-absorbing
system (one of the roundels, filled with dots, is reconstructed
in Figure ii.9a). 49
i believe that this refined combination of bronze and
ivory clearly shows the master craftsman’s intention to create
the chromatic effect of a chryselephantine monument
on the less precious bronze surface.
C. Observations for an inquiry into the master craftsman
and his collaborators
The decoration of the individual panels must have begun
with drawings prepared by the master craftsman on some
kind of perishable material, exactly what we cannot know.
nor can we know whether the drawings were executed on
the same scale as the finished product, although certain
clues — such as the lopsided fit of the scene in the proper
right panel (cat. 3a) — indicate that they were smaller. 50 The
preparation of the bronze revetments and all other steps
preceding the execution of the repoussé work are not
addressed in the present study, nor are the tools used in the
preparatory phases. my examination begins with observations
on the different levels of quality that can be detected
in the repoussé work. it proceeds to the complex tracing
work, revealing that the execution was shared by the master
craftsman and at least two collaborators. a comparison of
the toolmarks produced by the master craftsman with those
on other important archaic bronzes opens up the possibility
of analyzing his artistic training.
The quality of the repoussé work on the front panel
(cat. 1a) is superb, executed with a very steady hand and
without any errors in the placement of the scene within the
available field. The height of the relief is perfectly graded, as
required for the different planes. Both the high and low
reliefs rise evenly and cleanly from the background. all the
cavities for the inlays are prepared with extreme precision,
as if they were to remain visible after they had been filled in.
Given the evidence, i do not hesitate to attribute all this
work to the master craftsman.
The same cannot be said for the work on the proper right
panel (cat. 3a), where the outlines of the hoplite shield and
the spear shafts — the edges of which are not parallel — are
rendered with an uncertain hand. The worker misunderstood
the master’s preparatory drawing, so that the Boeotian
shield is embossed on an oval, which is itself embossed.
The victorious warrior’s right hand is depicted in reverse,
and the worker forgot to render the combatants’ necks. The
space required for the hoplite shield was not calculated
when the scene was transferred to the bronze; consequently
the victor’s right arm is short. also, the body of the fallen
warrior is out of proportion, the torso being too small. These
shortcomings, which drew attention from the first scholarly
publications of the chariot, 51 led to its being dismissed as
“etruscan,” in other words, “barbaric,” rather than Greek.
The poor workmanship in this panel can really only be
attributed to a workshop collaborator, as is confirmed by
the execution of the traced decoration.
The same assistant must have completed the proper left
panel (cat. 4a), to judge by the fact that the right hand of the
recumbent woman under the horses’ hooves is represented
as her left. note also the irregular outlines of the chariot
wheel. nevertheless, the quality of the workmanship in the
very low relief that renders the wheel in the background
must be emphasized. The other wheel was executed separately
and secured by placing its hub into the small, specially
made hole. The position of the horse in the foreground
is natural. 52
The collaboration between the master craftsman and his
assistant is evident in the pair of kouroi (cats. 3c and 4c), the
lion heads under their feet (cats. 7 and 8), and the reclining
lions (cats. 9 and 10). The master craftsman executed the
pieces on the proper left side of the chariot, and these
served as models. The copies on the opposite side by his
assistant are inferior in the repoussé work and the inner
detail. The boar protome (cat. 2a) is of the same quality as
the central panel. 53 The repoussé and tracing on the eagle
head on the end of the pole and the lion heads on the arms
of the yoke (cats. 17, 18) are different. on the eagle head
the repoussé work is mediocre, compared, for example,
with the eyebrow and the preparation of the eye cavity. on
the lion heads the repoussé work articulates the eye areas
(the eyes were not inlaid) but not the other parts. Comparing
the muzzles of these lions with those of the panther on the
front panel and with the lion heads under the feet of the
kouroi rules out the possibility of the yoke’s having been
fashioned by the same person.