Journal - Comune di Monteleone di Spoleto

iii.43 aryballos in the form
of an eagle head. Greek,
rhodian, ca. late 7th – early
6th century B.C. Terracotta,
l. 4 3 ⁄8 in. (11.1 cm). The
metropolitan museum of art,
Purchase, anonymous Gift,
in memory of Sleiman and
Souad aboutaam, 2006
(2006.267)
iii.44 little master lip-cups.
Greek, attic; left: ca. 550 –
525 B.C., right: ca. 565 –
550 B.C. Terracotta; left:
H. 3 1 ⁄8 in. (7.8 cm), right:
H. 6 5 ⁄8 in. (16.8 cm). The
metropolitan museum of art,
rogers Fund, 1903 (03.24.32,
03.24.31)
60
hammered — it resembles the kouroi on the chariot in the
position of the arms and legs. regarding the chronology of
the chariot’s youths, the positions of the arms, hands, and
legs are not as developed as they are on another group of
small ionian statues from Samos dated between 550 and
540 B.C., where the arms are slightly bent, the hand makes
a fist, and the right leg is slightly forward. 114 a fragmentary
but magnificent cast-bronze statue found near Vulci and
attributed to east Greek craftsmen by antonella romualdi
has been compared to the Samian statuettes. She dated it
550 – 540 B.C. and suggested it was imported, rather than
made locally by an immigrant artist. 115
The chariot’s reliefs include elements that, notably in
their embellishment and stylization, underlie my conclusions
as to the artistic background of the master of the
monteleone chariot and his collaborators. i have gathered
these elements over many years of study and seek here to
marshal them appropriately.
The large eight-pointed star with circumscribed palmettes
in the lower part of Thetis’s chiton (Figures V.3, V.4)
resembles the one in the center of the phiale from the Saline
at Tarquinia that i singled out for its tracing technique and
that is considered an export from rhodes. 116 The chiton
also incorporates an ionian star-shaped pattern within the
meander. The motif occurs, furthermore, at Sardis around
560 – 550 B.C. and on the monteleone chariot it represents
a link between those prototypes and later etruscan imitations.
117 The stylization of the spotted fur of the deer and
the panther’s forehead has been compared with the gold
revetments from delphi mentioned above. 118 By contrast,
the group of the boar protome, the deer, and the two birds
of prey on the front of the chariot (see Figures iii.3–iii.6) was
invented by the master of the monteleone chariot.
F. The identities of the chariot master and his patron
For decades, the prevailing view of the monteleone chariot
was that it was made by etruscan craftsmen influenced by
east Greek art. i have shown here that the monteleone chariot
is an etruscan-italic chariot (see Section ii) and described
how it was made by a wheelwright and a bronzeworker, in
tandem and in the same city, but each within his own workshop
(see iii.B). Scholars have tried to identify the city and
most agree that it was etruscan, opting for orvieto (Volsinii)
or Vulci, or simply Vulci. 119
recent literature has reduced the number of hypotheses
concerning the cultural background of the master of
the monteleone chariot to three possibilities: he was an
etruscan under ionian stylistic influence, he was an eastern
Greek who worked in etruria and adapted to local requirements,
or he belonged to a group of etruscan and east Greek
bronzeworkers who were active for a time in a single shop
and influenced each other. 120 iconographic, stylistic, and
artistic arguments have been advanced to support each of
these three hypotheses, but only recently have the technical
aspects also been considered — cautiously for the tracing
and firmly for the repoussé work. 121 i should like to focus on
those technical aspects, which have revealed the presence
of more than one worker in the execution of the project. The
tracing technique characteristic of the master craftsman and
his main collaborator (see iii.C) can be found in older ionian
products imported into etruria, but it does not seem to have
been used by other etruscan bronzeworkers either before
or after; in fact, later use of tracing remained anchored in
the indigenous tradition. it is a question not merely of using
the tracing tool in a different way but also of a different
conception of how the final result should look. The artists
of the monteleone chariot produced a wedge-shaped line to
reflect light, while the purely etruscan bronzeworkers tried
to conceal the gaps between the single strokes in executing
single lines.
The repoussé work confirms that our master craftsman
was innovative in using high relief, as ursula Höckmann
has pointed out. 122 His mastery can also be seen in the skillful
rendering of foreground and background effects. This