Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T11:08:27.023Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Etruscan Reliefs of the Hellenistic Period

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 September 2015

G. M. A. Hanfmann
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The purpose of this article is to present an account of the manner in which the changing styles of Greek Hellenism are reflected in later Etruscan reliefs. I have selected among the Etruscan urns and sarcophagi those reliefs which show in their style the closest reflection of Greek models; they are usually reliefs of superior quality, and can serve as fixed points around which to group other Etruscan reliefs. This method has one important advantage: it overcomes the difficulty created by the regional isolationism of later Etruscan schools. As is well known, Etruscan sculptors were apt to repeat the same composition in a great number of reliefs. An enterprising artist would create a new composition, usually by refashioning a Greek model. His colleagues in the same workshop, or at least in the same city, would copy him; and the process of re-copying might go on for several generations, resulting in ever cruder reproductions of the same design. Thus Greek compositions, long abandoned in their native land, could survive in Tuscany for a considerable length of time. And, in the case of later terracotta urns, re-copying even assumed a purely mechanical character. The original relief ‘A’ would be used to take a mould ‘B’; from this, in turn, new imprints would be taken; they, in turn, would serve as forms for new moulds.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Hellenic Studies , Volume 65 , November 1945 , pp. 45 - 57
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies 1945

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 The article is a revised version of a paper read in February 1945 before a meeting of the Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies. I should like to express here my gratitude to the Officers of the Society for the invitation to deliver this paper and to the Librarian of the Society for valuable help in furthering its preparation.

2 Brunn's, H. and Körte's, G.Rilievi delle urne etrusche I–III, 1870–1916Google Scholar, are still valuable as a repertory, but otherwise this publication has acted as a deterrent to stylistic study, because of its poor drawings and its concentration on the subject-matter of the scenes represented, defects which were but slightly mitigated by the introduction of some photographs in the third volume. Valuable contributions to the study of style and chronology of the Etruscan reliefs were made by Rumpf, A., Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Katalog der etruskischen Skulpturen, 1928Google Scholar; Pryce, F. N., Catalogue of Sculpture in the Department of Greek and Roman Antiquities I, 2, Cypriote and Etruscan, British Museum, 1931Google Scholar; Levi, D., Rivista dell' Instituto d'areheologia e della storia dell' arte IV, 1932–1933, 13 ff.Google Scholar; and Herbig, R., AA XLIX, 1934, 507 ffGoogle Scholar.

3 Jastrow, E., ‘Abformung und Typenwandel in der antiken Tonplastik,’ Opuscula Archaeologica II, 1938, 18, pls. 8–9Google Scholar.

4 Some observations on these topics will be found in an article of mine submitted for publication in the Annual of the Worcester Art Museum in 1942. This periodical was suspended during the war, and at the date of writing this article has not yet appeared. For a recent bibliography of Etruscan portraiture cf. Bianchi-Bandinelli, R., Studi Etruschi XI, 1937, 488Google Scholar; D. Levi, op. cit., 49 ff.; Poulsen, F., ‘Probleme der römischen Ikonographie’, Archaeologisk Konsthistoriske Meddeklser II, 1, Copenhagen, 1937Google Scholar; Strong, E., CAH IX, 1932, 809 ff.Google Scholar; West, R., Römische Porträtplastik, 1933, 17 ff.Google Scholar; Kaschnitz, G., Rendiconti Pontif. trätplastik III, 1925, 325 ffGoogle Scholar. and RM. XLI, 1926, 135 ff.Google Scholar; Pacchioni, N., Studi Etruschi XIII, 1939, 485 ffGoogle Scholar. (antiquarian details).

5 On Greek Hellenistic sculpture compare: Lawrence, A. W., Later Greek Sculpture and its Influence on East and West, London, 1927Google Scholar; Dickins, G., Hellenistic Sculpture, Oxford, 1920Google Scholar; Horn, R., ‘Hellenistische Gewandstatuen,’ RM. Suppl. Vol. II, 1391Google Scholar; Krahmer, G., RM. XXXVIII–IX, 1923–1934, 138 ff.Google Scholar, XL, 1925, 67 ff., XLVI, 1931, 130 ff.; GGN 1927, 53 ff.; Archaeologiai Ertesitö XLI, 1927, 1 ff., 251 ff.Google Scholar; AM LV, 130, 237 ff.; JdI XL, 1925, 183 ff.Google Scholar; Schober, A., ‘Der landschaftliche Raum im hellenistischen Reliefbild,’ Wiener Jahrbuch für Kunstgeschichte II, 1923, 36 ff.Google Scholar; ‘Vora griechischen zum römischen Relief,’ OJh XXVII, 1931, 46 ff.Google Scholar; Der Fries des Hekataions von Lagina, Istanbuler Forschungen II, 1933Google Scholar; Beazley, J. D. and Ashmole, B., Greek Sculpture and Painting to the End of the Hellenistic Period, N.Y. 1932Google Scholar; Müller, V., ‘A Chronology of Greek Sculpture,’ Art Bulletin X, 1938, 378 ffGoogle Scholar. Zschietzschmann, W., Hellenistische und Römische Kunst = Antike Kunst II, 2, Potsdam, 1939, 24 ff. and 59 ffGoogle Scholar. has a useful bibliography and a mediocre text.

6 Good comments on fourth century reliefs in Curtius, L., Antike Kunst II (Handbuch der Kunstwissenschaft) Potsdam, 1938, 388 ff., figs. 493 ff.Google Scholar, 530, 532, 533–536, and 389, 428 ff. Cf. Süsserott, H. K., Griechische Plastik des IV Jahrhunderts, Frankfort, 1938, 118 ffGoogle Scholar.

7 G. Krahmer's pioneering analysis of Early Hellenistic art (‘Stilphasen der hellenistischen Plastik’, RM XXXVIII–XXXIX, 1923–1924, 138 ff.Google Scholar) was influenced by the analogy of modern abstract art to a point where he disregarded the traditional elements in Early Hellenistic sculpture. The mannerist reaction against the High Renaissance with its multiplicity of currents is perhaps a closer parallel, but even here we should remember that Hellenistic art continued to concern itself with types, which it endowed with heightened vitality.

8 Pfuhl, E., AM XXVI, 1901, 258 ff.Google Scholar; Breccia, E., Alexandrea ad Aegyptum, Bergamo, 1914, 154 ff., figs. 38 f.Google Scholar; Noshy, I., The Arts in Ptolemaic Egypt, Oxford, 1937, 105 ff., pl. 12, 2Google Scholar. Alexandrian coinage and portraiture of the third century, with their cool and reserved characterization of individuals, convey an impression of similar modified traditionalism. Cf. Horn, R., RM LIII, 1938, 70 ffGoogle Scholar. Similar quiet groups in Rhodian reliefs: Clara Rhodos V, 2, 28 f., figs. 17–18Google Scholar.

9 Klumbach, H., Tarentiner Grabkunst, Tübinger Forschungen XIII, Reuttlingen, 1937Google Scholar.

10 Curtius op. cit. 432 f. remarks that, despite outward similarity, early Hellenistic figures are ‘free’ in the new empty background, because figure and space are not a part of a predestined harmonious pattern, as they were in Classical reliefs.

11 Schmidt, E., Archaistische Kunst in Griechenland und Rom, Munich, 1922, 26 ff.Google Scholar, 56, 62 ff., pls. 17, 3 and 18. The use of fifth-century moulds by Calenian potters of Central Italy also indicates Classicistic inclinations.

12 Cf. the excellent remarks on two-figure groups by Speier, H., RM XLVII, 1932, 69 ff., 82 ff.Google Scholar, and V. Müller, op. cit., 385 ff. On the introduction of landscape elements and the development of space cf. Dawson, Ch. M., ‘Romano-Campanian Mythological Landscape Painting,’ Yale Class. Studies IX, 1943, 24 ffGoogle Scholar. (On the new conception of the universe, cf. Nilsson, M. P., Eranos XLIV, 1946, 20 ff.Google Scholar)

13 Its influence is very marked among the Etruscan draftsmen of the mirrors and the cistae. A thorough investigation of Etruscan draftsmanship of the second and third century and its relations to Greek drawing of this period would show many interesting connexions.

14 Fell, R. A., Etruria and Rome, Cambridge, 1924, 115 f.Google Scholar, quoting Diodorus xx, 61; cf. also Fell, op. cit. 106 f.

15 Fell, op. cit. 126 f., Dio, Fragm. ix, frg. 31, 1. Zonaras viii, 4.

16 C. 300–280 E.C. For the rhythm compare the archaistic reliefs. For the sharp accentuation of the Knees and the long, linear ridges of drapery compare the reliefs in Naples, Horn, op. cit. pl. 7 and in Tegea, Speier, op cit. 86 f., pl. 31, 2. Similar figures also occur on South Italian vases of the late fourth and early third century. Cf. Trendall, A. D., Paestan Pottery, Rome, 1936Google Scholar, pls. 19 a, d, 22 b, 2 a, 33 a. (340–300 B.C.). ‘Rhythm and symmetry’ on Easy Hellenistic relief vases: Schwabacher, W., AJA XL, 1941, 185 fGoogle Scholar.

17 Galli, E., Mon. Ant. XXIV, 1916, 5 ff., pls. 1–4Google Scholar. Giglioli, AE, pls. 347–348.

18 From Tarquinia. Herbig, R., AA XLIX, 1934, 520, fig. 12Google Scholar. Giglioli, AE, pl. 355, 1. Nogara, B., Gli Etruschi e la low civiltà, 350, fig. 211Google Scholar. W. Hausenstein, Etruskische Bildnerei, figs. 54–55.

19 H. Klumbach, op. cit., 6 f., 58 f., 69 f., nos. 25–26, pl. 6. The fragments are in Heidelberg and in the Allard Pierson Museum, Amsterdam (Scheurleer Collection): cf. Museum, Allard Pierson, Algemeene Gids, 1937, 219, no. 2047Google Scholar.

20 Gaertringen, Hiller v., Hermes XXXIII, 1902, 121 ff.Google Scholar; BCH XXXVI, 1912, 230 ff.Google Scholar; BrBr pl. 579; Lawrence, A. W., Later Greek Sculpture, 1927, 118Google Scholar. The relief is usually dated about 200 B.C., on epigraphic grounds, but earlier reliefs of its type could well have served as models for Etruscan reliefs of mid-third century B.C.

21 Herbig, R., AA XLIX, 1934, 523, fig. 13Google Scholar; Hausenstein op. cit. fig. 63 (detail); Giglioli, AE, pl. 353, 1–4.

22 See, for instance, the votive relief from Tarentum, Rizzo, G. E., RM XL, 1925, 232, fig. 8Google Scholar.

23 Reliefs from the monument of Karystios in Delos may be placed in the beginning of this phase. The outlines of the group are simple, the major lines of movement run almost parallel, and the figures move along, rather than out of the background, but the movement has a new vigour and the gestures manifest a new excitement. Speier, op. cit., 86, pl. 31, 1; cf. also pl. 32, 2.

24 The existence of frieze compositions is attested by relief vases, Courby, F., Les vases grecs à reliefs, Paris, 1922, figs. 93 and 96 (Battles with Barbarians), 280 ff.Google Scholar, figs. 46, 48, 52, 56 (Odysseus Killing the Suitors, The Millers, etc.). Cf. Robert, C., ‘Homerische Becher,’ 50. Winckelmannsprogramm Berlin, 1890, 14, 39, 42, 62 (third cent. B.C.)Google Scholar; Rostovtzeff, M. I., AJA XLI, 1937, 86CrossRefGoogle Scholar: ‘Homeric bowls were produced not later than the first half of the third century.’ See also Thompson, H. A., ‘Two Centuries of Hellenistic Pottery,’ Hesperia III, 1934, 451 ff.Google Scholar; Zahn, R., Mitt. Preuss. Kunstslgen, Berl. Museen IV, 1934, 7 ffGoogle Scholar. Other material: Schober, A., ÖJh XXVII, 1931, 53 ff.Google Scholar; Loeschcke, G., JdI III, 1888, 189 ff.Google Scholar, pl. 7 (relief from Assos). Reflections on Roman sarcophagi: Löwy, E., Rendiconti Accad. Pontif, Romana di archeologia III, 1925, 54Google Scholar; Mobius, H., AM LV. 1930, 273 ffGoogle Scholar.

25 Pfuhl, MuZ, figs. 650 f. The incised designs on the tombstone of Metrodorus and the earlier quadrigae and Dioscuri on Roman coins also belong to this period. A. W. Lawrence, op. cit., 23, pl. 24 and Mattingly, H., Roman Coins, 1927, pls. I, 6–7, II, 3–7, IV, 1–2, IX, XI, 1–3Google Scholar.

26 Deubner, O., RM LII, 1937, 245 ff., figs. 1–2, pl. 53Google Scholar. Cf. also the Paris-Deiphobus group on the Calenian bowls. Pagenstecher, R., Die calenische Reliefkeramik (= JdI Suppl. Vol. VIII), Berlin, 1909, 30 ff., fig. 11Google Scholar. In monumental sculpture a similar use of the ‘emerging’ figure appears in the Dolon reliefs, dated by V. Müller, loc. cit., 394, in the years 240–230 B.C. Etruscan: Levi, , Rivista, 13, fig. 5Google Scholar.

27 The famous Agram Linen must have belonged to an Etruscan resident in Egypt. Herbig, G., CIE, Suppl. I, 1919, 16Google Scholar. On the activities of the ‘naturalised’ Roman traders, many of whom came from Southern Italy, cf. Hatzfeld, J., Les trafiquants italiens dans l'Orient, Paris, 1919, 5 f., 8 ff., 44 ff., 368 ffGoogle Scholar. Roussel, P., Délos colonie athénienne, Paris, 1916, 75 fGoogle Scholar.

28 H. Brunn and G. Körte, op. cit. III, 157, fig. 29. Bienkowski, P., Die Darstellungen der Gallier in der hellenistischen Kunst, Vienna, 1908, 79 ff., fig. 90Google Scholar. Lawrence, op. cit. 58, pl. 96. Levi, D., Rivista, 16 ff.Google Scholar, figs. 9 f., 22 f. Giglioli, AE pl. 397, 2.

29 Lawrence's dating ‘not earlier than the middle of the third century’ is correct, Levi's, D. higher date Rivista, 29 ffGoogle Scholar. wrong.

30 Pergamene frieze: Alterthümer von Pergamon III, 1 and 2, Berlin, 1910Google Scholar; von Salis, A., Der Altar von Pergamon, Berlin, 1912Google Scholar; Schuchardt, W. H., Die Meister des grossen Frieses von Pergamon, Berlin, 1925Google Scholar; Napp, A. E., Der Altar von Pergamon, Munich, 1936Google Scholar. Nike, : TEL Encyclopédie photographique de l'art, Louvre II, Paris, 1938, pls. 219 ffGoogle Scholar. Large Gauls: Horn, R., RM III, 1937, 145 fGoogle Scholar.

31 Levi, D., Rivista, 52 f., fig. 34Google Scholar; Körte, , Rilievi III, 176, fig 36Google Scholar. From Chiusi.

32 A. von Salis, op. cit., 6 f., 15 f., 22 ff., 45 ff. A valuable discussion of Pergamene Classicism has been given by Krahmer, , RM XL, 1925, 75 ffGoogle Scholar.

33 A detailed publication is to appear in the Annual of the Worcester Art Museum. Conestabile, G., BdI I, 1859, 81 and 1860, 80 ff.Google Scholar; Brunn-Körte III, 187 ff., pl. 127, 9, Bianchi-Bandinelli, R., MonAnt. XXX, 1925, 249Google Scholar; Pryce, F. N., Burlington Magazine XLVIII, 1926, 242 ff.Google Scholar, pls. 1–2 (photographs; wrong date); Taylor, F. H., Worcester Art Museum Bulletin XXIII, 1923, 1, 4–6, 2Google Scholar and Worcester Art Museum Annual II, 1936, 7, 5, figs. 10–11Google Scholar.

34 The importance of this urn for the history of Roman architecture is discussed in my forthcoming article. As P. J. Riis has already observed, it is an example of combined pilasters and arcades which is at least sixty to seventy years earlier than the Tabularium. Acta Archaeologica V, 1934, 90Google Scholar.

35 Aphrodite and three giants in the North frieze. Napp, op. cit., fig. 29. Dionysus, Adrasteia, the giant Bro(mios), the opponent of Phoibe, Schuchardt, pls. 1, 3, 16 and 19.

36 Von Salis, op. cit., 71 ff., fig. 8.

37 Napp, fig. 36. Pergamon III, 2, pl. 10Google Scholar and Aphrodite group.

38 Napp, fig. 6.

39 Ducati AE, pl. 236, fig. 576.

40 Cf. Ryberg, I. S., An Archaeological Record of Rome, 1940, 195 ff., pls. 52 f., esp. fig. 197 cGoogle Scholar. (Temple, Via S. Gregorio); Andrén, A., Architectural Terracottas from Etrusco–Italic Temples, Lund, 1939, CCX ff.Google Scholar; P. Ducati, Italia antica, fig. 299 (Telamon; the figures in the left wing of the pediment). Cf. Levi, D., Rivista, 51Google Scholar.

41 Ducati, AE, 492, pl. 235, fig. 575. The Victory of this urn resembles the Victory of Samothrace. (200–180 B.C.)

42 Ducati, AE, pl. 236, fig. 578.

43 Körte, op. cit. I, 57, pl. 51, 8. Alinari 2726.

44 Levi, D., Rivista, 51, pl. 2Google Scholar, 2 = Körte, op. cit. II, 125, no. 2 b. The urn in Volterra with the Flight of the Gauls from Delphi belongs to the same group. Bienkowski, op. cit., 105, no. 66, fig. 113. Körte III, 145 ff, pl. 113, 2. Cf. also Körte III, 80, pl. 66, 2.

45 Rumpf, A., Katalog der staatlichen Museen Berlin, I, Berlin, 1925, 29 f.Google Scholar, no. E. 45, pl. 34.

46 The ‘Farnese Bull’ group showing the punishment of Dirce is a Roman copy of about A.D. 200, made after a late Hellenistic prototype. BrBr, pl. 367. Lawrence, , Classical Sculpture, 1929, 382 f., pl. 159Google Scholar. Many scholars have connected this sculpture in the round with a group of Amphion, Zethus, Dirce and bull by Tauriscus and Apollonius of Tralles, mentioned by Pliny, , NH XXXVI, 33 fGoogle Scholar.

The story of this group is complicated by the fact that a very similar group, obviously copied from a Hellenistic painting, appears in Pompeian pictures. It is possible that the painted version was earlier, but it seems that the sculptural version followed by the Etruscans cannot be placed later than 160–150 B.C. Whether the model followed by the Etruscans was a sculpture in the round or a relief is uncertain. (Studniczka, F., Zeitschrift für bildende Kunst, 1903, 171 ff.Google Scholar)

For the different views on this subject cf. Klein, W., ÖJh XIII, 110, 123 ff.Google Scholar, and Vom antiken Rococo, Vienna, 1921, 21 f. (160 B.C.)Google Scholar; A. W. Lawrence, op. cit., 1929, 382 f., pl. 152 b; Dickins, op. cit., 18, 48 f. (130 B.C.), Herrmann-Bruckmann, pl. 43; Rodenwaldt, G., Komposition der pompejanischen Wandgemälde, Berlin, 1909, 219 ff.Google Scholar; Lippold, G., JdI XXIX, 1914, 174 f.Google Scholar; Pfuhl, E., MuZ II, 787 ff.Google Scholar, 819; RM XL, 1926, 227 f.Google Scholar; Schmidt, E., Festschrift, P. Arndt, Munich, 1925, 110 f.Google Scholar; Bieber, M., in Thieme-Becker, , Künstler-Lexikon XXXII, 1938, 476Google Scholar, s.v. Tauriskos. Chr. Dawson, M., Yale Class. Studies IX, 1943, 92 f., 131 ff, 162 fGoogle Scholar. emphasises the divergencies seen in the various representations of the Dirce episode in Pompeian pictures.

47 Pryce, F. N., Cat. Sculpt., Brit. Mus. I, 2, 1931, 217 f.Google Scholar, fig. 73, no. D 54.

48 Pergamon III, 2, 165 f.Google Scholar, pl. 32, 3; Robert, C., JdI XV, 1900, 113, fig. 10Google Scholar.

49 Pergamon III, 2, 215 ff.Google Scholar, pl. 33, 4. Etruscan Urn, Museo Guarnacci Volterra, no. 511. Alinari 10392. Körte, , Rilievi III, 235, no. 16Google Scholar.

50 Pryee, F. N., Cat. Sculpt., Brit. Mus. I, 2, 1931, 215, fig. 71Google Scholar.

51 Lawrence, Later Greek Sculpture, pl. 49; Pergamon III 2, 167 f.Google Scholar, pl. 32, 5.

52 Pergamon III, 2, pl. 33, 1Google Scholar.

53 Schober, A., Der Fries des Hekateions von Lagina (Istanbuler Forschungen II), 1931, 80 f., 89 ffGoogle Scholar.

54 Fouilles de Delphes IV, 1904, pl. 176Google Scholar; Perdrizet, , BCH XXI, 1897, 600 ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar. Perdrizet suggested that the frieze might be one of the ‘embellishments’ paid for by Eumenes of Pergamon, according to an inscription of 159 B.C. This does not mean, however, that the frieze could not be done several years later and by local (rather than Pergamene) sculptors.

55 Museo Guarnacci, no. 427; Körte, , Rilievi III, pl. 115, 2Google Scholar. Bienkowski, op. cit., 110 f., no. 70, fig. 118; Giglioli, AE, pl. 400, 1. Ducati, AE, pl. 274, fig. 663.

56 Cf. Schober, op. cit., 39 f., 68, pl. 17. The Etruscan urn is in Museo Guarnacci, Volterra, no. 429. Photograph: Lombardi 2629. Brunn, , Rilievi I, 74 f.Google Scholar, pl. 67, 1.

57 Lawrence, A. W., Class. Scuplture, 303 ff.Google Scholar (on Damophon, on whom cf. also Dinsmoor, W. B., AJA XLV, 1941, 422 ff.Google Scholar). 310 ff.; Mustilli, D., L'arte augustea, 1938, 309 ffGoogle Scholar. (on Italy).

58 Rumpf, A., Kat., 28, No. E. 39, pl. 30Google Scholar; Körte, , Rilievi III, 242, figs. 59–61, pl. 34Google Scholar.

59 Brunn-Bruckmann, pl. 621.

60 W. Hausenstein, Die Bildnerei der Etrusker, pl. 59; Ducati, P., Italia antica, Milan, 1936, fig. 296Google Scholar.

61 Schober, Beil. XX–XXI, Nos. 224–225.

62 Photograph Sommer 9092. Gladiator relief: Weickert, C., Münchner Jakrb. bild. Kunst II, 1925, 1 ff.Google Scholar; CAH, Vol. of Plates IV, 90a; A. W. Lawrence, op. cit., 321. Another example of Roman influence is the marble cippus from S. Martino alla Palena, inscribed in Etruscan, and somewhat similar in style to the urn discussed: Buonamici, , Studi Etruschi IV, 1930, 267 ff., pls. 21 fGoogle Scholar.

63 According to Herbig, R., AA XLIX, 1934, 530 f.Google Scholar, sarcophagi of Etruscan type continued to be made until the late first century B.C. Two of these, without reliefs, but with crude portraits on the lids, are dated by their Latin inscriptions in the years 69 B.C. and 29 B.C. G. Cultrera, NSc., 1916, 11 and 27, figs. 8–9 and 10–13, illustrates similar pieces as well as some urn lids with simple ornament from a tomb which was still used in the time of Augustus.