Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-pwrkn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-10-04T19:23:09.323Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Technique of the Erbach Griffin-Protomai

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 October 2013

D. E. L. Haynes
D. E. L. Haynes
Affiliation:
Dean, Oxford
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In his publication of the six grirfin–protomai formerly in the Erbach collection U. Jantzen notes how closely they agree in height not only among themselves but also with three other protomai of identical type, two in Munich and one from the Samian Heraion. By the kindness of their present owner I have recently had an opportunity of taking detailed measurements of the Erbach set; and Dr Michael Maas, to whom I am greatly indebted, has supplied me with the corresponding dimensionsof the Munich pair. The resultsare compared in the table.

The eight protomai, it will be seen from the table, are remarkably consistent with one another not merely in height but in all their main dimensions—too consistent, surely, to allow us to suppose that they were cast by the direct lost–wax process, for which a casting-model would have had to be fashioned by hand for each protomc separately.

Type
Notes
Information
The Journal of Hellenic Studies , Volume 101 , November 1981 , pp. 136 - 138
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies 1981

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 Arch. Anz. 1966 129.

2 Staatliche Antikensammlungen Inv. nos 35, 36; Jantzen, U., Griechische Greifenkessel (Berlin 1955) pl. 21Google Scholar.

3 Samos B 440; Jantzen (n. 2) pl. 22, 1; AthMitt lxxiii (1958)Google Scholar Beil 34, 1.2.

4 Jantzen (n. 2) 57–9, nos 47, 48; Kopcke, G., AthMitt lxxxiii (1968) 285,Google Scholar no. 101.

5 Jantzen (n. 1) 124, figs 3 and 4; 12s, figs 5 and 6; 126, figs 9 and 10 Jantzen (n. 2) pl. 21.1.

6 Jantzen (n. 1) 124, figs 1 and 2; 125, figs 7 and 8; 126, figs 11 and 12;Jantzen (n. 2) pl. 21.2.

7 Jantzen (n. 1) 126, fig. 12.

8 As the distribution of the crescents varies from protome to protome, they cannot have been impressed in the original pattern.

9 On the provenance of the Erbach protomai see Jantzen (n. 1) 123, 127. On that of the Munich pair Frau Ursula Höckmann has very kindly sent me the following information: ‘Die beiden Münchner Greifenköpfe stammen aus der Sammlung Dodwell und nach der Angabe im Münchner Inventar aus San Mariano bei Perugia. Während meiner Arbeit über die Bronzen von San Mariano stiess ich auf eine Liste, die Martin von Wagner für den Kronprinzen Ludwig verfasst hat und auf der die Dodwell'schen Bronzen, die um 1820 gekauft wurden, verzeichnet sind. Die Funde von San Mariano sind gesondert ausgeführt; die Greifenköpfe werden nicht namentlich genannt. Dodwell hat sie jedoch zwischen 1812 und 1820 erworben, da er sie selbst gezeichnet hat (abgebildet in seinem Album im Department of Manuscripts im Britischen Museum). Leider hat er aber bei den Greifenprotomen keine Herkunft angegeben.

Die frühesten Funde aus dem Fürstengrab von San Mariano sind um 560 zu datieren. Alteres konnte ich nicht ermitteln. Die Protomen werden von Jantzen ins 7. Jh. datiert. Deshalb nehme ich an, dass wie auch bei anderen Stücken aus San Mariano eine Verwechselung beim Inventarisicren erfolgte. Sicher ist, dass die Münchner und die ehemals Erbacher Greifenköpfe um 1812 bzw. zwischen 1812 und spätestens 1820 in Rom “auftauchten”. Da sie in Details so sehr übereinstimmen, halte ich es für sehr gut möglich, dass sie in dieser Zeit zusammen gefunden wurden und dann in verschiedene Hände gerieten.’

10 An exceptionally large cauldron, fragments of which were found at Olympia (Inv. Br. 13540; Furtwängler, A., Olympia iv 123Google Scholar f., no. 809) appears to be the only surviving example ornamented with eight protomai. The normal number is six: Jantzen (n. 1) 127 with n. 4.

11 See now the important article by Strocka, V. N. ‘Variante, Wiederholung und Serie in der griechischen Bildhauerei’, Jdl xciv (1979) 143–73Google Scholar.

12 Jantzen (n. 1) 126 f.

13 Jantzen (n. 1) 129; (n. 2) 84.

14 Hanfmann, G. M. A., Analol. Stud. vi (1956) 205 13,CrossRefGoogle Scholar a reference I owe to Herr Maas.

15 For a convenient summary of the evidence see Robertson, C. M., A History of Greek Art (London 1975) 180Google Scholar f., 646 n. 41.

16 ‘Mr Raphael Maklouf, a 24-year-old teacher at Camberwell School of Arts and Crafts, has succeeded in casting in one piece a life-size bronze figure of a man. This was a sculptural feat quite common to the Romans, Greeks, and artists of the Renaissance. Modern sculptors favour the easier though administratively more complicated method of using workmen to cast their figures in pieces and then weld them together again. The principal of the school, Mr L. J. Daniels, describes the casting operation as “most spectacular” though he personally found it a little nerve-racking. Camberwell students dug a thirteen-foot pit for the mould with a smaller pit nearby for the furnace. Four crucibles were used to pour in 300 lbs of molten bronze—a hazardous operation which took one and a half hours. “I certainly would not recommend it as a method to be generally used”, he said. “As an experiment to see if it could be done, it was fascinating”.’ (The Guardian, 7th July, 1962).

I know of no large Greek or Roman statue cast in one piece: casting in parts was certainly the normal practice throughout antiquity (cf. Philo Byz., Septem Mirac. 4 p. 14; Quintilian ii 1 12; vii 2). As for the Renaissance, Cellini, (Trattato, ed. Rusconi, and Valeri, , 755Google Scholar) says of his Perseus, which was notoriously cast in one, that because of its size it was the most difficult casting ever attempted, thereby strongly implying that in his day figures on this scale were normally cast in parts. The great French equestrian statues—Girardon's Louis XIV, Bouchardon's Louis XV, Falconet's Peter the Great–were cast, as their descriptions boast, d'un sent jet, but in these royal command performances great technical difficulty was deliberately courted in order to be triumphantly overcome. The preparations for the casting of Bouchardon's statue took eight years.

17 Cf. Arch. Anz. 1962 806 f; 1970 452; RevArch 1968 107.