Etruscan Art - Notes

Chapter 9 Introduction
[Note: References to plates are included in the text. The plates are not included in this computer document.

I N D E X

The Etruscan Empire
General Conditions of Art during the Archaic Period
Chronology and Periodization
Circa 600-550: Early Archaic
Circa 550-520: Middle Archaic
Circa 520-470: Late Archaic

T E X T
The Etruscan Empire
By 6000 B.C. there could be little doubt that the new civilizations transplanted into Italy during the previous century had taken root. Two major areas of culture had definitely emerged, one Greek, the other Etruscan; the third prospective centre then forming in Latium had as yet hardly had the occasion to assert itself in a manner noticeable by all. Certainly at this stage the colonial Greek and the Etruscan appear as the two most active exponents of the new Italian culture. Both had then begun to organize and exploit their respective territories; and already it could be seen that each group did so in its own characteristic way. Thus two cultural blocs of unmistakable individuality had come into being and started to move and grow, each on its own momentum. In this respect the resulting situation bears much likeness to the more recent history of the western hemisphere, where a similar colonial drive, originating in Europe, also caused the rise of two quite unequal and in effect novel civilizations in the new continent: one North American; the Other Latin, Central and South American. In much the same way it can be said that by 600, when the new civilization of Italy came of age, the domains of the Etruscans and of the Greek colonizers had become two distinct countries. Each owed its existence to the westward expansion of the ancient Mediterranean civilization: this much they had in common. But in the course of time, as each pursued its own political course, they were destined to counteract each other. Eventually, they clashed in overt hostility.[1]

Politically the sixth century marks the height of Etruscan power. In what way exactly this power constituted itself it is now difficult to determine. There was no Etruscan state in the modern sense, but perhaps a network of alliances between cities and ruling families which one might describe as a confederation. But there is no doubt that during the sixth century this organization, loosely knit as it was, reached its maximum extension. By the end of the century it comprised the entire territory west of the Apennines, from Fiesole to Cumae. It possessed important outposts in the Bologna region and at least one Adriatic harbour, at Spina. Attempts were under way at colonizing the valley of the Po, to the foot of the Alps. To all outsiders the Etruscan rule of central Italy must then have appeared as a closed national bloc.

Actually it seems that in many cases this expansion was carried forward by comparatively small, isolated groups which gained control of the foreign communities in which they settled, as did the Etruscan dynasties in Rome. This Etruscan pattern of settlement by pioneering groups was rather different from the more compact Greek colonization. Another significant aspect was its general direction towards the interior. The Etruscan colonization soon came to turn its back to the sea. Evidently the people who promoted it aimed at an intensive exploitation of the land and its resources, rather than clinging to connections with a mother country [p. 111] overseas. True, the recently opened up woodlands of Umbria enabled the Etruscans to build a fleet, and the waters which they so dominated still bear their name: the 'Tyrrhenian'. But for all we know the chief purpose of the fleet was the protection of the homeland. It also served to maintain Etruscan communications with the nearby metal deposits of Sardinia and Corsica, and to keep the Greeks from sharing in their exploitation. On the whole one receives the impression that initially the Etruscan expansion in Italy met with little resistance. It succeeded, so it seems, owing mostly to a cultural superiority with which its carriers impressed their less civilized neighbours. Its real test came when it collided with equals, such as the Greeks. In this sense one is probably entitled to say that all major Etruscan wars were defensive. Their aims were not armed conquest so much as the protection of interests previously acquired. Only one of these wars was successful: in 538, after a naval battle near Alalia, the Phocaean settlers from Massalia who had founded a Corsican colony in 564 were forced to abandon this outpost. By this countermove the Etruscans effectively stopped all Greek attempts at gaining a foothold in Italy north of the bay of Naples. However, the end of the sixth century brought the first of a series of reverses which during the following century severely shook, and eventually dissolved, the Etruscan 'empire'. Around 500 the city of Rome revolted and emancipated itself from the rule of the Etruscan monarchy. This proved a decisive event. The Etruscans not only lost their hold on Latium but with it the inland communication which connected their core territory with their Campanian settlements. As a result the Etruscan possessions south of Latium, cut off from central Etruria, became untenable; their final downfall, unavoidable after the rise of the Roman republic, was brought about during the following century.

General Conditions of Art During the Archaic Period
Etruscan art of the sixth century is characterized by a steady and increasingly successful assimilation of Greek standards. This statement holds true both of the borrowed iconography and of the grecizing manner of representation found so very often in the Etruscan monuments. The pro-Greek leanings shown in the arts are further corroborated by other, parallel cultural tendencies such as the approximation of many items of dress and costume to contemporary Greek fashions. Such at least is the evidence of the works of art; no doubt Etruscan society, at least in its upper strata, actually followed suit. These cultural tendencies seem quite independent of the political events in which Greeks and Etruscans are mostly seen in conflict rather than in harmony with each other. Yet there is no reason to be too much surprised at such seemingly self-contradictory attitudes. They can be explained as symptoms of a leveling process which just then began to form the 'western world'. We of the western world still dress, behave, and think basically alike, our wars notwithstanding. Indeed the very city of Caere which so cruelly suppressed the Phocaeans in Corsica paid tribute to the international authority of the Apollo of Delphi by building a treasury within his precinct, as was the custom of Greek states at that time. There is also other evidence indicating that during the second half of the century Caere became one of the centres of Greek influence on Etruria.[2] The probable immigration of Corinthian artists to Tarquinia has already been mentioned.[3] Not that these Etruscan cities became anything like Greek states: they merely showed, by their actions and attitudes, signs of belonging to a larger commonwealth of culture stretching beyond their own narrow confines, and throughout this commonwealth Greek standards had then begun to direct and equalize numerous manifestations of social life, including the ways of art.

Thus in matters of culture during the sixth century Greece became the adopted mother country of the Etruscan society. Regarding the arts, two results followed immediately from this condition. First, with the general interest now veering in the direction of Greek habits of representation and Greek themes, the previously [p. 112] noted impact of oriental prototypes on Etruscan art decreased rapidly. It was soon completely replaced by Greek influence. Second, the domestic trends which previously expressed themselves in Italo-Geometric survivals and the Orientalizing folk arts of the flamboyant style became even more isolated than before until, eventually, they also disappeared. The latter development, however, took more time and progressed more gradually than the elimination of oriental reminiscences. Nor did the contrast cease altogether between popular art on the one hand and the more international style of high art on the other. Rather the almost exclusive orientation towards Greek precepts which characterizes the whole country produced a new grecizing art on the popular level as well.

One reason for the last-named development must be sought in the demands arising from purposes not present, or at least not equally active, in the Greek cities. The undiminished importance of local customs and beliefs remained a constituent factor of all Etruscan art. Foremost among these special conditions were the tasks and incentives which the decoration of rich tombs and the care of the dead offered to the Etruscan artists in this as in the preceding century.

Within the general history of art the functions of the Archaic style-the style of the sixth century--must be held to be the same in Etruria as in Greece. Its most important effect was an increased emphasis on the representational potentialities of art which the Orientalizing period had already begun to envisage. During the Archaic period a strict differentiation between representation of subject matter as an end in itself and the more limited idea of decoration became standard practice. Bit by bit the rows of animals and one-way processions of the Orientalizing style disappeared. The human theme came into its own, eventually to become the chief purpose of art. The later process likewise was initiated in the Orientalizing art of Greece and accomplished during the Archaic period. It definitely established a new concept of art, as a record of human experience and a means of communication in its own right, apart from all mere decoration. The work of the artist could now make an intellectual contribution of proper value, on a level with such other intellectual endeavors as literature, science, or philosophy, yet separated from them by its special task, which is the creation of images. Art had indeed reached a similar status of independence previously, in other cultures. But its major accomplishments were still to come, and in our western culture the Archaic period of the sixth century opened the road for them.

In a sense the upswing of representational art, as divorced from decoration, strikes us as even more conspicuous in Etruria than in Greece, because there was less preparation for it. The industrial arts which to the end of the Orientalizing period held so large a share in the Etruscan output will occupy our attention less from now on, and hardly at all after the end of the century. Even with mass-produced objects such as ceramics, the emphasis now is on representation rather than abstract-ornamental decoration. Everywhere the pictorial elements take the lead, representing more or less coherent and specified themes. As in Greek art, they were now mostly set in framed fields, apart from other decoration, if any. Within these fields the indiscriminate use of decorative side by side with representational elements soon fell into disuse. A similar process of liberation from decorative purposes can be observed in sculpture. This change from ornament to free representation entirely parallels the Greek development. All in all, the Archaic was the most unreservedly greecizing period of Etruscan art, with the sole exception perhaps of the Hellenistic.

Yet for all the Etruscan acceptance of a Greek manner of representation, there still remained substantial differences between the outcome in either art. These were differences of style and, more significantly, of scope. A simple consideration can illustrate the later point. In Greek art, the two outstanding achievements of the sixth century were the evolution of the so-called kouros type in statuary, and the black-figure style of vase painting. In both categories the Etruscan contribution remained slight throughout the century. Thus, in general, our previous [p. 113] diagnosis of Etruscan art will not be changed. The special purposes of Etruscan art continued to provide its most fruitful motivations. Many classes of Etruscan monuments have no Greek counterparts; others, like the numerous bronze statuettes to which we must ascribe a special importance in Etruria, though popular in Greece also, did not there lay the same role in the Total volume of art. By and large the Etruscans remained outsiders to the methodical approach and strict logic with which the Archaic Greek artists developed and solved their problems of form. Instead, in a manner perhaps less rational but no less consistent, they continued to evolve a quite different idea as to what art was about and what it might accomplish.

Chronology and Periodization
The chronology of Archaic Etruscan art must be based on the more or less parallel Greek development. The early history of Italy yields but few corroborative data. Possibly the evidence of tomb groups can be better utilized in the future than it has been so far, although the character of funeral equipment underwent a noticeable change during the early sixth century. No longer do the Etruscan tombs present us with accumulations of contents as dazzling and variegated as the great funerary treasures which characterized the preceding period. Compared to the tomb furnishings of the new era, the Orientalizing period was a golden age indeed. From here on gold and ivory became relatively scarce; bronze and ceramic objects prevailed. As far as these implements were domestic products, their place of provenance is still of considerable importance for the history of Etruscan art, if it can be established. The relative frequency of certain types of objects in certain regions may then be taken as a clue to their place of origin and their area of distribution. However, in the wealthier burials a steadily increasing percentage of the clay vases was of Greek importation, and not domestic. As depositories of Greek painted vases these tombs have proved invaluable to us, but their chronological value is often impaired by the relative incongruity of their contents, as to type and age. It was not uncommon for one tumulus to contain Greek vases collected over a century or more.[4] Whenever this happened, the chances are that the contents were composed of several successive burials; but many of the important tumuli were opened during the last century or earlier, under conditions which make the sifting and chronological reassembling of their contents impossible, or at least very uncertain. At any rate, from now on the importance of the Etruscan tombs for the general history of art more often resides in their decoration, especially the wall paintings, than in their furnishings.

The habit of decorating temples with terracotta revetments along the edges of roofs and pediments became common in Etruria about the turn from the seventh to the sixth century. Architectural terracottas of this type are frequently preserved and have proved helpful in determining the styles of local workshops. But no single building of this period can be dated by a historical record, and often the structures themselves to which this decoration belonged are only insufficiently known. The architectural terracottas, also, must be dated by artistic style and other intrinsic evidence.[5]

There is in this situation a considerable difficulty for the reconstruction of an Etruscan chronology, for stylistic comparisons between Etruscan and Greek art are not always stringent. The obstacles are twofold. First, the Etruscan style is rarely, if ever, purely Greek. Not only are the workmanship and formal taste marked by local mannerisms to the point, oftentimes, of outright provincialism, but the very evaluation of Greek art in Etruria, from a buyer's viewpoint as it were, could not do justice to the actual conditions of that art. Greek Archaic art at home developed in specific regional variants which together formed its style. While one of these variants is usually predominant in Archaic Etruscan art also, the Etruscan artists did not often conform to any one standard of style quite strictly. Their work was as a rule not purely Corinthian, Ionian, or Attic: more often than not it fused the dominant characteristics with other stylistic features, either Greek or domestic or both. The remarks made previously about the [p. 114] style of the Regolini-Galassi vase stand apply here as well [above, p. 57]. Etruscan art was still apt to form its own vernacular. Consequently Etruscan and Greek works of Archaic art were not really commensurable. Their styles may be similar but are rarely identical. Even when comparisons reveal close resemblances, contemporaneousness does not immediately follow. Because Etruscan monuments are apt to relate not to one trend of Greek art but to several simultaneously, the chronological evidence is often contradictory. Also the possibility of provincial retardation must always be taken into account in trying to establish the date of an Etruscan work.

The second obstacle to an Etruscan chronology based on stylistic comparisons with Greek art alone lies in the different pattern of evolution which underlies the former. It has long been noticed that Etruscan Archaic art is best divided into three chronological sectors, according to the prevailing variant of Greek style in each consecutive stage. The same divisions will be used here. This does not mean that the Archaic development in Etruria was completely lacking in a coherence or logic of its own: the three divisions merely acknowledge the fact that Archaic art in Etruria received its main impetus from abroad, and that consequently its evolution reflects the accidents of history which delivered the foreign examples to her shores. The Etruscan reaction to imported artefacts hardly differed from the attitude which we noticed during the Orientalizing period. As the superiority of all eastern arts was then accepted regardless of either the Phoenician-Oriental or the Greek style of the chance specimens at hand, so during the Archaic period one has the impression that the Etruscans viewed with comparative indifference the stylistic discrepancies between the various manifestations of Greek art. They merely felt and acknowledged in their own products the superiority of Greek art as they know it. The stylistic differentiations which we perceive in these materials did not count for so much: what did count were the examples available, be they Corinthian, Ionian, or any other. Everything was welcome to increase the body of art work in far-off Etruria.

In conditions such as these the tentative dates assigned to individual Etruscan works are bound to vary considerably in modern research. They can claim no more than approximate correctness, at best. But the succession of Greek styles which chiefly influenced Archaic art in Etruria is more clearly noticeable, and about this point there is greater agreement.[6] They followed one another, in this order.

Circa 600-550: Early Archaic
Prevalence of Corinthian art. A period of transition from the Etruscan Orientalizing to the Archaic style, with Corinthian influences in evidence, probably started somewhat before the turn of the century; but no certain dates are available. This is the last time that oriental imports occur with some regularity among the tomb groups.[7] During the same transitional period the following new types of art make their appearance: wall paintings [earliest painted tombs in Caere and Tombs Campana near Veii]; Tarquinia door slabs; grave monuments with figure decoration [pillar from Vulci, in Florence]; architectural terracottas [frieze from Poggio Buco].

The first fully established Archaic style in Etruria can be traced to stone sculptures from Vulci, not much later than c. 590. In Rome, recent excavations uncovered evidence of a local Archaic art around 575 [terracotta frieze from the Forum Romanum]. But the most remarkable event of the Early Archaic period was the rapid development of northern Etruria. The inland cities rather than the coastlands took the lead. Chiusi became a veritable capital of regional art, turning out stone sculpture as well as the more advanced forms of her Canopic urns. Heavy bucchero became another of her main industries. From near the end of the period date the first funerary statues of the Chiusi type [hollowed out to serve as receptacles for ashes]. At the same time, approximately the decade from 560 to 550, signs of new industriousness can be sensed in other northern centres. The first grave stelae with full-length human figures appear at Volterra. Around 550 the ancient metal industries of the Perugia region began to include works of the highest quality with their ordinary productions, thereby confirming the [p. 115] final success of the Archaic style by formal as well as thematic innovations, especially a new interest in mythical narratives treated as independent themes of art [bronze chariot from Monteleone de Spoleto, c. 550].

Circa 550-520: Middle Archaic
Ionian influences, always palpable in Archaic Etruscan art, reach their peak.

The paradoxical fact is that among the archaeological finds of the period, imported Ionian objects form the exception. They are not at all frequent.[8] Evidently the strongly Ionian inclination of all Etruscan art at this stage was caused by persons--immigrant artists--rather than by objects initiated. The assumption of direct contact with the Ionian Phocaeans who had moved into the Etruscan orbit during the second quarter of the century still offers the most plausible explanation. Nor must we assume that all dealings between Etruscans and Phocaeans ended with the expulsion of the latter from Corsica. Quite possibly the catastrophe of Alalia had the opposite effect, to drive homeless Phoecaean artisans into Etruria after 538.[9] In a similar manner the Etruscan expansion into Campania favoured Etrusco-Ionian contacts, probably involving both trade and exchange of persons.

Most earlier forms of Etruscan popular art died out during this period, or at least before the end of the century. The latest Tarquinia door slabs date from the years around 530. The production of Canopic urns in Chiusi ceased about the same time. Heavy bucchero was manufactured for somewhat longer, but hardly much later than c. 500. A regionally limited industry of rather uncertain duration produced the well known bronze situlae from the province of Bologna. For approximately the first half of the period the northern regions retained their advantage, a fact demonstrated by the intensity of production at Chiusi and confirmed by the fine metalwork discovered in the environs of Perugia [chariots, vase stands decorated with repoussÚ reliefs]. In contrast to Greece, the Middle Archaic period in Etruria displayed a noticeable disinterest in statuary. Painting and reliefs were the leading arts throughout. Stone reliefs, mostly of somewhat provincial style, remained popular in the north, as shown by the grave stelae with upright figures from Fiesole. The important class of the Chiusi limestone cippi, with sometimes excellent relief decoration, started some time after the middle of the century. Gradually, however, the emphasis shifted away from the northern provinces to central and southern Etruria. Vulci, rather than any of the northern towns, eventually became the centre of the bronze industries which made Etruria famous throughout the ancient world [after c. 530]. Around the middle of the century an Etruscan tradition of Archaic vase painting had begun to form, probably in the same city, with the creation of the so-called Pontic type of amphorae. Monumental painting flourished, especially in Caere [painted terracotta slabs] and Tarquinia [Tombs of the Bulls, the Augurs, and others]. The workshop of the Caeretan hydriae, likewise, must have been founded during this period , c. 540-530.

Circa 520-450: Late Archaic
Gradually increasing impact of Attic prototypes, especially painted vases, on all branches of Etruscan art.

The high level of quality established during the preceding stage persisted during this period, at least in certain places. Concomitantly the divisions sharpened between the more provincial art often turned out by northern centres on the one hand and the standards of the leading workshops in central and southern Etruria on the other. Outstanding in the north were the limestone cippi with reliefs continuously produced at Chiusi. In the south, the bronze foundries at Vulci developed their admirable standards of artisanship; furniture [tripods, candelabra] as well as statuettes can be referred to them. Other classes of importance which cannot always be securely distributed between this and the preceding stage of Archaic art are the Tarquinia 'shields' of sheet bronzed decorated with heads of rams or lions or masks of 'Achelous'; and the black figured Etruscan vases which succeeded the Pontic amphorae, especially those attributable to the so-called Micali Painter. The 'shields' may have started [p. 116] as early as c. 530-520; the work of the Micali Painter around 520. At any rate both classes belong essentially to the last quarter of the century, perhaps continuing for a short while into the next. Simultaneously the workshop of the Caeretan hydriae continued to be active. Last but not least some of the foremost monuments of the period are again found among the wall paintings[Tombs of the Baron, the Lionesses, Hunting and Fishing, and others, all at Tarquinia].

Not before this period did statuary come again into prominence. The production of bronze statuettes, which had never quite ceased, can be seen to increase noticeably in number and quality. Around 520 terracotta statuary resumed its astonishing career in Etruscan art, as manifested by the famous sarcophagi with reclining figures from Cerveteri [Caere]. Among the terracotta statues, the Apollo group from Veii constitutes one of the most distinguished examples preserved of all Etruscan sculpture. A date around 500 is here ascribed to it. At the same time terracotta sculpture on a smaller scale was widely practiced all over Etruria. Of this fact the Faliscan and Latin sites especially bear ample testimony. All in all, the years between c. 530 and 500 rival in productiveness the most flourishing decades of the Orientalizing style in Etruria. [p. 117]