6 pm, the british school at rome friday, may 20 – villa giulia museum

“Material Connections and Artistic Exchange: The Case of Etruria and Anatolia” International Workshop, Rome, 19‐21 May 2016 ***TENTATIVE PROGRAM*** (updated 5/5/16, subject to change) THURSDAY, MAY 19 – 6 PM, THE BRITISH SCHOOL AT ROME Keynote lecture – Alessandro Naso (Istituto di Studi sul Mediterraneo Antico, Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche and Università Federico II, Napoli), “From East to West and Beyond” FRIDAY, MAY 20 – VILLA GIULIA MUSEUM 9:00 – 9:30: Registration 9:30 – 9:45: Welcome and Introduction o Maria Paola Guidobaldi (Direttore, Museo Nazionale Etrusco di Villa Giulia) and Alfonsina Russo (Soprintendenza per I beni archeologici dell'etruria meridionale) 9:45 – 12:00: Session 1 – Theoretical frameworks o Tamar Hodos (University of Bristol), “Bridging cultures in the past and present” Anatolia and Etruria have been separated by scholarship as much as the Mediterranean itself; although neither sits within the centre of Near Eastern or Classical Archaeology, Anatolian archaeology has been more the preserve of Near Eastern scholars, while Etruscan studies have fallen under the domain of Classical scholars. Recent theoretical developments that seek to connect communities have begun to emphasise the links between these cultural groups, and bring together their respective scholarly disciplines. This presentation outlines the evidence for Mediterranean‐wide connections during the Iron Age, especially between Anatolia and Etruria. It considers historical interpretations of the nature of the connections that underpin this evidence and presents a new perspective that balances shared practices with localised differences, which increasingly characterise this period of Mediterranean history. o Nassos Papalexandrou (The University of Texas at Austin), “The role of Greek sanctuaries as nodes of material and artistic interaction between Etruria and Anatolia” The presence of Etruscans and Anatolians in the Greek sanctuaries, both Panhellenic (Delphi, Olympia) and other (Samos) is textually and materially attested for the Archaic and Classical Periods. This paper proposes a synthetic overview of the relevant evidence and examines its implications for the problem of material connections and artistic exchange between Etruria and Anatolia. o Francesco de Angelis (Columbia University), “Mythological Images, East and West” 10:45 – 11:15 Coffee Break o Jessica Nowlin (Brown University), “The long shadow of ‘orientalizing’: the political context and motivations behind an art historical term and the search for Etruscan origins” This paper contextualizes the development of the art historical term “orientalizing”, and the investigation of Etruscan origins, within the broader historical and political environment of the 19th and early 20th centuries. Study of the long‐standing question of Etruscan origins was often used to bolster Italian nationalism, particularly during the Risorgimento. However, the evidence of material similarities between objects discovered in Etruria, Greece and the Near East during the 19th century indicated participation in a broader, Mediterranean‐wide artistic style. It is within this backdrop that Alexander Conze first defined an “orientalizing” style, and Alessandro Della Seta formalized “orientalizing” as a chronological period within Etruscan art history. The term “orientalizing”, however, was not just meant as a tool for defining artistic styles or periods, but as a project in Orientalism: defining the birth of civilization in the West against Eastern peoples and traditions, marking the triumph of Western artistic invention over Eastern decorative influence, and condensing the artistic and intellectual contributions from the eastern Mediterranean into an amorphous “Orient”. In the same climate of Italian colonial expansion within the Aegean, Della Seta began his own archaeological mission at Lemnos (1925‐
1931) in order to clarify the question of Etruscan origins or eastern “orientalizing” influence. By tracing the scholarly developments and projects concerning Etruria and Lemnos around the turn of the last century, this paper explores the long shadow that these three political ideologies (Nationalism, Orientalism and Colonialism) have placed over the topic of Etruscan and eastern interaction. o Discussant: Bruno D’Agostino (University of Naples) 12:00 – 13:30 Lunch Break 13:30 – 15:30: Session 2 – Luxury, textiles, and jewelry o Annette Rathje (University of Copenhagen), “Consumption of luxury items and the life‐style of the elites” (paper to be read by L. Pieraccini) The paper will compare, how ideas of power, rank and status were communicated in Etruria and Anatolia in the protohistoric Orientalizing period by the use of material items and images. By employing and exhibiting specific objects, the elites used a nonverbal language to communicate with each other across frontiers in the Mediterranean area as well as to show their wealth and their sophistication to their own surroundings. Trade networks have been discovered, analysed and exhibited on various occasions in the last decade. However, we now have to deal with the significance of the selection, collection and use of certain luxury items to the ostentation of accumulated wealth ‐ that are better known from the courtly societies of the Near and Middle East. The desire of possessing these items can be perceived in personal or private as well as social terms. As many of the items belong to the sphere of banqueting, it is mandatory to link the two worlds in question vis‐à‐vis this praxis of consumption and social events. o Gretchen Meyers (Franklin and Marshall College), “Craft, gender and identity: visual representations of women and textiles in ancient Etruria and Anatolia” This paper examines the relationship between images of females from funerary monuments in Etruria and Anatolia. In particular I focus on the so‐called "female assembly scenes" from a group of Chiusine cippi dating to the late Archaic period in which groups of seated women drape and exchange textiles among each other. Although scholarly opinion differs on the meanings of these scenes, the visual focus on the textile as a component of social or religious ritual is paramount. The importance of the textile within the specific Etruscan context of these scenes is further emphasized when considered alongside contemporaneous reliefs in Anatolia associated with females, most notably those on the Polyxena sarcophagus from a tomb in the northern Troad. Through both visual analysis and attention to broader issues of gendered representation and identity I examine the importance of cultural context for interpreting female‐focused narratives in both ancient Etruria and Anatolia. o Tuna Şare Ağtürk (Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart University), “Anatolian fashion in Etruscan clothing” The similarities between the imagery of Etruscan and Western Anatolian dress fashions, such as pointed shoes and tasseled chitons, indicate an obvious connection between the clothing systems of both cultures. Indeed, L. Bonfante in her influential book Etruscan Dress classifies an “Ionian Phase” (550‐475 BCE) in the development of Etruscan clothing system. According to Bonfante, a unique Etruscan look is formed through influence from Ionia (Bonfante 2003). Despite the obvious typological connection to Anatolia often noted in the scholarship, there has never been a detailed examination of the ideological, economic, and sociological motivation that caused the taste change in the Etruscan clothing system. In this paper, through a comparative iconographic study of dress fashions in Western Anatolia and Etruscan funerary art of 6th and 5th centuries, I will try to investigate the meaning of the adaptation of Ionian dress items into the Etruscan dress repertoire. Among the questions sought to answer are: Why did Etruscans choose to wear certain Ionian/Anatolian originated dress items? What did they mean by it? What different meanings did Ionian/Anatolian originated dress fashions take in Etruscan contexts? And what kind of cultural and religious connections did the adaption of Ionian/Anatolian dress items imply? o Alexis Castor (Franklin and Marshall College), “Male ornaments in East and West” Luxurious dress and jewelry were important in the public self‐representation in Perso‐Anatolian and Etruscan cultures. What distinguishes jewelry use in these societies is that jewelry was equally significant for elite males as it was for females. In fact, most of the visual evidence for jewelry in the east comes from ornaments worn by soldiers, court officials, and kings. Persian, Anatolian, and Lydian women are rarely represented in the surviving art, making it unusually difficult to reconstruct the jewelry styles and types they favored. Etruscan men, too, showed themselves with rings, bracelets and armbands, necklaces, and earrings. In this paper, I will examine the male adoption of jewelry and explore the meanings of personal ornaments in both cultures. o Discussant: Gregory Warden (Franklin University) 15:30 – 16:00 Coffee Break 16:00 – 18:00: Session 3 – Furniture, tombs, and funerary monuments o Elizabeth Simpson (Bard Graduate Center), “Wooden furniture from Verucchio and Gordion” Abstract: A large collection of fine wooden artifacts was excavated by the University of Pennsylvania Museum at the site of Gordion in Turkey, the capital of the kingdom of Phrygia, ruled at its height by the famous King Midas in the 8th century BC. Between 1956 and 1959, the team recovered more than 50 pieces of wooden furniture and 70 wooden objects from three royal tumulus burials and the city mound at Gordion. These have now been studied, conserved, and, in several cases, reconstructed for display in the Museum of Anatolian Civilizations, Ankara. Thirteen tables and three serving stands were found in Tumulus MM and Tumulus P, exhibiting characteristic Phrygian decoration and construction methods; the style and joinery of the tables, in particular, tie them to a long trajectory of wooden tables from the ancient Near East. Two tombs excavated in 1972 at Verucchio in northern Italy contained a wide variety of fine wooden objects dating to the late eighth or early seventh century BC. The finds from tombs 85 and 89 included wood tables, footstools, thrones, boxes, and bowls, along with other organic materials. Three tables were found in tomb 85, each with a round table top and three curved legs ending in elaborately carved feet. The legs were fixed to the table top with a version of the collar‐
and‐tenon joinery used for the wooden tables from Gordion. Rarely are wooden artifacts recovered in good condition from archaeological sites; the finds from Verucchio and Gordion provide a large and important corpus from the early first millennium BC. This paper will examine the similarities (and differences) between the Gordion and Verucchio wooden furniture – and investigate the possibility of interaction between Near Eastern and Italic woodworking schools in the 8th‐7th centuries BC. o Stephan Steingräber (Università degli Studi Roma Tre), "Rock tombs and Monuments in Southern Etruria and Anatolia: Typology, Chronology, Ideology ‐ Differences and Common Elements" The inner part of South Etruria (= Etruria rupestre, Tuscia, Prov. di Viterbo) and several parts of Anatolia/Asia Minor are characterized by the impressing and often spectacular phenomenon of rock tombs and rock monuments. Recently the Austrian scholars Petra Amann and Peter Ruggendorfer published an interesting comparison between the rock tombs of Etruria and those of Lycia (in: L’Etruria meridionale rupestre. Atti del Convegno internaz. “L’Etruria rupestre dalla Protostoria al Medioevo. Insediamenti, necropoli, monumenti, confronti”, Barbarano Romano – Blera, 8‐10 ottobre 2010 [Roma 2014] pp. 406‐428). Indeed in Lycia and neighbouring Caria we find the highest concentration of rock tombs in Anatolia. But rock tombs and monuments are documented also in Pamphylia, Pisidia, Kilikia, Kappadocia, Phrygia, Lydia, Paphlagonia‐Pontos and Urartu. They date mainly from the 9th‐8th cent. B.C. to the Roman period with a remarkable concentration between the 4th cent. and the Hellenistic period. There is a rich variety in sense of typology, architecture and decoration and in some cases also of function. In Etruria the phenomenon of rock tombs is documented mainly from the second quarter of the 6th cent. until the early 2nd cent. B.C. in the areas of Tuscania, San Giuliano, Blera, Norchia, Castel d’Asso and Sovana and includes cube/half‐cube/false‐cube tombs, house tombs, porticus tombs, temple tombs, aedicula tombs and tholos tombs. But there are other rock monuments such as altars, thrones, stepped monuments ecc. too. In my paper I will discuss both the main common elements and the many differences between Etruscan and Anatolian rock tombs and monuments examining position, chronology, typology, architecture, decoration, function and death cult. o Elizabeth Baughan (University of Richmond), “Funerary beds and banquet couches in Etruria and Anatolia” Stone replicas of wooden beds and couches are found in both Etruscan and Anatolian tombs. While some details of form and layout are strikingly comparable, others are distinctive, and the two traditions seem to have emerged from different conceptual backgrounds and funerary practices. This paper will explore the implications of both the similarities and the differences in the way funeral beds and couches were arranged and decorated in Anatolian and Etruscan tombs, and will also consider depictions of klinai (banquet couches) in Etruscan tomb paintings. While Etruscans used the same furniture types found in contemporary western Anatolia and Greece, they did so in different and culturally distinctive ways. o Bilge Hürmüzlü (Süleyman Demirel University), “Guardian of tombs from Anatolia to Etruria, and a Pisidian sphinx” (paper to be read by E. Baughan) The idea of the sphinx as a guardian of tombs was introduced to the Greek and western Mediterranean world as a result of the relationships established with the East in antiquity. Various examples of sphinxes as guardians of tombs, seen frequently in Ionian and Etruscan art, related with grave and burial culture, are also encountered in Anatolia during the long Persian control of the area and indicate they were influenced by the Lydian, Phrygian and Greek burial traditions. It is also generally accepted that Ionian artists started to become influential in Lydian art from the mid‐sixth century BC, and some elements were transferred to funeral depictions. A sphinx figure on the grave stele of a tumulus in Pisidia around ancient Tymandos embodies these different stylistic and artistic components. The tumulus itself dates back to the reign of Persians and is of Lydian type. The sphinx on the door stele shows strong Ionian influence in style and iconography. In this paper, the figure of the sphinx as a tomb guardian ranging from Anatolia to Etruria will be investigated from intellectual and artistic perspectives. o Discussant: Alessandro Naso (Istituto di Studi sul Mediterraneo Antico, Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche and Università Federico II, Napoli) SATURDAY, MAY 21 – VILLA GIULIA MUSEUM 9:00 ‐ 9:15: Welcome and Introduction o Rita Cosentino (Direttore, Soprintendenza archeologia del Lazio e dell'Etruria Meridionale) 9:15 – 11:15: Session 4 – Pottery and vase‐painting o Theresa Huntsman (Harvard University), “A tale of two buccheri: the use of the term ‘bucchero’ in ceramics of the eastern and western Mediterranean” In modern archaeological study, the term bucchero is used almost exclusively to designate the celebrated ceramic tradition of the Etruscans. The fabric was fired glossy black on the exterior and black through the core via an oxygen‐reducing kiln environment. This technique was not exclusive to Etruria, however. The so‐called “Aeolic bucchero” of Asia Minor, coincidently, appeared around the same time as Etruscan bucchero, during the Orientalizing period. This paper investigates the use of the term bucchero in the scholarship of the eastern and western Mediterranean, why it goes out of use in discussing ceramics from Anatolia, and whether the existence of this production technique was used by scholars as archaeological evidence to support Herodotus’ theory of the Anatolian origins of the Etruscans. o Fernando Gilotta (Seconda Università di Napoli), “Between material culture and funerary ideology. Some remarks from South Etruria” Some remarks will be made on exchanges and borrowings in technical processes (pottery), mourning and commemorative iconographies (wall painting), and finally style, both in painting and in terracotta sculpture, mainly focusing on South Etruscan evidence. o Dimitrios Paleothodoros (University of Thessaly), “Ionian and other Anatolian Influences on Etruscan Black‐Figure Vase‐Painting” Although the local character of Etruscan black‐figure vase painting was recognized as early as the 1830s, later scholarship was dominated by the Panionian paradigm. Until recently, Etruscan black‐figure was regarded as a school of vase‐painting initiated by migrants from East Greece, soon to lose its “Greek” character and become “barbarized”. New developments in the study of Etruscan black‐figure have brought forth a partial revision of the previous paradigm. In particular, it has been proven that the founder of the Pontic workshop, which is the earliest school of Etruscan black‐figure, was a painter who owed nothing to East Greek art (the so‐called Eure Painter). In addition, it has been argued recently that certain groups of vases once thought to be the products of Ionian painters who migrated in Etruria (the Campana dinoi, the Northampton group) should rather be regarded as imports. Since these developments affect the very essence of the established paradigm, it is now time to reassess all the available evidence. This paper deals not only with style, ornament and vase‐shapes, but also addresses the questions of iconographic influence, especially in matters of ritual and divine iconography. Thus, a more balanced view about the contribution of Anatolia to the development of Etruscan pictorial styles of the second half of the sixth century BCE is achieved. o Tyler Jo Smith (University of Virginia), “Connectivity in motion: dancing figures in Anatolia and Etruria” Visual representations of ancient dance have normally focused on a single region, time period, or art form and have largely shied away from cultural comparisons. This is hardly surprising considering the massive quantity of evidence from ancient Greece alone ‐ in particular black‐figure vases – datable to the archaic period. The evidence from Athens, Corinth, and other pottery producing centres of the Greek mainland and islands has received sustained scholarly attention; however, the dancing figures of Anatolia and Etruria have been given far less consideration and have, if anything, been too often viewed in relation to outside (i.e. Greek) influence or inspiration. Although the nature and the quantity of evidence from these two areas differs greatly, on stylistically grounds alone, their dancers maintain both independent and shared features that are not readily apparent elsewhere. This paper explores the evidence of dance in the arts of Anatolia and Etruria ‐ on pottery, walls and in other media ‐ highlighting their unique characteristics, their shared qualities, and their archaeological contexts where known. As with dance imagery from elsewhere, the discussion will inevitably include the associated themes of komos and symposion, gesture and music, daily life and myth, funerals and religious ritual. As the geographical bookends of the study of ancient Greek dance through art, it can be demonstrated that both Anatolia and Etruria: play a significant role in our understanding of dance imagery in the 7th – 5th centuries BC; and are integral to our understanding of the spread of that imagery around the Mediterranean. o Discussant: Maurizio Harari (University of Pavia) 11:15 – 11:45 Coffee Break 11:45 – 13:15: Session 5 – Wall painting and Terracottas o Susanne Berndt‐Ersöz (Stockholm University), “Wall paintings from Gordion in their Anatolian context” The excavations conducted by the University of Pennsylvania at Phrygian Gordion have so far only revealed wall paintings from one small building. This structure was prominently located between two large Middle Phrygian megara at the outer court of the citadel, and dates to the beginning of the Achaemenian period. The building was unique regarding both its decoration and architectural features. It was a semi‐subterranean structure that consisted of one main chamber measuring ca 3.5 x 4.75 m with a narrow antechamber in front. The mud brick walls once decorated with painted plaster had collapsed already during the ancient period, probably because the walls had been robbed of their supporting timber beams. The painted plaster had at that time fallen to the floor and during the excavations, of the late 1950s, were thousands fragments of painted plaster recovered. Subsequent archaeologists have spend much time trying to puzzle these fragments together, and this paper aims to discuss both the motifs of the wall paintings and the architectural features of the building, and compare these aspects with paintings of contemporary structures in Asia Minor. o Nancy A. Winter (University of California, Santa Barbara), “Terracotta craftsmen from Asia Minor in Southern Etruria and Latium, 550/540‐510 BCE” Around 540 BCE some decorated terracotta roofs of sacred buildings in Satricum and Tarquinia show a new impulse of technology and iconography that can be directly linked to slightly earlier terracotta roofs from sites along the western coast of modern‐day Turkey. Shortly thereafter, the sites of Caere, Veii, Rome, Velletri, Caprifico, and Ardea document the spread of East Greek influence on terracotta roofs throughout southern Etruria and Latium, products most likely of artisans who moved from Asia Minor to Central Italy fleeing the westward incursion of Persians into Anatolia. The meshing of traditional Etruscan imagery and roof construction with East Greek demonstrates the very special bond between local patrons and immigrant artisans. o Ingrid Krauskopf (Universität Heidelberg),“Pyrgi and the crook, some reflections on possible ways of transfer" The antefixes of the ‘building of the twenty cells’ at Pyrgi are Greek in their style and their function as decoration of the roof, but the “Bildprogramm” of the series is Etruscan, designed for a cult uniting Etruscan with contemporary Punic concepts, and two of the antefixes (sun god; demon with the head of a cock, surrounded by drops of dew) have roots in Neo‐assyrian iconography, with parallels also in Southeast Anatolia. Shamash needed only a few modifications to become Usil, while more was necessary to change the Neo‐assyrian apkalle with heads of eagles or griffins into the Etruscan demon of the dew; the link between them is the concept of life‐
guaranteeing water. Evidently together with the pictures their meaning had been transmitted, free to be adapted to specific Etruscan religious ideas. This transfer cannot have been accomplished completely in the late 6th century, but has to be traced back at least to the Orientalizing period and cannot have been introduced in Etruria only by Phoenician imports. In the last years more images have been published that belong to the same stream of traditions, and not only images: also the curved staff (lituus) was used in Etruria roughly in the same way as in the Near East, as a cultic tool used by rulers and dignitaries; especially close are some Hittite representations. The role of Central and Southeast Anatolia will be discussed. o Discussant: Mario Torelli (Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei) 13:15 – 14:30 Lunch Break 14:30 – 16:00: Session 6 – Myth and Iconography o Jean MacIntosh Turfa (University of Pennsylvania Museum), “Etruscan lightning and Anatolian images” Etruscan divination by lightning and thunder was recognized by Roman scholars and priests as a unique portion of the disciplina etrusca that could be utilized by the Roman state cult. The iconographic symbol of these natural forces, the thunderbolt, was known in more than one form, encompassing the Greek‐style keraunos (by mid‐7th century BC) and another form resembling a trident with long shaft. The trident, whether invented independently in Italy or not, had deep roots in Near Eastern iconography, from Mesopotamia to the Levant, always as the attribute of a storm god such as Adad, Ninurta or Teshub. Finds of metal tridents, “bidents” or representations thereof show them as implements of cultic veneration across Anatolia and environs including Kültepe, Boghazköy, Toprakkale, Karmir Blur, Gordion and Tepe Sialkh, representing several different cultures. There, they were invariably connected with royalty, state cults, and urban social systems – as they were also in the communities of Etruria and Adriatic Italy. o Lisa Pieraccini (University of California, Berkeley), “Chasing the dog in Etruria and Anatolia” Dogs have a prominent place in Etruscan and Anatolian iconography (wall painting, vase painting, painted plaques and painted sarcophagi), at times under banquet couches or running under chariots. These dogs are depicted in a very similar, if not, homogenous style, often in profile and even with identical collars. How did the image of the dog function in these two regions? This paper will consider the images of dogs in Etruscan and Anatolian art from the archaic period. By looking at the differences and similarities of the depictions and context of dogs, we can better understand possible cultural connections and artistic exchange between Etruria and Anatolia. o Luca Cerchiai (University of Salerno), “The myth of the eastern origin of the Etruscans through some iconographic documents from the Archaic period” This contribution is focused on some archaic figured representations that may involve the topos of the Lydian origin of the Etruscans. If this assumption can be accepted, the iconographic documents provide a very interesting evidence to be compared with the mytho‐historical tradition of the Etruscan ethnogenesis handed down from the historical sources. o Discussant: Ingrid Edlund‐Berry (University of Texas, Austin) 16:00 – 16:30 Coffee Break 16:30 – 18:00: Session 7 – DISCUSSION o Closing Remarks: Lisa Pieraccini (University of California, Berkeley) and Elizabeth Baughan (University of Richmond)

Download Report