Etruscan orientalization 2021913665, 9789004473256, 9789004473287, 9004473254

Citation preview

Etruscan Orientalization

Ancient History Editor-in-Chief Lee L. Brice (Western Illinois University) Editorial Board Jeremy Armstrong (Early Rome) (Auckland University) Denise Demetriou (Greece and Ancient Mediterranean) (University of California) Daniëlle Slootjes (Late Rome) (University of Amsterdam) Georgia Tsouvala (Hellenistic and Roman Greece) (Illinois State University)

Volumes published in this Brill Research Perspectives title are listed at brill.com/rpah

Etruscan Orientalization By

Jessica Nowlin

LEIDEN | BOSTON

This paperback book edition is simultaneously published as issue 3.2 (2020) of Ancient History, DOI:10.1163/25425374-12340008 Library Congress Control Number: 2021913665

Typeface for the Latin, Greek, and Cyrillic scripts: “Brill”. See and download: brill.com/brill-typeface. ISBN 978-90-04-47325-6 (paperback) ISBN 978-90-04-47328-7 (e-book) Copyright 2021 by Jessica Nowlin. Published by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Brill Nijhoff, Brill Hotei, Brill Schöningh, Brill Fink, Brill mentis, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Böhlau Verlag and V&R Unipress. Koninklijke Brill NV reserves the right to protect this publication against unauthorized use. Requests for re-use and/or translations must be addressed to Koninklijke Brill NV via brill.com or copyright.com. This book is printed on acid-free paper and produced in a sustainable manner.

Contents Etruscan Orientalization 1 Jessica Nowlin Abstract 1 Keywords 1 1 Introduction 1 2 The Beginnings of Art Historical Periodization 10 3 Etruscan Origins and Nationalism 18 3.1 Ancient Debates on Etruscan Origins 19 3.2 Interpretations of Etruscan Origins in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries 21 4 Orientalizing: The Birth of a Stylistic Term 29 4.1 Origins in Greek Art History 29 4.2 Italian Orientalizing: Between arte/periodo orientalizzante and the Eastern Origin of the Etruscans 39 5 Orientalizing to Orientalization: From Period to Process 52 6 Recent Interpretations of Orientalizing and Orientalization 57 6.1 Aristocratic Banquet 59 6.2 Monarchy 63 6.3 Luxury 65 6.4 The Colonialist Transfer of a ‘Princely’ Way of Life 68 6.5 Postcolonial Interpretations 75 7 Conclusions: Abandoning the Term 81 Acknowledgments 85 References 85 Index 101

Etruscan Orientalization Jessica Nowlin

The University of Texas at San Antonio, USA [email protected]

Abstract The terms ‘orientalizing’ and ‘orientalization’ have been employed to describe an art historical style, historical period, and process of cultural interaction between East and West within the early first-millennium BCE Mediterranean. With particular focus on Etruria and Italy, this historiography explores the Orientalist framework at the heart of ‘orientalizing’ terms while outlining how modern political movements and ideologies of nationalism and colonialism have influenced interpretations of ‘orientalizing.’ By showing the political viewpoints underlying the origins of the term and the ways in which these positions have continued to shape modern interpretations of the effects of eastern imported objects, ideas, and practices in Etruria, this work argues that the term ‘orientalizing’ should no longer be used. Instead, the period should be fit into existing chronological periodizations, and the process of cultural change should be interrogated outside of an Orientalist discourse.

Keywords orientalizing – orientalization – etruscology – orientalism – nationalism – colonialism

1

Introduction

The terms ‘orientalizing’ and ‘orientalization’ have been employed to describe an art historical style, historical period, and process of cultural interaction in the early first-millennium Mediterranean.1 Objects that portray artistic motifs, styles, and forms from the eastern Mediterranean and that are found in Italy, Greece, and the western Mediterranean have been described as ‘orientalizing’

1 All dates BCE unless otherwise stated.

© Jessica Nowlin, 2021 | doi:10.1163/9789004473287_002

2

Nowlin

and are considered representative of an ‘orientalizing’ style. The time marked by the arrival of these objects, originally dated to between the eighth and seventh centuries, is often referred to as the ‘orientalizing’ period within art historical, historical, and archaeological chronologies. In addition to describing an art historical style and chronological period, the term ‘orientalization’ has been employed to describe the processes of cultural change among western Mediterranean peoples that was brought on by interaction with peoples, objects, and ideas from the eastern Mediterranean. At the root of each of these terms for period, style, and cultural process is the term the Orient. The man-made geography indicated by ‘Orient’ is not simply a neutral reference to the place from which these objects, ideas, styles, and cultural changes were launched. Instead, the Orient evokes an essentialized view of the East by the West and a geography of origins, the ancient birthplace of civilization, which has been claimed by the peoples of Europe and the West.2 The onset of key elements of civilization, such as the alphabet, government, art, organized religion, and urbanism, have been connected with the social and cultural developments of this period. The ‘orientalizing’ period, therefore, marks the time at which ‘civilization’ arrived in the West. The unexamined application of the Orient implicates ‘orientalizing’ and ‘orientalization’ in the discourse of Orientalism, as defined by Edward Said.3 Orientalism served to define Europe and the West based on its perceived distance from and superiority over an Eastern Other.4 Although modern Orientalism began in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries within Europe, for such a discourse to be viewed as legitimate, it needed to be able to trace the roots of the divide back to the very beginning of Western civilization. The ‘orientalizing’ period in Mediterranean history serves just this purpose. Chronologically located immediately before the birth of the foundational cultures for Western civilization, ancient Greece and Rome, the ‘orientalizing’ period stands historically as a formative encounter between Western peoples and Eastern ideas of government, artistic style, social relations, architecture, and urbanism. The ‘orientalizing’ period not only marks the point at which the West gains these trappings of civilization but also when Western peoples subsequently improve upon and fundamentally change these elements to create

2 The terms East, West, and Orient are capitalized to refer to the discourses created around each through Orientalism rather than simple geographic indicators. 3 For a further discussion of the links between Orientalization and Orientalism, see Wengrow 2006. 4 Said 1978.

Etruscan Orientalization

3

the essential division between East and West that is at the heart of Orientalism and Western identity. The publication of Said’s work pushed many academic institutions to reexamine and abandon their use of the term Oriental, but ‘orientalizing’ and ‘orientalization’ continue to be employed to varying degrees in the historiography of the ancient Mediterranean. That is not to say that these terms have gone uncritiqued. Recent reconsideration of the terms’ use and definition in Mediterranean history can be credited to Corinna Riva and Nicholas Vella’s edited volume, Debating Orientalization: Multidisciplinary Approaches to Change in the Ancient Mediterranean (2006), which outlines a general historiography of the term, lays out the historical implications for modern definitions of Europe and the West, and provides case studies in the application of the term in different ancient regions across the Mediterranean. Although the book does not make an explicit call to cease the use of either ‘orientalizing’ or ‘orientalization,’ the criticisms levelled at these terms by the authors have influenced subsequent study of the materials from this period and presumed cultural effects of these objects, forcing scholars to acknowledge the limiting and problematic nature of these terms, discussed more explicitly later.5 Additionally, there have been examinations of scholarship on ‘orientalizing’ and ‘orientalization’ in Greek art history by Sarah Morris (1989, 1992) Thomas Brisart (2011), and Ann Gunter (2009, 2014), as well as a recent volume considering Greek and Phoenician art in this period by S. Rebecca Martin (2017), and on the study of eastern influence in Greek art and society, particularly as conducted in German scholarship, by Suzanne Marchand (1996, 2010). These works broaden the scope of scholarship beyond tracking changes in scholarly interpretations to ask why we continue to be fascinated by the level of indebtedness of Greece to the Near East and to look at the implications of doing so for modern European identity. As such, they provide a critical framework for exploring historical trends in scholarship on ‘orientalizing’ and ‘orientalization’ in Etruria and Italy. Although the terms ‘orientalizing’ and ‘orientalization’ have been employed in numerous regions of the western Mediterranean, its modern cultural implications are most fraught for Italy and Greece, since the cultures of ancient Greece and Rome have been touted as the torch bearers of Western civilization.6 5 For instance, a long-time scholar of the period in Etruria, Annette Rathje, noted the challenges made to the terms by Riva and Vella 2006 and proposed moving toward a more neutral chronological marker based on numerical periods of the Iron Age (Rathje 2010, 23–24). 6 Gunter 2014 provides an excellent historiography of Orientalizing and Orientalization in Greek art history.

4

Nowlin

In Italy, the earlier prominence of Etruscan civilization when compared to the development of Rome has meant that the effects of the ‘orientalizing’ period within the peninsula have primarily been studied for the Etruscans, a group Alessandro Naso has called “the third civilization in western Europe after Greece and Rome.”7 Located on the Tyrrhenian coast just to the north of Rome, between the Tiber and the Arno Rivers, the Etruscans have long been a unique focus of study first in Italian and then in international scholarship. The study of the Etruscans, termed Etruscology, is similar to Egyptology in that it focuses on the study of the people themselves in a holistic fashion, employing history, literature, art, inscriptions, and archaeology rather than a singular methodology. In part this is because the Etruscans lie at the intersection of prehistory and history, requiring methodologies from each to be able to build a comprehensive picture of Etruscan culture.8 Such a methodological development, however, has separated the field disciplinarily from both prehistoric archaeology and Classics.9,10 The initial acknowledgement that the Etruscans represented the earliest ‘civilization’ on the Italian peninsula made their study a deep source of pride and identity for Italian scholars from the Renaissance onward. Thus, Etruscology has been influenced by broader Italian intellectual and political developments that occurred throughout the discipline’s history.11 Since early Roman history and society was deeply influenced by their Etruscan neighbors to the north, the ‘civilization’ established in ‘orientalizing’ Etruria has direct implications on the subsequent development of the Roman empire and, therefore, Western civilization. Consequently, building a critical historiography of Etruscan ‘orientalizing’ terminology that tracks the development of this term across the history of Etruscology and the modern political movements in Italy and Europe has major implications for understanding Italian and European self-presentation and identity. The implications for ‘orientalizing’ and ‘orientalization’ in Etruria are fundamentally different than they are in Greece. Because of the debate on the 7 8 9 10

11

Naso 2017b, 1. The same could also be said of Greek archaeology. Recent comprehensive edited volumes in English have helped make the study of the Etruscans more accessible to a wider audience (Turfa 2013; Bell and Carpino 2016; Naso 2017a). For Etruscology, the separation from the field of Classics is also due to the focus of Clas­ sics on Greek and Roman texts to the exclusion of other Mediterranean peoples whose literatures were discovered at a later date or whose understanding was primarily garnered through archaeological sources. Della Fina 2017.

Etruscan Orientalization

5

origins of the Etruscans, there has always been a question as to whether ‘orientalizing’ in Etruria represented the actual arrival of the Etruscans from Lydia to Italian shores, a story originating in Herodotus’ Histories, or the adoption of Eastern civilization by autochthonous Etruscans already well-situated along the Tyrrhenian coast, as asserted by Dionysius of Halicarnassus in Antiquitates Romanae. If the Etruscans were in fact Eastern in origin, as asserted by most ancient authors as shown below, the conflict between themselves and Rome would then represent another foundational clash of Orientalism and could be viewed as a natural parallel to that between Greece and Persia. Regardless of their origins, the view of Etruscan civilization as Eastern has important implications for how Rome and later Europe represented the fundamental differences between the Etruscans and Romans. Romans, while in many ways influenced by the Etruscans, defined themselves by the ways in which they differed from Etruria, essentializing the Etruscans and themselves in the process. The most divergent characteristics of the Etruscans can be connected to Roman stereotypes of Eastern peoples, and the promotion of this view of Etruria by Roman authors established the Eastern Etruscans as opposing representatives to their own Roman values. This Roman Orientalism against Etruria is succinctly distilled in the heroic overthrow of Etruscan eastern luxury and tyrannical despotism by the pious and principled Romans at the foundation of the Republic. The way we understand the changes brought on during the eighth and seventh centuries in Etruria has important implications for how we picture both the relationship between Etruria and Rome and the attributes of Western civilization that are thought to be uniquely Roman. This study chronicles the creation and evolution of the terms ‘orientalizing’ and ‘orientalization’ in art history and Etruscology through chronological and thematic sections that examine scholarly interpretations of the term and material in light of broader intellectual trends and influences. The establishment and study of these terms in Etruria is tied to the earliest art historical narratives, the debate on Etruscan origins, the pace of the discovery of antiquities, the gradual clarification of art historical chronologies, and the modern political movements between the eighteenth and twentieth centuries. In addition to the importance of Orientalism, modern currents of nationalism and colonialism shaped the ways in which ‘orientalizing’ objects and the cultural process of ‘orientalization’ were interpreted. The link between modern political trends and interpretations of antiquity continues until the current moment through the application of postcolonialism and globalization within current understandings of early first-millennium Mediterranean interaction, a shift that seeks to push beyond ‘orientalizing’ and ‘orientalization’ terminology.

6

Nowlin

As such, this historiography of ‘orientalizing’ and ‘orientalization’ provides a broad exploration for how modern experiences of cultural interaction shape our understandings of such encounters in antiquity. The first section, “Beginnings of art historical periodization,” surveys the earliest antiquarian and art historical works on Etruscan art during the eighteenth century to understand how the relationship between Etruria and eastern groups, such as the Egyptians, Phoenicians, and Assyrians, was framed prior to the coining of the term ‘orientalizing,’ since term this will come to encapsulate the influences of eastern groups on the art of Etruria. Anne Claude de Caylus, Johann Joachim Winckelmann, and Christian Gottlob Heyne each address this issue in their larger antiquarian catalogues and grand histories of art. Each of these works situates Eastern art as representing an earlier developmental stage of art that needed to be surpassed by Western groups, such as the Etruscans and especially the Greeks. And while Caylus and Heyne envision some degree of eastern influence on Etruscan art through commerce and trade, Winckelmann only grudgingly acknowledges a limited influence on Etruscan art by Egyptians or Phoenicians. Winckelmann downplays the importance of eastern influence through the repeated characterization of eastern art and its motifs in Orientalist tropes. Rather than ascribing Etruscan artistic development to eastern influence, Winckelmann believes the placement of Greek colonies within Etruria was the critical catalyst for both artistic and civilizational evolution. The importance of Winckelmann’s framing of artistic development as fundamental for broader changes in government and society, his Orientalist dismissal of eastern art, and his foregrounding of Greek influence in Etruria’s progress is evident in the creation and development of the definitions for ‘orientalizing’ art and ‘orientalization.’ The second section, “Etruscan origins and nationalism,” explores the deliberations surrounding where and when Western civilization was believed to have originated and how Etruscan origins were situated within this question. European nations during the late eighteenth century looked to the pre-Roman groups within their borders as the historic precedent of their modern nation state and competed for recognition as the first civilization, a body of knowledge which would later be diffused throughout Europe. For Italy, the Etruscans were the historical focus of nationalist attention, but their much-debated origins made such a competition much more complex. This section lays out the primary ancient explanations for the origins of the Etruscans by Dionysius of Halicarnassus (autochthony), Herodotus (Lydia), and Hellanicus of Lesbos (Pelasgians) and then discusses the positions of scholarship of the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries on the question of origins. While German scholarship asserted an origin for the Etruscans located north of the Alps in

Etruscan Orientalization

7

Rhaetia, Italian scholars were split between the Herodotean hypothesis, primarily promoted by Luigi Lanzi, and the position of autochthony asserted by Vincenzo Cuoco, Angelo Mazzoldi, and Giuseppe Micali. The Italian promotion of autochthony for the Etruscans had strong strains of nationalism that caused many of these historical works to be highly influential in the establishment of the Italian state during the Risorgimento. Such assertions of Etruscan primacy, however, were forced to shift after the increased finds of the earliest civilizations in Egypt and the Near East and since chronologically later Etruscan discoveries showed similarities in iconography and style to Eastern materials. By the middle of the nineteenth century, figures like Giuseppe Micali were forced to reconsider the source of Etruria’s civilization and accept that Eastern knowledge had a profound effect on the development of the Etruscans and, therefore, Italy. Even as such an intellectual shift was occurring, scholars of this period infused Orientalist language into their histories to emphasize the dramatic alterations Western groups, such as the Etruscans, made to this transferred Eastern knowledge, making Eastern styles and practices conform to Western stereotypes of civilization and structure. The third section, “Orientalizing: the birth of a stylistic term,” is broken into two parts; the first traces the creation and establishment of the term ‘orientalizing’ in Greek art history while the second illustrates how ‘orientalizing’ became employed in Etruscan art history and how it evolved to being used as a chronological marker. The section begins with Greek art history because during this period of scholarship Etruscan art was often considered a subset of Greek art within narrative histories and because the term ‘orientalizing’ was first coined in relation to Greek painted pottery styles by Alexander Conze. In the ‘orientalizing’ style, Conze embedded an Orientalist framework by defining the first period of Greek art (Geometric) by its differences from the subsequent ‘orientalizing’ style, characterizing the influence of eastern motifs in terms of conflict between East and West, centering the Greeks as the active group within the encounter. Conze defines the orientaliserende style based solely on the decorative elements observed on pottery, just one of many material types that will come be defined by the term ‘orientalizing.’ In using such a geographically obscure term, Conze erased any stylistic variation that could be discerned between the art of different eastern Mediterranean groups. While other more specific geographic terms were being used in Greek art history at this time to describe eastern cultural influences, ‘orientalizing’ became the accepted term for the Greek phase in large part because its Orientalist framework excluded the East and froze any further development of Eastern art, omitting them from the later development of the Western ideal. What began as a stylistic definition then evolves into a chronological marker for the intellectual and artistic

8

Nowlin

conquest of the West over the East. From this beginning in Greek art history, the second half of the section goes on to describe the use of ‘orientalizing’ in Etruscan art history, first as a stylistic description by Alessandro Della Seta and then as a chronological marker by Pericle Ducati. Originally eschewed by Italian scholars who believed the Etruscans had migrated from the East (and therefore could not be ‘orientalized’), once Oscar Montelius situated this eastern migration chronologically earlier than the arrival of Greek ‘orientalizing’ objects, the term came to be employed in narratives on Etruscan art. Montelius separates the period of Phoenician influence in Etruria from the later period of influence by Greek ‘orientalizing’ material, an Orientalist division that is codified by Ducati when he creates the periods l’arte orientalizzante più antica and l’arte orientalizzante. In isolating eastern Phoenician influence from later Greek influence, the significance of Phoenician influence is reduced by comparison to the Greeks, who are characterized as “emancipating” the Etruscans from Oriental influence. Section four, “Orientalizing to Orientalization: from period to process,” describes how Massimo Pallottino changed ‘orientalizing’ from a description of artistic style and chronological period to a larger change in cultural practices within Etruria. Pallottino’s theory on Etruscan origins focused on the gradual formation over time of Etruria along the Tyrrhenian coast, a formation influenced by a number of different external factors and whose culmination was marked by the developments that characterized the ‘orientalizing’ period. In this conception of Etruscan formation, foreign influences could be absorbed by local groups without wholesale population migration or conquest. This framework was critically developed by Pallottino in his writings on modern colonial actions in Africa, where Fascist attitudes on race required cultural change and advancement to occur without the need for racial mixing. In Pallottino’s conception of ‘orientalization,’ the positive benefits from Eastern cultures that were transferred to the Etruscans brought them out of the stagnant realm of prehistory and into the wealth of a highly developed civilization. By broadening the effects of contact between Etruria and the East to include social changes, Pallottino laid the groundwork for modern interpretations of the period that explore the arrival of banqueting, writing, more complex social hierarchy, and government within an urbanizing Etruscan society. The final section, “Recent interpretations of Orientalizing and Orientalization,” brings the historiography up to the modern day to explore how the artistic style, period, and process are studied today and the ways in which the earlier currents of Orientalism and colonialism have influenced modern interpretations. It considers scholarly positions on the primary cultural changes

Etruscan Orientalization

9

associated with this period of change in Etruria: banqueting, monarchy, and the taste for tryphe (luxury). Each of these elements has been thought of in conjunction to create a ‘princely’ way of life, which has been considered fundamental to the final stages of formation for the Etruscans by the end of the seventh century. The transfer of this eastern way of life continues to be shaped by the colonialist framework first initiated by Pallottino for cultural change. The most recent scholarship on the effects of this cultural interaction emphasizes the active role of Etruscan aristocrats and others in selecting and adapting specific objects, styles, and practices within their own local context while building an understanding of cultural change that is positioned within the longer local history. Many of these approaches employ postcolonial theory and the frameworks of globalization, showing the continued influence of modern political events and ideas on the scholarship of this period. This examination of the deep history of the term ‘orientalizing’ reveals the fundamental aim of the term: to describe the earliest encounter between East and West in the Mediterranean basin. Rather than serving as an accurate or clarifying term for describing the outcomes of this interaction, the term ‘orientalizing’ obscures the direct influences of peoples from the eastern Mediterranean and assumes a singular result for cultural change among Western peoples. Although the nature of the term shifted over its usage based on modern ideologies of nationalism, orientalism, and colonialism, our understandings of the outcome of this interaction has remained the same. The process of ‘orientalization’ has encapsulated the ways in which Western peoples encountered Eastern ideas, objects, practices, and peoples, appropriated the attributes considered most essential for the development of Western civilization, and then liberated themselves from any negative Eastern traits, leaving the Orient frozen in an early stage of history. Beyond the obvious harm this historical conception enacts toward understandings of the East, the continued use of the term ‘orientalizing’ hampers a more nuanced study of cultural exchange within Etruria and the rest of the Mediterranean during the early first millennium. As increasingly more scholarship has shown, this period saw intensified connectivity and interaction across a wide range of peoples, and each Iron Age group selectively appropriated ideas and materials within the context of their own local tradition. The breadth of interaction calls for conceiving of the Mediterranean as a unitary whole rather than creating arbitrary geographic divisions, particularly between East and West. Only by abandoning the term ‘orientalizing’ can we move beyond an exclusively East–West axis and expand scholarly understandings of how indigenous Etruscans and other Iron Age peoples reacted to increased Mediterranean connectivity.

10 2

Nowlin

The Beginnings of Art Historical Periodization

The term ‘orientalizing’ first comes into being as an art historical term for arts of the eastern Mediterranean style. Prior to its coining, art history had established the parameters for understanding the encounter between East and West through Etruscan art’s relationship to Egyptian and Phoenician art.12 Even from this period, we see the beginnings of using modern stereotypes of the East to interpret ancient art and modern mechanisms of cultural change to explain the transfer of artistic practice. Following the creation of sixteenthand seventeenth-century universal histories that tracked the development of civilization from its biblical birth in the Holy Land, through Greece and Rome to northern Europe, eighteenth century antiquarianism sought to add art and material objects to these literary histories by creating similar universal histories of artistic works and their development.13 Art was considered a critical component of civilization, and its relative sophistication could be used as a metric for the level of civilization achieved. Consequently, histories by key figures, such as Anne Claude de Caylus, Johann Joachim Winckelmann, and Christian Gottlob Heyne, built narratives that were ordered chronologically in terms of civilizational progress, cataloguing first the origins of art and then its development in Egypt, Etruria, Greece, and Rome.14 This order established Etruria as the initial link between Egypt and Greece, making it a key point of transition between East and West. The connection between the advancement of art and civilization in these histories built a narrative of cultural progress that can be seen in later interpretations of ‘orientalization.’ While a simple cataloging of characteristic works of art like that of Caylus and Heyne avoided the later discourses of colonialism and Orientalism, the more influential narrative constructed by Winckelmann laid the foundations for later interpretations of artistic and civilizational change through colonialism and an Orientalist disparagement of Eastern art.

12

13 14

There have been a number of recent works that have problematized the terms Phoenician and Phoenician art. Martin (2017) argues for identifying a specific category of ‘Phoenician art’ beyond the art of Canaanite and Levantine cities from the sixth century onwards while Quinn (2018) has critiqued the use of the term “Phoenician” for describing the peoples of Levantine coastal cities and for ascribing a unified Phoenician identity to them. López-Ruiz (2021, 15–19) provides an alternative perspective, pushing back against this Phoenicoskepticism. Patterson 1997. For more on each of these figures in early Etruscan art history, see Bartoloni 2012, 24–28; Cristofani 1976, 1983; Della Fina 2017; Harari 2017a; Riva 2018.

Etruscan Orientalization

11

The antiquarian Anne Claude de Caylus wrote a seven-volume work published between 1752 and 1765 that catalogued art from the four great civilizations of antiquity: Egypt, Etruria, Greece, and Rome.15 The catalogue provided a brief introduction to the art of each civilization, outlining its predominant characteristics and charting its influences before then providing plates and descriptions of representative pieces in assumed chronological order from early to later phases. Caylus ordered the civilizations to show the advancement of art, with Etruria standing as the developmental link between the grand but simplistic works of Egypt and the detailed and elegant works of Greece.16 While Etruria was developmentally between Egypt and Greece, it was the Egyptians themselves who influenced Greek art rather than the Etruscans. Within Etruria, Caylus asserted that evidence of Egyptian influence could be seen in the shared use of lions and griffins, the reported use of pyramids in the tomb of Porsena, and the comparable iconography and style within certain catalogued Etruscan objects.17 Caylus explained Egyptian influence on both Etruria and Greece as taking place through commerce rather than through colonization, migration, or conquest. This stood in direct opposition to Filippo Buonarroti’s hypothesis that the Etruscans had descended from the Egyptians.18 Caylus believed the Etruscans could not have descended from Egyptians because Etruscan monuments did not preserve a strong Egyptian manner, the Etruscans practiced different religious ceremonies and crafts unknown to the Egyptians (such as the working of terracotta), and most significantly, the Etruscans did not practice embalming and mummification.19 For Caylus, these Egyptian influences were temporary and occurred early in the history of Etruscan art. Gradually, the Etruscans departed from the Egyptian tastes and customs that they first received and began to add greater detail to their artwork, advancing artistic development. The framework laid out by Caylus established the Egyptians as the inspiration for key aspects of Etruscan civilization but also ensured Etruscan independence, providing space for their own development. Artistic similarities between these two groups were not employed to assert a large migration of peoples from one place to another, as was asserted in the nineteenth century. No specific term or periodization was assigned to this shared Egyptian influence on Etruria and Greece. Additionally, the presence of Egyptian influence 15 16 17 18 19

Caylus 1761. Caylus 1761, 119; Cristofani 1983, 161. Plates XXIX Nos. 1 and 2 and XXXII. Cristofani 1978b, 605. Caylus 1761, 78–79.

12

Nowlin

is not derided as being a negative characteristic that must be shed for the advancement of Western civilization, as later Orientalist narratives asserted. Egyptian artistic influence is marked as an earlier, less developed stage of art from which the Etruscans must advance, establishing this period as the time in which the West learns from the East but then surpasses it. Such a conception is necessarily Orientalist in its framing, even if it does not contain the explicit negativity that later descriptions will include. Christian Gottlob Heyne wrote a number of works between 1773 and 1775 devoted to Etruscan art, one of which provided a systematic description of Etruscan art. Heyne expanded upon the categorization of Caylus and Winckelmann, whose work was published shortly before, by describing five phases of Etruscan art, the third period of which was devoted to influences from the Phoenicians and Egyptians, visible in similarities in statue forms.20 In doing so, Heyne laid the groundwork for a distinct period of eastern influences within Etruscan art. Heyne stated the eastern influence was the result of commerce between coastal Etruscan cities and the Phoenicians, as well as Etruscan sailors venturing to Egypt, a categorization of these interactions that aligns more closely with Caylus than Winckelmann.21 Colonization or the placement of emporia by Eastern peoples was not believed to be necessary for artistic and cultural influence to take place. Heyne described the results of this influence as not only the transfer of artistic style through Etruscan copying and assimilation of the human form but also as the transmission of larger customs and ritual.22 Etruscan attraction to Egyptian forms and Phoenician arts was because of the newness of these images and ideas not an inherent belief that this style of art was necessarily superior, a value judgment often attributed to figural representation.23 The changes in artistic practice and larger cultural effects were not thought to be long lasting by Heyne, who believed that the Etruscans gradually began to return to their own nature and original customs following this Eastern influence. In attributing larger changes in cultural practices, Heyne presaged the broader societal implications at the heart of the process of ‘orientalization’ defined much later. Both Heyne and Caylus envisioned eastern artistic and cultural influence as being the result of commercial activity rather than colonization, but Heyne is unique in setting this period of influence aside as a distinct period within Etruscan art. The ‘orientalizing’ period will not be established until more 20 21 22 23

Heyne 1773. Heyne 1773, 39–40. Heyne 1774, 68. Heyne 1773, 39–40.

Etruscan Orientalization

13

than a century later, but distinguishing artistic chronologies based on cultural influence will be an important formulation in later histories. Heyne lacks the Orientalist perspective that Winckelmann takes for describing Egyptian art, which may be due to the fact that Heyne appears to be more willing to acknowledge a transfer of useful knowledge from East to West. Johann Joachim Winckelmann explicitly ties the history of art and the development of civilization together in the preface of his Geschichte der Kunst des Alterthums, published in 1764.24 Winckelmann fashioned his history of art in the same way he approached the artistic development of each civilization with a discussion of their origins, rise, peak, and decline.25 The five books of the history considered: (1) Origin of Art, (2) Art among the Egyptians, Phoenicians and Persians, (3) Etruscan Art, (4) Greek Art, (5) Roman Art. Each of these books progressively led to the peak of artistic development, which Winckelmann believed was achieved in Greek art. Because Winckelmann’s interpretation of artistic development attempted to stretch beyond a simple catalogue of works to use geography, environment, and government as explanatory tools for artistic change, modern judgements about the strengths and weaknesses of each cultural group were woven into his history. Within these assessments, the interpretive frameworks of Orientalism and colonialism can be observed as underlying influences in his work.26 Winckelmann’s profound effect on art history has meant that many of the biases that Orientalism and colonialism instilled in his work have become enshrined in later understandings of the ‘orientalizing’ and ‘orientalization’ phenomenon. In later understandings of the ‘orientalizing’ period, this phase is seen as ushering in the beginnings of art within the West. Notably, Winckelmann did not believe that art began within a single country to be diffused outward but rather that art began in the same way in all nations.27 Such a framing negated the need for creating an ‘orientalizing’ period to serve as the transition from a ‘primitive’ Geometric period to a true figural art form. Instead of artistic practice being invented and then transported between nations, Winckelmann 24 25 26

27

Winckelmann 1873, 150. For more on the intellectual milieu and underpinnings of Winckelmann’s work, see Harloe 2013. Racism underlies all these interpretative frameworks, and there have been a number of scholars who have investigated Winckelmann’s racial thought (Bernal 1987; Bindman 2002; Hodne 2020a, 2020b) and traced the influences of Winckelmann on later European racial thought (Mosse 1995). Since racialized categories are fundamental to Orientalist, colonialist, and nationalist ideologies, it would be useful to examine the racial understandings of all authors considered here, but that is beyond the scope of this particular work. Winckelmann 1873, 193.

14

Nowlin

attributed chronological differences in the development of art to geographic and cultural differences in each place. To Winckelmann, art flourished more quickly in Egypt because its people were centralized along the Nile River and therefore were more easily united.28 Winckelmann did not believe that this early artistic knowledge spread outward from Egypt because foreigners were not allowed into Egypt until the time of Psammetichus in the seventh century.29 There is no mention of the possibility that the Egyptians might have traveled themselves, engaging in foreign trading missions. Rather, any potential Eastern influence is attributed to the Phoenicians, who were engaged in trade with the Greeks and who were allies of the Etruscans. Winckelmann clearly struggled with how best to explain the similarities in artistic styles observed between Egypt, Greece, and Etruria. He discounted the possibility that Egyptian art had any lasting influence on either Greece or Etruria. The idea that Greece derived its art from Egypt was quickly dismissed even while acknowledging that a few ancient Greek authors state this as fact.30 As proof Winckelmann uses a single example of the differential placement of inscriptions on statues between Egypt and Greece.31 The possibility that Etruscan art was influenced by Egypt is given more credence and grudgingly acknowledged through a telling metaphor of a beetle in horse dung: If, for example, any one should see a scarab cut on obelisks, or engraved on the convex side of Egyptian and Etruscan gems, he might consequently infer that the Etruscans had borrowed the emblem from the Egyptians, thereby rendering it probable that they had likewise derived their art from the same source. Certainly it must appear strange to us, that an insect so vile should have become a sacred symbol with the one, and apparently with the other nation also;…. As Pamphus, one of the earliest poets, hides his Jupiter in the dung of a horse, we might interpret the idea of an image of the presence of a divinity in all things, even the meanest; but it seems to me that this low metaphor may, perchance, be drawn precisely from the scarab, which rakes over, and lives in, horse dung. But that I may not enter into any further analysis of this unpleasant image, I am willing to acknowledge that the Etruscans received it from the Egyptians.32

28 29 30 31 32

Winckelmann 1873, 194. Winckelmann 1873, 199. Winckelmann 1873, 203; Winckelmann does not state the names of these authors. Winckelmann 1873, 203. Winckelmann 1873, 202.

Etruscan Orientalization

15

This interpretation of how Pamphus received the idea of hiding Jupiter in dung is embedded within a larger passage that considers the source of Etruscan art. Because these engraved scarabs are found in both Egypt and Etruria, Winckelmann was willing to accept that the Etruscans may have in fact been influenced by the Egyptians, replicating their artistic works through drawing. Through this metaphor, Egyptian artistic practice becomes the scarab encased in dung, something lowly, vile, and mean. Presumably Winckelmann imagined that the Etruscans had to first wash off this Egyptian influence before using it themselves. Orientalist conceptions of peoples, their art, government, and their perceived differences from Western peoples are prominent throughout the work but are especially prevalent within the book considering Egyptian, Phoenician, and Persian art as a whole. By combining the art of three civilizations within a single book, Winckelmann shows a systematic grouping of Eastern peoples that diminishes their achievements in artistic development by comparison to the other groups discussed.33 This kind of undifferentiated grouping will later become preserved in the geographically obscuring term of ‘orientalizing’ art. Winckelmann was able to group all of these eastern peoples into a single book because he believed that each group achieved no further artistic development, but instead their art remained stagnant.34 There were only two periods of artistic style for the Egyptians: one that encompassed the time in which Egypt was ruled by kings and another that was characterized by Greek rule after Alexander’s conquest, a governmental change that resulted in a new phase of Egyptian art due to Greek influence. Winckelmann attributed the lack of artistic development within Egypt, Phoenicia, and Persia to the presence of monarchy, which stifled artistic innovation because no honors or privileges were granted to those artists who demonstrated individual talent.35 Instead, art was more connected with religion, superstitio (superstition), and conformity than the artistic schools and individual achievement seen in later Greece. Such generalizations of Eastern governing structures as strict and despotic and religious institutions as grounded in superstition rather than sincere religious belief are cornerstones of Orientalist perceptions of the East, both in antiquity and in more modern history. 33 34

35

Winckelmann admits that Egyptian art alone has many more examples to catalogue than Etruscan art, to which a singular book is devoted. He argued Egypt does go through a period of decline, but this occurs later in its history until Winckelmann’s own time, where he describes the modern inhabitants of Egypt as “living without labor, sleeping in sloth” and having a “tendency toward corpulence” (Winckelmann 1873, 229). Winckelmann 1873, 316–17.

16

Nowlin

Winckelmann conceived of Egyptian art as fundamentally different than the European art of Etruria and Greece. He characterized Egyptian art as a tree with strong roots whose growth becomes stifled by worms while Etruria and Greece are presented as rivers, entities that by their very nature have a path and progression.36 Winckelmann connected these essential artistic differences with geographic and climatic variations, which affected not only the peoples themselves, but also the types of art that they created. Winckelmann ascribed the production of fantastical figures that combined creatures of totally different natures, a prominent figural representation of the ‘orientalizing’ period, to hot and warm climates, such as in Egypt and Persia.37 Such art would be considered completely foreign to peoples from temperate climates (Greeks, Italians, and Phoenicians), who were more accustomed to producing picturesque and naturalistic images. For Winckelmann, geography created fundamental differences in figural representation, providing justification for a dismissal of these mythical creatures as the product of a cultural defect. This negative, Orientalist view of an Eastern artistic style is contrasted with the superior impression given of Greek art. Winckelmann’s idealism of Greek art is certainly well known,38 but our interest lies in how Winckelmann envisioned Greek influence on Etruscan art and how he believed this influence was exerted.39 For Winckelmann, Etruscan history began with a colonization movement of Pelasgians from Arcadia in Greece to the Etruscan homeland in Italy well before the beginnings of Etruscan art.40 This initial colonization was bookended by a later colonization of Greeks 300 years after Homer but 300 years before Herodotus, which Winckelmann believed could be proved by the presence of coins with Greek letters at the site of Falerii.41 Winckelmann saw this colonization as critical to the second style of Etruscan art, which was driven toward the peak of artistic achievement through interaction with the Greeks, whose mythology became a prevalent theme of Etruscan art. Colonialism, therefore, was the driver of artistic and civilizational change and progress. This style of naturalistic art seen in the Stosch gem and sepulchral urns of what would become the Classical period was thought by Winckelmann to have flourished at an earlier period within Etruria than Greece because he believed that Etruria had a democratic form of government that involved 36 37 38 39 40 41

Winckelmann 1873, 191–92. Winckelmann 1873, 235. Potts 2000. For a greater discussion of the influence of Winckelmann’s framing of Greek and Etruscan art, see Izzet 2007a. Winckelmann 1873, 324. Winckelmann 1873, 326.

Etruscan Orientalization

17

individual participation while Greece was dealing with numerous rebellions.42 The misattribution of a democracy within Etruria, contrary to literary evidence, seems necessary for Winckelmann’s overall argument that the type of government present within a country had a direct effect on the style and level of artistic development that could be achieved. Such a correlation between government type and artistic development was also used by Winckelmann to explain the decline of Etruscan art, which began after Roman conquest. By linking art with larger political phenomena, Winckelmann raised the historical implications and ramifications of creating histories of art and classifying artistic periods. Winckelmann’s attitudes toward forms of government and modern colonization during his own time informed the way in which he conceived of positive artistic and civilizational change within the past. Although Winckelmann did not create a distinct period of eastern influence on Greece and Etruria within his history of art, he did establish many of the themes at the heart of the ‘orientalizing’ period. The equation of artistic development with civilizational development is critical for the broader connotations implied by interpretations of ‘orientalizing’ art as part of a suite of cultural changes. The cultural change attributed to colonization is seen as long lasting and substantial while artistic influence achieved through any other means is thought to be only temporary. Eastern civilizations such as Egypt, Persia, and Phoenicia are seen as groups frozen in cultural-historical time, unable to develop artistically and culturally beyond the origins of art because monarchy and other elements intrinsic to their “Easterness” prevented it. Each of these attributes carries forward in more explicit terms in definitions of ‘orientalization’ developed much later by Massimo Pallottino. The seeds of later interpretations of the ‘orientalizing’ period and ‘orientalization’ can be traced to each of these early Western art historical narratives. All see art as a product of a larger culture and, therefore, a material medium for understanding ancient cultures beyond the written record. Because of this, tracing the development of art toward naturalism and idealism, ideas that were aesthetically more valued in the West, was seen as a way to determine the position of a culture in the evolution of civilizations.43 For each author, the earliest artistic development can be observed in Egypt. For Winckelmann, art 42 43

Winckelmann 1873, 330. Ascribing the development of naturalism and idealism within art to the passage of civilization from East to West became more difficult when new discoveries began to come out of Assyria in the mid-nineteenth century showing both of these traits within Assyrian art. Larsen (1996, 95–96 and 102) describes the ways in which Assyrian art was lauded by Layard for its ability to depict lions as true-to-life while at the same time considering it inferior to works from Greece and Rome and with no intrinsic value for its beauty.

18

Nowlin

was independently developed in every culture but reaches its peak at different times (if at all), while Heyne and Caylus clearly envisioned a transmission of these artistic skills from their earliest roots in Egypt to Greece and Etruria, and eventually to Rome. In this process, all authors picture Egyptian art as something that must be surpassed by Western countries, leaving the East in a period of stagnation where Eastern peoples and their art could no longer develop. Although Heyne was the only one to categorize this eastern influence within a distinct period, all envisioned the encounter between Eastern art and both Greece and Etruria as fundamental for the later development of naturalism and the ideal form in Western art. From this perspective, this period of Eastern influence had already become formulated as ‘orientalizing,’ although such a term had not yet been coined. 3

Etruscan Origins and Nationalism

Even as these grand art historical narratives were being constructed, there was a more foundational question being debated in Etruscan historiography: what was the true origin of the Etruscans and their civilization? The debate on Etruscan origins was part of a larger discussion whose goal was to outline the origin, development, and culmination of the concept of civilization within Europe. Although Greece and Rome represented foundational cultures for the civilizations of the West, there was a push to identify the first European civilization after the Great Deluge of the Bible and Greek mythology that destroyed the earliest civilizations. Because this quest stretched beyond the realm of recorded consensus from written sources, the question was considered open to debate. The nationalist movements that began in the late eighteenth century connected the question of European civilization’s origin to individual national histories and identities.44 Starting with the French Revolution at the end of the eighteenth century, several political movements began throughout Europe that opposed the large multi-ethnic empires or small isolated kingdoms of old in favor of nation-states that were built on economic, social, and cultural unity. In order to build legitimacy, these new nation-states looked to the past for historically based precedents of their own identity, seeking a framework which was not based on the divinely sanctioned legitimacy of ruling kings and emperors. Interest focused on the pre-Roman indigenous peoples of Europe, 44

For a greater exploration of nationalism’s influence on the development of archaeology and the exploration of origins in Europe, see Kohl and Fawcett 1995; Díaz-Andreu García and Champion 1996; Meskell 2005; Díaz-Andreu García 2007.

Etruscan Orientalization

19

who could serve as the historical forebearers of these new modern nations, as distinct peoples established before the arrival of over-arching Roman rule. In addition to employing these pre-Roman groups as the originators of modern nation states, debate occurred between European nations over whose civilization developed first and could, therefore, be seen as the originator of civilization for all. In Italy, the Etruscans became the pre-Roman group identified as the first civilization on the peninsula, whose culture could serve as an example for nationalist Italian unity.45 The Etruscans were put forward in part because the rise of nationalist origin stories came to prominence just as the phenomenon of Etruscheria was winding down at the end of the eighteenth century. Etruscheria, a cultural fascination with the Etruscans set off by the publication of Thomas Dempster’s De Etruria regali in 1723,46 established the Etruscans as a full-fledged civilization before the birth of Rome who could be looked to as the earliest civilization on the Italian peninsula.47 However, since there had been a lack of consensus on the origin of the Etruscans from antiquity, the debate shifted from finding the first civilization in Italy to determining the origin of the Etruscans. This problem garnered international attention with conflicting opinions from among the Italian and Northern European scholarly communities.48 This debate was not simply a dispute over where the Etruscans, and through them the earliest advanced civilization in Italy, came from but rather where Western civilization originated in Europe. 3.1 Ancient Debates on Etruscan Origins At the center of the modern debate were ancient theories on Etruscan origins, which put forth three explanations:49 (1) Dionysius of Halicarnassus asserted that the Etruscans were autochthonous, native peoples of Italy;50 (2) Herodotus, along with the vast majority of ancient sources, stated that the Etruscans had migrated from Lydia to Italy;51 (3) Hellanicus of Lesbos (as reported by Dionysius) equated the Etruscans with the ancient Pelasgians, 45 46 47 48 49 50 51

Mario Guarnacci and Gionvanni Fabbroni traced the origins of the Italic peoples back to the Etruscans (De Francesco 2013, 39). Dempster 1723. At the time of Dempster’s creation of the work, Etruscan monarchy was used as a justification of the Medici monarchy in Tuscany (Cristofani 1978b, 1983; Leighton and Castelino 1990; Bartoloni 2012, 24–28; De Angelis 2013; Ulf 2017; Loriga 2019). Bellelli 2012; De Francesco 2013; Ulf 2017; Loriga 2019. Briquel (2000, 2013) provides an in-depth summation of each of these ancient theories. Dion. Hal., Ant. Rom. 1.26–30. Hdt. Hist. 1.94.2–7 for the Lydian thesis. Briquel 1990, 479 for the other Latin authors who allude to this Lydian origin.

20

Nowlin

who lived in Greece before the Hellenes expelled them to Italy.52 Each ancient theory put forward should be understood within the larger framework of the work and in light of the intent of the author who provided it. Dionysius meticulously laid out each reported theory in an almost scientific exploration of the question, refuting all alternatives to autochthony. For Dionysius, the Etruscans needed to be indigenous ‘barbarians’ of Italy rather than a group from the eastern Mediterranean with cultural links to Greece. Dionysius positioned the Romans as the only true Greeks within the Italian peninsula, whose Trojan descent made them Greeks in Dionysius’ eyes. His argument touted the origin of the Romans by deprecating the Etruscans to reassure his fellow Greeks that they had been conquered by the only Greek population from Italy rather than by ‘barbarians.’53 The conclusion that the Etruscans were indigenous was the necessary culmination of a literary work meant to justify Roman rule of Greece rather than the result of scientific deduction. The remaining ancient origin theories for the Etruscans have been described by Dominique Briquel as examples of syngeneia, where two groups who have a good diplomatic relationship present such cooperation as one rooted in ancestral linkages between the two groups.54 The Pelasgian origin story provides an example of connections asserted between Etruria and Thessaly during the fifth century when recorded by Hellanicus of Lesbos. This theory, directly quoted by Dionysius, asserts that the Etruscans were ancient Pelasgians who lived in Thessaly for five generations before being driven out by Hellen, the eponymous ancestor of all Greeks. The Pelasgians sailed first to Spina on the Adriatic coast before going west across the Apennines to Cortona to conquer the peoples in the land known as Tyrrhenia, later adopting this name for themselves. This origin story characterizes the Etruscans as semi-Greek, creating ancestral connections between Etruscan cities and Greek regions that were engaged in trade and other diplomatic relationships at the time in which the story was reported. This theory dates the Pelasgians/Etruscans to before the Greeks and was an integral part of modern interpretations in the quest of cultural primacy, explored shortly. The theory of Lydian origins was mentioned by Herodotus in reference to the origin of the Lydian and Greek games as an aside in a longer discussion on Lydian customs, which were said to have begun at the same time that the Lydians colonized Etruria. Although Tacitus reports much later that the Etruscans had adopted the origin story reported by Herodotus as their 52 53 54

Hellanicus of Lesbos, Phoronis, quoted verbatim in Dion. Hal., Ant.Rom. 1.28.3. Briquel 2013, 40–41. Briquel 2013, 44.

Etruscan Orientalization

21

own,55 Herodotus relays this colonization narrative as a Lydian rather than an Etruscan story about their own history. Since the Lydian tale is structured in the manner of Greek narratives of colonization from the time, it may have been created to assert a similar cooperative and colonial relationship between Lydia and Etruria. The theories reported by both Hellanicus and Herodotus were designed to suit the broader intent of strengthening cultural bonds rather than to provide a history of Etruscan origins that was determined based on the best available evidence. Interpretations of Etruscan Origins in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries Just as these ancient origin narratives were affected by an overall authorial purpose, modern interpretations during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries were shaped by broader movements of nationalism. The variety of Etruscan origin stories provided by ancient authors meant that modern nationalist histories could draw on whichever origin best suited their own modern aims. Along with the theories put forward by ancient authors, a fourth theory based on modern linguistic studies was added: the Etruscans were originally from a Rhaetian tribe that descended into the Italian peninsula from north of the Alps in military conquest. This thesis was originally put forward by Frenchman Nicolas Fréret in 1753 and later gained the following of Danish-German scholar B.G. Niebuhr and the Germans Theodore Mommsen and K.O. Müller.56 This origin story, unlike those derived from literary sources, was based on the linguistic similarities with Rhaetic, a language attested through inscriptions related to Etruscan that belonged to tribes located in the Alps of Switzerland and that had few linguistic similarities with any other nearby languages. The connection with the Rhaetians was made on the basis of inscriptions and linguistics, a hallmark of German philology and scholarship of this time, and was further bolstered by the discovery of the Bronze Age Terramare culture later in the nineteenth century.57 The methods employed to form this origin story were a strong reaction against the pseudo-scientific practices of eighteenth-century Etruscheria, but this new, more scientific approach harbored its own ideological motivations. The concentration of northern European scholars in support of a theory that placed the origins of the first ‘civilized’ people of Italy within central Europe shows the tendency of these debates to form ideological camps around nationalistic interests. 3.2

55 56 57

Tac. Ann. 4.55. Momigliano 1994, 309; De Francesco 2013, 77; Briquel 2013, 36. Pallottino 1974, 67.

22

Nowlin

Within Italian scholarship, debate in the late eighteenth and nineteenth century focused on the theories of Etruscan origins that were proposed by ancient authors. The founder of Etruscology as a specialized historical realm of study, Luigi Lanzi, moved the study of the Etruscans toward analytical models and away from the antiquarianism of Etruscheria, building a historical narrative for Etruscan art through the incorporation of monuments and deciphering major elements of the Etruscan language by examining epigraphic sources.58 Lanzi agreed with Herodotus’ idea that the Etruscans were Lydian in origin.59 This Lydian origin did not mean that Lanzi believed the origins of civilization began in the East and traveled to Italy via the Etruscans. Lanzi’s tripartite outline of the development of Etruscan art stated that its first and earliest period within Italy, which was characterized as the most truly Etruscan, was primitive and not yet developed enough to be a marker of civilization.60 In this period, Etruscan art shared more similarities with the characteristics of Egyptian art. Lanzi specifically pushed back against the argument made by Caylus and Antonio Gori that Etruscan art derived from Egyptian art by stating that the similarity in forms is simply due to similarities across nature not direct influence.61 The primary catalyst for artistic development within Etruria, following Winckelmann, was the arrival of the Greeks, who brought with them the alphabet, religion, mythology, iconography, and institutions.62 For Lanzi, the origins of the Etruscans were less important because the Etruscans were not thought to have brought the first instance of civilization with them from the East. The roots of civilization were to be found in Greece. Such a stand put him and his students in direct conflict with many of his fellow Italians who believed in Etruscan autochthony and primacy. In a late eighteenth- and early nineteenth-century Italy that was struggling against French occupation and striving to build sentiment for a unified Italian peninsula, a number of Italian intellectuals looked to establish the Etruscans as the very first civilization and as a group which had united the entire Italian peninsula. In such a framework, autochthony for the Etruscans was seen as necessary for Italian pride, self-rule, and eventually nationalist unification. This modern political consideration influenced a strand of Italian intellectuals who argued for an autochthonous origin for the Etruscans, either based on Dionysius or through a modification of Hellanicus’ argument that placed 58 59 60 61 62

Pallottino 1961; Devoto 1961; Rossi 2006; Desideri 2009; Bartoloni 2012, 27–32; Riva 2018. Lanzi 1824a, 18–19; De Francesco 2013, 71. Pallottino 1961, xxxii; Riva 2018, 12. Lanzi 1824b, 145, 187, 494; Pallottino 1961, xxxi. Pasqui and Lanzi 1907.

Etruscan Orientalization

23

the Pelasgians as originally from Etruria. All these theories built on the work of Mario Guarnacci, who asserted that all Italics on the Italian peninsula had originally derived from the Etruscans.63 In light of French claims of Druidic civilizational primacy64 and German scholars locating Etruscan origins within their own territory, Italian counter arguments to these positions took on nationalist sentiment. One Italian writer who specifically sought to push back against the beliefs of Druidic and therefore French primacy was Vincenzo Cuoco. His novel Platone in Italia, published in multiple volumes in 1804 and 1806, provided the historical precedent of a united Italy during the time of the Etruscans, whose cultural traditions served as the origin of European civilization.65 The novel followed Plato and a young Athenian named Cleobolus on a journey through the ancient cities of southern Italy, locales familiar to Cuoco, who was a native of Molise. The civilization at the center of this narrative was the Etruscan, which Cuoco argued had united all of Italy at a time well before the Trojan War. In this account, Cuoco’s ancient guides through the south considered the level of civilization reached in Italy to be far superior to that of Greece and viewed the Pythagorean school that they visited to be the center of Italian politics and morals.66 A confusion of chronology led Cuoco to believe that this already-established Etruscan empire had unified Italy before then going on to colonize Greece, where they were called Pelasgians. The Etruscans, therefore, had spread their own knowledge and civilization to Greece, not the reverse. Eventually, these very same Pelasgians founded the Greek colonies in Magna Graecia as a return to the Italian peninsula by an originally Etruscan group, showing that the regional differences believed to be so important within modern Italy should not be considered a historical fact. In his work Cuoco sought to place the Etruscans and their united Italian peninsula as the oldest civilization within Europe while also establishing the cultural superiority of Italy to Greece, making his work an important influence in the Risorgimento.67 63 64

65 66 67

De Francesco 2013, 39; 47–49. In France, for example, this was called Celtomania, and centered on basing the modern nation state on the tribe of Celts rather than the Franks, who had come to represent the noble aristocracy. Along with serving as the ancient basis for modern France, many French scholars sought to assert the Celts as the first and the greatest people and civilization of Europe. La Tour d’Auvergne (1792) stated that Celtic was the original human language, Johanneau (1807) claimed that all European peoples had descended from the Celts, and Maréchal (1799) believed that Pythagoras had received his wisdom while spending time with the Druids in Paris (Dietler 1994; De Francesco 2013). Cuoco 1804. De Francesco 2013, 36. Cesarani 2010; De Francesco 2013, 34–45.

24

Nowlin

This Italian claim to civilization’s origins and the directionality of civilization outward from Italy went against French claims to a Druidic origin of civilization and Orientalist arguments that civilization originated in the East, in countries such as Egypt and Ethiopia, and later traveled westward.68 Angelo Mazzoldi took this reversal of civilizational flow further to extend the Etruscan or Pelasgian influence to Egypt and Phoenicia.69 Although he does not explicitly cite Cuoco, Mazzoldi makes reference to Guarnacci’s thesis of a united Etruscan Italian peninsula.70 His 1840 work asserted an autochthonous origin for the Etruscans, stating that they were called the ancient Pelasgians by the Greeks and that these Pelasgians had an empire that encompassed the entire Italian peninsula.71 Such a historic precedent of a united Italian peninsula made modern unification a possibility for those in support of Italian nationalism. According to Mazzoldi, this historic period of unification was one in which the Pelasgians helped to bring civilization to the known world. Following the destruction of Atlantis, which according to Plato ruled the Pelasgian kingdom, the Pelasgians exported their civilization and institutions to Greece, Egypt, and Phoenicia.72 Such a construction reversed the historical tradition of civilization moving gradually from East to West, instead placing Italy as the first civilization. This kind of ‘occidentalization’ flew in the face of prevailing wisdom and was criticized by Bianchi-Giovini for being ignorant of both the Etruscan evidence and the new research that was emerging out of the eastern Mediterranean.73 Although Mazzoldi’s Pelasgian hypothesis drew many critiques, its many reprints show that this work gained popularity at the time. This is likely because it not only provided historic precedent of nationalist unification but also showed that during a period of such unity Italy served as a beacon that exported civilization throughout the world. This debate on the initial origins of civilization and the directionality of its dispersal is clearly demonstrated in the writings of Giuseppe Micali, whose books and letters show a change of opinion based on the emergence of new archaeological evidence over time. Beginning with his publication of Italia avanti il dominio dei romani in 1810, Micali explored the nature of Italy and its diverse peoples before the onset and control of the Roman Empire. In the first 68 69 70 71 72 73

Dupuis 1801. Mazzoldi 1840. Mazzoldi 1840, 8. Mazzoldi 1840, 175–76; De Francesco 2013, 88. Mazzoldi 1840, 207. De Francesco 2013, 91 citing Bianchi-Giovini 1842, 83–84. Mazzoldi 1846, 14 asserts the validity of his arguments by stating that they are based on the words of ancient authors alone.

Etruscan Orientalization

25

sentence of the book, he alludes to the debate on Etruscan origins, decrying the fact that scholars have looked to Egypt, Greece, Asia, and the North for traces of Italian ancestors but have not thought to look within Italy itself.74 In attempting to come to a better understanding of the pre-Roman peoples of Italy, Micali contended for the autochthonous nature of each of these groups, not just the Etruscans, as well as their common cultural heritage. He believed that the autochthonous peoples of Italy were independent, differentiated groups who were unified by a common cultural model while being loosely, non-hierarchically organized.75 This picture of early Italy envisioned a system of loosely federated states, coexisting in harmony and united as a single civilization: in other words, an ideal example for those who sought to unify Italy during the Risorgimento. In this model, people throughout the peninsula were not required to give up their regional traditions for the sake of Italian nationalism since a specifically Italian civilization had existed once in the past and had achieved unity while maintaining a certain amount of regional autonomy. Micali asserted this history and regional autonomy in a number of different works throughout the early nineteenth century, making his scholarship a centerpiece of intellectual thought for the Risorgimento.76 The employment of Micali’s work within nationalist projects imbued the autochthonous position on Etruscan origins with political implications for the modern Italian state. The importance of its modern political influence threatened its scholarly position as an unbiased assessment of Etruscan origins. The assertion of autochthony carried with it an implication of the primacy and superiority of Italian culture; yet as more and more evidence of earlier, advanced civilizations in the eastern Mediterranean came to light, maintaining such a position for Italy as the origin of European and Mediterranean civilization became increasingly difficult. We can see evidence of the difficulties behind such claims to autochthony in the evolution of Micali’s writing from the beginning to the end of his career. In a letter to his friend Melchiorre Delfico written in 1790, Micali voiced his opposition to the other prominent theories of Italian origins asserted by the Germanic, French, and Orientalist academic traditions, as well as some within Etruscology at the time: ma io non mi persuaderò mai che un insurrezione di Germani o di Celti, o come altri vogliono una colonia di lidi, di fenici, di egizi, abbian come 74 75 76

Micali 1810. De Francesco 2013, 65. De Francesco (2013, chaps. 2 and 3) offers a full consideration of Micali’s influence and reception.

26

Nowlin

per miracolo popolata l’Italia, parendomi assai più conforme alla natura e alla ragione, che in un paese ove il fisico e il morale hanno avuto in ogni tempo uno sviluppo tanto maraviglioso, sia da secoli remotissimi esistito un popolo indigeno, che per naturale industria abbia saputo inalzarsi successivamente a un grado di coltura e di sapere sorprendente. I will never be persuaded that an insurrection of Germanic tribes or Celts or, as others would have it, a colony of Lydians, Phoenicians, or Egyptians had, as if by a miracle, populated Italy. It appears to me far more in conformity with nature and reason that, in a country where there has been such marvelous physical and moral development in every period, there existed in the remote past an indigenous people, who by their own natural industry were able to elevate themselves to an astonishing degree of culture and knowledge.77 His opinion changed, however, as more archaeological materials were found in Etruria, and as England, France, and Germany conducted more archaeological explorations in the Near East. While he continued to hold the position of autochthony for the Etruscans and other Italic peoples, the beginnings of civilization were to be found outside of the Italian peninsula. In his final edition of Monumenti inediti a illustrazione della storia degli antichi popoli italiani published in 1844, Micali conceded that the first civilizations began in the East and were subsequently transferred to the West: Se però la profonda sapienza antica venne comunicata da prima all’Occidente dalla regione onde nasce il sole, fu indigena la nazionalità delle italiche genti, come fu opera dei nostri savi l’ordito d’un sistema di ben ordinata instituzione civile,… Stavasi la gran forza della instituzione etrusca nella fermezza degli ordini politici, e nella tenacità della legge; ma, se mantenevasi con rigore la forma, trionfavano coll’andar del tempo nuovi bisogni, nuove voglie, e nuovi costumi. If, however, profound ancient knowledge was first communicated to the West from the region where the sun rises, the nationality of the Italic peoples was indigenous, as it was the work of our wisdom to weave a system of well-organised civil instruction…. The great strength of the Etruscan institution was in the firmness of political order and in the tenacity of 77

De Francesco 2013, 57 translation of Delfico 1904, vol. 4 172–73.

Etruscan Orientalization

27

the law; but if they maintained the form with rigour, then as time drew on new needs, new desires and new customs were triumphant.78 Here, Micali continues to assert his opinion of the inherent superiority of the Italians, but now had to allow that not all of Italy’s strengths were of her own making. In order to keep the Italian peoples indigenous to the peninsula, he needed to detach genealogical descent from the transfer of knowledge and imply a process of cultural transmission that for the most part was left undefined. Such a change in the 1844 edition, after 30 years of writing on the topic of Italian origins, was not a coincidence. The publication of the French Napoleonic expedition to Egypt between 1809 and 1828 provided hundreds of drawings of Egyptian objects and monuments for the scholarly community and ignited Egyptomania throughout Europe.79 When the Regolini-Galassi tomb was then found in Cerveteri in 1836, and its elaborate finds – such as the golden fibulae, bowls and pectoral – could be compared with the recently published material from Egypt, it must have been difficult for Micali to continue to deny links between Italy and Egypt.80 In Micali’s description of this East–West connection and the transfer of civilization, we see the infusion of Orientalist language. By stating that in the passage of ancient knowledge from the East, such cultural forms needed to be organized within “institutions,” “law,” and “rigour,” we see the way in which Micali and others felt the East had to be forced to become Western. Civilization in its original form arrived with imperfections associated with Orientalist stereotypes of the East, such as despotism and lax or unrestrained behavior. Such imperfections had to be both removed and corrected within the transferal processes to make civilization “Western.” This infusion of Orientalism into the description of the transfer of objects, knowledge, and ideas began a trend that stretched beyond the conceptualization of Italy’s origins and into the study of art history, becoming ingrained within the language used to describe ‘orientalizing’ material. It is important to note that this imposition of Orientalism only began as discoveries became integrated into large historical and art historical works. When such finds were first made, their publication was typically characterized by descriptive texts concerning only what was visible on the object itself and the manufacturing technique used to create it with little to no interpretative 78 79 80

De Francesco 2013, 78 translation of Micali 1844, iv–v. Description de l’Égypte 1809–1828; Curl 1994. Objects from the Regolini-Galassi tomb appear in the plates of Micali’s 1844 edition (Micali 1844, Tav XLV and XLVI).

28

Nowlin

framework. This method of archaeological publication fell into the techniques established by the nineteenth-century approach to archaeology, heavily influenced by the German tradition at the time. An example of this in the Etruscan context can be seen in the initial publications of material from the Regolini-Galassi tomb, found in 1836 by archpriest Alessandro Regolini and general Vincenzo Galassi outside of Cerveteri, and eventually housed within the Gregorian Etruscan Museum within the Vatican. The 1842 publication of this museum had an entire section dedicated to the finds of the Regolini-Galassi tomb, comprising over thirty plates accompanied by short textual descriptions of the objects illustrated. The accounts were short, direct, and entirely concerned with relating the form of the object, how it was made, and the precise nature of the figures represented on any objects with iconography.81 Even the descriptions of figures, such as sphinxes, chimeras, harpies, and griffins, as well as foreign animals such as lions, simply identified these figures, using no adjectives to further color the reader’s interpretation of these scenes. Such a description stands in strong contrast to subsequent adjectives applied to these materials such as foreign, grotesque, or monstrous, Orientalist terms that came to be assigned when objects similar to those found in the Regolini-Galassi tomb were specifically identified as imports from the East.82 Before they were recognized as imports from the eastern Mediterranean and before they were forced into a broader art historical narrative, these objects were simply described as being true to scale, escaping the Orientalism already present in many of the general histories of art. However, once published, the iconography could be compared to the art of Egypt from Napoleon’s expedition and later, direct comparanda could be found for the Phoenician bowl of the Regolini-Galassi tomb in Austen Henry Layard’s discovery of similar metal bowls at Nineveh (1853) and in Cesnola’s metal bowls from Cyprus (1877).83 At their initial discovery, the material from the Regolini-Galassi tomb could not be safely fit into an eastern origin and so were not automatically categorized as being exotic depictions of monstrous beings, in case they were not originally from the Orient. As this recognition of an eastern origin became clearer, Orientalist language, such as that presented by Micali, became infused in art historical and historical narratives. In the middle of the nineteenth century, as proponents of European nationalism played a great role in shaping the intellectual milieu by working to 81 82 83

Maximis 1842. See works by Harrison (1885), Collignon and Wright (1886), and Martha (1889), which are discussed further below. Layard 1853; Cesnola 1877.

Etruscan Orientalization

29

employ antiquity for their own ends, the stage was set for the birth of a formal term to describe the way in which knowledge was transferred from East to West. There was a shift from nationalistic claims of primacy to an emphasis on precisely defining the relationship in antiquity between each newly formed modern European ‘nation’ and the Orient, which was in the process of being explored and understood by Europeans. This formalized self-definition of Europe based on a distance from and a superiority to the Eastern Other is at the heart of Said’s definition of Orientalism, a phenomenon he was particularly interested in tracing during the same historical period as this increased interest in the pre-Roman indigenous peoples of Europe.84 While Western peoples could still be considered autochthonous, they could no longer be hailed as the originators of the understood indices of civilization. Scholars thus had to establish a relationship between East and West that explained not only how civilization traveled to the West but also how it was improved in the process, thereby affirming the West’s supremacy. In other words, for European scholars the question became: how did civilization shed its Oriental flaws and provide the strong moral, political, and economic foundation of Western civilization? In this regard, ancient historical sources, having served as the basis for various origin stories, could not help to clarify the details of how civilization transferred from East to West. Rather than looking exclusively at literary and linguistic evidence, archaeological discoveries and art history took the lead in trying to clarify the fraught relationship between East and West. Since Greece was on the frontlines of this geographic bifurcation in antiquity and because Winckelmann had attributed the height of civilization to Greek art, art historical research into the differences between East and West tended to concentrate on Eastern elements within Greek art, with Italian materials subsumed secondarily within that. 4

Orientalizing: The Birth of a Stylistic Term

4.1 Origins in Greek Art History Identifying the beginning of the use of ‘orientalizing’ to describe Italian and Etruscan material is difficult because, at the time in which the term was invented, ancient Italian art was considered a subset of Greek art and therefore inextricably intertwined within the larger realm of Greek art historical

84

Said 1978.

30

Nowlin

historiography.85 This was because Luigi Lanzi correctly attributed black and red-figure vases found within Etruscan tombs to a Greek origin,86 and Etruscan and Italian art were consequently studied as a specific category under the heading of Greek art until the end of the nineteenth and the beginning of the twentieth century, when they became their own category of study. The popularity of such vases on the art market, the usefulness of their iconography in chronological dating, and the assertion that Greek art had reached perfection through the achievement of the idealized form meant that – while Greek art found in Etruscan tombs was incorporated within the evolutionary history of Greek art – Etruscan art proper was seen as something of an imperfect, tangential digression.87 The importance that Greek art history placed on vases found in Etruria also meant that most art historical narratives built for Etruria centered on the evolving iconography that could be observed on pottery, often to the exclusion of other objects found within the same contexts. When examining the historiography of Etruscan tombs dating to the so-called ‘orientalizing’ period, one must unite multiple fields of art historical study from the nineteenth century: Greek art, Etruscan art, Egyptian art, and eventually Phoenician art. Over the span of that century, the descriptions of and relationships between each of these art historical categories became clarified, but the one over-arching theme that slowly shaped all interpretations of these different art forms was Orientalism and the intellectual framework it provided for the birth of the term ‘orientalizing.’ As Etruscan art gained greater definition, imported eastern objects to Etruria were securely identified as imports, and they quickly gained dismissive and derisive attention. The language used, to be more directly explicated below, illustrates a growing unease with the new evidence of the earliest civilizations in the East and a developing need to build a historical framework that allowed the West to receive such foreign objects from the East in both Italy and Greece. Orientalism, however, required a historical account that accepted the positive developments of civilization (urbanism, writing, monumental building, figural 85 86 87

Gunter (2009 chap. 2) discusses the beginning of the term ‘orientalizing’ within Greek scholarship along with tracing the study of the relationship between Greece and the Orient back to the time of Homer. See also Marchand 2010; Gunter 2014. Lanzi 1806. Bundrick (2019 chap. 1, especially pages 6–7) discusses the long-term ramifications of interpreting the Greek black and red-figure vases found in Etruria from a primarily Graeco-centric perspective, thereby making the Etruscan consumers a secondary concern. The book instead puts Etruscan consumers forward as active participants driving the market of exported Greek pottery who selected the forms and figured images that were the most appropriate to an Etruscan context.

Etruscan Orientalization

31

imagery, etc.) while discarding the Eastern elements, which were viewed by nineteenth-century Europeans as the negative characteristics of an essentialized Oriental character. The nationalistic character of these nation-states was not dependent on originality of civilization, the claim of the earliest nationalistic rhetoric discussed above, but rather on the way in which each ancient nation encountered, fought with, tamed, and later benefited from the East. This shift from a focus on origins to an interest in the encounter between East and West is an intellectual transition that can be observed in the work of Alexander Conze, the German art historian and archaeologist who coined the term ‘orientalizing’ or orientaliserende. One of his earliest works and where the term orientaliserende was first used, Zur Geschichte der Anfänge griechischer Kunst, sought to locate the beginning of Greek art by identifying the earliest artistic style found on Greek painted pottery, focusing on a single material type for analysis as a means to extrapolate the origins of artistic practice as a whole.88 In this work, Conze sought to classify the earliest phase of Greek art by grouping artistic works based on common decorative elements, providing characteristic examples without naming the phase itself or assigning chronological boundaries. Citing a number of examples observed in European museums and describing their common decorative characteristics, Conze categorized the earliest style as consisting of sharp, linear features, zigzags, concentric circles, horizontal bands, diamonds, meanders, and animals drawn primarily in outline.89 The descriptive language used to characterize this style, which would eventually be called Geometric, lacks biased adjectives and descriptions, although the term primitiv is used frequently.90 After providing a description of the defining elements of the earliest style, Conze further supports his identification by contrasting it to the succeeding orientaliserende style.91 Although Conze sees similarities in the preference for parallel horizontal bands, a desire to fill empty space, and the use of animal figures, the primary differences included the new appearance of floral motifs, lions, tigers, and hybrid animals and the reduction of some of the most prominent geometric elements.92 In this process of distinguishing artistic difference, Conze embedded the fundamentally divisive principle of Orientalism within a seemingly straightforward identification of artistic style.93 He was defining 88 89 90 91 92 93

Conze 1870. Conze 1870, 14–15; Tav. V. For more information on Conze’s discussion of Geometric style, see Basu 2013. An example of this style is depicted in Conze 1870, Tav. XI. Conze 1870, 16–18. Conze often refers to the pottery of the earliest Greek artistic style as unsere Vasen, a slight but subtle way of distinguishing them from the ‘Other.’

32

Nowlin

the West, and its earliest period of art, based upon its difference from the later Oriental influences that can be seen in orientaliserende pottery. Although Conze’s project is fundamentally shaped as a project of Orientalism, the language he used to describe the orientaliserende style is relatively neutral, unlike the art historical language that will characterize later works on this style. The most suggestive descriptors used to for this style are Fülle (fullness), phantastischen (fantastic, strange), reichere (rich), and durchgebildetere (well-educated, cultured).94 In employing such descriptors of style, Conze planted the seeds of Orientalism, using words that came to signify the decline of the older, more advanced East through its desire for wealth, richness, and opulence. In his definition of stylistic categories, Conze appears to imply a neutral meaning for these terms since they are not used to support a larger narrative of negative artistic influence from the East or a resulting cultural decline in Greece as a result of this artistic change. However, Conze does imply that Oriental influence marks the end of an art that can be claimed to be exclusively of Greek invention. The definition that Conze constructed for the orientaliserende style is one that has remained relatively unchanged even today: painted vessels that are characterized by more elaborate, rounded features, a predominance of fantastic animals and plant forms, and a background filled with zigzags, diamonds, and especially rosettes.95 The descriptive characteristics that Conze employed for describing the orientaliserende style have become weaponized as part of a larger Orientalist discourse that dismisses these characteristics as mere decoration and disparages the value of Eastern art, using the lack of human figural representation as evidence of the inferior qualities of the East, all of which are present in the late nineteenth-century art historical handbooks that are discussed below. Although such a categorization might still fit this particular class of painted ‘orientalizing’ pottery, focusing the stylistic definition on a single material type only obscures the broader assemblage of objects later described by the term ‘orientalizing’ by overgeneralizing their definition. One of the most important influences of Orientalism in Conze’s definition of this artistic style as orientaliserende was that such a term obfuscated the precise origin of the style, treating all regions of the eastern Mediterranean as having no discernable or meaningful differences. It seems that this very quality of geographic blurriness made the term orientaliserende appealing to Conze for this particular class of pottery since it did not require pinpointing a specific origin of production for this style. As he notes, other more geographically 94 95

Conze 1870, 17–20. Conze 1870, 20.

Etruscan Orientalization

33

precise names had been used to describe it (phönicisirend, korinthischen, ägyptisirend); however, since many of the motifs could be traced to Assyrian sources originally, Conze chooses the term orientaliserende while acknowledging that it is in fact too general.96 This preference for a simple umbrella term implies that in the process of movement from Assyrian sources to other peoples within the Near East, each of these unique and entirely different groups of people enacted no significant or noteworthy change, meaning that it was unnecessary to acknowledge the contributions for any particular group. By assigning a geographically obscure origin to this style, the seemingly neutral descriptive language used to describe the objects as full and rich can easily be seen as the kind of stereotyping language used to characterize Eastern art. Conze’s concern lay in trying to define the evolution of Western art, allowing for a reduction of the complexities and specific histories of the East. After laying out the characteristics of the two earliest artistic styles of Greek art, Conze does little to explain exactly how eastern influences came to Greece and how the change in style occurred. The encounter is described in terms of conflict and defeat, between Western artistic traditions and Oriental influence. The exact mechanisms of how this orientaliserende came to rule Greece are not explicated, but the Greeks are described as first “confronting” (entgegentreten) Oriental influence and then “succumbing” (erliegen) to it because of its “overwhelming superiority.”97 The discussion of changes in artistic style as a clash of cultures falls into the fundamental Orientalist divide between East and West which does not allow for positive Eastern influence. Any influence from the East must be confronted and countered. This is why it was important for Conze to finish his work with the assertion that the earlier Greek artistic style, described as primitiv, was not completely erased by this strange ( fremd) new style.98 Even after the overwhelming influence of the Orient, there was still something fundamentally Greek at the heart of their artistic practice. In this confrontation between East and West, Greece was the first and one of the main disseminators of this new style to the rest of the western Mediterranean. Conze states that orientaliserende also spread to Etruria but only after the Etruscans were influenced by the Greeks; Etruria, in turn, was then the conduit for the influx of these new forms and ideas into Italy.99 Such an opinion was in keeping with the German tradition established by Winckelmann that Etruria’s main source of artistic influence and the subsequent development 96 97 98 99

Conze 1870, 19. Conze 1870, 26, 28–29. Conze 1870, 28–29. Conze 1870, 26.

34

Nowlin

of civilization was Greece. The implication, even from the beginning, was not just that they brought a new artistic style, but that they set in motion, with this new style, ‘historical processes’ which had been absent in the earliest phases of each Western nation’s art. The nature of the confrontation between East and West and the concomitant artistic evolution is defined as analogous to modern instances of colonialism later in Conze’s work. In his 1897 lecture to the Royal Prussian Academy of Sciences, Conze presented “On the Origin of the Visual Arts,” a paper in which he discusses the evolution of his definition of Geometric art after over 20 years of archaeological discoveries, particularly those made by Heinrich Schliemann in Mycenae.100 The topic of the lecture demonstrates a clear tie between the intellectually prominent subject of the day, the origins of Western civilization, and the development of artistic styles. In his quest to understand the thought process behind the Geometric style, he drew on contemporary ethnographic research of so-called primitive societies in Australia, Brazil, and the peoples of the Pacific Ocean for comparative analogies.101 By connecting the earlier Geometric style in Greece, which immediately preceded contacts with more advanced civilizations from the East, to the art of ‘primitive’ tribes, Conze established an ancient corollary for those pre-colonial indigenous populations being encountered by European colonists at the time. Therefore, Conze drew a direct analogy between modern colonial encounters and those of the much earlier ‘orientalizing’ period. However, he qualified this analogy by stating that, in the ancient instance: bis sie nach und nach durch den Einfluss vom Süden her in den Kreis einer aus den Ländern am Ostwinkel des Mittelmeers stammenden, reicheren Kunstformenwelt gezogen wurden. Aber dabei verlosch ihr eigenartiges Kunstempfinden nicht endgültig rasch, wie heut zu Tage das der Wilden vor der viel übermächtiger über sie kommenden Berührung mit höher entwickelter Kultur. They were incrementally drawn into the influence from a realm of more abundant artistic forms emanating from the eastern regions of the Mediterranean. Yet this did not cause their own artistic sensibilities to

100 Conze 1897; translation by Johns 2012. 101 Conze cites a number of different ethnographic works by Ernst Grosse, Karl von den Steinen, H.M. Stanley, Garrick Mallery, Anton Springer, Charles H. Read, William H. Holmes and a work on the art of children by Corrado Ricci.

Etruscan Orientalization

35

quickly evaporate as is happening in our own days when these cultures are exposed to the overwhelming influence of the developed cultures.102 For Conze, Greece was not a passive receptor of culture and civilization, willing to give up everything in the face of an overwhelmingly more advanced society – unlike the European perception of the outcome of modern colonial encounters. Rather, Greece maintained its own artistic trajectory, while incorporating the elements it wished from the East. Such a double-standard between perceptions of ancient and modern colonial encounters was essential to the belief in Western exceptionalism at the heart of Orientalism. No matter the period or outcome, this framing of colonialism posits its effects as positive and beneficial for the colonized group. In his definition of the Geometric style, Conze intertwines the debate over European origins and the evolution of artistic styles into a direct relationship, thereby creating the ‘orientalizing’ period as the origin of the first stages of art and therefore Western civilization. The development of Western civilization was a direct result of this early colonial encounter, meaning that the ideas behind the ‘orientalizing’ period are ones of progress, the reshaping of artistic style, and of advancement. Preserving the active role of the Greek artist and craftsperson under the assumed pressure of Oriental influence is what caused the term ‘orientalizing,’ an active term rather than the passive ‘orientalized,’ to be chosen as the designation of this period of East/West interaction, even if it took decades to finally become common parlance. This delay was primarily due to the fact that Conze’s original intent in defining the Geometric style was to isolate and explicate the origins of art within Western civilization and not to create a new classification, ‘orientalizing,’ or to describe a particular type of interaction. In order to concretely delineate the Geometric style, however, Conze needed, at some level, to define what came afterward in order to provide a bounded limit to his Geometric phase. Since his definition came at a time when Greek art history was especially concerned with assessing the exact nature of Oriental influences upon Greek art, there was no consensus on a concise and finite term to describe the process or period whose products were characterized by a proliferation of wild beasts and vivid floral motifs with strong ties to various locations in the eastern Mediterranean. As Conze himself acknowledged, ‘orientalizing’ was not the only potential term in existence at this time that could have been selected. Since scholars were seeking to condense the debate on eastern influences in Greece into a coherent term, new designations emerged that limited this interaction to a 102 Johns 2012 translation of Conze 1897.

36

Nowlin

single period. In 1880, C.T. Newton articulated a chronological span called the Graeco-Phoenician period that fell between the time of the Homeric poems (850) and the fall of Nineveh and the Assyrian Empire (560),103 incorporating newly published finds from Mycenae to tighten the chronology. Although Newton’s definition was clearly meant to apply to Greece, finds from Italy were often used as examples to describe objects associated with the period and as comparisons to scenes and objects in Homer.104 For example, Newton compares the design and techniques used on the Shield of Achilles to Phoenician bowls and the great shield found in the Regolini-Galassi tomb, showing a connection between Etruscan ‘orientalizing’ objects and Homer that is still prominent in interpretations today.105 In a nearly identical use of language, Maxime Collignon called a similar time span the Graeco-Oriental period in his 1886 A Manual of Greek Archaeology.106 This, too, was focused on a period in which Greeks received ideas from ‘more advanced’ Eastern civilizations, but Collignon readily admitted that the chronological boundaries, particularly for the beginning, are rather fuzzy. He sets the lower limits securely at the end of the seventh century when “the Greeks were in full possession of technical processes, and that at about that date the history of Greek art really begins.”107 Here again there is a connection with Homeric civilization, which Collignon categorized as being “half Oriental,” stating that much of its architecture and decoration more closely resembled palaces in Assyria than Greece and comparing the physical descriptions provided by Homer with the physical remains found in Nineveh and Khorsabad. For Western scholars interested in asserting the superiority of Western art, these two alternative terms presented an equal encounter between East and West which prevented them from being chosen over ‘orientalizing.’ The Graeco-Phoenician/Graeco-Oriental title places the two camps of West and East at the same level, as equal partners in defining the chronological phase (although Graeco does take the primary position). Almost counterintuitively, the choice of the term ‘orientalizing’ does two things to sublimate the East in order to emphasize the achievements of the West. The first is that by removing ‘Graeco’ at the beginning it tacitly implies that this group is the natural subject 103 Newton 1880, 289. 104 Newton (1880, 290–291) uses the Homeric word athyrmata to describe the type of objects that characterize the period, such as engraved shells found at Vulci, Kamiros, Nimrud, and Bethlehem. 105 Rathje 1990; Mandolesi and Sannibale 2012. 106 Collignon and Wright 1886. 107 Collignon and Wright 1886, 27.

Etruscan Orientalization

37

of the term ‘orientalizing.’ To put it another way, the Greeks are the active group to whom this period refers; the Orient cannot have an ‘orientalizing’ phase. The term’s open quality also means it can refer to any civilization that is part of the West (such as Italy) as long as the group is not already considered Oriental. The second effect of the term is that – by making this entirely an ‘orientalizing’ phase, one which could not also be experienced by peoples actually in the Orient such as Egypt, Phoenicia, Assyria, etc. – it actively excludes the people of the Orient from being any part of Mediterranean history. By placing their contributions at a nascent stage in the development of Greek art, they are enshrined as a people frozen in time, not subject to the evolutionary changes of the next chronological phases. The Orient, therefore, played no part in the artistic perfection later achieved in Classical Greece. The exclusionary practices that led to the preference of ‘orientalizing’ above other designations for the period were greatly influenced by the pervasiveness of Orientalism in Greek art history at this time. Many of the handbooks of the late 1800s contain a language of ‘Otherness’ used to describe the Oriental elements present in Greek art as a harrowing episode in the West’s encounter with the Eastern Other. The types of representations found on pottery and other imported objects are described in a variety of deprecating terms, from something that is merely dismissive, such as “decoration” or “ornament” in opposition to narrative imagery,108 to the more insidious connection with “luxury” and “opulence,”109 or the descriptions of animal friezes as “monsters,” “horrid,” and “mongrel.”110 Heroes in this struggle, the Greek artists had to endure a period of Oriental influence, obtain the technical skills they needed in order to express their own artistic genius, and then break away before the truly negative attributes of the Orient had any permanent repercussions.111 Jane Harrison described this as a “flood of Oriental contagion of hideous forms” that the Greeks had to fight back, and Maxime Collignon characterized it as a phase from which Greek artists needed to “emancipate” themselves.112 Such emancipatory rhetoric is particularly important because the time of Oriental influence is depicted as one of “slavish copying and imitation,” something to be overcome in order to finally 108 109 110 111 112

Harrison 1885, 63, 127, 146, 158. Martha 1889, 105, 114, 584. Harrison 1885, 63, 96, 146, 135, 179. Collignon and Wright 1886, 15, 26, 33. Harrison 1885, 179; Collignon and Wright 1886, 27. Birch (1858, 269) uses similar emancipatory language.

38

Nowlin

achieve the ideal of Classical Greek art.113 This attitude is most dramatically presented by Jane Harrison: When we watch the Greek artist so to speak face to face with the Phoenician workman, it is then we best feel the contrast, the essential, unutterable, unchangeable difference between the two. At first the Greek, beholding this wonderful mastery of technique, is amazed; he copies blindly with reverent astonishment; he decorates his vase with a series of friezes which are but rows of Oriental monsters; he takes the pattern ready-made, marveling at its dexterity, feeling its decorative fitness. But he was not born to decorate; he has a soul to think, and therefore a thought to express; so bit by bit, the Oriental monsters go down to their own place, they are subordinated to purely decorative functions, which from their very lifelessness, they so admirably fulfill. The main body of his space the artist keeps to utter his thought – at first naturalistically, later, as we shall see, ideally. It is in this absorbing and assimilating of the good, this refusing of the evil, nay, more, in this turning of what is expressively bad into what is decoratively good, that we see the artist instinct of an artist-born race.114 While this quotation is filled with much of the typically pejorative language identified previously, it also explicitly lays out the process by which Western artists used their encounter with the East to establish the beginnings of Western civilization within the ‘orientalizing’ period. The artist moves from copying to thinking, from lifeless Oriental monsters to naturalistic and later ideal representation, and from refusing the evil of the East to expressing the decorative good of the West; all based on their own inherent racial ability. The period’s construction followed an observation noted in an 1835 work on ancient sculpture in which Richard Payne Knight commented that the remote periods of history are often classed “by some common attribute of imperfection.”115 Therefore, as seen in Harrison’s work and the other art historical manuals of the late nineteenth century, the imperfection of this period is the Oriental. In the quest to clarify the relationship between East and West, these works of Greek art history needed to subordinate the imperfection of the East by sublimating their 113 This stigma was passed on to the Etruscans, who were often thought of as imitating Greek art and not living up to their ideal. See Izzet 2007a for a full discussion of this bias against Etruscan art. 114 Harrison 1885, 146–47, italics mine. 115 Knight 1835, xlv.

Etruscan Orientalization

39

contributions to Western civilization. The ‘orientalizing’ period is thus categorized as the intellectual and artistic conquest of the West over the East not solely in the sense of artistic achievement but even in a battle between good and evil. The ‘orientalizing’ period is perceived by nineteenth-century scholarship as a chronological period analogous to their own imperialist and colonial expansion; intellectual understanding and mastery were important aspects of both victories and an essential way to construct modern European identity. In both instances, either for Greece and Etruria as the receptors of Eastern art or in the reverse where the Europeans are the disseminators of culture through modern colonialist expansion, the Europeans emerged victorious regardless of the directionality of cultural diffusion. Italian Orientalizing: Between arte/periodo orientalizzante and the Eastern Origin of the Etruscans As these three alternative terms (Graeco-Phoenician, Graeco-Oriental, and orientaliserende) were being coined and debated within the realm of Greek art, the first art historical handbooks on exclusively Italian and Etruscan art were being written. Since the assertions of Guarnacci, the Etruscans were seen as the first truly Italian civilization, and so they were often isolated from the other Iron Age peoples of the Italian peninsula as being the first creators of art, one of the foremost markers of civilization. An increasing number of texts sought to bring Italian, and particularly Etruscan art, out from its secondary role either as simply a location for finds of Greek art or as a tangential deviation in art’s linear and upward evolution. These comprehensive histories of both Italian and Etruscan art employed a much different method of understanding the relationship between the Italian peninsula and the Orient than the simple binaries of Greek art history. In Italy, by contrast, understanding the varieties of connections and interactions required a more complex explanation. Although the Phoenicians were still depicted as one of the primary foils, as commercial middlemen responsible for the majority of maritime activity as well as the craftspeople who created the eclectic mix of artistic forms from Assyria and Egypt, scholars were also compelled to define the relationship between Italy and Greece, whose similar artistic styles necessitated some explanation and chronological coordination. Apart from the difficult task of defining the roles of each of these players, Italy had the added wrinkle of the debate over the origin of the Etruscans, which needed to be reconciled with any terminology and periodization constructed. In the earliest works in the late nineteenth century on Italian and Etruscan art based in Etruscology, the eastern origin of the Etruscans tended to dominate. This eastern migration, which had been heavily under fire at the time 4.2

40

Nowlin

from German scholarship asserting a trans-Alpine northern origin, gained new credence through the work of Edoardo Brizio. The Italian archaeologist made the first comprehensive argument for Etruscan eastern origins by pairing ancient literary accounts with objects and architecture recently found in Etruria that had ties to the eastern Mediterranean. While listing all the evidence that pointed to an eastern origin for the Etruscans, Brizio also severely critiqued the German arguments for a southern migration from central Europe. Brizio argued that the Etruscans must be from the east because of the polygonal architecture of their walls, the radical change in funerary ritual from cremation to inhumation (as well as the introduction of more elaborate tumuli mounds and the tomba a camera architectural construction), and the pomp of the ornaments and vessels used within the tombs.116 One of the most important tombs for this argument was the Regolini-Galassi tomb, which combined the greatest number of these elements, uniting a tumulus structure similar to Late Bronze Age treasuries in Mycenae, Sparta, and Lydia with the Phoenician metal wares whose descriptions he matched to items in Homer, such as the Shield of Achilles.117 These comparisons had been made in discussions of Greek art history, but Brizio migrated them to Italian soil in an effort to understand the dating and interpretation of these phenomena. Since no painted Greek pottery was found within the tomb, Brizio assigned the tomb to the seventh century, saying that it must have been before the sixth century when Wolfgang Helbig had noted the beginning of the importation of Greek pottery.118 This importantly separated both the tomb and the Etruscan migration process from the later Greek colonization to the south and its concomitant ripple effects along the Tyrrhenian coast. In part, it is this absence of Greek pottery that prevented Brizio from employing the term orientalizzante, either as a description of the art from the Regolini-Galassi tomb and similar burials or as the period to which the tombs would belong. The term orientalizzante or ‘orientalizing’ would have been completely inappropriate in this case since the entire argument centered on proving that the Etruscans were, in language and in material culture, from the East and, therefore, Oriental not simply ‘orientalizing.’ Besides avoiding the use of orientalizzante, Brizio eschewed the language of Orientalism that was so widespread at the time. In his study of the RegoliniGalassi tomb, Brizio directly embedded the original, neutral descriptions of objects from the 1842 Vatican Museum publication discussed earlier. Since they were of course used to argue for the westward migration of the Etruscans, 116 Brizio 1885, 157. 117 Brizio 1885, 146–47. 118 Brizio 1885, 146.

Etruscan Orientalization

41

they almost entirely avoid the negative, Orientalist connotations seen elsewhere. Instead, the more prominent modern discourse underlying Brizio’s work was colonialism, something in which Italy was becoming more actively involved at the end of the nineteenth century through their colonial actions in Africa. The process described at various points throughout his work, by which the Etruscans arrived on the Tyrrhenian shores and slowly conquered and assimilated the local Umbrians to their superior Eastern way of life, very closely resembled contemporary colonial actions. According to Brizio, the Etruscans arrived and conquered the Umbrians not only because of the superiority of their weapons but also with the help of “una grande cultura” (a great culture) consisting of “grande prudenza civile e politica” (great civil and political prudence) born in the older civilizations of Asia Minor.119 Brizio provided a nuanced construction of the process of cultural change in the colonial encounter, comparing it to the Roman conquest of Este, in which many indigenous practices carried on after initial conquest. The degree of cultural change that eventually occurred and the type of monuments erected, however, were not something Brizio believed could be the result of simply importing a few scarabs, Phoenician gold, or Greek painted pottery; such changes had to be the consequence of a wholesale migration.120 In arguing for the appearance of these objects and architectural forms through migration enacted in the form of colonialism, Brizio became the first person to provide an explanatory framework to account for how what would eventually be called ‘orientalizing’ material appeared in Italy. Although Brizio was influential in the field of Italian archaeology more broadly, his particular identification of material with the eastern origin of the Etruscans did not take hold. The Lydian migration thesis still held, but the dating of their arrival moved farther back in time as greater quantities of excavated materials revealed deeper and more coherent artistic and stylistic traditions. In the first comprehensive study of Etruscan art, published in 1889, Jules Martha agreed to an eastern origin for the Etruscans but believed that for many centuries they did not have a great deal in common with the East, especially in the Villanovan period, until trade began with Phoenicia and Carthage in the seventh century and eastern styles and luxuries arrived on the Tyrrhenian coast.121 Although this trade argument fits within the later chronological boundaries of what will be called the ‘orientalizing’ period, Martha at no time formalizes either the artistic style or the period as orientalisante. 119 Brizio 1885, 168–69. 120 Brizio 1885, 164. 121 Martha 1889, 21, 24.

42

Nowlin

Perhaps the most important chronological divide between Etruscan migration and imported eastern objects was made by the Swedish archaeologist Oscar Montelius, whose construction of the first relative and absolute chronology for the Bronze and Iron Age of central and northern Italy was presented in 1897 and then fully published in 1912.122 In stark contrast to the aim of Brizio’s diffusionist work, Montelius sought to create a precise absolute chronology for Italy to which other European countries could pin their own relative chronologies, particularly, in his case, Scandinavia. Working from a cultural historical approach, Montelius created five periods for the Bronze Age and six for the Iron Age based on entire assemblages of multiple classes of objects and then fixed these phases to an absolute chronology based on two certain dates: a fifteenth-century date for Period 3 of the Bronze Age based on the Peschiera fibula and the Bügelkanne vase type contemporary with the Egyptian King Amenophis III and on the end point of Period 6 of the Iron Age which he dates to between the François vase and the Persian destruction layer in Athens, 600–480.123 The next most important fixed point, in between these two boundaries, which Montelius spent even greater time discussing, was the date of the Regolini-Galassi Tomb, whose date he pushed back to the ninth, rather than the seventh, century. An entire period, Period 3 of the Iron Age, was given over to this tomb and to similar materials in central Italy. It so typified the standard assemblage of the period that Montelius frequently referred to Period 3 as the Regulini-Galassi-Zeit/Regulini-Galassi-Periode, one of only two periods of the eleven in total to have been assigned a descriptive rather than solely numeric name.124 In assigning the name of the tomb that had the greatest number of objects described as ‘orientalizing,’ Montelius opened the door to assigning the ‘orientalizing’ style to a set chronological period and to the wide variety of goods present in that tomb, enshrining the historical division between East and West within the structuring of history. While Montelius assigned an entire period to the Regolini-Galassi tomb, he never used the term orientaliserende. Unlike Brizio, this was not because he viewed the material from Period 3 (Regulini-Galassi-Periode) as something that accompanied the Etruscans from their Oriental home and, therefore, an artistic style that did not need to be ‘orientalized.’ Although Montelius believed that the Etruscans were from Lydia, he dated their arrival to the eleventh century,

122 Montelius 1897a, 1912. 123 Montelius 1897a, 262–64. 124 The other was Period 2 of the Iron Age – Tomba del Guerriero-Periode.

Etruscan Orientalization

43

much earlier than the material that Brizio associated with their migration.125 Rather, Montelius never used the term orientaliserende simply because such interpretive terms were outside of the goal of his project, and he had a preference for unambiguous description and numerical classification instead of a term designed to condense a debate on artistic style. In separating the period of interaction with the eastern Mediterranean, Period 3, from the period of Corinthian pottery within Italy (the material defined by Conze as orientaliserende), Period 5, Montelius created the need to explain both of these periods through different sets of interactions. Embedded in the culture-historical paradigm of archaeological thought, these different periods would require interaction with entirely different groups of people: in this case the Phoenicians for the first period and Greeks for the second. Although orientaliserende had come to define a style of Greek pottery, more than anything its main role was in describing the initial meeting between East and West, and in the case of Italy and based on Montelius’s chronology, this would mean a time before the arrival of Greek colonies and goods in Italy. Therefore, the original construction of an ‘orientalizing’ period in Italy would have to be limited to this Period 3 and the interactions with the Phoenicians. It is in the early 1900s that the ‘orientalizing’ period becomes formalized and accepted within the historical chronology of Italian antiquity, primarily through two comprehensive works: Alessandro Della Seta’s Italia antica in 1922 and Pericle Ducati’s Storia dell’arte etrusca in 1927.126 Stemming from Montelius’ production of a schematic chronology for central Italy, previously debated artistic styles now began to be fit within these newly constructed, but not systematically or historically explained, chronological periods. Additionally, Montelius’ work placed the question of Etruscan origins further back in time and separated the hotly debated issue from the objects that will be described as ‘orientalizing.’ The first instance, to my knowledge, of periodo orientalizzante within Italian archaeological or art historical literature comes from Alessandro Della Seta’s guide to the Villa Giulia published in 1918.127 Rather than any clear definition for this particular periodization of material within the Villa Giulia, this period designation comes after eighty pages describing objects as being “nel periodo dell’importazione del materiale orientalizzante” (in the period of importation of orientalizing material), making the use of the 125 Montelius 1897b, 260. In the discussion on the origin of the Etruscans and Mycenaeans that accompanied Montelius’ presentation of chronology, however, he makes a number of comparisons between Etruscan migration and Roman colonization, following the intellectual trend established by Brizio (Montelius 1897b, 256–57). 126 Della Seta 1922; Ducati 1927. 127 Della Seta 1918, 82.

44

Nowlin

two-word phrase seem to be chiefly for the sake of convenience and brevity. Della Seta chose not to use the moniker provided for the period by Montelius, Regulini-Galassi-Periode, most likely because its specificity would be confusing when used to discuss other tombs and materials present in the Villa Giulia, and its ninth-century date given by Montelius did not fit with the seventh-century assignation Della Seta gave to periodo orientalizzante. Furthermore, the historical narrative Della Seta offered at the beginning of the guide was based less on the chronological prevalence of types of objects, as was the case for Montelius, but rather was structured by successive waves of influences and their subsequent artistic imitations, beginning with the Phoenicians and then followed by the Greeks.128 Therefore for Della Seta, the chronology of the Italic peoples was not something locally controlled but rather was defined as a series of artistic and evolutionary advances encouraged by outside forces, reflecting the view promoted by Winckelmann for the impetus of artistic change and resembling the kind of colonial framework that is so prevalent in scholarship of his time.129 Della Seta continued to frame the historical narrative of Italy as a succession of waves of foreign influences in his larger work concerning the history of the entire Italian peninsula, Italia antica (1922). In fact, this framework of foreign influence can be traced to his understanding of the very origin of the Etruscans themselves. Della Seta aligned most closely with the Herodotean assertion of an eastern origin for the Etruscans, which along with the recent find of an Etruscan inscription on Lemnos, led Della Seta to excavate on Lemnos to identify possible evidence of this eastern migration.130 Della Seta described the Etruscan migration to Italy in parallel terms to the Jewish diaspora, a view likely informed by his own Jewish heritage.131 The Etruscans who migrated from Asia Minor were discussed as comprising a small group of people with a fundamentally different character to others in Italy, especially in terms of their religion. But rather than focus on the eastern origin of the Etruscans, Della Seta believed that focus needed to shift to an understanding of the process of their formation as an Etruscan civilization in Italy, paving the way for Massimo Pallottino’s later influential stance on the subject of Etruscan origins.132 For Della Seta, the issues of Etruscan origins and ‘orientalizing’ material were chronologically separate events, a position that contrasts with Brizio’s use of ‘orientalizing’ material as evidence of Etruscan eastern migration. Instead, ‘orientalizing’ 128 Della Seta (1918, 33) described periodo orientalizzante as “Si ebbe così un’arte orientalizzante d’imitazione” (There was thus an orientalizing art of imitation). 129 On the similarities to Winckelmann, see Harari 2000, 50–51. 130 Della Seta 1937; Harari 2000; Paltineri 2000. 131 Harari 2000, 54; Bellelli 2016, 258. 132 Della Seta 1922, 160; Bagnasco Gianni 2013, 29.

Etruscan Orientalization

45

material was tied to the Phoenicians, whose seventh-century imports arrived after the Etruscans had established themselves along the Tyrrhenian shores. The nature of the Etruscan ethnic identity was less important in Della Seta’s perspective than the degree of influence from outside forces, especially from the Greeks who would have the most dramatic and consequential influence on Etruscan art. Della Seta codifies the ‘orientalizing’ as a distinct phase in Italia antica (1922), making a more deliberate definition of the so-called ‘orientalizing’ period: Nei prodotti che primi importarono in Italia i Fenici, e che qui anche furono fabbricati, si scorge questa unione di elementi diversi, questa preponderanza di elementi orientali, cosicchè tale periodo, che corrisponde all’incirca al VII a.C., si dice orientalizzante. In the products that the Phoenicians first import into Italy, and also those that were produced here, one sees this union of diverse elements, this preponderance of oriental elements, so that such a period, that corresponds to the beginning of the seventh century, is called orientalizing.133 In the description of the way in which these ‘orientalizing’ objects were composed as being a union of diverse elements, his language resembles more recent and more nuanced treatments of the material. Throughout the rest of the narrative, however, the language of Orientalism colors the nature of the interaction between Italy and the Phoenicians and serves to divide the Phoenicians from later Greek activity on the peninsula. The methods and the language Della Seta used are familiar in their resemblance to the examples given earlier of Orientalism within Greek art history. The first description of the Phoenicians, based on Homer but believed to be faithful to archaeological reality, invokes the stereotypically negative characteristics given to the Phoenicians: “navigatori, commercianti, pirati e rapitori di donne” (sailors, merchants, pirates and kidnappers of women).134 The connection to the kidnapping of women and an emphasis on the appeal of these imported objects to female vanity objectifies the Orient and its products as decadent and feminine, while the characterization of Phoenician art as “scaturita dall’avidità di guadagno” (originating from the greed of profit) evokes

133 Della Seta 1922, 74. 134 Della Seta 1922, 73.

46

Nowlin

the Semitic stereotypes of greed and avarice.135 Although one might argue that such derisive language is merely superficial, the most harmful aspect of Orientalism in Della Seta’s work is the implication that the period failed to make any long-term impact, instead being viewed solely as preparing Italy for the influence of the real, more pure art and civilization of the Greeks.136 Whereas Greece was able to overthrow the Oriental influences in order to bring forth its own originality of thought and idealism during the ‘orientalizing’ period, Italy was unable to ‘emancipate’ itself from the same encounter without the aid of Greece, thus leaving Italian and Etruscan art in a subordinate position. In Italy, the initial Phoenician influence that became connected to the original definition of the ‘orientalizing’ period was a false start, an Eastern aberration that was later righted through Greek influence and colonization. These two separate events, the initial, Oriental influence, which was perceived as flawed, and the later Greek emancipation – the two main characteristics of the earliest definitions of a new ‘orientalizing’ period within Italy – were later enshrined by Ducati as distinct phases within a single period: Proto‘orientalizing’ and ‘orientalizing,’ or l’arte orientalizzante antica e orientalizzante più recente. Although Montelius was the first to divide primarily Phoenician/ Egyptian/Assyrian material (Period 3) from the later Greek Corinthian wares (Period 5), he did not group the appearance of these materials in Italy as part of the same or even related phenomena. Since the later material (Period 5) had been classified as part of the Greek ‘orientalizing’ period (in Conze’s original definition of the term), the creation of the ‘orientalizing’ period in Etruscan or Italian art would thus have to span from Period 3 (900–800) until Period 5 (700–600) in order to properly encompass Italy’s initial encounter with the East and its reception of subsequent Greek ‘orientalizing’ material, especially since the Greek artistic influence was so crucial to the idea of evolutionary advancement. ‘Orientalizing,’ therefore, would serve as a descriptive marker for all of these stages within the Italian context, but the dominant Orientalism of the time made it necessary to keep Oriental and Greek influence as more distinct entities on Italian soil. When Pericle Ducati wrote Storia dell’arte etrusca in 1927, the ‘orientalizing’ period was consequently made up of two separate phases, l’arte orientalizzante più antica (700–625) and l’arte orientalizzante (625–575), each of which was given its own chapter. 135 Della Seta 1922, 80. This language is particularly surprising considering Della Seta’s Jewish heritage, which caused him to be removed as director of the Scuola archeologica italiana del Atene after the passage of the racial laws in 1938. This occurred even though this particular work, Italia antica, contained rhetoric of Italian nationalism and Fascism. 136 Della Seta 1922, 82, 91.

Etruscan Orientalization

47

In this work, Ducati used a lower chronology than Montelius, defining the first ‘orientalizing’ period as stretching between two of the most prominent Etruscan tombs: the tomba del guerriero at Tarquinia at the upper limit (700) while the Regolini-Galassi tomb at Cerveteri marked the lower limit (625).137 This lower chronology was necessary for Ducati to accommodate his understanding of when the eastern migration of the Etruscans occurred. For Ducati, the Tyrrhenians sailed from Lydia and landed on the Tyrrhenian coast between the end of the ninth century and the early years of the eighth century.138 In his later work dealing explicitly with the question of Etruscan origins, Ducati characterized their arrival as analogous to European colonialism, comprising a superiorly gifted minority that settled on the coasts in land already occupied by the more numerous but more primitive Umbrians.139 By adopting part of the civilization of the Umbrians among whom they settled, but maintaining their own cultural heritage which Ducati described as having greater similarities with the Greeks of Asia Minor, the Tyrrhenians fused with the Umbrians to create the Etruscan people.140 In Storia dell’arte etrusca, Ducati situates the entirety of the Tyrrhenian arrival, colonization, and Etruscan development in the Geometric period of art. This was contrary to his teacher Edoardo Brizio who believed that ‘orientalizing’ art was evidence of the eastern migration of the Etruscans.141 Instead, the Tyrrhenian arrival provided an animating spark that enriched the Geometric art of the Umbrians and then quickly transformed this art into an ‘orientalizing’ style. In fact, the upper limit of l’arte orientalizzante più antica is marked by the tomba del guerriero at Tarquinia, which Ducati claims as evidence of one of the first true Etruscans not a Tyrrhenian immigrant.142 The expansion of the grandiose tombs of the seventh century corresponded to the expansion of the Etruscans into the interior of the Italian peninsula and with it, items of l’arte orientalizzante. Ducati states that ‘orientalizing’ art can be categorized by 3 groups (Egyptian, Phoenician-Cypriot, and Greek) and that it encompassed both actual imports and the local adoption of Oriental motifs.143 In the section describing l’arte orientalizzante più antica, Ducati discussed the imported gold, silver, ivory, and bronze wares as part of the Phoenician-Cypriot 137 Ducati 1927, 153. These tombs correspond to the names of Periods 2 (1000–900) and 3 (900–800) respectively of Montelius’ chronology (1912, 62, 78). 138 Ducati 1927, 13. 139 Ducati 1938, 170. 140 Ducati 1938, 184. 141 Ducati 1927, 61. 142 Ducati 1938, 185. 143 Ducati 1927, 113–14.

48

Nowlin

and Egyptian influx, which he separated as distinct from the later predominance of Greek influence that reworked and perfected the artistic style of the East (625–575).144 Neither of these periods were constructed as hermetically sealed receptors of only a single source of influence. In the earlier ‘orientalizing’ period, the Geometric style continued to be used as later proto-Corinthian pottery began to be imported from Greece while in the later period gold and silver jewelry continued arriving from the eastern Mediterranean. The broader implications of dividing these two periods presented itself in the return to the language of Orientalism, in which l’arte orientalizzante più antica is characterized by Phoenician art that is called “bastarda” (bastard), “industriale” (industrial),145 “funzione meramente ornamentale” (merely ornamental in function),146 made up of trinkets or baubles (chincaglierie) and executed through “imitazione pedissequa” (slavish imitation).147 Indeed, the Eastern art from which this artistic style originated is characterized as being frozen in historical time, repeating the same motifs and patterns that had existed for centuries and were then industrially recreated by the Phoenicians.148 The Etruscans were then emancipated from this slavish and bastardized art by the Greeks, whose introduction of myth and emphasis on human figures marked the main difference between it and the earlier ‘orientalizing’ period.149 This Greek input is seen as directly advancing the Etruscans along the evolutionary process, as Etruscan art is characterized in the preface of the book as a grafted art, continuously borrowing from others, just as Della Seta had imagined: an art that needed this kind of external assistance only to eventually become “travolta ed assorbita nella portentosa unificazione dell’Italia nel nome di Roma, e nel trionfale affermarsi dell’arte imperiale romana” (overwhelmed and absorbed in the portentous unification of Italy in the name of Rome, and in the triumphal affirmation of Imperial Roman art).150 It is in the exultation of eventual Roman dominion that we see part of the political aim of Ducati’s work, as a text to describe the precursors to the glory of Rome, an historical entity that served as an ancient example for the modern Fascist regime in Italy. In the middle of the 1920s, even as archaeology and art history sought to establish stable chronological periodization and definitions, Italy itself was going through radical political change. The rise of Fascism within 144 145 146 147 148 149 150

Ducati 1927, 114. Ducati 1927, 116. Ducati 1927, 151. Ducati 1927, 142. Ducati 1927, 40. Ducati 1927, 174–75, 213. Ducati 1927, 10.

Etruscan Orientalization

49

the peninsula and the transfer of power to Mussolini in the fall of 1922 had far-reaching consequences that stretched into the realm of academia. There was a broad trend in scholarship away from the study of pre-Roman Italy to a focus on the rise to power of the Roman Empire and later Augustus.151 Whereas the pre-Roman peoples of Italy had served as a model for the Risorgimento in the nineteenth century, Rome had now taken over as the historical antecedent for a modern, strong, unified Italy. The historic precedent that the Roman Empire served for Fascist ideology was much clearer than the organization and character of pre-Roman groups within Italy, particularly since the origin of the Etruscans was still hotly debated.152 The three possible origins for the Etruscans – Lydia and the East, Rhaetia and the North, or Italy itself – had even greater modern political implications given the prominent racial ideologies of the time. An eastern origin would connect the Etruscans with Semitic races considered degenerate within Nazi ideology153 while a Rhaetic origin would link the Etruscans with the superior Nordic races, a more desirable historical linkage as Italy moved to align itself more closely with Nazi Germany but an interpretation that would mean their vaunted achievements could not be considered uniquely Italian.154 In opposition to much of the German scholarship of the time, Ducati believed that the Etruscans were a Mediterranean race due to their eastern origin,155 following the concept of the Mediterranean race made most prominent by anthropologist Giuseppe Sergi and economist and politician Giacomo Acerbo, but this Mediterranean race was completely distinct from an Oriental race, as stated in the 1938 Manifesto della razza. As a primary representative of the Mediterranean race in Italy, the Etruscans served as the first group to encounter Oriental style and ideals during the ‘orientalizing’ period, but they were not successful in overcoming the negative influences of the East on their own; they needed Greek artistic influence to overcome Oriental tendencies.156 The manner in which Ducati presented this ‘orientalizing’ encounter made the eventual emancipation from trinkets and baubles composed in slavish imitation seem like a natural evolutionary step, one easily made by the Etruscans once they saw what the Greeks had to offer. The Greek influences that made 151 Galaty and Watkinson 2004; Arthurs 2012; Roche and Demetriou 2018. 152 Haack 2012; Pucci 2016, 246; Harari 2017b. 153 For more discussion of the Nazi belief and dissemination that the Etruscans were from the Orient, see Haack 2014; Da Vela 2016. 154 For the assertion of a Nordic origin for all pre-Roman peoples of Italy made by Himmler and others, see Haack 2014, 265–66. 155 Rey 2016, 280. 156 Ducati 1927, 213.

50

Nowlin

their mark during the later ‘orientalizing’ period and in the later period of Ionic and Attic art made Etruscan art an important vessel for transporting the most influential advances of Greek art into later Roman art, since the Romans absorbed the Etruscans and improved upon their culture. Therefore, for Ducati the Etruscans represented an initial misstep in the first Orientalist encounter between East and West. The real victors in this struggle, surpassing even the Greeks, were the Romans, who Ducati believed were uniquely able to blend characteristics from Mediterranean and Indo-European races. As Ducati describes at the end of his 1938 Le probleme étrusque: Ainsi, par l’étincelle animatrice de la race méditerranéenne, se forme une Étrurie puissante et redoutable; mais bientôt elle s’amollit dans le bienêtre, dans l’opulence, et perd toute sa force d’expansion. Au contraire, au sud du Tibre, à Rome, par la fusion de la race méditerranéenne (Sabins) et de la race indo-européenne (Latins) se constitue un peuple où les meilleures qualités des deux races, au lieu de s’affaiblir et de dégénérer, se renforcent l’une par l’autre; c’est la fusion de l’audace, de l’agilité méditerranéenne, et de la fermeté, de la ténacité indo-européenne; il en naît le peuple romain. Thus, by the animating spark of the Mediterranean race, a powerful and formidable Etruria is formed; but soon it softens in well-being, in opulence, and loses all its force of expansion. On the contrary, to the south of the Tiber, in Rome, by the fusion of the Mediterranean race (Sabines) and the Indo-European race (Latins) is constituted a people where the best qualities of the two races, instead of weakening and of degenerating, reinforce the one to the other; it is the fusion of daring, of Mediterranean agility, and of firmness, and of Indo-European tenacity; the Roman people are born from it.157 While the Etruscans softened in opulence following the initial spark of their formation, echoing clear Orientalist tropes, the Romans were able to succeed by combining Western Indo-European characteristics of firmness and tenacity with Mediterranean agility and audacity. Even this formulation positions the Sabines as the feminine, Mediterranean, and Eastern force in the creation of Rome; any negative attributes, however, are balanced out by the male, Indo-European Latins. It is in this combination of Mediterranean and Indo-European races that the Romans set themselves apart. While the 157 Ducati 1938, 187.

Etruscan Orientalization

51

‘orientalizing’ period in Etruria cataloged the first encounter in Italy with Eastern, Oriental culture, serving as the beginning of the Orientalist struggle within Italian history, the prevailing Fascist ideology required the Romans to be the sole eventual victor and successful representative of the West. Whereas during the nineteenth century the notion of an ‘orientalizing’ period served as a conduit through which older Eastern civilization sparked the birth of Western civilization via interaction, at the beginning of the twentieth century, the term ‘orientalizing’ had been reduced to being used almost purely for an artistic style that was inherited from the East but reworked and improved in the West. The reduction in the historical ramifications from the origins of civilization to artistic development was the direct result of a modern effort to sublimate Eastern contributions to European art and to downplay the historical importance of the ‘orientalized’ Etruscans due to the pressure of Orientalism and Fascism. While Ducati’s Storia dell’arte etrusca marks the first time in which the dual-pronged/two-stage ‘orientalizing’ period becomes enshrined in Etruscan chronology, it also serves as a pivot point in which ‘orientalizing’ begins to imply much more than simply Eastern influence on artistic motifs for Western artists. This change can be seen through the subtle and seemingly innocuous introduction of the term principesca as a descriptor for the female inhabitant of the most famous ‘orientalizing’ tomb and the marker of the lower limit of Ducati’s early ‘orientalizing’ period, the Regolini-Galassi tomb.158 The term was added in the context of discussing a large golden chest piece and fibula as an example of the advancing skill of Etruscan goldsmiths through the introduction of new techniques by Phoenician-Cypriot objects, distinct from Greek ‘orientalizing’ goods. Although she is called a principessa and the other occupants of the Regolini-Galassi tomb are called a family of ruling princes, there are no further discussions of monarchy or the nature of government within Etruria at the time. And while these Phoenician-Cypriot objects are described as being similar to the motifs from reliefs in the royal palaces in Nimrud, there is no implication that the objects carried any political ideology alongside their stylistic motifs. This falls in line with the antiquarian nature of archaeology at this time, which lacked a more robust interrogation of the cultural processes that lay behind the meeting of artistic styles in the ‘orientalizing’ period, but the use of princely terminology would later come to encompass much more as its interpretation expanded beyond simply the evolution of artistic style. This particular reference – within the discussion of gold objects of ornament and the connection with feminine luxury – may indeed be another consequence of the 158 Ducati 1927, 134, 136.

52

Nowlin

Orientalist discourse, but the limited use of principesca and principessa, each of which only appeared once, caution against drawing any further conclusions. By the end of the 1920s, the term ‘orientalizing’ had shifted from its role in determining the origin of Western civilization (either coming from the East or in reaction to interaction with the East) to a more reduced scope in which it was narrowed to first an artistic style and then a chronological period. The transition from its discussion in scholarship of Greek art history to the Etruscan and Italian sphere combined Orientalism with a new nationalistic viewpoint that placed Rome at the evolutionary end point of Italian superiority, to whom the Etruscans served as a strong contributing force. The establishment of the term ‘orientalizing’ as a chronological period, therefore, was not an innocuous, descriptive choice, but rather the selection of an important historical turning point for Italian history, one of the first historic encounters with the East, as well as a divergent path that was briefly explored and subsequently rejected in favor of Greek, Western influence. 5

Orientalizing to Orientalization: From Period to Process

The political climate of the 1930s and 40s saw a shift in the understanding of cultural change that allowed ‘orientalizing’ to move from a description of a chronological period to the process of ‘orientalization,’ in which Etruscan peoples adopted not only Eastern artistic styles but also cultural practices, governing structures, and ways of life. This expansion of the cultural implications of the term was in part influenced by Fascist attitudes on race and the colonial ventures of the time, which led to the development of an idea of how culture, not just artistic styles, might transfer between different peoples outside the context of conquest and mass-migrations. The key figure behind this intellectual shift was Massimo Pallottino, the founder of modern twentieth century Etruscology. Pallottino is most well-known for resolving the question of Etruscan origins by focusing on an explanation of the process of Etruscan civilizational formation on Italian soil rather than deciding on a single point of origin for the people themselves.159 At the same time that Pallottino was formulating these ideas of cultural formation, he was writing on Italian colonial actions in Africa. Antonio De Francesco has revealed that Pallottino wrote thirty articles on African history for the social and corporative Fascist journal Rassegna sociale dell’Africa 159 Pallottino 1947.

Etruscan Orientalization

53

italiana between 1938 and 1943.160 Here, Pallottino wrote in support of Italian colonialism in Africa and affirmed the power of the Italian cultural model to colonize and civilize the peoples of Africa without the need for racial mixing. The ancient analogy he used in this instance was one of Roman colonization: “Rome did not destroy a people by superimposing itself upon them, but, bringing its own traits of organization and culture and only partly also its blood, dragged them out from the shadow of pre- and proto-history towards a shining destiny.”161 This view that culture could transfer without a great degree of racial mixing was crucial in a Fascist period whose racial agenda in 1938 was to “make a complete distinction between Mediterranean Europeans on the one hand and Orientals and Africans on the other” (È necessario fare una netta distinzione fra i Mediterranei d’Europa [Occidentali] da una parte gli Orientali e gli Africani dall’altra).162 Later, when Pallottino’s focus shifted back to his primary research interest in the Etruscans, we can see an evolution in his ideas on race and the usefulness of such a conception of race when discussing evidence for the origins of the Etruscans, a people similarly located in “the shadow of pre- and proto-history.” In his 1947 book L’origine degli Etruschi, he thoroughly critiqued the three prominent ideas of Etruscan origins at the time: autochthony, migration from the East, and migration from north of the Alps. He reviewed the various types of data that had been used in each argument, dedicating sections to literary sources, linguistic data, archaeological data, and finally, information related to race, mentality, and costume. Clearly Pallottino believed that, at least in his own scholarly effort, race was still a factor that needed to be addressed, but he expressed a great deal of skepticism with this type of research and with the usefulness of either cranial data or statuary and paintings for assistance in identifying race and, even further, in answering the Etruscan origins question.163 While the concept of race waned in analytical value, the other concept that Pallottino had been honing in his articles on Africa was the evolutionary and propulsive power of an encounter with an advanced civilization. In the end, Pallottino arrived at a solution for Etruscan origins that combined all three major theories (Lydian, northern, and autochthonous) as identifying important contributions to the formation of the Etruscan nation, a process that took 160 161 162 163

First noted in De Francesco 2013 and further explored in Harari 2016. De Francesco 2013, 207 translation of Pallottino 1943. Il manifesto della razza 1938. Pallottino 1947, 130. He cited Giuseppe Sergi, whose cranial research had led to an identification of a distinct razza mediterranea, and who had examined 44 Etruscan skulls, 34 of which belonged to the before-mentioned race and 10 to that of the euro-asiatica razza. Sergi’s son, Sergio, was a signatory to Il manifesto della razza in 1938.

54

Nowlin

place along the Tyrrhenian coast, and whose final formative phase he identified with the civiltà orientalizzante, a time in which Etruria became fully enveloped within the “circolo delle grandi civiltà mediterranee” (the circle of the great Mediterranean civilizations).164 The idea that culture can spread beyond the geographic bounds of an ethnic group and that cultural transferal could occur without the need for forced migration or complete racial replacement brought Pallottino to a completely new conception of Etruscan origins. He firmly argued that the Tyrrhenian coast was the crucible in which local traditions mixed with foreign elements from the north and from the east across the Mediterranean Sea when historic Etruria was formed between the tenth and sixth century.165 Now, the material that Edoardo Brizio had used to prove an eastern origin for the Etruscans was considered as part of the ‘orientalizing’ period, which marked the final stage of Etruscan formation. This broader definition of an ‘orientalizing’ culture and process appeared in an entry on “Orientalizing Style” in the Encyclopedia of World Art, published a number of years later in 1965.166 Here we see the final, most significant shift in meaning from ‘orientalizing’ style to ‘orientalization’: What seems to have been a sudden and intense Orientalization of the culture and taste of the Greek world, and subsequently of the Italian peninsula, did not result from events of a political or military nature, from invasions, penetrations, or subjugations, from the spread of religious ideas, or even from imposition of the cultural prestige of the East (or why then only in a certain period?). Rather, the phenomenon can be explained essentially in the light of the development on the waters of the Mediterranean basin of an immense commercial activity fostered by a happy combination of historical and economic circumstances.167 In this definition of cultural change, Pallottino has distinguished ‘orientalization’ from other colonial encounters, conquest, or migration by limiting the impact to the realm of “culture and taste.” Although the nature of modern Italian colonialism may have led Pallottino toward this kind of more nuanced cultural transfer, something that did not require a great deal of racial mixing or replacement, the kind of ‘orientalization’ described here more closely 164 Pallottino 1947, 157. 165 Pallottino 1947, 152–60. In a number of articles in Rassegna sociale dell’Africa italiana, Pallottino discussed the belief that peoples along the coasts, both in Italy and in Africa, were more open to civilization than peoples living in the interior (Harari 2016, 172, 181). 166 Pallottino 1965. 167 Pallottino 1965, 784.

Etruscan Orientalization

55

resembles how ancient Rome was later shaped by the Hellenism coming from Greece. The framework of Hellenism within Rome was seen as a mode of cultural influence that in its early phase did not take the form of conquest or topdown intervention and that in its later phases was brought on willingly by the Romans themselves.168 This all occurred under what Pallottino calls “a happy combination of historical and economic circumstances,” which involved the beginning of historical encounters between East and West along with the new existence of an interconnected Mediterranean aristocracy clamoring for an “international style of luxury.”169 To the first point, we can see that Orientalism, which formed the foundation for Conze’s creation of the term ‘orientalizing,’ was still present nearly one hundred years later and became further embedded in a newly delineated process of cultural change. Not only is ‘orientalization’ a transfer of civilization from East to West, but it also marks a crucial turning point in exactly who the primary actors were in world history. Pallottino defines the ‘orientalizing’ style as “a particular, and in a certain sense final, aspect of the arts of the ancient Near East,” while for the Italian peninsula, it is the “first chapter of Etruscan art.”170 ‘Orientalization’ is the space in which the prime movers of history move from East to West, leaving the East in a suspended antiquity until its modern encounters with Europe; it is also the time when Italy makes its first entrance onto the historical stage, consequently relegating all previously indigenous culture primitive and unimportant. Pallottino describes the stages before and after this transformation in Etruria in extremes: “In a short time the stagnant backwater of Etruria was transformed into a high and wealthy civilization complete with great buildings, exquisite works of art of its own, as well as goods imported from abroad on a large scale.”171 The arrival of older cultural models from the East and eventually Greece, in many ways similar to the ripple effects of Italian colonial experience in Africa, spurred economic growth and development in Etruria, making the ‘orientalizing’ period Italy’s critical first step toward contributing to Classical Antiquity and eventually Western civilization. The onset of history in Etruria, and therefore Italy, in the form of the alphabet and the written word which arrive in this period combined with the appearance of eastern objects in Italy that could be tied to an absolute, scientifically derived chronology masks the subtle enforcement of Western superiority in

168 169 170 171

Pallottino 1947, 159–60. Pallottino 1965, 792. Pallottino 1965, 786. Pallottino, Dräyer, and Hürlimann 1955, 12.

56

Nowlin

the creation of historical narrative behind a presumably factually determined, objective façade. One of the more entrenched and interpretatively problematic characteristics of Pallottino’s definition of ‘orientalization’ is the restriction of the goods and those who used them to a pan-regional class of Mediterranean elites. Since one of the first and most prominent examples of ‘orientalizing’ material in Italy was the Regolini-Galassi tomb, it seemed logical to connect these and similar objects of precious materials to the wealthiest individuals of society. Even as more imported objects, from a diverse and greater number of contexts came to light, for Pallottino, the elite base remained the core constituency of ‘orientalizing’ culture. As Pallottino explicitly defines the vast variety of objects of this culture, he states that they have “one important aspect in common: they reflect the taste and demand of an elite, be they Assyrian, Syrian, Cypriote, Greek, or Etruscan.”172 This has subsequently created a circular argument by which all material determined to be part of ‘orientalizing’ culture is brought within the taste of the elite; therefore, anything that is determined to be ‘orientalizing’ inherently must be elite.173 Pallottino layers further levels of inference on the political nature of these elites by describing the contrast in reception between Greece, which is explicitly described as not having a monarchy, and Italy, in which: “… (as in Assyria) they were the courts of minor barbarian princes who desired to be buried with their treasures.”174 The use of the “prince” designation had now evolved beyond Ducati’s original adjectival use to one that implies an actual system of government, and in this case, one that is being used to explain the contextual differences between ‘orientalizing’ find spots in Greece and in Italy. Since, in Pallottino’s evolutionary modeling, the ‘orientalizing’ period was the final phase before the coalescence of historic Etruria – a land historically documented as being ruled by kings – it is natural that the preceding phase would be envisioned as a world of princes. ‘Orientalization’ then came to encapsulate the arrival of historic, monarchic Etruria, and therefore an extremely important steppingstone on the evolutionary path toward the eventual peak, the Roman Empire. The transition from an Italian culture inspired by the East to one firmly grounded in the Republican ideals of the Romans would not take place until the end of the ‘orientalizing’ period, when Rome became a Republic in 509, and the Roman overthrow of the decadent, tyrannical Etruscan kings from the city served as a founding act of Orientalism within Roman civilization. 172 Pallottino 1965, 786. 173 Riva 2010, 42. 174 Pallottino 1965, 785.

Etruscan Orientalization

57

Pallottino’s idea of a transfer of cultural models from the East to the West brings us to more contemporary interpretative frameworks for scholarship on the ‘orientalizing’ period. There has been a greater emphasis on the active selection of objects and practices by Italic peoples, which even Pallottino referenced in his descriptions of artistic styles, and on the general mixing and hybridization of artistic forms from Greece and the East. The shift from stylistic transfer to cultural transfer required the identification of certain human actions and practices that would then comprise what is now called ‘orientalization.’ It is quite telling that the same person who brought clarity to the confusing and seemingly endless debate on Etruscan origins, a favorite topic of nineteenth-century nationalistic scholarship, in turn would create the processual engine by which civilization spread to the West and formed the foundations for European civilization. Orientalism lies at the very heart of why and how this evolutionary process was thought to be necessary in the first place. 6

Recent Interpretations of Orientalizing and Orientalization

When looking at modern definitions of the ‘orientalizing’ period, we can see that the broad outline of cultural change Pallottino initiated with his 1965 definition has now been filled in with an identification of the specific actions, cultural practices, and more diverse actors that made up this phenomenon. Pallottino’s reorientation of the Etruscan origin problem toward local Villanovan development (with some external stimulus) directed research toward fuller explorations and explanations of these processes and particularly to an identification of exactly which developments should be attributed to foreign input and their original source. This meant a shift from a focus on the art historical details of objects, styles, and motifs to one that used the detailed analysis of these materials for understanding the intricacies of human interaction in the past, as well as how this interaction resulted in larger social and cultural changes within Etruria. Such a reorientation fit within broader trends in archaeological theory in the 1960s and 70s toward processual archaeology, although these ideas did not truly take hold in the Italian sphere until the 1980s.175 The cultural changes that were believed to be part of the ‘orientalizing’ phenomenon were driven by an Etruscan elite seeking to be participants in an “international style of luxury”176 achieved by employing both local and foreign craftspeople. These two groups, aristocrats and artisans, became focal 175 Cuozzo and Guidi 2013, 14. 176 Pallottino 1965, 792.

58

Nowlin

points as the agents of cultural change in the ‘orientalizing’ phenomenon, centering research on their actions and interactions abroad. The current interpretation of ‘orientalization’ holds that the importation of eastern objects and luxury goods implies the acceptance of an aristocratic way of life taken from the eastern Mediterranean by Etruscan elites, which later diffused throughout the entire Italian peninsula.177 Gradually, all imported objects and those made of precious materials have been classified as ‘orientalizing’ goods, making the material definition of the period include nearly the entire material culture repertoire of Etruria except non-painted impasto and bucchero pottery, as well as some bronze objects with earlier Villanovan precedents. As seen in previous sections, this expansive definition of ‘orientalizing’ goods developed from the broad original definitions of ‘orientalizing’ style put in place by Della Seta and Ducati. These materials are primarily eastern imported objects (following Ducati’s definition of l’arte orientalizzante più antica), such as ivory, glass, faience, ostrich eggs, gold, silver, bronze, as well as imported painted pottery, primarily from Corinth and Ionia (matching Conze’s original orientalisirende and Ducati’s later phase of l’arte orientalizzante), and architectural styles from Ionia and northern Syria. Each of these objects and styles was employed by the already existing Etruscan aristocracy as a way to further bolster their local power by showing their connections abroad, as well as their inclusion in a larger network of Mediterranean-wide aristocratic culture, all of which were looking eastward toward the kingly courts and palaces of the Near East.178 Through the presence of these goods, there is a further implication that ideas, cosmologies, customs, and practices traveled alongside these imported objects.179 Three of the most important practices transferred by the craftsmen and traders who carried the eastern imported goods have become core components of what now makes up the ‘orientalizing’ phenomenon: ritual banqueting, new symbols of aristocratic power and monarchy, and a desire for the luxury and opulence of the East through the possession of exotica. The combination of these elements created a ‘princely way of life’ adopted by Etruscan elites. The restriction of cultural practices ascribed to ‘orientalization’ to stereotypical aspects of Eastern royal courts showcases the Orientalism still present in current interpretations. It also belies an understanding of 177 Bartoloni et al. 2000; Naso 2000c; D’Agostino 2006; Mandolesi and Sannibale 2012; Sannibale 2013; Botto 2017; Maggiani 2017. 178 Rathje 1979; Cristofani and Martelli 1994; Ampolo 2000; Naso 2000c, 122; Torelli 2000b, 22; Botto 2017, 603; Maggiani 2017, 546; Menichetti 2017. 179 Sannibale 2013, 100; Naso 2000c, 116; Botto 2017, 602; Burkert 1992, 6 for similar understanding in Greece.

Etruscan Orientalization

59

cultural change heavily influenced by modern European colonialism that sees social transformation as taking place in an exclusively top-down manner. 6.1 Aristocratic Banquet One of the most visible and materially evidenced social practices from the ‘orientalizing’ period is the aristocratic banquet. Although the banquet is most strongly associated with the ‘orientalizing’ period, ceremonial eating and drinking predates this phenomenon in local practice,180 and even imported eastern forms of banqueting date prior to the height of the ‘orientalizing’ period in the seventh century.181 The banquet is represented by a large number of ceramic vessels and metalwares of the ‘orientalizing’ assemblage associated with ceremonial wine drinking and meat preparation, with many new forms and objects coming from the Near East and Greece. The primary objects associated with the banquet are the cauldron and tripod, iron spits and firedogs for roasting meat, large open-mouthed vessels for mixing wine and water, and drinking vessels, as well as other metal and ceramic serving ware for food consumption.182 In addition to these essential components of the banquet, there were accessories to the feasting, such as couches made of precious materials like wood, ivory, and metal, whose presence is connected to banqueting practices of Near Eastern courts.183 Our evidence for banqueting materials is primarily made up of objects found in funerary assemblages or within depictions on tomb paintings or architectural terracottas, such as the Tomb of the Leopards in Tarquinia or on the plaques from Murlo and Acquarossa.184 Due to the eastern origin of these practices and materials, their appearance has been used to mark the arrival of formalized banqueting as conducted in Near Eastern royal courts,185 along with Greek drinking practices in the form of the symposion at a slightly later period,186 although both have been seen as incorporating local Etruscan interpretations and accommodations.187 The exact source of the influence in banqueting and drinking practices is complicated by the fact that Greek drinking was also influenced by Near Eastern practices. Carolina López-Ruiz, however, highlights the ways in which the specific funerary context of feasting expressed within Etruria points to closer 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187

Iaia 2006, 2007; Colivicchi 2017, 207. Kistler 2017, 196. Sannibale 2012; Rathje 2013. Riva 2010, chap. 6 for a contextual use of all of these objects. Sannibale 2012; Rathje 2013; Colivicchi 2017, 209; Kistler 2017, 199. Rystedt 1984; Rathje 2013. Rathje 1990, 282 and 1991; Botto 2000, 2017. Torelli 2000a, 148–49; D’Agostino 2006, 215–16, 2011, 35–36. Rathje 1990, 1995, 2013, 824; Tuck 1994; Riva 2010; Sannibale 2013, 100.

60

Nowlin

connections with the Phoenician practice and therefore to Phoenician transmission to Etruria.188 Hellenocentrism has emphasized later Greek drinking practices and imported vessels, preventing a greater acknowledgment of the Phoenician role in this respect. Greater investigation of the active role Phoenician agents played in the phenomenon of interconnection during this period, something that the Orientalism embedded in the term ‘orientalizing’ has paradoxically downplayed, could lead to a greater understanding of the diverse connections made in this period. In recent scholarship there has been a focus on the ways in which the Etruscans have adapted banqueting objects within their local context.189 These approaches break free of emphasizing a singular moment of arrival (or two: one Phoenician and one Greek as suggested by Ducati’s bifurcation) for funerary feasting and drinking practices, an interpretation that is the product of isolating this period as ‘orientalizing’ rather than situating cultural developments within the diachronic span of Etruscan history. The practice of incorporating commensality into funerary ritual can be traced earlier in Etruscan history to the libations and small funerary meals seen in Villanovan biconical urns and cups found in tombs.190 Research into such practices has pushed past earlier ‘orientalizing’ art historical methods that isolated imported objects as individual categories of study, either in an effort to limit the potential impact of Eastern influence or because using the term ‘orientalizing’ has made imported objects the sole focus of study for the period. There is an effort to investigate these materials and practices within local Etruscan contexts alongside Etruscan wares made of impasto and later bucchero and in light of the diachronic history of commensality in the region. Such a framing enables scholars to see attributes adapted from Near Eastern and Greek banqueting and feasting as increasing the elaboration and scale of existing practices in Etruria rather than indicating the wholesale adoption of new cultural traits as colonial models of ‘orientalizing’ have emphasized. This also gives space to consider the Etruscan adaptations that were made to such banqueting and drinking practices. For instance, the Phoenician practice of adding spices to the wine was done through the use of a grater, following Euboean practices, rather than utilizing a clay tripod as was done in the Phoenician world.191 The most conspicuous Etruscan adaptations can be seen in the inclusion of women as active participants in the drinking and banqueting, as opposed to the Greek 188 189 190 191

López-Ruiz 2021, 167–68. Riva 2010; Kreindler 2015; Iaia 2016; Kistler 2017, 199. Iaia 2016. Kistler 2017, 199.

Etruscan Orientalization

61

practice of excluding all women except hetaerae.192 The largest adaptation that the Etruscans made to the feast was materially in the incorporation of vessels of their own creation, bucchero, which drew on Levantine ceramic forms and decorative styles adapted from metalworking. These adaptations and modifications are easily lost when the framework of ‘orientalizing’ simply seeks to highlight the acceptance of foreign objects and practices, focusing on the imported additions without contextualizing them within the local materials and practices. The current interpretations of the Etruscan banquet present it as the central arena for aristocratic display and elite gift-exchange during the ‘orientalizing’ period, which place it as one of the most important driving forces behind the phenomenon of ‘orientalization.’193 The banquet is equated with the activity of Near Eastern courts and the emulation of this, although with some local variations, is seen as a common facet of the ‘orientalizing’ period throughout the Mediterranean.194 This practice is presumably how the ‘orientalizing’ phenomenon spreads, hopping westward from indigenous aristocrat to aristocrat, through a constantly sustained and universal competitive drive. This interpretation in part relies on a view of the acceptance of ‘orientalizing’ culture as marking the arrival of history and civilization for Iron Age peoples who would naturally vie to adopt such traits of ‘civilization.’ The reasons local elites, or aspiring elites, would adopt banqueting as a central part of their funerary ritual is taken for granted. Furthermore, the ways in which banqueting builds social status and political power have been left unexplored. Recently, there have been greater efforts to explicate the process by which the commensal politics surrounding the banquet led to greater development of social hierarchy and assertions of power within the proto-urban communities of Etruria.195 In part this can be done by looking in greater detail at the manner of feasting that takes place in Etruscan contexts, both in funerary and habitation contexts, whose relatively smaller quantity of evidence by comparison to funerary contexts has decreased the importance of feasting materials from settlements within the ‘orientalizing’ discourse. To be succinct, not all feasts are made equal, and more research can be conducted to categorize feasting types and scales that are present within a singular community and across different communities within Etruria.196 This would allow us to say more about differing feasting strategies 192 Bartoloni 2000, 275; Colonna 2000b, 37; Rathje 2013, 826. 193 Naso 2000a; Sannibale 2013, 100. 194 Dietler 1990, 2010 for one of the most prominent efforts to nuance our understanding of the feast for this period. 195 Kistler 2017. 196 An example of such feasting categorization can be seen in Kassabaum 2019.

62

Nowlin

within individual communities and between different Etruscan communities, enabling a greater degree of nuance for discussing the ramifications of an Etruria increasingly connected with the Mediterranean world. Beyond looking at variations in the scale and style of feasting, we may be able to say more about non-elite members of society if we examine examples of feasting equipment beyond those tombs that display the greatest number and elaboration of materials. These representations of banquets are often dismissed as poor imitations of elite banquets, studied more for the elements that they lack rather than the elements of the banquet that are included. If we were instead to try to build an understanding of their selective use of feasting items, noting which items were purposefully included, we may be able to include a segment of society in the historical narrative that has heretofore been omitted from discussion of the elite-centric ‘orientalizing’ period. Focusing more on the mechanics behind feasting rather than simply emphasizing the display of power that these practices articulate would allow scholars to unite more lines of evidence surrounding feasting, such as paleobotany, faunal evidence, and survey archaeology, along with the ceramic evidence from settlement data that is not often put into dialogue with funerary remains. This would allow us to ask questions such as whether the increased importance of feasting during this period had larger economic implications that may have affected subsistence patterns, land use, and land tenure.197 Combining these changes with the feasting evidence from settlements and funerary displays will provide a more holistic picture of the ramifications of increased connectivity during the early first millennium in Etruria. In these interpretations of the aristocratic banquet, we see many of the issues present in earlier definitions of ‘orientalizing.’ The influence of Near Eastern banqueting practices is often discussed in terms of exoticism, excess, and ostentation.198 This has framed the Etruscans who have adopted these practices as representatives of eastern luxury on the Italian peninsula. Earlier interpretations that emphasized the wholesale adoption of both Near Eastern and Greek banqueting practices were influenced by the colonialist understandings of cultural transferal discussed above, but there is increasingly greater nuance in discussing Etruscan adoption and adaptation of these objects and practices. The division between Near Eastern and Greek banqueting practices mimics the Orientalist division created by Ducati, but there is beginning to be greater understanding that such a division is artificial.199 Such 197 Trentecoste 2020. 198 Colivicchi 2017, 208; Kistler 2017, 203. 199 Colivicchi 2017, 208.

Etruscan Orientalization

63

an acknowledgement will help to foreground the study of Phoenician contributions to Etruscan practices, as well as to highlight the continuity of Etruscan practices of commensality from earlier periods. By also adding the perspective of non-elite participation in feasting as well as the larger economic effects of increased feasting practices, the increased importance and visibility of banqueting practices during this period will be able to be better contextualized within Etruscan society. 6.2 Monarchy The arrival of a new ideology and display of power comprises another element of the ‘orientalizing’ phenomenon in Etruria. In current understandings of ‘orientalizing’ objects, nearly all materials associated with the ‘orientalizing’ period have been classified as prestige goods, embodied with the task of communicating status and legitimacy to their holders.200 There are specific objects that are more closely tied with how authority has been displayed within Near Eastern and Egyptian courts and, therefore, are more explicitly connected with a new, more institutionalized form of power: monarchy. These items include the scepter/mace/distaff, chariot, throne, staff or lituus, and flabellum (fan), each of which has been found within funerary contexts, and primarily in socalled ‘princely’ tombs.201 The iconographic similarities and material connections with symbols of monarchy in the East has led to an interpretation of a direct transferal of a monarchic political structure to Etruria.202 This once again places colonialist assumptions of the wholesale transfer of cultural institutions alongside imported objects, but even with these royal symbols of power, Etruscan elites are only ascribed the secondary role of ‘princes’ rather than kings. These imported objects and symbols of power are particularly important markers historically since the Etruscans are said to have handed down many of them to the Romans who adopted them as symbols of power. In the creation of a teleological history, the assumption of the arrival of Eastern monarchy in Etruria along with eastern objects serves two purposes: the first is to provide the external, evolutionary catalyst toward the eventual development of the Etruscan Archaic kingship known from later literary and epigraphic sources, and the second, as was stated previously, is to establish the Etruscans as the Easternized, despotic royal counterpoint to 200 Torelli 1985, 18. 201 Martelli 1995; Winther 1997; Delpino and Bartoloni 2000, 223–24; Naso 2000c, 111; Botto 2017, 602. 202 Torelli 2000a, 145; Gras 2000a, 20; Menichetti 2000, 206–207; Sannibale 2013, 102; Botto 2017, 602.

64

Nowlin

the later Republican values of the Romans. In this way the Etruscans became Orientalized to serve as the Eastern foil for the establishment of Rome, the protagonist in the historic narrative of Western civilization. Determining forms of government during this period of Etruscan history is particularly difficult since there is no direct evidence, with only later literary sources citing the presence of kings in Rome and southern Etruria during the Archaic period. The assumption of monarchal power structures stretching back into the ‘orientalizing’ period is based on the presence of the symbols of power mentioned earlier along with the sheer wealth of grave goods in tombs, all of which are meant to display luxury and prestige in the model of Near Eastern royal courts.203 While this archaeological evidence provides some signs that may indicate the presence of monarchy in the region, the lack of certainty within the archaeological record calls for caution.204 This hesitancy seems to be behind the wide-spread use of the term ‘princely’ in scholarship, first introduced by Ducati, implicitly framing Etruria as a monarchy-in-training, relying on an evolutionary narrative to fill in the interpretative gaps, and turning the princely ‘orientalizing’ period into the necessary intermediary step between Iron Age chiefdoms and Archaic kings.205 Rather than relying on a term like ‘princely,’ we should interrogate whether we can use these archaeological markers to identify the actual presence of monarchy within Etruria during this period. This means looking at these symbols contextually alongside earlier long-standing symbols of power within each community. Social hierarchy was well developed in Etruria prior to this period, so it is important to contextualize imported prestige goods alongside existing markers of authority. Do those utilizing these imported objects also employ earlier existing symbols of power? Such knowledge may help us understand whether these imported symbols were utilized by those in control of existing power structures or rather were employed by new groups seeking to establish themselves with new traditions. In addition to contextualized imported symbols of power within individual sites, there needs to be greater effort to understand the geographic variability in the use of these symbols. Because there can be a large number of Near Eastern symbols of power present at each site206 and since there are often multiple elaborate wealthy tombs within individual communities, greater effort needs to be given to distinguishing the symbols 203 204 205 206

Tagliamonte 2017, 123. Naso 2017c, 878–79 includes a similar cautionary note. Tagliamonte 2017. For instance, the eleven thrones found in Verucchio dating to between 750–650 or the model bronze thrones found in Chiusi, Naso 2017c, 879 citing von Eles and Baldelli 2017 and Minetti 2004, 446–49.

Etruscan Orientalization

65

of power utilized by specific Etruscan cities over time on a contextual basis. Monarchic symbols and other elements of power should be analyzed between different Etruscan and Latin cities in order to understand regional differentiation in representation, adoption, and adaptation. The authority of royal symbols of power has been assumed to be universal and unchanging from the Near Eastern context to the Etruscan context, but such an assumption needs to be interrogated. As with banqueting, these symbols of power need to be interpreted alongside broader types of evidence for changes in settlement patterns, economic developments, and other shifts in society that we would expect to accompany the adoption of a new form of government. While these imported objects may connote Near Eastern kingship, their use by Etruscan rulers was in a distinctly different context. Near Eastern rulers employed these symbols as a means of control for large and dispersed territorial states whereas Etruscan cities appeared at this time to be ruled individually as city-states. While there may be greater similarities between Etruscan forms of rule and the Phoenicians who likely transmitted these items, these differences in administration need to be accounted for in interpretations of the Etruscan use of these symbols and the establishment of a new political structure. Moreover, these symbols need to be incorporated alongside studies that look at urban development, changes in settlement patterns, and other economic changes – all topics that have been important mainstays of Etruscology – to understand the broader implications of changes in social organization. Greater interaction and trade across the Mediterranean created winners and losers within the existing economic and social hierarchy that should be visible and that can be studied beyond simply focusing on whether we can verify the presence of monarchy. Such interconnected studies across different fields within Etruscology will help to contextualize the ramifications of imported symbols and political changes that are intertwined with Mediterranean trade across a broad span of society. 6.3 Luxury One of the final significant factors of cultural change assumed to be tied to the ‘orientalizing’ period is the development of a taste for luxury among the Etruscan aristocracy.207 Although local development of social hierarchy had already established elite groups from the Bronze Age onward, the ‘orientalizing’ period is seen as bringing new and more complex opportunities for social differentiation among the elite through a more elaborate and extensive suite of material culture. This taste for luxury established an inherent Etruscan desire 207 Colonna 2000a, 55, 2000b, 37; Menichetti 2000, 210.

66

Nowlin

for the acquisition of all the objects, customs, and ideologies discussed above. Therefore, even if Eastern practices were not fully adopted, there is a consistent assumption that Etruscan elites enviously emulated the pomp and ceremony of Near Eastern courts without further explanation as to why these materials and practices were considered appealing.208 These Eastern objects, styles, and customs are assumed to be inherently appealing in Etruria and wherever else they are traded in the Mediterranean, and therefore, the development of a taste for them is seen as both natural and a sign of civilizational progress. This is in large part because ‘orientalizing’ culture has this historiographic tradition of being interpreted as a marker of civilization and, therefore, something all peoples would naturally strive to adopt. Such an assumption does not account for differences in concepts of value between different communities. Moving away from the framework of ‘orientalizing’ would open these value systems to further investigation, forcing scholarship to ask why certain imported objects and materials were adopted by the Etruscans.209 Without exploring these ancient systems of value further, the conception of Etruscan adoption of Eastern objects and practices as being inherently a marker of a taste for luxury ascribes a modern Orientalist view of the value of Eastern exotica within a Western context. The idea of tryphe (luxury) that is specifically attributed to the Etruscans was formed based on literary accounts from Greek and Roman authors such as Theopompus, Alkimos, Heraclides Ponticus, Timaeus, and Posidonius as a way of moralistically ‘othering’ them.210 Modern acceptance of such a biased framing of the ‘other’ gives credence to a colonialist characterization of the Etruscans. Giovanni Colonna explicitly links this literary attitude toward the Etruscans with the material culture of the ‘orientalizing’ period: the roots of the Greek idea of tryphe lie in what is known as habrosyne, that is, the Etruscan aristocracy’s urge to emulate the refined customs and high living standards of Ionian stamp (or, more generically, of Graeco-Oriental origin), a lifestyle they pursued from the days of the lavish Orientalizing culture of the seventh century.211

208 Briquel 2000, 45; Naso 2000c, 122; Sannibale 2013, 99. 209 The concept of value has been a useful avenue for research into the use of eastern imported objects in Bronze Age Greece, see Voutsaki 1995; van Wijngaarden 1999; Feldman 2006; Legarra Herrero 2011. For use of the concept of value within Archaic Etruria, see Riva 2017. 210 Colonna 2000b, 37. 211 Colonna 2000b, 37.

Etruscan Orientalization

67

The Orientalist equation of lavish decadence with the East has been transferred to the Etruscans through the material evidence of the ‘orientalizing’ period, and just as in the case of monarchy, it is done in order to establish a foil to the Western ideals embodied in the Roman Republic, both by ancient writers and modern scholars. This quotation also lays bare the double standard that is attributed to the Etruscans’ acceptance of objects and ideas from the Eastern Mediterranean: what is considered “refined customs and high living standards” in Ionia is derided as lavish within the Etruscan context. In Etruria, the basic elements of civilization and society become items of luxury. Along with the negative connotations of luxury, the formation of an Etruscan taste for Eastern goods was thought to set in motion another critical component of more ephemeral exchange: technological knowledge and skilled craftspeople. The appearance of a number of new technologies have been connected with the cultural exchange of the ‘orientalizing’ period: wheelturned, refined, and slipped pottery, more precise ceramic firing techniques, goldsmithing techniques of filigree and granulation, and perhaps above all writing.212 The new needs and desires of the Etruscan aristocracy created a demand for closer, more local production of such luxury goods, meaning that the necessary technology and skills needed to be transferred through teaching, local imitation, and the actual immigration of eastern craftspeople into Etruria.213 The full-scale migration and eastern origin for the Etruscans first connected with the ‘orientalizing’ period by Brizio has been replaced by a partial migration of craftspeople instead.214 Associating the changes in material culture and society during this period to the diffusion of eastern craftspeople within Etruria oversimplifies the spread of knowledge and technology for a time in which we have evidence for a wide span of mobilities and types of trade. There are many different ways in which this knowledge could be transferred from one group to another, and teasing out the nuances of this transfer, place by place, would further our understanding of the nature of interaction during this period. In addition to their role in diffusing ‘orientalizing’ art and culture within Etruria, these mobile craftsmen (they are most frequently assumed to 212 Cristofani 1978a; Torelli 1981, 70, 2000c; Colonna 2000a, 58; Sassatelli 2000; Torelli 2000c; Riva 2010, 59–60; Micozzi 2017b. 213 Cristofani 1978a, 35; Botto 2002, 2012, 2017; Ridgway 2002; Sannibale 2013, 2016; Markoe 2015; Heyne 2019. 214 Although not explored in this work, each of the authors discussed in this historiography could be examined for how they consider both itinerant craftspeople and the method of knowledge transfer between peoples. While an early author like Winckelmann is eager to deny or at least downplay the transferal of artistic knowledge between cultures, later authors discuss a variety of mechanisms for such a transfer.

68

Nowlin

have been male) have become another element of the ‘orientalizing’ cultural package that Etruscan elites consume, in a similar way to the imported objects that are buried with them in their tombs. Further, skilled artisans carried with them the critical technologies and abilities needed not only to satisfy the consumptive desires of Etruscan elites but also some of the critical components for establishing an urban civilization: craft specialization and organized craft production, writing, and presumably a more complete understanding of how each of these was meant to be used. These craftsmen then figure as the primary conduit for the transfer of ‘civilization’ that has been historically linked to the concept of ‘orientalizing.’ The interpretation of the role of these itinerant craftsmen must be balanced between attributing all artistic and technological change to the migration of foreign peoples, an interpretation which would remove the agency and ingenuity of local Etruscans, and dismissing the presence of foreign craftspeople, a denial of individual migration during a period of high interconnectivity. As López-Ruiz suggests we should actively look for the presence of Phoenician craftspeople living within Etruria by looking for distinct sets of Phoenician material culture and practices that would help identify them. This means looking beyond whether objects categorized as ‘orientalizing’ can be ascribed to a Phoenician hand or to an Etruscan imitation of the style and delving into settlement and burial data for the identification of immigrant craftspeople based on larger cultural traits, as well as possibly isotopic data if available. Such an investigation might also make it possible to understand the extent to which there are geographic differences in the settlement of itinerant craftspeople and to determine whether such settlement maps onto pre-existing distributions of economic resources or other power dynamics. Moreover, the exclusive focus on identifying either Phoenician or Greek itinerant craftspeople artificially narrows the mobility of peoples in the ancient Mediterranean for this period, excluding those Mediterranean peoples who may have migrated from beyond these two groups. Breaking free of the ‘orientalizing’ framework would allow us to look for other itinerant craftspeople from the western Mediterranean and central Europe who may have been overlooked in this East–West divide.215 6.4 The Colonialist Transfer of a ‘Princely’ Way of Life The combination of these three fundamental aspects – the banquet, monarchy, and luxury tastes – composes the ‘Eastern lifestyle’ at the heart of the 215 For instance, Iaia (2005, 2007) has shown that the Stillfried-type tazza in Iron Age tombs in Etruria provides evidence for itinerant craftsmen coming from the Carpathian Mountains.

Etruscan Orientalization

69

modern interpretation of the ‘orientalizing’ period. From this perspective, it is not simply that eastern objects and motifs arrived on the Tyrrhenian shore, but rather that entire lifestyles, customs, technologies, and ideologies were transferred from East to West, comprising a complete ‘way of life.’216 This shift from earlier art historical approaches rightly acknowledges that the appearance of new objects and iconography has broader implications than simply adding to the artistic and material culture repertoire or marking the actual migration of people as earlier thought. When people of different lifestyles and experiences come into contact with each other, the worldview and often the material culture of all people involved will be changed, and although in the case of the Etruscans we have primarily objects as the fragmentary manifestation of these transformations, we must look to a further explanation of the immaterial changes that took place as well. And while the Etruscan ‘orientalizing’ period has not recently been explicitly called or discussed as a ‘colonial’ situation (since no evidence has been found for large permanent settlements of foreign peoples within Etruria), the way in which the phenomenon of cultural change in the eighth and seventh centuries has been approached, nonetheless, is from a colonialist perspective. As has been outlined, this colonial framework has been associated with the term ‘orientalizing’ from Winckelmann’s belief that changes in Etruscan art were brought about by Greek colonies in Etruria to Pallottino’s more explicit connection between modern Italian colonial practice and the social changes of Etruscan ‘orientalization.’ The colonialist perspective has been especially prevalent in the belief that entire ways of life were adopted from the eastern Mediterranean without changes in value or with minimal adaptations. Since applications of a colonialist perspective have primarily been implicit in the outcomes and interpretations of ‘orientalization’ in Etruria, the framework for understanding this process of cultural interaction has until recently remained relatively uncritiqued.217 Besides the colonial undercurrents outlined in the historiography above, there are a number of ways in which scholarship on the ‘orientalizing’ period has been conceived of and explained through an underlying colonialist framework. As was the case in many colonial situations, history was written by the non-indigenous groups, in this case Greek and Roman authors, and often even by those at a chronological remove from the actual period of cultural interaction. Demaratus of Corinth, for instance, is one of the most prominent stock characters from Graeco-Roman literature symbolizing a literary figure who exemplifies the cultural changes of the ‘orientalizing’ period in Etruria. 216 Riva 2010, 42; Colivicchi 2017, 208; Naso 2017c. 217 Riva and Vella 2006a; Izzet 2007b; Riva 2010.

70

Nowlin

Demaratus emphasizes the importance and primacy of Greek contributions and agency within the ‘orientalizing’ period. Particularly after Pallottino refuted the claim of the eastern origins of the Etruscans, there was a shift to adding emphasis to Greek contributions at the expense of eastern elements. As a Corinthian exile who moved to Tarquinia in the middle of the seventh century, Demaratus brought with him his own extensive wealth (which aided him in marrying the daughter of the ruler of Tarquinia), the technique of writing, and advanced craftspeople skilled in painting and the plastic arts.218 Demaratus thus served both Roman historians and modern scholars as the explanatory conduit for many important aspects that needed to be transferred from Greece to Etruria and later Rome. His journey to Etruria, and then his son’s later role as the fifth legendary king of Rome, created the ideal narrative for ancient sources in the same way that he became the later model for a more Hellenocentric understanding of cultural progress and advancement in the ‘orientalizing’ period.219 This encroachment of Hellenic influence into earlier time periods has not only served to obscure the Phoenician and other Eastern influences, whose written sources are not as frequently preserved for this region and period, but it privileges the Greeks, who are both more literarily prominent and more directly tied to Western identity formation. The lack of an explicit colonialist situation in the definition of Etruscan ‘orientalization’ has made it easier to deny the impact of colonial thought in the study of these cultural interactions. In particular, the art historical roots of the study of the ‘orientalizing’ phenomenon have led to the basic assumption that eastern imports were used in Etruria just as these objects had originally been used in their initial context.220 Objects used in Near Eastern courts are considered to have been used not just by similar social classes of Etruscan aristocrats and kings but with similar iconographic interpretations and in connection with Eastern ideologies and practices.221 This assumption has led to numerous studies whose foundations are built on a detailed examination of a single class of objects and its iconographic motifs, followed by a survey of comparanda within the eastern Mediterranean employed to understand the use of the object or the meaning of a particular iconographic element.222 Such studies can provide an understanding of the geographic distribution of interconnectivity within Etruria, but they need to be taken further with a contextual 218 Livy 1.34; Plin. HN. 35.5; Strabo 5.2.2; Tac. Ann. 11.14. 219 See López-Ruiz (2021) for a further discussion of the privileging of Greek and Roman sources (25–27) as well as the Hellenocentric role played by Demaratus (165, 241). 220 Strom 1971; Rathje 1979; Sannibale 2013. 221 Botto 2017, 602. 222 Brown 1960; Szilagyi 1992, 1998; Sciacca 2005.

Etruscan Orientalization

71

look at how each of these particular material types fit into the material culture and social organization of each Etruscan community in which they are used. Investigating the local cultural context within which these objects were being used and transformed requires a detailed diachronic look at material culture and practices within each settlement before, during, and after these two centuries of heightened connectivity. This means that any contextual analysis must stretch beyond the two centuries typically indicated by the term ‘orientalizing.’ The function of imported objects cannot be assumed within each individual Etruscan community, much less between Etruria and Phoenicia, Greece, or other Near Eastern contexts. The meaning and purpose of imported objects is not something packaged alongside the goods themselves, and even if this were the case, it would not guarantee that the Etruscan use would directly coincide with these instructions. The reason that the meaning and use of these imported objects is assumed not to have changed is because these Eastern elements, particularly after they have been transformed through Greek hands, are thought to be further along an evolutionary scale of social advancement, making the acceptance of these new goods a natural reaction that does not require further explanation, replicating interpretations of colonial encounters framed in earlier scholarship. This means that there has been limited exploration of possible reinterpretation or resistance to these objects and their associated social changes or a consideration of the disrupting aspects brought about by these changes. How did these imported objects create winners and losers within Etruscan political, economic, and social structures, and how does the use of these items map onto earlier structures that were already in existence? What kinds of imported objects and practices did not find resonance within Etruscan culture? Furthermore, changes associated with ‘orientalizing’ culture have been viewed as a totalizing shift in Etruscan culture, but there are certainly elements of earlier practices that continue to be important within the Etruscan mindset. Greater study of these continuities, the things that the Etruscans hold on to, in the face of contact and change can highlight the types of values that are especially important to an Etruscan way of life at this time. Nonetheless, there are certain common issues with colonialist approaches that recent interpretations of ‘orientalizing’ Etruria have resolved. Some of the first interpretations of the period placed Etruria as the supplier of raw materials, particularly metals, for more established civilizations such as Assyria, and as the receiver of their advanced art and culture.223 This framework adopted a world-systems view of this period, centering the Assyrian empire as the extractor of raw materials and supplier of finished luxury products for the peripheral 223 Sherratt and Sherratt 1993.

72

Nowlin

regions such as Etruria. Since more available information has pointed to the multi-directionality of long-distance trade throughout the Mediterranean, it has been recognized that Etruria also exported bucchero and fine bronze objects to southern France, Cyprus, and Greece, maintained long-standing contacts with Sardinia, and had connections with Phoenician settlements in Sardinia, Sicily, and at Carthage, showing that it is not simply an extractive region for Eastern powers.224 Etruria was not merely a receiver of advanced Eastern culture but was an equal participant in the lively trade of the early first-millennium Mediterranean. The ‘orientalizing’ framework artificially constricted our conception of trade in the period to an East–West axis, but without this Orientalist structure, we are able to highlight the wide variety of interconnections that are at play in the beginning of the first millennium. In more recent scholarship the Etruscans are not portrayed as passively accepting the ‘orientalizing’ suite of goods and way of life, but rather, most current interpretations maintain that the Etruscan elite were actively participating in a Mediterranean-wide aristocratic culture, choosing and modifying particular objects, styles, imagery, and customs in order to be able to interact with an expanding group of foreign aristocratic peers.225 Although Etruscan elites are portrayed as active in this role, unfortunately the previous historical development and understanding of ‘orientalizing’ necessitates that, no matter the nuances that can be observed in the process of cultural transformation, the assumed end result – the full development of Etruscan civilization and its later influence on Western European culture – has remained the same. By calling this culture ‘orientalizing’ or framing the changes associated with it as ‘orientalization,’ an Eastern result for Etruscan culture is permanently inscribed in the study. While recent scholarship might be able to identify certain nuances, points of departure, or other divergences in the ways in which Etruscans reacted to imported objects and increased trade during this period, these details will always be subsumed within an ‘orientalizing’ result whose interpretation cannot be altered or refined. This is because ‘orientalizing’ is not simply a neutral definitional term; as I have outlined above, it is a theoretical model for understanding the adoption of Eastern traits within Western civilization. Therefore, the end point of the evolutionary development is always the same, and any nuances in interpretations of interconnectivity in the period have been limited to a superficial impact and are folded into the traditional assumptions about ‘orientalization’ without any substantial changes to the outcome. 224 Gras 2000b, 98; Dietler 2010, 94–104; Sannibale 2013, 100; Bellelli 2014, 93; Botto 2017. 225 Cristofani 1978a, 42; Naso 2000c, 122; Malkin 2002; Hodos 2020, 159.

Etruscan Orientalization

73

Such a colonialist outlook in scholarship has resulted in a diffusionist interpretation of the spread of ‘Eastern lifestyles’ to Etruria and subsequently the other regions of Italy, particularly those areas that were not in direct contact with Greek colonies. For regions such as Umbria, Abruzzo, the Veneto, and Marche, the Etruscans serve as the colonizing agent, spreading the Eastern aristocratic way of life that they themselves had just previously assimilated. Along with the explicit interpretation that Etruscans transmitted the ‘orientalizing’ lifestyle to the rest of peninsular Italy,226 the use of terms such as ‘princely,’ ‘king,’ and ‘monarchy’ to describe ‘orientalizing’ burials in these inland regions shows an implicit diffusionist and evolutionary perspective. The interpretation of the Etruscan ‘orientalizing’ period is not simply limited geographically to the land between the Tiber and Arno rivers, or even to the often-discussed Etruscan colonial settlements, but rather it has been applied to all areas and sites in Italy that have any material signs of ‘orientalizing’ art, imports, objects, or practices. In part, the primacy in agency given to the Etruscans on the Italian peninsula can be attributed to the nationalist framework that so strongly influenced the creation and interpretation of ‘orientalizing’ discussed earlier in this historiography. Looking in greater depth at how different Iron Age peoples within Italy reacted to increased contact with Mediterranean peoples and cultures within the early first millennium could highlight the social variability and differential development of Iron Age groups.227 By assuming the same outcome for regions outside of Etruria, we miss the ways in which, for instance, more inland and remote regions show greater continuity and adherence to tradition in the face of Mediterranean-wide trends.228 The categorization of the period as ‘orientalizing’ places greater emphasis on the importation of eastern objects to the Italian peninsula and overshadows the concomitant increase in trade between different Iron Age groups in Italy at the time. The subsequent local adaptations of imported materials and the regional exchanges that are made between groups like the Etruscans, Latins, Faliscans, Capenates, Sabines, and others are also worth further investigation. Along with these diffusionist perspectives on the ‘orientalizing’ period, one of the other biases that does the greatest damage to a fuller understanding of cultural interaction among central Italic communities in the eighth and seventh centuries is the exclusionary elite focus. Since the broader understanding of ‘orientalization’ in the Mediterranean has been that of mutual aristocratic 226 Bradley 2000, 97; Naso 2000b, 96, 2000c, 122; Colivicchi and Zaccagnino 2008, 11; Micozzi 2017a. 227 See Nowlin 2016 for an example of such an exploration within the Abruzzo region. 228 Nowlin forthcoming.

74

Nowlin

emulation of Eastern lifestyles through an assemblage of imported luxury goods, the only active participants are by necessity the elites and possibly the artisans working under their direction, who lacked their own individual agency. Diffusion of the cultural impacts of the ‘orientalizing’ period in this case is distributed not just geographically from Etruria inward but socially, from the top down, through the much-emphasized more complex hierarchical organization of society that developed in this period. It is undeniable that the first appearance of goods associated with the ‘orientalizing’ period is seen in the wealthiest graves within Tyrrhenian coastal centers, tombs which served as chronological boundaries for the earliest definitions of the ‘orientalizing’ period. So much attention has been paid to these rare and extravagant burials that are typically characterized by the possession of all components, practices, and materials characteristic of the ‘orientalizing’ phenomenon that the more scattered and isolated appearance of imported objects or related materials within smaller burials tends to be viewed as lower-class imitation and deficient forms of emulation. Social relations, even in a time of community reorganization within a more discrete urban form, are therefore conceived of in a strict pyramid of social hierarchy, with the imported luxury goods trickling through society at the discretion of the upper classes, making the lower classes of Etruria simply another location for the diffusion of ‘orientalizing’ culture. Removing the reductive framework of ‘orientalizing’ would allow us to ask questions of the possible differential of use of these objects and practices between classes and question how the introduction of new objects, ideologies, and value systems may have upset the pre-existing social hierarchy. The totalizing nature of what Riva has critically called a “culture of princes” has led to defining two centuries of Etruscan history by the actions of the smallest segment of society alone, excluding the vast majority of the population. There are intriguing possibilities of research into the use of imported objects across the lines of age and gender that would provide nuance to the discussion of elite ‘orientalizing’ culture. As has been noted, many of these imported goods appear in the graves of women within central Italy.229 In the case of more local imports indicative of regional contact, the presence of imported objects has been seen as possible evidence for intra-community marriages,230 but such interpretations have not been suggested for the presence of imported eastern objects within female tombs. A greater investigation of the intersection of gender and power would expand interpretations beyond the use of imported

229 Fulminante 2019, 43. 230 Nijboer 2011; Kremer 2016.

Etruscan Orientalization

75

objects as a sign of connections abroad.231 The same research is increasingly possible for the use of imported objects in subadult burials, as more intact tombs are excavated and published from central Italy. 6.5 Postcolonial Interpretations In light of these problems of colonial and diffusionist approaches toward an elite-focused, ‘orientalizing’ culture, the most productive research on this period of interaction during the Italian Iron Age has been located in a critical assessment of standard terminology and especially in the recent postcolonial turn, a trend that has been occurring more broadly within the field of archaeology for the last thirty years.232 The very structure of this historiography is informed by the postcolonial critique as it seeks to dissect the intersection of knowledge and power that has created the discourse surrounding ‘orientalizing.’ Postcolonial archaeology seeks to question and destabilize stereotypes and binaries as a means for understanding past societies, something which is certainly a key structuring principle for studies of ‘orientalizing’ in Etruria. This requires acknowledging that identities are fluid and socially constructed rather than fixed and unchanging, particularly in the context of cultural exchange. Postcolonial approaches focus on the ways in which objects and practices can change, adapt, and be recombined with local and other foreign influences to create entirely new entities. In this respect, concepts of hybridity and hybrid practices have been fundamental for understanding this process and have been particularly influential in archaeological interpretations.233 This understanding requires acknowledging that it is possible for objects and practices to change their meaning and value when they enter a new cultural context. It is critical to examine these materials in their local context in light of local traditions. Postcolonial approaches have been broadly used for investigating instances of cultural interaction within the early Mediterranean Iron Age, but they are yet to gain significant traction within Etruscology. This is in part due to the larger trend within Etruscology to deny or completely reject the influence of modern concepts and theory on the study of the Etruscans.234 In scholarship on Italy and the surrounding islands during this period, focus has shifted from looking eastward to the original homes of the objects and motifs that have 231 Riva 2010, 88–94 fruitfully looks at the intersection of gender and symbols of power. 232 Thomas 1991; van Dommelen 1998, 2011; Gosden 2004; Dietler 2010; Lydon and Rizvi 2010. 233 van Dommelen 1997, 2006; Antonaccio 2003; Feldman 2006; Vives-Ferrándiz 2008; Hodos 2010; Papalexandrou 2010; Vella 2010; Stockhammer 2013; Balco 2018. For a critique of the widespread application of hybridity, see Pappa 2013. 234 Riva 2020.

76

Nowlin

been described as ‘orientalizing,’ and even away from the amorphous debate as to who exactly was involved in the process of transport and exchange,235 and instead looking toward the peoples who used these imported goods within Italy and how they incorporated these new objects, themes, and customs into their own, pre-existing material culture and local context. These approaches have been highlighted in the edited volume, Debating Orientalization, which is one of the only Mediterranean-wide critical assessments of both the term ‘orientalization’ and the ways in which it has been studied throughout the countries ringing the Mediterranean Sea.236 This volume does not seek to undermine the copious amounts of material evidence for a heightened period of cultural interaction and trade throughout the Mediterranean in the first half of the first millennium. Nor is there a shift to a nativist perspective that denies any impact of increased connectivity on local sets of material culture. Rather, the chapters included in the volume seek to shift both the perspective and the types of questions that are asked of the material. As Purcell frames the point: “Why an Etruscan in the Tyrrhenian thought alphabetic writing a useful thing to learn is a more important question than where the person who taught the person who taught him learned it from.”237 Within Etruscan studies, the reassessment of the ‘orientalizing’ period has remained relatively limited, with only recent critical evaluation of the terminology used to describe the period (orientalizzante) or the category of tombs (principesche).238 Critical components of the ‘orientalizing’ way of life, such as the presence of monarchy in the eighth through sixth centuries, has been questioned by scholars such as Christopher Smith, who discursively examined the existence of Etruscan and later Roman kings through a critique of the literary 235 The Phoenician (a term used by Greeks, Romans, and modern scholars to identify peoples based on linguistic, epigraphic, and cultural grounds in the Levant and in areas of colonial or diasporic movement) role within the ‘orientalizing’ period has long been dismissed or down-played, but in recent years their contribution to the Mediterranean-wide style of the eighth and seventh centuries and their role in the transmission of these objects, particularly in the western Mediterranean, has been highlighted Aubet 2001; Hodos 2006; Vella 2014; Quinn and Vella 2018; Doak and López-Ruiz 2019; Feldman 2019; López-Ruiz 2021. In the case of interactions with the Etruscans, the Phoenician role as well as the earliest “trinkets” associated with their phase of exchange has been reduced to something of a false-start for the real ‘orientalizing’ period set in motion by the arrival of Greek colonists and traders. López-Ruiz (2021, 44–62) provides an excellent summation of all of the complicating factors that have reduced or limited the perceived Phoenician role in the exchange networks of the early first millennium. 236 Riva and Vella 2006b. 237 Purcell 2006, 24. 238 Fulminante 2003; Riva 2006, 2010; Riva and Vella 2006a; Isayev 2007, 8.

Etruscan Orientalization

77

and archaeological sources.239 Such a review of basic assumptions, of whether or not we have evidence for actual kingship or simply a well-developed aristocracy, is a vital part of dissecting the “culture of princes” associated with the ‘orientalizing’ period. Accompanying such a reevaluation of monarchy is Corinna Riva’s archaeological reassessment of how Etruscan elites used the expanded material culture of the early first millennium as a means of institutionalizing their own political authority through a continuity of funerary ritual and display rather than asserting a new ideology of monarchy transferred to them from the East.240 This work is grounded in placing the ‘orientalizing’ period within its broader chronological context, evaluating preexisting symbols of power such as weaponry, technological appropriation, and monumental, collective burials through the longue durée in order to belay the assumption of a sudden change in aristocratic ideology. Francesca Fulminante has sought to explore the sociopolitical developments at the heart of how settlements in central Italy gained in size and complexity from the Bronze Age until the Archaic period. She has explored the importance of age and gender in the consumption of eastern imports, noting their prominence in female and infant burials in Latium vetus.241 On a regional scale, she has employed formal network analysis to reject the notion that urbanism was another concept that was transported to central Italy from the East,242 focusing instead on the local dynamics of communication between central Italic settlements as a driver for change.243 A contextual approach to particular object types, motifs, or cultural phenomena has become one of the most prominent new avenues for research on interaction in early first-millennium Italy, possibly because it does not require an explicit indictment of previous colonialist approaches. Work by Maria Cristina Biella, for instance, places the conspicuous imagery of fantastic bestiary within the longer Faliscan tradition of incised impasto decoration, emphasizing the truly local elements that combine with eastern elements to make a completely new figurative culture, one that is genuinely Etruscan and Italic.244 Cristiano Iaia has conducted a number of diachronic analyses of feasting and drinking equipment within central Italy that highlight the continuity of this practice from before the arrival of eastern imported objects.245 He uses a contextual analysis of these materials to underscore the importance of women in feasting 239 240 241 242 243 244 245

Smith 2011. Riva 2010, 187. Fulminante 2019. Fulminante 2009; Fulminante and Stoddart 2013. Fulminante 2020. Biella 2007; further explored in Biella et al. 2012. Iaia 2007.

78

Nowlin

and the ways in which these materials were used for competition between elite groups rather than simply the assertion of overall elite power.246 Further south, Fabio Colivicchi has reassessed the nature of wine drinking within the landscape of Magna Graecia and used contextual studies of drinking wares and iconography to track the maintenance and eventual disappearance of particular traditional drinking forms in the diverse groups of southeastern Italy.247 Mariassunta Cuozzo has used an explicitly postcolonial theoretical approach to conduct a long-term, contextual study of the ‘orientalizing’ cemetery at Pontecagnano while embracing theoretical ideas such as hybridity and resistance in the face of Greek colonialism and Etruscan influences.248 Cuozzo’s work is tied to that of Bruno d’Agostino and Luca Cerchiai, whose application of notions of alterity and the subaltern derives from Gramsci’s concepts of hegemony and resistance.249 More recently, Cuozzo’s work has sought to explain the absence of all but the most elite members of Etruscan society in the material record during the ‘orientalizing’ period in terms of ‘symbolic violence’ directed toward the sub-elite of society.250 This effort helpfully does not take the exclusive elite nature of the ‘orientalizing’ period for granted but looks for an explanation. Each of these material approaches to phenomena of the ‘orientalizing’ period, Greek colonialism, or simply cultural change in the early first millennium more broadly breaks with the earlier methodologies described above in favor of a more nuanced understanding of cultural interaction within a local context. A scholarly shift in this direction has also been argued for by Elena Isayev and Vedia Izzet, both of whom call for refocusing attention on appropriation and choice, as well as further questions into exactly why particular choices were made instead of relying upon evolutionary reasoning.251 These attitudes do not center on a complete reexamination of the ‘orientalizing’ period and culture contact more broadly in the early first millennium but rather argue for asking the question why and how in order to better understand the underlying reasoning for Italian participation within the sphere of Mediterranean interaction and in particular to understand the nuances of how this took place. The answers to these questions, as can be seen from the examples above, provide more details to the social and cultural changes that occurred within Etruria during this period, knowledge that would be left 246 247 248 249 250 251

Iaia 2016. Colivicchi 2004. Cuozzo 2003. Cuozzo and Guidi 2013, 23, 96. Cuozzo 2016. Isayev 2007; Izzet 2007.

Etruscan Orientalization

79

unknown without a deeper exploration of the mechanics behind them. For a term like ‘orientalizing,’ the mechanics of cultural change moving from East to West are already either assumed to be understood or insignificant as long as Etruria becomes ‘Eastern’ in the end. Most recently, there has been a push to apply modern theories of globalization within the context of the ancient Mediterranean and particularly in light of the increased connectivity of the first millennium.252 The definitions of globalization are vast, and some indeed restrict the phenomenon to the particular historical circumstances that it developed under after the sixteenth century CE. There has been a push to apply the framework of globalization to premodern societies, arguing that these historical instances simply differ in scale and intensity rather than fundamentally in kind.253 As Hodos outlines, “globalization itself may be defined as processes of increasing connectivities that unfold and manifest as social awareness of those connectivities (original italics)” and that these connectivities are defined by the “wide-scale flow of ideas and knowledge alongside the sharing of cultural customs, civil society, practices and the environment.”254 These definitions provide a number of advantages over current conceptions of ‘orientalizing’ within Etruria. They focus on process rather than outcome, meaning that they avoid the teleological trap of working toward a predetermined outcome (such as the West becoming Eastern) for such interconnectivity. By examining the flow of ideas and knowledge on a wide scale, the framework of globalization breaks past the Orientalist binary inherent in terms like ‘orientalizing.’ In fact, one of the most appealing aspects of globalization is that it has a flattening aspect, which does not privilege particular actors or historical processes over others. In the context of the Western Mediterranean, this is particularly important since frameworks of ‘orientalization’ and Greek colonization have privileged Greeks and Phoenicians as traders, settlers, and disseminators of Eastern culture.255 For the ‘orientalizing’ period within Etruria, such a flattening would allow for a discussion that moves past an exclusive Orientalist focus on the reception of Eastern objects, practices, and values, shifting focus to look for the effects of connectivity with regions to the north, south, and west of Etruria. This means putting Etruria in dialogue with regions of the Western Mediterranean, such as Spain, France, the Balearics, Sicily, Sardinia, and North Africa, which have 252 Hodos 2009, 2010, 2017b, 2020; Pitts and Versluys 2014; Versluys 2014; van Dommelen 2017. 253 Hodos 2017a, 9. For further discussion of its applicability in the ancient world, see Jennings 2011. 254 Hodos 2017a, 4. 255 The still prevalent Hellenocentric bias has reduced the role of Phoenicians in this, as noted by López-Ruiz 2021, 44–62.

80

Nowlin

been omitted within the ‘orientalizing’ paradigm, examining the similarities and differences in their reactions to imported Eastern objects and practices, studying the trade among these western Mediterranean groups, and tracing the western Mediterranean regional maritime networks that also increased in prominence during this period. The other important aspect that globalization entails is the study of the social awareness of these connectivities in the past, which provides a more neutral understanding of the ways in which Etruscan elites and others both recognized and participated in a growing Mediterranean koine. Associated concepts, such as glocalization, build on the postcolonial framework of examining the effects of colonization within a local context by exploring the ways in which local peoples responded to engagement and interconnectivity by adopting and modifying shared practices and values according to local tradition.256 The key aspects of globalization certainly provide many corrections to previous issues with interpretations of ‘orientalizing,’ providing new methodologies and approaches for research, but the approach has yet to be taken up for Etruria during the eighth and seventh centuries. The recent volume by Tamar Hodos shows how the concept of globalization can be used to reanalyze materials from across the Mediterranean during this period in the first millennium without the need for concepts of ‘orientalization’ or Hellenization.257 The application of a concept drawn from the modern period is bound to bring with it its own complications. Rather than simply stating that the early first millennium is an early instance of globalization, it is necessary to investigate where this framework fits and where it is inadequate. The knowledge gained by such comparisons can help clarify our understanding of this period and its cultural ramifications in antiquity. The push against the explicit application of modern theoretical concepts, such as postcolonialism or globalization, within Etruscology fits into a broader trend mentioned above. In part this is due to the heavy influence of a positivistic style of archaeology within Etruria and a resistance toward foreign scholars, typically Anglo- or Francophone, who are believed to selectively appropriate evidence from the Etruscan context to support their new theoretical framework without a thorough knowledge and grounding in the data. In light of the historiography above, such an aversion to the imposition of foreign theoretical concepts is completely understandable since many previous works were used to advance certain political ideologies that had larger modern ramifications. In fact, the reading of this historiography could understandably caution any 256 Robertson 1995; Hodos 2017a, 6. 257 Hodos 2020.

Etruscan Orientalization

81

against the application of modern ideologies onto the past because of these ramifications and their skewing of our knowledge of the past. But I would argue that such a divorcing from a scholar’s own modern context is impossible. Instead, scholars should be explicit about the modern theoretical influences that are at play within their work. While some authors discussed in this work outlined or subtly hinted at the influence of their modern world on their scholarly endeavor, these influences were apparent even in those who omitted such statements. Failing to acknowledge them does not mean that they do not exist. The changes and personal experiences we encounter in the modern world are one of the greatest drivers of new interpretations about the ancient world. Expanding our understanding of known possibilities for human experience drives us to look for evidence that others might have experienced something similar in the past. We should be explicit and reflexive about the ways in which these influences have shaped our own views of the past, so that our readers judge our interpretations with the necessary context. With this in mind, the current trend in scholarship toward postcolonialism and globalization is clearly being driven by the personal experiences of scholars in this moment (myself included). Future historiographic work should be done to assess how this current moment both opened our scholarship to new understandings of the ancient world and blinded our investigations to aspects which are yet to be explored. 7

Conclusions: Abandoning the Term

The ‘orientalizing’ style, period, and process of cultural change are not in fact neutral academic categories but have been formulated to conceptualize the earliest encounter between East and West and the West’s appropriation of and subsequent improvement on specific traits of Eastern civilization that are necessary for a Western teleological history of the evolution of civilization. These terms, therefore, at their very core represent an intellectual conquest of the West over the East. The influence of modern political movements on the development of ‘orientalizing’ terms shows the degree to which scholarship has been appropriated to serve the modern state interests of the West. Indeed, it is because these terms are constantly oriented toward modern projects that they have failed to properly explicate the complicated process of interaction in the Mediterranean during the first millennium. Nor would any individual term be capable of completely encapsulating such diverse types of interconnectivity. And while the continued evolution of the term will provide a great deal of insight to future historiographers on the influence of modern intellectual

82

Nowlin

trends on scholarship of this period, it will not result in a greater understanding of the complex processes at play in Mediterranean interaction, either within Etruria or the rest of the Mediterranean. Therefore, the term ‘orientalizing’ needs to be removed from scholarship. In the case of using ‘orientalizing’ as a descriptor of style or ‘orientalization’ as a method of cultural change, the term can and should be abandoned altogether. The root of ‘Orient’ in the word and the history of scholarship attached to these terms has embedded a specific interpretation of artistic and cultural exchange that has stifled explorations of outcomes that would not fit within this Orientalist mode. As mentioned above, non-Eastern imported objects are frequently omitted or downplayed in discussions. If the term is abandoned, greater efforts can be taken to describe the exact process of exchange which very often does not fit within the simplistic and Orientalist East–West binary. By looking at cultural changes within their local context, in Etruria and elsewhere in the Mediterranean, scholarship can highlight the diverse types of foreign interaction that took place during this period. Furthermore, ‘Orient’ inaccurately categorizes all Eastern peoples as the same and characterizes them with universalizing stereotypes. Removing the term will require a greater exploration of the exact peoples, cultures, and contexts of production in the eastern Mediterranean. These groups need to be placed on equal scholarly footing with groups in Greece, Italy, and the western Mediterranean as active agents in the construction of Mediterranean history. There are many other periods of cultural exchange within Mediterranean history that have never required geographically specific terminology to describe their outcomes. In fact, the most highly contested terms, Hellenization and Romanization,258 have had similar calls for the discontinuation of their use. In all these cases, scholarship has advanced by looking in greater detail at the intersection of identity, ethnicity, gender, power, religion, economy, and craft production in the context of larger cultural change than in finding new ways of defining the associated ‘-ization’ term enough to make them hermeneutically useful. A similar focus should be made for Etruria and its interactions with the Mediterranean during the eighth and seventh centuries. While the terminological use of ‘orientalizing’ for style and cultural process can be easily avoided, the enshrinement of ‘orientalizing’ as a chronological period makes its removal more difficult. Finding a chronological marker to replace it would inevitably repeat the mistakes outlined in this current 258 For critiques of Hellenization, see Martin 2007, 2017; Dietler and López-Ruiz 2009; Mairs 2012. See van Oyen 2015 for a summation of Romanization’s historiography and critiques and Versluys 2014 for a call to reinvigorate the debate on the topic.

Etruscan Orientalization

83

historiography. Instead, scholars of Etruria and other locations around the Mediterranean where the term is used should employ the local chronologies of the Iron Age or Archaic period and its internal phases or the numbers of specific centuries.259 While there are certainly modern cultural biases embedded in terms like ‘Iron Age,’ ‘Archaic,’ ‘Classical,’ and ‘Hellenistic,’ the implications of specific cultural outcomes in antiquity are not as strong and unchanging as what has been seen for ‘orientalizing.’ Situating cultural changes within local chronologies rather than their predetermined outcome, which is a fictional construction used to support the imaginary concept of Western civilization, inherently calls for connecting any observed change within the local cultural patterns and traditions observed before and after. This will also serve to broaden the chronological perspective of study by not singling out the eighth and seventh centuries and by placing the changes of this period in a diachronic understanding of interconnectivity. Continued use of the term ‘orientalizing’ or ‘orientalization’ forces its study to focus on the relationship between East and West, both through its semantics and historiography. As López-Ruiz has noted, other problematic terms can continue to be applied when they are able to be redefined based on current theoretical models,260 but for ‘orientalizing,’ the term is the theoretical model with an Orientalist binary at its root. As more scholarship has observed the diverse groups of peoples from the entire Mediterranean and central Europe with whom the Etruscans were interacting during the first millennium, the application of ‘orientalizing’ to the phenomenon or period becomes increasingly too restrictive and in fact inaccurate. In many ways, abandoning the term ‘orientalizing’ simply matches with the current trends in scholarship, which have aimed to identify the specific places of connectivity with whom the Etruscans are engaged. As with the earlier use of the term ‘orientalizing,’ it is when these localized studies are fit within broader historical narratives that this restrictive terminology is used. By not relying on such simplistic and problematic language, scholarship would be forced to outline the increasingly complex picture of interaction that scholarship has built for this period. Focus should instead be placed on ideas of connectivity and its effects on local communities for Etruria and elsewhere.

259 This terminological abandonment and replacement with more neutral numerical numbering of the Iron Age has been recommended previously by Rathje 2010, 24. Brisart (2011) has also chosen to use the term protoarchaic to avoid the issues attached to the term ‘orientalizing.’ 260 López-Ruiz 2021, 66.

84

Nowlin

While such a change in scholarly focus would help advance our understanding of the complexities of connectivity in the ancient Mediterranean, it is also important to consider the ramifications such a change would have on the Etruscan Western historical narrative. Within Etruscan history, reconceiving the cultural changes of the eighth and seventh century outside of the Orientalist stereotypes would help to remove labels, such as ‘mysterious,’ that have long characterized the Etruscans and push them beyond their historical role of being an Eastern foil to the Western Romans. Conceiving of this period as a time of connectivity among a number of different peoples would allow the Etruscans to be better contextualized among the other Iron Age peoples of Italy and the rest of the Mediterranean. This would directly counteract the nationalist perspectives on the period that had placed the Etruscans on a pedestal by comparison to their other Iron Age counterparts within the Italian peninsula. Such a conceptualization would also help to integrate Etruscology within the broader trends of scholarly thinking in the rest of the Mediterranean, opening a field of study that has had a tradition of being more inward looking. Although this historiography has focused on the Etruscans, as Gunter, Marchand, Riva and Vella et al., Martin, and López-Ruiz have pointed out, the term ‘orientalizing’ is problematic in other parts of the Mediterranean as well and, therefore, should be relinquished. The removal of the term would help to conceive of Mediterranean history as a unitary whole rather than in an arbitrary division between East and West.261 Studying the Mediterranean as a geographic unit would help dismantle the privileged position of Greece, Rome, and to some extent Etruria (particularly within Italy) as the exclusive protagonists of the Classical tradition and Western civilization. Historical constructions that lack such an East–West divide would also be better able to avoid an evolutionary narrative of progress and advancement of civilization. Instead, a universal history of the Mediterranean allows for conceiving of broad cultural trends across a number of different groups of people, understanding crosscultural interactions from a variety of geographic directions and influences, and looking for greater cultural convergences rather than seeking to find ways to arbitrarily divide. Focusing on the Mediterranean as an intellectual unit has been advocated elsewhere and such a perspective has served as an impulse for new directions in scholarship. It is my hope that abandoning ‘orientalizing’

261 This unitary approach has been taken by the recent volumes on the early first millennium by Hodos 2020 and López-Ruiz 2021, as well as in earlier volumes with a more diachronic perspective, such as Horden and Purcell (2000), Abulafia (2011), and Broodbank (2015).

Etruscan Orientalization

85

will similarly spur new studies, approaches, and connections for the study of the first millennium.

Acknowledgments

This work developed out of one chapter of my PhD dissertation entitled “Reorienting Orientalization: Intrasite Networks of Value and Consumption in Central Italy,” submitted in May 2016 at Brown University. I would like to thank my supervisor Peter van Dommelen and committee members John F. Cherry, Susan Alcock, and Corinna Riva for their comments, feedback, and support. Much of this research was made possible by the Frank Brown/Samuel H. Kress Foundation/Helen M. Woodruff Fellowship of the Archaeological Institute of America’s Pre-Doctoral Rome Prize at the American Academy in Rome. I would like to extend my gratitude to the American Academy in Rome for the resources and intellectual environment that were essential for the development of this research. Special thanks go to Kim Bowes, Denise Costanzo, Clifford Ando, and Diane Favro who read and commented on an early version of this research and Jessica Wright, who helped revise and refine my argument. I would also like to thank Carolina López-Ruiz for reading an initial draft and guiding me toward this journal so that I could publish this argument in full. References Abulafia, David. 2011. The Great Sea: A Human History of the Mediterranean. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780195323344.001.0001. Ampolo, Carmine. 2000. “Il mondo omerico e la cultura Orientalizzante mediterranea.” In Bartoloni et al. 2000, 27–35. Antonaccio, Carla. 2003. “Hybridity and the Cultures within Greek Culture.” In The Cultures within Ancient Greek Culture: Contact, Conflict, Collaboration, edited by Carol Dougherty and Leslie Kurke, 57–74. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Arthurs, Joshua. 2012. Excavating Modernity: The Roman Past in Fascist Italy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. https://doi.org/10.7591/9780801468841. Aubet, Maria Eugenia. 2001. The Phoenicians and the West: Politics, Colonies, and Trade. Translated by Mary Turton. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bagnasco Gianni, Giovanna. 2013. “Massimo Pallottino’s ‘Origins’ in Perspective.” In Turfa 2013, 29–35. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203526965. Balco, William M. 2018. “Thinking Beyond Imitation: Mixed-Style Pottery in Ancient Western Sicily.” JMA 31 (2): 180–202. https://dx.doi.org/10.1558/jma.38082.

86

Nowlin

Bartoloni, Gilda. 2000. “La donna del principe.” In Bartoloni et al. 2000, 271–77. Bartoloni, Gilda. 2012. Introduzione all’etruscologia. Milan: Ulrico Hoepli. Bartoloni, Gilda et al., eds. 2000. Principi etruschi tra Mediterraneo ed Europa. Venice: Marsilio. Basu, Priyanka. 2013. “Ideal and Material Ornament: Rethinking the ‘Beginnings’ and History of Art.” Journal of Art Historiography 9: 1–31. Bell, Sinclair, and Alexandra A. Carpino, eds. 2016. A Companion to the Etruscans. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118354933. Bellelli, Vincenzo, ed. 2012. Le origini degli Etruschi: Storia, archeologia, antropologia. Rome: L’Erma di Bretschneider. Bellelli, Vincenzo. 2014. “I principi di Cerveteri e il loro mondo.” In Gli Etruschi e il Mediterraneo: La città di Cerveteri, edited by Françoise Gaultier, Laurent Haumesser, and Paola Santoro, 88–94. Rome: Azienda Speciale Palaexpo. Bellelli, Vincenzo. 2016. “Le richerche sulla religione etrusca fra la prima e la seconda guerra mondiale, con particolare riferimento alla situazione Italiana.” In Haack 2016, 251–72. https://doi.org/10.4000/books.ausonius.10698. Bernal, Martin. 1987. Black Athena: The Afroasiatic Roots of Classical Civilization. Volume I: The Fabrication of Ancient Greece 1785–1985. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. https://doi.org/10.36019/9781978807150. Bianchi-Giovini, A. 1842. Ultime osservazioni sopra le opinioni del signor Angelo Mazzoldi intorno alle origini Italiche. Milan: Pirotta. Bindman, David. 2002. Ape to Apollo: Aesthetics and the Idea of Race in the 18th Century. London: Reaktion Books. Birch, Samuel. 1858. History of Ancient Pottery. London: John Murray. Botto, Massimo. 2000. “Tripodi siriani e tripodi denici dal Latium Vetus e dall’Etruria meridionale.” In La ceramica fenicia di Sardegna. Dati, problematiche, confronti. Atti del primo congresso internazionale sulcitano, Sant’Antioco, 19–21 Settembre 1997, edited by Piero Bartoloni and Lorenza Campanella, 63–98. Rome: CNR. Botto, Massimo. 2002. “I contatti fra le colonie fenicie di Sardegna e l’Etruria settentrionale.” In Etruria e Sardegna centro-settentrionale tra l’età del bronzo finale e l’arcaismo. Atti del XXI Convegno di studi etruschi ed italici, Sassari, Alghero, Oristano, Torralba, 13–17 ottobre 1998, edited by Orazio Paoletti and Luisa Tamagno Perna, 226–47. Pisa: Istituti editoriali e poligrafici internazionali. Botto, Massimo. 2012. “I Fenici e la formazione delle aristocrazie tirreniche.” In I Nura­ gici, i Fenici e gli altri: Sardegna e Mediterraneo tra bronzo finale e prima età del ferro, edited by P. Bernardini and M. Perra, 51–80. Sassari: C. Delfino. Botto, Massimo. 2017. “The Diffusion of Near Eastern Cultures.” In Naso 2017a, 581–616. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781934078495-034. Bradley, Guy. 2000. Ancient Umbria: State, Culture, and Identity in Central Italy from the Iron Age to the Augustan Era. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Etruscan Orientalization

87

Briquel, Dominique. 1990. L’origine lydienne des Étrusques. Histoire de la doctrine dans l’Antiquité. Roma: École Française de Rome. https://doi.org/10.3406/crai.1980.13767. Briquel, Dominique. 2000. “The Origins of the Etruscans: A Controvery Handed down from Antiquity.” In Torelli 2000c, 45–52. Briquel, Dominique. 2013. “Etruscan Origins and the Ancient Authors.” In Turfa 2013, 36–55. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203526965. Brisart, Thomas. 2011. Un art citoyen: Recherches sur l’orientalisation des artisanats en Grèce proto-archaïque. Brussels: Académie royale de Belgique, Classe des lettres. Brizio, Edoardo. 1885. “La provenienza degli etruschi.” Atti e memorie della R. Deputazione di storia patria per le provincie di Romagna 3 (3): 119–234. Broodbank, Cyprian. 2015. The Making of the Middle Sea: A History of the Mediterranean from the Beginning to the Emergence of the Classical World. London: Thames & Hudson. Brown, William L. 1960. The Etruscan Lion. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Bundrick, Sheramy D. 2019. Athens, Etruria, and the Many Lives of Greek Figured Pottery. Madison, WI: The University of Wisconsin Press. Burkert, Walter. 1992. The Orientalizing Revolution: Near Eastern Influence on Greek Culture in the Early Archaic Age. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Caylus, Anne Claude Philippe. 1761. Recueil d’antiquités égyptiennes, étrusques, grecques et romaines. Paris: Desaint & Saillant. Cesarani, Giovanna. 2010. “Classical Culture for a Classical Country: Scholarship and the Past in Vincenzo Cuoco’s Plato in Italy.” In Classics and National Cultures, edited by Susan Stephens and Phiroze Vasunia, 59–77. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199212989.001.0001. Cesnola, Louis Palma Di. 1877. Cyprus: Its Ancient Cities, Tombs, and Temples. London: John Murray. Colivicchi, Fabio. 2017. “Banqueting and Food.” In Naso 2017a, 207–20. https://doi .org/10.1515/9781934078495-014 Colivicchi, Fabio, and Cristiana Zaccagnino. 2008. Umbria. Rome: Istituto poligrafico e Zecca dello Stato. Collignon, Maxime, and John Henry Wright. 1886. A Manual of Greek Archaeology. New York: Cassell Publishing Company. Colonna, Giovanni. 2000a. “La cultura orientalizzante in Etruria.” In Bartoloni et al. 2000, 55–66. Colonna, Giovanni. 2000b. “The Original Features of the Etruscan People.” In Torelli 2000c, 25–41. Conze, Alexander. 1870. Zur Geschichte der anfänge griechischer Kunst. Vienna: Buchändler der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Conze, Alexander. 1897. “Uber den Ursprung der bildenden Kunst.” Sitzungsberichte der Königlich Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin 11: 98–109.

88

Nowlin

Cristofani, Mauro. 1976. “Winckelmann, Heyne, Lanzi e l’arte Etrusca.” Prospettiva 4: 16–21. Cristofani, Mauro. 1978a. L’arte degli etruschi. Torino: Einaudi. Cristofani, Mauro. 1978b. “Sugli inizi dell’ ‘Etruscheria’: La pubblicazione del De Etruria regali di Thomas Dempster.” MEFRA 90 (2): 577–625. https://doi.org/https://doi .org/10.3406/mefr.1978.1163. Cristofani, Mauro. 1983. La scoperta degli Etruschi: archeologia e antiquaria nel ’700. Rome: Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche. Cristofani, Mauro, and Marina Martelli. 1994. “Lo stile del potere e i beni di prestigio.” In Storia di Europa II. Preistoria e antichità, edited by Jean Guilaine and Salvatore Settis, 1147–66. Turin: Einaudi. Cuoco, Vincenzo. 1804. Platone in Italia. Milan: Nobile. Cuozzo, Mariassunta. 2016. “Theoretical Issues in the Interpretation of Cemeteries and Case Studies from Etruria to Campania.” In Burial and Social Change in First Millennium BC Italy: Approaching Social Agents, edited by Elisa Perego and Rafael Scopacasa, 3–30. Oxford: Oxbow Books. Cuozzo, Mariassunta, and Alessandro Guidi. 2013. Archeologia delle identità e delle differenze. Rome: Carocci. Da Vela, Raffaela. 2016. “L’immagine degli Etruschi nell’educazione scolastica in Italia e in Germania (1928–1945).” In Haack 2016, 17–66. https://doi.org/10.4000/books .ausonius.10644. D’Agostino, Bruno. 2006. “The First Greeks in Italy.” In Greek Colonisation. An Account of Greek Colonies and Other Settlements Overseas, edited by Gocha R. Tsetskhladze, 201–37. Leiden: Brill. D’Agostino, Bruno. 2011. “Pithecusae e Cuma nel quadro della Campania di età arcaica.” MDAI(R) 117: 35–53. De Angelis, Francesco. 2013. “The Reception of Etruscan Culture: Dempster and Buonarroti.” In Turfa 2013, 1130–35. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203526965. De Francesco, Antonino. 2013. The Antiquity of the Italian Nation: The Cultural Origins of a Political Myth in Modern Italy, 1796–1943. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199662319.001.0001. Della Fina, Giuseppe. 2017. “History of Etruscology.” In Naso 2017a, 53–68. https://doi .org/10.1515/9781934078495-004. Della Seta, Alessandro. 1918. Museo di Villa Giulia I. Roma: Danesi. Della Seta, Alessandro. 1922. Italia antica: dalla caverna preistorica al palazzo imperiale. Bergamo: Istituto Italiano d’Arti Grafiche. Della Seta, Alessandro. 1937. “Arte tirrenica di Lemno.” AE 609–54. Delpino, Filippo, and Gilda Bartoloni. 2000. “Il principe: stile di vita e manifestazioni del potere.” In Bartoloni et al. 2000, 221–29. Dempster, Thomas. 1723. De Etruria regali. Florence.

Etruscan Orientalization

89

Desideri, Paolo. 2009. “L’Italia di Giuseppe Micali e la cultura fiorentina del primo ottocento.” In Studi di antiquaria ed epigrafia per Ada Rita Gunnella, edited by Concetta Bianca, Gabriella Capecchi, and Paolo Desideri, 223–66. Rome: Edizioni di storia e letteratura. Devoto, Giacomo. 1961. “Luigi Lanzi e il Saggio di lingua etrusca.” SE 29: 21–26. Díaz-Andreu García, Margarita. 2007. A World History of Nineteenth-Century Archaeology Nationalism, Colonialism, and the Past. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/oso/9780199217175.001.0001. Díaz-Andreu García, Margarita, and Timothy C. Champion. 1996. Nationalism and Archaeology in Europe. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/ 9781315748221. Dietler, Michael. 1990. “Driven by Drink: The Role of Drinking in the Political Economy and the Case of Early Iron Age France.” Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 9: 352–406. https://doi.org/10.1016/0278-4165(90)90011-2. Dietler, Michael. 1994. “ ‘Our Ancestors the Gauls’: Archaeology, Ethnic Nationalism, and the Manipulation of Celtic Identity in Modern Europe.” American Anthropologist 96 (3): 584–605. https://doi.org/10.2307/682302. Dietler, Michael. 2010. Archaeologies of Colonialism: Consumption, Entanglement, and Violence in Ancient Mediterranean France. Berkeley: University of California Press. doi: 10.1525/california/9780520265516.001.0001. Dietler, Michael, and Carolina López-Ruiz, eds. 2009. Colonial Encounters in Ancient Iberia: Phoenician, Greek, and Indigenous Relations. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Doak, Brian R., and Carolina López-Ruiz, eds. 2019. The Oxford Handbook of the Phoenician and Punic Mediterranean. New York: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/oxfo rdhb/9780190499341.001.0001. Ducati, Pericle. 1927. Storia dell’arte etrusca. Florence: Rinascimento del libro. Ducati, Pericle. 1938. Le probleme étrusque. Paris: Leroux. Dupuis, Charles-François. 1801. “Second Mémoire sur les Pelasges: De l’origine de ce peuple.” Mémoires de l’Institut National Des Sciences et Arts: Littérature et Beaux Arts 3: 37–140. Feldman, Marian H. 2006. Diplomacy by Design: Luxury Arts and an “International Style” in the Ancient Near East, 1400–1200 BCE. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Feldman, Marian H. 2019. “Levantine Art in the ‘Orientalizing’ Period.” In Doak and López-Ruiz 2019, 371–84. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190499341.013.24. Fulminante, Francesca. 2003. Le sepolture principesche nel Latium Vetus: tra la fine della prima età del ferro e l’inizio dell’età orientalizzante. Rome: L’Erma di Bretschneider. Fulminante, Francesca. 2009. “Landscapes of Power and Proto-Urban Developments toward Urbanization in Bronze Age and Early Iron Age Latium Vetus.” In Forces of

90

Nowlin

Transformation: The End of the Bronze Age in the Mediterranean, edited by Christoph Bachhuber and Gareth Roberts, 119–30. Oxford: Oxbow Books. Fulminante, Francesca. 2019. “Early Iron Age and Orientalizing Mediterranean Networks from Funerary Contexts in Latium Vetus: Identifying Gender and Spatial Patters of Interaction.” MAAR 63/64: 35–84. Fulminante, Francesca. 2020. “Terrestrial Communication Networks and Political Agency in Early Iron Age Central Italy (950–500 BCE): A Bottom-Up Approach.” In Archaeological Networks and Social Interaction, edited by Lieve Donnellan, 196–213. New York: Routledge. http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9781351003063-9. Fulminante, Francesca, and Simon K.F. Stoddart. 2013. “Indigenous Political Dynamics and Identity from a Comparative Perspective: Etruria and Latium Vetus.” In Exchange Networks and Local Transformations: Interaction and Local Change in Europe and the Medtierranean from the Bronze Age to the Iron Age, edited by Maria Emanuela Alberti and Serena Sabatini, 117–33. Oxford: Oxbow Books. https://doi .org/10.17863/CAM.8327. Galaty, Michael L., and Charles Watkinson. 2004. Archaeology under Dictatorship. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-387-36214-2. Gosden, Chris. 2004. Archaeology and Colonialism: Cultural Contact from 5000 B.C. to the Present. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gras, Michel. 2000a. “Il Mediterraneo in età orientalizzante: Merci, approdi, circolazione.” In Bartoloni et al. 2000, 15–26. Gras, Michel. 2000b. “Trade.” In Torelli 2000c, 97–110. Gunter, Ann. 2009. Greek Art and the Orient. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gunter, Ann. 2014. “Orientalism and Orientalization in the Iron Age Mediterranean.” In Critical Approaches to Ancient Near Eastern Art, edited by Brian A. Brown and Marian H. Feldman, 79–108. Boston: De Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/ 9781614510352.79. Haack, Marie-Laurence. 2012. “Le problème des origines étrusques dans l’entre-deuxguerres.” In Le origini degli etruschi. Storia, archeologia, antropologia, edited by Vincenzo Bellelli, 397–410. Rome: L’Erma di Bretschneider. Haack, Marie-Laurence, ed. 2016. Les É trusques au temps du fascisme et du nazisme. Bordeaux: Ausonius. https://doi.org/10.4000/books.ausonius.10674. Harari, Maurizio. 2000. “Della Seta e il museo di Villa Giulia.” In Della Seta oggi: Da Lemnos a Casteggio. Atti della giornata di studi, Casteggio, 21 Maggio 1999, edited by Luigi Beschi, Elena Calandra, and Filippo Maria Caranci, 49–55. Milan: Ennerre. Harari, Maurizio. 2016. “Pallottino africanista.” In Haack 2016, 169–88. https://doi .org/10.4000/books.ausonius.10674. Harari, Maurizio. 2017a. “Etruscan Art or Art of the Etruscans?” In Naso 2017a, 69–77. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781934078495-005.

Etruscan Orientalization

91

Harari, Maurizio. 2017b. “Nel Dopoguerra: Alle origini della (non) questione delle origini.” In L’étruscologie dans l’Europe d’après-guerre, edited by Marie-Laurence Haack, 145–50. Bordeaux: Ausonius. Harloe, Katherine. 2013. Winckelmann and the Invention of Antiquity: History and Aesthetics in the Age of Altertumswissenschaft. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199695843.001.0001. Harrison, Jane Ellen. 1885. Introductory Studies in Greek Art. London: Fisher Unwin. Hayne, Jeremy Mark. 2019. “The Italian Peninsula.” In Doak and López-Ruiz 2019, 505– 20. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190499341.013.33. Heyne, Christian Gottlob. 1773. “De fabularum religionumque graecarum ab etrusca arte frequentatarum naturis et caussis commentatio.” Novi Commentarii Societatis Regiae Scientiarum Gottingensis: 32–55. Heyne, Christian Gottlob. 1774. “Monumentorum etruscae artis ad genera sua et tempora revocatorum illustratio. Et nunc quidem specimen I. Antiquiorum.” Novi Commentarii Societatis Regiae Scientiarum Gottingensis: 65–88. Hodne, Lasse. 2020a. “Winckelmann’s Apollo and the Physiognomy of Race.” The Nordic Journal of Aesthetics 29 (59): 6–35. https://doi.org/10.7146/nja.v29i59.120469. Hodne, Lasse. 2020b. “Winckelmann’s Depreciation of Colour in Light of the Querelle du coloris and Recent Critique.” Konsthistorisk Tidskrift 89 (3): 191–210. https://doi .org/10.1080/00233609.2020.1788636. Hodos, Tamar. 2006. Local Responses to Colonization in the Iron Age Mediterranean. London: Routledge. Hodos, Tamar. 2009. “Colonial Engagements in the Global Mediterranean Iron Age.” CArchJ 19 (02): 221–41. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959774309000286. Hodos, Tamar. 2010. “Globalization and Colonization: A View from Iron Age Sicily.” JMA 23 (1): 81. https://dx.doi.org/10.1558/jmea.v23i1.81. Hodos, Tamar. 2017a. “Globalization: Some Basics. An Introduction to The Routledge Handbook of Archaeology and Globalization.” In Hodos 2017b, 3–11. doi: 10.4324/ 9781315449005.ch1. Hodos, Tamar. 2017b. The Routledge Handbook of Archaeology and Globalization. London: Routledge. doi: 10.4324/9781315449005. Hodos, Tamar. 2020. The Archaeology of the Mediterranean Iron Age: A Globalising World c.1100–600 BCE. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/ 10.1017/9780511979316. Horden, Peregrine, and Nicholas Purcell. 2000. The Corrupting Sea: A Study of Mediterranean History. Oxford: Blackwell. Iaia, Cristiano. 2005. Produzioni toreutiche della prima età del ferro in Italia centrosettentrionale: Stili decorativi, circolazioni, significato. Pisa: Istituti editoriali poligrafici internazionali.

92

Nowlin

Iaia, Cristiano. 2006. “Servizi cerimoniali e da ‘simposio’ in bronzo del primo ferro in Italia centro-settetrionale.” In La ritualità funeraria tra età del ferro e orientalizzante in Italia. Atti del convegno, Verucchio, 26–27 Giugno 2002, edited by Patrizia von Eles, 103–10. Pisa: Istituti editoriali e poligrafici internazionali. Iaia, Cristiano. 2007. “Prima del ‘simposio’: vasi in bronzo e contesto sociale nell’Etruria meridionale protostorica.” Revista d’arqueologia de Ponent 16–17: 261–70. Iaia, Cristiano. 2016. “Styles of Drinking and the Burial Rites of Early Iron Age Middle-Tyrrhenian Italy.” In Burial and Social Change in First Millennium BC Italy: Approaching Social Agents, edited by Elisa Perego and Rafael Scopacasa, 31–54. Oxford: Oxbow Books. Isayev, Elena. 2007. “Why Italy?” In Ancient Italy: Regions without Boundaries, edited by Guy Jolyon Bradley, Elena Isayev, and Corinna Riva, 1–20. Exeter: University of Exeter Press. Izzet, Vedia. 2007a. “Greeks Make It; Etruscans Fecit: The Stigma of Plagiarism in the Reception of Etruscan Art.” EtrStud 10 (1): 223–37. Izzet, Vedia. 2007b. The Archaeology of Etruscan Society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511735189. Jennings, Justin. 2011. Globalizations and the Ancient World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511778445. Johanneau, Eloi. 1807. “Discours d’ouverture sur l’établissement de l’Académie Celtique, les objets de ses recherches et le plan de ses travaux.” Memoires de l’Academie Celtique 1: 28–64. Johns, Karl. 2012. “Alexander Conze, On the Origin of the Visual Arts, Lecture held on July 30, 1896 [in the Royal Prussian Academy of Sciences].” Journal of Art Historiography 7: 98–109. Kassabaum, Megan C. 2019. “A Method for Conceptualizing and Classifying Feasting: Interpreting Communal Consumption in the Archaeological Record.” American Antiquity 84 (4): 610–31. https://doi.org/10.1017/aaq.2019.47. Kistler, Erich. 2017. “Feasts, Wine and Society, Eighth-Sixth Centuries BCE.” In Naso 2017a, 195–206. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781934078495-013. Knight, Richard Payne. 1835. Specimens of Ancient Sculpture, Egyptian, Etruscan, Greek and Roman: Selected from Different Collections in Great Britain. London: Payne & Foss. Kohl, Philip L, and Clare P. Fawcett. 1995. Nationalism, Politics, and the Practice of Archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/ CBO9780511558214. Kreindler, Katharine. 2015. “Consumption and Exchange in Central Italy in the 9th through 6th Centuries BCE.” PhD Dissertation, Stanford University. Kremer, Christoph. 2016. “Weaving Identities – Local and Global Customs between Early Iron Age Italy and Greece.” In Local and Global Perspectives on Mobility in

Etruscan Orientalization

93

the Eastern Mediterranean, edited by Ole Christian Aslaksen, 231–52. Athens: Norwegian Institute at Athens. La Tour d’Auvergne, Théophile Malo Corret de. 1792. Nouvelles recherches sur la langue, l’origine et les antiquités des Bretons. Bayonne: Fauchet. Lanzi, Luigi. 1806. De’vasi antichi dipinti volgarmente chiamati etruschi. Florence: Fantosini. Lanzi, Luigi. 1824a. “Notizie della scultura degli antichi e dei vari suoi stili.” Firenze: Poligrafia fiesolana. Lanzi, Luigi. 1824b. Saggio di lingua etrusca e di altre antiche d’Italia, per servire alla storia de’popoli, delle lingue e delle belle arti, Volume 2. Florence: Tip. di A. Fofani. Larsen, Mogens Trolle. 2014. The Conquest of Assyria: Excavations in an Antique Land, 1840–1860. London: Routledge. https://doi-org.libweb.lib.utsa.edu/10.4324/ 9781315862859. Layard, Austen Henry. 1853. A Second Series of the Monuments of Nineveh: Including Bas-Reliefs from the Palace of Sennacherib and Bronzes from the Ruins of Nimroud: From Drawings Made on the Spot, during a Second Expedition to Assyria. London: John Murray. Legarra Herrero, Borja. 2009. “The Minoan Fallacy: Cultural Diversity and Mortuary Behaviour on Crete at the Beginning of the Bronze Age.” OJA 28 (1): 29–57. Leighton, Robert, and Celine Castelino. 1990. “Thomas Dempster and Ancient Etruria: A Review of the Autobiography and De Etruria regali.” PBSR 58 (January): 337–52. doi:10.1017/S0068246200011703. López-Ruiz, Carolina. 2021. Phoenicians and the Making of the Mediterranean. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Loriga, Sabina. 2019. “In Search of Origins: Making Etruscans into Italics and Italics into Italians.” Res: Anthropology and Aesthetics 71–72: 241–52. https://doi-org.libweb .lib.utsa.edu/10.1086/706828. Lydon, Jane, and Uzma Z. Rizvi. 2010. Handbook of Postcolonial Archaeology. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press. https://doi: 10.4324/9781315427690. Maggiani, Adriano. 2017. “The Historical Framework.” In Naso 2017a, 537–60. https:// doi.org/10.1515/9781934078495-032. Mairs, Rachel. 2012. “Hellenization.” In The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craig B. Champion, Andrew Erskine, and Sabine R. Huebner. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. Malkin, Irad. 2002. “A Colonial Middle Ground: Greek, Etruscan, and Local Elites in the Bay of Naples.” In The Archaeology of Colonialism, edited by Claire L. Lyons and John K. Papadopoulos, 151–81. Los Angeles: The Getty Research Institute. Mandolesi, Alessandro, and Maurizio Sannibale. 2012. Etruschi: l’ideale eroico e il vino lucente. Milan: Electa. “Manifesto Della Razza.” 1938. La Difesa Della Razza 1, 5.

94

Nowlin

Marchand, Suzanne. 1996. Down from Olympus: Archaeology and Philhellenism in Germany, 1750–1970. Princeton: Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/ 9781400843688. Marchand, Suzanne. 2010. “ ‘ What Did the Greeks Owe the Orient?’ The Question We Can’t Stop Asking (Even Though We Can’t Answer It).” Archaeological Dialogues 17 (1): 117–40. doi:10.1017/S1380203810000140. Maréchal, Pierre-Sylvain. 1799. Voyages de Pythagore en Égypte, dans la Chaldée, dans l’Inde, en Crète, à Sparte, en Sicile, à Rome, à Carthage, à Marseille et dans les Gaules: I-VI. Paris: Deterville. Markoe, Glenn. 2015. “Current Assessment of the Phoenicians in the Tyrrhenian Basin: Levantine Trade with Sicily, Sardinia, and Western Coastal Italy.” In The Mediterranean Mirror: Cultural Contacts in the Mediterranean Sea between 1200 and 750 B.C.: International Post-Doc and Young Researcher Conference, Heidelberg, 6th–8th October 2012, edited by Andrea Babbi, Friederike Bubenheimer-Erhart, and Beatriz Marín-Aguilera, 245–60. Mainz: Verlag des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums. Martelli, Marina. 1995. “Circolazione dei beni suntuari e stile del potere nell’orientalizzante.” In Viaggi e commerci nell’antichità. Atti: VII Giornata Archeologica: (Genova, 25 Novembre 1994), edited by Bianca Maria Giannattasio, 9–26. Geneva: Dipartimento di archeologia, filologia classica e loro tradizioni ‘Francesco Della Corte.’ Martha, Jules. 1889. L’art étrusque. Paris: Firmin-Didot et cie. Martin, S. Rebecca. 2007. “ ‘Hellenization’ and Southern Phoenicia: Reconsidering the Impact of Greece Before Alexander.” PhD Dissertation. University of California, Berkeley. Martin, S. Rebecca. 2017. The Art of Contact: Comparative Approaches to Greek and Phoenician Art. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. https://doi. org/10.9783/9780812293944. Maximis, Franciscus Xaverius de. 1842. Musei etrusci quod Gregorius XVI Pon. Max. in aedibus Vaticanis constituit monimenta linearis picturae exemplis expressa et in utilitatem studiosorum antiquitatum et bonarum artium publici iuris facta. Rome: ex aedibus Vaticanis. Mazzoldi, Angelo. 1840. Delle origini italiche e della diffusione dell’incivilimento italiano all’Egitto, alla Fenicia, alla Grecia e a tutti le nazioni asiatiche poste sul Mediterraneo. Milan: G. Silvestri. Mazzoldi, Angelo and Antonio Cavagna Sangiuliani di Gualdana. 1846. Delle origini italiche e della diffusione dell’incivilimento italiano all’Egitto, alla Fenicia, alla Grecia e a tutti le nazioni asiatiche poste sul Mediterraneo. 2nd ed. Milanese riv. dall’autore con alcune giunte e correzioni. Milano: G. Silvestri.

Etruscan Orientalization

95

Menichetti, Mauro. 2000. “Political Forms in the Archaic Period.” In The Etruscans, edited by Mario Torelli, 205–25. New York: Rizzoli. Menichetti, Mauro. 2017. “Art, 730–580 BCE.” In Naso 2017a, 831–50. https://doi .org/10.1515/9781934078495-045. Meskell, Lynn. 2005. Archaeology Under Fire: Nationalism, Politics and Heritage in the Eastern Mediterranean and Middle East. London: Routledge. Micali, Giuseppe. 1810. L’Italia avanti il dominio dei romani. Florence: G. Piatti. Micozzi, Marina. 2017a. “External Relationships, 730–580 BCE.” In Naso 2017a, 921–39. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781934078495-050. Micozzi, Marina. 2017b. “Handicraft, 730–580 BCE.” In Naso 2017a, 851–68. https://doi .org/10.1515/9781934078495-046. Minetti, Alessandra. 2004. L’orientalizzante a Chiusi e nel suo territorio. Rome: L’Erma di Bretschneider. Momigliano, Arnaldo. 1994. “A Return to Eighteenth-Century ‘Etruscheria’: K.O. Müller.” In A.D. Momigliano: Studies on Modern Scholarship, edited by Glen Bowersock and Tim Cornell, 302–14. Berkeley: University of California Press. https://doi .org/10.1525/9780520914780-020. Montelius, Oscar. 1897a. “Pre-Classical Chronology in Greece and Italy.” The Journal of the Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland 26: 261–71. Montelius, Oscar. 1897b. “The Tyrrhenians in Greece and Italy.” The Journal of the Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland 26: 254–61. Montelius, Oscar. 1912. Die vorklassiche Chronologie Italiens. Stockholm: Haeggströms. Morris, Sarah P. 1989. “Daidalos and Kadmos: Classicism and ‘Orientalism.’ ” Arethusa 39–54. Morris, Sarah P. 1992. Daidalos and the Origins of Greek Art. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Mosse, George L. 1995. “Racism and Nationalism.” Nations and Nationalism 1 (2): 163– 173. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1354-5078.1995.00163.x. Naso, Alessandro. 2000a. “Aspetti del tema ‘Gesellschaft un Selbstdarstellung.’ ” In Akten des Kolloquiums zum Thema der Orient und Etrurien. Zum Phänomen des “Orientalisierens” in Westlichen Mittelmerraum (10.–6. Jh. v. Chr.). Tübingen 12.-13. Jun 1997, edited by Friedhelm Prayon and Wolfgang Röllig, 227–32. Pisa: Istituti Editoriali e Poligrafici Internazionali. Naso, Alessandro. 2000b. I Piceni: Storia e archeologia delle marche in epoca preromana. Milan: Longanesi. Naso, Alessandro. 2000c. “The Etruscan Aristocracy in the Orientalizing Period: Culture, Economy, Relations.” In Torelli 2000c, 111–39. Naso, Alessandro. 2017a. Etruscology. Boston: De Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/ 9781934078495.

96

Nowlin

Naso, Alessandro. 2017b. “Introduction.” In Naso 2017a, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1515/ 9781934078495-001. Naso, Alessandro. 2017c. “Society, 730–580 BCE.” In Naso 2017a, 869–84. https://doi .org/10.1515/9781934078495-047. Newton, C.T. 1880. “Dr. Schliemann’s Discoveries at Mycenae.” In Essays on Art and Archaeology, edited by C. Newton, 246–302. London: Macmillan. Nijboer, Albert. 2011. “Italy, its Interconnections and Cultural Shifts During the Iron Age.” In Meetings between Cultures in the Ancient Mediterranean. Proceedings of the 17th International Congress of Classical Archaeology, Rome 22–26 Sept. 2008, edited by Helga Di Giuseppe and Martina Dalla Riva, 1–22. Rome: Direzione generale per le antichità. Nowlin, Jessica. 2016. “Reorienting Orientalization: Intrasite Networks of Value and Consumption in Central Italy.” PhD Dissertation, Brown University. Nowlin, Jessica. Forthcoming. “At the Margins of ‘Orientalization’: Funerary Ritual and Local Practice in Apennine Central Italy.” In Connectivity and Mobility in the Ancient Western Mediterranean, edited by Linda Gosner and Jeremy Mark Hayne. Pallottino, Massimo. 1943. “Gli elementi etnici e romanizzazione dell’Africa proconsolare.” Rassegna Sociale Dell’Africa Italiana 6: 109–12. Pallottino, Massimo. 1947. L’origine degli Etruschi. Roma: Tumminelli. Pallottino, Massimo. 1961. “Luigi Lanzi fondatore degli studi di storia, storia della civiltà e storia dell’arte etrusca.” SE 29: XXVII–XXXVIII. Pallottino, Massimo. 1965. “Orientalizing Style.” Encyclopedia of World Art. New York: McGraw-Hill. Pallottino, Massimo. 1974. The Etruscans. Translated by J. Cremona and edited by David Ridgway. 6th ed. London: Allen Lane. Pallottino, Massimo, Walter Dräyer, and Martin Hürlimann. 1955. Art of the Etruscans. New York: Vanguard Press. Paltineri, Silvia. 2000. “Dall’Italia all’Egeo. Alessandro Della Seta e la ricerca sui Tirreni.” In Della Seta oggi: Da Lemnos a Casteggio. Atti della giornata di studi, Casteggio, 21 Maggio 1999, edited by Luigi Beschi, Elena Calandra, and Filippo Maria Caranci, 101–14. Milan: Ennerre. Papalexandrou, Nassos. 2010. “Are There Hybrid Visual Cultures? Reflections on the Orientalizing Phenomena in the Mediterranean of the Early First Millennium BCE.” Ars Orient. Ars Orientalis 38: 31–48. Pappa, Eleftheria. 2013. “Post-Colonial Baggage at the End of the Road: How to Put the Genie Back into Its Bottle and Where to Go from There.” Cambridge Archaeological Review 28 (1): 28–49. Pasqui, A., and L. Lanzi. 1907. “Scoperte nell’antica Necropoli Presso l’Acciaierie.” NSA 10: 505–650.

Etruscan Orientalization

97

Patterson, Thomas C. 1997. Inventing Western Civilization. New York: Monthly Review Press. Pitts, Martin, and Miguel John Versluys, eds. 2014. Globalisation and the Roman World: World History, Connectivity and Material Culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107338920. Potts, Alex. 2000. Flesh and the Ideal: Winckelmann and the Origins of Art History. New Haven: Yale University Press. Pucci, Giuseppe. 2016. “La sculpture étrusque dans les années vingt et trente: Entre esthétique et idéologie.” In Haack 2016, 241–50. https://doi.org/10.4000/books .ausonius.10692. Quinn, Josephine. 2018. In Search of the Phoenicians. Princeton: Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400889112. Quinn, Josephine, and Nicholas C. Vella, eds. 2018. The Punic Mediterranean: Identities and Identification from Phoenician Settlement to Roman Rule. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107295193. Rathje, Annette. 1979. “Oriental Imports in Etruria in the 8th and 7th Centuries BC: Their Origins and Implications.” In Italy before the Romans. The Iron Age, Orientalising and Etruscan Periods, edited by David Ridgway and Francesa R. Ridgway, 145–83. London: Academic Press. Rathje, Annette. 1990. “The Adoption of the Homeric Banquet in Central Italy in the Orientalizing Period.” In Sympotica: A Symposium on the Symposion, edited by Oswyn Murray, 279–88. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Rathje, Annette. 1991. “Il banchetto presso i Fenici.” In Atti del II congresso internazionale di studi fenici e punici, Roma 9–14 Novembre 1987, edited by Enrico Acquaro, 1165–68. Rome: Consiglio nazionale delle ricerche. Rathje, Annette. 1995. “Il banchetto in Italia centrale: Quale stile di vita?” In In Vino Veritas, edited by Oswyn Murray and Manuela Tecusan, 95–99. London: British School at Rome. Rathje, Annette. 2010. “Tracking down the Orientalizing.” Bollettino Di Archeologia on Line 23–30. Rathje, Annette. 2013. “The Banquet through Etruscan History.” In Turfa 2013, 823–30. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203526965.ch44. Rey, Sarah. 2016. “Les étruscologues français à l’heure des régimes autoritaires.” In Haack 2016, 273–80. https://doi.org/10.4000/books.ausonius.10704. Ridgway, David. 2002. “Rapporti dell’Etruria con l’Egeo e il Levante. Prolegomena sarda.” In Etruria e Sardegna centro-settentrionale tra l’età del bronzo finale e l’archaismo. Atti del XXI Convegno di studi etruschi ed italici, Sassari, Alghero, Oristano, Torralba, 13–17 ottobre 1998, edited by Orazio Paoletti and Luisa Tamagno Perna, 215–23. Pisa: Istituti editoriali e poligrafici internazionali.

98

Nowlin

Riva, Corinna. 2006. “The Orientalizing Period in Etruria: Sophisticated Communities.” In Riva and Vella 2006a, 110–34. https://dx.doi.org/10.1558/equinox.20538. Riva, Corinna. 2010. The Urbanisation of Etruria: Funerary Practices and Social Change, 700–600 BC. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/ CBO9781316136515. Riva, Corinna. 2017. “Wine Production and Exchange and the Value of Wine Consumption in Sixth-century BC Etruria.” JMA 30 (2): 237–61. https://doi.org/10.1558/ jmea.35407. Riva, Corinna. 2018. “The Freedom of the Etruscans: Etruria Between Hellenization and Orientalization.” IJCT 25 (2): 101–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12138-018-0464-z. Riva, Corinna. 2020. A Short History of the Etruscans. London: Bloomsbury Academic. Riva, Corinna, and Nicholas C. Vella. 2006a. Debating Orientalization: Multidisciplinary Approaches to Change in the Ancient Mediterranean. London: Equinox. Riva, Corinna, and Nicholas C. Vella. 2006b. “Introduction.” In Riva and Vella 2006a, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1558/equinox.20530. Robertson, Roland. 1995. “Glocalization: Time-Space and Homogeneity-Heterogeneity.” In Global Modernities, edited by Mike Featherstone, Scott M. Lash, and Roland Robertson, 35–53. London: SAGE Publications. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781446 250563.n2. Roche, Helen, and Kyriakos N. Demetriou, eds. 2018. Brill’s Companion to the Classics, Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany. Leiden: Brill. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004299061. Rossi, Masimilliano. 2006. La fila del tempo: Il sistema storico di Luigi Lanzi. Florence: Leo S. Olschki. Rystedt, Eva 1984. “Architectural Terracotta as Aristocratic Display – the Case of 7th Century Poggio Civitate (Murlo).” Opus 3: 367–75. Said, Edward. 1978. Orientalism. New York: Pantheon Books. Sannibale, Maurizio. 2012. “Riti, simboli e religione. Le aristocrazie etrusche e la comunità dei vivi oltre la vita.” In Etruschi: L’ideale eroico e il vino lucente, edited by Alessandro Mandolesi, 87–101. Milano: Electa. Sannibale, Maurizio. 2013. “Orientalizing Etruria.” In Turfa 2013, 99–133. https://doi .org/10.4324/9780203526965.ch6. Sannibale, Maurizio. 2016. “The Etruscan Orientalizing: The View from the RegoliniGalassi Tomb.” In Assyria to Iberia: Art and Culture in the Iron Age, edited by Joan Aruz and Michael Seymour, 296–315. New Haven: Yale University Press. Sassatelli, Giuseppe. 2000. “Il principe e la pratica della scrittura.” In Bartoloni et al. 2000, 307–17. Venice: Marsilio. Sciacca, Ferdinando. 2005. Patere baccellate in bronzo: Oriente, Grecia, Italia in età orientalizzante. Rome: L’Erma di Bretschneider.

Etruscan Orientalization

99

Sherratt, Susan, and Andrew Sherratt. 1993. “The Growth of the Mediterranean Economy in the Early First Millenium BC.” World Archaeology 24 (3): 361–78. https:// doi.org/10.1080/00438243.1993.9980214. Smith, Christopher. 2011. “Thinking about Kings.” BICS 54 (2): 21–42. https://doi .org/10.1111/j.2041-5370.2011.00022.x. Stockhammer, Phillip. 2013. “From Hybridity to Entanglement, from Essentialism to Practice.” Archaeology and Cultural Mixture 28: 11–28. Strom, Ingrid. 1971. Problems Concerning the Origin and Early Development of the Etruscan Orientalizing Style. Odense: Odense Universitetsforlag. Szilagyi, Janos György. 1992. Ceramica etrusco-corinzia figurata. Florence: L.S. Olschki. Szilagyi, Janos György. 1998. Ceramica etrusco-corinzia figurata, parte II 590/580–550 a.C. Vol. 2. Florence: L.S. Olschki. Tagliamonte, Gianluca. 2017. “Political Organization and Magistrates.” In Naso 2017a, 121–42. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781934078495-009. Thomas, Nicholas. 1991. Entangled Objects: Exchange, Material Culture, and Colonialism in the Pacific. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Torelli, Mario. 1981. Storia degli Etruschi. Rome: Laterza. Torelli, Mario. 1985. L’arte degli Etruschi. Rome: Laterza. Torelli, Mario. 2000a. “L’ellenizzazione della societa e della cultura Etrusche.” In Gli Etruschi, edited by Mario Torelli, 141–55. Milan: Bompiani. Torelli, Mario. 2000b. “Presentation.” In Torelli 2000c, 17–24. Torelli, Mario. 2000c. The Etruscans. Milan: Bompiani. Trentacoste, Angela. 2020. “Fodder for Change: Animals, Urbanisation, and SocioEconomic Transformation in Protohistoric Italy.” Theoretical Roman Archaeology Journal 3 (1): 1–17. https://doi.org/10.16995/traj.414. Tuck, Anthony S. 1994. “The Etruscan Seated Banquet: Villanovan Ritual and Etruscan Iconography.” AJA 98 (4): 617–28. Turfa, Jean MacIntosh. 2013. The Etruscan World. London: Routledge. https://doi .org/10.4324/9780203526965. Ulf, Christoph. 2017. “An Ancient Question: The Origin of the Etruscans.” In Naso 2017a, 11–34. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781934078495-002. van Dommelen, Peter. 1997. “Colonial Constructs: Colonialism and Archaeology in the Mediterranean.” World Archaeology 28 (3): 305–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/0043824 3.1997.9980350. van Dommelen, Peter. 1998. “On Colonial Grounds: A Comparative Study of Colonialism and Rural Settlement in First Millennium BC West Central Sardinia.” PhD Dissertation. University of Leiden. van Dommelen, Peter. 2006. “The Orientalizing Phenomenon: Hybridity and Material Culture in the Western Mediterranean.” In Riva and Vella 2006a, 135–52. https:// dx.doi.org/10.1558/equinox.20539.

100

Nowlin

van Dommelen, Peter. 2017. “Classical Connections and Mediterranean Practices: Exploring Connectivity and Local Interactions.” In Hodos 2017b, 618–33. https://doi .org/10.4324/9781315449005.ch43. van Dommelen, Peter. ed. 2011. “Postcolonial Archaeologies.” World Archaeology 43 (1). van Oyen, Astrid. 2015. “Deconstructing and Reassembling the Romanization Debate through the Lens of Postcolonial Theory: From Global to Local and Back?” Terra Incognita 6: 205–26. van Wijngaarden, Gert-Jan. 1999. “An Archaeological Approach to the Concept of Value: Mycenaean Pottery at Ugarit (Syria).” Archaeological Dialogues 6 (1): 2–46. Vella, Nicholas C. 2010. “ ‘Phoenician’ Metal Bowls: Boundary Objects in the Archaic Period.” Bollettino Di Archeologia on Line 1: 21–37. Vella, Nicholas C. 2014. “The Invention of the Phoenicians: On the Object Definition, Decontextualization and Display.” In Quinn and Vella, 24–41 2014. https://doi .org/10.1017/CBO9781107295193.004. Versluys, Miguel John. 2014. “Understanding Objects in Motion. An Archaeological Dialogue on Romanization.” Archaeological Dialogues 21 (01): 1–20. https://doi .org/10.1017/S1380203814000038. Vives-Ferrándiz, Jaime. 2008. “Negotiating Colonial Encounters: Hybrid Practices and Consumption in Eastern Iberia (8th–6th Centuries BC).” JMA 21 (2): 241–72. https:// doi.org/10.1558/jmea.v21i2.241. von Eles, Patrizia, and Gabriele Baldelli. 2017. “Romagna and the Marches.” In Naso 2017a, 1453–1500. Voutsaki, Sofia. 1995. “Value and Exchange in Premonetary Societies: Anthropological Debates and Aegean Archaeology.” In Trade and Production in Premonetary Greece: Aspects of Trade, edited by Carole Gillis and Birgitta Sjöberg, 7–17. Jonsered: Paul Åstrom. Wengrow, David. 2006. “Approaching Ancient Orientalization via Modern Europe.” In Riva and Vella 2006a, 31–47. https://doi.org/10.1558/equinox.20532. Winckelmann, Johann Joachim. 1764. Geschichte der Kunst des Alterthums. Dresden: Walther. Winckelmann, Johann Joachim. 1873. The History of Ancient Art. Translated by Giles Henry Lodge. Boston: J.R. Osgood. Winther, Helene Caroline. 1997. “Princely Tombs of the Orientalizing Period in Etruria and Latium Vetus.” In Urbanization in the Mediterranean in the 9th to 6th Centuries BC, edited by Helle Damgaard Andersen, 423–46. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press.

101

Etruscan Orientalization

Index Acerbo, Giacomo 49 Acquarossa 59 Alkimos 66 alphabet 2, 22, 55, 76 alternative names (orientalizing) ägyptisirend 33 Graeco-Oriental 36, 39, 66 Graeco-Phoenician 36, 39 korinthischen 33 phönicisirend 33 Amenophis III 42 antiquarianism 6, 10, 11, 22, 51 architecture 2, 36, 40 aristocratic agency/active role 9, 57–58, 72 Mediterranean culture 58, 61, 70, 72, 73–74 way of life 57–58, 72, 73, 77 see also, elites art figural representation 12, 13, 16, 28, 30–1, 32, 48 marker of civilization 22, 66 progress 6, 10, 16, 35, 66, 70, 84 stagnation 8, 15, 18, 55 artistic style Classical 16, 37, 38 Geometric 7, 13, 31, 34, 35, 47, 48 Asia Minor 41, 44, 47 Assyria 6, 33, 36, 37, 39, 46, 56, 71 Athens 42 Atlantis 24 Augustus 49 banquets 8, 9, 58, 59–63, 65, 68 see also, feasting Bianchi-Giovanni, Aurelio 24 Bible 10, 18 Brizio, Edoardo 40–1, 42–3, 44, 47, 54, 67 Bügelkanne vase 42 Buonarroti, Filippo 11 Caylus, Anne Claude de 6, 10, 11, 12, 18, 22 Cesnola 28 chronological periods Archaic 64, 77, 83 Bronze Age 21, 40, 42, 65, 77

Classical 16, 37, 38, 55, 83 Hellenistic 83 Iron Age 9, 39, 42, 61, 64, 73, 75, 83, 84 Classics, discipline 4 Collignon, Maxime 36, 37 colonialism European 47, 59 Greek, ancient 6, 23, 40, 43, 69, 73, 78, 79 Italian 8, 41, 52–3, 54, 55, 69 Roman 53 colonialist interpretations 9, 39, 62, 63, 66, 68–73, 77 commensality 60, 63 commerce 6, 11, 12 connectivity 9, 62, 68, 72, 76, 79–80, 83, 84 continuity 63, 71, 73, 77 Conze, Alexander 7, 31–35, 43, 46, 55, 58 Cortona 20 craftspeople 35, 39, 57, 58, 67–8, 70 Cuoco, Vincenzo 7, 23–4 Cyprus 28, 72 Delfico, Melchiore 25–6 Della Seta, Alessandro 8, 43–6, 48, 58 Demaratus 69–70 Dempster, Thomas 19 diffusionism 39, 42, 67, 73, 74, 75 Dionysius of Halicarnassus 5, 6, 19–20, 22 Druids 23, 24 Ducati, Pericle 8, 43, 46–51, 56, 58, 60, 62, 64 Egyptian 7, 17, 37 art 6, 10, 11–8, 22, 30, 39, 46, 47 dung beetle metaphor 14 Etruscan descent 11, 25–6 influence 6, 10, 11–2, 14–15, 24, 48 monarchy 15, 63 mummification 11 pyramids 11 Egyptology 7 Egyptomania 27 elites agency 61, 72 competition 71, 78 consumption 61, 68 Etruscan 58, 63, 68, 72, 77, 78, 80

102

Nowlin

elites (cont.) emulation 65–66 gift-exchange 61 pan-Mediterranean 56, 57, 72, 80 see also, aristocratic epigraphy 22, 63 Este 41 Etruscan formation 8, 9, 44, 50, 52, 53, 54 monarchy 9, 51, 56, 58, 63–5, 70, 76–7 origins autochthony 5, 6–7, 19–20, 22, 24–6, 29, 53 Lydia 5, 6, 19–21, 22, 26, 41, 42, 47, 49, 53 Rhaetia 7, 21, 49 primacy 7, 20, 22, 25, 29, 73 Etruscheria 19, 21, 22 Etruscology 4–5, 22, 25, 39, 52, 65 disciplinary insularity 75, 80, 84 European identity 3, 4, 18, 29, 39

migration to Italy 20 mythology 16, 18, 22, 48 symposion 59–60, 62 Guarnacci, Mario 23, 24, 39

Falerii 16 Faliscan 73, 77 Fascism 8, 48–9, 51, 52–3 manifesto della razza 49, 53 racial ideology 46, 49, 53, 54 rassegna sociale dell’Africa italiana 52–3 feasting 59, 60, 61–3, 77 see also, banquets François vase 42 Fréret, Nicolas 21

Jupiter 14, 15

gender 45, 51, 74–5, 77, 82 gift-exchange 61 globalization 5, 9, 79–81 glocalization 80 goldsmithing 51, 67 Gori, Antonio 22 Greek art 11, 13, 29–39, 46 art history 3, 7–8, 29–40, 45, 52 artistic idealism 7, 16–18, 30, 38, 46 colonialism 6, 23, 40, 43, 69, 73, 78, 79 histories 20–21, 66, 69–70 influence in Egypt 15 influence in Etruria 6, 8, 16, 22, 45, 46, 49

habrosyne 66 Harrison, Jane 37–8 Helbig, Wolfgang 40 Hellanicus of Lesbos 6, 19, 20, 21, 22 Hellen 20 Hellenes 20 Hellenism 55 Hellenization 80, 82 Hellenocentrism 60, 70 Heraclides Ponticus 66 Herodotus 5, 6, 16, 19, 20–1, 22 Heyne, Christian Gottlob 6, 10, 12–3, 18 Homer 16, 36, 40, 45 hybridity 75, 78 infant burials 75, 77

Khorsabad 36 Knight, Richard Payne 38 koine, Mediterranean 80 Lanzi, Luigi 7, 22, 30 Layard, Austen Henry 28 Lemnos 44 libation 60 luxury 65–68 Eastern 5, 37, 58, 62, 64 feminine 51 international style of 55, 57 luxury goods 58, 67, 71, 74 tryphe 9, 66 Lydia 40 for origins, see Etruscan origins Lydians 20–1, 26 Magna Graecia 23, 78 Martha, Jules 41 Mazzoldi, Angelo 7, 24 migration conception of cultural transfer 8, 11, 41, 52, 54, 69

Etruscan Orientalization eastern 8, 39, 40, 41–4, 47, 53, 67 of craftspeople 67–68 southern 40, 53 Molise 23 Mommsen, Theodore 21 monarchy 63–5 Eastern form of government 15, 17 Etruscan 51, 56, 67 evolutionary descriptor 73 orientalizing suite 9, 58, 68, 76, 77 see also, symbol of power Montelius, Oscar 8, 42–4, 47 Müller, K.O. 21 Murlo 59 Mussolini 49 Mycenae 34, 36, 40 Napoleonic expedition 27, 28 nationalism 5–7, 9, 18–19, 21–25, 28–29, 31, 52, 73, 84 French 18, 23 nation-state 18, 31 Nazi Germany 49 Near East 3, 71 art 55 banquet 59–62 courts 56, 58, 59, 61, 63, 64, 66, 70 early evidence of civilization 7, 26 geographic generalization 33 see also, Orient symbol of power 63–65 Newton, C.T. 36 Niebuhr, B.G. 21 Nimrud 51 Nineveh 28, 36 non-elite 62–63, 78 Orient 2–3, 9, 28, 29, 33, 37, 39, 45, 82 Orientalism construction of European identity 2–3, 9, 29, 30–31, 35 definition 2–3 eastern stagnation 7, 9, 12, 15, 18, 37, 55 femininity 45–46, 50, 51–2 lack of geographic specificity 2, 32–3, 82 see also, Orient Roman 5, 56 Semitic stereotypes 46, 49

103 Orientalist academic tradition 2–3, 24, 25 chronological division 7, 8, 44–48, 51, 62 confrontation in antiquity 2, 5, 7, 9–10, 31, 33–8, 46, 49–51, 55, 81 disparagement of Eastern art 10, 12, 15–16, 32 language 6, 7, 27–28, 37–8, 41, 48, 50, 66–7, 84 Pallottino, Massimo 8–9, 17, 44, 52–7, 69, 70 Pamphus 14–5 Pelasgians 6, 16, 19, 20, 23, 24 Persia 5, 13, 15, 16, 17 destruction of Athens 42 Peschiera fibula 42 Phoenician art 3, 10, 12, 13, 15, 30, 45, 48 banqueting 59–60, 63 bowls 28, 36 craftspeople 38, 68 government 65 imports 41, 45, 47, 51, 71 influence 6, 8, 12, 14, 24, 41, 44, 46, 70 metal wares 40, 41 middlemen 39 settlements 72 trade 14, 39, 43, 79 Plato 23, 24 Pontecagnano 78 Posidonius 66 postcolonialism 5, 9, 75–81 pottery Attic 30, 50 bucchero 58, 60, 61, 72 Corinthian 43, 46, 58 Geometric 7, 13, 31, 34–5, 47–8 impasto 58, 60, 77 proto-Corinthian 48 prehistory 4, 8 pre-Roman groups 6, 18, 19, 25, 29, 49 princely 9, 51, 58, 63, 64, 68, 73 principesca 51–2, 76 tombs 63 way of life/lifestyle 9, 58, 68–75 processual archaeology 57 Psammetichus 14 Pythagorean school 23

104 resistance 71, 78, 80 Rhaetia 7, 21, 49 Risorgimento 7, 23, 25, 49 Rome art 10, 11, 13, 18, 48, 50 city 4, 50 colonialism 53 Empire 19, 20, 24, 41, 48–9, 56 Hellenistic influence 55 in Western civilization 2–4, 10, 18–19, 50–1, 64, 84 monarchy 64, 70, 76 relationship with Etruria 4–5, 17, 19, 50, 52, 63–64, 70 Republic 5, 56, 64, 67 Romanization 82 Said, Edward 2–3, 29 Schliemann, Heinrich 34 Sergi, Giuseppe 49 Shield of Achilles 36, 40 Sparta 40 Spina 20 Stosch gem 16 symbol of power 63–5, 77 see also, monarchy Tacitus 20 Tarquinia 47, 59, 70 Theopompus 66 Terramare 21 Thessaly 20 Timaeus 66 Tomb Of Porsena 11 Of the Leopards 59 Regolini-Galassi 27, 28, 36, 40, 42, 47, 51, 56

Nowlin tomba a camera 40 del guerriero 47 Trojan War 20, 23 Tyrrhenia 20 Tyrrhenians 47 Umbrians 41, 47 urbanism 2, 8, 30, 61, 65 value 66, 69, 71, 74, 75, 79, 80 Vatican 28, 40 Villa Guilia 43, 44 Villanovan 41, 57, 58, 60 Western civilization appropriation of the East 9, 29, 38–39, 55, 72 invented tradition 2–6, 83 origins 2–3, 6, 19, 34, 35, 51, 52 role of Greece and Rome 3–4, 63–64, 84 surpassing the East 12, 29, 38–39, 55 universal histories 10, 84 Winckelmann, Johann Joachim 6, 10, 12, 13–8, 22, 29, 33, 44, 69 art and government 6, 14, 15, 16–7 geographic determinism 16 Greek naturalism and idealism 16–18 Orientalism 6, 13–6 origins of art 13–4 world-systems 71 writing 8, 30, 67, 68, 70, 76 see also, alphabet