There may never be another era of expert, “generalist” studies of ancient art such as produced by Bianchi Bandinelli, Boardman, et al.: so much detail is available now that few scholars can master it all. Otto Brendel, though, was conversant with Greek and Roman art and literature, as well as the arts of the Middle Ages, Renaissance and later, and to do justice to the Etruscans, you need them all. I have used this work as a text in courses in Etruscan Art and Archaeology, but recommend it also for background to many more: Roman art, obviously, but it also should be consulted by those studying ancient Greek art and myth, and should form a background for appraisals of Mediterranean medieval and Renaissance art. You don’t know Giotto, Michelangelo, or even Poussin properly if you can’t sense in their works some Etruscan sources.
Brendel died in 1973 before completing Etruscan Art, and its publication is in great part due to the generous efforts of Mrs. Brendel. The book’s final, Hellenistic chapter, as well as updates for the original 1978 edition, were prepared by Emeline Hill Richardson (whose name, I suspect, ought to have appeared in larger letters than the editor’s forward, p. 11). Very much Etruscan material has been published since then, of course, but the text of this new edition is unchanged, except for an additional essay-bibliography (pp. 486-513) of books published between 1978 and 1994, based on author Francesca R. Serra Ridgway’s review article in JRA 4 (1991): 5-27. This, too, is invaluable; at least her name appears on the back cover.
In the past, many scholars indulged a taste for Etruscan-bashing, casting them either as Livian heavies or second-rate Greek wanna-be’s. The Great Ones, though, such as Sir John Beazley, gave Etruria its due (Beazley’s Etruscan Vase Painting [1947] is still consulted, as is his “World of the Etruscan Mirror,”JHS 69 (1949): 1-17). By the 1970’s, it was no longer so fashionable to deprecate Etruscan art; Brendel’s once daring stand is by now the canon for Etruscan scholars. He offered a fine estimation of the native Italian and even Balkan and craft elements, both abstract and representational, which pervaded Etruscan art, as well as an acknowledgment of the debt of Roman art to Etruscan (see also his “Prolegomena to a Book on Roman Art,”MAAR 21 (1953): 9-73). Even better, Brendel placed Etruscan works within the context of Western art in general, and integrated both literary and artistic sources, citing the Vasari of ancient art, Pliny the Elder’s Natural History, along with Greek and Roman literature.
Among Etruscan “firsts” on which Brendel bestowed art-historical contexts are the earliest preserved example of the technique of foreshortening in monumental painting, in the fifth-century Tarquinian Tomba del Triclinio (the book, pp. 270-271 fig. 185, uses English translations, so it is “Tomb of the Banquet” which unfortunately may impede students’ cross-referencing, since most authors retain the Italian titles). This does not mean that the Etruscan artists invented the techniques or genres, but is a sobering reminder that there are no actual works to attribute to any of the famous Greek monumental painters.
Brendel was remarkably free from the cultural and geographical prejudices of many of his contemporaries. His treatment of northern and interior cities such as Chiusi (pp. 274-282) and Felsina/Bologna (pp. 373-377) is a refreshing contrast to those which acknowledged no originality in the interior or north of the territories of Caere-Tarquinia (compare Luisa Banti’s chapter on “Northern Etruria” in The Etruscan Cities and their Culture [English trans. 1973, pp. 128 ff.]). While Ridgway gives an excellent sketch of the state of the art on the earliest of the Felsina stelai (pp. 496-497, in reference to pp. 281-282), their corpus is also augmented by J. S. Stary-Rimpau, Die Bologneser Stelen des 7. bis 4. Jh.v.Chr. (Kleine Schriften aus dem Vorgeschichtlichen Seminar Marburg, Marburg: 1988) and P. Meller Padovani, Le stele villanoviane di Bologna (Capo di Ponte: 1977). The earliest Felsina sculptures are addressed by L. Polacco, “Rapporti artistici di tre sculture villanoviane di Bologna,”Studi Etruschi 21 (1950-51): 59-105, on the Zannoni stele. This should be illustrated in reference to the lingering Villanovan and Orientalizing styles, as discussed by C. Morigi Govi, “Persistenze orientalizzanti nelle stele Felsinee,”Studi Etruschi 38 (1970): 83-89; and eadem, “Il sepolcreto etrusco del Polisportivo di Bologna: nuove stele funerarie,”Ocnus. Quaderni della Scuola di Specializzazione in Archeologia, Università di Bologna, 1 (1993):103-124.
Unfortunately, the finds and publication of the late Orientalizing and early Archaic site of Poggio Civitate (Murlo) near Siena came too late for Brendel to have included them in more than a note (see below, and Ridgway p. 494). An even newer find, the altar flanked with monumental stone sculpture (warriors battle feline monsters) in the Tumulus of the Melone di Sodo (II) at Cortona would fit neatly his transitional Archaic style (pp. 95-97 and 125-129). It was made in the first quarter of the sixth century and shows affinities with ivories carved in the region of Chiusi-Florence (see P. Bruschetti et al., Il Museo dell’Accademia etrusca di Cortona [Cortona, 1996] pp. 95-111]).
Commentators on monumental art often tend to overlook the so-called minor arts, but Brendel mastered these as well: cast bronze armor and vase attachments, engraved mirrors, jewelry, pottery, figurines, terracotta votive heads. Villanovan traditions and Orientalizing materials were combined in startling ways that would not have surprised Brendel, in the ornaments of Adriatic Verucchio (near Bologna): see M. Forte, ed., Il Dono delle Eliadi. Ambre e oreficerie dei principi etruschi di Verucchio (Soprintendenza Archeologica dell’Emilia Romagna, exhibition, Rimini, 1994). 1 Throughout Brendel’s selection of masterpieces are many moveable objects or votives manufactured for popular consumption. Beneath the notice of many Hellenists, they are usually more lively or more sophisticated than contemporary works in Greek-Classical style. The Verucchio wooden furniture of the eighth-seventh centuries is as astonishing a discovery as the amber, for historians of the decorative arts.
Some examples of Brendel’s selections: The Testa Malavolta: a fine terracotta head from a votive statue dedicated in the Portonaccio Sanctuary of Veii. Note that this is the same sanctuary which contains the famous temple and terracotta Apollo statue, and also dedications left by none other than the Vibenna boys, but under p. 320 fig. 241 it is called “the precinct of Minerva at Veii”—both descriptions are correct, but separatim are potentially confusing. While most illustrations are excellent, and accumulating them represents a Herculean effort on Brendel’s part, the photo of the Malavolta head is taken from below and does not display its fine classical style to advantage. The head would have been at eye level if on a standing statue; compare Torelli’s illustration ( L’arte degli Etruschi [Bari, 1985] p. 135 fig. 86). Brendel is right to link this head with the knife-sculpted local style of the Apollo of Veii rather than with a by-then hellenized bronze-casting tradition, as suggested in Torelli’s caption (compare it to the “Mars” of Todi, Brendel’s pp. 316-317, fig. 237).
The Ficoroni cista (pp. 353-357 figs. 275-277; but pp. 370-372, fig. 288 for its cast attachments): a woman’s inscribed and engraved bronze box with representation of the Argonauts, is important for consideration of the possible role and transmission of lost Greek originals, for the commissioning process and workshop assembly arrangements (see p. 473 n. 8), and for iconography important in Roman art. On that topic, see H.A. Weis, “The Motif of the Adligatus and Tree: A Study in the Sources of Pre-Roman Iconography,”AJA 86 (1982): 21-38. On artists’ use of workshop materials in disseminating new motives (the Recognition of Paris), see also L.B. van der Meer, “Archetype – Transmitting Model – Prototype, Studies of Etruscan Urns from Volterra I,”BABesch 50 (1975): 179-193.
Brendel organized material in relation to major technical or philosophical developments among the artists and patrons: Villanovan and Geometric art and the psychology thereof; the Orientalizing style, both figural and non-figural; the rise of statuary and portraiture; literary aspects of Archaic art (many recent works note the high rate of Etruscan literacy and familiarity with Greek epic); the schools of Caere and Tarquinia (painting, metalwork, sculpture); Archaic sculpture by media; a thorough treatment of Classical style as experienced in Etruria; the all-important fourth century B.C.; and a relatively shorter discussion of the Hellenistic style.
Chapter 2, on the “Villanovan style and Geometric art”, is a rare treatment of ceramic and bronze crafts of the early Italian Iron Age as art rather than anthropology or technology; excavations since the early 70’s have brought to light much new material, and a book might now be written on this alone. (Richardson, for one, has taken a specialist approach to this, with her Etruscan Votive Bronzes. Geometric, Orientalizing, Archaic [Mainz, 1983]: note that her works are accessible to most American students, who will find it very difficult to research papers in Etruscan art if they lack foreign languages.) Likewise, bronzes of all sizes are treated in S. Haynes, Etruscan Bronzes (London, 1985), which includes more material for illustrations of Brendel’s comments on armor, utensils and furniture, and offers regional analysis by city. For fine color illustrations, see M. Cristofani et al., I bronzi degli Etruschi (Novara, 1985). It is wise, after reading an entry in Brendel, to check these for subsequent revisions of chronology and conservation.
In terms of the production in Italy of Greek-influenced ceramics and figural art, look for much more to develop now that publication of the earliest preserved “colonial” site, Pithekoussai, has begun. (See D. Ridgway, The First Western Greeks [Cambridge, 1992].) Several scholars have approached the Near Eastern/Levantine antecedents of Etruscan art and culture, with very interesting results, which should be appended to Brendel’s pp. 66 ff. on Oriental iconography. The East is behind not only the expected arts like ivory carving, but also monumental stone sculpture (see F. Prayon “L’Oriente e la statuaria etrusca arcaica,”Colloquii del Sodalizio 5 [1977]: 165-172, on the Tomba delle Statue at Ceri, in addition to the references offered by Ridgway, p. 496 n. 1). For architecture, see section E of Ridgway’s bibliography, pp. 510-511. Certainly, continued analysis of the terracottas from the courtyard building at Murlo points as much to native and Levantine inspiration as to Greek: see I. E. M. Edlund-Berry, The Seated and Standing Statue Akroteria from Poggio Civitate (Murlo) (Rome, 1992); and A. Rathje, “Banquet and Ideology,” in Murlo and the Etruscans, pp. 95-99 with reference to her earlier works. Brendel (pp. 91-92 n. 9), as in so much else, was already aware of such oriental influences.
More recently, much attention has been given to the question of Demaratus, and the origins and social significance of terracotta revetment and monumental buildings in Italy (see pp. 95, 134-135, 447 n. 17). See now D. and F. R. Ridgway, “Demaratus and the Archaeologists,” in Murlo and the Etruscans [1994] pp. 6-5; and C. K. Williams, II, “Demaratus and Early Corinthian Roofs,” in Stele (Festschrift Kontoleon, Athens 1980, pp. 345-350). A Greek colonial reference is indispensible, M. Mertens-Horn, “Die archaische Baufriese aus Metapont,”RM 99 (1992): 1-122. There is no reason to outlaw the ancient written sources, but, in fairness to the material evidence, we must note that more of the earliest and fullest examples of tiled roofs have been found in Italy than in Greece. For Brendel, these are “industrial art” but no less worthy of respect. Eva Rystedt, Charlotte and Örjan Wikander (eds. of Deliciae Fictiles, [Congress, Rome 1990], Stockholm 1993) and others have begun to explore the question of whether small-scale works of essentially graphic art may under certain circumstances have been sufficient models for the creation of sculptures in monumental scale. Such works are the cut-out acroterial finials from secular buildings at Acquarossa and Murlo. The agents identified for the production of the first decorated revetments were already industrial artists, namely the potters and painters who made largescale vessels. Subsequent developments are suggested by M. Cristofani, “Über die Anfänge der ‘Römischen Kunst’,”RM 99 (1992): 123-138, and see idem, ed., La Grande Roma dei Tarquini (exhibition, Rome, 1990), for a reality check on actual remains.
Many specialized studies of Etruscan vases, painted and bucchero, have begun to provide more data on the phenomenon of Etruscan literacy and familiarity with Greek myth; the main items appear in Ridgway’s bibliography. Of interest are a few other works such as “Commonly Called Etruscan Vases,” chapter 2 of B. A. Sparkes, The Red and The Black (London and New York, 1996, pp. 34-63) and Looking at Greek Vases, eds. T. B. Rasmussen and N. Spivey (Cambridge, 1991), with chapters by Spivey and Alan Johnston which feature the impact of Greek vases in Etruria). For interpretation in graphic arts, see J. P. Small, “The Tragliatella Oinochoe,”RM 93 (1986): 63-96.
Besides the bronze and terracotta media, Etruscan art has made major contributions to our knowledge of landscape traditions and portraiture. The “ethical portraiture” of Brendel’s Archaic period (p. 103 ff.) and later (pp. 387, 420) had its roots in Orientalizing funerary traditions. The abstract origins of Etruscan portraiture are now being recognized in some striking busts of sheet bronze, the heads of which are spheres decorated only with geometric patterns, and which were sometimes completed with bronze hands. Found in tombs at Vulci and Marsiliana d’Albegna of the seventh century B.C., they were covers for ash urns. (See Cristofani, I Bronzi degli Etruschi, pp. 288-289, figs. 107-109.)
In funerary sculpture, a discovery made since Brendel’s commentary (p. 96 and fig. 65) on the Chiusine stone mourning women, shows they are not mere busts, but should be restored to stand in long, pillar-like sheath skirts, creating an effect not unlike that of the smaller Brolio female figure in bronze (p. 97 fig. 67). See the completed figure in Torelli’s L’arte degli Etruschi, p. 85 fig. 50, which indicates a later date for the series, c. 580-560 B.C. Materials analyses will enable scholars (and, may one hope, Interpol?) to better date sculptures, and even to restore them to their original contexts, as shown by P. S. Luloff and H. Kars, “Early Etruscan Stone Sculpture. Reconstruction and petrography of sphinxes from Veii,”BABesch 69 (1994): 49-61.
Brendel’s interpretation (pp. 276-277, fig. 192) of a unique, painted coffer in the Chiusine fifth century Tomba della Scimmia (the painted eponymous “Monkey” was patted into oblivion by tourist fingers) is being proven right by students of Etruscan religion; he placed it at the head of a long tradition of heavenly hosts, picked up by Roman and early Christian artists, as for instance, the Ravenna mosaicists. (Tangential works on the Etruscan cosmos are L. B. van der Meer, “Iecur Placentinum and the Orientation of the Etruscan Haruspex,”BABesch 54 (1979): 49-64, idem, The Bronze Liver of Piacenza: Analysis of a Polytheistic Structure (Amsterdam: 1987); A. Pfiffig, Religio Etrusca (Graz, 1975), and A. Aveni and G. Romano, “Orientation and Etruscan Ritual,”Antiquity 68 (1994): 545-563, with references. Also P. R. Del Francia et al., eds., Nuove letture del lampadario etrusco [exhibition, Cortona, 1988].) For interpretation of narratives, see J. P. Small, “Left, Right, and Center: Direction in Etruscan Art,”Opuscula Romana 16 (1987): 125-135. The importance of landscape in the Etruscan cosmos, beyond the Tomb of Hunting and Fishing, is demonstrated by N. T. De Grummond, “Some Unusual Landscape Conventions in Etruscan Art,”Antike Kunst 25 (1982): 3-14.
Brendel’s perceptions on the Nachleben of Etruscan motifs are stimulating; for instance, the famous “personal likeness” of Velia Velcha Spurinna in the Tarquinian Tomba del Orco I (p. 338) is linked with the darkly cloudy background of Leonardo’s portrait of Ginevra de’ Benci. For more discussion of the Nachleben of Etruscan art, see N. T. De Grummond’s “Rediscovery”, pp. 18-46 in Etruscan Life and Afterlife (ed. L. Bonfante, 1986). Those who doubt the continued influence of Etruria should compare p. 389 fig. 300, the sarcophagus of Ramtha Visnai of Vulci, with the cover of Rolling Stone magazine, 5/16/96. For the sarcophagus and related interpretations, see L. Bonfante, “Etruscan Sexuality and Funerary Art,” in Sexuality in Ancient Art, ed. M. B. Kampen (Cambridge, 1996) pp. 155-169.
A few updates may alter the chronology of individual monuments, but do not affect Brendel’s masterful overview. The terracotta sarcophagus from Procoio di Ceri (pp. 229-231, fig. 157) was correctly set by Brendel at the beginning of a sculptural series, but recent reviews of its tomb and associated grave goods have shown it to be a work of late Orientalizing style, probably produced c. 600 B.C. rather than in the mid-sixth century, so its lions are actually cousins of the beasts on Caeretan red-ware, such as p. 83 fig. 53. See, with full history of scholarship, M. Micozzi, “Il sarcofago dei Leoni del Procoio di Ceri,”Prospettiva 82 (1996): 2-30. Thus, Brendel’s praise of the great technical expertise attested in its creation is even more deserved: the industrial origins of Etruscan fine art in terracotta, as in bronze, have their roots in Villanovan culture.
Much may now be added to our knowledge of architectural terracottas, such as P. S. Lulof, The Ridge-Pole Statues from the Late Archaic Temple at Satricum (Satricum V, Amsterdam, 1996) with discussion of all aspects of the Archaic series, and reference to the phenomenon of the figural relief-decorated frieze. Several works in Ridgway’s bibliography deal, as Brendel could not, with the terracotta decorative programs of Etruscan temples, including Deliciae Fictiles and Murlo and the Etruscans. To gain an impression of the regional variety and rich detail of smaller structures, see La Coroplastica templare etrusca fra il IV e il II secolo a.C. (Atti del XVI Convegno di Studi Etruschi ed Italici, Orbetello, 1988) (Florence, 1992). Inroads on the problems of Hellenistic reliefs, including urns with the Seven Against Thebes, were made by B. von Freytag gen. Löringhoff’s Das Giebelrelief von Telamon (RM Erg. 27, 1986). Etruscan Hellenistic chronology is even murkier than the Greek, but many scholars are now dealing with tomb groups in which urns, mirrors, vases and coins may serve to fix their art in time.
The temple of the goddess of Pyrgi, whose terracotta columen plaque is discussed (pp. 234-237), has much more to offer. Structure and revetment have been dated by the excavators to c. 460 B.C., rather than the beginning of the century, as Brendel’s caption (he was avant-garde to have included the sculptures at all, though they are now basic to understanding of Etruscan fifth century style). Replacement terracottas, especially the windswept female head, made after the Syracusan raid of 384 B.C., provide very fine links to fourth century painting and sculpture (see M. Cristofani, ed., Civiltà degli Etruschi [Milan, 1985] p. 275 fig. 10.17.) For the earlier, lingering Archaic decorative program, be sure to see Ridgway’s note p. 493 and bibliographic items nos. 260-261. For interpretation and reconstruction of other Pyrgi revetments, see F. R. S. Ridgway’s “Etruscans, Greeks, Carthaginians: the Sanctuary at Pyrgi,” in Greek Colonists and Native Populations, ed. J.-P. Descoeudres, Oxford, 1990, pp. 511-530.
Several tools, picturebooks, and corpora have appeared which now facilitate the illustration of Etruscan art, among them, Rasenna. Storia e civiltà degli Etruschi (Milan, 1986: see “L’arte,” by F. Roncalli, pp. 533-675). The Corpus Speculorum Etruscorum should, when enough fascicules are published, enable scholars to analyze the art of mirror engraving, which, along with Black and Red Figure vase-painting, does show intense Etruscan familiarity with Greek literary and graphic sources. See Ridgway’s bibliography for more, as well as other arts such as jewelry.
Stephan Steingräber’s Etruscan Painting. Catalogue Raisonné of Etruscan Wall Paintings (New York, 1986, original German ed., 1984) is indispensible for research. To it may be added a later discovery, the Tomba dei Demoni Azzurri (Pittura Etrusca al Museo di Villa Giulia (Rome, 1989) pp. 151-153; see other references by Ridgway, p. 499). The earliest wall paintings have been treated by Alessandro Naso, “All’origine della pittura etrusca: Decorazione parietale e architettura funeraria in Etruria meridionale nel VII sec. a.C.,”JRGZM 37.2 (1990): 439-499.
The first extant, full-length painted portrait in the West, as tagged by Massimo Pallottino, is that of Vel Saties, the founder of the Franc|ois Tomb of Vulci, who appears in the Etruscan equivalent of the toga picta (p. 413 fig. 313). This family tomb, long inaccessible to most scholars, was recently the subject of a special exhibition: Brendel’s date of mid-third century for the paintings should probably be upgraded to the second half of the fourth century. See F. Buranelli, ed., La Tomba Franc|ois di Vulci (Rome, 1987). The Franc|ois needs more illustration, especially for the main scenes of the sacrifice of Trojan prisoners, and the midnight raid to free Mastarna, from alternate Roman history (pp. 412-416). The Tomb of the Reliefs was also featured in a mostra: H. Blanck and G. Proietti, La Tomba dei Rilievi di Cerveteri (Rome, 1986). To improve on Brendel (p. 404 fig. 405) it should now be placed at the end of the fourth century, thanks to recent studies of its epigraphy. On the lush fourth century Tarquinian tombs including the Tomba del Orco, and contemporary relief sarcophagi, see also F. Roncalli, “Laris Pulenas and Sisyphus: Mortals, Heroes and Demons in the Etruscan Underworld,”Etruscan Studies 3 (1996): 45-64.
Much more has appeared on the social aspects of fourth century and later Tarquinian painting; see Ricerche di pittura ellenistica, Dialoghi di Archeologia 1983.2 and 1984.1 (Rome, 1985). Some scholars would raise, others lower the dates of the last great painted Tarquinian tombs, such as the Tomba Giglioli, T. del Convegno, T. degli Aninas. As matters stand today, the relative chronology remains unchanged, but many Hellenistic tombs may belong in the thirrd century, leaving few painted monuments for later centuries, and a serious gap between them and their stylistic heirs, the early catacomb frescoes. Economically, this is explained by reference to the public/civic statues such as the “Brutus” or “Arringatore”: as in Rome, public monuments were a better investment for politically active families. Much more Hellenistic sculpture could be added to Brendel’s text, such as the famous Chiusine seated female statue in arenaria (Rasenna, fig. 609), and more of the corpus of terracotta votive heads, busts and statues (e.g., The Etruscan Cities and their Culture, pl. 40.a), not to mention the terracottas from the Tarquinian temple of the Ara della Regina, including the famous winged horses that appeared on the old Italian express stamps (e.g., M. Pallottino, The Etruscans [Bloomington and London] 1975, pl. 68).
Some cautions for students, or those approaching Etruscan art from backgrounds other than art-historical: the work does assume its readers’ familiarity with Greek art and myth to a taxing extent, as when Brendel tosses off references to the “Nekyia” etc. These days, through no fault of their own, modern students may lack even basic mythology and will need coaching. Some will find Brendel’s style at times a bit old fashioned or overbearing, but they increasingly need exposure to well crafted English prose composition. Students will be tempted to study from the book by memorizing figure captions, rather than reading each chapter as an essay to be digested and criticized, and will thus need to correct the dating. The best scholars among them will chuckle at some Brendelian mots; but be warned that many others will attempt to retail critical terms like “Geometric” in ways the author never intended.
The divisions of the material into brief chapters seldom match the divisions of a college course, usually either a direct chronological treatment, or a division by medium (tomb-painting, stone sculpture, bronze casting). In some cases, as the Ficoroni cista, Brendel’s splits a single object into multiple chapters, because of its different workshop assembly patterns. As with the translation of Italian tomb names, a term such as bucchero pesante becomes “heavy bucchero”; although this is technically correct, most authors cite the Italian term. Scale or size is sometimes difficult to ascertain: while scales are not appropriate to fine art illustrations, some denominator would be useful, such as “miniature”, “under-” “over-” or “lifesize” added to a caption. For instance, a stone warrior’s head from Orvieto (p. 176 fig. 115) is colossal, while many of the bronzes are quite small.
While possibly illustrative of Italian metalwork, the Apollo Piombino and Palazzo Sciarra bronze youth (pp. 306-308) are no longer considered strictly Classical in style: see V. C. Goodlett, “Rhodian Sculpture Workshops,”AJA 95 (1991) pp. 669-681, here pp. 677-678 on the signature of a Tyrian emigré to Rhodes which was found inside the Piombino youth. 2 On the other hand, no on today questions the authenticity of the Torre San Severo sarcophagus in Orvieto (p. 475 n. 7). 3
Other of Brendel’s grand-style art-historical assumptions seem still to be correct, such as the assumption that Ionian artists rather than pieces of imported art account for the transformation of Etruscan sculpture and painting in the aftermath of Sardis and Alalia. In reference to the romantic Vanths who support the couch/urn of Arnth Velimna (pp. 421-422, fig. 321), cautious modern authors would probably hesitate to say that ” here the passion and pathos of the tradition of Scopas is permitted”, since we would be hard pressed to identify many proven Scopasian originals. When Brendel occasionally lapses into reveries about “Tarentine connections” and “Argive masters” (cf. pp. 319-320), this could all be true, but today we would demand much more original evidence to support it.
In short, we must add new finds and footnotes, and we may snipe at certain pronouncements, but Brendel’s impeccable scholarship, and healthy, unthreatened approach to Etruscan culture make this an indispendable reference for the next generation of Etruscan and Italic scholarship. Brendel understood his subject so thoroughly that his intuitions are generally borne out by the new finds; in adjusting portions of his chronology by a decade or two, we acknowledge our debt to his theoretical construction: τῳ.
1. I owe this reference to the kindness of Stella Miller-Collett; the Verucchio wood and amber is displayed in the Bologna Museo Civico, whose director, Dr. Cristiana Morigi Govi, kindly provided me with an offprint from Ocnus.
2. I am indebted to Brunilde Sismondo Ridgway for this reference. See also C. C. Mattusch, Greek Bronze Statuary (Ithaca and London, 1988) pp. 3 and 15 n. 16.
3. Brendel’s phrasing suggests that he, too, doubted the aspersions once cast upon this odd relief with garish paint-job.