Archaeological news about the Riace Bronzes

The debate on the Riace Bronzes has returned to the center of the Italian cultural scene, stimulated by contributions not only from scholars in the field but also from enthusiasts and archaeologists who are not specialists in the subject.

This phenomenon, in my humble opinion, although sometimes critical of the scientific nature of the debate, has an undeniable merit: it keeps attention alive on the two extraordinary masterpieces and encourages their promotion and popularization taken by the general public.

With respect to all opinions and theories, from the perspective of public history, which in Italy we call "public archaeology," which provides for the dissemination of archaeological discoveries to the citizenry, because understanding and a non-specialized narrative have always benefited the protection and conscious enjoyment of each cultural asset, in this article we offer to the general knowledge some new objective data, presented here for the first time, after having been shared at recent international specialized conferences.

In order to fully understand these new data, however, it is necessary to reiterate some acquisitions established by the international scientific community. First, the depiction of the two Bronzes that I hypothesized in 2000 has now been widely accepted: Bronze A is characterized by an expression of hostility and anger, while Bronze B is distinguished by the presence of a cap under the Corinthian helmet, a typical element of monarchs and generals.

Nearly unanimous scholars agree that the statues were made in the second half of the fifth century B.C.E., as evidenced by carbon 14 analysis and the presence of classical pottery within the casting earth, as well as the shape of the Corinthian helmets on both statues.

It is well established, after no less than four technical analyses conducted by different international groups, that the Bronzes were made in Argos, Peloponnese. Moreover, the two statues, virtually identical in size, and, therefore, part of a unified group, strongly suggest a workmanship in the same workshop, albeit by two different teams, each with different workers.

In this regard, it seems undeniable that Bronze Master A is older and bound to a more severe style, while Bronze Master B is more open to classical stylistic features.

Finally, without a shadow of controversy, any comparison with the St. Casciano bronzes, from an artistic point of view, is certainly misleading, because one certainly cannot juxtapose public commissioned works with an almost unlimited budget, and private votive offerings, without any claim to excellence.

To these certainties are now added three major discoveries that are difficult to dispute.

The discovery of the pedestal in the agora of Argos

The first datum is the discovery made by Greek archaeologist Konstantinos Tziampasis in the agora of Argos. On a pedestal that was part of an exedra, Bronze A footmarks were identified by him.

This intuition was verified and confirmed by me and visual designer Saverio Autellitano, identifying in the base also the mark left by the tip of the Bronze A spear. This discovery makes unequivocal the belonging of Bronze A to that pedestal, further strengthening the hypothesis of its provenance from Argos.

The compatible statue found in Argos

The second significant discovery was made by archaeologist Christos Piteros, also in Argos, where a statue of dimensions compatible with those of the Riace Bronzes was found. Chemical analysis conducted on the casting earth showed that it was identical to that used for the Bronzes, confirming the common geographical origin and probable creation in the same workshop.

The ancient copy of Bronze A

Finally, a surprising discovery is related to an ancient copy of Bronze A, a 30-cm bronze statuette now housed at the Wadsworth Atheneum Museum of Art in Hartford, Connecticut. This bronze, donated to the museum by the American financier J.P. Morgan, had been fished out of the Tiber in 1916, as shown by the museum's records, consulted thanks to the great helpfulness of the American curators. The work had already been noticed by the famous archaeologist John Boardman, who attested to its antiquity. The perfect similarity between the bronze and Bronze A suggests that the Bronzes were brought to Rome after their stay in Argos. It is surprising, however, that some contemporary scholars, dealing with this statuette, did not point out this connection, despite the clear correspondence between the two works.

These new data offer a significant contribution to the understanding of the Riace Bronzes and enrich the framework of knowledge about these masterpieces of Greek art.

Finally, in our view, it is crucial to continue to promote a constructive dialogue between specialists and enthusiasts, based on scientific evidence rather than personal intuitions and archaeological preconceptions now outdated by contemporary studies, to ensure that the story of these extraordinary finds continues to stimulate everyone's curiosity and interest.

Eligio Daniele Castrizio

Professor at the University of Messina

To learn more, go to www.magnagrecia3d.com