DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.42779#0217
BRONZEWORK 155
early experiments of the metal-workers. Their plated statues
were first conceived as carved statues.
From a close examination of all large sixth-century bronzes
Kluge is convinced that they were cast not from any wax
model on the cire-perdue process but from wooden originals
from which a sand cast was made. Into this sand cast, which
could only be made in two pieces, a rough core was inserted
before the actual casting began. The core would, of course,
be supported by bars against the sides of the hollow moulds,
and it would be made of the usual casting clay. It would not
be easy for the maker of the core to get a very exact fitting,
and the space between the surface of the core and the surface
of the mould would, in consequence, be large. This is, in
fact, the case with sixth-century bronzes where the thickness
of metal is extraordinary. It is true also of some parts of
many early fifth-century bronzes such as the Charioteer of
Delphi. In the cire-perdue process the clay core can be
moulded so near to the final surface that is to take the wax
that in nearly every case of a statue made on the cire-perdue
method the bronze is extremely thin and rarely over 3 mm.
in thickness. In the earlier bronzes it may be as much as
2 or 2-5 cm. in thickness, a difference which must imply a
different method of fabrication.
Kluge’s theory, based on a meticulous examination of ex-
amples, seems to be remarkably borne out by the literary
evidence. The famous story1 of how Telekles and Theodoros
each made half of a statue, the one in Samos and the other in
Ephesus, which were found to fit exactly when joined, seems
but the slightly distorted version, made by one who was not
conversant with the technique, of the ordinary process of
sand-casting from a wooden model. Sand-casting must im-
ply two halves of the model, each represented by a hollow
mould in a box. When the two boxes are joined the whole
statue emerges after the metal has been poured in.
Further, we have the story2 of the Apollo Philesios of
1 Diod. i. 98. 2 Paus. ix. 10. 2.
early experiments of the metal-workers. Their plated statues
were first conceived as carved statues.
From a close examination of all large sixth-century bronzes
Kluge is convinced that they were cast not from any wax
model on the cire-perdue process but from wooden originals
from which a sand cast was made. Into this sand cast, which
could only be made in two pieces, a rough core was inserted
before the actual casting began. The core would, of course,
be supported by bars against the sides of the hollow moulds,
and it would be made of the usual casting clay. It would not
be easy for the maker of the core to get a very exact fitting,
and the space between the surface of the core and the surface
of the mould would, in consequence, be large. This is, in
fact, the case with sixth-century bronzes where the thickness
of metal is extraordinary. It is true also of some parts of
many early fifth-century bronzes such as the Charioteer of
Delphi. In the cire-perdue process the clay core can be
moulded so near to the final surface that is to take the wax
that in nearly every case of a statue made on the cire-perdue
method the bronze is extremely thin and rarely over 3 mm.
in thickness. In the earlier bronzes it may be as much as
2 or 2-5 cm. in thickness, a difference which must imply a
different method of fabrication.
Kluge’s theory, based on a meticulous examination of ex-
amples, seems to be remarkably borne out by the literary
evidence. The famous story1 of how Telekles and Theodoros
each made half of a statue, the one in Samos and the other in
Ephesus, which were found to fit exactly when joined, seems
but the slightly distorted version, made by one who was not
conversant with the technique, of the ordinary process of
sand-casting from a wooden model. Sand-casting must im-
ply two halves of the model, each represented by a hollow
mould in a box. When the two boxes are joined the whole
statue emerges after the metal has been poured in.
Further, we have the story2 of the Apollo Philesios of
1 Diod. i. 98. 2 Paus. ix. 10. 2.