DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.8577#0242
XV
DECORATIVE METAL WORK
THE discovery of an archaic limestone matrix 'for making gold reliefs'
is mentioned in the report of the American excavations at Corinth for
1904.1 It is unpublished, and it is therefore impossible to base any conclu-
sions on it. If it were really a metal-worker's matrix, the find would be of
great importance, for it would be positive evidence that a particular kind of
metal work was actually done at Corinth. But matrices of this kind are not
likely to have been made of stone, and least of all of limestone unless it were
a particularly hard variety; for the metal was hammered over the engraved
design. Probably the matrix from Corinth was for making reliefs of clay.2
We have, however, one metal-worker's matrix—the bronze from Corfu, now
in Oxford, which is illustrated in pi. 45, 3.3 This is of pure late Protocorin-
thian style, and there can be no doubt that it was made at Corinth about the
middle of the seventh century.
The practice of making metal reliefs by the simple process of hammering a
thin sheet of metal over an engraved design is, of course, one of great antiquity.
It was used by Mycenaean goldsmiths, and was well known in the geometric
period. Geometric diadems of this kind have been found, among other
places, at Corinth,4 and there is an a priori probability that these examples
are Corinthian, though we have no means of deciding this from the style.
Next in time are the gold reliefs from Corinth published by Furtwangler
in the article referred to in the last footnote. These, as Furtwangler recog-
nized, are Cretan not Corinthian in style; the earliest Corinthian reliefs are of
the so-called Argive-Corinthian class.
These reliefs have often been discussed,5 but there is little general agree-
ment either as to their origin, or as to the date to which many of the most
important examples belong. A few remarks on these subjects may therefore
be of some use.
The question of origin need not detain us long, for there is comparatively
little evidence, and it is easy to see in which direction it points. Several of the
1 A.J.A. 1904, 440; ascribed to the sixth century.
2 Such reliefs have been found at Corinth, though
not in great numbers: cf. A.D. ii, pi. 24, 27 (late
archaic), and pi. 29, 20 (probably late Protocorin-
thian, for the rendering of the lion's mane, cf.
Johansen pis. 23, 1; 29, 2, and p. 151; add several
late Protocorinthian fragments at Aegina); A.J.A.
1906, pi. 10 ff., though these last are not of the same
type. Cf. also the Argive reliefs, A.H. ii, pi. 49.
3 This shows the matrix and reliefs made from it.
Previously published by Gardner in J.H.S. xvi, 323;
referred to by Buschor as a 'tonform' (A.M. 1922,
55), but there seems no reason to doubt that it is
a metal-worker's matrix.
4 Furtwangler, A.Z. 1884, 99 ff. and pi. 8, 1 =K1.
Schr. i, 458 ff., pi. 15,1: now in Berlin; another is in
the Louvre: de Ridder, Cat. Sommaire des Bijoux
Antiques no. 92, pi. 2.
5 The most complete discussion is that of de Bidder,
De Ectypis Quibusdam Aeneis, which, however, is
rendered of little value, save as a catalogue, owing to
the pan-Ionian prejudices of the author. And a good
deal of material has appeared since de Ridder wrote;
further references are given below.
DECORATIVE METAL WORK
THE discovery of an archaic limestone matrix 'for making gold reliefs'
is mentioned in the report of the American excavations at Corinth for
1904.1 It is unpublished, and it is therefore impossible to base any conclu-
sions on it. If it were really a metal-worker's matrix, the find would be of
great importance, for it would be positive evidence that a particular kind of
metal work was actually done at Corinth. But matrices of this kind are not
likely to have been made of stone, and least of all of limestone unless it were
a particularly hard variety; for the metal was hammered over the engraved
design. Probably the matrix from Corinth was for making reliefs of clay.2
We have, however, one metal-worker's matrix—the bronze from Corfu, now
in Oxford, which is illustrated in pi. 45, 3.3 This is of pure late Protocorin-
thian style, and there can be no doubt that it was made at Corinth about the
middle of the seventh century.
The practice of making metal reliefs by the simple process of hammering a
thin sheet of metal over an engraved design is, of course, one of great antiquity.
It was used by Mycenaean goldsmiths, and was well known in the geometric
period. Geometric diadems of this kind have been found, among other
places, at Corinth,4 and there is an a priori probability that these examples
are Corinthian, though we have no means of deciding this from the style.
Next in time are the gold reliefs from Corinth published by Furtwangler
in the article referred to in the last footnote. These, as Furtwangler recog-
nized, are Cretan not Corinthian in style; the earliest Corinthian reliefs are of
the so-called Argive-Corinthian class.
These reliefs have often been discussed,5 but there is little general agree-
ment either as to their origin, or as to the date to which many of the most
important examples belong. A few remarks on these subjects may therefore
be of some use.
The question of origin need not detain us long, for there is comparatively
little evidence, and it is easy to see in which direction it points. Several of the
1 A.J.A. 1904, 440; ascribed to the sixth century.
2 Such reliefs have been found at Corinth, though
not in great numbers: cf. A.D. ii, pi. 24, 27 (late
archaic), and pi. 29, 20 (probably late Protocorin-
thian, for the rendering of the lion's mane, cf.
Johansen pis. 23, 1; 29, 2, and p. 151; add several
late Protocorinthian fragments at Aegina); A.J.A.
1906, pi. 10 ff., though these last are not of the same
type. Cf. also the Argive reliefs, A.H. ii, pi. 49.
3 This shows the matrix and reliefs made from it.
Previously published by Gardner in J.H.S. xvi, 323;
referred to by Buschor as a 'tonform' (A.M. 1922,
55), but there seems no reason to doubt that it is
a metal-worker's matrix.
4 Furtwangler, A.Z. 1884, 99 ff. and pi. 8, 1 =K1.
Schr. i, 458 ff., pi. 15,1: now in Berlin; another is in
the Louvre: de Ridder, Cat. Sommaire des Bijoux
Antiques no. 92, pi. 2.
5 The most complete discussion is that of de Bidder,
De Ectypis Quibusdam Aeneis, which, however, is
rendered of little value, save as a catalogue, owing to
the pan-Ionian prejudices of the author. And a good
deal of material has appeared since de Ridder wrote;
further references are given below.