Were Roman mural painting traditions influenced more by Etruscans or Greeks?

[Roma_Victrix]

This is something that I've never quite understood. What was the basis and origin of Roman painted artwork, in murals and frescos? Was it largely based on the painting traditions of the older Etruscan culture or Archaic/Classic/Hellenistic era Greek culture? It seems that Etruscan art was heavily influenced by the Greeks by the 6th century BC, but the Etruscans had artwork predating 600 BC. For that matter "Archaic" period Greek art didn't even exist before the 8th century BC (lasting until 480 BC with the beginning of the Classical period).

Although we have a multitude of vase paintings from Classical era Greece, plus marble and bronze statues and a good amount of tiled floor mosaics, murals and frescos are much rarer than later Roman ones. There's not much to work with, unfortunately. For an example of painted frescos at the end of the Classical period in Greece, here are some from the Macedonian tomb of Agios Athanasios, dated to the late 4th century BC.


MORE:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

We also have significantly older ones, like the Greek frescos from the Tomb of the Diver, dated c. 470 BC, from Paestum, Italy (then part of Magna Graecia in Hellenic southern Italy):

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

The style here seems quite similar to the Etruscans of the same period. For instance, the Tomb of the Triclinium, also dated c. 470 BC, shows lively scenes of Etruscans dancing to music:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

However, Etruscan painting styles seem to then mimic (or perhaps develop their own tradition of) the more realistic poses found in late Classical Greek paintings by the middle of the 4th century BC, such as in the Tomb of the Shields in Tarquinia, Italy, dated roughly 350-340 BC:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Below we can see the general state of Roman painted artwork by the 1st century AD, which still looks very similar to Greek artwork of the early Hellenistic period. Even the color schemes for clothing and facial expressions seem very similar, at least to me. Much older Etruscan art seemed far more rigid and their perspectives were almost always of profile shots of people's faces, not with bodies twisting and turning in this far more realistic Classical Greek fashion.



The Lion of Chaeronea Orestes kills Neoptolemus at the altar of Apollo in the shrine of Delphi, as depicted in Euripides’ Andromache. Fresco from the west wall of the winter triclinium in the House of Marcus Lucretius Fronto, Pompeii.

In addition to Romans copying Classical Greek marble statues, we also know that the Romans reproduced Classical Greek paintings as well. For instance, there was a famous painting of Venus Anadyomene by Apelles (fl. 332 -329 BC) of Ionia imported to Rome by Augustus, now lost, but copied in this Roman mural from Pompeii:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Apeelles was also the alleged artist of two paintings depicting Alexander the Great that were later reproduced in Roman works, the first one here from the 1st century BC (House of the Vettii) showing Alexander as Zeus, the second one a Roman mosaic from Pompeii showing Alexander at the Battle of Issus:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

So was Roman artwork, as far as murals and frescos are concerned, more a continuation of the Etruscan tradition or the Greek ones? Of course the Romans developed styles all their own by the period of the late Republic, 2nd and 1st centuries BC. Is it fair to say that early Roman art (and that of other Latin peoples) was largely similar to the Etruscans and by the time of the Punic Wars onwards Hellenistic artistic influences became far more predominant?

This site provides an interesting timeline, with the so-called "First Style" of Roman painting on stucco walls beginning c. 200 - 60 BC, or roughly at the end of the Second Punic War. The "Second Style" on plaster walls and with much greater detail in shading and perspective is described as being established around the early 1st century BC. Both of these Roman styles are noted as being influenced and inspired by Hellenistic art, both older and contemporary artwork. Unfortunately this website does not provide any description of Roman painted art prior to the period of the Second Punic War and makes no mention of the Etruscans at all. It does, however, go on to explain the "Third Style" of Roman painting straddling the 1st centuries BC and AD, as well as the Fourth Style of the mid 1st century AD.

The Boscoreale frescos of the mid 1st century BC provide excellent examples of the Second Style during the late Republic, when the Hellenistic period was coming to an end:

[Cyclops]

Both the Etruscans and Romans bathed in the light of Classical Hellas no doubt, but if the Etruscan elites were truly émigrés from Asia they probably (as you suggest) brought with them a tradition of Aegean art predating the classical and even archaic periods.

The Romans self consciously aped the Hellenistic tradition by the first century AD as you demonstrate with handsome and respectful reproductions like the Alexander mosaic: this conspicuous consumption of Hellenistic art is said (By Livy I think?) to have begun with the sack of Tarentum which exposed the rustic Quirites to the height of Hellenistic civilisation.

To my untutored eye the cheerful (although conspicuously heterosexual) banquet scenes as well as the grinning dancers from the Etruscan tombs do look to the Hellenic world, but there's also a taste of the Minoan in there (an almost Egyptian 2 dimensional splaying of the limbs) among the colourful dancers.

I think there's an Eastern Mediterranean art style that the Hellenes contribute a lot too, both as consumers (copying from the older Minoan and other E med traditions) producers (eg the widely respected Corinthian funerary pottery with a Med-wide distribution including Etruria) and carriers. The Hellenes were extraordinary sharers of ideas and much we see as Hellenic is probably a common culture they helped distribute as much as originate.

I imagine Etruria sat within its Mediterranean context in relation to adjacent Hellenic, Gallic, Carthaginian and indigenous cultures, and consumed the available products of the eastern Med that they saw as a source of desirable artefacts (and perhaps as a homeland) and the concomitant art styles. Given the older more established poleis/urban/"civilised" cultures of the East had a developed set of cultural motifs to offer ready made to the emerging poleis of the Western Med its no wonder we see a strong echo of the East in the West.

I guess the question arises as to whether the Etruscans continued a pre-existing art tradition from their putative arrival in Italy c. 800 BC and merely topped up their repertoire once Hellenic contact was re-established, or whether the Etruscans represent a successful and near total transplant of Hellenic art into a new context from 700 BC onwards. I imagine there was a low level of contact maintained across the Med through the "Dark Ages" so they probably brought some with them as well as bought up once they were established.

[Roma_Victrix]

Hi Cyclops! Thanks for replying to my queries. I haven't read Livy in a very long time, but that sounds about right with the Roman capture of Taras (Tarentum). It was one of the greatest Greek cities outside of mainland Greece, barring Syracuse in Sicily and Massalia in southern Gaul (I consider eastern Anatolia as part of mainland Greece at this point, so no need to mention cities like Pergamon, or Rhodes for that matter). The Romans undoubtedly acquired lots of art spoils from the conquest of southern Italy.

Your musing about the Etruscan retention of an older Eastern Mediterranean art style predating the 8th century BC and Archaic Greece is very interesting. It's also rather believable given the eastern provenance of the Etruscan peoples before their arrival in central Italy (although their DNA links to them to Neolithic Central Europeans and Tuscan peoples living there previously). The Iron-Age Villanovan culture that the Rasenna (i.e. Etruscans) conquered and/or peacefully displaced was already being influenced by Eastern Mediterranean civilizations like the Egyptians and Mycenaean Greeks, although the Villanovan culture was contiguous with the Greek Dark Age (c. 1100 - c. 800 BC).

[Marcus Aemilius Lepidus]

I am not sure if the Etruscans were emigrants from Asia. I personally support the autochthon-theory. However, i would argue that even if they came from Asia sometime between 1200-800 BC i personally see no indications that art styles from Asia and Greek of that period influenced Etruscan art in a larger degree. If greek-art actually influenced the Etruscans than it would be somewhere between the late 6th and 5th century. After all the most surviving attic pottery was found in an etruscan burial context. Art from greece was highly desired and it would surprise me if they didn't tried to make something out of it. I am pretty sure there are a lot of imitations of attic art.

I too, haven't read Livy for a long time, but i think i remember that the first time Rome really exploited a city that changed the image of Rome was Syracuse. I can't remember if there was something said abut Tarent, but Syracuse was for obvious reasons a centre of greek art and many famous statues were brought to Rome after the capture. The spoils were that plentiful that it actually changed the image of the city.

[sumskilz]

It's also rather believable given the eastern provenance of the Etruscan peoples before their arrival in central Italy (although their DNA links to them to Neolithic Central Europeans and Tuscan peoples living there previously). The Iron-Age Villanovan culture that the Rasenna (i.e. Etruscans) conquered and/or peacefully displaced was already being influenced by Eastern Mediterranean civilizations like the Egyptians and Mycenaean Greeks, although the Villanovan culture was contiguous with the Greek Dark Age (c. 1100 - c. 800 BC).

Neolithic Central Europeans came from Anatolia originally, but Anatolia had changed by the time-frame we're talking about, by then Anatolia had more influence from the Steppe and from the Neolithic population of the Zagros Mountains. There are autosomal DNA samples from Chalcolithic Italy and they are the same as the Anatolian Neolithic. Sometime between the Chalcolithic and the Roman Period, Italy and Greece became more Middle Eastern-like characterized by a bit more of that Neolithic Zagros element. It looks like it was mostly male mediated, so it wouldn't necessarily show up in those Etruscan mtDNA studies. It does show up a little bit in three Etruscan autosomal samples that haven't been published yet, but were presented at a conference. So it could be a case of mostly continuity with a new group establishing themselves as a ruling class, but it seems to be all of Italy with the effect becoming stronger further south. So that doesn't really clear things up I guess.

EDIT: Also, one of the Etruscan individuals was more like modern Spanish people than like modern people from Tuscany.

[Roma_Victrix]

Thanks, Sumskilz! I only have a rough understanding of genetics and movements of historical populations, so it's always nice to have you here to fill in the gaps. Cheers.

[VINC.XXIII]

Overall, and indepedently that Etruscans being either or not from Asia, etruscan art followed general evolution of greek art, its almost the same divisions: oriental, archaic, classic, hellenistic. However, after introduction of every "new style", local etruscan style evolved on their own.

Themes from Greece were also introduced to Etruria, Campania and Apulia, at the point you can hardly distinguish an apulian pottery scene from the original athenian inspiration.


I'd like to share the following quote from Emma Dench, without wanting to derail the thread into one about warfare, its somewhat tied to OP since roman aristocrats and capuan ones were very close and well, such expensive painting were not for peasants after all, I think we can even speak of a common cultural universe shared between roman and capuan elites. Thus, a certain number of "greek artistic codes" were already know once the IVth century.

"From Barbarians to New men: Greek, Roman, and Modern Perceptions of Peoples from the Central Apennines", Emma Dench

[Charerg]

I'd like to second that Etruscan art (and culture) was likely greatly influenced by the Greeks, after all the Etruscan alphabet was developed from the Greek alphabet (and the Latin alphabet from the Etruscan one)!

[Cyclops]

...EDIT: Also, one of the Etruscan individuals was more like modern Spanish people than like modern people from Tuscany.

I had a school friend whose family emigrated from Campania in Italy who exactly resembled the statue (and closely resembled the reconstruction) of the Etruscan noblewoman Seianti Hanunia Tlesnasa. It was extremely creepy and weird to see her face in an ancient site and get a glimpse of what Lucia will likely look like when she gets older. That said you've suggested the strong continuity of the female DNA in Italy with regard to other Anatolian migrants so I shouldn't be surprised.

Has the "Eastern origin" of the Etruscans been busted? I didn't study European pre-history formally so I'm pretty out of touch on this.

[Charerg]

I had a school friend whose family emigrated from Campania in Italy who exactly resembled the statue (and closely resembled the reconstruction) of the Etruscan noblewoman Seianti Hanunia Tlesnasa. It was extremely creepy and weird to see her face in an ancient site and get a glimpse of what Lucia will likely look like when she gets older. That said you've suggested the strong continuity of the female DNA in Italy with regard to other Anatolian migrants so I shouldn't be surprised.

Has the "Eastern origin" of the Etruscans been busted? I didn't study European pre-history formally so I'm pretty out of touch on this.

I suspect the "Eastern origin" is just a misinterpretation of evidence. Likely the Etruscans largely descend from Neolithic farmers (who migrated to Europe from Anatolia), and if the Etruscans have a greater genetic similarity to modern western Anatolians, it may be simply because these regions haven't been as heavily affected by later migrations. In particular, as the Etruscans didn't speak an Indo-European language, the migration that brought these languages to Italy may not have affected them as heavily as it did the other Italian populations.

[Roma_Victrix]

To be honest I'm still surprised that non-Indo-European peoples like the Etruscans were still migrating into Europe at such an advanced date (i.e. 800 BC). At this point it was almost always Indo-European peoples. I guess during the Middle Ages the Finno-Ugric-speaking Magyars of Hungary were the exception, if not the Ottoman Turks (who obviously spoke a Turkic language). It's even more interesting that a non-Indo-European people adopted a phonetic alphabet complete with vowels from an Indo-European people (i.e. the Greeks) before having their own Etruscan alphabet adopted by another Indo-European-speaking people (i.e. the Latin tribes, the Romans).

[Charerg]

Well, alphabet isn't necessarily connected to language. After all, the Greeks based their alphabet on the Phoenician alphabet (who spoke a Semitic language, ofc).

[Roma_Victrix]

Well, alphabet isn't necessarily connected to language. After all, the Greeks based their alphabet on the Phoenician alphabet (who spoke a Semitic language, ofc).

I know. I'm just astonished at the wonderful invention of the alphabet. Of course even Chinese logographic and pictographic writing was applied to different languages historically, to various Chinese dialects as well as Vietnamese, Korean, and Japanese. However, the characters themselves didn't denote single units of sound, only concepts that could be conjured up in one's own language. However, this had its advantages as well, since people could easily and effortlessly communicate via Chinese writing despite speaking radically different languages. However, alphabetic writing systems shared by various linguistic groups can facilitate an easier understanding and learning of other languages, since the sounds are deduced from the letters themselves. It's also easier for historians to reconstruct languages that were historically written using alphabetical writing systems.

[sumskilz]

I had a school friend whose family emigrated from Campania in Italy who exactly resembled the statue (and closely resembled the reconstruction) of the Etruscan noblewoman Seianti Hanunia Tlesnasa. It was extremely creepy and weird to see her face in an ancient site and get a glimpse of what Lucia will likely look like when she gets older. That said you've suggested the strong continuity of the female DNA in Italy with regard to other Anatolian migrants so I shouldn't be surprised.

Modern mtDNA samples from Florence and Murlo showed no particular relationship to Etruscans, but from Volterra and Casentino there are modern samples that are potentially direct matrilineal descendants of Etruscan samples, so at least descended from a closely related community.

Has the "Eastern origin" of the Etruscans been busted? I didn't study European pre-history formally so I'm pretty out of touch on this.

From the DNA evidence, I'm skeptical, but without Y-DNA or full autosomes published, I can't say whether or not there is a possibility of a small number from an Anatolian population having established themselves as a ruling class.

Here is a PCA based on mtDNA:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Check out the continuity between the Neolithic samples and Etruscans versus Etruscans and Medieval Tuscans.

[Cyclops]

...from Volterra ....

"...from lordly Volaterrae,
Where scowls the far-famed hold,
Piled by the hands of giants,
For God-like kings of old..."

Check out the continuity between the Neolithic samples and Etruscans versus Etruscans and Medieval Tuscans.

I can see on the graph they are close together, I guess that means they have a reasonably close relationship but I have to confess I am a bit ignorant of this numbers game. Actually I feel absurdly proud that I understood your reference to the Y-DNA evidence: that comes via the sperm only so you get the lineage of father of the father of the father etc.

Hang on the Etruscan marker is bang on the Neolithic one, that's indicates at least the female population was practically static for thousands of years. Bang goes Thucydides' analysis: "For instance, it is evident that the country now called Hellas had in ancient times no settled population; on the contrary, migrations were of frequent occurrence, the several tribes readily abandoning their homes under the pressure of superior numbers". Maybe he's half right, and the men wandered around from wife to wife. Its a shame, I think Thucydides offers a very reasonable set of assumptions about the evolution of society in Hellas, maybe h is right and the Hellenes were more mobile than Etruscan ladies.

I often speculate about the evolution of land "ownership"(weird term, I mean who is in charge of the bits of farming land Neolithic groups carve out of the wilderness) and who owned what in ancient Europe and I think it was the ladies. We see a lot of "primitive" farming groups (in the Philippines and among the Iroquois for example) where the ladies are boss of the bits of land and the chaps dash around tomahawking one another but they have to come home and do some digging when the ladies say so. IIRC in some of the Indian Wars we see Iroquois women approaching the colonials asking why they are being attacked when its the Iroquois men who are in the war, not the women, so there's almost a class separation between the genders.

If land "ownership" and direction of agriculture lies with the ladies you could see why their populations might appear more static from a DNA POV as certain matrilineages are tied to certain districts (this probably includes ritual roles such as preistesshoods, sibyls etc which survive into the classical period). The chaps OTOH might appear more mobile because groups might not feel as direct a link to a particular patch of land, not "owning" it.

A band of exceptionally fit young chaps might wander a fair distance and when they appeared the local ladies might make them high draft picks despite the foreign accents, and the local band of boys might feel the need to shift one peninsula over and so on. I am not suggesting a thoroughgoing matriarchy, obviously there are warlike chaps imposing themselves as well possibly through the stabby Neolithic massacres that evidence suggests occurred.

I guess this is a less "rapey" model for Y-DNA spread vs X-DNA stability, but probably in Neolithic context so not as relevant to a discussion of Late Bronze/Early Iron Age populations in Etruria though. I'm pretty sure the Etruscans had access to patriarchal notions like "we should worship that shape-shifting rapist Tinia/Zeus, he's the man" even if we do find the odd high-status woman in Etruscan tombs.

[Charerg]

I think you're basing that view waayyyy too much on modern ideals about gender roles. Keep in mind these are entire societies, entire peoples. The entire male population of one area definitely wouldn't just decide to migrate into another area. I doubt they organized themselves into some sort of roving "male only" bands either. As far as I know the practice of Neolithic agriculture very much required the participation of both sexes. The men might hunt as well if there was game available (there were often specific "hunting seasons" for specific animals, spring for the gazelles, for instance), but most of the time they were engaged in farming.

Nor would a society/tribe just wage war against their neighbors "for the sake of it". Wars are waged for a purpose.

Also, regarding male vs female mobility, traditionally it tends to be the women who are sent "away from home" to a husband while the eldest male child usually inherits the land of his parents. That may not have always been the case, but in any case these are relatively short distances moved. Probably the distance covered in these, erm, shall we say "marital movements" usually didn't go any further than the "next village".

[sumskilz]

Hang on the Etruscan marker is bang on the Neolithic one, that's indicates at least the female population was practically static for thousands of years. Bang goes Thucydides' analysis: "For instance, it is evident that the country now called Hellas had in ancient times no settled population; on the contrary, migrations were of frequent occurrence, the several tribes readily abandoning their homes under the pressure of superior numbers". Maybe he's half right, and the men wandered around from wife to wife. Its a shame, I think Thucydides offers a very reasonable set of assumptions about the evolution of society in Hellas, maybe h is right and the Hellenes were more mobile than Etruscan ladies.

A caveat on that, the Etruscan mtDNA is essentially the same as Neolithic Italy, but also essentially the same as Neolithic Germany or just about anywhere else in Neolithic Europe. The reason is that the entire Neolithic population of Europe was predominately the result of a massive population expansion of a single group that came from the western half of the Fertile Crescent. Any migration into the area of a population with predominately European Neolithic matrilineages would look the same as very local continuity.

I often speculate about the evolution of land "ownership"(weird term, I mean who is in charge of the bits of farming land Neolithic groups carve out of the wilderness) and who owned what in ancient Europe and I think it was the ladies. We see a lot of "primitive" farming groups (in the Philippines and among the Iroquois for example) where the ladies are boss of the bits of land and the chaps dash around tomahawking one another but they have to come home and do some digging when the ladies say so. IIRC in some of the Indian Wars we see Iroquois women approaching the colonials asking why they are being attacked when its the Iroquois men who are in the war, not the women, so there's almost a class separation between the genders.

If land "ownership" and direction of agriculture lies with the ladies you could see why their populations might appear more static from a DNA POV as certain matrilineages are tied to certain districts (this probably includes ritual roles such as preistesshoods, sibyls etc which survive into the classical period). The chaps OTOH might appear more mobile because groups might not feel as direct a link to a particular patch of land, not "owning" it.

A band of exceptionally fit young chaps might wander a fair distance and when they appeared the local ladies might make them high draft picks despite the foreign accents, and the local band of boys might feel the need to shift one peninsula over and so on. I am not suggesting a thoroughgoing matriarchy, obviously there are warlike chaps imposing themselves as well possibly through the stabby Neolithic massacres that evidence suggests occurred.

I guess this is a less "rapey" model for Y-DNA spread vs X-DNA stability, but probably in Neolithic context so not as relevant to a discussion of Late Bronze/Early Iron Age populations in Etruria though. I'm pretty sure the Etruscans had access to patriarchal notions like "we should worship that shape-shifting rapist Tinia/Zeus, he's the man" even if we do find the odd high-status woman in Etruscan tombs.

That's a romantic view, but the mass graves in Neolithic Europe that suggest situations in which everyone in a community was ritually slaughtered except for the childbearing-aged women and young girls paint a less pretty picture.

There is however the so-called Genghis Khan effect, which is somewhere in the middle. Basically high status males have a much higher net reproductive success, so the genetic patrilineages of conquerors become predominate over many generations, whereas the matrilineages remain similar to the ratio between the newly arrived females and the conquered population. I went into more detail on this phenomenon in this thread.

[VINC.XXIII]

The entire male population of one area definitely wouldn't just decide to migrate into another area.

It is was is supposed to have happened with oscan ver sacrum(sacred spring), when every year, parts of central apennine male populations had to emigrate, to a neighbouring region, under the guidance and protection of a totem(horse, bull, wolf or more commonly Mars-Mamer).

[Charerg]

It is was is supposed to have happened with oscan ver sacrum(sacred spring), when every year, parts of central apennine male populations had to emigrate, to a neighbouring region, under the guidance and protection of a totem(horse, bull, wolf or more commonly Mars-Mamer).

Considering that the ver sacrum involved the devotion to Mars of the generation of offsprings (note: both male and female) born in the following year, this did not happen every year (otherwise every child would be sent away). Especially so since this seems to have been a religious practice that they resorted to primarily in times of crisis. In short, it was a form of "human sacrifice" although in this case those "sacrificed" were expelled (when they reached about 20) rather than killed.

[VINC.XXIII]

Considering that the ver sacrum involved the devotion to Mars of the generation of offsprings (note: both male and female) born in the following year, this did not happen every year (otherwise every child would be sent away). Especially so since this seems to have been a religious practice that they resorted to primarily in times of crisis. In short, it was a form of "human sacrifice" although in this case those "sacrificed" were expelled (when they reached about 20) rather than killed.

It is more likely to have concerned young males, who are much more able to become soldiers and take over lands of others. Of course there are examples of last gallic emigrations to Greece, which included also wifes and children so why not also females about oscan ver sacrum.

"3 A garrison was sent to Rhegium by the Romans. Decius the tribune, a Campanian by race and a man of unusual greed and daring, imitated the lawless conduct of the Mamertines. For although the Mamertines had been received as friends by the people of Messana, they seized control of the city, slaughtered the men, each at his own hearth, married the wives of their own hosts, and possessed themselves of the property of their victims. So Decius and his Campanians, though they had been sent by Rome to guard the inhabitants of Rhegium, emulated the savagery of the Mamertines; for they slaughtered the citizens, divided up their property, and occupied the city as a prize of war. Decius, who had been appointed commander of the garrison, converted into money the property of the hapless populace, and because he made an unfair distribution of the spoils, was driven out of Rhegium and sent into exile by the Campanians, his partners in guilt. The transgressors did not, however, escape punishment, but Decius, when he had a severe attack of ophthalmia, called in the best of the physicians, who, taking revenge for his country, anointed him amply with blister-beetle salve, and having robbed Decius of his sight fled from Messana."

It can't be more clear.

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/...culus/22*.html