Main content
Ancient Mediterranean + Europe
Riace Warriors
The Riace Warriors (also referred to as the Riace bronzes or Bronzi di Riace) are two life-size Greek bronze statues of naked, bearded warriors. The statues were discovered by Stefano Mariottini in the Mediterranean Sea just off the coast of Riace Marina, Italy, on August 16, 1972. The statues are currently housed in the Museo Nazionale della Magna Grecia in the Italian city of Reggio Calabria. The statues are commonly referred to as “Statue A” and “Statue B” and were originally cast using the lost-wax technique.
Statue A
Statue A stands 198 centimeters tall and depicts the younger of the two warriors. His body exhibits a strong contrapposto stance, with the head turned to his right. Attached elements have been lost - most likely a shield and a spear; his now-lost helmet atop his head may have been crowned by a wreath. The warrior is bearded, with applied copper detail for the lips and the nipples. Inset eyes also survive for Statue A. The hair and beard have been worked in an elaborate fashion, with exquisite curls and ringlets.
Statue B
Statue B depicts an older warrior and stands 197 centimeters tall. A now-missing helmet likely was perched atop his head. Like Statue A, Statue B is bearded and in a contrapposto stance, although the feet of Statue B and set more closely together than those of Statue A.
Severe style
The Severe or Early Classical style describes the trends in Greek sculpture between c. 490 and 450 B.C.E. Artistically this stylistic phase represents a transition from the rather austere and static Archaic style of the sixth century B.C.E. to the more idealized Classical style. The Severe style is marked by an increased interest in the use of bronze as a medium as well as an increase in the characterization of the sculpture, among other features.
Interpretation and Chronology
The chronology of the Riace warriors has been a matter of scholarly contention since their discovery. In essence there are two schools of thought—one holds that the warriors are fifth century B.C.E. originals that were created between 460 and 420 B.C.E., while another holds that the statues were produced later and consciously imitate Early Classical sculpture. Those that support the earlier chronology argue that Statue A is the earlier of the two pieces. Those scholars also make a connection between the warriors and the workshops of famous ancient sculptors. For instance, some scholars suggest that the sculptor Myron crafted Statue A, while Alkamenes created Statue B. Additionally, those who support the earlier chronology point to the Severe Style as a clear indication of an Early Classical date for these two masterpieces.
The art historian B. S. Ridgway presents a dissenting view, contending that the statues should not be assigned to the fifth century B.C.E., arguing instead that they were most likely produced together after 100 B.C.E. Ridgway feels that the statues indicate an interest in Early Classical iconography during the Hellenistic period.
In terms of identifications, there has been speculation that the two statues represent Tydeus (Statue A) and Amphiaraus (Statue B), two warriors from Aeschylus' tragic play, Seven Against Thebes (about Polyneices after the fall of his father, King Oedipus), and may have been part of a monumental sculptural composition. A group from Argos described by Pausanias (the Greek traveller and writer) is often cited in connection to this conjecture: “A little farther on is a sanctuary of the Seasons. On coming back from here you see statues of Polyneices, the son of Oedipus, and of all the chieftains who with him were killed in battle at the wall of Thebes...” (Pausanias, Description of Greece 2.20.5).
The statues have lead dowels installed in their feet, indicating that they were originally mounted on a base and installed as part of some sculptural group or other. The art historian Carol Mattusch argues that not only were they found together, but that they were originally installed—and perhaps produced—together in antiquity.
Essay by Dr. Jeffrey A. Becker
Additional resources:
I bronzi di Riace: restauro come conoscenza (Rome: Artemide, 2003).
J. Alsop, "Glorious bronzes of ancient Greece: warriors from a watery grave" National Geographic 163.6 (June 1983), pp. 820-827.
A. Busignani and L. Perugi, The Bronzes of Riace, trans. J. R. Walker, (Florence: Sansoni, 1981).
C. H. Hallett, “Kopienkritik and the works of Polykleitos,” in Polykleitos: the Doryphoros and Tradition, ed. by W. G. Moon, pp. 121-160 (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1995).
C. C. Mattusch, Classical bronzes: the art and craft of Greek and Roman statuary (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1996).
C. C. Mattusch, “In Search of the Greek Bronze Original” in The Ancient Art of Emulation: Studies in Artistic Originality and Tradition from the Present to Classical Antiquity (Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome, supplementary volumes, vol. 1), edited by E. K. Gazda, pp. 99-115, (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2002).
P. B. Pacini, “Florence, Rome and Reggio Calabria: The Riace Bronzes,” The Burlington Magazine, volume 123, no. 943 (Oct., 1981), pp. 630-633.
B. S. Ridgway, Fifth Century Styles in Greek Sculpture (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1981).
B. S. Ridgway, "The Riace Bronzes: A Minority Viewpoint," in Due bronzi da Riace: rinvenimento, restauro, analisi ed ipotesi di interpretazione, vol. 1, ed. by L. V. Borelli and P. Pelagatti, pp. 313-326. (Rome: Istituto poligrafico e zecca dello stato, 1984).
B. S. Ridgway, Hellenistic Sculpture: the Styles of ca. 100-31 B.C. (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 2002).
N. J. Spivey, Understanding Greek sculpture: ancient meanings, modern readings (New York: Thames and Hudson, 1996).
G. B. Triches, Due bronzi da Riace: rinvenimento, restauro, analisi ed ipotesi di interpretazione (Rome: Istituto poligrafico e zecca dello Stato, 1984).
Want to join the conversation?
- I read that there is a rather contentious proposition out in the art world right now to move these two gorgeous statues to Milan for the EXPO 15 (the Worlds Fair)? I heard that this was so contentious due to the fact that these statues are rather brittle and that they may be damaged even in the relatively short over land journey. What do you (fellow Khan Academy students and teachers) feel about such a move? Should more people be allowed to see these works? Also, the original institution would receive a fairly generous financial incentive (not too mention that they get the statues back at the end of the EXPO)? Or is it unthinkable to risk the movement of the statues and perhaps disable anyone from seeing them intact again?
Read about it here and form your own opinion:
http://www.theartnewspaper.com/articles/Riace-bronzes-may-head-to-Milan-for--Expo/33452(7 votes)- In such a case, interests must be balanced - the key issues here being access and preservation. The Riace warriors recently underwent a rather prolonged restoration process, during which time I do not believe they were on public view. In recent weeks a photographer who had been granted some permission to take photographs went beyond the limits and dressed the warriors up in lingerie and feather boas. Often in Italy when prestige objects are housed in museums that are not in major hubs there can be a bit of contentiousness. When a bronze statue of a dancing satyr was found in the sea off Sicily a few years ago, the satyr was briefly displayed in Rome (following conservation) before being returned to a local museum near the findspot. It is tough to say if there is a 'correct' answer as to whether the Riace warriors should go to Milan - my personal opinion is no, they should stay in Reggio Calabria. Italy would benefit from spreading out its heritage tourism and heritage management monies, so that marquee sites like Pompeii might bear a slightly lighter load and virtually unknown jewels could receive some exposure and some additional funds for management.(9 votes)
- Is it not possible to date the sculptures through carbon-dating? Also don't we know what kind of bronze was used in which centuries? The formulas for bronze have been changing over the years. I would think that somehow one could know which century the Riace Bronzes were cast through the materials.(6 votes)
- Radiocarbon dating requires organic material. The bronze itself is inorganic, thus Radiocarbon dating is not applicable. But the bronze casting cores contain organic materials. Some attempts have been made to date the Riace warriors by this route. Those preliminary conclusions support a date within the 5th century BCE.(9 votes)
- How do we know that these statues depict warriors and not athletes or gods (or something else entirely)?(3 votes)
- They appear to have arm protectors on their left arms. I wonder if this implies they were archers?(2 votes)
- Can you explain the lost-wax technique?(3 votes)
- Why does Ridgway believe the warriors were made in the first century BCE and not the fifth? Her argument wasn't supported in this article.(2 votes)
- I believe Ridgway believes they were created in first century BC because of their naturalistic form and pose while the older 5th century BC statues had a more Egyptian inspired and abstract form.(1 vote)
- is this statue in the permanent collection in the museum its at?(2 votes)
- in the style paragraph, i saw a type-o and i was wondering how can it be 490 B.C.E- 450 B.C.E? only because 50 is before 90, and 90 comes after 50.(0 votes)
- B.C.E stands for before the common era, therefore 490 years before comes before 450 years before. Similar to a negative number.(5 votes)
- Why were these warrior statues shown naked?(1 vote)
- Heroic nudity is an important convention in art. In this case the use of heroic nudity indicates the subjects are either heroes or semi-divine beings. The Greek aesthetic celebrates the beauty of the human form.(2 votes)
- What year were they made the Race Warriors?(1 vote)