Antiquities Dealer Questions Authenticity of Metropolitan Museum’s Chariot

Bronze Etruscan chariot, inlaid with ivory, 2nd quarter of the 6th century B.C., Metropolitan Museum of Art
While we breathlessly await today’s repatriation press conference by Signor Rutelli, let’s talk about another Italian object-of-desire, the Metropolitan Museum’s Etruscan chariot. (It was claimed not by Italy, but by the village of Monteleone di Spoleto.)
As you may recall, the Met, in its publicity materials for its new Greek and Roman galleries, describes the chariot as “one of very few complete chariots to survive from antiquity.” Despite its importance, it had been off view since the early 1990s, until its much heralded reinstallation last April.
Now comes an article in the July/August issue (not yet online) of Minerva: The International Review of Ancient Art & Archaeology, which claims that the celebrated 6th century B.C. conveyance is a forgery or, more precisely, “a pastiche of ancient and modern elements.”
The author of the 12-page article (sent by him to CultureGrrl) is the London-based magazine’s editor-in-chief, Jerome Eisenberg. Although he did not identify himself to me as such, he is also director of the Royal-Athena Galleries in New York and London. The gallery’s website lists his substantial credentials as a dealer and antiquities expert.
He believes that the chariot’s “three large panels and one kouros figure are…forgeries,” which were “fabricated between about 1890 and 1902, to complete the remains of a genuine chariot.” To support this conclusion, he cites exhaustive, detailed and highly technical evidence, including a long list of compositional mistakes made by the forger, such as an “excessively elaborate helmet…[that] has no counterpart in ancient art.” His technical examination, performed over three days in 1971 with the permission of then curator Dietrich von Bothmer, revealed metal, patina and chiseling of modern origin, he wrote.
Eisenberg first reported his misgivings to the Met in 1968 and read a paper on the subject at the December 1989 meeting of the Archaeological Institute of America. AIA abstracted his report in its American Journal of Archaeology in 1990. “Coincidentally, the chariot was taken off diplay that same year,” says Eisenberg’s new article, which was occasioned by the reinstallation.
Harold Holzer, the Met’s senior vice president for external affairs, to whom I sent a copy of Eisenberg’s latest article, had this to say:
There is nothing new or convincing here. It is a rehash of an old argument, discredited then, ludicrous now. Such diagnoses from a distance deserve far less credibility than the up-close, highly technical observations of professionals from both New York and Italy who worked on its restoration for years. It looks wonderful for 2,600 years old, but its age and authenticity are not in question.