History of Ancient Pottery 30

History of Ancient Pottery 30

Some interesting specimens, forming a late survival of these earlier

Geometrical wares, were found at Amathus in 1894.[860] They include one

which has a parallel in a vase found at Phocaea by Prof. Ramsay,[861]

and originally thought to be Ionic in origin; the decoration consists

of a head of Hathor the Egyptian goddess in a panel, with debased

geometrical patterns. There can be no doubt now that the fabric is

Cypriote, probably of the fifth century, and not without traces of

Ionic influence. Another shows a remarkable development in the

direction of naturalism, and the subject is unique in Cypriote pottery:

men banqueting under a palm-tree.

 

[Illustration:

 

From _Baumeister_.

FIG. 76. CYPRIOTE VASE FROM ORMIDHIA.

]

 

These probably date from the fifth century, the period which seems to

be represented by the later Geometrical red wares with concentric

circles, now slowly dying out under the influence of Hellenic

importations, and exceedingly rare in tombs where Greek vases are

found. At the same time a great transformation comes over the contents

of the tombs, which themselves begin to increase in size, with a

shorter δρόμος, to which a flight of steps leads down. Other tombs—and

this is often the case where Greek importations are found, as at

Curium—are merely in the form of ramifying passages cut in the earth,

without any structural remains. Sixth century and earlier Greek

fabrics, such as the Geometrical, Corinthian, or Ionian wares, are very

rare; but the imported Dipylon vase found by General Cesnola at

Curium[862] is a notable instance. Black-figured vases when found are

almost invariably of a late and careless type, characteristic of the

last efforts of that style in the fifth century. There is, however, a

remarkable exception in the case of a small class of jugs, which are in

shape an exact imitation of the globular Cypriote jugs with

concentric-circle decoration[863]; the long narrow neck and trefoil

mouth, with its incised eyes, are retained, but the decoration is

purely Attic, in the style of B.F. vases of 520–500 B.C. These are

found at Poli and Amathus, and appear to have been made specially at

Athens for importation to Cyprus. Poli (Marion) was for some reason a

great centre for Athenian imports in general, and has yielded many fine

specimens of Hellenic pottery (see p. 67). Red-figured vases signed by

Chachrylion, Hermaios, etc., have been found here,[864] and at Curium a

fine R.F. krater with the name of Megakles (καλός)[865]; also some fine

white-ground specimens at Poli.[866]

 

By the fourth century, if not earlier, the Geometrical and Hellenic

vases are almost entirely replaced by a new class of wares, which may

be termed “Graeco-Cypriote,” in contradistinction to the

Graeco-Phoenician. The same red clay, covered with a more or less

polished red slip, still obtains, but the painted decoration is

confined to olive-wreaths in brown or plain bands of colour. We also

witness the revival of an old practice, in a partial return to the

taste for plastic decoration on vases. In many of the fourth-century

tombs are found large pitchers, with a spout modelled in the form of a

woman holding a jug, out of which the liquid was intended to pour

(Plate XIII.).[867] These are sometimes richly decorated in polychrome,

red, blue, green, black, pink, and white; but the colouring is apt to

flake off and disappear. The imported wares of the fourth century are

confined to plain cups and bowls of glazed black ware with stamped

patterns, such as are often found in Greece and Italy. In the

Hellenistic period (300–146 B.C.) painted vases are practically

unknown, though a few rare specimens have turned up at Curium[868]; and

it is not long before they are entirely replaced by the glass vessels

and common wine-amphorae of the large and elaborate Roman tombs.

 

 

§ 2. PRIMITIVE POTTERY IN GREECE

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

 

TROY: Schliemann, _Ilios_; Dörpfeld, _Troja 1893_, and _Troja und

Ilion_ (1902), i. p. 243 ff.; Dumont-Pottier, _Céramiques_, i. p.

3 ff.; Pottier, _Louvre Cat._ i. p. 74 ff.

 

THERA: Fouqué, _Santorin_; Dumont-Pottier, _Céramiques_, i. p. 19

ff.; Perrot, _Hist. de l’Art_, vi. p. 135 ff.; Furtwaengler and

Loeschcke, _Myken. Vasen_, p. 18; Pottier, _Louvre Cat._ i. p.

119 ff.; Hiller von Gaertringen, _Thera_, vol. ii. (1903), p. 127

ff.; _Ath. Mitth._ xxviii. (1903), p. 1 ff.

 

MELOS: Excavations of British School at Phylakopi (_J.H.S._

Suppl. Vol. iv. 1904). See also Dümmler in _Ath. Mitth._ xi.

(1886), p. 15 ff.

 

The earliest remains of pottery on Hellenic soil are to be sought

chiefly in the Cyclades and on the site of ancient Troy. We have

already had occasion to allude to the latter in speaking of the

earliest Cypriote fabrics, and it is therefore fitting that we should

now give it our first attention.

 

The site of =Troy=, now known as Hissarlik, was, as is well known,

first explored by Dr. Schliemann in his laudable endeavours to prove

the truth of the early Greek legends of the Trojan War. Although

doubtless there are visible links between the Homeric poems and the

discoveries at Hissarlik, and although it is not necessary to deny all

credence to the historical truth of the “Bible of the Greeks,” yet it

is now generally recognised that Dr. Schliemann’s pardonable enthusiasm

sometimes led him to hasty conclusions. For instance, Dr. Dörpfeld in

his more recent investigations proved that if any remains are to be

connected with the tale of Troy, it is those of the sixth, not of the

second or burnt city.[869] Nine layers in all have been traced, of

which the five lowest may be termed prehistoric, the third, fourth, and

fifth being mere villages on the ruins of the first two. In the lowest

and earliest of all, which may be roughly dated 3000–2500 B.C., flint

implements were found, together with rude black pottery: hand-made

utensils baked in the open, with rings for suspension in place of

handles.

 

The second city belongs to the period 2500–2000 B.C., and it is this

which has yielded pottery analogous to the earliest examples from

Cyprus (p. 238). It is of the same rough hand-polished black ware, with

decoration either of a plastic character or engraved in the clay while

wet and filled in with white paint. Apart from this there are no traces

of painted decoration, or of any slip; but the colour of the surface

varies with the firing. The patterns consist of zigzags, circles, and

other rudimentary geometrical ornaments. A few wheel-made specimens

were found, but the majority are made by hand. What artistic sense was

evinced by these primitive potters was shown exclusively in the forms,

and in the tendency which is especially conspicuous in primitive times,

though it lingered on through the history of Greek art, and again broke

out in the period of the decadence, to combine the ceramic and the

plastic idea, and to give to the vase the rude resemblance of the human

form.[870] That this was no far-fetched idea is shown by the universal

nomenclature which permits us to speak of the mouth, neck, shoulder,

body, and foot of a vase—a principle which has been extended by general

consent to countless inanimate objects. Thus we find the Hissarlik

potter incising eyes on the upper part of the vase, or affixing lumps

of clay to give a rude suggestion of ears, nose or breasts, or bands to

denote necklaces. The handles often seem intended for rudimentary arms,

and we are tempted to see in the hat-shaped covers of the vases the

idea of a head-covering. Schliemann even went so far as to regard them

as actual idols, and was led by the superficial resemblance of some to

the form of an owl into identifying them with figures of the “owl-eyed”

(γλαυκῶπις) Pallas Athena (cf. Fig. 77). But this interpretation has

not found favour for many reasons, and the accidental combination of

forms is obviously only an artistic phase. There are also many similar

shapes, such as plain jars and jugs, and deep funnel-shaped cups with

two graceful handles.

 

[Illustration: FIG. 77. “OWL-VASE” FROM TROY.]

 

M. Dumont[871] classifies the fabrics as follows: (1) ordinary vessels,

plates, etc.; (2) large jars or amphorae; (3) primitive kraters, deep

cups, etc.; (4) spherical vases with base-ring [?] and long neck[872];

(5) long two-handled cups; (6) vases reproducing the human form; (7)

vases in the form of pigs and other animals; (8) exceptional forms,

such as double vases; (9) vases with incised patterns, on one of which

a Sphinx is engraved. Figs. 78–80 give examples of classes (5), (7),

and (8); Fig. 77 a specimen of class (6).[873]

 

[Illustration: FIG. 78. FUNNEL-VASE FROM TROY.]

 

The Hissarlik pottery may be regarded as a local development, partly

parallel with that of Cyprus,[874] partly derivative therefrom; of

Oriental influence there are no traces, but the connection with Thera

and Cyprus is indisputable.

 

[Illustration: FIG. 79. VASE IN FORM OF PIG, FROM TROY.]

 

Passing over the unimportant traces of the three succeeding

settlements, we find in the sixth city a great advance. The plastic

forms disappear, and generally speaking the shapes become more

classical. Besides plain pottery with matt-black polished surface we

meet with painted vases with curvilinear and vegetable patterns. The

remains of genuine Mycenaean pottery, the fortifications and buildings,

with great halls in the style of Mycenae and Tiryns, bear out Dr.

Dörpfeld’s contention that this is the Troy of Homer. Two points among

the pottery finds of this period are worth noting; firstly that they

included a fragment of Cypriote “white-slip” ware, secondly that

Geometrical patterns mingle with the Mycenaean in the upper layers.

 

[Illustration: FIG. 80. VASE WITH TWO NECKS (TROY).]

 

The three remaining layers cover respectively the archaic period, the

developed Hellenic and Hellenistic periods, and the age in which the

city of Ilium was refounded by the Romans. Dr. Dörpfeld found some

interesting local fabrics dating from the fifth century, examples of

which had previously been obtained by Mr. Calvert for the British

Museum.[875]

 

* * * * *

 

Of almost equal antiquity with the remains at Hissarlik is some of the

pottery discovered in the Cyclades, and especially at =Thera=. Here,

indeed, we meet with the earliest known examples of Greek _painted_

pottery (Crete excepted), and that, as we shall see, of a remarkably

developed type.

 

The island of Thera may be described as a sort of prehistoric Pompeii

buried under volcanic deposits, which have completely transformed the

configuration of the island. The results of preliminary excavations by

the French in 1866 showed that the cataclysm which overwhelmed the

island must (on geological grounds) have taken place about the

twentieth century B.C., and that the remains of pottery must be

anterior to this event.[876] Herodotos[877] states that Kadmos founded

a settlement in the fourteenth century, and the Minyae again about the

twelfth, and the island must have been uninhabitable for a long time

previously.

 

The houses and other remains of civilisation discovered below the

volcanic deposits show an advance on Hissarlik (second city) and the

earliest Cypriote culture, and the pottery is no exception. The vases

are wheel-made, fired at a moderate heat in closed furnaces (sometimes

baked in the sun), and plastic forms are almost wanting.[878] Many are

pierced with holes in the bottom, for what purpose is not known. They

were often found _in situ_, mixed with stone implements, and with

evidence of having contained grain. The forms are very regular, a

cylindrical shape being specially affected, and they are made of a

badly levigated clay, covered with a greyish slip, on which the

patterns are laid in _matt_ colours—white, black, or red—without any

incised markings.

 

[Illustration:

 

From _Baumeister_.

FIG. 81. VASES FROM THERA.

]

 

M. Dumont distinguishes four varieties of ornament: simple patterns,

such as bands, hatchings, and dots; volutes, wave-patterns, and

intersecting circles; vegetable motives, such as long narrow leaves or

flowers; and animals, including deer, and ducks or swans. Generally

there is a strong predilection for vegetable motives, and in this

naturalistic tendency we may see the prelude to the Mycenaean period.

Among those now at the French School at Athens, which has the best

collection, are several interesting examples illustrated in Fig.

81.[879] One is a trefoil-mouthed jug with running quadrupeds in black,

and red bands, on a grey ground; another jug is painted with birds in

black, the details in red and white. A sort of cream-jug is decorated

with water-plant patterns; a cylindrical jar with oblique wreaths; and

a dish with seaweed. A funnel-shaped vase and a beak-mouthed jug are

obvious prototypes of Mycenaean forms.

 

The chief differences from the Hissarlik vases are in the forms and

methods of decoration, but resemblances may be noted in the long narrow

necks, and the rings for suspension, as in the plastic forms when they

do occur. That the fabric is a local one hardly admits of doubt, but it

is interesting to note the occurrence of a bowl of white-slip ware from

Cyprus in Thera,[880] and conversely the appearance of a vase of Thera

fabric at Mycenae.[881] Thus we have evidence of extensive commercial

relations. Some tombs of the Hellenic period seem to have been dug

right down into the volcanic deposit, for they contained pottery with

Geometrical decoration.[882]

 

The discovery of primitive stone idols in Thera shows that it belonged

to the Cycladic civilisation, which extended from 2500 to 1600 B.C.,

filling up the gap between Hissarlik and Mycenae. It has been suggested

that these Cycladic peoples were Carians,[883] subsequently driven to

the Asiatic mainland by Minos, who typifies the rising power of Crete

and the Mycenaean world.[884] This Cycladic civilisation is also

exemplified in the earliest finds from other islands, such as Amorgos,

Syra, Paros, and Antiparos, and in other instances noted early in the

century by the observant traveller Ross.[885] The pottery from these

sites is, however, less advanced than that of Thera, but varies in

character. Painted patterns were found on vases from Amorgos and Syra,

the latter in the form of brown foliage on yellow ground.

 

It would not be right to conclude this section without some notice of

the remarkably interesting pottery excavated at Phylakopi in =Melos= by

the British School in 1896–99, which is important as forming a

connecting link between the Cycladic wares and the fully-developed

Mycenaean style. Space forbids more than a brief abstract of the

results obtained, which have just been given to the world in an

admirable publication.[886] Mr. C. C. Edgar, to whom the task of

studying the pottery was allotted, distinguishes four main groups:

 

1. (_a_) Primitive pottery of the cist-tomb type, corresponding to

that of Hissarlik; (_b_) more advanced ware of the same kind.

 

2. Painted Geometrical wares.

 

3. Local pottery in Mycenaean style with spiral and naturalistic

designs, falling into two divisions, earlier and later.

 

4. Imported Mycenaean pottery of the third and fourth styles (see

below, p. 271).

 

Generally speaking the pottery is of local make, and Phylakopi seems to

have been an important centre in the early Mycenaean period, having

considerable intercourse with Crete. The earliest wares (class 1)

include plain pottery, hand-made, with burnished brown surface or

simple incised patterns; those of class 2 are painted in lustrous or

matt black on a white slip, or in white on lustrous black or red, with

simple patterns; they appear to be hand-made. The Mycenaean pottery is

more or less akin to that found elsewhere in the Aegean.

 

 

§ 3. Crete

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

 

Dumont-Pottier, i. p. 64 (finds in 1878 at Knossos); Milchhoefer,

_Anfänge der Kunst_; Furtwaengler and Loeschcke, _Myken. Vasen_,

p. 22; Pottier, _Louvre Cat._ i. p. 173; _Mon. Antichi_, vi. p.

333 ff.; _J.H.S._ xxi. p. 78 ff., xxiii. p. 157 ff.; _British

School Annual_, vi. p. 85 ff., vii. p. 51, and ix. p. 297 ff.;

_Proc. Soc. Antiqs._ xv. (1894), p. 351 ff.

 

In turning our attention next to the island of Crete, we are confronted

with a new element in Greek archaeology; namely, the results of the

recent discoveries, which as yet have hardly become material ripe for

use in a general handbook. On the other hand, their singular importance

deserves full recognition. It must, therefore, be borne in mind that

much in the succeeding section is merely the embodiment of previous

researches, and that the new evidence can only be briefly summarised.

 

Allusion has just been made to the thalassocracy of Minos and its

bearing on the history of early Greek civilisations, and the recent

discoveries have done much to show that the prince who built the great

palace at Knossos in the early days of Mycenaean civilisation, if he is

not actually the Minos of Greek legend, yet represents the rising power

which extended its dominion over the Aegean and drove the Carian people

to the mainland. This supremacy of Crete from the fifteenth to the

eleventh century was artistic as well as political. The Crete of Minos

was, moreover, the point of contact between the Aegean peoples and the

Oriental races; and in the story of the Minotaur we may perhaps see a

reflection of the human sacrifices offered to the Phoenician Moloch or

Melkarth. The familiar passage in Homer[887] which deals with the

ethnography of Crete speaks of four component elements, which may be

explained as (1) the Eteokretes, or aborigines of the island, to whom

the early civilisation exemplified in their ceramic and glyptic

products is mainly due; (2) the Kydonii or Leleges, brought by Minos

from the islands[888]; (3) the Achaeans or mainland Greeks of the

period of the Trojan War; (4) the Dorians, whose connection with the

island dates from the eleventh century onwards.

 

Even before the recent excavations pottery had been found in Crete

which dated from the dawn of the Mycenaean period, and from the

island’s early connection with Egypt was thought to be contemporaneous

with that of Hissarlik and Thera. From the circumstances of its first

appearance in any quantity at Kamaraes, in the plain of Ida, it has

usually been named after that place. Dr. Orsi discovered two fragments

of Hissarlik type at Phaestos,[889] also a vase of island type, one of

Thera type,[890] and some early Cypriote wares.[891] Large numbers of

fragments of this ware in the Museum at Candia were first noted by Dr.

Orsi and Mr. J. L. Myres about 1894.[892] The extensive discoveries

made by Messrs. Hogarth and Welch for the British School at Athens in

1899–1900 (see p. 60) have added still further to our knowledge of the

ware; and these, taken in conjunction with Mr. Arthur Evans’s extensive

finds at Knossos (1899–1902), have enabled a recent writer to draw up a

tentative classification of all the prehistoric pottery of Crete.[893]

 

In his paper Mr. Mackenzie divides the pottery into three main classes,

which he distinguishes as Neolithic, Early and Middle Minoan, and Late

Minoan. The first-named extends down to about 3000 B.C.; the second

covers the period 3000–2000 B.C.; and the third (including Mycenaean

pottery of the usual types) lasts down to 1500 B.C., about which time

the Cretan supremacy came to an end, and the Mycenaean centre of

gravity was shifted to the mainland of Greece.

 

(1) Pottery of the Neolithic period is quite exceptional in Aegean

localities; yet the evidence from the excavations is so unmistakable

that there can be no question of its great antiquity. It consists of

common household vessels of grey clay, hand-made and burnished; at

first devoid of decoration, but subsequently fragments appear with

incised patterns filled in with white. These, it may be noted, may help

to date the analogous wares from Troy and Egypt. The black surface

becomes more and more lustrous, and in some cases a sort of rippling

effect is produced in the soft clay with a blunt instrument[894];

finally an age of decline manifests itself, but at the same time an

advance is made from filling in hollows with white to painting in

colours on the flat surface.

 

(2) The pottery in this stage is still hand-made; but the clay, which

is of a brick or terracotta colour, is greatly improved, and shows that

a potter’s oven must have been employed. The most remarkable feature is

that, along with the white or polychrome patterns on dark ground, the

origin of which has been noted, there appear vases with patterns in

lustrous dark colour on buff ground, like the Mycenaean wares. Hitherto

it had been supposed that the latter process was much later than the

other[895]; but the Cretan evidence admits of no doubt as to their

synchronism, even at this early stage of painted pottery in any form.

The pre-Mycenaean character of the Early Minoan deposits is, for

instance, proved by the entire absence of plain pottery of Mycenaean

types. It is then clear that Crete developed both independently of, and

with far greater rapidity than, the rest of the Aegean at this period.

The painted patterns are usually of a Geometrical character.[896]

 

The middle deposits of the third millennium, found above the floors of

the first palace, are, like the preceding, both polychrome and

monochrome in their decoration. The former include most of the types

formerly known as Kamaraes ware, the patterns being mainly but not

exclusively Geometrical; the curvilinear are rather later in date. The

commonest shape is one resembling a tea-cup.[897] In the next stage

relief-work is introduced to enhance the polychrome effect, probably in

imitation of metal. In the latest deposits a great decline is manifest,

and the monochrome vases tend to assert themselves to the exclusion of

the others.

 

That the period under discussion must have been one of great length is

shown by the depth of the “Minoan” deposits; they are, moreover, so

extensive at Knossos, and so scanty and isolated are examples from

other sites, that it cannot be doubted that here we have the centre of

the fabric. As regards their date we have good evidence from early

Aegean deposits in Egypt. By means of Professor Petrie’s finds at Kahun

in the Fayûm, which include specimens of the best Minoan ware,[898] we

are able to place the height of the period about 2500 B.C.