History of Ancient Pottery 32

History of Ancient Pottery 32

1. THE GEOMETRICAL PERIOD

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

 

Perrot, _Hist. de l’Art_, vii. p. 154 ff.; _Ann. dell’ Inst._ 1872,

p. 138 ff.; _Jahrbuch_, 1886, p. 94 ff.; 1899, pp. 26, 78, 188;

_Ath. Mitth._ 1881, p. 106; 1892, p. 285; 1893, p. 73 ff.; 1896,

p. 385 ff.; Pottier, _Louvre Cat._ i. p. 212 ff. For Boeotian

Geometrical pottery, Böhlau in _Jahrbuch_, 1888, p. 325 ff.; for

early Argive wares, Waldstein, _Argive Heraeum_, i. p. 49 ff.

 

The Dorian invasion of Greece, which is generally supposed to have

taken place in the twelfth century—the traditional date is about 1100

B.C.—was, like the contemporaneous Etruscan immigration (Chapter

XVIII.), only an episode in the general displacement taking place

throughout Europe. In Greece it caused a dispersion of the Achaean

race, chiefly in the direction of Asia Minor, which, as we have already

seen, probably gave rise to the stories of the Trojan War and

subsequent adventures of the Achaean leaders. In other words, the

Mycenaean civilisation was driven to seek a new home elsewhere, and to

lay the foundations of a new artistic development in the cities of

Aeolis and Ionia. But its disappearance from Greece was not complete,

and Hellenic Greece was from the beginning an amalgam of the old and

new elements, the Achaean (or Ionian) and the Dorian, in which one or

the other had at different times or in different places the

pre-eminence. The Ionian element represents the civilisation of the

Mediterranean, succeeding to that of the Mycenaean world; the Dorian,

the influence of Central Europe.[930]

 

It has hitherto been a truism of archaeology that the Dorians brought

with them from Central Europe a new form of art, of which the chief

characteristic is that of _rectilinear and geometrical decoration_,

forming, it is obvious, a marked contrast to the curvilinear and

naturalistic Mycenaean designs. This new principle was thought to be

most conspicuously illustrated by the pottery which now replaces the

Mycenaean. But certain recent discoveries have given occasion for some

scepticism in regard to the acceptance of this idea as conveying the

whole truth; and even if they do not radically alter preconceived

ideas, they are at least worthy of consideration.

 

At Aphidna in Attica a find has been made of very rude pottery, without

glaze or varnish, but with decoration of a Geometrical character,

sometimes painted.[931] Although earlier than any other pottery in

Attica, it need not be pre-Mycenaean in date; it seems more likely to

be a _contemporary survival_. Early wares have also been found in the

islands, as in Aegina, with Geometrical ornament in _matt_-colour; nor

must we forget that the Geometrical principle was known in Cyprus and

the Cyclades, as also at Hissarlik, at a very remote age. From these

data Dr. Wide has ingeniously drawn the conclusion that the Geometrical

style was always indigenous in Greece,[932] pointing out that it was

more likely and more in accordance with historical precedent that the

Dorians, like Rome in later days, accepted the art of the people they

conquered[933] than that they introduced their own and forced it upon

the subjugated race. This theory has the additional merit of disposing

of a difficulty which had always been felt. If the Geometrical pottery

was Dorian, how do we account for its reaching its height in Attica,

which was never at any time Doric, or influenced by Doric

characteristics? But if it can be shown to be indigenous in Attica, the

difficulty disappears.

 

Again, it is necessary to explain the varying character of Geometrical

pottery in different parts of Greece, as compared with the homogeneity

of the Mycenaean wares. If, as was supposed, the Geometrical style came

full-grown into Greece, why should this be? Dr. Wide therefore

maintains that there were in Greece _concurrently_ a _Bauernstil_ or

domestic art, aboriginal and industrial, which produced the rude

geometrical fabrics, and a _Herrenstil_ or _art de luxe_, exotic and

ornamental, which we know as Mycenaean. With the upheaval and

dispersion of the Achaean aristocracy this art practically died out,

but the humbler industry held its ground, and gradually forged its way

to comparative excellence, perhaps learning much from Mycenaean

technique.

 

The real novelty of the developed Geometrical pottery which now

manifests itself in Greece consists in its evolution _as a style_, and

the combination of the patterns into an artistic system, with a

continuous progress towards symmetry and rhythm. Geometrical patterns

are indeed the property of all primitive peoples, and are no less

spontaneous and universal in their origin than the folk-lore stories

which we find adopting the same or similar forms in all parts of the

world. In Greece, no doubt, the cultured traditions of Mycenaean art

had in course of time their due effect, and both in technique and in

ornament left their impress on the inferior fabrics,[934] as we have

seen to have been the case, especially in the Greek islands. It is an

influence which is not confined to the pottery, but made itself felt,

for instance, in architecture. It can hardly be doubted that in the

Lion Gate of Mycenae we find the prototype of the Doric column; and the

parallel with the Geometrical pottery can be further followed up when

we consider that Doric architecture also became the common property of

Continental Greece, and also realised its highest perfection at Athens.

 

The Geometrical pottery has been found in great numbers in Attica and

Boeotia, in the islands of Aegina, Melos, Thera, Rhodes, and

Crete,[935] in Argolis and Laconia, in Sicily and Etruria, and also

isolated specimens in Cyprus and the Troad.[936] That found in Italy

and Cyprus is certainly exported from the mainland. It has been

observed that each region has its own peculiar variety of the style,

and this is especially conspicuous in the examples from Attica and

Boeotia.[937] The first writer who attempted to deal with it

scientifically was Conze,[938] but owing to its clearly-defined

characteristics it has always been more or less correctly treated by

the older schools of archaeologists. But with a more extended outlook

over the fabrics of early Hellas, many problems have arisen in

connection with it which have called for more recent discussion, and

the writings of Kroker, Böhlau, and Wide in particular should be

studied.[939]

 

At Mycenae fragments of Geometrical pottery were found both on the

surface and in the palace, among the débris of the huts built on its

site; while in the island of Salamis there is a cemetery of distinctly

transitional character, containing false amphorae with linear

decoration and combinations of the spiral with the maeander.[940] It

may be noted that a similar transitional cemetery was found by Mr.

Paton at Assarlik in Caria,[941] and that the “sub-Mycenaean” pottery

of Cyprus (p. 246) has been shown to exhibit the same combination of

features. These facts fall into line with what has already been said as

to the survival of Mycenaean art in these fabrics.

 

From the fact that large quantities of this ware have been obtained

from the tombs of the Kerameikos near the Dipylon Gate of Athens,

chiefly between 1870 and 1891, it has frequently been styled _Dipylon

ware_; but it is questionable whether this title should not be reserved

for varieties peculiar to this site. These Dipylon tombs were in the

form of deep quadrangular trenches, and the bodies had been sometimes

inhumed, sometimes cremated, the bones being placed in vessels of

bronze or clay, containing smaller objects. Above the trenches was a

layer of earth mixed with burnt offerings, on the top of which,

_outside the tombs_, were placed the large painted vases (representing

the tombstones or stone sepulchral vases of later times) which now form

a prominent part of the collections at Athens and in the Louvre.[942]

 

* * * * *

 

Turning to treat of their general characteristics, we note that the

vases are all wheel-made, of a carefully-prepared red clay covered with

a lustrous and impermeable yellow slip, on which the designs are

painted in the same lustrous black as the Mycenaean wares. Later, but

rarely, white is introduced as an accessory. As regards the shapes,

there is less variety than in Mycenaean pottery. They include the

typical forms of Dipylon vases, a large wide-mouthed _krater_ on a high

stem, and an _amphora_ with cylindrical neck and side-handles; also the

_lebes_, the cylindrical jug or _olpe_, the wide bowl or _skyphos_, and

the _pyxis_ or covered jar. Open-work stands for vases are often found

in the Cyclades.[943] On the covers of the _pyxides_ a group of two or

three rudely-modelled horses sometimes forms the handle. In considering

the forms generally, it is permissible to say that the potter of the

day was in advance of his Mycenaean predecessor, although the painter

was not.

 

The decoration follows a development which permits of the division of

Geometrical vases into three periods, in which we follow Kroker[944]:

(1) for a long time it is exclusively limited to Geometrical patterns,

and (2) even when quadrupeds and birds are introduced they are still

only decorative (as in Boeotia); (3) finally, while the animals take a

subsidiary place, human figures and large compositions spring into

prominence. But this final development is chiefly characteristic of

Athens. Wide distinguishes four varieties of the Dipylon ware: (_a_)

amphorae, with black varnished bodies and designs only on the neck;

(_b_) “black Dipylon ware,” mainly varnished, but more decorated than

(_a_); (_c_) large vases, with linear decoration or figures all over in

horizontal friezes (the tomb-amphorae); (_d_) as the last, but with

vertical panels, divided like metopes. His view is that these represent

a continuous development, but that the style did not last long in

Attica. Returning to Kroker’s classification, it must be borne in mind

that the three classes are not successive in point of _time_, only in

artistic development; the plain linear decoration survived throughout,

and is often found in tombs contemporaneously with the figure subjects.

 

The patterns are mainly, though not exclusively, rectilinear, and

sometimes extremely elaborate. The favourite are a large bold maeander,

chevrons, chequers, and arrangements of hatched lines; also squares,

with diagonals and much ground-ornament. Among the simpler motives are

lines of dots, triangles, lozenges, and various forms of crosses; but

concentric and “tangent” circles occur not infrequently, the latter

being clearly derived from the Mycenaean spiral, and one vegetable

motive appears in the form of a conventionalised leaf, later developed

into a rosette. M. Perrot[945] gives a very instructive diagram of the

typical scheme of ornamentation on the neck and body of a vase,

including most of the principal varieties. It should also be noted that

these patterns occur frequently on the field of the designs as

ground-ornaments, to cover the vacant spaces.

 

In the arrangement of the patterns an architectural instinct is clearly

at work, the influence of the Doric metope being especially prominent.

They are usually arranged, as the diagram (Fig. 83) shows, in

horizontal bands round the neck and body, like the bands of painted

ornament on the entablature of a temple. The metopes and triglyphs are

represented by large square patterns of ornament, separated by narrow

vertical strips of simpler motives (cf. Fig. 84). The introduction of

the frieze principle proper is a later development. Generally speaking,

there is an invariable tendency towards symmetry and refinement in the

arrangement. When figure subjects begin to be introduced, it betokens a

great advance in decorative art, especially over the Cypriote and other

varieties of the style. In the tendency to a _horror vacui_, the style

is inferior to Mycenaean, as also in the figure-drawing, of which more

anon. The absence of any plant-ornament is most characteristic, as

showing the great change from the Mycenaean spirit; but it was not long

before this element was destined to reappear and virtually usurp the

field of decoration.[946]

 

[Illustration:

 

From _Perrot’s Hist. de l’Art_.

FIG. 83. SCHEME OF ORNAMENTATION ON GEOMETRICAL VASES.

]

 

In regard to its ornamentation the Geometrical style may be said to

have attained success. It is not so, however, with its representations

of living form, least of all those of human beings. But this is only in

accordance with the principle which M. Pottier styles the _hierarchie

des genres_, a principle which is universal in all early development of

Greek art, and to which we have already referred (p. 245: see also p.

315). Briefly it is this: first, the predominance of pure _ornament_

and the perfecting of the same; secondly, the employment of _animal_

forms and the relegation of ornament to a subsidiary place; thirdly and

lastly, the rise and development of _human_ forms, the other animals

ceasing to form the main theme of decoration, and sinking to the level

of mere decorative adjuncts.

 

[Illustration: FIG. 84. GEOMETRICAL VASE WITH PANELS (BRIT. MUS.).]

 

Hence we find that figures of animals when first introduced on

Geometrical vases are of a conventional and ill-drawn character, but

show a gradual progress and development. Human forms again, which now

appear for the first time, are only seen in a very rude and undeveloped

stage, from which there is continuous development throughout the

archaic period till perfection is reached in the fifth century. Their

original extreme conventionality may be the result of a training in

Egyptian canons of art.

 

The favourite animal motives are the horse, the deer, and water-fowl.

The first also appears in a plastic form, surmounting the covers of

vases and forming a sort of handle. Usually a single animal is seen in

a metope-like panel (cf. Fig. 84), and the frieze system is seldom

found at this period. A curious conception is that of a lion or wolf

devouring a man, whose legs are seen protruding from its mouth, and

this appears to have been adopted by the Etruscans, on whose archaic

bronze-work and bucchero vases it sometimes occurs.[947] The lions on

the Geometrical vases, it may be noted in passing, are obviously drawn

without knowledge, and borrowed from Asiatic art; the same conventional

type obtains at a later date, as in the Burgon lebes (below, p. 296).

 

Human figures are almost confined to the large vases from the Dipylon

cemetery, which are evidently a purely local product; almost the only

exceptions are two from Boeotia (see below, p. 288), and one from

Rhodes in the British Museum (A 439). The infantile and barbarous style

of the figures recalls in a measure the primitive marble idols from the

Cyclades; there is seldom any actual distinction of sex, the narrow

waist, wide hips, and tapering limbs being apparently common to both.

The figures being painted in plain silhouette, there is no attempt at

rendering features. Where it is intended to represent a warrior, the

body is completely hidden behind a shield of the Boeotian type

[Boeotian shield], a ready resource of the artist for avoiding

anatomical difficulties, which was also adopted later by his

seventh-century Corinthian successors, except that in the latter case

the shield is circular.

 

The subjects include battles and naval scenes, dances of women hand in

hand, and funeral processions. From the combination of ships with

funeral scenes, it would seem that they were sometimes used for

carrying the dead. A remarkable lebes recently acquired by the British

Museum[948] is decorated with a large ship-of-war with two banks of

rowers (bireme), and appears to represent a warrior landing therefrom

on shore.[949] The funeral scenes on the great Dipylon vases are

exceedingly elaborate, and exhibit a corpse drawn on a bier,

accompanied by chariots and bands of mourning women beating their

heads.[950] By a conventional attempt at perspective the figures are

often placed above the central group when they are supposed to be on

its farther side, just as, in the fresco from Tiryns, and an

“Island-gem” of the Mycenaean period, a man leading a bull is

represented over its back.[951]

 

Two very interesting specimens of Geometrical fabrics are in the

museum at Kopenhagen,[952] late indeed and almost transitional in

character, but still typical. One is a deep two-handled cup or bowl

with long panels on either side, in two tiers; the upper ones are

filled with ornaments and animals, and in the lower are several

subjects—combatants, lyre-players, a dance of armed men with shield

and spear, two lions devouring a man (see above), and men with jugs

and lustral branches preparing for some religious rite. The other is

a jug, with very little ornamentation except on the background of the

designs, which also include several subjects. On the neck is a man

holding horses; on the shoulder, dogs pursuing a hare; and on the

body, combats on land and sea.

 

In the range of subjects a general correspondence with epic poetry is

to be noted,[953] as in the funerals and combats; but there are some

important discrepancies, such as the _quadriga_ in place of the Homeric

_biga_, the types of the ships, and in the appearance of horsemen,

which are of course unknown to Homer.[954]

 

The Geometrical vases found in Boeotia form an important and distinct

local variety, which calls for separate treatment. The existence of

this local style was first suspected by Furtwaengler in 1878 on seeing

the first finds made at Thebes, and it has since been studied with

great care and detail by Böhlau.[955] Among these finds were, in

addition to the recognised local pottery, ordinary (imported) Dipylon

vases, and later Proto-Corinthian and Corinthian wares, as well as

bronze fibulae and terracotta figures, to which subsequent reference

must be made. Similar pottery was also found in large numbers on the

site of the temple of Apollo at Mount Ptoös in 1885–91, and other

examples have turned up at Tanagra. It has been suggested, though on

somewhat slight grounds, that Aulis was the centre of the local fabric;

and, further, it was supposed by Böhlau, who is supported by

Perrot,[956] that the Boeotian wares represent a primitive phase of the

Geometrical pottery, anterior to the Dipylon, and consequently that

Boeotia is the original home of the style as a whole. But in view of

what has been said above, and generally of the relation of the Boeotian

pottery to the Dipylon, and to the later Proto-Corinthian, it seems

doubtful if this view can be maintained. Moreover, it has been pointed

out by M. Holleaux,[957] in discussing the Ptoös finds, that the pure

Geometrical vases were found at a lower level than the typical local

wares, and were never found either with them or with the analogous

terracotta figures. This certainly points to the later origin of the

Boeotian pottery.

 

The local clay differs from that of Athens both in nature and

appearance, being less well levigated and of a reddish-yellow colour,

as compared with the warm brown of the Dipylon. Further, the designs

are not laid directly on the clay, as in the latter, but on a thin

creamy-yellow slip, as in Mycenaean and Ionian pottery. The technique

is, generally speaking, inferior, as is also the black pigment used;

the work is rough and hasty, the drawing careless and inaccurate.

 

The vases are mostly small, at least compared with those of the

Dipylon, and the favourite shape is the _kylix_, with or without a

stem. Out of seventy-two examples given by Böhlau, no less than

fifty-five take this form. He traces its development from a deep bowl

with “base-ring,” which seems to be related to the Cypriote white-slip

one-handled bowls; but the Boeotian type has at first two small

finger-pieces in place of handles, afterwards replaced by a single

handle for hanging up. The majority, however, have no less than four

handles, and that they were still intended for suspension is shown by

the method of decoration which can only be properly seen in this

position (cf. Fig. 85).

 

[Illustration:

 

From _Jahrbuch_.

FIG. 85. BOEOTIAN GEOMETRICAL VASES (BERLIN MUSEUM).

]

 

There is a wearisome uniformity in the patterns, and indeed in the

decoration generally. Only two examples are known from Boeotia with

human figures,[958] and the rest belong to the intermediate class, with

its combination of animals and decorative patterns. On the exterior is

usually a broad frieze, divided by bands of ornament into four or five

fields, in which are birds or palmette patterns; these panels are not

necessarily arranged with reference to the position of the handles. The

patterns comprise rows of vertical zigzags, dotted lozenges, chevrons,

latticed triangles, rosettes, and scrolls, the first-named being

specially characteristic of Boeotia. It is to be noted that the typical

Athenian motives, the maeander and the ornamented square, do not occur;

in fact, these bowls have no analogies in the Dipylon ware. But it is

also interesting to observe the appearance of a new vegetable element

in the form of friezes of palmettes and lotos-flowers.[959] The

importance of this feature is due to the extensive part it was destined

to play in the ornamentation of Greek vases all through the sixth

century. Some of the palmettes are remarkably advanced, and the whole

pattern is even emancipated from the confinement of the frieze, and

treated freely without regard to space.[960] Böhlau, in his analysis of

the ornament as a whole, notes its independence of the Athenian vases,

though remaining a parallel and closely-related development.

 

Individual vases do not call for much comment, but there is a curious

coffer of terracotta from Thebes in Berlin (Fig. 86),[961] painted with

figures in this style. The subjects include the Asiatic Artemis, a

hare-hunt, a woman leading a horse, a horse tied up, and two serpents

erect, confronted. The ground is filled in with rosettes, crosses, and

other ornaments, such as the so-called _swastika_