History of Ancient Pottery 33

History of Ancient Pottery 33

While on the subject of the Boeotian vases it is worth while to call

attention to the remarkable parallels presented by two other classes of

objects also found in that region: bronze fibulae and terracotta

statuettes. The former may be regarded as important chronological

evidence, inasmuch as their development can be clearly traced from

their first appearance at the end of the Mycenaean period (about the

tenth century), and similar types have been found in Rhodes, at

Olympia, and elsewhere. The characteristic of the Boeotian fibulae is

the flat plate which forms the foot (in some cases the central part or

bow), and is generally of a quadrangular form, decorated with an

engraved subject, usually animals or birds of a similar type to those

painted in the panels on the vases. More rarely ships or human figures

are found.[962]

 

The terracotta figures (p. 123), on the other hand, bear a different

relation to the pottery. They are flat board-like figures (σανίδες),

known to the modern Greek digger as “Pappades,” the high head-dress

which they wear suggesting to him the well-known hat of the orthodox

“Papas” or priest. The flat surface of the body gives scope for

ornamentation representing embroidered robes,[963] and the patterns

employed are just those which are seen on the vases; and, moreover, the

method of painting is the same, the figures being covered with a buff

slip, the patterns in black with purple details. It should be remarked

that some of these figures are comparatively developed in style,[964]

and that they are practically _later imitations_ of the decoration of

the vases.

 

* * * * *

 

In considering the Geometrical vases as a whole, we are struck with the

laudable aspirations of the artist, who, though unable to execute his

new ambitions with complete success, yet shows in his work the same

promise of the future that is latent in all early Greek art. His best

achievement is in the ornamentation. Oriental influences as yet count

for very little, though they are perhaps to be discerned in the human

figures, as already noted; Kroker also thinks that the nude female

figures on the larger vases are due to Oriental art.[965] In any case

they are not to be traced until late in the period, and first, as might

be expected for geographical reasons, in the fabrics found at Kameiros

in Rhodes.

 

The question of chronology must next be considered. That the developed

Geometrical style succeeds to the Mycenaean, and forms a link between

it and the early Attic attempts at black-figured ware, of which we

shall subsequently treat, is sufficiently clear. It may also be laid

down that the Dipylon ware represents the last stage of Geometrical

decoration, being in point of fact too far advanced to be regarded as a

purely typical Geometrical ware. Such data as the finding of iron in

the tombs, or the evidence of finds at Troy,[966] also tend to place

the beginning of the style at least as early as the tenth century. It

has also been noted that the figures correspond closely with the

bronzes of Olympia which are dated about the ninth century, and this,

if accepted, necessitates placing the simpler linear decoration back as

far as the tenth. The lower limits of the style may be roughly fixed by

the evidence from the tombs of Etruria, discussed in Chapter XVIII., at

about 700 B.C.

 

Next, there is the evidence afforded by the ships,[967] which it should

be noted are all of the bireme or διήρης form, with two banks of oars.

The invention of the trireme, as we learn from Thucydides (i. 13, 5),

was due to Ameinokles, about the year 704 B.C. Hence Kroker’s dating of

the Dipylon vases about the year 700 can hardly be accepted. But the

eighth century may be taken as representing the latest period of the

Geometrical pottery, both in Attica and Boeotia. The curious

inscription engraved on a Dipylon vase from Athens is dealt with

elsewhere (Chapter XVII.); undoubtedly the earliest known Attic

inscription, its value as evidence is limited to that of a _terminus

ante quem_, from the fact that it was probably engraved at a subsequent

time to the manufacture of the vase.

 

The question of centres of manufacture is one that has already been the

subject of some discussion,[968] the result of which has been to show

that there is no complete homogeneity in the wares from different

sites, and consequently no one central fabric. The colossal funerary

vases, which, it may be remarked in passing, stand at the head of a

long line of funerary fabrics and show the Athenian fondness for this

class of vase,[969] were not, and could not have been, generally

exported, in spite of the notable exception at Curium. The ordinary

wares might have been made in some one place (probably a Dorian centre,

not Attica or Boeotia); but we have seen that most finds, as in Rhodes,

present local peculiarities.[970] Athens at this period was not

sufficiently advanced to become the centre of large potteries, and did

not become so, as we shall see, before the age of the Peisistratidae;

such vases as were made were strictly confined to special purposes. It

is a curious fact that very little Geometrical ware was found on the

Acropolis.

 

The Geometrical pottery of Cyprus has already been discussed in its

relation to that of Greece (pp. 249, 253)[971]; but there is yet

another region which passed through a Geometrical period similar to

that of Greece, and that is Etruria (see Chapter XVIII.). It is,

however, better illustrated by the metal products of the Villanova

period, such as the bronze discs and large cinerary urns, than by the

local pottery, which never reached the same level as in Greece; in the

former the same combinations of elaborate ornament with rude animals

and yet ruder human figures may be witnessed, and it is possible that

importations from Greece may have had a share in influencing these

products. They cover the period from the tenth to the eighth century

B.C.

 

§ 2. ATTICA, BOEOTIA, AND MELOS

 

Following on to the Geometrical vases both in chronological and

artistic sequence is a small class of Athenian vases, which, more for

convenience than with regard to strict accuracy, have been styled

=Proto-Attic=. The term has this much of truth in it, that the group

may be said to stand at the head of, and in direct relation to, the

long series of painted vases produced in the Athenian potteries for

some two centuries afterwards. It is only of late years that a

sufficient number of these vases has become known for them to be

studied as a separate class, and even when Böhlau first drew attention

to them, in 1887, only two or three were known. The list up to date is

as follows (the order being roughly chronological):—

 

1. Athens 467

 

(_Couve’s Amphora Kerameikos _Ath. Mitth._ 1892, pl.

Cat._) 10.

 

2. Berlin 56 Amphora Hymettos _Jahrbuch_, 1887, pl. 5.

 

3. Athens 468 Hydria Analatos _ibid._ pls. 3, 4.

(Phaleron)

 

4. Athens 464 Lebes Thebes _ibid._ pl. 4.

 

5. Athens 469 Amphora Pikrodaphni _Bull. de Corr. Hell._

1893, pls. 2, 3.

 

6. Athens Mus. Amphora Kynosarges _J.H.S._ xxii. pls. 2–4.

 

7. Athens 650 Fragment Aegina Benndorf, _Gr. u. Sic._

_Vasenb._ pl. 54.

 

8. Athens 657 Amphora Kerameikos _Ant. Denkm._ i. pl. 57.

 

9. Athens 651 Amphora Peiraeus Ἐφ. Ἀρχ. 1897, pl. 5.

 

10. Berlin 1682 Lebes Aegina _Arch. Zeit._ 1882, pls.

9, 10.

 

11. B.M. A 535 Lebes Athens Rayet and Collignon, p.

43 = Fig. 87.

 

We may also add to this list Athens 652–664, a vase from Aegina

(_Ath. Mitth._ 1897, pl. 8), B.M. A 1531 (_Bull. de Corr. Hell._

1898, p. 285), and another at Athens (_ibid._ p. 283).

 

It will be noticed that the majority are of the amphora form, and that

all without exception have been found in or near Athens, which leaves

little room for doubt as to their origin.

 

A close connection with the Dipylon vases may be observed in the first

three, not only in shape and technique, but in decoration. In No. 2,

which we may take as typical of the oldest form of the Attic amphora, a

combination of Geometrical and Mycenaean ornament is to be observed,

but the figures of the warriors are purely Hellenic, like those of the

Euphorbos pinax (p. 335). The shape of No. 3 is typical of the

Geometrical vases, with its long neck and slim body, and it is perhaps

more accurately called a three-handled jug than a hydria, though at the

same time it is clearly the prototype of the later Attic hydria. The

panel on the neck of the vase (also seen in No. 6) is also a

Geometrical feature, and the figures therein are quite in the Dipylon

style. On the other hand, in the arrangement of the designs in

continuous friezes without vertical divisions we trace the incoming

influence of a foreign style—the Rhodian or Ionian. Other motives

again, such as the birds and the vegetable ornaments, have nothing of

the Geometrical or Ionian about them, and may perhaps be directly

derived from Mycenaean vases. But the typically Geometrical lozenges,

zigzags, etc., still hold their own. In No. 6 Mr. Cecil Smith notes

that the ornamentation covering the field of the design is partly

rectilinear and geometrical, partly floral and of Mycenaean origin. The

spiral pattern which here closes the design, and is also seen on No. 1,

is again an instance of Mycenaean influence, and is a motive which

became exceedingly popular. In another seventh-century class, the

so-called Melian vases, it is absolutely overdone, but the more

restrained Attic tradition is preserved for many years as an

appropriate decoration for the division of the designs under the

handles, especially in the red-bodied amphorae of the developed B.F.

style. This vase has some other unusual features, such as incised

lines, which are also found on some early Attic fragments from the

Acropolis,[972] but seem to appear equally early at Corinth, so that it

is impossible to say certainly if the process is an Attic invention. At

all events it is not Ionian, as its place is taken on the east of the

Aegean by lines of white paint (_e.g._ in the Clazomenae sarcophagi).

Curiously enough, in this same vase (No. 6) may be noted attempts at

this very process, here, no doubt, as on the Ionian vases, due to

Mycenaean influence (see p. 331); but it is unique in early Attic

work.[973] The peculiar treatment of the eye and hair is also worthy of

attention.

 

To sum up the characteristics of the Proto-Attic vases, it may be said

that they represent the transformation of the Attico-Dorian element

into the Attico-Ionian, just as we shall see in the next stage a

further transformation under new influences into Attico-Corinthian (p.

324). The Ionian influence brings with it into Attica not only a

revival of Mycenaean elements, but also traces of Orientalism.[974] The

general appearance of the decoration links it with the Geometrical, but

closer examination shows the admixture of spirals, rosettes, and

lotos-flowers with the lozenges and zigzags, while the Geometrical

animal-types are combined with new ones from Ionia, such as the lion,

and the funeral scenes and combats are supplanted by Centaurs and

winged genii of Assyrian character.[975] Further, there is a distinct

tendency to get rid of the old silhouette and to draw in outline, a

practice typical of Ionia and a direct heritage from Mycenaean

vase-paintings. As in the Rhodian vases, the bodies are rendered in

full colour, the heads in outline; while the practice of covering the

field with ground-ornaments is also a peculiarly Rhodian

characteristic. These latter, however, gradually disappear, as do the

Geometrical conventions in the drawing of the figures.

 

The amphora-type develops steadily onwards from the Berlin Hymettos

amphora, which, as has been pointed out, is the oldest Attic variety.

In some of the forms, as in No. 5, there are traces of a metallic

origin, shown by the open-work handles and other details.[976]

Generally speaking, there is a tendency towards the colossal, and

towards emphasising the figure-decoration, not only by increasing the

size of the figures, but by confining the subject to one side. M.

Pottier thinks that this is due to architectural influences, and

suggests a comparison with a temple-façade. But the local traditions

are still strong, and in spite of the influence of the lively and

original Ionic style, the vases remain “continental” at bottom, the

drawing always soberer and more powerful throughout. In many respects

there is, as we shall see, a close parallelism with the so-called

Melian fabrics.

 

No. 11, the large Burgon lebes in the British Museum (Fig. 87), is one

of the latest representatives of the Proto-Attic class; its

Ionic-looking lions and “Rhodian” wealth of ground-ornaments seem to

suggest Asiatic influences, the presence of which has been accounted

for above. Moreover, the loop-pattern on the reverse is distinctly

Proto-Attic, and finds its parallels on vases found at Eretria,[977] as

well as on others of the class under consideration.

 

[Illustration: FIG. 87. BURGON LEBES (BRITISH MUSEUM).]

 

Another interesting point in connection with the Proto-Attic vases is

the introduction of mythological subjects, as on No. 6 (Herakles and

Antaios), No. 8 (Herakles and the Centaur Nessos), No. 10 (Perseus and

Athena, and a Harpy[978]). The only parallel to this early appearance

of myths on vases is to be found in the Melian class (see below, p.

301), the Aristonoös krater (see below) and the Euphorbos pinax (p.

335), which, however, is of later date. It will be seen that they only

occur in the later group of the Attic vases.

 

------------------------------------------------------

 

PLATE XVI

 

[Illustration:

 

From _Wiener Vorl._

THE ARISTONOÖS KRATER (IN THE VATICAN).

]

 

------------------------------------

 

On two of these it is to be noted that inscriptions occur, identifying

the figures (Nos. 8 and 10). These are the oldest painted inscriptions

on Attic vases, but henceforward they increase in number, at least in

the Athenian and Corinthian fabrics; they are always more

characteristic of the mainland than of Asia Minor.[979] There are two

early signed vases which may possibly represent the work of Athenian

artists prior to the time of the François vase, the cup by Oikopheles

at Oxford,[980] and the famous vase of Aristonophos,[981] Ariston of

Kos (ὁ Κῷος), Aristonothos, or Aristonoös as various scholars interpret

the name.[982] The former, however, is somewhat archaistic in

character, with careless rather than incompetent drawing, and hardly

earlier than the sixth century; and the latter has been claimed with

much probability as Ionian work, on account of the treatment of certain

details, as well as on the ground of the name Ariston of Kos (if this

interpretation be accepted). The inscription is not conclusive either

way, and it may also be here remarked that the krater has several

points of resemblance with the well-known “Warrior” vase of Mycenae

(Fig. 88),[983] which is probably later in date than the rest of the

pottery from that site, being found outside the Acropolis. The

Aristonoös vase (Plate XVI.) is usually dated in the seventh century,

and is interesting for its subjects as well as for its artistic

position. On one side is a sea-fight, a subject only common on Greek

vases in the Geometrical period, and therefore obviously derived from

that source; on the other, the blinding of Polyphemos by Odysseus, a

subject popular in archaic vase-painting (see Chapter XIV.), and found

in Cyrenaic and other early examples. At first sight this vase would

certainly seem to be of the Proto-Attic class, showing the transition

from Geometrical to developed Attic style; but the Mycenaean and Ionian

elements must not be left out of consideration. As regards the Warrior

vase, M. Pottier has given good grounds for showing that it also is to

be reckoned as Proto-Attic. But we must not leave out of sight the view

urged by Furtwaengler,[984] that the Aristonoös vase is of an Argive

fabric. When the Heraion finds are published, they may afford more

evidence on this point. Meanwhile, it may be remarked that the

circumstances of the finding of the Warrior vase may support this view.

 

[Illustration: FIG. 88. VASE FROM MYCENAE, WITH WARRIORS.]

 

Closely connected with these early Attic fabrics is a very interesting

series of small vases which, from the place of their discovery, are

usually known as =Phaleron ware=. They are nearly all small jugs, and

number some fifty, mostly at Athens, but there is a representative

series in the British Museum. More conspicuously, perhaps, than the

Proto-Attic, they illustrate the growing tendency to combine

Geometrical and Oriental influences. In form and technique they are

Geometrical, but in the ornamentation there is a large admixture of

Oriental elements. It has been said that “the whole character of these

vases seems to reflect an influence of the style of Oriental vases on

painters accustomed to the Dipylon style,”[985] and it is largely in

the arrangement of the decoration that the former is apparent, as well

as in the introduction of new motives and patterns.[986] See for

examples Plate XVII. figs. 2, 4, 5.

 

[Illustration:

 

From _Ath. Mitth._ 1890.

 

FIG. 89. VASE OF PROTO-ATTIC

TYPE FROM VOURVA.

]

 

The usual scheme consists of a panel with figures on the neck, a band

of ornament round the shoulder, and below that parallel bands of lines

or other ornaments, with zigzags or rays round the foot. A typical

example is A 471 in the British Museum, with a cock on the neck, and

below, dogs pursuing a hare.[987] On a cup of Geometrical form, with

conventionalised plants and ground-ornaments of Geometrical character,

are two deer fleeing from a lion, and there is also a pyxis with

chariot-scenes obviously derived from Mycenaean vases. But most curious

and interesting is a jug with two bearded heads and a woman with very

small body, apparently playing flutes.[988] The general effect is quite

unique, but the drawing is rude and childish to a degree; the middle

head is almost Semitic in type. It would seem that here again we have a

Mycenaean influence at work, and in general the appearance and style of

these vases undoubtedly recall the figured vases from Cyprus.[989]

 

Another series of vases in close relation to the Proto-Attic fabrics is

that found at Vourva, near Marathon[990]; they are important as forming

a connecting link with the next development of Attic vase-painting, the

Tyrrhenian amphorae described at the conclusion of this chapter. They

have been studied by Böhlau,[991] and more recently by Nilsson,[992]

and these writers have shown how they represent the influence of Ionic

ideas, derived through Euboea. On the other hand the friezes of

animals, which are so characteristic of this class, are clearly derived

from Corinthian sources, but are distinguished from those on Corinthian

vases by the absence of accessory colours. Fig. 89[993] may be taken as

a typical example. They appear to be contemporary with the later

Proto-Attic vases, such as the Burgon lebes, on which also traces of

Ionic influence have been noted.

 

* * * * *

 

From the Geometrical period onwards the manufacture of painted vases

seems to have been continued intermittently in =Boeotia= down to the

fourth century. It would be taking too great a liberty with chronology

to deal with all Boeotian fabrics here, and the later must fall into

their place with the contemporary Attic fabrics. But there is a small

class which seems to take its origin directly or indirectly from the

Geometrical pottery; and as it belongs to a period anterior to the

perfected B.F. style, it may be treated here as analogous in

development to the Proto-Attic vases.

 

A favourite shape among the Boeotian Geometrical wares was that of a

jug with long cylindrical neck and somewhat flat body, of a form

clearly imitated from metal.[994] This shape, which is also often found

in Proto-Corinthian fabrics (see below, p. 308), was utilised by a

potter named Gamedes, whose signature is found on a vase from Tanagra

in the Louvre,[995] in the Boeotian alphabet of about 600 B.C. It is

decorated with the figure of a herdsman driving before him a bull and a

flock of sheep, the figures being in black silhouette, with details

indicated by white markings within incised lines. This is quite a local

peculiarity,[996] and seems to be due to a combination of Corinthian

and Ionian influences. Gamedes has also signed his name on an unpainted

aryballos of the typical early Corinthian globular form (see p. 197) in

the British Museum (Plate XVII. fig. 6), and a similar vase in the

Louvre is signed by Menaidas.[997] Yet another Boeotian potter,

Theozotos, has a signed vase with a similar subject to the Gamedes jug,

but the style is more advanced.