DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.15680#0151
THE POTTERY.
131
it does not belong to the type of vase with whicli \ve are at present engaged.
Tlie design in tliis case consists of two parallel rows of spirals and the
interstices between the two rows are filled up by fans of stamens. The
classical Egyptian example of this type of design is the ceiling of Neferhotep
(v. Petrie, Dccorativc Art, p. 30). On the other Mycenaean patterns that
have been compared with Egyptian ceiling patterns the inserted flower is of
the three-sepal form like one or other of the Egyptian types (c.g. Tiryns
fresco, Schliemann, Tiryns, PI. V, and Orchomenos ceiling, Schuchhardt,
p. 302). The fan of stamens on XXIX. 13 is a Variation on this form and
was probably suggested by another
conventional flower, the Uly with two
spiral petals and a group of stamens
between {c.g. XXIV. 9). Fig. 101 is
pai't of ajug like XXV. 6 and bears a
design derived from the scheine re-
presented by XXIX. 13. The spirals
are arranged in a way which antici-
pates a large class of archaic Greek
patterns, and the floral part of the
design, instead of being a mere com-
plement of the spiral part, is now of Fig. 101.—Juo of Later Melian- Fabbio
e([iial prominence. The flower is with Floral Design (Restored)1 (1 •. 3).
lotiform with stamens between the
petals. Both XXIX. 13 and Fig. 101 are painted in the later style withont
matt black accessories. A few other fragments were found with designs of a
similar kind.
Another very common feature of the present class of vases is the double
row of leaves or brauch pattern. Sometimes the two rows are separated
by a narrow line or stalk, bat as a rule this is omitted (c.g. XXV. 4).
Sometimes again we find a Single row of leaves or two rows separated arti-
ficially, as for instance by a line of dots (e.g. XXVI. 12). In spite of these
variations there is no doubt that the pattern originally represented a branch
with a row of leaves on each side. We have already met it, in a more
daturaEstic form, on the ' black and red ' vases with the birds.
Tlirough the Omission of the horizontal stalk the double rOw of round-
tipped leaves develops into a single row of' ivy-leaves,' e.g. XXIX. 2.2 In some
cases itisdifficult to teil which of the two patterns is intended. On XXVIII.
I 1 we have an interesting attempt to ini|)rove the pattern by attaching stalk.-
to the leaves and Converting it into a row of growing plants. On XXVIII. 1
the leaves have short stalks. which however are mere unconnected appendages
like those of the lilies on the Mycenaean sword (Perrot et Chipiez, xix, 3).
s
1 Light red clay and surface ; lustrous red of natural gröwth on the pottery of the pre-
paint; marke of horizontal smoothing. ceding fabries ; but this is obviously the origin
- 1 am not, of course, suggesting that this of the 'ivy-leaf' frieze as rendered on XXIX.
is the origin of the ivy leaf as an individual 2 and XXVIII. 1], &c
form : we have seen it represented in a State
131
it does not belong to the type of vase with whicli \ve are at present engaged.
Tlie design in tliis case consists of two parallel rows of spirals and the
interstices between the two rows are filled up by fans of stamens. The
classical Egyptian example of this type of design is the ceiling of Neferhotep
(v. Petrie, Dccorativc Art, p. 30). On the other Mycenaean patterns that
have been compared with Egyptian ceiling patterns the inserted flower is of
the three-sepal form like one or other of the Egyptian types (c.g. Tiryns
fresco, Schliemann, Tiryns, PI. V, and Orchomenos ceiling, Schuchhardt,
p. 302). The fan of stamens on XXIX. 13 is a Variation on this form and
was probably suggested by another
conventional flower, the Uly with two
spiral petals and a group of stamens
between {c.g. XXIV. 9). Fig. 101 is
pai't of ajug like XXV. 6 and bears a
design derived from the scheine re-
presented by XXIX. 13. The spirals
are arranged in a way which antici-
pates a large class of archaic Greek
patterns, and the floral part of the
design, instead of being a mere com-
plement of the spiral part, is now of Fig. 101.—Juo of Later Melian- Fabbio
e([iial prominence. The flower is with Floral Design (Restored)1 (1 •. 3).
lotiform with stamens between the
petals. Both XXIX. 13 and Fig. 101 are painted in the later style withont
matt black accessories. A few other fragments were found with designs of a
similar kind.
Another very common feature of the present class of vases is the double
row of leaves or brauch pattern. Sometimes the two rows are separated
by a narrow line or stalk, bat as a rule this is omitted (c.g. XXV. 4).
Sometimes again we find a Single row of leaves or two rows separated arti-
ficially, as for instance by a line of dots (e.g. XXVI. 12). In spite of these
variations there is no doubt that the pattern originally represented a branch
with a row of leaves on each side. We have already met it, in a more
daturaEstic form, on the ' black and red ' vases with the birds.
Tlirough the Omission of the horizontal stalk the double rOw of round-
tipped leaves develops into a single row of' ivy-leaves,' e.g. XXIX. 2.2 In some
cases itisdifficult to teil which of the two patterns is intended. On XXVIII.
I 1 we have an interesting attempt to ini|)rove the pattern by attaching stalk.-
to the leaves and Converting it into a row of growing plants. On XXVIII. 1
the leaves have short stalks. which however are mere unconnected appendages
like those of the lilies on the Mycenaean sword (Perrot et Chipiez, xix, 3).
s
1 Light red clay and surface ; lustrous red of natural gröwth on the pottery of the pre-
paint; marke of horizontal smoothing. ceding fabries ; but this is obviously the origin
- 1 am not, of course, suggesting that this of the 'ivy-leaf' frieze as rendered on XXIX.
is the origin of the ivy leaf as an individual 2 and XXVIII. 1], &c
form : we have seen it represented in a State