DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.9804#0213
THE NEOLITHIC SPIRAL AREA 187
distinction of ornament that covers the whole field of
a vase,1 and ornament that divides it into sections,1 is
not meant by its author to be decisive for our purpose ; 3
and we may doubt whether Dr. Schmidt does not lay
too great stress on this use of white paint on the
fiat.4
Certain points, however, emerge that are common to
a great mass of the pottery concerned. It knows the
use of painting on the flat, as well as of white filling for
incised lines ; and it is ornamented, not only with recti-
linear geometric designs, but with spirals of the most
elaborate character. The graves in which the pottery
is found are in most cases entirely free of any trace of
metal. In only one case, that of the cemetery of Jortan on
the Caicus,5 are the metal finds numerous enough to prove
that we are dealing with a civilisation that is in a stage
of transition between the Neolithic and the Bronze Age.
Some of this pottery, too, is beautiful. The word
can be used without exaggeration of the vases of Galicia 6
1 His " Umlaufstil," pp. 7-31.
3 His " Rahmenstil," pp. 31-45-
3 Op. cit. p. 34. On p. 124, Dr. Hoernes rightly points out
that many different factors—character of implements, dwellings,
etc., as well as style of pottery—must be taken into consideration
before questions of date and influence can be determined. How
far his own distinction between the older Mediterranean plain
dwellers and the later Indo-European mountaineers (pp. 124-6)
is justified by the remains, can only be determined by further
investigation.
4 Though he objects to the catch-words (Schlagwortcn) Schnur-
and Band-Kcramik, his own insistence on the single point of
Weissmalerei is just as one-sided. Cp. Z. f. Ethnol. 1904, p. 653,
with ibid. 1903, p. 460. Curiously enough there is no white paint
at Petreny (Von Stern, p. 58), and the designs are all dark on
a light ground.
6 C.R.A.I. 1901, p. 814. See also Schmidt, Z. f. Ethnol. 1904,
p. 648. For the uncertainty as to whether Troy L was purely
Neolithic, see below, p. 193.
6 See Hoernes, op. cit. figs. 251-83, pp. 114-9.
distinction of ornament that covers the whole field of
a vase,1 and ornament that divides it into sections,1 is
not meant by its author to be decisive for our purpose ; 3
and we may doubt whether Dr. Schmidt does not lay
too great stress on this use of white paint on the
fiat.4
Certain points, however, emerge that are common to
a great mass of the pottery concerned. It knows the
use of painting on the flat, as well as of white filling for
incised lines ; and it is ornamented, not only with recti-
linear geometric designs, but with spirals of the most
elaborate character. The graves in which the pottery
is found are in most cases entirely free of any trace of
metal. In only one case, that of the cemetery of Jortan on
the Caicus,5 are the metal finds numerous enough to prove
that we are dealing with a civilisation that is in a stage
of transition between the Neolithic and the Bronze Age.
Some of this pottery, too, is beautiful. The word
can be used without exaggeration of the vases of Galicia 6
1 His " Umlaufstil," pp. 7-31.
3 His " Rahmenstil," pp. 31-45-
3 Op. cit. p. 34. On p. 124, Dr. Hoernes rightly points out
that many different factors—character of implements, dwellings,
etc., as well as style of pottery—must be taken into consideration
before questions of date and influence can be determined. How
far his own distinction between the older Mediterranean plain
dwellers and the later Indo-European mountaineers (pp. 124-6)
is justified by the remains, can only be determined by further
investigation.
4 Though he objects to the catch-words (Schlagwortcn) Schnur-
and Band-Kcramik, his own insistence on the single point of
Weissmalerei is just as one-sided. Cp. Z. f. Ethnol. 1904, p. 653,
with ibid. 1903, p. 460. Curiously enough there is no white paint
at Petreny (Von Stern, p. 58), and the designs are all dark on
a light ground.
6 C.R.A.I. 1901, p. 814. See also Schmidt, Z. f. Ethnol. 1904,
p. 648. For the uncertainty as to whether Troy L was purely
Neolithic, see below, p. 193.
6 See Hoernes, op. cit. figs. 251-83, pp. 114-9.