DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.9804#0277
250
ADDENDA
accident ; both alike are later than Minoan and Mycenaean art, and show
traces in their pottery of the imitation of metal originals. Many of the
Servian vases, for instance, show on their designs survivals, meaningless
to the makers, of the rivets that bound together the metal plates of the
Minoan vases from which they were derived.1 He further maintains
that the older strata on these Servian sites represent the best art,
because they are nearer to the /Egean originals. The representation
of the loin-cloth, for instance, which is prominent in the oldest figures,2
soon came to have no meaning to men who lived under climatic con-
ditions that required warm clothing. In the later strata the figurines
are nude,3 as in most primitive art.4
The undoubted existence of the loin-cloth on the older Servian
figurines can of itself be reconciled with the view adopted in the present
book, that isolated branches of the Mediterranean race developed
the neolithic art of Central Europe independently. Indeed, Dr. Mac-
kenzie, who adopts the same view as I do,5 could have made his case
for the southern origin of the loin-cloth much stronger had he known
of the Servian material. It is too early to decide whether Dr. Vasid's
arguments as to ^Egean influence can all be maintained. It is enough
to emphasize for the moment that the presence of the loin-cloth on the
Servian figurines is fatal to the Indo-European theory which Dr.
Hubert Schmidt still clings to," and which, it is much to be feared, will
be adopted by Professor Tsountas in his long-expected work on the
Neolithic Pottery of Volo.7 For our Minoan purposes this is all that
is fundamental. It is an interesting problem for Central Europe whether
its Neolithic Pottery is the sister or daughter of ^Egean art. We shall
be content so long as it is quite certain that it is not its mother.
With other contributions to the subject there is no space to deal at
length. Dr. Dorpfeld promises further developments of his Achaean
theory, and his excavations in the west, first at Leukas and then at
Kakovatos, near Samikon, an early site which he identifies with the
Pylos of Nestor, are likely to throw light on the Geometric Pottery
of the first Northern invaders.8 Mr. Droop deals with this Geometric
Pottery as modified by contact with the older civilisation in Crete,9
and Mr. Evans has discovered new and surprising developments of it
in two tombs about a mile north of Knossos. Stirrup vases and the
1 E.g., Starinar I. 2, 1907. Fig. 39, p. 122.
2 E.g., Trojan Problem, Plate IX. Fig 14 a (from Carsija) and
Plate XIII. Fig. 24 (from Jablanica).
3 E.g., Ibid. Plate XIII. Fig. 23 a (from Malidrum).
* See p. 183.
6 B.S.A. xii. pp. 256-8. See my Addenda, pp, 243-4,
6 Z. f. Ethnol. 1907.
" See pp. 56, 168, 186, 188, 193, 201.
8 See a short account in Ath. Mitt, xxxii. 1907, pp. i—xvi.
» B.S.A. xii. pp. 60-2. The Muliana Geometric Pottery is also of
a local type, and not, as I implied (pp. 101-2), like Dipylon ware.
ADDENDA
accident ; both alike are later than Minoan and Mycenaean art, and show
traces in their pottery of the imitation of metal originals. Many of the
Servian vases, for instance, show on their designs survivals, meaningless
to the makers, of the rivets that bound together the metal plates of the
Minoan vases from which they were derived.1 He further maintains
that the older strata on these Servian sites represent the best art,
because they are nearer to the /Egean originals. The representation
of the loin-cloth, for instance, which is prominent in the oldest figures,2
soon came to have no meaning to men who lived under climatic con-
ditions that required warm clothing. In the later strata the figurines
are nude,3 as in most primitive art.4
The undoubted existence of the loin-cloth on the older Servian
figurines can of itself be reconciled with the view adopted in the present
book, that isolated branches of the Mediterranean race developed
the neolithic art of Central Europe independently. Indeed, Dr. Mac-
kenzie, who adopts the same view as I do,5 could have made his case
for the southern origin of the loin-cloth much stronger had he known
of the Servian material. It is too early to decide whether Dr. Vasid's
arguments as to ^Egean influence can all be maintained. It is enough
to emphasize for the moment that the presence of the loin-cloth on the
Servian figurines is fatal to the Indo-European theory which Dr.
Hubert Schmidt still clings to," and which, it is much to be feared, will
be adopted by Professor Tsountas in his long-expected work on the
Neolithic Pottery of Volo.7 For our Minoan purposes this is all that
is fundamental. It is an interesting problem for Central Europe whether
its Neolithic Pottery is the sister or daughter of ^Egean art. We shall
be content so long as it is quite certain that it is not its mother.
With other contributions to the subject there is no space to deal at
length. Dr. Dorpfeld promises further developments of his Achaean
theory, and his excavations in the west, first at Leukas and then at
Kakovatos, near Samikon, an early site which he identifies with the
Pylos of Nestor, are likely to throw light on the Geometric Pottery
of the first Northern invaders.8 Mr. Droop deals with this Geometric
Pottery as modified by contact with the older civilisation in Crete,9
and Mr. Evans has discovered new and surprising developments of it
in two tombs about a mile north of Knossos. Stirrup vases and the
1 E.g., Starinar I. 2, 1907. Fig. 39, p. 122.
2 E.g., Trojan Problem, Plate IX. Fig 14 a (from Carsija) and
Plate XIII. Fig. 24 (from Jablanica).
3 E.g., Ibid. Plate XIII. Fig. 23 a (from Malidrum).
* See p. 183.
6 B.S.A. xii. pp. 256-8. See my Addenda, pp, 243-4,
6 Z. f. Ethnol. 1907.
" See pp. 56, 168, 186, 188, 193, 201.
8 See a short account in Ath. Mitt, xxxii. 1907, pp. i—xvi.
» B.S.A. xii. pp. 60-2. The Muliana Geometric Pottery is also of
a local type, and not, as I implied (pp. 101-2), like Dipylon ware.