DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.4921#0020
XX
INTRODUCTION.
can be no question, so far as we can see, that we have on these two vases representations of
funeral chariots. It may be said that a design so ambitious in thought and conception is ■
altogether beyond what we expect in Mycenaean pottery. That is quite true, but the execution
of the design, the technical processes employed, and the patterns chosen to fill in the vacant
spaces are so characteristically Mycenaean as to leave no moment of doubt. The figure of the
mourner to which we have referred is no less characteristic, differing as she does from her Attic
kinswoman on the Dipylon vases by being draped.
The richer of the two vases is that on Plates CII. and OIL The horses are more
elaborately caparisoned and the yoke of the chariot is more intelligently drawn. The vacant
spaces are largely filled in by one of the most familiar of Mycenaean patterns, whatever it may
represent, whether a shell, as we think, or some other natural object. On each side of the vase
the two bigse are separated by what may be meant for a winding path, though we only venture
this explanation with diffidence. In any case the intention seems to have been to give reality
and perspective to the scene. We have the same spirit in the perspective with which the body
of the chariot is drawn. In the bigae on this vase we have the rude prototype of the innumer-
able chariot groups on the Greek vases of the sixth century B.C. The question is, what was the
distance of time between the prototype and the type ? It should be added that Furtwaengler and
Loeschcke cite along with those two vases several others [Mykenische Vasen, p. 27 fol.) but
without offering an explanation.
Before altogether leaving the period with which we have just been dealing we must notice
the remarkable vase figured on Plates CIV., CV. Its striking resemblance to the large vases of
the Dipylon class had led me to regard it as probably an importation from Athens. This view
appears to have been generally accepted. But M. Dummler is somewhat reluctant in the
matter, on the ground that this vase (see Plate CIV.) has two groups, one on each side of the
handle, each consisting of two animals, which stand erect and confronted with a tree between
them. He does not recognize the motive on the Dipylon ware, while on the other hand he is
inclined to compare the tree to those representations of a sacred tree as it is called which occur
so frequently on purely Cypriote vases. But we cannot agree with him. The tree is quite
INTRODUCTION.
can be no question, so far as we can see, that we have on these two vases representations of
funeral chariots. It may be said that a design so ambitious in thought and conception is ■
altogether beyond what we expect in Mycenaean pottery. That is quite true, but the execution
of the design, the technical processes employed, and the patterns chosen to fill in the vacant
spaces are so characteristically Mycenaean as to leave no moment of doubt. The figure of the
mourner to which we have referred is no less characteristic, differing as she does from her Attic
kinswoman on the Dipylon vases by being draped.
The richer of the two vases is that on Plates CII. and OIL The horses are more
elaborately caparisoned and the yoke of the chariot is more intelligently drawn. The vacant
spaces are largely filled in by one of the most familiar of Mycenaean patterns, whatever it may
represent, whether a shell, as we think, or some other natural object. On each side of the vase
the two bigse are separated by what may be meant for a winding path, though we only venture
this explanation with diffidence. In any case the intention seems to have been to give reality
and perspective to the scene. We have the same spirit in the perspective with which the body
of the chariot is drawn. In the bigae on this vase we have the rude prototype of the innumer-
able chariot groups on the Greek vases of the sixth century B.C. The question is, what was the
distance of time between the prototype and the type ? It should be added that Furtwaengler and
Loeschcke cite along with those two vases several others [Mykenische Vasen, p. 27 fol.) but
without offering an explanation.
Before altogether leaving the period with which we have just been dealing we must notice
the remarkable vase figured on Plates CIV., CV. Its striking resemblance to the large vases of
the Dipylon class had led me to regard it as probably an importation from Athens. This view
appears to have been generally accepted. But M. Dummler is somewhat reluctant in the
matter, on the ground that this vase (see Plate CIV.) has two groups, one on each side of the
handle, each consisting of two animals, which stand erect and confronted with a tree between
them. He does not recognize the motive on the Dipylon ware, while on the other hand he is
inclined to compare the tree to those representations of a sacred tree as it is called which occur
so frequently on purely Cypriote vases. But we cannot agree with him. The tree is quite