DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.8577#0055
IV
THE RELATION BETWEEN PROTOCORINTHIAN AND
CORINTHIAN
IN the preceding chapters I have tried to avoid the controversy which the
question of the origin of the Protocorinthian style involves, and to present
the late Protocorinthian and Transitional vases as a consistent and continuous
series. This arrangement appears to me the only one possible in view of their
homogeneous character, and if it is justified it carries with it the inevitable
corollary that the Protocorinthian industry was situated at Corinth. For the
later members of the Transitional group are unquestionably of the same
fabric as the vases which have long been recognized as Corinthian. But we
cannot leave the matter here; many, indeed most, authorities have been and
still are of the opinion that the Protocorinthian vases were made elsewhere
than at Corinth, and we must therefore consider the arguments whichJiave
been brought forward in favour of this view.
The dispute is one of long standing, and has probably got a bad name for
itself; the evidence appears insufficient for a definite solution of the problem,
and the problem itself, when refined, as it must be after Johansen's researches,
to the point of distinguishing between two centres so closely situated as
Corinth and Sicyon, may not seem worth the trouble of further investigation.
In reopening the question, I would suggest, first that it is really important to
try to reach a definite conclusion. We can, after all, form a vivid idea of the
activities of Corinth at a slightly later period, and if an industry so important
and accomplished as the Protocorinthian was really situated there, it is
obvious that our picture will be seriously distorted if that industry is wrongly
attributed to some other centre. Secondly, I think it may be claimed that a
solution is still possible. The number of writers who have expressed definite
opinions on the subject does not really correspond to the amount of detailed
research which has been done. Indeed, it is no exaggeration to say that the
relevant material has not been sufficiently studied, and consequently that
the available evidence has never been brought to bear upon the question.
Johansen's book lays bare one part of the facts: those which concern the
Protocorinthian vases. But these do not constitute the whole of the relevant
material. As Johansen himself says, there remain the intermediate, dot-
rosette vases (most of which are those which I classify as 'Transitional') and
the immense series of Corinthian vases, all of which must obviously be
studied before we can pronounce on the relation between the Protocorinthian
and Corinthian groups. A further point: the actual classification of Corin-
thian vases is unquestionably a matter of importance in this connexion, for
so long as late Corinthian orientalizing vases are confused with early, it is
obvious that the relation of the Corinthian series to the Transitional will never
THE RELATION BETWEEN PROTOCORINTHIAN AND
CORINTHIAN
IN the preceding chapters I have tried to avoid the controversy which the
question of the origin of the Protocorinthian style involves, and to present
the late Protocorinthian and Transitional vases as a consistent and continuous
series. This arrangement appears to me the only one possible in view of their
homogeneous character, and if it is justified it carries with it the inevitable
corollary that the Protocorinthian industry was situated at Corinth. For the
later members of the Transitional group are unquestionably of the same
fabric as the vases which have long been recognized as Corinthian. But we
cannot leave the matter here; many, indeed most, authorities have been and
still are of the opinion that the Protocorinthian vases were made elsewhere
than at Corinth, and we must therefore consider the arguments whichJiave
been brought forward in favour of this view.
The dispute is one of long standing, and has probably got a bad name for
itself; the evidence appears insufficient for a definite solution of the problem,
and the problem itself, when refined, as it must be after Johansen's researches,
to the point of distinguishing between two centres so closely situated as
Corinth and Sicyon, may not seem worth the trouble of further investigation.
In reopening the question, I would suggest, first that it is really important to
try to reach a definite conclusion. We can, after all, form a vivid idea of the
activities of Corinth at a slightly later period, and if an industry so important
and accomplished as the Protocorinthian was really situated there, it is
obvious that our picture will be seriously distorted if that industry is wrongly
attributed to some other centre. Secondly, I think it may be claimed that a
solution is still possible. The number of writers who have expressed definite
opinions on the subject does not really correspond to the amount of detailed
research which has been done. Indeed, it is no exaggeration to say that the
relevant material has not been sufficiently studied, and consequently that
the available evidence has never been brought to bear upon the question.
Johansen's book lays bare one part of the facts: those which concern the
Protocorinthian vases. But these do not constitute the whole of the relevant
material. As Johansen himself says, there remain the intermediate, dot-
rosette vases (most of which are those which I classify as 'Transitional') and
the immense series of Corinthian vases, all of which must obviously be
studied before we can pronounce on the relation between the Protocorinthian
and Corinthian groups. A further point: the actual classification of Corin-
thian vases is unquestionably a matter of importance in this connexion, for
so long as late Corinthian orientalizing vases are confused with early, it is
obvious that the relation of the Corinthian series to the Transitional will never