DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.2533#0089
RELIEFS 6-8
Fine
simplified. For, though we cannot say with absolute certainty which of the two is earlier,
the fact that they are contemporaneous (at least they would both belong to the same
decade) is too evident to be doubted. These bronze reliefs belong approximately to the
beginning of the seventh century, which gives us a similar date for our reliefs.
No. 6. —This design here seems rather more advanced in style. The subject of a char-
ioteer in his chariot was not only common through Egyptian and Assyrian art, but was a
favorite theme throughout the whole Mycenaean period, as is shown by the grave-stelae
found by Schliemann at Mycenae. We owe the introduction of the quadriga to the
Dipylon period, from which certain features of our relief are evidently derived, namely,
the connection of the pole to the wagon by a rope or staff extending from the dashboard.1
The clvtv£ has the usual curved form seen on Egyptian wagons, and the wheels are of the
common type found on most of the Dipylon chariots. A counterpart of this group may
be found on the Francois vase,2 the figure of Zeus in his chariot at the marriage proces-
sion of Peleus and Thetis. In fact, we are in a position to date this relief between the
Dipylon jjeriod and the Francois vase. Its Hellenic origin need not be questioned; there
is certainly no trace of Ionic influence.
No. 7. — The technique of No. 7 is vastly inferior. It has also suffered far more from
abrasion. This makes it difficult to decide whether one or two persons are presented
in the chariot, more probably only one. Doubt also exists as to whether the charioteer
is holding the reins or is in the act of shooting an arrow, and from the curious posi-
tion of the body with regard to the chariot, a certain similarity may be deduced with the
marble relief3 from the Acropolis of the figure mounting a chariot. At all events,
the chariot shows the same influence as No. 6. Its chief peculiarity lies in the fact that
but one horse is represented, which fact must be assigned to the incompetence of the
artist, since never, in Greek art, does a chariot of this form, drawn by one horse, occur.
Nos. 8 a and b. — That these fragments fit together is fairly evident; but unfortunately
the sides of the fracture, owing to the soft texture of the clay, have been considerably
worn away, and thus the breaks, while following the same lines, do not coincide exactly.
Still, the foot in the upper right-hand corner of a is the continuation of the leg of the
figure in b. Aside from its peculiar technique, to which we have already called atten-
tion, its chief interest lies in the seeming irregularity. Portions of three fields are pre-
served, two of which are separated by the same incuse circles met with in Nos. 2, 3, 4,
and 5. The rosette of a falls beneath the field of b, being used instead of an incuse
circle, as we found in the case of the Lenormant plaque from Mycenae. It is impossible,
however, to tell the general form of the relief, how many fields it contained, or what
subject is represented. As in the case of Nos. 2 to 5, the connection betAveen this and
the metal reliefs is obvious.
The centaur, the chief figure of the relief, is represented with a horse's fore legs plainly
visible, though their lower part is missing. This type of a centaur with the fore legs
of a horse is later than that with human fore legs.4 When exactly the later type was
introduced cannot be determined, there being no distinct dividing line between the two
types, which often appear side by side.5 On archaic gems,6 however, only the later type
occurs. Evidently the two styles continued together for a considerable period. So far
1 Helbig, Das homer. Epos, p. 141, note 3, fig. 83. Cf. s For example, on the frieze from Assos, Clarke, In-
Fnrtwangler, Arch. Zcit. 1884, p. 108, pi. viii. 4. vestigations, ete. pis. xv., xx. See also on a Cyrenean Vase,
2 Wiener VorlegebliUter, 1888, pis. ii.-iv. Arch. Zed. 1881, pi. xi.
3 Collignon, Hist, de la Sculpture Grecque, I. fig. 194. *'' Rossbaeh, in Arch. Zeit. 1883, pi. xvi. fig. 10.
4 Roscher, in Reseller's Lexicon, II. p. 1070.
m
Fine
simplified. For, though we cannot say with absolute certainty which of the two is earlier,
the fact that they are contemporaneous (at least they would both belong to the same
decade) is too evident to be doubted. These bronze reliefs belong approximately to the
beginning of the seventh century, which gives us a similar date for our reliefs.
No. 6. —This design here seems rather more advanced in style. The subject of a char-
ioteer in his chariot was not only common through Egyptian and Assyrian art, but was a
favorite theme throughout the whole Mycenaean period, as is shown by the grave-stelae
found by Schliemann at Mycenae. We owe the introduction of the quadriga to the
Dipylon period, from which certain features of our relief are evidently derived, namely,
the connection of the pole to the wagon by a rope or staff extending from the dashboard.1
The clvtv£ has the usual curved form seen on Egyptian wagons, and the wheels are of the
common type found on most of the Dipylon chariots. A counterpart of this group may
be found on the Francois vase,2 the figure of Zeus in his chariot at the marriage proces-
sion of Peleus and Thetis. In fact, we are in a position to date this relief between the
Dipylon jjeriod and the Francois vase. Its Hellenic origin need not be questioned; there
is certainly no trace of Ionic influence.
No. 7. — The technique of No. 7 is vastly inferior. It has also suffered far more from
abrasion. This makes it difficult to decide whether one or two persons are presented
in the chariot, more probably only one. Doubt also exists as to whether the charioteer
is holding the reins or is in the act of shooting an arrow, and from the curious posi-
tion of the body with regard to the chariot, a certain similarity may be deduced with the
marble relief3 from the Acropolis of the figure mounting a chariot. At all events,
the chariot shows the same influence as No. 6. Its chief peculiarity lies in the fact that
but one horse is represented, which fact must be assigned to the incompetence of the
artist, since never, in Greek art, does a chariot of this form, drawn by one horse, occur.
Nos. 8 a and b. — That these fragments fit together is fairly evident; but unfortunately
the sides of the fracture, owing to the soft texture of the clay, have been considerably
worn away, and thus the breaks, while following the same lines, do not coincide exactly.
Still, the foot in the upper right-hand corner of a is the continuation of the leg of the
figure in b. Aside from its peculiar technique, to which we have already called atten-
tion, its chief interest lies in the seeming irregularity. Portions of three fields are pre-
served, two of which are separated by the same incuse circles met with in Nos. 2, 3, 4,
and 5. The rosette of a falls beneath the field of b, being used instead of an incuse
circle, as we found in the case of the Lenormant plaque from Mycenae. It is impossible,
however, to tell the general form of the relief, how many fields it contained, or what
subject is represented. As in the case of Nos. 2 to 5, the connection betAveen this and
the metal reliefs is obvious.
The centaur, the chief figure of the relief, is represented with a horse's fore legs plainly
visible, though their lower part is missing. This type of a centaur with the fore legs
of a horse is later than that with human fore legs.4 When exactly the later type was
introduced cannot be determined, there being no distinct dividing line between the two
types, which often appear side by side.5 On archaic gems,6 however, only the later type
occurs. Evidently the two styles continued together for a considerable period. So far
1 Helbig, Das homer. Epos, p. 141, note 3, fig. 83. Cf. s For example, on the frieze from Assos, Clarke, In-
Fnrtwangler, Arch. Zcit. 1884, p. 108, pi. viii. 4. vestigations, ete. pis. xv., xx. See also on a Cyrenean Vase,
2 Wiener VorlegebliUter, 1888, pis. ii.-iv. Arch. Zed. 1881, pi. xi.
3 Collignon, Hist, de la Sculpture Grecque, I. fig. 194. *'' Rossbaeh, in Arch. Zeit. 1883, pi. xvi. fig. 10.
4 Roscher, in Reseller's Lexicon, II. p. 1070.
m