DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.2533#0115
78
THE VASES AND VASE FRAGMENTS
centuries from the rise of the Mycenaean style to its downfall at the time of the Dorian
invasion, or whatever the upheaval was which led to its decline.
That all the vases of the Mycenaean style found at the Heraeum were manufactured
in the Argolic plain, and not imported from some other centre, seems unquestionable.
Whether the Argolid was the chief centre of the Mycenaean civilization or not cannot
he absolutely affirmed, though the evidence seems to point to this supposition. At
any rate, the amount of vases found at Mycenae, Tiryns, Nauplia, and in the various
tombs throughout the plain, is so great that we can safely assert them to be of home
manufacture. That Class I. is found at Mycenae and not at the Heraeum may perhaps
be accounted for by a difference of taste in the two places. The Heraeum, which was
one of the largest sanctuaries in Greece, must have kept several potters' factories busy
to supply the faithful with the requisite vases for ex votos, and that certain styles
should have been popular there and others not so is not extraordinary.
Several facts may be noticed in regard to our fragments which are significant.
The singular uniformity of all the fragments of the Mycenaean style, both in clay
and technique ; the complete absence of Class I., and, lastly, the equally complete
absence of any foreign variations (e. g. Theran, Melian, Cypriote, etc.) of the regular
Mycenaean types. These facts would seem to indicate: (1) That the potteries which
produced the ware found at Mycenae were not the same as those which produced
our fragments ; had such been the case it is scarcely credible that no traces of Class
I. should have been found. (2) That all Mycenaean pottery found at the Heraeum
wTas the product of one or more particular centres of activity, situated near the sanc-
tuary. (3) That this manufactory reserved its wares exclusively for home eonsump-
tion, and neither exported its product or imported similar wares. This last assumption
is based on the fact that those particular varieties which are indigenous to some foreign
spots are hardly represented at the Heraeum, and the few exceptions to this ride are
probably accidental. On the other hand, no Mycenaean vase found outside of the
Argolid can be proved to have been manufactured near the Heraeum.
CLASS II., DIVISION 1.
Of this class only a few dozen fragments were found, and no whole vases. Only
a few fragments clearly belonged to the same vases, and the reconstruction of any
vase proved impossible. The characteristics of these fragments are similar to those
of a jug in Athens (MyTc. Vas. p. 49, fig. 29) and a three-handled vase from Thoricus
('E(f)r)iJL. 'Apx- 1895, pi. xi. 1), though the decoration is extremely simple and monoto-
nous, with no attempt at any elaborate design.
Only a few of the fragments are here reproduced. The technical features are:
very coarse quality of clay, with frequent small stones, varying through the different
shades of red and brown to green ; a thin wash of white, yellow, or red; ornamen-
tation in violet, brown, or red.
1. (Plate LI. 17.) From belly of vase, form uncertain. Dark red clay, with a darker central
core, and light red wash, dark red decoration. Two fishes advancing towards a monster of some
sort whose head and forelegs alone are visible. To identify the character of the fishes or the
monster is impossible. Cf. Myh. Vas. x. 63, xxxix. 401a ; Schlicmann, Mycenae, Fig. 317 ;
Imhoof-Blumer and Keller, Tier und Pflanzenhilder, vi. 47, 48, VII. 3.
2. (Plate LI. 18 a-d.) Four fragments from same vase, form uncertain, clay dark red,
THE VASES AND VASE FRAGMENTS
centuries from the rise of the Mycenaean style to its downfall at the time of the Dorian
invasion, or whatever the upheaval was which led to its decline.
That all the vases of the Mycenaean style found at the Heraeum were manufactured
in the Argolic plain, and not imported from some other centre, seems unquestionable.
Whether the Argolid was the chief centre of the Mycenaean civilization or not cannot
he absolutely affirmed, though the evidence seems to point to this supposition. At
any rate, the amount of vases found at Mycenae, Tiryns, Nauplia, and in the various
tombs throughout the plain, is so great that we can safely assert them to be of home
manufacture. That Class I. is found at Mycenae and not at the Heraeum may perhaps
be accounted for by a difference of taste in the two places. The Heraeum, which was
one of the largest sanctuaries in Greece, must have kept several potters' factories busy
to supply the faithful with the requisite vases for ex votos, and that certain styles
should have been popular there and others not so is not extraordinary.
Several facts may be noticed in regard to our fragments which are significant.
The singular uniformity of all the fragments of the Mycenaean style, both in clay
and technique ; the complete absence of Class I., and, lastly, the equally complete
absence of any foreign variations (e. g. Theran, Melian, Cypriote, etc.) of the regular
Mycenaean types. These facts would seem to indicate: (1) That the potteries which
produced the ware found at Mycenae were not the same as those which produced
our fragments ; had such been the case it is scarcely credible that no traces of Class
I. should have been found. (2) That all Mycenaean pottery found at the Heraeum
wTas the product of one or more particular centres of activity, situated near the sanc-
tuary. (3) That this manufactory reserved its wares exclusively for home eonsump-
tion, and neither exported its product or imported similar wares. This last assumption
is based on the fact that those particular varieties which are indigenous to some foreign
spots are hardly represented at the Heraeum, and the few exceptions to this ride are
probably accidental. On the other hand, no Mycenaean vase found outside of the
Argolid can be proved to have been manufactured near the Heraeum.
CLASS II., DIVISION 1.
Of this class only a few dozen fragments were found, and no whole vases. Only
a few fragments clearly belonged to the same vases, and the reconstruction of any
vase proved impossible. The characteristics of these fragments are similar to those
of a jug in Athens (MyTc. Vas. p. 49, fig. 29) and a three-handled vase from Thoricus
('E(f)r)iJL. 'Apx- 1895, pi. xi. 1), though the decoration is extremely simple and monoto-
nous, with no attempt at any elaborate design.
Only a few of the fragments are here reproduced. The technical features are:
very coarse quality of clay, with frequent small stones, varying through the different
shades of red and brown to green ; a thin wash of white, yellow, or red; ornamen-
tation in violet, brown, or red.
1. (Plate LI. 17.) From belly of vase, form uncertain. Dark red clay, with a darker central
core, and light red wash, dark red decoration. Two fishes advancing towards a monster of some
sort whose head and forelegs alone are visible. To identify the character of the fishes or the
monster is impossible. Cf. Myh. Vas. x. 63, xxxix. 401a ; Schlicmann, Mycenae, Fig. 317 ;
Imhoof-Blumer and Keller, Tier und Pflanzenhilder, vi. 47, 48, VII. 3.
2. (Plate LI. 18 a-d.) Four fragments from same vase, form uncertain, clay dark red,