DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.2533#0139
102
THE VASES AND VASE FRAGMENTS
.style, and seems less susceptible to progressive ideas. The Heraeum fragments, which
probably cover a period of two centuries, are marked by their monotony and consistent
adherence to a general scheme. Types are to be distinguished, of course, but such a
classification as proved practicable with the Mycenaean and Argive styles becomes impos-
sible here.'
The fragments here presented illustrate the development of the various motives so
extensively employed. At the same time this classification has been adopted solely as a
working hypothesis, since the nature of the material forbids even an approach to finality;
that can only be secured by a classification based upon material larger, more comprehen-
sive, and in better condition than that furnished by the Heraenm.
As the character of the decoration on our fragments is practically identical with that of
Dipylon ware, the question immediately arises whether our fragments were made in the
Argolid or imported from Attica, since no other districts can well claim their manufacture.
Though certainty on this point is impossible, the evidence seems to point to the former
hypothesis. Fragments of this style have been found at both Mycenae and Tiryns in
large quantities, showing that the style was a common one in the Argolid. As the
amount of Mycenaean ware found there is so large as to point to a very flourishing
vase industry, there seems no valid reason why Geometric Avare should not have been
manufactured there also. Lastly, the clay of the Heraeum fragments is heavy, carelessly
cleaned, and of a yellowish or greenish tinge, while that of the Dipylon vases is lighter,
cleaner, and of a reddish shade; the decoration also of the Heraeum fragments is in
general of a duller lustre and less decided in its character than the Attic.
One of the radical points of difference between the Mycenaean and Geometric styles
lies in the clay, and the difference is especially apparent to the touch. The quality
of the grain in the Geometric is far coarser than in the Mycenaean vases, and never, even
in the best examples, does it attain to the lightness and smoothness of the latter.
Whether this difference results from the employment of clay from a different bed or from
different technical methods in its preparation, I am unable to say. But as the differ-
ence between the clay of Mycenaean vases found in Attica and the Dipylon vases is just
as great as in the case of our fragments/ it does not necessarily argue that none of our
Geometric vases were manufactured in the Argolid; it would rather be a cause for
wonder if they were not made there.
It can hardly be said that the Geometric fragments from the Heraeum throw much
light on the vexed question of the origin of the Geometric style in Greece. Up to the
present moment three widely different views have been proposed: (1) the old view,
which has now, I think, been generally abandoned, that it was the result of some Eastern
influence (Egyptian, Carian, or Ionian); (2) the view expressed by Furtwangler and
Loeschcke, that the style was the result of the Dorian invasion; (3) the last and most
radical view, advocated by Wide and Wolters, that the Geometric style is an autoch-
thonous growth, a " Bauernstil," as opposed to the " Herrenstil " of the Mycenaean
civilization, and the direct result of the primitive forms of decoration, but subject to
some external influence which may have been supplied by some such movement as the
Dorian invasion.
1 Since the above was written, Dr. Wide's analysis of
the Geometric style has appeared in the Jahrbuch for
1899 (pp. 26 ff., 78 ft'., and 188 ff.) and 1900 (p. 49 ff.).
It may be readily seen that sueh an arrangement as that
adopted by Wide is out of the question with the material
from the Heraeum, for the reasons given above. At the
same time an effort will be made to mention all the types
cited by Wide which could be identified among the He-
raeum fragments.
- See p. 65, note, on the results of Dr. Washington's
investigations touching this point.
THE VASES AND VASE FRAGMENTS
.style, and seems less susceptible to progressive ideas. The Heraeum fragments, which
probably cover a period of two centuries, are marked by their monotony and consistent
adherence to a general scheme. Types are to be distinguished, of course, but such a
classification as proved practicable with the Mycenaean and Argive styles becomes impos-
sible here.'
The fragments here presented illustrate the development of the various motives so
extensively employed. At the same time this classification has been adopted solely as a
working hypothesis, since the nature of the material forbids even an approach to finality;
that can only be secured by a classification based upon material larger, more comprehen-
sive, and in better condition than that furnished by the Heraenm.
As the character of the decoration on our fragments is practically identical with that of
Dipylon ware, the question immediately arises whether our fragments were made in the
Argolid or imported from Attica, since no other districts can well claim their manufacture.
Though certainty on this point is impossible, the evidence seems to point to the former
hypothesis. Fragments of this style have been found at both Mycenae and Tiryns in
large quantities, showing that the style was a common one in the Argolid. As the
amount of Mycenaean ware found there is so large as to point to a very flourishing
vase industry, there seems no valid reason why Geometric Avare should not have been
manufactured there also. Lastly, the clay of the Heraeum fragments is heavy, carelessly
cleaned, and of a yellowish or greenish tinge, while that of the Dipylon vases is lighter,
cleaner, and of a reddish shade; the decoration also of the Heraeum fragments is in
general of a duller lustre and less decided in its character than the Attic.
One of the radical points of difference between the Mycenaean and Geometric styles
lies in the clay, and the difference is especially apparent to the touch. The quality
of the grain in the Geometric is far coarser than in the Mycenaean vases, and never, even
in the best examples, does it attain to the lightness and smoothness of the latter.
Whether this difference results from the employment of clay from a different bed or from
different technical methods in its preparation, I am unable to say. But as the differ-
ence between the clay of Mycenaean vases found in Attica and the Dipylon vases is just
as great as in the case of our fragments/ it does not necessarily argue that none of our
Geometric vases were manufactured in the Argolid; it would rather be a cause for
wonder if they were not made there.
It can hardly be said that the Geometric fragments from the Heraeum throw much
light on the vexed question of the origin of the Geometric style in Greece. Up to the
present moment three widely different views have been proposed: (1) the old view,
which has now, I think, been generally abandoned, that it was the result of some Eastern
influence (Egyptian, Carian, or Ionian); (2) the view expressed by Furtwangler and
Loeschcke, that the style was the result of the Dorian invasion; (3) the last and most
radical view, advocated by Wide and Wolters, that the Geometric style is an autoch-
thonous growth, a " Bauernstil," as opposed to the " Herrenstil " of the Mycenaean
civilization, and the direct result of the primitive forms of decoration, but subject to
some external influence which may have been supplied by some such movement as the
Dorian invasion.
1 Since the above was written, Dr. Wide's analysis of
the Geometric style has appeared in the Jahrbuch for
1899 (pp. 26 ff., 78 ft'., and 188 ff.) and 1900 (p. 49 ff.).
It may be readily seen that sueh an arrangement as that
adopted by Wide is out of the question with the material
from the Heraeum, for the reasons given above. At the
same time an effort will be made to mention all the types
cited by Wide which could be identified among the He-
raeum fragments.
- See p. 65, note, on the results of Dr. Washington's
investigations touching this point.