DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.2533#0140
ORIGIN OF THE GEOMETRIC STYLE
103
From Wide's investigations at Aphidna, his contention that the primitive elements for
the Geometric style are to he found in Greece seems to he satisfactorily established;
also, from his analysis of the survival of Mycenaean motives in the Geometric style
(Atheii. Mitt. XXII. (1897), p. 233 If.), it may he easily seen how close is the connec-
tion between the two styles. But neither theory is sufficient to account for the true
Geometric style, which, as he admits himself, does not show the transitional stages of
development which were to have been expected if the style were derived directly from
the Mycenaean.
For the Heraeum fragments it must be said that only a few scattered specimens (e. g.
Plate L. 15, 16, and 17) show the existence of Wide's pre-Dorian elements; such speci-
mens, however, are more in line with Professor Waldstein's linear theory, and are not
good examples of the " Bauernstil." That a small number of fragments, which, though
Geometric as far as clay and technicpie were concerned, also show distinctly the sur-
vival of Mycenaean motives, points to a close connection between the two styles. At
the same time, the difference between such fragments and those of the pure Geometric
style is so great that it is difficult to believe that the Geometric style could possibly have
originated as the natural sequence of such prototypes.
The need for some decided infusion of fresh ideas is the chief obstacle ao-ainst the
entire acceptance of Wide's theory. As we can hardly assume that the finished Geo-
metric style is the natural outcome of previous conditions, subject to no outside influence,
we must seek some reason for such a phenomenon, and of all the solutions offered, the
theory of the Dorian invasion seems to my mind the most satisfactory.
While the actual occurrence of such a migration has never been conclusively estab-
lished, it is generally agreed that some great upheaval took place in Greece during the
eleventh century b. c. Certainly all the phases of the civilization which succeeded the
Mycenaean period show a radical change of style, which can hardly be accounted for by
a purely natural and unaided development. It is too much to assume that the people
who brought about such a change were necessarily identical with the peojde of the
" Hallstatt" period, though the similarity between objects of that period and the Geo-
metric style is extremely striking. As the Geometric style is found at the Heraeum
practically full-grown (as is also the case in Attica), it remains to be seen whether some
external movement can account for its growth.
Now, granting for the moment that the Geometric style could have developed in
Attica along the lines laid down by Wide, the same can hardly be true at Argos; were
such the case we should certainly expect to find a steady and continuous development
from primitive or Mycenaean times. The linear theory for the origin of the Argive
style can hardly apply here. Since an autochthonous growth can scarcely account for
the style at the Heraeum, some external influence is absolutely necessary. It would
seem that at a time when the Mycenaean civilization in the Argolid was on its decline
there appeared a new influence, which effectually finished the Mycenaean civilization,
and brought in with it no new elements (since almost all of them had been in use
before), but a new and radical combination of those elements. Seeing that these ele-
ments are linear, and thus characteristic of (ill peoples during the primitive stages of
their civilization, it matters little who these people were, though they may well have been
the Dorians; the main point is that they brought with them a new style, or new arrange-
ment of motives already in use. It is hard to see how any other explanation can account
for the rise of the Geometric style in the Argolid; with Attica the case is not so evident.
103
From Wide's investigations at Aphidna, his contention that the primitive elements for
the Geometric style are to he found in Greece seems to he satisfactorily established;
also, from his analysis of the survival of Mycenaean motives in the Geometric style
(Atheii. Mitt. XXII. (1897), p. 233 If.), it may he easily seen how close is the connec-
tion between the two styles. But neither theory is sufficient to account for the true
Geometric style, which, as he admits himself, does not show the transitional stages of
development which were to have been expected if the style were derived directly from
the Mycenaean.
For the Heraeum fragments it must be said that only a few scattered specimens (e. g.
Plate L. 15, 16, and 17) show the existence of Wide's pre-Dorian elements; such speci-
mens, however, are more in line with Professor Waldstein's linear theory, and are not
good examples of the " Bauernstil." That a small number of fragments, which, though
Geometric as far as clay and technicpie were concerned, also show distinctly the sur-
vival of Mycenaean motives, points to a close connection between the two styles. At
the same time, the difference between such fragments and those of the pure Geometric
style is so great that it is difficult to believe that the Geometric style could possibly have
originated as the natural sequence of such prototypes.
The need for some decided infusion of fresh ideas is the chief obstacle ao-ainst the
entire acceptance of Wide's theory. As we can hardly assume that the finished Geo-
metric style is the natural outcome of previous conditions, subject to no outside influence,
we must seek some reason for such a phenomenon, and of all the solutions offered, the
theory of the Dorian invasion seems to my mind the most satisfactory.
While the actual occurrence of such a migration has never been conclusively estab-
lished, it is generally agreed that some great upheaval took place in Greece during the
eleventh century b. c. Certainly all the phases of the civilization which succeeded the
Mycenaean period show a radical change of style, which can hardly be accounted for by
a purely natural and unaided development. It is too much to assume that the people
who brought about such a change were necessarily identical with the peojde of the
" Hallstatt" period, though the similarity between objects of that period and the Geo-
metric style is extremely striking. As the Geometric style is found at the Heraeum
practically full-grown (as is also the case in Attica), it remains to be seen whether some
external movement can account for its growth.
Now, granting for the moment that the Geometric style could have developed in
Attica along the lines laid down by Wide, the same can hardly be true at Argos; were
such the case we should certainly expect to find a steady and continuous development
from primitive or Mycenaean times. The linear theory for the origin of the Argive
style can hardly apply here. Since an autochthonous growth can scarcely account for
the style at the Heraeum, some external influence is absolutely necessary. It would
seem that at a time when the Mycenaean civilization in the Argolid was on its decline
there appeared a new influence, which effectually finished the Mycenaean civilization,
and brought in with it no new elements (since almost all of them had been in use
before), but a new and radical combination of those elements. Seeing that these ele-
ments are linear, and thus characteristic of (ill peoples during the primitive stages of
their civilization, it matters little who these people were, though they may well have been
the Dorians; the main point is that they brought with them a new style, or new arrange-
ment of motives already in use. It is hard to see how any other explanation can account
for the rise of the Geometric style in the Argolid; with Attica the case is not so evident.