DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.2533#0159
122
THE VASES AND VASE FRAGMENTS
abruptly, while the Argive style becomes,-as it were, emancipated. The reason is simply
that as this style was confined to smaller vases on which the Geometric motives played
a subordinate part, the introduction of orientalized animals and human figures, together
with the fuller development of ornaments in the field, did not necessarily interfere with its
Linear principle of encircling bands. Again, as it was the distinctive style of the Argolid,
and more popular than the Geometric, it was more easily influenced by the new ideas
from the east. On the other hand, it would seem as if no attempt was made by the
Argive potters to adapt the Geometric style to the new conditions, and hence it died
out. In Attica, however, as the Geometric style affords the chief and only ware, some
attempt had to be made to remodel the style to suit the new influence, or else to evolve a
completely different fabric; accordingly we find the Dipylon style developing into the
Early Attic. It would seem probable that the Phaleron jugs which illustrate this devel-
opment were influenced in some way by the Argive style; such a theory, however,
lacks actual confirmation.
We therefore find a third class of the Argive ware (Oriental Argive). It is to this
class that the lekythoi in Berlin, London, and the other museums belong, which caused
the invention of the term, " Proto-Corinthian." The period of its production probably
lies in the early part of the seventh century, and it cannot have lasted beyond the end of
that century, since the rise of the Corinthian and Early Attic styles probably supplanted
it; also, no fragments of the style have been found at Naucratis. Cf. Cecil Smith,
J". II. S. 1890, p. 17(5.
A difficult question is presented by the relation of Class III. to the Corinthian style.
That the latter is directly developed from Class III. I see no reason to doubt. Couve J
has recently denied such a connection absolutely, but as his arguments do not take the
Heraeum fragments into consideration, they carry less Aveight.
Previous to the excavations at the Heraeum and at Aegina, Class III. was mainly
represented by the small lekythoi already mentioned, but with the material from Aegina
and the Heraeum the class is seen to include numerous larger vases of various shapes,
the lekythoi being in the minority, so that any argument which bases the relation of the
Argive style to the Corinthian on the lekythoi alone possesses little value. It is true
that the lekythoi belonging to Class III., which show the most advanced technique, are
not found in the Argolid, but in Thebes and Corinth. The shape, however, is fairly
well represented at the Heraeum.
Now all these lekythoi found outside of the Argolid seem to be a finished product;
they are similar to the Corinthian vases, but vases which show the transitional stages
between Class III. and the Corinthian are wanting. Such connecting links, as far as I
know, are found only at Argos and Aegina, but the quantity of true Corinthian ware
found at both those sites is small compared to that found at Corinth or in other parts
of Greece. As Corinth is universally admitted to be the originator of the Corinthian
style, that point may be regarded as settled.
A survey of comparative history will help us here. We have seen that during the
Mycenaean epoch the Argolid was the great source for the bulk of Mycenaean pottery
found in Greece, just as Athens became the great producer of the Black and Red-Figure
styles in after years. At the time we are considering (the seventh century), Argos had
behind her centuries of skill in ceramic arts, with (presumably) a correspondingly large
commerce. Athens did not begin her commercial activity until the eighth century,
1 Rev. Arch. 1898, p. Iil3.
THE VASES AND VASE FRAGMENTS
abruptly, while the Argive style becomes,-as it were, emancipated. The reason is simply
that as this style was confined to smaller vases on which the Geometric motives played
a subordinate part, the introduction of orientalized animals and human figures, together
with the fuller development of ornaments in the field, did not necessarily interfere with its
Linear principle of encircling bands. Again, as it was the distinctive style of the Argolid,
and more popular than the Geometric, it was more easily influenced by the new ideas
from the east. On the other hand, it would seem as if no attempt was made by the
Argive potters to adapt the Geometric style to the new conditions, and hence it died
out. In Attica, however, as the Geometric style affords the chief and only ware, some
attempt had to be made to remodel the style to suit the new influence, or else to evolve a
completely different fabric; accordingly we find the Dipylon style developing into the
Early Attic. It would seem probable that the Phaleron jugs which illustrate this devel-
opment were influenced in some way by the Argive style; such a theory, however,
lacks actual confirmation.
We therefore find a third class of the Argive ware (Oriental Argive). It is to this
class that the lekythoi in Berlin, London, and the other museums belong, which caused
the invention of the term, " Proto-Corinthian." The period of its production probably
lies in the early part of the seventh century, and it cannot have lasted beyond the end of
that century, since the rise of the Corinthian and Early Attic styles probably supplanted
it; also, no fragments of the style have been found at Naucratis. Cf. Cecil Smith,
J". II. S. 1890, p. 17(5.
A difficult question is presented by the relation of Class III. to the Corinthian style.
That the latter is directly developed from Class III. I see no reason to doubt. Couve J
has recently denied such a connection absolutely, but as his arguments do not take the
Heraeum fragments into consideration, they carry less Aveight.
Previous to the excavations at the Heraeum and at Aegina, Class III. was mainly
represented by the small lekythoi already mentioned, but with the material from Aegina
and the Heraeum the class is seen to include numerous larger vases of various shapes,
the lekythoi being in the minority, so that any argument which bases the relation of the
Argive style to the Corinthian on the lekythoi alone possesses little value. It is true
that the lekythoi belonging to Class III., which show the most advanced technique, are
not found in the Argolid, but in Thebes and Corinth. The shape, however, is fairly
well represented at the Heraeum.
Now all these lekythoi found outside of the Argolid seem to be a finished product;
they are similar to the Corinthian vases, but vases which show the transitional stages
between Class III. and the Corinthian are wanting. Such connecting links, as far as I
know, are found only at Argos and Aegina, but the quantity of true Corinthian ware
found at both those sites is small compared to that found at Corinth or in other parts
of Greece. As Corinth is universally admitted to be the originator of the Corinthian
style, that point may be regarded as settled.
A survey of comparative history will help us here. We have seen that during the
Mycenaean epoch the Argolid was the great source for the bulk of Mycenaean pottery
found in Greece, just as Athens became the great producer of the Black and Red-Figure
styles in after years. At the time we are considering (the seventh century), Argos had
behind her centuries of skill in ceramic arts, with (presumably) a correspondingly large
commerce. Athens did not begin her commercial activity until the eighth century,
1 Rev. Arch. 1898, p. Iil3.