DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.2533#0160
%
THE ARGIVE STYLE: ORIGIN.
123
III) V
"-
and Corinth, although beginning at this time to figure as a commercial factor, had not
the previous years of industrial activity. If? then, the question arises as to which soil
the spread of Oriental influence in Greece found most receptive, antecedent probabilities
would certainly point to Argos. It would be most extraordinary to find such a finished
product as Class III. originating in Corinth; as a matter of fact, the real difference
between Class III. and the Corinthian style is simply this — a new influence at work
upon skilled, as opposed to unskilled labor.
Argos, then, originates Class III. Its wide range does not militate against such an
assumption; while not all the vases of this class so common outside of Argos are
probably of Argive manufacture, still the bulk of them were most probably exported
from Argos. That they do not exist in very large quantities at Argos itself is no
proof to the contrary; it may perfectly well have been the case that local taste preferred
the larger, finer vases, while the bulk of the smaller was exported. We know that
during the sixth and fifth centuries the bulk of Attic work wras exported to Italy, and
were it not for the cemeteries of Chiusi, Ruvo, Nola, etc., etc., our knowdedge of Attic
pottery would be small indeed. At the same time it would have been perfectly pos-
sible for potters in Corinth, Thebes, Syracuse, and elsewhere to make copies of originals
imported from Argos.
Hence it is probable that the importation into Corinth of Argive vases gave the
inspiration to the Corinthian style. The ware evolved by Corinth was really a poor imi-
tation of the Argive, and, owing to a lack of technical experience, the former started
on a much lower plane than the latter. It is worthy of remark that as Class III. develops
at Argos it becomes more like the Corinthian, only much finer in technique. This is not
surprising, seeing that the external influence in both places was the same. The actual
points of similarity between fragments of Class III. and the Corinthian style will be dis-
cussed later.
The question of clay is important, but difficult to define in default of microscopic
investigation. In Class I. the clay is almost Mycenaean; practically the only difference
is that the clay of Argive vases is lighter. The general treatment of glaze and decora-
tion varies somewhat from the Mycenaean, in that the surface is seldom polished, and
the paint less lustrous and applied less thickly. This is especially apparent in Class II.
Here, however, the general scheme of decoration has advanced beyond all similarity with
the Mycenaean. But though in the earlier classes the clay seems to be similar to that
of the Mycenaean vases, the greatest difference exists between it and that of the Geome-
tric vases, the Argive being of a different color (generally reddish), finer, cleaner, and
lighter. In fact, during the later period of the Argive style, the art of making light
vessels reaches its highest point; in some cases the' clay is almost as thin as a sheet of
very fine cardboard.
Owing to the smaller size of the vases the material is in much better preservation,
and in almost every case the exact form of the vase could be determined. Hence it has
been possible to evolve a classification based on the various forms. All through the
style three shapes are most prominent — lekythos (oinochoe), skyphos, and pyxis; each
exhibits many variations, which will be discussed later.
The use of some color, red, white, yellow, etc., applied to the vase after the first firing,
is especially characteristic of the Argive style. As it is found in the Mycenaean and
Geometric styles as well, its use will be discussed more thoroughly at the end of this
chapter.
THE ARGIVE STYLE: ORIGIN.
123
III) V
"-
and Corinth, although beginning at this time to figure as a commercial factor, had not
the previous years of industrial activity. If? then, the question arises as to which soil
the spread of Oriental influence in Greece found most receptive, antecedent probabilities
would certainly point to Argos. It would be most extraordinary to find such a finished
product as Class III. originating in Corinth; as a matter of fact, the real difference
between Class III. and the Corinthian style is simply this — a new influence at work
upon skilled, as opposed to unskilled labor.
Argos, then, originates Class III. Its wide range does not militate against such an
assumption; while not all the vases of this class so common outside of Argos are
probably of Argive manufacture, still the bulk of them were most probably exported
from Argos. That they do not exist in very large quantities at Argos itself is no
proof to the contrary; it may perfectly well have been the case that local taste preferred
the larger, finer vases, while the bulk of the smaller was exported. We know that
during the sixth and fifth centuries the bulk of Attic work wras exported to Italy, and
were it not for the cemeteries of Chiusi, Ruvo, Nola, etc., etc., our knowdedge of Attic
pottery would be small indeed. At the same time it would have been perfectly pos-
sible for potters in Corinth, Thebes, Syracuse, and elsewhere to make copies of originals
imported from Argos.
Hence it is probable that the importation into Corinth of Argive vases gave the
inspiration to the Corinthian style. The ware evolved by Corinth was really a poor imi-
tation of the Argive, and, owing to a lack of technical experience, the former started
on a much lower plane than the latter. It is worthy of remark that as Class III. develops
at Argos it becomes more like the Corinthian, only much finer in technique. This is not
surprising, seeing that the external influence in both places was the same. The actual
points of similarity between fragments of Class III. and the Corinthian style will be dis-
cussed later.
The question of clay is important, but difficult to define in default of microscopic
investigation. In Class I. the clay is almost Mycenaean; practically the only difference
is that the clay of Argive vases is lighter. The general treatment of glaze and decora-
tion varies somewhat from the Mycenaean, in that the surface is seldom polished, and
the paint less lustrous and applied less thickly. This is especially apparent in Class II.
Here, however, the general scheme of decoration has advanced beyond all similarity with
the Mycenaean. But though in the earlier classes the clay seems to be similar to that
of the Mycenaean vases, the greatest difference exists between it and that of the Geome-
tric vases, the Argive being of a different color (generally reddish), finer, cleaner, and
lighter. In fact, during the later period of the Argive style, the art of making light
vessels reaches its highest point; in some cases the' clay is almost as thin as a sheet of
very fine cardboard.
Owing to the smaller size of the vases the material is in much better preservation,
and in almost every case the exact form of the vase could be determined. Hence it has
been possible to evolve a classification based on the various forms. All through the
style three shapes are most prominent — lekythos (oinochoe), skyphos, and pyxis; each
exhibits many variations, which will be discussed later.
The use of some color, red, white, yellow, etc., applied to the vase after the first firing,
is especially characteristic of the Argive style. As it is found in the Mycenaean and
Geometric styles as well, its use will be discussed more thoroughly at the end of this
chapter.