DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.2533#0218
VASES IN RELIEF
181
are not very numerous, and seem to play a minor part in the Argolid, since outside of
the Heraeum very little ware of this nature was found at Mycenae' or Tiryns.2
Pottier has analyzed all the existing material up to 1886 (B. (J. 11. 1888, p. 491).
Since that date the most important additions have been published by Diimmler (Athen.
Mitt. 1896, p. 229, pi. vi.) and De Kidder (B. C. II. XXII. [1898], pp. 439 ff., pp. 497 ff.,
pis. iv.-vi. bis.
1. Fragment of base of a large pithos. Coarse reddish clay, measuring between 2 and 3 cm. in
thickness. On tlie base, a zone of figures bounded above and below by a moulding on which a
herring-bone pattern is incised.
On main zone, Herakles and the centaurs. In the centre, Ilerakles to right naked and bearded,
holding a bow in his left hand, from which he is about to shoot an arrow at a centaur advancing
towards him, whose hands, fore legs, and hind leg only are visible. Behind Ilerakles, another
centaur to left armed with a tree branch, head and front of body wanting. A cutting extends
along the top of the zone, making the lower part of the relief much slighter.
2. From base of another pithos. Clay and subject identical with 1. Below the zone, four rows
of herring-bones incised.
3. Fragment of pithos similar in clay and subject to 1. At the right of the fragment the figure
of Herakles is repeated. The attitude of the centaur is slightly different from 1, as his left hand
holds the branch of the tree instead of being extended towards Ilerakles.
If this fragment belongs to the same vase as 1, which seems probable, it must have formed part
of the belly of the vase at its lowest point where it joins the base. Thus it would seem that the
original vase possessed certainly two zones of figures, on the base and belly, with perhaps a third
on the rim, leaving the body undecorated.
Some interesting technical features present themselves. It may be seen from 3 that the sub-
ject was repeated, and consists in its simple form of a man and a centaur. As the figures were
stamped from a mould, it seems most probable that the original mould was circular in form and
contained only one group; the mould was revolved over the soft clay, encircling the whole circum-
ference, and thus the design was repeated at regular intervals. The fact that no trace of any
dividing line between the groups can be seen makes this explanation the only natural one. At the
same time the potter might have retouched the groups after stamping and thus secured a little
variety in his figures.3
That the three fragments are contemporaneous is evident. Both style and execution are more
advanced, than in the fragment from Kameiros (Milchhoefer, Anfdnge der E/unst, fig. 48), but
there is absolutely no trace of any Oriental influence on our fragments. Also the centaurs are
still treated in the older style — the entire figure of a man combined with the body and hind legs
of a horse.4 Although it cannot be said exactly when the change to the later type took place, it
is probable (the Assos reliefs notwithstanding) that the change occurred about the beginning of
the sixth century. But it seems probable that Ilerakles is here represented, though the club and
quiver are wanting : this would seem to show an early treatment of the myth.5 We have already
seen archers on the Mycenaean silver vase, but the bow on that vessel does not curve up at the ends
as here. The branch held by the centaurs is. as far as I know, unique in its form. We shall not
be very far wrong if we assign these fragments to the first half of the seventh century.
4 a-d. Four fragments from a round box, probably of pyxis form. Height, 0.10 m. : diam-
eter, 0.22 m.; thickness, 0.01 m. Fine, cleaned yellow clay, with brown glaze on interior, worn off
in patches.
i Myk. Vas. p. 53.
2 Schliemann, Tiryns, p. 63, fig. 8 ; p. 04, fig. it.
3 This is certain, since the Louvre possesses a fragment
identical with the figure of Perseus on the Louvre pithos
(De Ridder, I. c. p. 457, fig. 7), and shows that while a
few minor differences can he detected, the same mould
was used for both figures. De Ridder, I think, is wrong
in laying so much stress on these differences (p. 458),
and denying that the same model was used for both.
What differences exist are clearly due to retouching after
stamping.
4 Roseher's Lex. II. p. 1076.
5 Ibid. I. p. 2193 ; if. p. 1046.
181
are not very numerous, and seem to play a minor part in the Argolid, since outside of
the Heraeum very little ware of this nature was found at Mycenae' or Tiryns.2
Pottier has analyzed all the existing material up to 1886 (B. (J. 11. 1888, p. 491).
Since that date the most important additions have been published by Diimmler (Athen.
Mitt. 1896, p. 229, pi. vi.) and De Kidder (B. C. II. XXII. [1898], pp. 439 ff., pp. 497 ff.,
pis. iv.-vi. bis.
1. Fragment of base of a large pithos. Coarse reddish clay, measuring between 2 and 3 cm. in
thickness. On tlie base, a zone of figures bounded above and below by a moulding on which a
herring-bone pattern is incised.
On main zone, Herakles and the centaurs. In the centre, Ilerakles to right naked and bearded,
holding a bow in his left hand, from which he is about to shoot an arrow at a centaur advancing
towards him, whose hands, fore legs, and hind leg only are visible. Behind Ilerakles, another
centaur to left armed with a tree branch, head and front of body wanting. A cutting extends
along the top of the zone, making the lower part of the relief much slighter.
2. From base of another pithos. Clay and subject identical with 1. Below the zone, four rows
of herring-bones incised.
3. Fragment of pithos similar in clay and subject to 1. At the right of the fragment the figure
of Herakles is repeated. The attitude of the centaur is slightly different from 1, as his left hand
holds the branch of the tree instead of being extended towards Ilerakles.
If this fragment belongs to the same vase as 1, which seems probable, it must have formed part
of the belly of the vase at its lowest point where it joins the base. Thus it would seem that the
original vase possessed certainly two zones of figures, on the base and belly, with perhaps a third
on the rim, leaving the body undecorated.
Some interesting technical features present themselves. It may be seen from 3 that the sub-
ject was repeated, and consists in its simple form of a man and a centaur. As the figures were
stamped from a mould, it seems most probable that the original mould was circular in form and
contained only one group; the mould was revolved over the soft clay, encircling the whole circum-
ference, and thus the design was repeated at regular intervals. The fact that no trace of any
dividing line between the groups can be seen makes this explanation the only natural one. At the
same time the potter might have retouched the groups after stamping and thus secured a little
variety in his figures.3
That the three fragments are contemporaneous is evident. Both style and execution are more
advanced, than in the fragment from Kameiros (Milchhoefer, Anfdnge der E/unst, fig. 48), but
there is absolutely no trace of any Oriental influence on our fragments. Also the centaurs are
still treated in the older style — the entire figure of a man combined with the body and hind legs
of a horse.4 Although it cannot be said exactly when the change to the later type took place, it
is probable (the Assos reliefs notwithstanding) that the change occurred about the beginning of
the sixth century. But it seems probable that Ilerakles is here represented, though the club and
quiver are wanting : this would seem to show an early treatment of the myth.5 We have already
seen archers on the Mycenaean silver vase, but the bow on that vessel does not curve up at the ends
as here. The branch held by the centaurs is. as far as I know, unique in its form. We shall not
be very far wrong if we assign these fragments to the first half of the seventh century.
4 a-d. Four fragments from a round box, probably of pyxis form. Height, 0.10 m. : diam-
eter, 0.22 m.; thickness, 0.01 m. Fine, cleaned yellow clay, with brown glaze on interior, worn off
in patches.
i Myk. Vas. p. 53.
2 Schliemann, Tiryns, p. 63, fig. 8 ; p. 04, fig. it.
3 This is certain, since the Louvre possesses a fragment
identical with the figure of Perseus on the Louvre pithos
(De Ridder, I. c. p. 457, fig. 7), and shows that while a
few minor differences can he detected, the same mould
was used for both figures. De Ridder, I think, is wrong
in laying so much stress on these differences (p. 458),
and denying that the same model was used for both.
What differences exist are clearly due to retouching after
stamping.
4 Roseher's Lex. II. p. 1076.
5 Ibid. I. p. 2193 ; if. p. 1046.