Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T19:58:20.541Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A New Early Attic Vase

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 December 2013

Gisela M. A. Richter
Gisela M. A. Richter
Affiliation:
Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

At a time when the history of Greek vase-painting is only gradually being reconstructed as one discovery after another supplies the necessary clues, it is difficult to assign to the various classes of pottery names which will be permanently satisfactory. This difficulty is the excuse for the many misleading terms which have crept into our study of Greek vases. Names assigned purely provisionally soon became generally accepted, and when once part of the common nomenclature, it becomes a matter of convenience that they should be retained. In many cases this retention is necessary; otherwise, in the present uncertainty of the origin of so many of the early styles, we should continually be changing names according as one theory or another appeared more plausible. In other cases, however, where our knowledge rests on firmer foundations, and where a term has become a confusing anomaly, it is time that we should revise our loose use of language. Such a case is that of the ‘Proto-Attic’ vases. These vases, connecting as they do the Attic Dipylon with the Attic black-figured style, show the continuity of Athenian ceramic art. To call a vase ‘Proto-Attic’ when it is posterior to another Attic fabric is therefore a contradiction in terms.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Hellenic Studies , Volume 32 , November 1912 , pp. 370 - 384
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies 1912

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Cf. list of Early Attic vases given at the end of this article.

2 This vase has already been briefly described by me in the Bulletin of the Metropolitan Museum, April, 1912, pp. 68 ff.; cf. also Baur, Centaurs in Ancient Art, No. 213a.

3 As SirSmith, Cecil H. has already pointed out (J.H.S. 1902, p. 31Google Scholar, note 2), it is noteworthy that the vases of this class are all much of the same height.

4 Cf. Poulsen, , Die Dipylongräber und die Dipylonvasen, pp. 18 f.Google Scholar; also Schadow, , Eine attische Grablekythos, pp. 10 ff.Google Scholar

5 See SirSmith, Cecil H., J.H.S. 1902, p. 30Google Scholar, note 1.

6 See e.g. the two examples in the Metropolitan Museum, illustrated in the Museum Bulletin, February, 1911, p. 33, Figs. 6 and 7.

7 After the vase had been put together and photographed five additional small fragments turned up, none of which, however, is of any importance. They have not yet reached the Museum, but Mr. Edward Robinson, who has seen them in Europe, has sent me the following description of them:—

  1. 1. Fits into the guilloche above the head of the figure in the chariot, and includes guilloche, 3 lines above it, and forepart of the animal's hoof, with a bit of zigzag to right.

  2. 2. Probably part of the piece where the hind legs of the Centaur join the body.

  3. 3. Small bit of the horizontal lines above the base.

  4. 4. About 9 cm. long, all black, and possibly part of the body of the horses drawing the chariot.

  5. 5. Includes slight bits of two ornaments, one like that around the base, but not that. Does not seem to attach to anything and may be part of the woman's dress.

8 Cf. e.g. Wide, , ‘Geometrische Vasen aus Griechenland,’ in Jahrbuch, 1899, p. 94Google Scholar, Fig. 57. For a closely parallel representation showing the same long, hanging manes and thin necks indicated by one line, cf. the grazing animals on the vase-cover in the British Museum, A 470.

9 Cf. On the question of pre-Sophoklean traditions regarding this legend see Quilling in Roscher, 's Lexikon, under ‘Nessos,’ p. 282.Google Scholar

10 It is noteworthy that in this picture Herakles is on the (spectator's) right while Nessos is on the left. This arrangement is rare; for another example cf. Baur, Centaurs in Ancient Art, No. 54.

11 It is interesting to note that the sword is not of the straight two-edged type, but the one-edged weapon known as μάχαιρα. Cf. et Saglio, Daiemberg, Dictionnaire, under Machaera, p. 1460.Google Scholar

12 The absence of a moustache is common throughout early Attic and Ionic vase-painting.

13 That this type of Centaur was not, as has been thought hitherto, earlier than the type with equine fore legs, but that both were used by the Greeks from the beginning, has been definitely proved by Baur, , Centaurs in Ancient Art, p. 135.Google Scholar

14 For similar instances where the branch is not held by the Centaur, but clearly to be regarded as his weapon, cf. Baur, , Centaurs in Ancient Art, p. 84.Google Scholar

15 Cf. owls on handles of Nessos vase (Antike Denkmäler, i. p. 46). Cf. also other examples of flying birds in field of this scene given by Baur, , Centaurs in Ancient Art, p. 24.Google Scholar

16 For instances where the owl seems to stand for the incarnation of Athena see the recent article by Douglas, E. M., J.H.S. xxxii. 1912, pp. 174 ff.Google Scholar

17 E.g. on the ‘Nessos vase,’ Antike Denkmäler, i. Pl. 57.

18 Cf. Roscher's, Lexikon, under ‘Herakles,’ 2194Google Scholar f. and Baur, , Centaurs in Ancient Art, p. 138Google Scholar; also Argive Heraeum, Pl. 67 and pp. 162 f.

19 It occurs in only one other known representation of this scene, cf. Baur, Centaurs in Ancient Art, No. 227.

20 Cf. J.H.S. 1902, Pl. IV.; Ἐφ. Ἀρχ. 1897, Pls. 5, 6.

21 αὔτη Δηιάνειρα δ᾿ ἠνιόχει καὶ τὰ κατὰ πόλεμον ἤσκει

22 The curve is single, not double, as in the Kynosarges fragments, J.H.S. 1902, Pl. 3, and the Peiraeus amphora, Ἐφ. Ἀρχ. 1897Google Scholar, Pl. 6.

23 Cf. Couze, Melische Thongefässe, Pl. IV. Many points of similarity between Early Attic and Melian vases are shown by a comparison of the scene on our vase and that on the Melian amphora, Ἐφ. Ἀρχ. 1894Google Scholar, Pls. 12, 13.

24 The ear of Herakles does not appear, owing to a break at this point.

25 Cf. Beundorf, Gr. u. Sic. Vas. Pl. 54, 1.

26 Cf. J.H.S. 1902, p. 38.

27 Cf. J.H.S. 1902, p. 38.

28 Cf. Jahrbuch, 1887, Pls. 3, 4; J.H.S. 1902, Pls. 2, 3; Arch. Zeit. 1882, Pl. 10; Ἐφ. Ἀρχ. 1897, Pl. 5; B.C.H. 1898, p. 285, Fig. 5.

29 For the derivation of the rays on Orientalizing vases from those which occur on Dipylon vases, see Poulsen, , Die Dipylongräber u. die Dipylonvasen, p. 82.Google Scholar

30 The term Mykenaean is here used loosely for the civilization which preceded the geometric. As a matter of fact many of the ornaments here called Mykenaean go back to the pre-Mykenaean or Minoan period.

31 Cf. Furt. u. Loeschcke, , Myk. Vasen, xxxiv. 341Google Scholar; B.S.A. vi. p. 103, Fig. 31.

32 Cf. Furt. u. Loeschcke, , Myk. Vasen, Pl. 32, 308Google Scholar for Mykenaean, use and Ἐφ. Ἀρχ. 1898Google Scholar, Pl. 4, 8 for geometric use. This ornament is doubtless the forerunner of the later tongue pattern.

33 Cf. Mon. Ant. vi. Pl. 9 and a geometrical jug in the Metropolitan Museum, illustrated in the Museum Bulletin, May, 1912, p. 95, Fig. 3. For its use on Protokorinthian (Linear Argive) pottery, see e.g. Argive Heraeum, p. 137, Fig. 69a.

34 Cf. Furt., u. Loeschcke, , Pl. 36, 202, 205; B.S.A. ix. p. 120Google Scholar, Fig. 75.

35 Cf. B.S.A. vi. p. 103, Fig. 31 (wavy line enclosing dots), and Furt. u. Loeschcke, Myk. Vasen, Pl. 18, 131 (continuous double spirals). For the use of this ornament on another Early Attic vase, see Jahrbuch, 1887, Pl. 4.

36 Cf. e.g. the dotted surfaces of garments and chariots on the Mykenaean vases from Cyprus (Cesnola Atlas, ii. Pls. 100, 101). For other instances of this feature on Early Attic vases, see Jahrbuch, 1887, Pls. 3, 4. Compare also the dotted leaves on a contemporary Melian, bowl (J.H.S. 1902 p. 71Google Scholar, Fig. 2).

37 Cf. Furt., u. Loeschcke, , Myk. Vasen, Pl. VI. 32, 33, Pl. XXXV. 350Google Scholar. For its use on Protokorinthian, or Linear Argive, pottery, cf. e.g. Argive Heraeum, pp. 126, 130, etc.

38 Cf. Furt. u. Loeschcke, , Myk. Vasen, Pl. 34, 338.Google Scholar

39 Spirals are found occasionally on late geometric vases (cf. e.g. Ἐφ. Ἀρχ. 1892, Pl. 10), but essentially they do not belong to the geometric repertoire, their place being taken by tangent circles.

40 Cf. list given by Boehlau, , Aus. ion. u. it. Nekropolen, p. 110.Google Scholar

41 Such as Furt. u. Loeschcke, , Myk. Vasen, Pl. 34, 346Google Scholar, and Mon. Ant. xiv. p. 490, Fig. 93.

42 I have not been able to find it on any of the references given by Couve, in B.C.H. 1893, p. 29Google Scholar, note 5. For its occurrence, however, on Protokorinthian, (Linear Argive) pottery, see Argive Heraeum, pp. 138Google Scholar, 139.

43 Cf. e.g. Furt. u. Loeschcke, , Myk. Vasen, Pl. 14, 88.Google Scholar

44 A wavy line thus filled with white colour occurs on the painted archaic tile lent by V. Everit Macy, in the Metropolitan Museum.

45 Cf. Furt. u. Loeschcke, , Myk. Vasen, Pl. V. 28.Google Scholar

46 Cf. e.g. Tell el Amarna, Pl. 18, and also Victor Place, Ninive et l'Assyrie, III. Pl. 46, Nos. 1 and 3.

47 On this subject cf. Furtwängler, , Der Goldfund von Vettersfelde, pp. 20 f.Google Scholar, who also calls attention to the long subsequent history of this subject.

48 Cf. Monumenti dell' Inst. x. Pl. 38A. For the derivation of this pail from Eastern Greece, cf. Boehlau, , Ans ion. u. it. Nekropolen, p. 119.Google Scholar

49 It is not certain whether the foot below her dress is meant to belong to her or to Herakles; there being a break at this point we cannot tell whether it originally had a shoe like that on Herakles' foot.

50 Cf. the human figures and lions on the Analatos hydria, Jahrbuch, 1887, Pls. 3, 4.

51 Cf. the Centaurs and lions on the krater from Thebes, Jahrbuch, 1887, Pl. 4; the human figures and lions on the krater in Munich, Jahrbuch, 1907, Pl. 1; the lions on the Burgon Lebes in the British Museum, Rayet et Collignon, Cér. Grecque, Fig. 25.

52 Cf. Hymettos amphora, Jahrbuch, 1887Google Scholar, Pl. 5; amphora from Pikrodaphni, , B.C.H. 1893, Pl. 2, 3Google Scholar; fragment from Aegina, , Ath. Mitt. 1897Google Scholar, Pl. 8; fragment from Athens, Ath. Mitt. 1895, Pl. 3, 2; fragment from Aegina, Beundorf, , Vasenbilder, Pl. 54, 1Google Scholar; fragments. from Kynosarges, , J.H.S. 1902Google Scholar, Pls. 2, 3.

53 Cf. Burgon lebes, Rayet et Collignon, Cér. Grecque, Fig. 25; Jahrbuch, 1887, Pl. 5, where the colour has, however, a more reddish hue (‘gelbröthlich’); fragment from Aegina, Benndorf, , Vasenbilder, Pl. 54, 1Google Scholar; fragments from Kynosarges, , J.H.S. 1902Google Scholar, Pls. 2, 3; fragment from Aegina, , Ath. Mitt. 1897Google Scholar, Pl. 8; and fragments from the Akropolis, B. Graef, Die ant. Vasen, v. der Akr. zu Athen. Nos. 364 ff.

54 Cf. fragments from Kynosarges, , J.H.S. 1902Google Scholar, Pls. 2, 3; Benndorf, , Vasenbilder, Pl. 54, 1.Google Scholar

55 Cf. fragment from Athens, Ath. Mitt. 1895, Pl. 3, 2; Akropolis fragments (B. Graef, op. cit. Nos. 345, 348, 361, etc.); fragments from Kynosarges, , J.H.S. 1902Google Scholar, Pls. 2, 3. Pernice, , Ath. Mitt. 1895, p. 122Google Scholar, points out that on a Dipylon fragment the eye of one of the rowers is indicated by an incised line (Ath. Mitt. 1892, p. 293, Fig. 6). That is certainly the earliest instance of this technique and would lend support to the theory that its invention is Attic and not Corinthian.

56 Cf. the muscles on the necks and hind-legs of the lions on the Burgon lebes, Rayet et Collignon, Cér. Grecque, Fig. 25; the details on the horse's wing on a fragment from Kynosarges, , J.H.S. 1902Google Scholar, Pl. 3; and on several of the Akropolis fragments (B. Graef, op. cit. Nos. 347, 367, 370, etc.). The use of white inner markings is perhaps due to Ionian influence, at least it appears on Ionian vases of the sixth century and on sarcophagi from Clazomenae. It is of course of Mykenaean origin.

57 As far as I know this is the only example of this use of the reserved line on this class of vases; though in the rosette leaves with solid centres the reserved ‘surface’ is sometimes so narrow that it might almost be called a reserved ‘line.’

58 Cf. bowl from Aegina, , Arch. Ztg. 1882Google Scholar, Pls. 9, 10; amphora from the Peiraeus, , Ἐφ. ᾈπχ. 1897Google Scholar, Pls. 5, 6; fragment from Aegina, Benndorf, , Vasenbilder, Pl. 54, 2Google Scholar; Nessos amphora, Ant. Denk. i. Pl. 57; amphora from near Athens, , B.C.H. 1898, p. 285Google Scholar; amphora from Attica, , B.C.H. 1898, p. 283Google Scholar; fragments from the Akropolis, B. Graef, op. cit. Nos. 385 ff.

59 Cf. bowl from Aegina, , Arch. Ztg. 1882Google Scholar, Pls. 9, 10; amphora in Ἐφ. ᾈπχ. 1897Google Scholar, Pl. 6; fragment, Benndorf, , Vasenbilder, Pl. 54, 2Google Scholar; Nessos amphora, Ant. Denk. i. Pl. 57; amphora, , B.C.H. 1898, p. 283.Google Scholar

60 On this question see SirSmith, Cecil H., J.H.S. 1902, pp. 35 f.Google Scholar

61 On this class see Haekl, K., ‘Zwei frühattische Gefässe der Münchner Vasensammlung,’ in Jahrbuch, 1907, pp. 83Google Scholar ff. It should be noted that on the amphora in Munich there published, the artist has gone hack to the older technique of reserved surfaces.

62 For the most recent treatment of these, see Jahrbuch, 1903, pp. 124 ff.

63 Cf. Thiersch, Tyrrhenische Amphoren.

64 Fragment from Athens, Ath. Mitt. 1895, Pl. 3, 2; fragment from Aegina, Benndorf, , Vasenbilder, Pl. 54, 1Google Scholar; fragments from Kynosarges, , J.H.S. 1902Google Scholar, Pls. 2, 3; Akropolis fragmente (B. Graef, op. cit. Nos. 364 ff.).

65 E.g. in J.H.S. 1902, p. 34, note 1. Sir Cecil H. Smith points out that the hand of the figure in the car is painted black, while the head is in outline, and ascribes this to an accident. That this was not accidental but was commonly done during this period is seen from similar instances on our vase.

66 Cf. Nillson, , Jahrbuch, 1903, p. 144.Google Scholar

67 Cf. Thiersch, , Tyrrhenische Amphoren, p. 136.Google Scholar

68 Cf. Hackl, , Jahrbuch, 1907, pp. 83 ff.Google Scholar

69 That not all new methods were adopted simultaneously by all potters is shown clearly by a comparison of two fragments, one from the Akropolis (B. Graef, op. cit. No. 345), which is still very much in the Dipylon style, but shows extensive use of the engraved line, and one from Aegina, (B.C.H. 1897Google Scholar, Pl. 8), where reserved surfaces and white as a surface colour are employed, but not yet any engraving.

70 The numbers refer to the respective catalogues of the collections, i.e. Collignon et Couve, Catalogue de Vases peints du Musée National d' Athènes; Catalogue of Vases in the British Museum, Vol. I. (in preparation); A. Furtwängler, Beschreibung der Vasensammlurg im Autiquaiium, Berlin.

71 M. V. Staïs informs me that thise fragment is in the National Museum of Athens, but not placed on exhibition.

72 M. V. Staïs informs me that these fragments are shortly to be moved to the National Museum of Athens.

73 So M. V. Staïs informs me. When Benndorf described it, it formed part of a private collection.