Our systems are now restored following recent technical disruption, and we’re working hard to catch up on publishing. We apologise for the inconvenience caused. Find out more: https://www.cambridge.org/universitypress/about-us/news-and-blogs/cambridge-university-press-publishing-update-following-technical-disruption
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 23 December 2013
‘In the pottery of the Geometric style,’ says Dr. Buschor in his Greek Vase Painting, ‘are latent the forces which we see afterwards expanding in contact with the East as well as the oldest beginnings that we can trace of that brilliant continuous development which led to the proud heights of Klitias, Euphronios and Meidias. Its producers may be unreservedly described as Greeks.’
The statement is a challenge to the less cautious supporters of the continuity of Bronze and Iron Age culture in Greece. But it is concerned only with vases and vase-painting. One is tempted to search farther afield for fuller illumination, particularly in branches of art other than vase-painting. Whatever stage of development a culture may be in, it always requires pottery, however crude and in however small a quantity, since pottery is for use: objects purely ornamental, however, can, under certain circumstances, be dispensed with. In pottery, therefore, a certain minimum of continuity in tradition and inheritance from previous cultures is inevitable; but in the arts of pure adornment this may not be the case. Thus sculpture and bronze work are branches of art which may remain submerged during periods of unrest and upheaval.
1 P. 18, Mr. Richards' translation.
2 The examples I have chosen for discussion are nearly all at Athens, where is by far the largest and finest collection of Geometric bronzes in existence. The larger European and American museums have but few bronzes of this period; their style and workmanship is not such as to appeal to collectors by whose agency most of the large museums outside Greece are stocked. The bulk of the Geomètric bronzes at Athens are the result of excavations such as those at Olympia, Argos and the Acropolis.
3 See De Ridder, , Cat. des Bronzes trouvés sur l'Acrop., Nos. 692–694, 697, etc.Google Scholar
4 Hazzidakis, J., Tylissos à l'époque minoenne, 1921, Pl. VI.Google Scholar, and Pryce, F. N., J.H.S. 41, 1921, p. 86 ff.Google Scholar, and Fig. 2.
5 Pryce, op. cit.
6 SirEvans, Arthur, J.H.S. 41, 1921, p. 247 ff.Google Scholar A single and not a double mould was probably used for this figure.
7 See my paper in the Antiquaries' Journal, I. No. 3, p. 199. Examples are there collected from a large number of sites in the mainland.
8 See Hoernes, , Urgesch. d. hild. Kunst, Pl. XVGoogle Scholar., and von Sacken, , Grabfeld von Hallstatt, Pl. XV.Google Scholar
9 Chantre, , Recherches anthropologiques dans le Caucase, II p. 149 (Georgia).Google Scholar
10 Olympia, Bronzes, Pl. XIV. Nos. 216–218.
11 B.S.A. XIII. p. 78, Fig. 17, a.
12 Annuario della Sc. Ital. in Atene, I. p. 52.
13 See Pumpelly, , Explorations in Turkestan, 1908, II. Pl. 88Google Scholar, Fig. 1.
14 B.M.C. Italy, p. 184, etc.
15 B.M.C. Macedon, p. 156.
16 Fig. 2 is of unknown provenance, now in New York. Fig. 3a is from Olympia, and the other two (b and c) from the Acropolis at Athens.
17 Richter, , Handbook to the Met. Museum, p. 44Google Scholar, Fig. 23.
18 See B.S.A. XIII. p. 111. They were not found in the lowest štrata.
19 Bronzes, PI. III.
20 De Ridder, , Catalogue, p. 244, No. 697.Google Scholar
21 Carapanos, , Dodone et ses ruines, Pl. XIII. 4.Google Scholar
22 Bronzes, PI. VII. 43, 45.
23 From Corinth, Delphi and Dodona respectively. (National Museum, Nos. 7729, 7415, and Carapanos, 33.)
24 Perrot, and Chipiez, , Histoire de l'art, VI. p. 811Google Scholar, Fig. 380.
25 The Apollo of Tenea, and cf. Delphi, Sculpt. Pl. I.
26 Stais, , Cat. Nat. Mus. Athens, Nos. 6, 57.Google Scholar
27 Wace, and Tod, , Sparta Mus. Cat. p. 120.Google Scholar
28 Delphi, Bronzes, Pl. III.
29 Annuario, I.c.
30 Journ. Internat. Numismat. I. Pl. I.A.
31 History oj Ancient Coinage, p. 154.
32 Gardner, op. cit. p. 153.
33 Historia Numorum 2, p. 369.
34 A. Z. 1882, Pls. IX, X.
35 Richter, , J.H.S. 1912, p. 370.Google Scholar
36 There are, of course, other arguments to support this view, which do not properly belong to the subject of this paper. Thus, for instance, there is no adequate reason why either the democracy of Cleisthenes, Hippias, or the army of Xerxes should strike such rude coins. The two former had admirable Attic artists available, while Ionians in the Persian army would almost certainly have been employed. After all, the Persians wore hardly barbarians in art.
