In regard to its ornamentation the Geometrical style may be said to have attained success. It is not so, however, with its representations of living form, least of all those of human beings. But this is only in accordance with the principle which M. Pottier styles the hierarchie des genres, a principle which is universal in all early development of Greek art, and to which we have already referred (p. 245: see also p. 315). Briefly it is this: first, the predominance of pure ornament and the perfecting of the same; secondly, the employment of animal forms and the relegation of ornament to a subsidiary place; thirdly and lastly, the rise and development of human forms, the other animals ceasing to form the main theme of decoration, and sinking to the level of mere decorative adjuncts.

Hence we find that figures of animals when first introduced on Geometrical vases are of a conventional and ill-drawn character, but show a gradual progress and development. Human forms again, which now appear for the first time, are only seen in a very rude and undeveloped stage, from which there is continuous development throughout the archaic period till perfection is reached in the fifth century. Their original extreme conventionality may be the result of a training in Egyptian canons of art.

The favourite animal motives are the horse, the deer, and water-fowl. The first also appears in a plastic form, surmounting the covers of vases and forming a sort of handle. Usually a single animal is seen in a metope-like panel (cf. Fig. 84), and the frieze system is seldom found at this period. A curious conception is that of a lion or wolf devouring a man, whose legs are seen protruding from its mouth, and this appears to have been adopted by the Etruscans, on whose archaic bronze-work and bucchero vases it sometimes occurs.^[947] The lions on the Geometrical vases, it may be noted in passing, are obviously drawn without knowledge, and borrowed from Asiatic art; the same conventional type obtains at a later date, as in the Burgon lebes (below, p. 296).

Human figures are almost confined to the large vases from the Dipylon cemetery, which are evidently a purely local product; almost the only exceptions are two from Boeotia (see below, p. 288), and one from Rhodes in the British Museum (A 439). The infantile and barbarous style of the figures recalls in a measure the primitive marble idols from the Cyclades; there is seldom any actual distinction of sex, the narrow waist, wide hips, and tapering limbs being apparently common to both. The figures being painted in plain silhouette, there is no attempt at rendering features. Where it is intended to represent a warrior, the body is completely hidden behind a shield of the Boeotian type Boeotian shield, a ready resource of the artist for avoiding anatomical difficulties, which was also adopted later by his seventh-century Corinthian successors, except that in the latter case the shield is circular.

The subjects include battles and naval scenes, dances of women hand in hand, and funeral processions. From the combination of ships with funeral scenes, it would seem that they were sometimes used for carrying the dead. A remarkable lebes recently acquired by the British Museum^[948] is decorated with a large ship-of-war with two banks of rowers (bireme), and appears to represent a warrior landing therefrom on shore.^[949] The funeral scenes on the great Dipylon vases are exceedingly elaborate, and exhibit a corpse drawn on a bier, accompanied by chariots and bands of mourning women beating their heads.^[950] By a conventional attempt at perspective the figures are often placed above the central group when they are supposed to be on its farther side, just as, in the fresco from Tiryns, and an “Island-gem” of the Mycenaean period, a man leading a bull is represented over its back.^[951]

Two very interesting specimens of Geometrical fabrics are in the museum at Kopenhagen,^[952] late indeed and almost transitional in character, but still typical. One is a deep two-handled cup or bowl with long panels on either side, in two tiers; the upper ones are filled with ornaments and animals, and in the lower are several subjects—combatants, lyre-players, a dance of armed men with shield and spear, two lions devouring a man (see above), and men with jugs and lustral branches preparing for some religious rite. The other is a jug, with very little ornamentation except on the background of the designs, which also include several subjects. On the neck is a man holding horses; on the shoulder, dogs pursuing a hare; and on the body, combats on land and sea.

In the range of subjects a general correspondence with epic poetry is to be noted,^[953] as in the funerals and combats; but there are some important discrepancies, such as the quadriga in place of the Homeric biga, the types of the ships, and in the appearance of horsemen, which are of course unknown to Homer.^[954]

The Geometrical vases found in Boeotia form an important and distinct local variety, which calls for separate treatment. The existence of this local style was first suspected by Furtwaengler in 1878 on seeing the first finds made at Thebes, and it has since been studied with great care and detail by Böhlau.^[955] Among these finds were, in addition to the recognised local pottery, ordinary (imported) Dipylon vases, and later Proto-Corinthian and Corinthian wares, as well as bronze fibulae and terracotta figures, to which subsequent reference must be made. Similar pottery was also found in large numbers on the site of the temple of Apollo at Mount Ptoös in 1885–91, and other examples have turned up at Tanagra. It has been suggested, though on somewhat slight grounds, that Aulis was the centre of the local fabric; and, further, it was supposed by Böhlau, who is supported by Perrot,^[956] that the Boeotian wares represent a primitive phase of the Geometrical pottery, anterior to the Dipylon, and consequently that Boeotia is the original home of the style as a whole. But in view of what has been said above, and generally of the relation of the Boeotian pottery to the Dipylon, and to the later Proto-Corinthian, it seems doubtful if this view can be maintained. Moreover, it has been pointed out by M. Holleaux,^[957] in discussing the Ptoös finds, that the pure Geometrical vases were found at a lower level than the typical local wares, and were never found either with them or with the analogous terracotta figures. This certainly points to the later origin of the Boeotian pottery.

The local clay differs from that of Athens both in nature and appearance, being less well levigated and of a reddish-yellow colour, as compared with the warm brown of the Dipylon. Further, the designs are not laid directly on the clay, as in the latter, but on a thin creamy-yellow slip, as in Mycenaean and Ionian pottery. The technique is, generally speaking, inferior, as is also the black pigment used; the work is rough and hasty, the drawing careless and inaccurate.

The vases are mostly small, at least compared with those of the Dipylon, and the favourite shape is the kylix, with or without a stem. Out of seventy-two examples given by Böhlau, no less than fifty-five take this form. He traces its development from a deep bowl with “base-ring,” which seems to be related to the Cypriote white-slip one-handled bowls; but the Boeotian type has at first two small finger-pieces in place of handles, afterwards replaced by a single handle for hanging up. The majority, however, have no less than four handles, and that they were still intended for suspension is shown by the method of decoration which can only be properly seen in this position (cf. Fig. 85).

There is a wearisome uniformity in the patterns, and indeed in the decoration generally. Only two examples are known from Boeotia with human figures,^[958] and the rest belong to the intermediate class, with its combination of animals and decorative patterns. On the exterior is usually a broad frieze, divided by bands of ornament into four or five fields, in which are birds or palmette patterns; these panels are not necessarily arranged with reference to the position of the handles. The patterns comprise rows of vertical zigzags, dotted lozenges, chevrons, latticed triangles, rosettes, and scrolls, the first-named being specially characteristic of Boeotia. It is to be noted that the typical Athenian motives, the maeander and the ornamented square, do not occur; in fact, these bowls have no analogies in the Dipylon ware. But it is also interesting to observe the appearance of a new vegetable element in the form of friezes of palmettes and lotos-flowers.^[959] The importance of this feature is due to the extensive part it was destined to play in the ornamentation of Greek vases all through the sixth century. Some of the palmettes are remarkably advanced, and the whole pattern is even emancipated from the confinement of the frieze, and treated freely without regard to space.^[960] Böhlau, in his analysis of the ornament as a whole, notes its independence of the Athenian vases, though remaining a parallel and closely-related development.

Individual vases do not call for much comment, but there is a curious coffer of terracotta from Thebes in Berlin (Fig. 86),^[961] painted with figures in this style. The subjects include the Asiatic Artemis, a hare-hunt, a woman leading a horse, a horse tied up, and two serpents erect, confronted. The ground is filled in with rosettes, crosses, and other ornaments, such as the so-called swastika.

While on the subject of the Boeotian vases it is worth while to call attention to the remarkable parallels presented by two other classes of objects also found in that region: bronze fibulae and terracotta statuettes. The former may be regarded as important chronological evidence, inasmuch as their development can be clearly traced from their first appearance at the end of the Mycenaean period (about the tenth century), and similar types have been found in Rhodes, at Olympia, and elsewhere. The characteristic of the Boeotian fibulae is the flat plate which forms the foot (in some cases the central part or bow), and is generally of a quadrangular form, decorated with an engraved subject, usually animals or birds of a similar type to those painted in the panels on the vases. More rarely ships or human figures are found.^[962]

The terracotta figures (p. 123), on the other hand, bear a different relation to the pottery. They are flat board-like figures (σανίδες), known to the modern Greek digger as “Pappades,” the high head-dress which they wear suggesting to him the well-known hat of the orthodox “Papas” or priest. The flat surface of the body gives scope for ornamentation representing embroidered robes,^[963] and the patterns employed are just those which are seen on the vases; and, moreover, the method of painting is the same, the figures being covered with a buff slip, the patterns in black with purple details. It should be remarked that some of these figures are comparatively developed in style,^[964] and that they are practically later imitations of the decoration of the vases.

In considering the Geometrical vases as a whole, we are struck with the laudable aspirations of the artist, who, though unable to execute his new ambitions with complete success, yet shows in his work the same promise of the future that is latent in all early Greek art. His best achievement is in the ornamentation. Oriental influences as yet count for very little, though they are perhaps to be discerned in the human figures, as already noted; Kroker also thinks that the nude female figures on the larger vases are due to Oriental art.^[965] In any case they are not to be traced until late in the period, and first, as might be expected for geographical reasons, in the fabrics found at Kameiros in Rhodes.

The question of chronology must next be considered. That the developed Geometrical style succeeds to the Mycenaean, and forms a link between it and the early Attic attempts at black-figured ware, of which we shall subsequently treat, is sufficiently clear. It may also be laid down that the Dipylon ware represents the last stage of Geometrical decoration, being in point of fact too far advanced to be regarded as a purely typical Geometrical ware. Such data as the finding of iron in the tombs, or the evidence of finds at Troy,^[966] also tend to place the beginning of the style at least as early as the tenth century. It has also been noted that the figures correspond closely with the bronzes of Olympia which are dated about the ninth century, and this, if accepted, necessitates placing the simpler linear decoration back as far as the tenth. The lower limits of the style may be roughly fixed by the evidence from the tombs of Etruria, discussed in Chapter XVIII., at about 700 B.C.

Next, there is the evidence afforded by the ships,^[967] which it should be noted are all of the bireme or διήρης form, with two banks of oars. The invention of the trireme, as we learn from Thucydides (i. 13, 5), was due to Ameinokles, about the year 704 B.C. Hence Kroker’s dating of the Dipylon vases about the year 700 can hardly be accepted. But the eighth century may be taken as representing the latest period of the Geometrical pottery, both in Attica and Boeotia. The curious inscription engraved on a Dipylon vase from Athens is dealt with elsewhere (Chapter XVII.); undoubtedly the earliest known Attic inscription, its value as evidence is limited to that of a terminus ante quem, from the fact that it was probably engraved at a subsequent time to the manufacture of the vase.

The question of centres of manufacture is one that has already been the subject of some discussion,^[968] the result of which has been to show that there is no complete homogeneity in the wares from different sites, and consequently no one central fabric. The colossal funerary vases, which, it may be remarked in passing, stand at the head of a long line of funerary fabrics and show the Athenian fondness for this class of vase,^[969] were not, and could not have been, generally exported, in spite of the notable exception at Curium. The ordinary wares might have been made in some one place (probably a Dorian centre, not Attica or Boeotia); but we have seen that most finds, as in Rhodes, present local peculiarities.^[970] Athens at this period was not sufficiently advanced to become the centre of large potteries, and did not become so, as we shall see, before the age of the Peisistratidae; such vases as were made were strictly confined to special purposes. It is a curious fact that very little Geometrical ware was found on the Acropolis.

The Geometrical pottery of Cyprus has already been discussed in its relation to that of Greece (pp. 249, 253)^[971]; but there is yet another region which passed through a Geometrical period similar to that of Greece, and that is Etruria (see Chapter XVIII.). It is, however, better illustrated by the metal products of the Villanova period, such as the bronze discs and large cinerary urns, than by the local pottery, which never reached the same level as in Greece; in the former the same combinations of elaborate ornament with rude animals and yet ruder human figures may be witnessed, and it is possible that importations from Greece may have had a share in influencing these products. They cover the period from the tenth to the eighth century B.C.

§ 2. Attica, Boeotia, and Melos

Following on to the Geometrical vases both in chronological and artistic sequence is a small class of Athenian vases, which, more for convenience than with regard to strict accuracy, have been styled Proto-Attic. The term has this much of truth in it, that the group may be said to stand at the head of, and in direct relation to, the long series of painted vases produced in the Athenian potteries for some two centuries afterwards. It is only of late years that a sufficient number of these vases has become known for them to be studied as a separate class, and even when Böhlau first drew attention to them, in 1887, only two or three were known. The list up to date is as follows (the order being roughly chronological):—

It will be noticed that the majority are of the amphora form, and that all without exception have been found in or near Athens, which leaves little room for doubt as to their origin.

A close connection with the Dipylon vases may be observed in the first three, not only in shape and technique, but in decoration. In No. 2, which we may take as typical of the oldest form of the Attic amphora, a combination of Geometrical and Mycenaean ornament is to be observed, but the figures of the warriors are purely Hellenic, like those of the Euphorbos pinax (p. 335). The shape of No. 3 is typical of the Geometrical vases, with its long neck and slim body, and it is perhaps more accurately called a three-handled jug than a hydria, though at the same time it is clearly the prototype of the later Attic hydria. The panel on the neck of the vase (also seen in No. 6) is also a Geometrical feature, and the figures therein are quite in the Dipylon style. On the other hand, in the arrangement of the designs in continuous friezes without vertical divisions we trace the incoming influence of a foreign style—the Rhodian or Ionian. Other motives again, such as the birds and the vegetable ornaments, have nothing of the Geometrical or Ionian about them, and may perhaps be directly derived from Mycenaean vases. But the typically Geometrical lozenges, zigzags, etc., still hold their own. In No. 6 Mr. Cecil Smith notes that the ornamentation covering the field of the design is partly rectilinear and geometrical, partly floral and of Mycenaean origin. The spiral pattern which here closes the design, and is also seen on No. 1, is again an instance of Mycenaean influence, and is a motive which became exceedingly popular. In another seventh-century class, the so-called Melian vases, it is absolutely overdone, but the more restrained Attic tradition is preserved for many years as an appropriate decoration for the division of the designs under the handles, especially in the red-bodied amphorae of the developed B.F. style. This vase has some other unusual features, such as incised lines, which are also found on some early Attic fragments from the Acropolis,^[972] but seem to appear equally early at Corinth, so that it is impossible to say certainly if the process is an Attic invention. At all events it is not Ionian, as its place is taken on the east of the Aegean by lines of white paint (e.g. in the Clazomenae sarcophagi). Curiously enough, in this same vase (No. 6) may be noted attempts at this very process, here, no doubt, as on the Ionian vases, due to Mycenaean influence (see p. 331); but it is unique in early Attic work.^[973] The peculiar treatment of the eye and hair is also worthy of attention.

To sum up the characteristics of the Proto-Attic vases, it may be said that they represent the transformation of the Attico-Dorian element into the Attico-Ionian, just as we shall see in the next stage a further transformation under new influences into Attico-Corinthian (p. 324). The Ionian influence brings with it into Attica not only a revival of Mycenaean elements, but also traces of Orientalism.^[974] The general appearance of the decoration links it with the Geometrical, but closer examination shows the admixture of spirals, rosettes, and lotos-flowers with the lozenges and zigzags, while the Geometrical animal-types are combined with new ones from Ionia, such as the lion, and the funeral scenes and combats are supplanted by Centaurs and winged genii of Assyrian character.^[975] Further, there is a distinct tendency to get rid of the old silhouette and to draw in outline, a practice typical of Ionia and a direct heritage from Mycenaean vase-paintings. As in the Rhodian vases, the bodies are rendered in full colour, the heads in outline; while the practice of covering the field with ground-ornaments is also a peculiarly Rhodian characteristic. These latter, however, gradually disappear, as do the Geometrical conventions in the drawing of the figures.

The amphora-type develops steadily onwards from the Berlin Hymettos amphora, which, as has been pointed out, is the oldest Attic variety. In some of the forms, as in No. 5, there are traces of a metallic origin, shown by the open-work handles and other details.^[976] Generally speaking, there is a tendency towards the colossal, and towards emphasising the figure-decoration, not only by increasing the size of the figures, but by confining the subject to one side. M. Pottier thinks that this is due to architectural influences, and suggests a comparison with a temple-façade. But the local traditions are still strong, and in spite of the influence of the lively and original Ionic style, the vases remain “continental” at bottom, the drawing always soberer and more powerful throughout. In many respects there is, as we shall see, a close parallelism with the so-called Melian fabrics.

No. 11, the large Burgon lebes in the British Museum (Fig. 87), is one of the latest representatives of the Proto-Attic class; its Ionic-looking lions and “Rhodian” wealth of ground-ornaments seem to suggest Asiatic influences, the presence of which has been accounted for above. Moreover, the loop-pattern on the reverse is distinctly Proto-Attic, and finds its parallels on vases found at Eretria,^[977] as well as on others of the class under consideration.

Another interesting point in connection with the Proto-Attic vases is the introduction of mythological subjects, as on No. 6 (Herakles and Antaios), No. 8 (Herakles and the Centaur Nessos), No. 10 (Perseus and Athena, and a Harpy^[978]). The only parallel to this early appearance of myths on vases is to be found in the Melian class (see below, p. 301), the Aristonoös krater (see below) and the Euphorbos pinax (p. 335), which, however, is of later date. It will be seen that they only occur in the later group of the Attic vases.

On two of these it is to be noted that inscriptions occur, identifying the figures (Nos. 8 and 10). These are the oldest painted inscriptions on Attic vases, but henceforward they increase in number, at least in the Athenian and Corinthian fabrics; they are always more characteristic of the mainland than of Asia Minor.^[979] There are two early signed vases which may possibly represent the work of Athenian artists prior to the time of the François vase, the cup by Oikopheles at Oxford,^[980] and the famous vase of Aristonophos,^[981] Ariston of Kos (ὁ Κῷος), Aristonothos, or Aristonoös as various scholars interpret the name.^[982] The former, however, is somewhat archaistic in character, with careless rather than incompetent drawing, and hardly earlier than the sixth century; and the latter has been claimed with much probability as Ionian work, on account of the treatment of certain details, as well as on the ground of the name Ariston of Kos (if this interpretation be accepted). The inscription is not conclusive either way, and it may also be here remarked that the krater has several points of resemblance with the well-known “Warrior” vase of Mycenae (Fig. 88),^[983] which is probably later in date than the rest of the pottery from that site, being found outside the Acropolis. The Aristonoös vase (Plate XVI.) is usually dated in the seventh century, and is interesting for its subjects as well as for its artistic position. On one side is a sea-fight, a subject only common on Greek vases in the Geometrical period, and therefore obviously derived from that source; on the other, the blinding of Polyphemos by Odysseus, a subject popular in archaic vase-painting (see Chapter XIV.), and found in Cyrenaic and other early examples. At first sight this vase would certainly seem to be of the Proto-Attic class, showing the transition from Geometrical to developed Attic style; but the Mycenaean and Ionian elements must not be left out of consideration. As regards the Warrior vase, M. Pottier has given good grounds for showing that it also is to be reckoned as Proto-Attic. But we must not leave out of sight the view urged by Furtwaengler,^[984] that the Aristonoös vase is of an Argive fabric. When the Heraion finds are published, they may afford more evidence on this point. Meanwhile, it may be remarked that the circumstances of the finding of the Warrior vase may support this view.

Closely connected with these early Attic fabrics is a very interesting series of small vases which, from the place of their discovery, are usually known as Phaleron ware. They are nearly all small jugs, and number some fifty, mostly at Athens, but there is a representative series in the British Museum. More conspicuously, perhaps, than the Proto-Attic, they illustrate the growing tendency to combine Geometrical and Oriental influences. In form and technique they are Geometrical, but in the ornamentation there is a large admixture of Oriental elements. It has been said that “the whole character of these vases seems to reflect an influence of the style of Oriental vases on painters accustomed to the Dipylon style,”^[985] and it is largely in the arrangement of the decoration that the former is apparent, as well as in the introduction of new motives and patterns.^[986] See for examples Plate XVII. figs. 2, 4, 5.

The usual scheme consists of a panel with figures on the neck, a band of ornament round the shoulder, and below that parallel bands of lines or other ornaments, with zigzags or rays round the foot. A typical example is A 471 in the British Museum, with a cock on the neck, and below, dogs pursuing a hare.^[987] On a cup of Geometrical form, with conventionalised plants and ground-ornaments of Geometrical character, are two deer fleeing from a lion, and there is also a pyxis with chariot-scenes obviously derived from Mycenaean vases. But most curious and interesting is a jug with two bearded heads and a woman with very small body, apparently playing flutes.^[988] The general effect is quite unique, but the drawing is rude and childish to a degree; the middle head is almost Semitic in type. It would seem that here again we have a Mycenaean influence at work, and in general the appearance and style of these vases undoubtedly recall the figured vases from Cyprus.^[989]

Another series of vases in close relation to the Proto-Attic fabrics is that found at Vourva, near Marathon^[990]; they are important as forming a connecting link with the next development of Attic vase-painting, the Tyrrhenian amphorae described at the conclusion of this chapter. They have been studied by Böhlau,^[991] and more recently by Nilsson,^[992] and these writers have shown how they represent the influence of Ionic ideas, derived through Euboea. On the other hand the friezes of animals, which are so characteristic of this class, are clearly derived from Corinthian sources, but are distinguished from those on Corinthian vases by the absence of accessory colours. Fig. 89^[993] may be taken as a typical example. They appear to be contemporary with the later Proto-Attic vases, such as the Burgon lebes, on which also traces of Ionic influence have been noted.

From the Geometrical period onwards the manufacture of painted vases seems to have been continued intermittently in Boeotia down to the fourth century. It would be taking too great a liberty with chronology to deal with all Boeotian fabrics here, and the later must fall into their place with the contemporary Attic fabrics. But there is a small class which seems to take its origin directly or indirectly from the Geometrical pottery; and as it belongs to a period anterior to the perfected B.F. style, it may be treated here as analogous in development to the Proto-Attic vases.

A favourite shape among the Boeotian Geometrical wares was that of a jug with long cylindrical neck and somewhat flat body, of a form clearly imitated from metal.^[994] This shape, which is also often found in Proto-Corinthian fabrics (see below, p. 308), was utilised by a potter named Gamedes, whose signature is found on a vase from Tanagra in the Louvre,^[995] in the Boeotian alphabet of about 600 B.C. It is decorated with the figure of a herdsman driving before him a bull and a flock of sheep, the figures being in black silhouette, with details indicated by white markings within incised lines. This is quite a local peculiarity,^[996] and seems to be due to a combination of Corinthian and Ionian influences. Gamedes has also signed his name on an unpainted aryballos of the typical early Corinthian globular form (see p. 197) in the British Museum (Plate XVII. fig. 6), and a similar vase in the Louvre is signed by Menaidas.^[997] Yet another Boeotian potter, Theozotos, has a signed vase with a similar subject to the Gamedes jug, but the style is more advanced.^[998]

Another typically Boeotian form found in the same period is a kantharos,^[999] also obviously imitated from metal and decorated with figures of animals or palmette-and-lotos patterns of a peculiarly local type. The style of the animals is, like that of the Gamedes vase, also peculiar and local; but both in decoration and technique these vases seem to reflect Corinthian influence.

A small but remarkable class of vases, which seem to stand almost by themselves, is that known as the Melian amphorae. Four vases of this type now in the Athens Museum^[1000] were found in Melos many years ago, and were recognised as a separate class and described as “Melian vases” as long ago as 1862 by Conze.^[1001] Since that time a splendid example has been added to the list, found in the same island in 1893^[1002]; and to this must be added several fragments recognised at different times, including one from Naukratis in the British Museum.^[1003] All the complete vases are large amphorae, about three feet high, but of elegant proportions, with two handles branching out low down on the body. The figures are painted in brown on a pale yellow ground, and enhanced with dull red and purple accessories, some of the details also being incised. In two cases the subjects are mythological, one representing Apollo with his lyre in a chariot accompanied by Artemis and two Muses^[1004]; another the Asiatic Artemis (see Chapter XII.)^[1005]; another, the one found in 1893, has the subjects of Hermes and Athena, and Herakles carrying off Iole. Deities in chariots are a typical Melian subject. The figures are of quite original design, in no way imitative, and the costumes seem to indicate a period between Homer and the sixth century. They may be roughly dated about the middle of the seventh.

They exhibit a combination of highly-developed Geometrical ornament with vegetable motives from the East and Mycenaean details, such as the spiral, which, as has already been noted (p. 294), attains almost to a rank growth over the vacant spaces of the vases. The human forms are conceived with a remarkable degree of freedom. In general appearance they are not unlike the large Proto-Attic amphorae, but much richer and freer in style; they may be also said to approach the finer Naukratite or Rhodian vases, such as the Euphorbos pinax with its quasi-Homeric subject and lavish use of ornament.^[1006]

The decoration is more advanced than that of the Proto-Attic class, the palmettes, for instance, being more freely treated. Riegl^[1007] notes that the palmettes and lotos-flowers are derived from Egypt, but transformed and Hellenised, and that the spirals are not Geometrical, but are naturalised into plants. The characteristic arrangement of the ornament in long vertical stripes he traces from Egypt through Mycenaean art; it develops later into the plait-band of the Clazomenae sarcophagi (Plate XXVII.). In brief, the ornament of the Melian vases forms a direct link between Mycenaean and Hellenic ornament.

An altogether new light has been thrown on this group by a large series of fragments of painted pottery found in 1898 in the island of Rheneia, which undoubtedly form part of the contents of graves brought over from Delos in 426–25 B.C., as recorded by Thucydides (iii. 104). They have been recently made the subject of careful study by Mr. J. H. Hopkinson,^[1008] who recognised them as belonging to the Melian class, and identified parts of at least ten distinct vases. The scanty preservation of fragments of complete vases is, in his opinion, due to the fact that they had been originally placed outside the tombs like the Dipylon vases. Like the complete examples, they are characterised by their fine slip and brilliant polychrome technique, the system of frieze-decoration with Geometric ornaments and spirals, the free and spirited drawing, and their purely plastic forms, showing no signs of imitation of metal. They also bear out the isolated character of this fabric, in which all the vases seem to be on the same level of excellence, without any signs of transition at either end.