Wall Paintings and Social Context: The Northeast Bastion at Ayia Irini (Keos) 9781931534970, 9781623034214, 1931534977

Citation preview

KEOS VOLUME XI

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

KEOS RESULTS OF EXCAVATIONS CONDUCTED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI UNDER THE AUSPICES OF THE AMERICAN SCHOOL OF CLASSICAL STUDIES AT ATHENS

VOLUME XI

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

BY

LYVIA MORGAN

Published by INSTAP Academic Press Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 2020

Design and production: INSTAP Academic Press, Philadelphia, PA Printing and binding: HF Group – Acmebinding, Charlestown, MA Artwork: Lyvia Morgan Graphic editing: Stuart Laidlaw and Rosemary Robertson Photography: Craig Mauzy, Marie Mauzy, and Chronis Papanikolopoulos

Previously published volumes in the excavation series: Keos I Coleman, John E. 1977. Kephala: A Late Neolithic Settlement and Cemetery. Princeton: American School of Classical Studies. Keos II Caskey, Miriam Ervin. 1986. The Temple at Ayia Irini. Princeton: American School of Classical Studies. Keos III Cummer, W. Willson, and Elizabeth Schofield. 1984. Ayia Irini: House A. Mainz on Rhine: Philipp von Zabern. Keos IV

Bikaki, Aliki Halepa. 1984. Ayia Irini: The Potters’ Marks. Mainz on Rhine: Philipp von Zabern.

Keos V

Davis, Jack L. 1986. Ayia Irini: Period V. Mainz on Rhine: Philipp von Zabern.

Keos VI Georgiou, Hara S. 1986. Ayia Irini: Specialized Domestic and Industrial Pottery. Mainz on Rhine: Philipp von Zabern. Keos VII

Overbeck, John C. 1989. Ayia Irini: Period IV. Mainz on Rhine: Philipp von Zabern.

Keos VIII Petruso, Karl. 1992. Ayia Irini: The Balance Weights. An Analysis of Weight Measurement in Prehistoric Crete and the Cycladic Islands. Mainz on Rhine: Philipp von Zabern. Keos IX Wilson, David E. 1999. Ayia Irini: Periods I–III. The Neolithic and Early Bronze Age Settlements. Mainz on Rhine: Philipp von Zabern. Keos X

Schofield, Elizabeth. 2011. Ayia Irini: The Western Sector. Darmstadt: Philipp von Zabern.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Morgan, Lyvia, author. Title: Wall paintings and social context : the Northeast Bastion at Ayia Irini / by Lyvia Morgan. Description: Philadelphia : INSTAP Academic Press, 2020. | Series: Keos ; volume XI | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2019039887 (print) | LCCN 2019039888 (ebook) | ISBN 9781931534970 (hardback) | ISBN 9781623034214 (pdf) Subjects: LCSH: Ayia Irini Site (Kea Island, Greece) | Mural painting and decoration, Minoan—Greece—Kea Island. | Excavations (Archaeology)—Greece—Kea Island. | Minoans—Greece—Kea Island. | Kea Island (Greece)— Antiquities. | Bronze age—Greece—Kea Island. Classification: LCC DF221.K36 M67 2020 (print) | LCC DF221.K36 (ebook) | DDC 939/.15—dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2019039887 LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2019039888

Copyright © 2020 INSTAP Academic Press and Lyvia Morgan Philadelphia, Pennsylvania All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America

To the people of Kea, past and present, and to Doan, who has lived all his life with this book.

Table of Contents

List of Tables and Figures in the Text......................................................................................... xv List of Plates. .................................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......... xxi Preface.. . . . . . ..................................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... xxv Acknowledgments. . ............................ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... xxxi List of Abbreviations. .......................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... xxxiii Prologue. Perception and Interpretation: The Process.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........... 1 Art in Context, Art as Text. ........ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......... Experiencing Wall Paintings. ...... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........... Images and Memory.. ............... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......... A Personal Journey. ................. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........... Visualization: Reconstructing the Fragmentary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..........

2 2 4 6 9

Part I: The Place Chapter 1. Ayia Irini and the Northeast Bastion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......... 17 Kea and the Aegean Islands. ....... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......... 17 The Fortified Town of Ayia Irini and Its Surroundings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......... 22 The Northeast Bastion . . ............ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......... 28 Contexts and Chronology of the Northeast Bastion Paintings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......... 36

x

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

Wall Paintings at Ayia Irini. ....... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......... 38 Part IIA: Miniature Frieze Chapter 2. Human Figures: Body and Society.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......... 43 The Gendered Body.................. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......... 43 Individuality, Movement, and Gestures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......... 46 Dressing the Body. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 Social Roles of Gender. ............. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......... 69 Occupations and Actions. .......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......... 70 Community, Status, and Role...... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......... 74 Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 Catalog of Human Figures. ........ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......... 78 Chapter 3. Vehicles: Ships and Chariot...... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......... 91 Ships ................................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......... 91 Chariot .................................................................................................................. 99 Summary.............................................................................................................. 109 Catalog of Vehicles.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109 Chapter 4. Buildings: Urban Space.......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........113 Comparative Images................. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........ 115 Scale and Spatial Organization. ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......... 118 Facades and Walls................................................................................................... 120 Doorways and Windows............ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... 124 Rooftops. .............................. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... 129 Shipsheds? .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135 Summary.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137 Catalog of Buildings. ................ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........ 138 Chapter 5. Animals: Hunting and Herding. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........ 149 Deer . . .................................................................................................................. 150 Dogs.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156 Goats, Sheep, and Unidentified Animals .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........ 158 Horses. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160 Summary.............................................................................................................. 164 Catalog of Animals. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165 Chapter 6. Landscape, Seascape, and The Sky.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171 Miniature Landscape and the Ambiguity of Blue. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171 Plants and the Land. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172 Rocks and Hills.. ......................................................................................................... 173 Marsh and Streams. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177 River, Reeds, and Grasses. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179 Sea and Sky. .......................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........ 182

TABLE OF CONTENTS

xi

Summary and Conclusions. . ....... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........ 185 Catalog of Landscape. . .............. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........ 186 Chapter 7. Visualizing the Past: The Composition of the Miniature Frieze. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........ 225 Figure 7.1: Town by a River......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... 226 Figure 7.2: Buildings...............................................................................................................227 Figure 7.3: Women and Buildings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........ 228 Figure 7.4: Thistles and Descending Rocks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........ 232 Figure 7.5: Building and Plants.... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... 232 Figure 7.6: Horse and Building.... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........ 233 Figure 7.7: Herder with Goat....... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... 235 Figure 7.8: Cauldrons and Ships Scene. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........ 236 Figure 7.9: Paddlers.................. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........ 241 Figure 7.10: Chariot.................. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........ 241 Figure 7.11: Procession of Men..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........ 242 Figure 7.12: Men by River. . ......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........ 243 Figure 7.13: Men by Rocks or Sea.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... 245 Figure 7.14: Men by Rocks.......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........ 246 Figure 7.15: Fragments of Men..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........ 246 Figure 7.16: Hunter with Prey...... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... 248 Figure 7.17: Deer and Dogs......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... 248 Figure 7.18: Sea and Rocks with Men, or Sky and Descending Rocks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... 250 Figures 7.19–7.24: Marsh Landscape with River and Sea.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... 253 Figure 7.25: Rocky Landscape. . .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... 262 Figure 7.26: Cauldrons and Ships Scene with Rocky Landscape. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... 264 Figures 7.27 and 7.28: A View of the Room with the Miniature Frieze.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... 265 Conclusions: Structure and Meanings........................................................................... 270 Part IIB: Plant Panels Chapter 8. Plant Panels........................ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... 275 The Plant Panels in Their Architectural Setting.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... Bramble and Myrtle................. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........ Grasses, Reeds, and Leaves......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... Visualizing Room N.18............. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........ Summary and Conclusions. . ....... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... Catalog of Plant Panels.............................................................................................

275 277 289 299 302 303

Part III: Technique and Color Chapter 9. Materials, Techniques, and Pigments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........ 329 Plaster and the Surface of the Wall.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... 329 Paint to Plaster: Fresco versus Secco.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........ 331 Pigments Used in the Paintings... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........ 335

xii

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

Pigments Found on the Site. . ...................................................................................... 340 Summary.............................. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... 343 Chapter 10. Color and Artistic Performance: The Process of Painting.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........ 345 Color................................................................................................................... Planning the Scenes.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Applying the Paints. . ................ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... Choosing and Using the Colors... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... Summary.............................. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......

345 347 349 353 356

Part IV: Paintings as Cultural Signifiers Chapter 11. Intercultural Connections: The Aegean World.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... 359 Miniature Paintings and Architectural Space. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........ Craft and Visual Planning. . ........ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........ Iconography........................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........ Cultural Interrelationships......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........ The Social Role of Miniature Wall Paintings... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... Artists and Patrons.................. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... The Power of Paint: Community and Trade. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........ Summary.............................. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......

360 370 372 376 379 381 386 388

Chapter 12. Feasts, Festivals, and Social Context.. ....................................................................... 389 Feasting and Social Dynamics in the Ancient World. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... Iconography of Feasts, Festivals, and Gift Exchange. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........ Feasting and Social Context at Ayia Irini: The Iconographic Program.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........ Inside and Outside the Northeast Bastion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... Drink, Food, and Vessels........... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... Participants: Hosts and Guests.... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........ Summary.............................. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......

389 391 395 399 403 406 408

Epilogue. Wall Paintings and Memory.. .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... 409 Festivals and Ritualized Action.. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... 409 Pageantry and Paintings............ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... 410 Landscape and Memory............ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........411 Concluding Thoughts............... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........ 412 Appendices and Concordances Appendix A. Miscellaneous Fragments and Border Bands. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... 417 Appendix B. Scientific Analysis of Painted Plasters from Ayia Irini. . ................................................ 423 Background to the Sampling, by Lyvia Morgan and Ellen Davis†.. ......................................... 423 Analytical Data and Results, by Vassilis Perdikatsis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 424 Concordance A. Fragments of the Miniature Frieze by Context.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........ 427

TABLE OF CONTENTS

xiii

Concordance B. Fragments of the Miniature Frieze by Catalog Number.. .......................................... 451 Concordance C. Past and Present Catalog Numbers.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... 469 References........................................................................................................................ 475 Index............................................................................................................................... 515 Plates

List of Tables and Figures in the Text

Figure 1.1.

Map showing sites mentioned in the book. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......... 18

Figure 1.2.

Map of northern Kea.......................................................................................... 18

Figure 1.3.

View of Ayia Irini and the bay, looking south.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......... 19

Figure 1.4. Ayia Irini in Period VI (LC I/LM IA), showing the locations of wall paintings.. . . . . . . . . ......... 24 Figure 1.5. Site plan of Ayia Irini showing the locations of representational wall paintings in Period VII (LC II/LM IB)............ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......... 25 Figure 1.6. Northern Sector in Periods V and VI: (a) Period V, Phase 1; (b) Period V, Phase 2; (c) Period VI... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Figure 1.7. Northeast Bastion: (a) version of upper floor plan with proposed windows; (b) version of upper floor plan with hypothetical dividing wall and cupboards; (c) ground floor with surviving walls................ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......... 29 Table 1.1. Archaeological contexts and counts of the cataloged wall painting fragments.. . . . . . . . . .......... 37 Figure 2.1. Details from the Miniature Frieze, Room 5, West House, Akrotiri: (a) Meeting on the Hill, north wall; (b) women with a pot, north wall; (c) men meeting across a river, south wall. ..... 45 Figure 2.2. Fragments of the Miniature Frieze, Ayia Irini, Kea (2, 6, and detail of 67). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Figure 2.3. Fragment of a miniature painting showing a man’s leg, Phylakopi, Melos.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......... 45 Figure 2.4. Men in the Tylissos miniature painting. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

xvi

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

Figure 2.5. Seal impression from Hagia Triada (LM I).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......... 49 Figure 2.6. Sealstone (a) and seal impression (b): (a) Vapheio (LB I–II); (b) Knossos (LM I).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 Figure 2.7. Sealstones (a, b) and ring impression (c): (a) Knossos(?) (LB I–II); (b) Vapheio (LB I–II); (c) Hagia Triada (LM I). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 Figure 3.1. Schematic reconstruction drawing of one of the Kea ships: (a) without oars or paddles; (b) with oars (but without oarsmen).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 Figure 3.2. Flagship, detail from the south wall of the Miniature Frieze, Room 5, West House, Akrotiri, Thera.. .............. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......... 92 Figure 3.3. Early Cycladic depiction of a boat on a ceramic pan.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 Figure 3.4. Seal impression from Knossos (LM I–II).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......... 97 Figure 3.5. Reconstruction of the Kea chariot (cf. Fig. 7.10:a), with parts of the chariot labeled.. . . . ....... 100 Figure 3.6. Scenes of chariots on rings and a sealstone: (a) gold ring from Shaft Grave IV (LH I); (b) clay impression from a ring found in Delta 18b at Akrotiri (LM I); (c) sealstone from Vapheio (LB I–II); (d) gold ring from Aidonia, Corinthia (LB I–II). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... 100 Figure 3.7. Reconstruction of a wall painting from Knossos. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........ 100 Figure 4.1. Details of buildings in the Ayia Irini Miniature Frieze: (a) from Figure 7.1; (b, c) from Figure 7.2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114 Figure 4.2. View of Chora, Kea.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114 Figure 4.3. Details of buildings in the Thera Miniature Frieze, Room 5, West House, Akrotiri, Thera: (a) Town II building and man, north wall; (b) Town II, north wall; (c) Town II at coast, north wall; (d) Town I, west wall; (e) Town III buildings and river, east wall. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116 Figure 4.4. Departure Town (Town IV), detail from the south wall of the Miniature Frieze, Room 5, West House, Akrotiri, Thera. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117 Figure 4.5. Arrival Town (Town V), detail from the south wall of the Miniature Frieze, Room 5, West House, Akrotiri, Thera. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... 117 Figure 4.6. Town Mosaic faience plaques from Knossos, visualized as a group by C. Palyvou. . . . . . ....... 126 Figure 4.7. Silver Siege Rhyton, Shaft Grave IV at Mycenae, detail of the town. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... 126 Figure 4.8. Ivory plaque from the Royal Road, Knossos.. . ............................................................ 126 Figure 4.9. Fragment of a building from the Tylissos Miniature Frieze.. . ........................................... 126 Figure 4.10. “Master Impression” sealing from Chania (LM I)......................................................133 Figure 4.11. Seal impression from Zakros (LM I). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........ 133 Figure 4.12. Hittite clay model from a vase, from Boğazköy.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133 Figure 4.13. Syrian fortifications, Tomb of Amenmose (TT 42), Thebes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133 Figure 4.14. Details of a house on Kea with projections on the roof: (a) seen from the front; (b) seen from an angle.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133 Figure 4.15.

Reconstruction of Building P at Kommos.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .........136

LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES IN THE TEXT

xvii

Figure 5.1. Color drawings of Deer and Dogs, reconstructed from fragments 178–181 (right) and 182, 183 (left). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150 Figure 5.2. Details of deer from the Miniature Frieze, Room 5, West House, Akrotiri, Thera: (a) deer in riverine landscape, east wall; (b) deer on hilltop, south wall. . . . . . . . . . . . ....... 150 Figure 5.3. Sealstone (a) and seal/ring(?) impressions (b–d) with deer and dogs: (a) Knossos, Hogarth’s tombs, LM I–II; (b) Pylos, LB I–II; (c, d) Akrotiri, Thera, LM I. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153 Figure 5.4. Herding scene, detail from the north wall of the Miniature Frieze, Room 5, West House, Akrotiri, Thera. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... 159 Figure 6.1. Reeds and stream, details from the Reed Bed painting, Xeste 3, Akrotiri.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178 Figure 6.2.

A view toward Ayia Irini through coastal reeds. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... 179

Figure 7.1A.

Visualization of Town by a River.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228

Figure 7.1B.

Outlines of fragments from Town by a River. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........ 229

Figure 7.2. Visualization (top) and outlines (bottom) of Buildings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... 230 Figure 7.3.

Visualization (top) and outlines (bottom) of Women and Buildings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... 231

Figure 7.4.

Visualization (top) and outlines (bottom) of Thistles and Descending Rocks... . ........ 233

Figure 7.5.

Visualization (top) and outlines (bottom) of Building and Plants. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........ 234

Figure 7.6.

Visualization (top) and outlines (bottom) of Horse and Building.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235

Figure 7.7.

Visualization (top) and outlines (bottom) of Herder with Goat. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........ 235

Figure 7.8. Visualization (top) and outlines (bottom) of the Cauldrons and Ships scene. . . . . . . . . . . 238 Figure 7.8:detail.

Overlapping men (59) in the Cauldrons and Ships scene.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... 240

Figure 7.9.

Paddlers (63)........... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........ 241

Figure 7.10. Chariot: (a) simple box type, curved; (b) simple box type, straight; (c) dual type; (d) outlines. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 242 Figure 7.11. Visualization (top) and outlines (bottom) of Procession of Men. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... 243 Figure 7.12.

Visualization (top) and outlines (bottom) of Men by River. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........ 244

Figure 7.13.

Visualization (top) and outlines (bottom) of Men by Rocks or Sea. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... 246

Figure 7.14.

Visualization (top) and outlines (bottom) of Men by Rocks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... 247

Figure 7.15. Fragments of men: (a) Man with Upraised Arms (18); (b) Man Wearing Kilt or Shorts (47).......................................................................................... 248 Figure 7.16.

Hunter with Prey (44). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 248

Figure 7.17A.

Visualization of Deer and Dogs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250

Figure 7.17B.

Outlines of fragments from Deer and Dogs.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251

Figure 7.18. Visualization of alternative orientations of scene with rocks: (a) Sea and Rocks with Men; and outlines (center); (b) Sky and Descending Rocks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... 252

xviii

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

Figure 7.19A. Visualization of Marsh A: descending rock, river, marsh, and sea with inlets.. . . . . . . . . ....... 254 Figure 7.19B. Outlines of fragments from Marsh A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 255 Figure 7.20. Visualization (top) and outlines (bottom) of Marsh B: river, marsh, and sea with spray. . .................. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... 257 Figure 7.21. Visualization (top) and outlines (bottom) of Marsh C: river, marsh, and sea.. . . . . . . . . . ....... 259 Figure 7.22.

Visualization of Marsh landscape (Figs. 7.19–7.21 joined). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 260

Figure 7.23. Visualization (top) and outlines (bottom) of Marsh D: marsh and grasses.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261 Figure 7.24.

Visualization (top) and outlines (bottom) of Marsh E: marsh and sea.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........ 261

Figure 7.25. Visualization (top) and outlines (bottom) of Rocky Landscape.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........ 263 Figure 7.26.

Visualization of the Cauldrons and Ships scene with Rocky Landscape. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265

Figure 7.27. Visualization of the way Room N.20 might have looked, viewed toward the southeast................ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........ 266 Figure 7.28. Rooms N.18 and N.20, showing the angle of viewing for Figure 7.27... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........ 266 Figure 8.1A.

Visualization of Bramble and Myrtle A.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... 282

Figure 8.1B. Outlines of fragments from Bramble and Myrtle A.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........ 283 Figure 8.2A.

Visualization of Bramble and Myrtle B. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... 286

Figure 8.2B. Outlines of fragments from Bramble and Myrtle B. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........ 287 Figure 8.3A.

Visualization of Bramble and Myrtle C.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... 290

Figure 8.3B. Outlines of fragments from Bramble and Myrtle C.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... 291 Figure 8.4. Visualization (left) and outlines (right) of Bramble and Myrtle border.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... 292 Figure 8.5. Visualization (top) and outlines (bottom) of Blue and Yellow Reeds with Red Stream....... 294 Figure 8.6.

Visualization (top) and outlines (bottom) of Blue Reeds with Grasses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........ 295

Figure 8.7. Visualization (top) and outlines (bottom) of Yellow Grasses and Blue Leaves. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 297 Figure 8.8. Fragments of leaves from the panels of Grasses and Reeds.......................................... 298 Figure 8.9. Visualization of the way Room N.18 might have looked, viewed toward the southeast.. . .... 300 Figure 8.10. Rooms N.18 and N.20, showing the angle of viewing for Figure 8.9................................. 300 Figure 10.1. Diagram of the proposed process of painting using a detail of the Cauldrons and Ships scene (67)............. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........ 350 Figure 10.2. Diagram of the proposed process of painting using detail of men in robes (6, 13, 32).. . . . . . . 351 Figure 11.1. Miniature Frieze of Akrotiri Thera: (a) north wall; (b) east wall; (c) left half of south wall (d) right half of south wall.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........ 361 Figure 11.2. Plans showing relative scale: (a) proposed first floor of the Northeast Bastion, Ayia Irini as seen in Figure. 1.7:b; (b) existing first floor of the West House, Akrotiri.. . . . . . ....... 363

LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES IN THE TEXT

xix

Figure 11.3. Comparative distribution of paintings in: (a) the Northeast Bastion at Ayia Irini; (b) the West House at Akrotiri. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........ 363 Figure 11.4. Plan of House A at Tylissos. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........366 Figure 11.5. Miniature Frieze of Tylissos. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .........366 Figure 11.6. Plan of part of the northwest section of the palace of Knossos showing the Early Keep, with the area in which the miniature paintings were found outlined in red. . . . . . . . . . . ......... 369 Figure 12.1. The cauldron scene fragment 67: (a) original and (b) reconstructed, detail from Figure 7.8.. ................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........ 392 Figure 12.2.

Seal impressions from Knossos.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........ 392

Figure 12.3. Cooking in cauldrons at the harvest festival in Plougoulm, Brittany, 2009.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 398 Table B.1. Scientific analyses of painted plasters from Ayia Irini. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......... 425

List of Plates

Plate 1.

Women in the Miniature Frieze (1–5).

Plate 2. Men in the Miniature Frieze (6–15). Plate 3. Men in the Miniature Frieze (16–31). Plate 4. Men in the Miniature Frieze (32–41). Plate 5. Men in the Miniature Frieze (42–54). Plate 6. Men in the Miniature Frieze (55–66). Plate 7. Men in the Miniature Frieze (67). Plate 8. Ships in the Miniature Frieze (68–74). Plate 9. Ships (75–80) and chariots (81–86) in the Miniature Frieze. Plate 10. Buildings in the Miniature Frieze (87–92). Plate 11. Buildings in the Miniature Frieze (93–103). Plate 12. Buildings in the Miniature Frieze (104–121). Plate 13. Buildings in the Miniature Frieze (122–132). Plate 14. Buildings in the Miniature Frieze (133–152). Plate 15. Buildings and plants in the Miniature Frieze (153–177). Plate 16. Deer and dogs in the Miniature Frieze (178–183).

xxii

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

Plate 17. Deer and dogs (184–191) and unidentified animals (192–201) in the Miniature Frieze. Plate 18.

Unidentified animals in the Miniature Frieze (202–216).

Plate 19. Horses (217–219, 221–223) and unidentified animals (220, 224–232) in the Miniature Frieze. Plate 20.

Plants in the Miniature Frieze (233–246).

Plate 21. Plants in the Miniature Frieze (247–266). Plate 22.

Rocks in the Miniature Frieze (267–273).

Plate 23.

Rocks in the Miniature Frieze (274–280).

Plate 24. Rocks in the Miniature Frieze (281–291). Plate 25.

Rocks in the Miniature Frieze (292–299).

Plate 26. Rocks in the Miniature Frieze (300–309). Plate 27.

Rocks in the Miniature Frieze (310–323).

Plate 28.

Rocks in the Miniature Frieze (324–326).

Plate 29.

Rocks in the Miniature Frieze (327–337).

Plate 30. Marsh elements in the Miniature Frieze (338–349). Plate 31. Marsh elements in the Miniature Frieze (350–362). Plate 32. Marsh elements in the Miniature Frieze (363–379). Plate 33. Marsh elements in the Miniature Frieze (380–392). Plate 34. Marsh elements in the Miniature Frieze (393–404). Plate 35. Marsh elements in the Miniature Frieze (405.1–416). Plate 36. River and plants in the Miniature Frieze (417–426). Plate 37. River and plants in the Miniature Frieze (427–435). Plate 38. River and plants in the Miniature Frieze (436–446). Plate 39. River and plants in the Miniature Frieze (447–454.1). Plate 40. Sea and land in the Miniature Frieze (455–462). Plate 41. Sea and land in the Miniature Frieze (463–473). Plate 42. Sea and land in the Miniature Frieze (474–484). Plate 43. Sea and land in the Miniature Frieze (485–495.1). Plate 44. Sea and land(?) in the Miniature Frieze (496–502). Plate 45. Sea in the Miniature Frieze (503–512). Plate 46. Sea in the Miniature Frieze (513–523). Plate 47. Sea in the Miniature Frieze (524–531). Plate 48. Sea in the Miniature Frieze (532–539). Plate 49. Sea in the Miniature Frieze (540–552). Plate 50. Sky in the Miniature Frieze (553–562).

LIST OF PLATES

xxiii

Plate 51. Sky in the Miniature Frieze (563–575). Plate 52. Plant Panel fragments: Bramble and Myrtle (611–622). Plate 53. Plant Panel fragments: Bramble and Myrtle (623–636). Plate 54. Plant Panel fragments: Bramble and Myrtle (637–646). Plate 55. Plant Panel fragments: Bramble and Myrtle (647–658). Plate 56. Plant Panel fragments: Bramble and Myrtle (659–668). Plate 57. Plant Panel fragments: Bramble and Myrtle (669–674). Plate 58. Plant Panel fragments: Bramble and Myrtle (675–682). Plate 59. Plant Panel fragments: Bramble and Myrtle (683–692). Plate 60. Plant Panel fragments: Reeds with Red Stream (693–703). Plate 61. Plant Panel fragments: Reeds and Grasses (704–715). Plate 62. Plant Panel fragments: Grasses and Leaves (716–728). Plate 63. Plant Panel fragments: Leaves (729–745). Plate 64. Miscellaneous fragments (930–950). Plate 65. Miscellaneous fragments (951–959). Plate 66. Miscellaneous fragments of bands (960–963). Plate 67. Miscellaneous fragments of bands (964). Plate 68. Cross sections of painted plaster samples. Plate 69. Planning stages of the painting process (Miniature Frieze: a, b, g; Plant Panels: c–f). Plate 70. Application and preservation of paints on fragments with heads (women: a, b; men: c–h). Plate 71. Application and preservation of paints (Miniature Frieze: a–g; Plant Panels: h–j). Plate 72. Chart of colors produced by drawing with pigments found at Ayia Irini. Plate 73. Some of the pigments found at Ayia Irini. Plate 74. Pigments from Ayia Irini and photos from their possible source, the Trypospilies ocher mine in northern Kea.

Preface

This book presents the results of my study of the wall paintings from the Northeast Bastion at Ayia Irini, situating them within the wider social context of the island of Kea and the Aegean world. Like the spectacularly well-preserved town of Akrotiri on Thera, with which these paintings are contemporary, Ayia Irini thrived three-and-a-half-thousand years ago. But unlike Akrotiri, Ayia Irini was not protected by a layer of volcanic ash. When the site was excavated, the paintings had long since collapsed, fracturing into thousands of small pieces and becoming mixed with stones, broken pottery, and accumulated debris. This study attempts to bring the wall paintings back to life through the best-preserved fragments. Within the Northeast Bastion was a miniature frieze and, in the adjacent room, large-scale panels of plants. Human action set within townscapes, landscapes, and the sea presents a vivid account of the social life and environment of the people for whom this harbor town was vital within the trading network of the time. In this book I explore the social implications of the fascinating and often unique iconography, whose setting within a fortification wall is quite extraordinary. Ayia Irini, excavated by the University of Cincinnati under the auspices of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens in the 1960s–1970s, was a small but crucially important settlement. “Kea” (Τζιά in demotic Greek) is the modern name of the island. “Keos” is the Classical name and the form used in the series title of the excavation reports. What the island was called during the Bronze Age is unknown. The wall paintings from Ayia Irini were first studied by Katherine Abramovitz Coleman and presented in her doctoral thesis and two articles.1 In the 1980s, Elizabeth Schofield, then director of the site, invited me (along with 1 Coleman 1970, 1973; Abramovitz 1980. She wrote under her married name (Coleman) in the 1970s and subsequently under her maiden name (Abramovitz).

xxvi

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

the late Ellen Davis) to work on the wall paintings for final publication. As my focus I chose the Northeast Bastion.2 In the way of large projects, this book has a history, yet longer and more layered than some. I began work in the mid 1980s with several summers of fieldwork on the island, during which time the study drawings, drafts of the reconstructions, and the photographs were undertaken. Teaching and other projects then intervened, as did the captivating childhood of my son. Such an enormous undertaking as this needed a focused period of work to bring it to a conclusion. It was not until 2007 that I was ready to resume work on Kea. Photographs and drawings were digitized, graphic editing was started, and in the ensuing years I developed and painted new reconstructions—visualizations, as I prefer to call them—in the midst of the long process of writing. By the time it was all finished, preparation of the book had taken more than ten years of concentrated work spread over a period of three decades. The book is organized in three main parts, preceded by a prologue, which provides the framework for what follows, and followed by an epilogue, which draws some broad conclusions. The Prologue defines my methodology, both in the intellectual journey that leads to interpretation, and, more briefly, in the process of reconstructing fragments into pictures. The first part defines my approach to contextual analysis within the framework of reflective awareness. The central precept is the symbiotic relationship between wall paintings, architecture, and human action and response. Through their structure and context, images play a role in sociocultural memory. Following these underlying principles, I attempt to situate my own intellectual development and theoretical positions that led to the method of iconographic interpretation that I practice, delineating how the structure of the book reflects the process of interpretation and chronicling the path that led from fragments to the visualization of scenes. Part I sets the scene physically and culturally. Chapter 1 (which stands alone) situates the wall paintings within their geographic, sociological, and architectural contexts, raising the central issues of “Minoanization,” interisland trade, and cultural dynamics, looking at the structure of the town of Ayia Irini, then focusing on the Northeast Bastion and the archaeological, architectural, and chronological contexts of the wall paintings (Figs. 1.1–1.7; Table 1.1). The chapter ends with a summary of the other paintings from the site, situating them in relation to those from the Northeast Bastion in terms of date and content. Part II forms the core of the book with the presentation and discussion of the wall paintings. The first section deals with the Miniature Frieze; the second, shorter section deals with the Plant Panels. Each chapter ends with a summary, for ease of reference. The various elements of a painting are, of course, inextricably interconnected, yet from an archaeological position and through an iconographer’s lens, in aiming to understand the culture through the texts of its images it is necessary to analyze those elements before interpreting the whole. As such, prior to presenting the visualizations of the scenes, Chapters 2–6 examine the individual elements of the Miniature Frieze—human figures, vehicles, buildings, animals, landscape—discussion being followed by the respective catalogs (see Figs. 2.1–6.2; 2 Preliminary publications: Morgan 1990, 1995b, 1998, 2013; Marinatos and Morgan 2005. Ellen Davis, sadly, died before she was able to complete her work on the Ayia Irini paintings, which focused on House A. In a preliminary article she discussed the brushwork of fragments from House A and Building M (Davis 2007). Publication of the paintings of Ayia Irini outside the Northeast Bastion will follow future study. An overview of their contents is given in Chapter 1, pp. 38–40, based on a survey of the material that we undertook in the 1980s.

PREFACE

Pls. 1–51). The human figures have been given precedence as Chapter 2, since human figures drive the narrative and define the “social.” It is figures—their gestures, clothing, actions, and interactions—that vividly reveal the social life of the time. Vehicles and buildings (Chs. 3, 4) are structures that shape aspects of human action and signal status, place, and occasion, as, in different ways, do animals (Ch. 5). Landscape (Ch. 6) provides the environmental context for the action, is crucial in setting the scene, and establishes the threads that link and separate the scenes. Landscape also occurs as a subject in itself, and its importance for establishing meaning within the paintings cannot be underestimated. By far the largest number of fragments are of land and sea. It was in this order that I studied the fragments, since how the environment holds everything together only becomes clear after seeing what surrounds the individual elements, thereby enabling one to bring pieces together into compositions. Chapter 7, “Visualizing the Past,” brings together the various elements of the Miniature Frieze in considering composition. Here, 25 illustrations (Figs. 7.1–7.25) are offered as visualizations of how parts of the paintings might have looked, each discussed in some detail. They range from single fragments of figures, through small groups of figures or buildings, to large scenes such as the Town by a River, Cauldrons and Ships Scene, Men by a River, Deer and Dogs, the Marsh, and the Rocky Landscape. Each illustration distinguishes the fragments from the reconstruction and is accompanied by a visual record of those fragments used. “Cauldrons and Ships with Rocky Landscape” (Fig. 7.26) brings together two of the scenes in a watercolor painting that suggests how the action may have been integrated in its setting. In “A View of the Room of the Miniature Frieze” that follows, a visualization of how room N.20 might have looked is presented, and suggestions are made for how the various scenes are likely to have been related to one another (Figs. 7.27, 7.28). The concluding part of the chapter considers how the frieze might have been situated on the walls and what form of narrative structure might have been in play. In Chapter 8, the focus shifts to the Plant Panels of room N.18, located adjacent to the room with the Miniature Frieze. The paintings are first considered within their architectural setting, followed by individual consideration of the Bramble and Myrtle and the Grasses and Leaves (Pls. 52–63). Significance of the plants from a social perspective is central to the discussion. In a somewhat different order from the chapters on the Miniature Frieze in Part IIA (in which the visualizations form a separate chapter), the discussion is followed directly by presentation of the eight illustrations reconstructing sections of the Plant Panels (Figs. 8.1–8.8), along with a visualization of how the room might have looked (Figs. 8.9, 8.10), followed by the catalog. Miscellaneous fragments not included in the previous chapters are cataloged in Appendix A (Pls. 64–67). Part III is about the process of production of the wall paintings. In Chapter 9, “Materials, Techniques, and Pigments,” the constituents and application of plaster are examined (Pls. 68–74), the long-standing debate on fresco versus secco technique is aired and some conclusions are offered.3 The pigments used in the paintings are then discussed, based in particular on the results of the analyses 3 The appellation “Fresco” for specific Aegean paintings (as in “Procession Fresco,” “Spring Fresco”) has been retained in this book only because it is now part of the common language of Aegean studies.

xxvii

xxviii

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

of Vassilis Perdikatsis (App. B and Table B.1) and related to what is known of the use of pigments in contemporary sites. The chapter ends with comments on some pieces of ocher found on the site. Chapter 10, “Color and Artistic Performance,” offers insights into the process of painting and the choices made by the artists as they built the images. It begins with a discussion on the important issue of color; then it examines the planning of the scenes through guide lines and organization of the surface of the wall, the sequence in which the paints were applied, and the use of colors in creating the composition (Figs. 10.1, 10.2). Part IV, “Paintings as Cultural Signifiers,” broadens the perspective to examine the implications of my analysis of the wall paintings in terms of the wider Aegean world and social context. Chapter 11, “Intercultural Connections,” begins with an inquiry into the phenomenon of miniature paintings in the Aegean, focusing on the relationship of paintings to architectural space in an attempt to understand the functions of the rooms in the different locations in which miniature paintings occur (Figs. 11.1–11.6). This is followed by a review of craft and iconography as discussed in the book, here focusing on what they reveal about intercultural relations. The broad picture of interrelationships in the Aegean is then examined, revealing insights into the crucially significant social role of miniature paintings. This is followed by thoughts on the artists of the Ayia Irini paintings, along with the elusive question of commission, and what it was that gave rise to the building of the Northeast Bastion with its rich iconographic cycle. Chapter 12, “Feasts, Festivals, and Social Context,” builds on this investigation to focus on the social significance of the wall paintings. The importance of feasts and festivals in the social dynamics of the ancient world and the allusive nature of the iconography of feasting provide a conceptual framework for interpreting the cumulative evidence of wall paintings, architecture, artifacts, and cultural geography at Ayia Irini (Figs. 12.1–12.3). The socially cohesive role of feasts, festivals, and gift exchange at Kea is considered in terms of the broader network of Aegean Bronze Age relations. In the Epilogue, “Wall Paintings and Memory,” the wall paintings in their social context are seen as a catalyst and chronicler of elite cohesion and as a stimulus for sociocultural memory. This is a long book, in which presentation of new material is combined with discussion and ideas of interest to a wider audience. Much of the central part of the book is for specialist reading, which those who are interested will explore. Those who wish to follow the intellectual journey are referred to the Prologue; those concerned with the visualizations will find explanatory text in the Prologue and Chapters 7 and 8. For those who want the crux of the matter, I recommend the following: Part I, Chapter 1, which sets the scene; the summaries at the end of each of the analytical chapters on the wall paintings in Parts II and III, along with the illustrations in Chapters 7 and 8; and Part IV, which broadens the discussion, situating the paintings in terms of intercultural connections (Ch. 11) and social context (Ch. 12 and the Epilogue). Illustrations are presented as photographs, drawings, and paintings, each shown at a specific scale. The plates at the back of the book present the most significant fragments at 1:1 scale, arranged according to subject in the order of the chapters and within each category according to placements within the reconstructions. In the catalogs, photographs of all the fragments included in the book appear at 1:2 scale, paired (in the case of the miniatures) with the study drawings. The visualizations appear at 1:3 in Chapters 7 and 8, the largest scale that would fit

PREFACE

the book page in the case of the larger illustrations. Each is accompanied by outlines of the fragments with their identifying numbers to enable the reader to locate them with ease. Numbers in bold in the text correspond to the catalog entries and run continuously through the chapters. The contexts of the fragments are given in the catalog entries and in Chapter 7 with the visualizations. Since the methodological approach involves analyzing the elements in the fragments prior to presentation of the visualizations, the figure numbers for Chapter 7 appear in the text of Chapters 2–6 after the catalog number only when the discussion touches on aspects that are clarified through the visualizations. Concordances A and B list all of the Miniature Frieze fragments studied, ordered, respectively, by context and catalog numbers, accompanied by brief descriptions of their subject matter, plate numbers, and Chapter 7 figure numbers, and an indication of whether the fragment belonged to an edge of the wall paintings. These concordances make it possible for the reader to see at a glance into which (if any) of the visualizations in Chapter 7 a particular fragment has been placed. Concordance C correlates the catalog numbers used in the present work with those of the earlier publications of Abramovitz Coleman. At the time of writing, the fragments are housed in the storerooms of the Archaeological Museum in Chora on Kea. The painted plasters from the rest of the site, also stored there, are briefly discussed in Chapter 1. It is envisaged that they will be the subject of a future study.

xxix

Acknowledgments

In the way of long projects, there are many who have paved the way, advised, encouraged, and supported me in the process. To all these people, I offer my profound thanks, those listed here and any that I may have inadvertently missed. The Department of Classics of the University of Cincinnati is the driving force of the Kea publications, and I would like to thank its members and staff for their support, in particular Getzel Cohen†, who arranged for the funding of a research assistant, Cecelia Granstrom, who typed my notebooks while I was teaching at the University of Manchester in the 1990s, and William Johnson, Peter van Minnen, and Jack Davis, successive directors of record for the excavations. For financial support of field trips in the 1980s and early 1990s, I am most grateful to Lloyd Cotsen† and to the National Endowment for Humanities. Harvard University generously digitized the original photographs in 2007 while I was there as M.A. Willcomb Visiting Lecturer on Ancient Egyptian Civilization. Since 2008, The Institute for Aegean Prehistory (INSTAP) has provided valuable financial support toward the illustrations and field trips, as well as taking on the publication of a book with considerable demands for full color reproduction of images. This is greatly appreciated, both by myself and by the Department of Classics at the University of Cincinnati. It is thanks to the generosity of Malcolm Wiener and INSTAP that the book appears in this form. For facilitating my study in Greece I am indebted to the Greek Archaeological Service and the respective ephors of the Cyclades, Evi Touloupa in the 1980s and Marisa Marthari in the 2000s; to the American School of Classical Studies; and, at the Kea Archaeological Museum in Chora, to Lefteris Lepouras, the chief guard for many years, and in recent years, Eleutheria Morfoniou, Katerina

xxxii

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

Mantonanaki, and conservator Eleni Tsiogka. For photography of the plates my thanks go to Craig Mauzy, Marie Mauzy, and Chronis Papanikolopoulos. For interesting discussions, helpful information, and encouragement, I am happy to thank Erhan Acar, Manfred Bietak, Aliki Bikaki,† John Bennet, David Blackburn, Christos Boulotis, Hariclia Brecoulaki, Cyprian Broodbank, Miriam Caskey, Joanne Cutler, Oliver Dickinson, Christos Doumas, Emily Egan, Susan James, Robert Koehl, Xenia Kravchenko, Toula Marketou, Marisa Marthari, Marco Massetti, Christine Morris, Wolf-Dietrich Niemeier, Irini Papageorgiou, Mark Peters, Ingo Pini, Lefteris Platon, Stephen Quirke, Joanna Rees, Joseph Shaw, Maria Shaw, Iris Tzachili, Andreas Vlachopoulos, Peter Warren, Irene Winter, and James Wright. For permission to reproduce the Thera miniature paintings, I am grateful to Christos Doumas. For their perceptive comments and “bird’s-eye view,” I am most grateful to the anonymous readers for INSTAP. For their constructive comments on the manuscript my thanks go to Anne Chapin, Jack Davis, Iphigenia Tournavitou, and Doan Morgan Vassaf. For their helpful comments on chapters, I am grateful to Rodney Fitzsimons and Evi Gorogianni (Ch. 1), Joost Crouwel (Ch. 3), Richard Jones, Effie Photos-Jones, and Vassilis Perdikatsis (Chs. 9, 10), Nanno Marinatos (reconstructions and discussions), and Clairy Palyvou (Ch. 4 and reconstructions). All thanks are special, but some go deep into the fabric of the work: special thanks to John Caskey† for his encouragement when I visited Ayia Irini as a student in the 1970s; to Elizabeth Schofield† for inviting me in the 1980s to work on the paintings from Ayia Irini; to Jack Davis as long-time Kea friend; to Stella Bouzaki for paving the way through her expert conservation; to Ellen Davis† with whom I started the study of the Kea wall paintings; to Lefteris Lepouras for his indispensable support at the Chora Museum; to Evi Gorogianni and Rodney Fitzsimons for lively discussions and navigation around the Northern Sector; to Carol Hershenson for information from the Kea Archives and her unflagging enthusiasm; to Rosemary Robertson for the maps, her skilled graphic editing and understanding of how to utilize the original drawings, and the photograph of the Brittany feast; to Stuart Laidlaw† of the Institute of Archaeology in London for generously sharing his expertise and his incredible patience with graphic editing in the light of the seemingly endless revisions I made to the illustrations; to Nicola Math for miraculously generating virtual rooms from my imaginings and to Clairy Palyvou for her architectural advice; to Philip Betancourt, Malcolm Wiener, and the Institute for Aegean Prehistory for their generous, invaluable support; and for their patience and considerable expertise, to Priscilla Keswani (copyeditor), Hilary Sperling and Molly Kaplan (designers), and to my editors Susan Ferrence and Sarah Peterson at INSTAP Academic Press. Finally, I give my heartfelt thanks to Gündüz Vassaf and our son Doan Morgan Vassaf, who have lived with my Kea project for longer than any of us could have imagined.

List of Abbreviations

avg. average ca. approximately cat. catalog cm centimeter(s) CMS  Corpus der minoischen und mykenischen Siegel col. color EC Early Cycladic EDX energy dispersive X-ray analysis esp. especially frag. fragment km kilometer(s) H. height LB Late Bronze LBA Late Bronze Age LC Late Cycladic

LH Late Helladic LM Late Minoan m meter(s) MBA Middle Bronze Age MC Middle Cycladic MM Middle Minoan m asl meters above sea level no(s). number(s) opp. opposite SEM scanning electron microscopy SEM-EDX scanning electron microscopy-energy dispersive X-ray analysis th. thickness TT Theban Tomb w. width XRD X-ray powder diffraction

PROLOGUE

Perception and Interpretation: The Process

Over the last few decades, the disciplines of archaeology and art history have evolved, with theoretical approaches and methodological awareness becoming lynchpins in the interpretation of the past. Such self-reflective awareness is a vital component of the process, from perceptual reconstruction of elements to conceptual analysis of social context. In the case of wall paintings, reconstruction is both physical and cognitive. Fragments of wall paintings are material, each unique, as much in their broken edges and backs as in the painted surfaces. In juxtaposing the pieces to form recognizable images, the process of reconstruction is simultaneously visual and cognitive, a symbiotic process of recognition and association that continues into the final stage of interpretation of the meanings of the images in relation to their wider contextual environment. This prologue elucidates the underlying principles of the work, both in terms of reconstructing the fragments into compositions and of interpreting the images within the framework of their environment and their wider social context. In the quest for meaning there is always a process. Transparency in relation to the process provides the framework for

understanding. In conveying the interpretative process in a publication such as this, opportunities are afforded for reanalysis of ambiguities (whether in the material or in the mind of the beholder), questions of identification, and interpretative frameworks and conclusions. Interpretation is multifaceted, complex, and above all, contextual. For this reason, critiques of interpretations are only meaningful if the original has been closely studied, the context fully appreciated, and the process of interpretation critically examined. This is the crux of the relationship between perception and interpretation. This study touches on the material, the visual, and the cognitive, yet it should be immediately apparent that each of these categories is far from discrete, but rather permeates each of the others. The first sections of this prologue deal with fundamental issues, the foundations of my approach, of relevance beyond the confines of this book and beyond the specifics of a single culture. “Art in Context, Art as Text” outlines the notion of contextual analysis that is central to my approach and provides a framework for the interpretation of visual text. “Experiencing Wall Paintings” asserts that the symbiotic

2

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

relationship between images and their placement is an elemental aspect of interpretation. This is context in the sense of human response to the physicality of objects in space. “Images and Memory” reflects on an interpretative mode that seeks to understand the relationship between images and their social context. This is a broader theoretical stance concerning conceptual response and provides a framework for the wider issues discussed toward the end of the book. Such musings on experience and response will be developed in a future book. Here, I have kept them intentionally brief, simply outlining what I take to be some fundamental principles. The central section reveals some of the personal, cultural, sensory, and intellectual influences that have shaped my thinking and my approach. “A Personal Journey” follows a path of the input of experiences that formed my approach and the output of expressing the results of this interpretative journey. The final section, “Visualization: Reconstructing the Fragmentary,” is intended for a specialist audience. Here I explain what was involved in the process of revisualizing the fragments of these paintings into compositions. The purpose is to elucidate the perceptual and interpretative problems and approaches as a prelude to the discussions of the individual visualizations.

and nearby areas of the site, the views from the windows, and the makeup of the surrounding environment. As I have argued in earlier works, all analysis is interpretative, even the seemingly simple task of identification.2 Bringing these principles together, it is apparent that the search for meanings is multilayered. Our understanding of each aspect (painted form, architectural space, access, and surroundings) will be predicated on the interpretative skills of ourselves and others, each of whom will bring a uniquely individual yet culturally guided perspective to the areas of their investigation. This is visual text, and as such it requires decipherment. It is text with interrelated context—physical and cognitive, social and cultural—but text that is incomplete. With this awareness, my text—both in written words and visual illustrations—is interpretative. Throughout the book, I have tried to be transparent about the methods of reaching conclusions, the evidence, perceptual ambiguities in the material (such as flaked pigment), and interpretative lines of thought. The aim is a global, that is, fully contextual, approach to the material, through which the certain, the probable, and the possible are distinguished in the process that leads to conclusions. In the end, I could not have stopped short of the broader reaches of interpretation as to do so would have precluded a beginning.

Art in Context, Art as Text

Experiencing Wall Paintings

Central to my approach to material culture is the principle of contextual analysis, combined with the hermeneutic concept of reflective awareness. While excavation reports have traditionally aimed at presenting “the facts” rather than “interpretations” (an aim that has been deconstructed in some recent literature),1 wall paintings in particular necessitate the broadest of interpretative approaches. Wall paintings belong not just to the visual culture of the time, but to the architectural structure and functions of the rooms, to the circulatory patterns that lead in and out of the rooms, and, by extension, to the adjacent

Today we are so used to seeing the images and objects that we define as “art” in museums or photographs, divorced from their contexts, that it can be an effort to relocate our perceptions into a more holistic view. Even wall paintings, inextricably connected with the walls on which they were painted, are subject to dislocation in interpretative discourse. Fallen from walls that no longer exist, fragmented into hundreds of pieces, Aegean wall paintings in

1 E.g., Gorogianni’s doctoral thesis (2008) provides a penetrating deconstruction of the historicity of the process of excavation and, hence, the surviving material open to interpretation from the site of Ayia Irini. More generally, see nn. 16 and 18 below with reference to the contextual archaeology of Ian Hodder and others.

2 Morgan 1985 (on idiom), 1989 (on ambiguity in glyptic art). The issue of ambiguity in glyptic art is the topic of a recent book by McGowan (2011). Onassoglou’s 1985 book Die “Talismanischen” Siegel (which systematizes what I discussed as ambiguous), was published just after my conference paper (published subsequently in 1989) was written. That paper was, therefore, in no way connected with her work, and since I neglected to say so as an addendum to the publication I would like to take this opportunity to clarify that misconception.

PERCEPTION AND INTERPRETATION: THE PROCESS

particular are challenging to comprehend. Yet wall paintings and their architectural spaces, in carefully chosen locations and orientations, are symbiotically and inextricably connected.3 Iconography is always linked to its material forms. In the case of wall paintings, the images, buildings, environment, and associated artifacts form a complex of interrelated meanings that need to be read as a whole. In the experience of viewing, wall paintings, architecture, and bodily movement combine. Throughout this and other studies it has been my intention to emphasize this basic but fundamental point. In recent decades, theoretical debate has drawn attention to the cultural relativity of meaning invested in the body, both as a living entity in the form of persons interacting with their social world (habitus), and as artifact or symbol in visual (and literary) media.4 Spatial and sensory experiences play a central role in this discourse. Such debates, while particularly relevant to issues of gender and gesture, raise the fundamental issue of the relationship between the body in life and the image in art. Images are allied not only to the environments in which they appear but also to the interactions between the bodies of people and the image-space. There is a temporal as well as a spatial involvement with images on walls, as people walk through the room, directing their gaze as body and eyes move with the sequence of images. Where the painting is situated on the wall significantly affects viewing, as does the size of the room, the positions of windows, doors, benches and other structures, lighting, the approach through the larger architectural structure, and the approach through the settlement. The orientation of the building, of the windows, and of each scene in the painting may be potent with symbolic reference. Awareness of orientation (position of the sun, direction of landmarks and the sea) constitutes spatial memory that enables the participants to orient their experiences within 3 Cf. on the relationship between wall paintings and architectural space at Akrotiri: Immerwahr 2000; Palyvou 2000, 2012; Paliou 2008; Paliou, Wheatley, and Earl 2011; GünkelMaschek 2011; Morgan 2016 (which deals explicitly with some of the principles discussed here). The book Minoan Realities focuses on relationships between images, architecture, and society in the Neopalatial period; see esp. Letesson 2012; Palyvou 2012; Panagiotopoulos and Günkel-Maschek 2012. 4 For discourse on the body in archaeology, see, e.g., the papers in the edited volumes of Rautman, ed., 2000; Hamilakis, Pluciennik, and Tarlow, eds., 2002; Borić and Robb, eds., 2008. On archaeology and the senses, see Hamilakis 2013; papers in Day, ed., 2013.

3

the painted space. Settings shape social practices;5 painted settings act as cues to memories. In those cases in which Aegean wall paintings have survived sufficiently to be contextualized, it is evident that architecture and painting were designed together. Despite the problems involved in attempting to identify functions of rooms from architectural form and material remains, whether at the time of construction or during the layered history of use, buildings and their paintings are structured in ways that accommodate patterns of human interaction.6 In a room such as N.18, the body of the participant would have been enveloped by the images of largescale plants. In contrast, a miniature frieze, set high on the walls above windows and doors, invites movements of the head in order to engage with the images. Like stained glass windows in medieval cathedrals, the pictures hover above the congregation of people, filled with potential meaning that necessitates conscious engagement to access. Alongside their interactions with each other, the gaze of the people within the room would have alternated between visions of the outside world at eye level through the windows and visions of the painted scenes above. Agency and reception, central to current discourse in material culture studies, lie at the core of the polysemic nature of imagery.7 Wall paintings are experienced, not just seen, and the phenomenological basis of viewing is crucial to our understanding. 5 Rapoport 1969. 6 Cf. Palyvou on the problems of identifying function (2005a, 107–109) and on human interaction with architectural space and urban design (1987, 2000, 2004, 2005a, 2009b, 2012). 7 Agency, response, and engagement are key topics in current discourse on material culture, set in motion especially by the influential if controversial attribution of agency to art objects by anthropologist Alfred Gell (1998) and the notion of the “social life” of objects put forward in Appadurai, ed., 1986. See also Freedberg 1989 on the power of images to elicit response; see Belting 2001 on the relationship between images and the body. For critiques and developments of the notion of agency, see in particular the papers in Dobres and Robb, eds., 2000; Gardner, ed., 2004; Osborne and Tanner, eds., 2007; also (specifically on images) the articles of Layton 2003; Hoskins 2006; Winter 2007; Morphy 2009, 2010. On the notion of “material engagement,” a part of archaeological theory that emphasizes the symbolic power of material culture as a force for social change and aims to bring together (social) structure and (individual) agency, see esp. Renfrew 2004 and the papers in Knappett and Malafouris, eds., 2008; Malafouris and Renfrew 2010; cf. studies on relationships between people and things, e.g., Meskell 2004 and esp. Hodder 2012.

4

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

Those people who were permitted to experience ancient paintings within their designated spaces did so through their bodily movements, the wandering or focused quality of their gaze, and their interactions with others similarly privileged in their viewing and the actions that accompanied their presence. There is significance in the route(s) taken to reach painted spaces. People interact physically, emotionally, and intellectually with wall paintings in different ways, according to where the images are situated on the walls and how much detail can be seen by the standing or seated viewer, how they relate to entrances, exits, and views, the size and lighting of the room, and what activities occurred within it. Wall paintings are participatory, their meanings mediated through the performative actions of those who experience them within the room. Through this performative involvement, a relationship is formed between wall paintings, the body, and memory. With the notion of art in context as the fundamental precept, it was essential to explore the significance of the Northeast Bastion itself in the inquiry into the meanings of its images. It cannot be stressed enough that this was a unique location for wall paintings: neither palace, nor independent house, nor shrine or tomb, the structure constituted an integral part of a system of fortifications and was situated in a profoundly strategic location. While the exact positions of the images on the walls were lost with the crumbling of the structure, the building itself and its relation to the surrounding town, the fortifications, and its environs survives to tell its tale. In combining iconographic analysis with contextual awareness, it has, I believe, been possible to build a framework within which to view the significance of the images in their setting in terms of cultural formation and social dynamics at a crucial period of time in Aegean prehistory.

Images and Memory Perception, interpretation, and memory are structured by form, articulated and manipulated through language. Words and pictures (both of which as constructed communicative devices are included here within the generic term “language”) structure ideas, and in doing so initiate and substantiate memory. Narratives give cognitive form to networks of ideas, drawing together components into recognizable

structures. These structures are active in embedding memories into the minds of those who participate (viewers/listeners/readers). “Memory” or “remembering” is currently a key topic in the humanities and social sciences, especially in interdisciplinary studies, and has recently become a significant part of archaeological discourse. The focus is on shared, social memories (in which individual memories are embedded) that shape communities as an active force in the formation of cultural identity.8 The process of memory involves complex interactions between mind and matter, between persons, places, objects, and sensory stimuli.9 Yet memory is highly selective, an ordering of the past that shapes present perceptions of self and other. What is remembered in the social arena is what is communicated and shared, transcribed into ideas and images that have a degree of permanency that enable the listener, reader, or viewer to draw from a pool of cultural heritage. Sociologist Paul Connerton’s influential work distinguished between “performative” and “inscribed” social memory.10 In the former, memory is embodied in the movements of the body through its awareness of time and space: in the enactment of social and religious rituals, in dialogues with architectural structures and landscape, through sensations of food, music, and other stimuli. All of these are simultaneously individual and social, internalized and shared. In the latter, memories are “inscribed” through monuments, pictures, and texts. These frequently draw on the past to legitimize 8 The notion of memory as collectively formulated through social groups was first theorized by Halbwachs ([1941] 1992) and was developed by Connerton (1989), who applied the term “social memory,” also used earlier by Warburg in relation to images as carriers of memory (1923 lecture, cited by Assmann, 1995, 125 [cf. 129]; 2008, 110; discussed in Erll 2011, 19–22). See also Fentris and Wickham 1992. On memory in relation to archaeology, material culture, and place see especially Alcock 2002; Mack 2003; A. Jones 2007; Borić 2010; papers in Van Dyke and Alcock, eds., 2003; Yoffee, ed., 2007; Mills and Walker, eds., 2008; Barbiera, Choyke, and Rasson, eds., 2009; Borgna et al., eds., 2009. On memory and landscape: Bender 1993, 2006; Ingold 1993; Tilley 1994; Schama 1996; Ashmore and Knapp, eds., 1999. On sensory memory through the sharing of food: Hamilakis 1998; Sutton 2001. On memory, culture, and the Kea paintings: Morgan 2019; this vol., Epilogue. 9 Cf. Kwint, Breward, and Aynsley 1999; A. Jones 2007. 10 Connerton 1989. Cf. Fentris and Wickham (1992) who distinguish between “memory as action” and “memory as representation.”

PERCEPTION AND INTERPRETATION: THE PROCESS

the present and to project into the future of the social order. While social memory is typically seen as resting on communicative intercourse between at most two or three generations, cultural memory, as defined by Jan Assmann, encompasses a wider time frame.11 Festivals, ceremonies, rituals, performances, pictures, and texts are the disseminators of cultural memory, which in each society has “special carriers,” such as priests, bards, artists, scribes, and others.12 Repetition of rituals and festivals consolidate group coherence, as does repeated interaction with significant images, both within the extended context of tradition. Yet distinctions between performative and inscribed memory or between social and cultural memory are permeable. Monuments, pictures, and texts convey meaning through active participation in the context of viewing, and the human response is physical as much as cognitive. Wall paintings in particular create both reactions in equal measure: inscribed in their permanence on the walls, they are embodied through the actions and reactions of the viewer moving through the architectural space. As such, their domain is sociocultural, what one might call “interactive memory,” expressing the active flow of information between persons and groups through their mutual interaction with places, things, and images. How then do such paintings as the Miniature Frieze from Kea (or Thera) fit within the theoretical discourse on memory? The visual tradition to which they belong was recent and notably short lived, the communicative messages of their ideas and images temporarily bounded by the life of the paintings and the buildings that housed them. Yet the social context of community action within the scenes lies firmly within the scope of both social and cultural memory, as does the social context of the architectural space in which these images appear. Such paintings are, therefore, carriers of memory, not in the narrower sense of continuity, but in the more inclusive sense of sociocultural meanings. Discerning such meanings involves a multifaceted process of contextual and structural analysis. Wall paintings are simultaneously windows onto the 11 Assmann 1995, 2006, 2008, 2011. (Jan Assmann’s work on cultural memory is exemplified by studies of the ancient world, while the parallel work of Aleida Assmann relates the concept to studies of the modern world.) On cultural memory, see also Erll 2011 and the papers in Erll and Nünning, eds., 2008; Bommas, ed., 2011. 12 Assmann 2008, 113; 2011, 39.

5

world and constructed maps of visual concepts. Each has a semantic structure that is drawn from known images combined in traditional and innovative ways. Each is unique, yet each is part of a cultural system. Analyses of intercultural connections draw on the wider cultural system to distinguish elements of traditional imagery and their sources from innovations of the particular artists. But how do such combinations actually work and what impact do they have on the construction of memory? Wall paintings with aspects of narrative structure, as in miniature friezes with their complex settings and human action, are as long or as short as the passage of wall. But no matter their size, they will always tell a part of the story, not the whole. Iconography is framed by a device that, while significantly different in the compilation of structure, is similar in process to oral poetry, which draws on a wide range of stock phrases that enable the reciter to extemporize within the defined structure of the verse.13 There were formulae for introducing a scene, for describing characters and actions, and for carrying the narrative forward, providing stable points of reference woven into and illuminating the larger themes. Iconography in turn draws from an available range of cultural idioms and visual ideas, transforming them through new combinations and innovative approaches. A painting works as a visual message and a cue to memory through a combination of recognizable elements or formulae working together in unique ways. Abbreviation is the answer to the boundaries of iconographic space and is the crucial element in eliciting response. In visual images, abbreviation works in different ways, sometimes similar to the linguistic devices of metaphor, metonymy, or synecdoche, in which reference to a larger whole is made through presentation of a similar or smaller part.14 Specific images drawing on a part are resonant of the whole experience and, most importantly, of the social implications of that experience: a seated figure holding 13 Fentris and Wickham (1992, 43–44) discuss the work of Parry (A. Parm, ed., 1971) and Lord (1960) on the Homeric poems and Beowulf, respectively, in the context of the notion of social memory. 14 Metonym (which takes a part to stand for a whole, as in “throne” for “kingship”) and synecdoche (which takes a figure of speech to stand for a part or whole, as in “combine forces” for “work together with a single aim”) are discussed in relation to language and memory by Tilley (1999, 5–6; cf. 2002 on metaphor).

6

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

a cup evokes drinking ceremonies or feasting activities as a whole; a procession of men carrying containers stands for offerings or gift exchange in the context of social relations. Such elements of scenes evoke moments delineated by time and space, triggering recognition, memory, and anticipation of the whole through the part. This principle works in all structural formats, whether or not the painting involves continuous linear narrative in the form of a story with the logic of temporality, paratactic narrative made up of related parts that convey aspects of events, stories, and social interactions, or vignettes that are linked by more tenuous threads. Criteria for defining the parameters of visual narrative in ancient art are notoriously variable according to the perspective of the analyst. But whether one adopts an “uncompromising” definition of true narrative as being continuous15 or a broader one that encompasses spatial and temporal disjunction within aspects of narrative transition, the principle of relating part to whole pertains. What is crucial for the picture to work is for the chosen elements and their distribution to elicit recognition. Discerning selection of cogent images in which the part reflects the whole can elicit profound response. Through their ability in the interactive process to consolidate and form memory, images have the power to legitimize and affect social order. The issue of narrative structure, elusive and allusive though it is in terms of these paintings, recurs in Chapter 7 (in relation to the disposition of scenes) and in Chapter 11 (in answer to those who see elements of oral poetry in miniature wall paintings). In addition, the discourse of memory and visual structure is directly relevant to my culminating interpretation of the social context of the wall paintings of the Northeast Bastion, as put forward in Chapter 12 and the Epilogue. 15 Cain 1997, 204–205, regarding Morgan 1988, 164–165. Dawn Cain’s perceptive dissertation offers a useful analysis of different approaches to narrativity, with special reference to the Aegean. In response to her critique, in this work I take a broader view of narrative, while maintaining that thematic content is as much a determinant of structure as narrativity. On narrative in ancient art, see also the papers in Kessler and Simpson, eds., 1985, esp. that by Winter (1985), who closely analyzes relationships and differences between pictorial and written narratives in the ancient Near East and stresses the allusive nature of the former.

A Personal Journey Like all people, I am a product of my time and place, subject to influences from how I have lived, what I have seen, and what I have read. Such influences are personal and cultural, sensory and intellectual. During countless visits to Kea over the past 30 years, I have embarked on long, solitary walks, experiencing the natural world from multiple viewpoints as I thought about the past. Each walk simultaneously enveloped me in experiences of the present, the images in the paintings, and my imaginings of the people and places of those times. I witnessed the intense colors and varied textures of rocks, felt the different qualities of ground (damp, dry, stony, scrub) beneath my feet, smelled the vegetation, listened to the sounds of cicadas, birds, wind, and water, peered through giant reeds, followed dried-up river beds, sat on secluded rocks among lapping waves as sunlight glinted on the sea, watched the changes in the multicolored skies of dawn, day, and dusk, climbed hills to look down on relationships between settlement, harbor, and open sea, witnessed the coast and hills from the viewpoint of a boat, looked up at buildings framed by land and sky, scrambled through overgrowth to enter an ancient ocher mine, and walked along narrow paths between overhanging rocks in the interior hills, awed by the changing perspective of above and below. In addition, I engaged with material presence, both on the site and around the island: at Ayia Irini I climbed walls to see potential views from hypothetical windows; on the island I noted how painted plaster crumbles over time in abandoned buildings, the long gestation of this work enabling me to observe the process of collapse over an extended period. The perspicacious reader will see how each of these experiences has nourished my understanding of the paintings and their context. Equally, like all scholars, I have developed an idiosyncratic way of thinking about the world and approaching my work. The line between the two is not always clear-cut. Theories and methodologies go in and out of fashion. A few have a profound impact; most are partially useful; some offer little practical application. Each in its turn is simultaneously built upon and criticized as it is modified or replaced by the next trend. Naming a theoretical stance as an intellectual framework with limits can be hazardous, even if some resonate strikingly with ways in which

PERCEPTION AND INTERPRETATION: THE PROCESS

one thinks and help one to articulate an approach that previously had no name. For those who doubted the infallibility of singular interpretative schemes, “hermeneutics” provided a welcome peg for our intellectual hats. For those who always knew that material culture revealed minds, “cognitive archaeology” came as no surprise, but offered recognition of a fundamental principle within a conceptual framework. Ultimately, theory must be appropriate for use, and methodology must fit the task. Rather than hang on the tails of an “ism” or “post-ism” (even one that deconstructs monosemic approaches) in a work such as this, it seems wiser to elucidate rather than to pigeonhole the complexity of an approach, at the same time acknowledging roots and paths of the interpretative journey. Nourished in my youth by semiotics, structuralism, and poststructuralism, I saw how current developments in archaeological theory—postprocessual, cognitive, and the multifariously named allied theories—are underpinned by these intellectual approaches, even while critiquing them. Of the numerous theoretical appellations of recent decades, “archaeological semiotics” brings the focus full circle, while acknowledging the interconnectedness of these theoretical mindsets and the primacy of contextual analysis.16 Indeed, each of these approaches draws attention to one of several aspects of interpretative theory through the focus of its nomenclature. Structure, process, and cognition lie at the heart of all interpretation. While the trend (of which my work is a part) has been a move toward the active relationship between the material and the social, multiplicity of meaning, agency, and reflexivity, the fundamentals of each of these influential approaches form a core on which all else depends. 16 Preucel 2010. The semiotics advocated by Preucel is founded more on Pierce than Saussure (who was influential in my early intellectual development) and is allied to “social semiotics,” which focuses on textual, material, and somatic meaning as mediators of social being through contextuality. This book provides a useful historical account of the main threads of archaeological theory and their foundations in semiology, linguistics, and anthropological theory. Contextual analysis in archaeology is central to the work of Hodder (1986 and subsequent writings; cf. Barrett 1987) and has recently been assessed in the light of current approaches in Papaconstantinou, ed., 2006 (see esp. Papaconstantinou 2006 and Vouzaxakis 2006, with further references). See also Bennet 2015, with reference to Mycenaean wall paintings.

7

Iconographic interpretation as I practice it arises from the analysis of relationships between idea and idiom and, as such, is fundamentally an exploration of cognitive process, predicated on analysis of how signs and structures are made and how they work together to generate meaning through relationships.17 Meanings accumulate and shift through the processes of production and reception. The chaîné opératoire builds the foundations of meanings; the networks of response develop and transform them. Context, the key to all forms of comprehension, is in the case of material culture simultaneously physical and social, a spatial as well as temporal web of interconnections. Just as the various approaches to archaeological theory can be seen as interrelated, the lines of demarcation between disciplines are ill defined. Iconography is a broad platform concerned with visual images as social and cultural texts. Technical studies, in that they reveal process and elucidate meaning, are an essential part of this, as, in the case of wall paintings, are architectural studies. Ultimately, the separately named disciplines of archaeology, anthropology, and art history (and others besides, including linguistics) are all concerned with the same fundamental questions of meanings, cognitive patterns, social contexts, cultural transmissions, and the transformative nature of human creations in the structuring of society. In addressing these questions the process is fundamentally interactive, interpreter and interpreted inextricably linked through the processes of thought. One guiding principle underlying my approach to interpretation is that which is predicated on the principle of self-awareness and the contingency of meaning. Hermeneutic analysis is ultimately concerned with reflective modes of interpretation.18 It 17 Morgan 1985. In terminology, I make no distinction between “iconography” and “iconology,” as defined by Panofsky ([1939] 1967, 3–17), because I see these constructs as inextricably interconnected, as indeed did Panofsky himself (p. 17). 18 For a brief discussion of hermeneutic philosophy in relation to iconographic interpretation, see Morgan 1985, 5–6 n. 2. For its application to archaeology, see esp. Johnson and Olsen (1992), who critically evaluate Hodder’s influential contextual archaeology of the 1980s (Hodder 1987) from the broader perspective of hermeneutic philosophy (but cf. Hodder’s later work, as in 1991, 33–35; 1993, 257); also Tilley, ed., 1990 (in relation to structuralism and poststructuralism); Gosden 1994, 51–61; Preucel 2010, 123 (in relation to postprocessual approaches); and, for its application to art theory and practice, Davey 2002.

8

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

rests on the assumption that there is no single view of the world; there are multiple culturally, socially, and individually constructed ways of seeing and understanding. With this concept of plurality, interpretation seeks to contextualize meaning and to situate perception within the traditions of both the original context and of the present interpreter. The ultimate aim is a meeting of minds. The grounded realization is how far short of this aim the result will be. As such, in my work my aim is to be constantly attuned to how each interpretative stage has been reached, aware of both shortcomings and strengths in the networks of thoughts. These stages are intertwined in a continuous process of inquiry in which seeing and interpreting are inseparable components. Interpreting visual images at the iconic level involves contextual analysis on the micro level. It is predicated not simply on an equation between the image and “reality,” drawing from a memory bank of visual forms encountered in life, and not simply from familiarity with other similar images—though this is crucial—but also from discrete analysis of the relationship between material and image. In the case of ancient wall paintings, fallen, flaked, and fragmentary, layers of pigment create form, and deciphering the layers is a crucial part of interpreting the image. At the same time, familiarity with the idiom of time and place—the cultural constructs of the image—is, of course, essential. The semiotic structures of images are integral to their power to elicit response. Spatial organization, relative scale, temporal devices, directional codes, delineation of lines, and uses of color all combine consciously and unconsciously in the act of creating an image.19 I have in the past distinguished between cultural “idiom” and individual “style,” and (while recognizing their interrelatedness) still maintain that the distinction (like that of Saussure’s “langue” and “parole”) is useful, not merely in terms of identifying groups of artists but, more fundamentally, in formulating an awareness of iconic principles.20 19 Cf. Morgan 1988, 12–15. On space and perspective in Aegean art, see in particular Groenwegen-Frankfort 1951, 185–216; Betancourt 1977, 2000; Iliakis 1978; Walberg 1986; Laffineur 1990; Blakolmer 1996. On relationships between image, reality, and conceptualization, see esp. Warren 2000; Palyvou 2005b; for a comparative approach to representational modes and conventions in Aegean and Egyptian art, see Bietak 2000. 20 Morgan 1985. On the basis of the definition and etymology of the word “idiom” as defined by the Oxford English Dictionary, I cannot agree with Wedde’s contrary use of

Analysis of idiom is crucial to understanding and inextricably linked to cultural meaning.21 Comparanda are the building blocks of idiomatic awareness, useful not merely as windows into cultural interconnections, but as primary sources of the structures of pictorial text. Images, like words, can be combined in an almost infinite variety of ways. Iconography draws from a known range of cultural idioms and visual ideas, transforming them through adaptation and innovation into something that is to a lesser or larger degree unique. Each image is part of a cultural system with elements that situate it in time, place, and medium. Paintings are constructed maps of visual concepts drawn from a corpus of images combined in traditional and innovative ways to create a recognizable yet unexpected whole.22 All iconography involves a process of selection. From the constantly moving flow of life, with its noisy, bustling action set within a myriad of colors and shapes, those elements that most efficiently and strikingly communicate are chosen to stand for the larger picture. This is so whether an image stands alone or is composed of a series, and whether that series has a definable narrative thread or images that are juxtaposed as echoes and references that evoke broader paradigms through tangential links. The material surface is limited, even in a wall painting; it moves only through the agency of the viewer’s eyes. Abbreviation serves to communicate and spark a range of thought processes in response. In viewing images we anticipate larger pictures, themes, and messages through the partial. What the artist does through selection and abbreviation is paralleled by what the interpreter does in analyzing the surviving material.

Presentation as Elucidation How, then, to present new material in such a way that both presence and absence can be assessed and elucidated? At various points in the long process of this book I was aware of being caught in a dichotomy. the term as applicable to individuals rather than to cultures (2000, 93 n. 2). 21 Cf. Winter 1998, who, while using the term “style” rather than idiom, argues for the “affective agency” of “form-pluscontent” in the creation of meaning in images. 22 On distinctions between the traditional and the innovative in the Northeast Bastion paintings, as presented in Chapter 11, cf. Morgan 2018b.

PERCEPTION AND INTERPRETATION: THE PROCESS

On the one hand I wanted to present the material as neutrally as possible, allowing the images as they have survived to speak for themselves. On the other hand I was all too aware that seeing is predicated on understanding, and “seeing” the images in many of these fragmentary pieces requires a considerable level of familiarity and an ability to mentally fill in what is missing from the visual frame in order to understand the potential of the image. For this reason the material is presented in a number of complementary ways. The photographs record the fragments as they appear in the best possible lighting for seeing the image. They may appear somewhat brighter than they do as stored in the boxes in the museum, the colors slightly more vivid, while retaining the overall tonal balance. The study drawings record what I saw using magnification to examine layers of paint. The aim was to clarify form and to record preservation and loss of surface. The compositions in Chapter 7 fill in those areas of loss and put fragments together into proposed scenes. The colored drawings focus on form, while the watercolors (mostly of landscapes) aim to express how the originals might have looked in terms of composition, color, and painterly techniques. Nonetheless, it should be understood that these are watercolors on paper, not fresco or secco paintings on lime plaster. There is a significant difference in quality between the two techniques, notably in translucency and opacity. Clearly each of these represents a different level of interpretation. The illustrations move exponentially from observational analysis and recording to propositional analysis and exhibition in the effort to elucidate and communicate. Yet in terms of color, the watercolor paintings aim to express something of the original “look” as well as the composition. Keeping to specific scales throughout enables the reader to comprehend something of the physicality of the fragments (as in the 1:1 photographs in the plates) and to retain a comparative framework throughout (as in the 1:2 paired photos with study drawings in the catalogs and the 1:3 illustrations). In the same way, the written text elucidates the images through progressive levels of interpretation. The catalog entries in Part II are the written equivalents of the photographs and study drawings that accompany them: descriptive in intention in terms of content, preservation, and technique. Similarly, the two chapters in Part III on technique and color aim to present observations and analyses on how the physical presence of the original paintings was built

9

up by the artists. The chapters in Part II on the various aspects of the imagery—human figures, vehicles, buildings, animals, landscape, and large-scale plants—aim to present a holistic view of the individual (yet interacting) elements, in terms of how details of the examples relate to one another, how they relate to comparanda, and what they might signify in the larger context of the paintings. Chapter 7, “Visualizing the Past,” specifically addresses the reconstructed compositions. Each is discussed in terms of the process of putting the scenes together and the level of plausibility, probability, or near certainty in the proposed relationships between the fragments. This constitutes a level of transparency that I consider essential in the presentation of proposed scenes that are explicitly “visualizations” of the composition, not “reconstructions” in the strict sense of rebuilding an original. Part IV, “Paintings as Cultural Signifiers,” takes the discussion to another level. Chapter 11 begins with analysis of physical layout of the painted space, iconography, and techniques with the intention of elucidating intercultural connections between Kea and the rest of the Aegean world, and it ends with the consideration of wider issues of artists and patrons, along with the significance of pigments to the community and perhaps beyond. Chapter 12 expands the level of interpretation to its furthest reaches through contextual analysis. Here I bring together all the elements of iconography, architecture, artifacts, location, and orientation to develop a theory of meaning. The book ends in the Epilogue with reflections on the role of wall paintings (specifically and generally) in the construction and maintenance of social dynamics and sociocultural memory. Throughout the book, I have attempted to make it clear where on the continuum of possible-probable-certain the level of interpretation lies, though clearly these levels overlap at many stages in the process. The aim has been to facilitate the reader’s engagement with the train of thought, in the understanding that the levels are interconnected and depend on a contextual, holistic approach.

Visualization: Reconstructing the Fragmentary “Ah,” said a distinguished archaeologist in response to learning that the fragments of wall paintings that

10

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

I was reconstructing had fallen from their walls, “the sort that one can put together in any way one pleases.” Well, potentially, yes, but in practice, definitely no. Yet it is striking how little, even among archaeologists, is understood about the process or sometimes even the aims of the task. When I began my work on the Northeast Bastion in the 1980s, some 3,000 fragments lay before me. How to begin? In all my studies—as an art history student and subsequently as a doctoral student in Aegean archaeology—I had never deliberated on the process of reconstructing an ancient painting. Nor, with one exception that focused mainly on aims,23 could I find anything appropriate in the literature about what follows conservation. It was an open book, leaving one to develop one’s own methodology. At Akrotiri, the paintings were stunningly well preserved, even occasionally still adhering to the walls, and a team of highly skilled conservators painstakingly put the fragments together into scenes. By the time I came to study their iconography, they were already pictures, rather than fragments. Kea was different. Like the Knossos paintings and others from the Aegean Bronze Age, they were very fragmentary. In addition, the sheer magnitude of the rooms they came from made this a prodigious task.

Process Analysis precedes synthesis. The first task was to study the fragments individually, according to the contexts in which they were found. Just over 1,000 fragments of the Miniature Frieze and almost 600 of the Plant Panels were sufficiently well preserved to merit study (approximately half of the total). Many of these are made up of several tiny pieces skillfully joined by the conservator, Stella Bouzaki.24 On the 23 Cameron 1976c. Mark Cameron refers to the conservator’s task as “reconstruction” and the iconographer-artist’s task as “restoration.” 24 Coleman (Abramovitz) notes that during her study of the 1960s she first washed the fragments in distilled water and then coated them with an acrylic resin (on the advice of L. Majewski) to preserve surfaces that were damaged by salt water (Coleman 1970, iii). Most likely, she made some of the joins during this study. Stella Bouzaki, as the conservator responsible for the fragments, expertly made the majority of the joins. A few further joins were made by myself in the 1980s and the 2000s and by Ellen Davis in the 1990s. Joining fragments requires a very thin layer of glue placed in the

back of each fragment I wrote a unique number, consisting of the context (indicated by a letter, A–Z) and a number (the order in which I studied it, according to the subjects as I saw them through these first impressions). The contexts are discussed in Chapter 1, explained in stratigraphic terms in Table 1.1, and listed with fragments in Concordance A. Over several seasons I drew each fragment, using a magnifying glass in strong natural sunlight, and writing corresponding technical notes. Nowadays, on other sites such as Tell el-Dabca, where I also work, fragments of paintings are scanned directly onto the computer at the site.25 Drawings are still made as an aid to understanding, but it is the scanned fragments that serve as the primary record and the basis for the digital reconstructions. For Kea, the process of study is apparent in the drawings, which were later digitized to supplement the photographs in the catalogs. The recording of the fragments constituted the bones of the study. Now it was time to provide flesh to the bones, moving from the study of individual fragments to visual associations both within and across contexts. In the huge (at the time empty) space on the top floor of the Chora Museum, I arranged trestle tables in a large rectangle and placed myself in the center. On one long table were the trays of fragments from the Northeast Bastion according to their contexts. The others were my blank canvas, onto which I placed fragments according to their main subject. A few further joins were made during this stage. Fragments do not necessarily fall off the walls into neat stratigraphic lots, and many connections become more evident when the material is strewn according to visual associations. The accidentally preserved edges provide contextual clues for linking elements (a man by a river, a plant by a building) and with such clues the scenes were gradually developed. The backs of pieces also provide clues. Striations, caused by impressions of features in the mud plaster applied to the walls before the finer lime plaster, provide important information as to orientation of the pieces. Four pieces had an unusually pronounced ridge, formed when the plaster abutted a vertical beam in the wall. Uniquely, I was therefore able to align these into part of a composition (see below, Figs. middle and toward the back of the join, rather than toward the front, where it is likely to seep onto the painted surface. 25 Bietak, Marinatos, and Palyvou 2000; Bietak, Marinatos, and Palivou 2007. The method of computer reconstruction was developed by Clairy Palyvou.

PERCEPTION AND INTERPRETATION: THE PROCESS

7.1A–7.1B), certain as to the vertical relationship of the elements. Miniature paintings in the Aegean Bronze Age took the form of a frieze. On each wall, above the windows and doors, there would have been two horizontal wooden beams (no doubt composite, given the length of the walls) separated by the height of the intended frieze. Into this space the plaster was applied, and as it was pressed down against the upper and lower beams it acquired a flattened edge. Such edges are easily recognizable among the fragments. Placed upright, they virtually stand. As the plaster thickens while being pressed against the beam, the profile of these pieces is usually convex as it widens toward the edge. Such edges—and there are many among the fragments—tell us that they belonged to the top or bottom of the painting. There is no way of knowing which, except by the subject. At the corners of the rooms, where one wall adjoins another, the plaster seeps into the angle between the two, creating a sloping profile to the plaster. These side pieces, however, are less often preserved than the flat edges of top and bottom. An estimate of the total length of the frieze could be made from the dimensions of the room (see below, pp. 29, 35, Fig. 1.7), and while the height of the frieze is more elusive, the fortunate survival of the four pieces with corresponding ridge provided a guide (see this vol., Ch. 7, pp. 226–227, Fig. 7.1). By judging the overall area available for the frieze, and by packing the surviving fragments together, it was possible to estimate that some 12%–15% of the frieze survived in relatively good condition.26 These approximations include only those fragments that were sufficiently well preserved to record. There were, of course, many more that were not.27 26 I am grateful to Peter Warren for suggesting, following a Mycenaean Seminar I gave in January 2012, that I make this calculation. The fragments that were packed (as outline tracings) for this experiment include all those that were drawn and photographed. An estimate of 12% is based on N.20 without a dividing wall (see below, Fig. 1.7:a), whereas 15% is based on part of the room being partitioned (see below, Fig. 1.7:b). 27 As currently housed in the museum, the fragments of the Miniature Frieze and Plant Panels that were studied, drawn, and photographed are contained in nine large boxes (some with more than one internal tray). They are stored according to the organization in this book, with the context letter and number written on the back of each fragment (not the catalog number). The poorly preserved material from the

11

Having grouped the fragments, the process of reconstruction began. All reconstructions were done on paper, at life size. Long gone are the days when fragments of ancient paintings were permanently solidified into modern plaster of Paris reconstructions, immutable, unable to be changed even if subsequently deemed to be wrong.28 Technical observations and reconstruction go hand in hand. A fragment of blue painted over yellow ground, for example, would not usually be combined with a fragment of blue painted directly over the plaster. Nevertheless, tone of color and thickness of plaster are not necessarily accurate indicators of associations. Many times, fragments would be joined to one another during conservation with one piece thicker than the other or the blue, say, clear and light on one piece and dull aqua on the other. These are factors of preservation. The original process of painting, as in the original sequence of application of the paints, is, however, an indispensable aid to reconstruction. Given the damaged condition of the fragments, the use of magnification was essential in order to determine the layers of paint and hence the intended form. Wherever possible, I have indicated the sequence of colors in the catalog descriptions. As the majority of the work in this stage was undertaken much later, technology now provided a further tool in the form of Photoshop. Magnification of the pixilation of colors (from scans or, in this case, scanned photographs) reveals fugitive paint that might otherwise have been missed. This is an extremely useful tool, though it should be stressed that it is not a substitute for looking at and recording the fragments themselves, particularly since the threedimensionality of paint, which reveals the order of layers, can only be observed by examining the piece itself. All such observations made with a virtual image were later verified with the material object. The process of reconstruction evolved over the decades. During the 1980s, when I worked in the museum, I had the fragments before me. The reconstructions were made by arranging the actual fragments into relationships, making quick watercolor sketches of the envisaged overall composition as a guide, and then tracing the study drawings of each Northeast Bastion, not deemed sufficiently well preserved to include in the book, is housed in 11 other boxes (the majority with more than one internal tray). 28 See discussion on this by Cameron 1976c.

12

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

fragment within the composition. These tracings were subsequently transferred onto paper using ink, the resultant drawings copied, then colored using Letraset’s Pantone (fine felt-tip paint crayons). Several alternative reconstructions were attempted in most cases. Copying the drawings allowed for multiple attempts at coloring, but degraded the drawing. In addition, drawn lines around each form created outlines that did not exist in the originals. For this reason, these colored drawings have now been graphically edited. At the same time, I have made substantial changes to several of the drawings, and minor ones to the others. A few of the preliminary drawings were published in articles, but all have been superseded by the final visualizations in this book. In the case of the landscapes of the Miniature Frieze, as well as the Plant Panels, the process in the late 1980s only went as far as the quick watercolor sketches. In recent years, these were completely reworked, using a different method. Since the study drawings had been prepared for publication, they were now available to me digitally. For the drafts, I printed out the fragments at life size, according to categories (rocks, marsh, sea, etc.) and context, and gradually built up the compositions, filling in the missing areas in pencil, using my watercolor sketches as guides. A few of the resulting compositions were close to the early watercolor sketches; most evolved considerably. These were then executed as paintings, first tracing the fragments and reconstruction drawings, then using watercolors with the occasional addition of paint-pencils or gouache. Earth colors (ochers) were used, and Cerulean Blue with Payne’s Grey was substituted for Egyptian Blue.29 The colors were diluted or thickened as appropriate, and as far as possible, were applied in the same order as had 29 The synthetic compound Egyptian Blue is available from specialist providers as a powder. However, it requires further processing and mixing to produce a smooth pigment, which my experiments did not satisfactorily achieve. Interestingly, used on its own, it was also too bright to match the blue pigments of the Kea fragments or those of Egyptian wall paintings on display in the British Museum. Cerulean Blue, a silicate with cobalt base (Seymour 2007, 134), is the closest equivalent, mixed with some Cobalt and Payne’s Grey, a paint that perfectly captures the blue-gray of the Kea paintings. In this book, the term “blue-gray” refers to an identifiably mixed or layered pigment in the paintings, whereas “bluish gray” is used for describing the perception of color.

been observed for the original. Not, at this stage, having the actual fragments in front of me, I relied on my catalog notes on technique and observations of the digitized photographs enlarged on screen. These observations had been checked against the fragments during two trips to the Chora Museum in 2010 and 2011. In these illustrations, I attempted not to replicate but to visualize something of how the paintings might originally have looked. Over time, I had been able to combine some of the scenes, through a series of links. But how did these vignettes fit together? In attempting the larger picture, one is both helped by knowledge of the miraculously preserved Thera miniatures and hindered by the temptation to follow their example too closely. With each year’s work came the hope that the order, the relationship of the scenes could be reconstructed. Yet there are simply too few well-preserved pieces and too little information as to the relationships between the pieces in the positions they fell for a clear overall view. Some scenes could be related, however, and an idea of the program, however sketchy, finally emerged (this vol., Ch. 7).

Puzzles There are three problems facing the person who attempts to reconstruct an ancient painting from fallen fragments. Firstly, and most obviously, much of the painting is lost. Imagine a jigsaw of between 1,000– 2,000 pieces, representing perhaps 12%–15% of the total surface. Some of the pieces are worn and hard to read, few make sense to the casual observer. This is the raw material of the reconstruction. But here we come to the second and, in the case of most Aegean paintings, the third problem. A painting disintegrates and collapses at an irregular, unpredictable rate. Rarely does a wall collapse with the painting completely intact upon it at the time of collapse. A bit peels here, a chunk falls there, and gradually the painted plaster comes off the wall and lands in pieces on the floor. Those at the top fall at a different rate from those at the bottom. Some bounce and fall farther from the wall, some land straight down, near the wall. Some shoot off to the left as they fall, others to the right. Usually an area of plaster will—through damp in most cases—come loose and fall, breaking into fragments, and land

PERCEPTION AND INTERPRETATION: THE PROCESS

at a similar point in time if not in exactly the same place. But the area of plaster surrounding this damp patch may stay on the wall for some time longer, and when it falls earth will have collected over the previously fallen pieces and the newly fallen will lie above the others. This explains why joins can sometimes be made between pieces from different contexts—both laterally in the room and vertically within the stratigraphy. Added to these problems is the special one of corners of rooms. Given a straight fall forward and down, a piece from the east corner of the north wall is likely to fall in the same floor area as a piece from the north corner of the east wall. And from which wall has a piece in the center of the room fallen? If these problems were not enough, they have been compounded by the manner of recording the finds. Excavation, on the whole, has in the past privileged the study of stratigraphy and pottery. These give a relative chronology, without which prehistory is a jumble of disconnected information. It is, therefore, the vertical that is minutely recorded: the depth of each find. The lateral—the finds’ exact positions on the surface of the floor—has in most cases been more summarily recorded. It does not much matter if part of a pot is found half a meter to the southwest of another as long as they are found at the same depth. But for a painting, the reverse is true. It does not much matter if the pieces are found at different depths— all that tells us is the order in which the pieces fell off the wall and the relative time span of their falling. Though this can itself be helpful in piecing together small fragments into areas of scenes, it is of no help whatsoever in relating the scenes. For this, one needs precise information on the lateral spread of the pieces. Given the variables involved in the disintegration of the painting, there should still be a sufficient concentration of related pieces in a particular lateral position for this position to be meaningful. The successful reconstruction of wall paintings requires the accurate recording of contexts within a fine grid system. The restorations of the Thera paintings are so successful partly because they are so singularly well preserved and partly because they were excavated with paintings in mind, within a fine grid system. At Ayia Irini, this was not the case (this vol., Ch. 1, p. 36; Table 1.1). There are so many pieces and the surface of the floor of the rooms is so great that designations such as “south,” “north,” “southeast,” or “northwest” are simply not good enough. Knowing that a piece

13

came from the “east” tells us that it is likely to have come from either: the east half of the north wall, the east half of the south wall, or the north, south, or central part of the east wall—a wide choice. Added to this problem is the particular process of deposition in the Northeast Bastion (as discussed in this vol., Ch. 1), in which the dividing wall between N.20 and N.18 collapsed northward, taking fragments from N.20 into N.18, with more following as fallen fragments slid northward with the collapse of the floor. Despite these problems, the contexts that we have are important for our task, and they are recorded here in detail, in the catalogs, in Table 1.1 and the concordances, and as accompaniments to the visualizations in Chapter 7, for the benefit of future scholars wishing to check the validity of the reconstructions. In attempting to relate the scenes in that necessary step toward reconstructing the thematic flow of ideas, narrative content, or programmatic planning, we are left with passages, catching the syntax here and there. What eludes us is the structure of the whole. Yet those passages, these glimpses of syntax, provide us with a valuable opportunity to experience an ancient culture, a culture that has been left to us through its material remains and which is expressed most vividly in its visual images.

Visualizing the Past Given the importance of these images for our understanding of the culture that created them, an approximation of the whole seemed worth attempting. With this in mind, once all the compositions were complete, I drew up a proposal for how the rooms might have looked. In doing so, I made new watercolor compositions to fit architectural elevations of the walls, based on the proposed upper story plan in Fig. 1.7:b (see below). Some of the reconstructed scenes of the Miniature Frieze were joined in order to place them tentatively in sequence, while the Plant Panel compositions were expanded to fit the spaces on the walls. Using a computer program, Nicola Math then devised three-dimensional visualizations of the rooms on the basis of these elevations, placing the watercolor compositions on the walls (see below, Figs. 7.27, 8.9). These in no way imply a definitive arrangement, but are based on the contextual relationships of the scenes. The intention is to provide

14

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

an opportunity to visualize how the rooms might have looked to those who participated in the activities that took place there. As can be seen from the long process outlined above, there was a progression from specific examination to visualization, which followed a path from relatively objective study based on observation to a final presentation that drew on close familiarity with the iconography and the painter’s process to produce compositions aimed at revisualization. One should be explicit about this final stage. There is no “right” way to formulate such compositions. Knowing that no more than about 15% of the original painting has survived in readable form, it is clearly wise to prepare reconstructed compositions using as many related pieces as possible. The result, otherwise, would be large expanses of blank paper with scattered fragments. Therefore, when one looks, for example, at the Marsh composition (see below, Figs. 7.19–7.22), which uses 133 fragments in an area 1.51 m long, one should realize that the marsh was, in fact, considerably longer. The intention in placing so many fragments in close proximity is to provide a visual impression of how the landscape would have

looked. (That is not to say that many of the pieces were not originally in close juxtaposition as presented in the compositions.) It is landscape that, being the most varied and most unpredictable element, is the most difficult in terms of reconstruction. In the case of most other elements—human figures, buildings, ships, animals—there are fewer options from which to chose. Given the same fragments and the same amount of time spent studying them, I am quite sure that a different person would come up with different compositions. There are always options and angles, and there is always interpretation. Like a lawyer, those presenting their case for a new composition of an ancient painting must base it on an intimate knowledge of the subject extracted from countless hours of sometimes tedious, sometimes revealing study, years of experience, and a healthy dose of intuition. In this way, the final compositions as presented in this book revisualize passages of the Miniature Frieze and Plant Panels on the basis of the available evidence and my conceptions, to present impressions of these otherwise lost ancient paintings.

Part I The Place

1

Ayia Irini and the Northeast Bastion

Kea and the Aegean Islands As one of the northernmost of the Cycladic islands, Kea lies in a crucial position in the network of trade and cultural exchange of the ancient Aegean (Fig. 1.1). The Bronze Age town of Ayia Irini sits on a peninsula that forms the northern edge of a natural harbor in the bay of Vourkari within the larger Bay of Hagios Nikolaos at the northwest corner of the island (Figs. 1.2, 1.3). Safely protected from the harsh northern winds, this sheltered bay would have received ships coming from Crete, Thera, and Melos from the south, from the Greek mainland immediately to the west, and from the east, along the Cycladic trade route via Thera and perhaps Crete from the Dodecanese and the coast of Anatolia. Thera, Melos, and Kea were the stepping-stones of trade and communications, the pathway between Minoan Crete and the Mycenaean mainland. With intercultural connections came the geographic dissemination of aspects of art and culture, a transformative process generated through ideals of prestige and power.1 1 The literature on trade is vast; for the Aegean see in particular: Georgiou 1993, 1995, 1998; Schallin 1993, 1995; Dickinson 1994, 234–256; Graziadio 1998; Betancourt 2008; see

The extent of Minoan (i.e., Cretan) influence on the islands of the Aegean is well documented, and the nature of that influence has been much debated.2 New excavations and analyses in recent years also Betancourt, ed., 1982; Gale, ed., 1991; Gillis, Risberg, and Sjöberg, eds., 1995; Cline and Harris-Cline, eds., 1998; Laffineur and Greco, eds., 2005; Papageorgiadou-Banis and Giannikouri, eds., 2008. For the influential notion of the relationship between the geographic dissemination of art and culture with the acquisition of status and power, see Helms 1993; in terms of the Aegean, cf. Sherratt and Sherratt 1991. The transformative nature of intercultural connections is the theme of Kristiansen and Larsson 2005 and of Maran and Stockhammer, eds., 2012; cf. Steel 2013, and the papers in Clarke, ed., 2005 on transmission, transformation, and reception (esp. Phillips 2005). Most recently, see the papers in Kiriatzi and Knappett, eds., 2016, esp. Nikolakopoulou and Knappett 2016 (with reference to wall paintings and pottery) and Kristiansen 2016 (on trade and migration). On mechanisms of iconographic transfer in relation to the Aegean, see, e.g., Crowley 1989, esp. 245–268; Morgan 1995a, 31; Warren 1995, esp. 11–12. 2 Debate originally focused on the validity or invalidity of applying concepts of colonialism and a “Minoan Thalas­ socracy” (Branigan 1981, 1984; Doumas 1982; Hägg and Marinatos, eds., 1984), while a model termed the “Versailles effect,” emphasizing the palatial role of Knossos in overseas trade, was offered by Wiener (1984, 1987, 1990, 1991) whose recent works uphold the notion of colonization (2007, 2013);

18

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

Sporades

Orchomenos

AEGEAN SEA

Thebes Athens Lavrion ANDROS Mycenae Ayia Irini Tiryns KEA PAROS

Iklaina

NAXOS

Phylakopi

Pylos

Miletus Iasos

MELOS Cyclades

IOS

Trianda

Akrotiri

Dodecanese

THERA

Kastri

Alalakh

KOS

KYTHERA

RHODES

KARPATHOS CYPRUS

Malia Chania Tylissos Knossos Hagia Triada Phaistos

Palaikastro Zakros

CRETE

Contour elevations over 2,000 m 1,000–2,000 m 500–1,000 m 200–500 m

Tel Kabri

MEDITERRANEAN SEA

0–200 m

Tell el-Dabca

0

100

Cairo

500 km

Figure 1.1. Map showing sites mentioned in the book. Image R. Robertson.

area shown in detail

ISLAND OF KEA

Bay of Otzias Otzias Troullos

Trypospilies

Ni

ko

la

os

Ayia Irini

Ba

y

of

Ha

gi

os

Vourkari

Contour elevations 0–50 m 50–100 m 100–150 m 150–200 m

Korissia

200–250 m 250–300 m above 300 m

0

1

2 km

Figure 1.2. Map of northern Kea. Image R. Robertson.

intermittent streams

AYIA IRINI AND THE NORTHEAST BASTION

19

Figure 1.3. View of Ayia Irini and the bay, looking south. Photo L. Morgan.

have greatly expanded the picture.3 Now seen to have started as a gradual process that evolved through contacts in the Early and especially the Middle Bronze Age (MBA), a dramatic shift in both the nature and scale of Minoan influence and intercultural connections occurred at the time of the significant cf. Niemeier 2004. It has also been proposed that Knossos was the “cosmological center” of the Aegean (Soles 1995). In contrast, Akrotiri and Ayia Irini have been seen in terms of the “microeconomics” of harbor marketplaces involving (on the model of the Near East) private transactions between merchants (Michailidou 2008, 117–124). For the notion of acculturation at Ayia Irini through foreign brides, see Gorogianni, Cutler, and Fitzsimons 2015. Cyprian Broodbank, in a seminal paper on “Minoanisation” (2004), has advocated a rigorous methodological framework for the study of process; and a number of recent studies, adopting a wide range of theoretical viewpoints, some drawing from the “center/ periphery” model of world-systems theory (Champion, ed., 1989; Kardulias, ed., 1999) and from current material culture studies and network analysis (Knappett 2005, 2011) have proposed alternative theories of cultural and sociopolitical process (cf. n. 18). For recent additions to the debate see Gorogianni, Pavúk, and Girella, eds., 2016, which focuses on cultural transformations within individual local communities arising from interactions between regions (for methodological commentary, see esp. Girella, Gorogianni, and Pavúk 2016 and Knappett 2016; for the Cyclades, see Abell and Hilditch 2016, Cutler 2016, Earle 2016, Gorogianni 2016, and Vlachopoulos 2016b). 3 Listed by Broodbank 2004, 46–50.

socioeconomic developments on Crete associated with the Neopalatial period, the height of Minoan influence on the islands clearly being in Late Minoan (LM) IA.4 A so-called Western String, following a directional route from Crete through Thera, Melos, and Kea to the Greek mainland, was identified over 30 years ago,5 and recent excavations, notably at Miletus and Iasos, have confirmed the existence of an “Eastern String” via Rhodes along the Anatolian coast.6 Flexibility of routes between islands, rather 4 Absolute dating of LM IA is steeped in controversy, much of it surrounding the dating of the Theran volcanic eruption. Historical chronology based on correlations with Egypt places LM IA in the 16th century b.c., ca. 1600/1580– 1520/1510 (Warren 2006a, 318; 2010, 393, fig. 3; Wiener 2010), while 14C results indicate an earlier dating in the 17th century (Manning 1995, 1999). This early dating, however, creates a discrepancy in the relative chronology between the Aegean and Egypt. The issues have been debated in a series of papers in Bietak and Hunger, eds., 2003; Bietak and Czerny, eds., 2007; Manning and Bruce, eds., 2009; Warburton, ed., 2009. On the dating of Bronze Age wall paintings in the context of this debate, see Bietak 2007. 5 Davis 1979; 2008, 200–201; Cherry and Davis 1982; Schofield 1982; Davis et al. 1983. 6 Summarized by Davis and Gorogianni 2008, 343–345. Iasos: Momigliano 2005, 2009; Miletus: Niemeier and Niemeier 1999; Niemeier 2005 (with further references); Raymond et al. 2016.

20

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

than linear directionality, would have broadened the networks of interaction.7 Travel mostly radiated from Crete, with a distinct pattern of distances to be traversed across the sea along the main routes, averaging ca. 100–120 miles for the first harbor stops (Kythera, Thera, Karpathos via Kasos), then 45–60 miles for the subsequent ones (Thera-Melos-Kea/KarpathosRhodes-Kos/Iasos-Miletus).8 A direct route between the Dodecanese and Thera has also been suggested.9 The occupational history of Kea differs from that of Thera and Melos. Repopulated (after a hiatus) in the earlier MBA (Period IV), the settlers appear to have originated from different parts of the Aegean, most likely from Kolonna on Aegina, as well as central Greece, the Cyclades, and Crete. The result was a society at Ayia Irini that was multicultural from its inception.10 Trade in metals was no doubt the impetus for the settlement. The distance from Kea to the coast of Attica is a mere 28 km, and the island’s proximity to Lavrion, the main source of lead, copper, and silver during the Middle and Late Bronze Age (LBA), was highly significant.11 Ayia Irini, in both population and geography, was poised between the islands and the mainland as a harbor town vital to maritime connections. There would have been

an optimum summer sailing season from May to September, though on days when winds and currents were favorable, sailing would have been feasible throughout the year.12 As a process, “Minoanization” has been viewed through the lens of acquired cultural traits, particularly the importation and local imitation of Minoan pottery,13 and new technological developments such as the adoption of the potters’ wheel,14 the warpweighted loom,15 and painted plasters,16 as well as bureaucratic tools such as the use of the Minoan weight system and Linear A.17 Architectural features (appended onto otherwise local building traditions), iconography, and religious symbolism are all significant indicators of intercultural exchange. In combination, they are the main impetus for developments in cultural language. Current discourse focuses on the mechanisms of Minoanization using methodological approaches that draw on new models for networks of cultural interactions. As a result, earlier models of colonization have for many been superseded by readings centering on the concept of acculturation within the context of emerging elites, reciprocity, affiliation, competition, and legitimization of power.18 Ultimately, the political

7 Berg 2006. 8 Broodbank (2000, 75) comments that “distances between islands are commonly less than the length of individual islands.” Kastri on Kythera: Coldstream and Huxley, eds., 1972; Coldstream and Huxley 1984. Karpathos and Kasos: Melas 1985, 2009; Platon and Karantzali 2003. Kos: Vitale 2016. Trianda (Ialysos) on Rhodes: Furumark 1950, Marketou 1998, 2009, 2018 (paintings). Iasos and Miletus: see n. 6. Within this pattern, one might expect there to be an important trading post on Naxos or Paros. Mikri Vigla on the western coast of Naxos was clearly connected with the “Western String,” though Minoan influence appears to have had less of a “profound effect” on this and other islands than it did on Thera, Melos, and Kea (Davis 2001, 27); cf. Barber 1984, 181–182; however, see Barber 1987, 72; 2010, 163; cf. Vlachopoulos 2016b, with particular reference to Grotta. Recent investigations in the Cyclades have expanded our picture, but inevitably it remains incomplete (cf. Georgiou 1993). On the flow of iconographic exchange between Thera, Melos, and Kea, see this vol., Ch. 11; Morgan 1990. 9 Marthari, Marketou, and Jones 1990, contra the argument in Davis et al. 1983 for a route between the Dodecanese and Kea via Crete. 10 Overbeck and Crego 2008; Crego 2010; Abell 2014a; Gorogianni 2016. 11 Gale and Stos-Gale 1981; Gale, Stos-Gale, and Davis 1984; Stos-Gale and Macdonald 1991; Gale 1998.

12 Georgiou 1993; Chryssoulaki 2005; Berg 2007a; Papageorgiou 2008; cf. Broodbank 2000, 345–346. See also on sea routes: Lambrou-Philipson 1991; Wachsmann 2000; (1998) 2009, 295–301. The sailing season is usually seen as running from May to September, with marginal months of April and October. According to the agricultural year and winds (Broodbank 2000, 92–96) the optimum month (freed of other commitments and strong winds) would be September. 13 E.g., Marthari 1990; Nikolakopoulou et al. 2008 (Akrotiri); Nikolakopoulou 2009; Papagiannopoulou 1991, 1995; Abell and Hilditch 2016 (Cyclades); Berg 2007b (Cyclades, esp. Phylakopi); Davis and Cherry 2007, 302–304 (Phylakopi); Caskey 1972; Abell and Hilditch 2016; Gorogianni 2016; Gorogianni and Abell forthcoming (Ayia Irini); Kaiser 2005 (Miletus). 14 E.g., Gorogianni, Abell, and Hilditch 2016 (Ayia Irini). 15 Cutler 2012, 2014, 2016, 2019. 16 Brysbaert 2002, 2007a, 2008. 17 Weights: Katsa-Tomara 1990; Michailidou 1990a, 1999, 2008; Petruso 1992; Pakkanen 2011. Linear A: Palaima 1982; Boulotis 1998; Owens 1999; Karnava 2008. 18 Davis 1979, 1980, 1984a, 2008; Melas 1988, 1991, 2009; Rethemiotakis 1999; Hamilakis 2002; Broodbank 2004; Wright 2004a; Knappett and Nikolakopoulou 2005, 2008; Davis and Gorogianni 2008; Nikolakopoulou 2009. An emphasis on competitive emulation among elites owes much to Renfrew’s notion of “peer polity interaction” (Renfrew and

AYIA IRINI AND THE NORTHEAST BASTION

map of the Aegean remains elusive and controversial, and it is the process of cultural exchange, to the extent that it is retrievable, that is most illuminating. This process is integral to an understanding of the social context of material remains. The dynamics of cultural transmission are complex, change being manifested in both temporal and spatial terms. It is the process that is vital in determining meaning in observable shifts in material culture: the mechanisms for input, the nature of reception, and the transformative effect on local communities. Chapter 11 will examine this process in terms of the visual language of the Northeast Bastion wall paintings, their techniques, idiom, and iconography, along with the relationship of architectural space to images. The process will be viewed not merely in terms of a one-way transfer from Crete, but also in relation to inter-island communications, especially with Thera, and to some extent to the emergent elites of the Mycenae Shaft Grave culture. All exchange is, to some degree or other, symbiotic, and Kea, while being on the “edge of the Minoanized world,”19 was also on the threshold between the arenas of the Cyclades and Crete and that of the early Mycenaean world. Chapter 12 and the Epilogue will explore the social meanings of the paintings in terms of actions and interactions, with these cultural interconnections in mind. Of the several islands and coastal settlements demonstrably a part of the network of Minoanized connections at the beginning of the LBA, only a few places have so far yielded wall paintings: Crete, which lay at the core of intercultural relations, Thera, Melos, and Kea, belonging to the Western String, and Trianda on Rhodes and Miletus on the Anatolian coast, belonging to the Eastern String. Excavations on all three islands of the Western String have yielded one major coastal settlement—Akrotiri, Phylakopi, Ayia Irini—and at each a number of the houses were decorated with wall paintings (though not all simultaneously: see this vol., Ch. 11), including, in one building (in Late Cycladic [LC] I), a miniature frieze. At all three settlements, to varying Cherry, eds., 1986). Davis (2008; cf. 1984a) is skeptical of the possibility of retrieving political history and advocates instead focusing on the process of the integration of social and economic systems, while Niemeier (2009; cf. 2004) claims that elucidating political matters is essential to understanding such a process. 19 Davis and Gorogianni 2008.

21

degrees, the burst of cultural activity in LC I/LM IA led to the incorporation of certain Minoan architectural, technological, and iconographic features into the local fabric of cultural life.20 Clearly influenced by Crete, yet with distinctive identities, these thriving harbor towns of the Cycladic islands formed a core of cultural connections within the wider nexus. Akrotiri on Thera is, of course, spectacularly well preserved owing to the volcanic eruption that covered the settlement with protective volcanic ash. The town and its wall paintings have become deservedly world famous since their discovery in the 1960s–1970s in excavations directed by Spyridon Marinatos, under the auspices of the Greek Archaeological Service.21 Excavations have continued over the past 40 years under the direction of Christos Doumas,22 and three major conferences, hosted by The Thera Foundation, have opened up the ancient town and its paintings to international scholarship.23 The miniature paintings of the West House were the first to receive specialized iconographic analysis, by myself and by Christina Televantou,24 while current scholarly focus is on the important building Xeste 3.25 The extraordinary, unique state of preservation of the two- and three-story buildings has enabled detailed studies of the architecture26 and the upper stories.27 Phylakopi on Melos yielded fragmentary paintings from the Pillar Crypt during excavation by the British School of Archaeology at Athens in the early 1900s.28 In the 1970s–1980s Colin Renfrew reexcavated parts of the site, uncovering a Mycenaean sanctuary29 and making a sounding next to the Minoan-style Pillar Crypt in order to clarify the dating of the paintings.30 Results of my study showed that the adjoining rooms had a program of paintings 20 On Minoan features at Ayia Irini, see Davis 1984a; 2008, 193–198; Hitchcock 1998 (House A architecture); Goro­ gianni and Fitzsimons 2017, 145–149. 21 Marinatos 1968–1976. 22 Doumas 1983, 1992. 23 Doumas, ed., 1978, 1980; Hardy et al., eds., 1990; Sherratt, ed., 2000. 24 Morgan 1988; Televantou 1994a. 25 Vlachopoulos 2008a; 2008b; 2016a; Papageorgiou 2018, 306–309, figs. 6–9; forthcoming. 26 Palyvou 2005a. 27 Michailidou 2001. 28 Bosanquet 1904. 29 Renfrew 1985. 30 Renfrew et al., eds., 2007.

22

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

related to the Pillar Crypt, though, because it was a sounding rather than a full excavation, only fragments have been revealed.31 From a dump adjacent to the town wall, containing material apparently thrown out by the Mycenaean settlers when they took over the site, came a single fragment of a miniature painting showing the booted leg of a man (see below, Fig. 2.3). Ayia Irini on Kea was excavated by the University of Cincinnati in the 1960s–1970s, under the direction of John Caskey and under the auspices of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens.32 Compared to Akrotiri, it was a relatively small site,33 but it was certainly no backwater town. The Northeast Bastion was excavated in 1964 (Corridor N.16) and 1966 (Rooms N.18 and N.20) by John Coleman and William Kitteridge.34 The wall paintings from the site were first studied in the 1960s and 1970s by Katherine Abramovitz Coleman; I began my work on the paintings from the site (at the time, along with the late Ellen Davis) in the 1980s.35 This book, in presenting the results of my study of the Northeast Bastion, situates the wall paintings within the wider social context of Kea and the Aegean world.

31 Morgan 2007a. 32 Preliminary publications: Caskey 1971, 1972; earlier reports: 1962, 1964, 1966; a note on the successive periods of occupation: 1979. To date, final publication of the site of Ayia Irini has covered chronological Periods I–III (Wilson 1999), IV (Overbeck 1989), and V (J. Davis 1986); areas House A and the Western Sector (Cummer and Schofield 1984; Schofield 2011); and specialized studies of the Temple statues, the potters’s marks, domestic pottery, and balance weights (Bikaki 1984; M. Caskey 1986; Georgiou 1986; Petruso 1992). Complimenting this current volume will be the area study of the Northern Sector (in preparation by Gorogianni and Fitzsimons). 33 The population of Ayia Irini in Period VI has been variously estimated at 280–335 (Gorogianni 2016, 139), 500 (Schofield 1998, 119; cf. Broodbank 2004, 61 n. 106), or 780–1,250 (Davis 1984b, 18; Cherry, Davis, and Mantzourani 1991, 229– 230). Akrotiri has been estimated at 1,500–2,000 (Palyvou 2005a, 29); Phylakopi, at twice the size of Ayia Irini (Schofield 1998, 119), would have been at least 1,000. 34 Caskey 1971, 374–376. The two painted rooms, now known as N.18 and N.20, were then provisionally called M.I and M.II. 35 Coleman 1970, 1973 and Abramovitz 1980 (she used both names; see this vol., Preface, n. 1); Morgan 1990, 1995b, 1998, 2013 (preliminary publications); Marinatos and Morgan 2005; Davis 2007. Unfortunately, owing to illness, Davis was unable to complete her study of the paintings of House A. Future study of this is pending.

The Fortified Town of Ayia Irini and Its Surroundings The town of Ayia Irini was surrounded on at least three sides by a large fortification wall, implying a fear of attack36 and the need to protect the metals trade,37 while no doubt functioning at a symbolic level as an expression of ruling power.38 These walls, composed, like the houses of the town, mainly of local schist with some bluish gray marble, were built in several stages, beginning in the mid MBA (Period IV). Following destruction at the site and a period of disuse of the walls, the “Great Fortifications” were built in the late MBA (Period V) and extended in the early LBA (Period VI).39 The southern, southwestern, and southeastern parts of the site have subsided into the sea, and the town is thought to have extended 25–41 m in these directions.40 The modern shoreline differs from that of the ancient, as the sea level is estimated to have risen some 3.5 m.41 What is now a marshy bay immediately to the east of the peninsula of Ayia Irini was presumably marshy land, with the sea somewhat farther out than it is now. (It is surely no coincidence that the name of the small modern port opposite Ayia Irini, Vourkari, means “swampy place.”42) Ships are likely to have 36 Caskey (1971, 377) suggested that the fortifications continued on the seaward side. Davis (1977, 23) considered that protection from piracy (presumably by stealth) was needed only from the landward sides. 37 Cf. in medieval England, the ordering of a castle by Henry III to protect the metals extracted from the tin mines in Devon (Coulson 2003, 87). 38 Gorogianni and Fitzsimons (2017, 147) comment on the Northeast Bastion: “it [is] unlikely that the complex had a purely or even primarily defensive function.” Cf. regarding Mycenaean citadel walls: Wright 1994, 51, 54; Whittaker 1997, 158; on the relationship between military functionality and the symbolic expression of status and power: Rapoport 1969, 31–33; Keeley, Fontana, and Quick 2007, esp. 81–82; on architecture, ideology and power: Maran et al., eds., 2006; Bretschneider, Driessen, and van Lerberghe, eds., 2007. 39 J. Davis 1977, 1986; Overbeck 1989, 119–121. The successive periods were first marked alphabetically, later numerically (Caskey 1979). 40 Mourtzas and Kolaïti 1998, 681. Lloyd Cotsen, the excavation architect at the time, observed the walls underwater in 1974. Further observations have been made over the years, during the annual receding of the sea in February–March (Caskey and Tountas 1998). 41 Mourtzas and Kolaiti 1998, 680–681. 42 Greek βούρκος. I am grateful to E. Gorogianni for pointing this out to me. Cf. Cherry, Davis, and Mantzourani 1991, 60,

AYIA IRINI AND THE NORTHEAST BASTION

beached on either side of what is now the peninsula, according to the winds, while the eastern side, as the most sheltered from the northwest wind, was probably the main harbor.43 There is no doubt that the harbor was close to the town and that the larger bay of Hagios Nikolaos was where ships approached the island from the open sea (Fig. 1.3). From the vantage points of the towers, the entire bay and beyond could be observed. But a row of hills to the north, which protected the harbor and town nestled below, blocked the wider view of ships approaching from a distance. According to Caskey, it was largely for this reason that a structure was built some 500 m northwest of Ayia Irini at the top of the steep hill of Troullos.44 It has spectacular views on all sides and looks down on Ayia Irini within “easy signaling distance.”45 Remains of a rectangular structure on the summit, ca. 11.5 x 15.0 m, with floors made partly of local bluish gray marble slabs and partly plastered, dates mainly to LC I–II (Periods VI–VII). Within this is a stone-built circular structure, ca. 5 m in diameter, and another lies outside the building.46 These features, along with many of the finds (numerous conical cups, a jug, jars, legs of tripod vessels, stone libation tables, a stone ladle, the head of an Early Cycladic (EC) figurine, and a bronze male figurine), reveal more than utilitarian usage.47 The circular structures could well have been platforms for ritual ceremonies, perhaps on occasion functioning as dance floors, similar to those (slightly later) identified at the North Building at Knossos along the Royal Road.48 Caskey suggested a dual function for the building of watchtower and shrine. Its close proximity to the coastal settlement implies that it functioned as a hilltop shrine for the inhabitants.49 citing undrained marshes at Vourkari and Koressia until “relatively recent times.” 43 Shaw 1990; Shaw and Luton 2000, 463; Doumas 2007a. 44 Caskey 1966, 375–376; 1971, 392–394. See also Caskey 1967, 476–479, plan 7; 1968, 390, plan 1 (showing the relationship between Troullos and the site of Ayia Irini). 45 Caskey 1966, 376. 46 Caskey 1971, 393–394, fig. 13. 47 Caskey 1971, 394; Peatfield 1983, 273; Cherry, Davis, and Mantzourani 1991, 100, no. 37. 48 Warren 1984. 49 Caskey 1971, 395. Peatfield (1983, 273) calls Troullos a “hill shrine,” arguing that “peak sanctuaries,” with their specific ensemble of artifacts and geographical relationships to settlements and upland pastures, served specific cult practices that

23

Scattered sites in the vicinity of Ayia Irini are witness to at least seasonal occupation associated with pasturage and presumably agriculture.50 This picture of a major harbor town, with outlying small-scale occupation and a hilltop sanctuary within walking distance, is characteristic of many Aegean locales, including the island of Thera, where Bronze Age remains on the top of a hill lie a few hundred meters to the northwest of Akrotiri.51 This relationship between hilltop structure and coastal town is reflected in the miniature paintings of the West House, both in terms of the “watchtower” near the harbor of the Arrival Town52 and the Meeting on the Hill, which suggests ritual activity on a hilltop.53 The main approach to Ayia Irini during the Late Bronze Age (and probably before) was from the northeast, along what is now the bay of Vourkari (Fig. 1.3, left). This approach leads directly past the Northeast Bastion—the first structure that visitors would encounter or, more accurately, the first vantage point from which townspeople encountered visitors—to the main Gateway, which provides the thoroughfare for House A, the largest and richest building of the site, and the adjacent freestanding Temple (Figs. 1.4, 1.5). It was surely the elite entrance to the citadel. It is likely that there was also a western gateway, as it is hard to envisage residents approaching their homes in the Western Sector via the grand Gateway from the opposite side of town.54 Part of the northern section of the were exclusive to Crete. Briault (2007, 131) adds, “Troullos still fulfils enough criteria to warrant a ritual interpretation, and should perhaps be regarded as an experiment—clearly a short-lived one—in Cretan ritual practices in a setting where Cretan ritual behaviours had not been learned or copied.” The varying criteria for the definition of a peak sanctuary has caused the number of known examples to range widely, from two in the early 20th century to over 50 by mid-century, currently resting at 22 or 25, all in Crete (the range and definition is discussed by Kyriakidis 2005, 13–21; Briault 2007, 124–125). 50 Cherry, Davis, and Mantzourani 1991. On settlement patterns in Northwest Kea, see also Georgiou and Faraklas 1985; Georgiou 1993, 359; 1998, 212. Throughout the Bronze Age, Ayia Irini, with its harbor, was the major economic and cultural center of the island, but it was not isolated from smaller sites inland, the number of which significantly increased at the beginning of the LBA (Periods VI–VII). 51 Doumas 1983, 55–56. 52 Doumas 1983, 55–56. 53 Morgan 1988, 156–158. 54 A western gateway existed in the first fortification wall of Period IV, near the spring, but was blocked before the destruction of the fortification system. When the new Grand

24

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

11 12

13

15

14

Northeast Tower

N.16

N.17 N.19

N.18

L

Northeast Bastion

N.20

Tower e

J

Gateway

Z.11 Z.9

eA

F.2

2

nu

Pl ate ia

Av e

W

19

C

25

1

3 4

5

2 1

6

4

7 3

5

G 8

9

36

10

6

37 39

Temple House A

Bay of Hagios Nikolaos

Period VI wall paintings (LC I/LM IA) Main town route in Period VI Staircases leading up to painted rooms Period VI and earlier walls Period VII and later walls 0 02 2

1010

50 50 kmkm

Figure 1.4. Ayia Irini in Period VI (LC I/LM IA), showing the locations of wall paintings. Adapted by the author from the site plan by R.L. Holzen, showing the walls according to the current state of research on stratigraphy.

AYIA IRINI AND THE NORTHEAST BASTION

N

25

Northeast Tower

N.16

N.17 N.19

N.18

Northeast Bastion

L N.20

M 2

J

Gateway

Z.11

Z.9

eA

F.2

2

nu Av e

W

1

3

19

C

Pl ate ia

4 5

2 1

25

6

4

2

7 5

3 36

7

29

24

39

30 31

G 9

6

37

23

8

1 2

10

Temple

B

3

34

House A

Bay of Hagios Nikolaos

Period VII representational wall paintings (LC II/LM IB)

0 2

10

50 km

Figure 1.5. Site plan of Ayia Irini showing the locations of representational wall paintings in Period VII (LC II/LM IB). Adapted from the site plan by R.L. Holzen.

26

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

site was destroyed by a modern road in the first part of the 20th century, and it is here, where the fortification wall no longer survives, that Jack Davis suggests there could have been “a postern gate—a sally port or humble alternative to the main gate of the town.”55 Unfortunately, the destruction of this part of the site leaves unanswered the question of routes leading to the Northeast Bastion. Only the central section and parts of the northern section of the site have been fully excavated. The published plan of the town is somewhat misleading, as it incorporates walls from a number of different periods. To date, there are no plans available for the entire town as it stood at the beginning of the LBA, Period VI (LC I/LM IA/Late Helladic [LH] I), except for House A, which has been closely chronicled chronologically, and the recently published Western Sector.56 For ease of reference, three plans are provided here. Figures 1.4 and 1.5 are adapted from the published multiperiod plan of Ayia Irini in the Late Bronze Age, in an attempt to clarify the urban context of the Northeast Bastion paintings. Figure 1.4 shows the town in Period VI and earlier walls (with later walls in pale gray), while Figure 1.5 includes Periods VII–VIII walls.57 The main route into the town during Period VI is highlighted in yellow, and the wall paintings of each period are highlighted in red. Figure 1.6 shows the development of the northern part of the fortification wall (after Davis 1986) in Period V (a), slightly later in Period V when it was extended to the north (b), and in Period VI with the extension to the east which created the Northeast Bastion (c).58 Room 15 had a hearth in Period V and Fortification was built in Period V, there was a portal through Room EJ3, which was blocked in Period VI. It was only in Period VII that steps were built over the wall down to the Spring Chamber (Schofield 1998, 120; 2011, 53–54, 106, 111, 191–193). 55 Davis 1977, 35. 56 Cummer and Schofield 1984, pl. 4; Schofield 2011, pl. 4. 57 House A and the Western Sector are based on the phase plans in Cummer and Schofield 1984, pl. 4, and Schofield 2011, pl. 4, respectively. House B, R13-16, and the areas outside the fortification walls are based on information provided by E. Schofield and A. Bikaki in 1987. The Northern Sector is based on information provided by R. Fitzsimons and E. Gorogianni in 2010–2011. No chronological distinctions are made for the walls of House AB, Areas L and G in the center, or Q and R in the south, as these areas are as yet unstudied for publication. 58 Figs. 1.6:a and 1.6:b are adapted from J. Davis 1986, pls. 3, 5, 15, with the stratigraphic information for Period V in this area provided on pp. 38–62. The phases of the Northern

the complex 11-12 (staircase) with 13-15 (most likely a hall on the upper story) may well have functioned as a dining area. The major change to the configuration of the Northern Sector with the addition of the Northeast Bastion in Period VI no doubt heralded a shift in focus, with the function of Rooms N.18-N.20 perhaps replacing that of the Room 15 complex on a much grander, more prominent scale. In the Western Sector, it is mostly basements below the ancient ground level that have survived, so that entrance doors and external passageways are largely lost.59 The site plan shows densely clustered houses here, with only a narrow passage near the fortification wall at the location of the external spring. The passage leads northeast between Houses F and J and broadens southward to reach a courtyard (W34). However, in Period VI, with the major remodeling of the town, there was a considerable amount of open space around relatively few freestanding buildings in this area.60 This open space is suggested in Figure 1.4 by the fading of later walls. The approach system through the eastern Gateway, however, is well preserved.61 A large stone threshold marked the entrance, and though no pivot holes were found, one must imagine massive wooden doors protecting the interior of the citadel. Immediately beyond this main Gateway the paved road, known as Avenue A, is almost 3 m wide. A bench lay along the southern and perhaps also northern side of the road,62 providing a resting place for those waiting to enter the routes to the Temple and to the Plateia before House A, both of which were protected by further thresholds, hence gates. This was the elite hub of the town. Sector, including periods VI and VII, will be presented by E. Gorogianni and R. Fitzsimons in their planned volume in the Keos series. 59 Caskey 1971, 390; Schofield 2011. 60 Schofield 1998, 120; 2011, 31–32, 34–35. 61 Interestingly, given the position of the Temple just beyond the Gateway, the latter lies very close to a group of earlier graves, including a large (robbed) shaft grave (Caskey 1971, 378–379). This spatial relationship of graves to gateway recalls that of Mycenae, before the extension of the fortification wall encompassed Grave Circle A, significantly relating it to the building of the adjacent Cult Centre (Iakovides 1983, 24–48, plans 4–6; Morgan 2005, 159–162). An earlier parallel would be the Middle Helladic (MH) shaft grave by the south gate at Kolonna on Aegina (Kilian-Dirlmeier 1997). On Mycenaean gateways, see Iakovides 1999, 201–202. 62 Caskey 1971, 377.

AYIA IRINI AND THE NORTHEAST BASTION

2 NW Tower

3

2

4 NW Tower

1 8 7

9

10

11 12

13

15

3

27

5

4

1 8

14

7

9

10

11 12

13

15

14

N

N

a

b

2 NW Tower

3

5

4

6

1 8 7

9

10

11 12

13

15

N

N.16 N.17 N.19

0

2

10

20 m

NE Tower

14

N.18 N.20

c

Figure 1.6. Northern Sector in Periods V and VI: (a) Period V, Phase 1; (b) Period V, Phase 2; (c) Period VI. Adapted from J. Davis 1986, pls. 2, 3, 5, 15 and the site plan by R.L. Holzen .

The Temple is unique for the period, being a freestanding building. First built in the MBA, Period IV, it was extended in the beginning of the LBA, during Periods VI–VII, at which time some 55 large wheelmade terracotta statues were placed inside.63 It was surrounded by a circumambulatory route, entered via a threshold from Avenue A, reaching the entrance to the Temple on the east side, and running up along a narrow alley past House A to the Plateia. The statues were housed in the innermost rooms, off a long preparatory room with benches. House A in its final form, completed in Period VII, is an enormous building surrounded by walkways, with its main entrance on the north side from the Plateia, up a flight of steps facing the threshold from Avenue A (Fig. 1.5). Long recognized as the seat of administrative authority, House A had pride of place next to the Temple and was approached through two thresholds from the Gateway to a Plateia. Its elite status and wealth are demonstrated by its scale, position, 63 M. Caskey 1986; Gorogianni 2011. The architecture and other finds of the Temple are being prepared for publication by M. Caskey.

wall paintings, and a number of Minoan features in the architecture.64 Other than in a small section on the northwest, built in Period V (late MBA), building began in earnest in Period VI, contemporary with the extension of the fortification wall that became the Northeast Bastion (Fig. 1.4). The most important part of this Period VI building, and probably the first to be built, was the northeast section, Rooms 35–37/39, with further rooms following shortly after.65 That the whole was planned at this period is indicated by the extension southward of the eastern wall of Room 39, but until Period VII, the important block south of this, centering around Rooms 30-31, did not yet exist. Except for stairs leading down into the basement through Room 25, there was at this time no grand entrance from the Plateia to the north. Instead, the entrance was from a narrow alley to the east directly 64 Cummer and Schofield 1984, 41; Hitchcock 1998. Cf. Davis 2008, 202–203, for the suggestion that House A held surplus goods for trade with Crete. 65 Cummer and Schofield 1984, 30–33.

28

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

into the large Courtyard, 36. This courtyard communicated with a columned hall on the main floor, 37/39, which could also be reached from the basement via a staircase to the west. The eastern side was the public part of the building, and the Columned Hall, with its wall paintings (see below) and adjacent court complete with hearth and benches, was surely the state reception room.66 During Period VII, the ground floor of Room 31, newly built, was also painted, and it communicated with its own Courtyard (30), linked by a staircase (29) to a kitchen and pantry in the basement below (Fig. 1.5).67 The painted room was lit by a light-well (23) and communicated with a small room (24) with a drain.68 Late in Period VII, the stepped entrance from the Plateia on the north side was built,69 though the eastern entrance remained operational. Sector L, to the south of the Northern Sector, contained two buildings, only partially excavated, set at different angles. The western building shows evidence of metal working, while the eastern rooms, which yielded bowls and basins with residues of white plaster as well as ocher pigments, was thought by Caskey to have been used as a workshop by the town’s painters.70 Notably, a number of pieces of pigment were retrieved from throughout the site (Pl. 73, below), as discussed in Chapter 9. The Northern Sector (Fig. 1.6) is currently being prepared for publication by Evi Gorogianni and Rodney Fitzsimons, and I am indebted to them for information on the progress of their work. It should be stressed that some of the information on architecture, finds, and stratigraphy is drawn from their preliminary investigations, and, along with my own speculations on the upper story, may therefore be subject to change. The area immediately to the northwest of the Northeast Bastion, encompassed within the northern line of the fortification wall, was the focus of Gorogianni’s doctoral dissertation.71 Along with habitation, the finds indicate that the rooms were 66 Cummer and Schofield 1984, 38. 67 Cummer and Schofield 1984, 14–16, 36. 68 Cummer and Schofield 1984, 18, the drain being interpreted here as a toilet. Rooms 23 and 24 both had drains, connecting with the outside alley to the south (Cummer and Schofield 1984, 4, 18). Cf. below, p. 34, on the presence of conical cups. 69 Cummer and Schofield 1984, 8, 35. 70 Caskey 1964, 322. 71 Gorogianni 2008.

multifunctional and included evidence for a number of household industries, such as weaving (loomweights, spindle whorls), pottery production (potters’ wheels), and metallurgy (a crucible fragment, tuy­ ères, and bronze objects). This area was active during Periods V–VII, though, owing to erosion and changes in elevation, Periods VI and VII are less well represented than V. Elizabeth Schofield pointed out that almost every building at Ayia Irini (as at Akrotiri) provides evidence of industrial or craft activities.72 Some areas, though, such as Sector L and the Northern Sector, presumably originally linked, suggest a concentration of such activities. From the east of these areas projects the Northeast Bastion, marking the interface between urban production and the outside world.

The Northeast Bastion The Northeast Bastion constitutes an extension of the fortification walls early in Period VI, at the beginning of the LBA (Figs. 1.4, 1.6:c). The bastion consists of two huge rooms—N.18 and N.20—with a basement and upper floor connected by a staircase on the west (N.17/N.19), and communicating with a wide corridor to the north (N.16), which led to the tower (Fig. 1.7). Tower, corridor, rooms, and staircase were all built at the same time. The bastion was then destroyed by earthquake shortly after the beginning of Period VII (LC II/LM IB/LH II).73 Only the basement walls survive, but to a considerable height, yielding some evidence of the upper story. At the time of excavation, the rooms were filled with earthquake debris, including many fallen stones. The painted plaster fragments were among this debris, fallen from the upper story. Wall paintings presuppose windows for light, implying that the fortification wall here was more symbolic than protective. Like towers in other fortification 72 Schofield 1990. 73 Gorogianni and Fitzsimons 2017, 148. There is some later material in the area, and Caskey (1971, 376) was under the impression that the Northeast Tower and corridor (only) continued in use after the destruction. Current opinion, however, is that the later material is intrusive, rather than evidence of occupation, and the entire Northeast Bastion was abandoned (Gorogianni and Fitzsimons 2017, 148).

AYIA IRINI AND THE NORTHEAST BASTION

29

NE Tower

NE Tower

N.16

N.16

N.18

N.18

N.17

N.19

N.17

N.20

a

N.19

0

1

10 m

2

N.20

b

NE Tower N.16

N.18 N.17

N.19

N.20

c Figure 1.7. Northeast Bastion: (a) version of upper floor plan with proposed windows; (b) version of upper floor plan with hypothetical dividing wall and cupboards; (c) ground floor with surviving walls. Images L. Morgan and S. Laidlaw (a, b); adapted from the site plan (c) by R.L. Holzen.

systems, the bastion would have provided a place for strategic viewing. Crucially, the upper story windows would have commanded unprecedented views of the main approach to the citadel and the gateway into the town. Clearly, when the massive walls of this extension to the fortification were built, a special function must have been envisaged for the two main rooms, which, at the preserved basement level, are

the largest open-spaced rooms in the entire town. Room N.20, the southern room, is ca. 3.85 x 6.00 m internally;74 N.18, the northern room, is slightly narrower at 3.10 m. In contrast, the so-called Frescoed Parlor (Room 31) of House A, larger than most rooms in the town, measures 3.10/3.60 x 4.50/4.60 m, 74 Caskey 1971, 376.

30

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

and it is therefore closer in size to Room 5 of the West House at Akrotiri, where the Miniature Frieze was painted on the upper story (ca. 4.00 x 4.00 m). At Ayia Irini, only the walled Courtyard A36 (4.40 x 7.50 m) and Columned Hall A.37/39 (3.80 x 7.30 m) of House A are larger than the Northeast Bastion rooms. However, the courtyard was open to the sky, while the interior space of the Columned Hall would have been subdivided by two columns (resting on the two pillars in the basement below). On the same basis, a single off-center column is assumed for the Frescoed Parlor. Rooms N.20 and N.18 of the Northeast Bastion were apparently the only large rooms in the town with (at the basement level at least) uninterrupted interior circulation.75 Access to the bastion was from Corridor N.16, preserved at the basement level. But how the corridor itself was accessed, on either ground or upper level, is unknown, as the construction of the modern road destroyed the section of the site immediately to the west.76 This was the only possible route into the bastion, which was otherwise surrounded by the fortification wall. We may imagine a threshold with a doorway protecting entry into the corridor from a route running through the town, perhaps originating in a western gateway (see above, pp. 23, 26). An alternative route might have been accessed from the Plateia, traversing the central, unexcavated part of the site, connecting the administrative building House A with the important suite of rooms of the Northeast Bastion. Corridor N.16, inside the thick fortification wall, leads directly to the Northeast Tower, the entrance to which is marked by a threshold. As one entered the corridor from the west, on the right (south) was a doorway, also marked by a threshold, which led directly into the protected domain of the Northeast Bastion suite of rooms. The tower itself is not large (ca. 4.00 x 2.20 m),77 and it presumably accommodated the presence of only a few men at a time. However, the corridor, at 2.0–2.4 m,78 is exceptionally wide for a passageway—almost as wide as Avenue A. 75 One of the rooms in Area G, to the north of the Temple, is significantly large, though still somewhat smaller than those of the Northeast Bastion. At the time of writing, Area G has not yet been studied. 76 Caskey shows the line of the modern road (1971, 375, fig. 9). It cut through all of Corridor N.16, most of the Northeast Tower, and the northern half of Room N.18, slanting up slightly from southwest to northeast. Cf. Caskey 1962, fig. 1. 77 Davis 1977, 40. 78 Gorogianni 2008, 294.

Whatever route led to it, N.16 is unnecessarily broad just to lead to the tower, highlighting its function as the approach to the bastion rooms, while also connecting these rooms with the tower itself, perhaps combining their function with the lookout functions of the tower. Access was controlled with a threshold between Corridor N.16 and the passageway and staircase and another from N.16 into the tower. From the doorway from Corridor N.16 into the bastion, a passageway led to a staircase (N.17), which ascended to a landing before turning to ascend to the upper story (N.19). Two doorways off the passageway led into the basements of N.18 and N.20. A threshold is preserved for the former, but at the time of excavation the floor of the latter lay under water, so it could not be reached. The staircase would have functioned as the service access for the painted rooms above. There would surely have been an elite entrance separate from the service rooms, hence an upper story to Corridor N.16, providing direct access to the painted rooms. At the basement level, each of the two rooms was reached individually from corridor N.17, and they did not intercommunicate as they did in the upper story.79 The preserved basement floor of N.18 was of beaten earth. Numerous pithoi were found in that room (six of them in situ), positioned on the floor lining the walls.80 These basement rooms “were for service and storage, whereas the main quarters were upstairs.”81 The N.18 basement with its pithoi was clearly the pantry, and N.20 may well have functioned as a kitchen for the preparation of food which, via the staircase, would have been transported to the grander rooms upstairs. Midway up the staircase, connecting exterior space with interior, was an opening at the west corner of 79 R. Fitzsimons, pers. comm. 2012. The interconnecting door appears on some of the published plans (apparently reflecting the upper story) and not on others (representing the ground floor). 80 Gorogianni, forthcoming; cf. Fitzsimons and Gorogianni 2017, 342. Some of the pithoi apparently fell from above. The current estimate suggests a total of 19 pithoi, with six found in situ and at least 11 in the basement. It is hard to imagine where pithoi might have been stored on the upper story, unless perhaps along the wall of the landing above N.17, which must have ended with a balustrade above the basement doorway to N.20 to permit headroom for the stairs beneath. A few pithoi were stored upstairs at Akrotiri: two in Room 6 of the West House and four in Room 10 of Xeste 3 (Palyvou 2005a, figs. 46, 62 [reverse the captions]). 81 Caskey 1971, 376.

AYIA IRINI AND THE NORTHEAST BASTION

the southern wall (wall M). At the time the site plan was drawn, it was thought to have been a doorway (Fig. 1.4), which could be misleading, since the staircase landing (visible at the time of excavation) lay ca. 0.80 m lower, suggesting to Fitzsimons that the opening may have belonged to a stairwell window.82 This is suggested in light gray in Figure 1.7. Such windows are a constant feature of stairways at Akrotiri, where they provided much needed light for the landings.83 However, as the level of the ground outside sloped steeply down from west to east, even a window in this position would have made the bastion somewhat permeable, breaching the security of the fortification wall. Whether or not this consideration was relevant to the staircase approach to the painted rooms depends on when the opening was built and when it went out of use.84 At some point it was blocked by rubble stones; presumably this action was related to what subsequently happened outside. In the exterior space beyond the south wall of the bastion, a small, open-fronted two-room building (M) was built in late Period VII. Its position and orientation now led the visitor directly to the Gateway, deflecting attention away from the bastion (Fig. 1.5).85 The stairway would have ended in a landing with a doorway leading off to the right into the upper story room of N.18 and, most likely, another doorway straight ahead, providing elite access directly from the upper story of Corridor N.16 (Fig. 1.7:a). It is unknown whether the layout of the basement, with two doors from the passage, was repeated on the upper story, or whether access to N.20 was solely through N.18, via the landing at the northwest corner. On the upper level, unlike the basement, there was a doorway connecting N.18 with N.20 on the western end of the dividing 82 R. Fitzsimons, pers. comm. 2011; Fitzsimons and Gorogianni 2017, 342–343. Cf. J. Davis, handwritten notes (AI/ JLD) 1986. 83 Palyvou 2005a, 135. 84 Caskey thought there were two periods of construction of the area (1971, 376), and E. Schofield and J. Davis were under the impression that the opening was cut in Period VII (pers. comm. and notes AI/JLD 1986). However, current analysis by Fitzsimons and Gorogianni reveals only one period of construction, early in Period VI, with the bastion going out of use in early Period VII. Nonetheless, the opening remains problematic as a window, since one side of it is only roughly cut (R. Fitzsimons, pers. comm. 2011). 85 This is also the area of a dump, in which numerous vessels were thrown from the Northeast Bastion or (most likely) Area L after the destruction of the Northeast Bastion (E. Gorogianni, pers. comm. 2012). The area will be published separately by Gorogianni and Fitzsimons.

31

wall, allowing access between the two and uniting the iconographic program. Traces of the doorway are discernible at the west end of the opening,86 and recent study suggests there was a second doorway (Fig. 1.7:b), discussed below. Evidence for the dividing wall is also indicated by the large quantities of floor plaster found fallen from the upper story. This coarse plaster was painted red, and the majority found in N.18 was of a slightly different hue from that found in N.20, leading to the conclusion that a different batch of paint was used in the two rooms. Further evidence for a solid partition lies in the Plant Panels of N.18, which would have filled the eastern and central part of the southern (partition) wall. Room N.18 is of the same length as N.20, but it is slightly narrower.87 There is only one outside wall. The angle of the massive south wall of the Northeast Tower would have limited the light and impeded the view at the wall’s northern end, so it is likely that windows, which would have needed to be deeply cut, were restricted to the center or southern part of the wall. I have reconstructed the wall with a single window at the center (rather than to the side, as in Room 4 of the West House at Akrotiri)88 to best accommodate the painted panels (for the rationale, see below and this vol., Ch. 8). This room would have been darker than N.20, with less access to views of the outside. Nonetheless, it must have created quite an impression, with its large-scale panels of intertwining plants painted on the walls. Comparing the large quantity of surviving pieces of the Miniature Frieze from the adjacent room (which would have been contained within a narrower frame but ran all around the room), there is not enough surviving for these panels to have been painted all around room N.18. However, as the northern and much of the western part of N.18 was largely destroyed by the modern road, the statistics of preservation are unreliable. The panel fragments that have survived must have been painted on the east wall, flanking the window, 86 Fitzsimons and Gorogianni 2017, 343. 87 This difference does not show up on the currently available plans but is very evident at the site, where the walls of the basement are in situ. However, part of the impression is gained by the fact that the dividing wall (O) has tilted significantly toward the north from the impact of the destruction. 88 At Akrotiri, the off-center window of Room 4 of the West House is an exception, a central window being the norm (Palyvou 2005a, 147).

32

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

linking interior with exterior space, and also on the south wall, which divided the two rooms, signaling the connection between the two spatial units. Room N.20 would have been remarkably impressive, a strikingly large room with a colorful flagstone and red plaster floor (see below and this vol., Ch. 7). On the basis of the length of the walls, we may imagine pier-and-window divisions on the two outer walls, like those of Room 5 of the West House (see this vol., Ch. 11). Cut into the fortification wall, these windows must have had deep sills,89 on which we might imagine lamps to light evening gatherings, or pots for flowers, like those found on the window sills of Rooms 4 and 5 of the West House at Akrotiri and represented in paint on the window jambs of Room 4.90 At least one lamp and one “flower pot” (with drainage holes) was found in each of rooms N.18 and N.20, presumably having fallen from above.91 The eastern windows would have afforded a view of the approach to the town via the marshy land surrounding the bay. The early morning light first entered the town here. The southern windows would have provided a direct view of the grand Gateway to the town and, perhaps, depending on the height of the room and the height of the roofs of the southeast buildings, a view of the bay. The Northeast Bastion lies on higher ground than House A, the Temple, and the other southeast buildings. On the north wall, at the western end, would have been the doorway providing access between the two rooms. Perhaps, on the solid west and remaining north walls, there might have been cupboards or shelves filled with cups and jugs (see below, p. 34). Above the windows and doorways was the Miniature Frieze, with its extraordinarily varied images of men meeting, processing, hunting, cooking, navigating, as well as of women, buildings, ships, a chariot, and—most strikingly—a diversity of landscape depicted with intimate understanding of habitats and weather conditions, including multicolored rocks, plants, a long winding marsh, river(s), and unique portrayals of splashing sea and cloudy sky. The placement of two such sizable painted rooms adjacent to one another (as opposed to a room and a court) is found at Ayia Irini only in the Northeast 89 The thickening of the wall at the northern part of the east wall (as shown in the plan) belongs to the basement level (R. Fitzsimons, pers. comm. 2011). 90 Doumas 1992, pls. 63, 64. 91 E. Gorogianni, pers. comm. 2012; cf. Gorogianni 2016, 143, table 8.3d.

Bastion, but it is closely matched by the smallerscale layout of Rooms 5 and 4 of the West House at Akrotiri. Furthermore, the pattern of two adjacent rooms, one painted with a miniature frieze, the other with panels, is comparable. The relationship between the West House and the Northeast Bastion paintings, both in terms of their architectural placement and in terms of iconographic and idiomatic expression, will be discussed in Chapter 11.

Walls, Floors, Ceilings, and Structures in the Northeast Bastion A great deal of plain plaster, either unpainted or painted red, was found within the Northeast Bastion. Much unpainted and coarse plaster was thrown out following excavation,92 but what remained and what was recorded yield sufficient information to ascertain something of what the internal spaces looked like. Floor plaster is distinguishable as being coarse, often mixed with small stones and sometimes shells, and surviving in thick chunks; ceiling plaster is distinguishable as being molded, with reed impressions on the backs (see this vol., Ch. 9). Corridor N.16 was plastered but mostly unpainted on walls, ceiling, and floor. Some coarse red was also found, perhaps from a strip of floor (the “red carpet” effect) or a dado. Alternatively, assuming the corridor had an upper level, perhaps the basement floor was unpainted and the upper floor was red. A few stray and extremely worn fragments found in the corridor may have belonged to the Miniature Frieze from N.20, like the single well-preserved piece found in the doorway between N.16 and N.17 (14; Pl. 2). Some unpainted wall plaster was found in the Northeast Tower, but not a great deal; it is likely to have come from the corridor. No floor or ceiling plaster was found in the tower. A fragment of convex plaster with red, white, and yellow paint and a 92 In N.20 east, e.g., it is recorded in the notebooks of Abramovitz (Coleman) that 75% of the coarse plaster was discarded, some of it with red paint, and at least 25% of “moldings” (plaster with more than one surface). This was a widespread approach throughout the excavation to material that was considered “undiagnostic” at the time. Gorogianni comments on the pottery from the site that “most coarse, plain, or undecorated wares” were discarded (2008, 101).

AYIA IRINI AND THE NORTHEAST BASTION

smooth surface at the edge probably belonged to a portable object, such as a “table of offerings.” In both N.18 and N.20 much coarse unpainted plaster was found (much of it discarded after excavation), some molded and some with reed impressions. The ceilings were therefore plastered, as probably were the beams above the Miniature Frieze. In N.20, while much of the coarse unpainted molded pieces clearly belonged to the ceiling and some probably covered wall beams, others might have belonged to benches. Large quantities of red floor plaster were found in both rooms, of slightly different hue in each room. In N.18, the floor would have been entirely plastered and painted, as no flagstones were found fallen into the basement. In contrast, numerous fallen slabs of stone in N.20 indicate that the upper floor of this room was paved. Schist slabs were invariably used for stair treads and thresholds in House A, and on some of the floors.93 Red painted plaster (over soil) was a common feature of floors in Cretan houses and palaces.94 At Akrotiri, only a few special rooms on the upper story (including Room 4 of the West House) had plastered floors.95 In grand houses of this time, red plaster was sometimes used to fill the interstices of widely spaced flagstones, like the floors of some of the rooms of House A at Ayia Irini,96 some of the rooms at Akrotiri,97 and on Crete.98 However, the quantity of red plaster flooring that survived suggests that at least part of the floor, probably the outer edges, was painted red. The fact that N.20 had a flagstone and red painted floor, whereas N.18 had only a red painted plaster floor, underscores the greater significance of the room with the Miniature Frieze. Not coincidentally, the same pattern appears in Rooms 5 (Miniature Frieze, flagstone, and red floor) and 4 (panels, plaster floor) of the West House at Akrotiri.99 In the eastern half of N.18 there was a great deal of red and bright yellow ocher wall plaster, most likely 93 Cummer and Schofield 1984, 41. 94 Hirsch 1977; Shaw 2009, 148–149. 95 Palyvou 2005a, 126. 96 Cummer and Schofield 1984: Room 35, a vestibule (p. 6); Room 34, a bathroom (p. 17); Room 23, a lightwell (p. 18); Room 24, a tiny room with a drain interpreted as a toilet/ small bathroom (p. 18; but see below, p. 34); Room 19, perhaps a bathroom (p. 19). Cf. Hitchcock 1998, 172. 97 Palyvou 2005a, 124, 126–127. 98 Hirsch 1977, 44; Shaw 2009, 24, 150–151. 99 Palyvou 2005a, 50–51.

33

belonging to a red dado beneath the Plant Panels and perhaps to a yellow ocher frieze above the window and panels. The panels would have filled the spaces between the dado and the level of the window (reconstructed on the east wall) and doors. One fragment of the Bramble and Myrtle composition has a convex edge indicating that it abutted the corner of a room, implying that the composition ran continuously across at least two walls. From the context, it may be assumed that the fragment came from the southern corner of the east wall, hence the placement of the hypothetical window at the center of the east wall, rather than to the side (see above p. 31, and this vol., Ch. 8). From Room N.20, the Miniature Frieze has numerous fragments with smooth flat edges, some of which “sit” when placed upright. These show that horizontal wooden beams framed the frieze above and below, as was usual for painted friezes in the Aegean. Aside from the miniature fragments, there was little wall plaster from the eastern half of the room, which is consistent with the idea that a series of pierand-window partitions punctuated the east and south walls beneath the frieze. On the other hand, some red wall plaster was recovered from the northwest part of N.20. In the southwest corner of N.20 was a small squarish structure (dimensions ca. 1 m) built of two light stone walls abutting the corner walls of the room. Inside was a shaft, at the bottom of which was an opening through the south wall of the building, functioning as a form of drain.100 The level at which the top of the structure was found indicates that it was part of the upper story.101 Large flat slabs of stone with red painted plaster were found around the shaft, which Caskey suggested belonged to a bathroom on the upper story.102 A pattern of a small room with a 100 Caskey 1971, 376, fig. 10. Cf. Shaw 1996b, 359, in respect to Kommos in southern Crete: “Drains are typically associated with an installation of large slabs, usually set in a corner and slightly slanted to help draw off liquid.” On Minoan drains in general, see Shaw 2009, 86–90. 101 Until recently, owing to the fact that the structure is still visible at the site, I was under the misapprehension that the drain belonged to the basement level, and hence I interpreted it in relation to a proposed basement kitchen (Morgan 1995b, 243, implied). Examination of the architecture in relation to the stratigraphy by R. Fitzsimons and E. Gorogianni has shown that it clearly belonged to the upper floor (as Caskey originally thought). 102 Caskey 1971, 376.

34

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

drain serving an important painted room has precedents both at Ayia Irini and Akrotiri. In House A, Rooms 24 and 34, both identified as a bathroom or toilet,103 served the painted Rooms 31 and 37/39 respectively. In the West House at Akrotiri, Room 4a, serving the painted Rooms 4 and 5, was identified as a kitchen-bathroom by Marinatos.104 When analyzed, the drain was found to contain food waste and interpreted by Anaya Sarpaki as a sewer.105 However, accommodating a bathroom in a reconstruction of the upper story of N.20 is not without difficulties and raises questions about the architectural configuration, since the drain lies directly opposite the position of the doorway from N.18. Also, the iconographic configuration dictates that the Miniature Frieze should have been continuous around all four walls. Two possible solutions are offered below. The structure was at least partially covered in coarse plaster, painted brown in a hue unmatched anywhere else in either of the two rooms. Some pieces have convex surfaces, some concave, and some have two surfaces almost at right angles, but always “interior” rather than “exterior” angles. These must have come from the inside of the structure. On some fragments the brown joins a coarse red surface, belonging to the floor or perhaps the dado. A concentration of pottery, including cups, was found in the west, especially in the southwest corner of the room.106 Since all contents of the upper floor fell with its collapse into the basement, it is hard to disentangle pottery used on the upper floor from that stored in the basement (while the relative find positions may have been influenced by the mode of collapse of the different types of floor above).107 However, some of this pottery was found in levels above the level of the drain, which means it must have come from the upper story.108 This might imply the existence of storage space, perhaps shelving

or a cupboard.109 This was the case for the two solid walls in Room 5 of the West House at Akrotiri, for which wooden planks are preserved from the cupboard doors.110 Both the concentration of pottery and the architectural considerations discussed above militate against the idea of the drain functioning primarily as a latrine. Instead, it may be that the drain functioned in the context of drinking and eating. If the room were open in plan (as in Fig. 1.7:a), the west wall, painted red, may have had shelves or cupboards intended to hold the pottery, above which would have been the Miniature Frieze. Beneath the shelves, perhaps there was a bench adjacent to the square structure functioning as a drain. Alternatively, a bench may have lain along the southern wall beneath the windows.111 In this way, jugs of water could have been placed on the bench so that hands and cups could be washed, and the dirty water, along with dregs from the drinks, could have been poured down the drain. Such a layout would be consistent with the findings in the painted hall above the basement of Rooms 37/39 of House A, in which a terracotta drain covered by stone slabs extended along the southern wall, emptying into the alley, the slabs serving as a narrow bench. In the drain outlet several conical cups were found.112 The large number of conical cups found in Room 24 and just outside around its drain (nn. 68, 103) is also inconsistent with the interpretation of a toilet. On the other hand, it is anachronistic to assume that kitchen and bathroom facilities must be separate, and, as we saw, Marinatos interpreted Room 4a of the West House, which is enclosed by a partition wall, as a combination of both. A drain is capable of taking a variety of waste. To use it as a latrine one would expect at least minimal privacy, but it need not have been more than that. A low partition,

103 104 105 106

109 Little carbonized wood was found in the room, but, given that the doors, window frames, and ceiling joists at least must have been of wood, this simply indicates that destruction was not by burning. 110 Palyvou 2005a, 50–51. 111 R. Fitzsimons notes a “ledge” along the walls of Room N.20, particularly visible along the southern wall in the area of the drain, but he considers it too low to function as a bench (pers. comm. 2011). 112 Cummer and Schofield 1984, 8.

Cummer and Schofield 1984, 17–18. Marinatos 1968–1976, VI, 26–29. Sarpaki 1992. J. Davis, notes AI/JLD 1986; E. Gorogianni, pers. comm. 2012. 107 Anna Michailidou, in her study of the upper stories at Akrotiri, has shown how different floor constructions collapse in different ways, stone slabs (like those of N.20) falling abruptly, earth (and plaster as in the floor of N.18) gradually subsiding in sections, having a notable effect on the levels in which pottery from the upper levels are found (2001, 363–375, 463–465). 108 The pottery levels are equivalent to B–E of the wall paintings, that is, levels 1.70 to 0.90 meters above sea level (m asl). The drain was found at 1.30 (see Table 1.1).

AYIA IRINI AND THE NORTHEAST BASTION

however, would have seriously interrupted viewing of the painted frieze. If the drain had this double function—kitchen and bathroom—and was therefore enclosed, such a wall is likely to have reached to the ceiling. That would make N.20 square, rather than rectangular. The two possibilities are illustrated in Figure 1.7:a and 1.7:b. In Figure 1.7:a, the first solution, the drain is open to the room. The interconnecting doorway at the corner of N.20 matches the format of Room 5 of the West House at Akrotiri. There, the door and row of cupboards along the interconnecting wall would have given an impression of pier-and-doorpartitions,113 though without the flexibility of access or light. In Figure 1.7:b, the second solution, the drain is enclosed, separated from the main room. Such a hypothetical division in N.20 would more closely match the dimensions and square proportions of Room 5 of the West House. An important reason for favoring this arrangement is the recent identification by Fitzsimons of a probable second doorway.114 This means that the most likely scenario is for two doors, one into a compartment with the drain, the other into the room with the Miniature Frieze. The resulting space with drain would have been accessed by its own door, separate from the door accessing Room N.20.115 Whether there was a 113 Michailidou 1990b, 297. 114 R. Fitzsimons, pers. comm., October 2012. The evidence consists of smaller stones that appear to have collapsed between the larger stones of the surviving part of the upper story wall, suggesting that they fell into a void. The upper story wall is not preserved farther east, so there is no evidence to indicate any additional doors. With the dividing wall suggested for N.20, the second doorway provides access from the northwest corner of the room. Palyvou (2005a, 104) comments that doors at Akrotiri and in Cretan architecture are typically situated at the corner of a room, whereas at Ayia Irini, as at Phylakopi and in Mycenaean architecture, they are usually centrally placed in the wall. While this is apparent in other buildings at Ayia Irini, there is no evidence for central doorways in the Northeast Bastion. 115 For a compartment (“closet”) of similar long narrow dimensions, see, e.g., Kommos House X, known for the ground floor though not reconstructed on the upper story (Shaw and Shaw, eds., 2012, figs. 1.2, 1.5, 2.1; pls. 1.2A, 1.2B). See also at Akrotiri, on the upper floor, B1a off the painted Room B1. In Xeste 3, two doors lead from Room 7 into Room 10 on the ground floor (conjectured also for the upper story), at one end of an otherwise solid wall. A short partition leading from the doorway from Room 6 into Room 7 lies parallel to one of the two entrances, implying

35

door from the corridor (N.17) into the compartment or a door between the compartment and N.20 is unknown. In Figure 1.7:b the latter has been included, in an arrangement that would have provided direct access to the drain both from the service area and from N.20. The reconstruction in Figure 1.7:b, with dividing wall, separate doorways into the compartment and the painted room, and perhaps cupboards for storage, offers in my opinion the most cogent solution to the upper floor space, given the present state of evidence. It is, of course, conjectural, and it should be noted that the architectural study of this area is still in progress. Interpretation of the use of the drain cannot be determined without analysis of the contents. Its presence, however, must reflect the function(s) of the painted rooms. In the 1990s I suggested that N.20 functioned as a banqueting hall.116 In the passage of time, this impression has only been strengthened. The same has now been proposed by Gorogianni and Fitzsimons on the basis of their analysis of the area.117 Significantly, while household rooms are usually multifunctional, the Northeast Bastion, unlike other areas of the site, has no signs of residential industrial use (weaving, metallurgy, pottery production), but it has yielded considerable ceramic evidence for drinking, eating, and food production.118 This suggests relatively large social gatherings with a commensal focus. Imagining the way in which these spaces might have functioned, I would envisage the elite members of society invited to meet, dine, and drink in the Northeast Bastion, proceeding along the wide corridor N.16 on the upper story (from somewhere in L/N) through Room N.18 with the painted Plant Panels (perhaps used for drinking) before entering the grand Room N.20 with its Miniature Frieze and privileged views overlooking the entry route to the town. Benches or stools under the windows could have provided seating. Kitchen workers would have reached the upper story via the staircase linking the storage and kitchen space on the floor beneath. If there were a partition in the upper room of N.20, a more private access into Room 10 (Palyvou 2005a, fig. 62, captions should be reversed for ground and first floor). 116 Morgan 1995b, 243; 1998, 202. 117 Fitzsimons and Gorogianni 2017; Gorogianni and Fitzsimons 2017, 145–149. 118 Fitzsimons and Gorogianni, 2017; Gorogianni and Fitzsimons 2017, 146 and note 8.

36

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

they could have had a separate entrance from the elites, just as Room 5 of the West House had, with its two doors on the east wall, one accessed from Room 3 (elite), the other from staircase and storage area 7 (service). The drain is likely to have been multipurpose, used for the washing of hands, the pouring of dregs from the drinking vessels, and (if there were a partition) perhaps as a latrine. The visualizations of Rooms N.18 and N.20 in Chapters 7 and 8 (see Figs. 7.27, 8.9, below) are based on the above observations on architectural space and archaeological context, using the proposed plan in Figure 1.7:b as the model. Chapter 12 discusses the relationship between banqueting as the probable function of the rooms and iconographic meaning as expressed in the paintings.

of the paintings, I attributed letters of the alphabet to each of the contexts. These are listed in the first column, under “Context Code,” A–Z. In the final four columns of this table are numbers of fragments of the Miniature Frieze and Plant Panels, along with the few fragments of border bands and an unidentified composition from N.18. These represent the fragments sufficiently well preserved to be recorded (there were, of course, many more with eroded surfaces that were not). Contexts A–T are from Room N.20, and U–Z are from Room N.18. All the fragments have been given a letter and a number, the letter corresponding to context, the number to the order in which I studied them according to subject matter. In summary: A = combined lot covering all of N.20 B–L = the west part of N.20 M–T = the east part of N.20

Contexts and Chronology of the Northeast Bastion Paintings At the time of excavation, although the northern wall of Room N.18 had been damaged by the modern road, the walls of N.20 stood to a considerable height (>2.5 m in places), partially reaching to the upper story. The dividing wall between the two rooms (wall O; Fig. 1.7:c) bowed slightly northward and was, along with the west and south walls (Q and M), partially dismantled to enable excavation to progress.119 Excavation data of both the architectural remains and the distribution of the scatter of wall painting fragments imply that when destruction came by earthquake early in Period VII, the upper part of this dividing wall (O) fell northward into N.18. At least part of the western wall (Q) may have fallen eastward.120 Though there is overlap, with some of the Miniature Frieze falling backward into N.18, only fragments of the miniatures were found in N.20, while the pieces of the Plant Panels were exclusively found in N.18. Table 1.1 lists the contexts of the deposits in which the fragments were found: the field numbers according to horizontal position within the room and the cut and depth in relation to the vertical position from the surface, along with the associated pottery lots. To simplify the system during my study and presentation 119 R. Fitzsimons, pers. comm. 2011. 120 R. Fitzsimons, pers. comm. July 2011 and December 2012.

U and V = the east and southeast of N.18 W–Y = the center (in relation to east/west) of N.18 Z = the west of N.18. In each case, the first letter in the sequence represents the highest cut, as the first to be excavated, that is, the fragments which fell from the wall last, while the last letter in the sequence represents the deepest cut, closest to sea level (0.00), and hence the first to fall (so L fell before B and landed in the west of the room, and T fell before M and landed in the east of the room). Given the destruction of the northern side of N.18, the surviving fragments originally from that room should be largely from the southern half. As an aid to reconstruction, I charted the fragments of the miniatures according to context and subject in a form of postexcavation grid. This corresponds to Concordance A, which lists the Miniature Frieze fragments with specific motifs according to where they were found in the rooms.121 They are the 121 Concordance A documents the best-preserved fragments from the Miniature Frieze. However, a few of the fragments from contexts W, X, and Y (Room N.18) in this table were later identified as belonging to the marsh of the Plant Panels rather than the marsh of the Miniature Frieze. When I subsequently came to number the Plant Panel fragments, I distinguished them by having a lower case context letter after the number, as in 9y (Catalog 643). Those few that had already been numbered along with the miniatures, however, retain the system of an upper case context letter before

AYIA IRINI AND THE NORTHEAST BASTION

Context Code

Field Number

Room and Position

Cut

Depth (m asl)

Pottery Lot

A

M-4.200

N.20 SW

2–4

2.40–1.06

(Combined)

M-4.202

37

Fragments Frieze

Panel

Band

Other

98

19

1

—

—

N.20 W

94

—

—

—

—

M-4.231

N.20 NW

136

—

—

—

—

M-4.235B

N.20 SE

138

—

—

—

—

M-4.264

N.20 E

153

—

—

—

—

B

M-6.8/36

N.20 W

5

1.70–1.50

157/166

6

—

—

—

C

M-6.56

N.20 W

6

1.50–1.20

168

45

—

—

—

D

M-6.62

N.20 W

7

1.30–1.10

176

25

—

—

—

E

M-6.75

N.20 SW

8

1.15–0.90

180

33

—

—

—

F

M-6.86

N.20 SW

9

0.90–0.80

185

10

—

—

—

G

M-6.111/112

N.20 NW

8–9

1.15–0.83

208/211

16

—

—

—

H

M-6.115

N.20 W

10

0.89–0.65

214

27

—

—

—

I

M-6.121

N.20 W

11

0.70–0.53

220

7

—

—

—

J

M-6.126

N.20 W

12

0.61–0.44

226

6

—

1

—

K

M-6.154

N.20 (S)W

13

0.46–0.42

248

1

—

—

—

L

M-6.312

N.20 W

14

0.44–0.22

368

4

—

1

—

M

M-6.25

N.20 E

3

1.70–1.06

162

43

—

—

—

N

M-6.94

N.20 E

4

1.12–0.88

193

26

—

—

—

O

M-6.106

N.20 E

5

0.93–0.79

196

23

—

—

—

P

M-6.132

N.20 E

6

0.85–0.69

233

42

—

—

—

Q

M-6.138

N.20 E

7

0.71–0.60

238

42

—

—

—

R

M-6.138/139

N.20 E

8–9

0.64–0.38

240/243

91

—

—

—

S

M-6.146

N.20 E

10

0.42–0.30

245

53

—

—

—

T

M-6.153

N.20 E

11

0.31–0.23

246

15

—

—

—

U

M-4.233/239/256

N.18 E

1–3

1.50–0.33

139/143/292

145

77

5

N.18 SE

135/142/132

—

—

—

—

M-4.270/282

N.18 SE

337/140

—

—

—

—

V

M-6.256

N.18 E

4

0.33–0.05

292

33

42

2

W

M-6.188

N.18 C

0

0.75–0.0

263

35

87

2

3

X

M-6.189

N.18 C

2

0.82–0.58

272

159

227

24

3

Y

M-6.204

N.18 C

3

0.56–0.33

278

81

162

2

1

Z

M-6.212

N.18 W

2

0.67–0.34

282

—

—

2

3

N27-338

1

—

—

—

988

596

39

10

(Combined) M-4.224/235A/279

N.16–N.17

N.16–N.17 doorway TOTAL FRAGMENTS:

Table 1.1. Archaeological contexts and counts of the cataloged wall painting fragments. The context code (A–Z) in the first column is the system used in the catalogs and plates to identify the context of each piece, correlated in the following five columns with the excavation data. (The term “cut” used in the excavations defines the relative vertical position within a specific excavation unit.) The numbers of fragments listed in the last four columns represent those that were drawn and studied: Miniature Frieze (including some uncertain), Plant Panels, border bands, and “other” (those in Pl. 65). Many but not all of those listed are included in this book; the poorly preserved, unreadable pieces are not included.

38

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

basis for the visualizations and the attributions of scenes to particular walls. To avoid unwieldy lists of numbers in the discursive text throughout the book, only the catalog numbering is used; however, contextual information is included in the catalog entries. Of a total of over 1,600 fragments sufficiently well preserved to be recorded (both Miniature Frieze and Plant Panels), over 900 unequivocally fell from the walls at the time of the destruction at the very beginning of Period VII (VIIa), when much of the pottery was still of LC I/LM IA/LH I type, but some LH IIA (LC II/LM IB) had been introduced to the repertoire. Most of the remaining fragments fell during Periods VIIa–VIII (i.e., LH II–IIIA:1).122 Relating the pottery deposits with the fragments also enables one to detect from which walls the fragments fell first as well as the direction of collapse. In N.20, all the fragments found in the east half of the room fell at the time of the destruction in early Period VII, whereas in the west half of the room only half the fragments fell then, the rest clinging to the walls until they gradually fell during Periods VII– VIII. Evidently they had disintegrated over time, as far fewer readable fragments were found in the west half of the room than in the east. In N.18, the surviving fragments are likely to have come from the east and south walls (walls R and O), since the west and north of the room was bulldozed when the modern road was constructed. In total, slightly less than half fell in Period VIIa, slightly more than half in Period VII–VIII. However, breaking this down into Miniature fragments versus Plant Panel fragments, more than half of the former fell in the earlier period and more than half of the latter fell in the later period. Given that, with a solitary exception, all the fragments of the Plant Panels were found in N.18, it is obvious that they decorated that room. However, slightly over half of the total fragments of the Miniature Frieze were found in N.18, the rest in N.20. A frieze runs continuously along one or more walls of the number, as in Y2 (703). For archiving purposes, those few Plant Panels with this system are included in Concordance A. 122 I have been able to correlate the preliminary information on the pottery lots with the contexts of the wall paintings thanks to information generously provided by E. Gorogianni, who is studying the pottery and stratigraphy of the Northeast Bastion for publication in the planned volume in the Keos series on the Northern Sector by E. Gorogianni and R. Fitzsimons.

a single room. It is not a format that lends itself to overflow into an adjacent room. We must imagine, therefore, that the Miniature Frieze decorated N.20, which means that at least the dividing wall (wall O) collapsed northward, taking that part of the frieze with it into N.18. This wall would have been of less stable construction than the outer walls, being a partition wall with at least one doorway connecting the two rooms. The spread of the fragments of the frieze show the direction of the shock that caused the collapse. The large quantity of fragments that fell northward suggests that some were also from the northern parts of the east and west walls (R and Q). That so large a proportion of the fragments was found in this area can be explained by postulating a collapse of the floor northward following the fall of the dividing wall in the same direction. Unequivocally, the paintings were executed in the early part of the LBA, at the beginning of Period VI (equivalent to LM IA), no doubt immediately after the building of the extension to the fortification wall. A large proportion of the Miniature Frieze and some of the Panels fell from the walls with the earthquake that destroyed the Northeast Bastion at the very beginning of Period VII (equivalent to LM IA–IB). The rest fell over a period of 100–150 years, during Periods VII–VIII (equivalent to LM IB/LH II–IIIA). This means that the Miniature Frieze and Plant Panels were contemporary with the wall paintings of the thriving town of Akrotiri, Thera. The era to which these paintings belonged coincided with the height of Minoan palatial influence in the Aegean and the time of the aristocratic Shaft Graves of Mycenae. As at Akrotiri, the life of the Miniature Frieze and its associated panels was relatively short.

Wall Paintings at Ayia Irini The Northeast Bastion wall paintings would have played a crucial role in the life of Ayia Irini during its most vibrant period, the beginning of the LBA. Why they were painted, by whom, for whom, and for what occasions, are questions of enormous significance for our understanding of social, political, religious, and mercantile activities in the Aegean at the time. While direct answers to these questions are lost to the millennia that separate us from them, glimpses of likelihood are retrievable through analysis of the

AYIA IRINI AND THE NORTHEAST BASTION

iconography of the paintings and their relationship to the architectural space that encompassed them. Locating the painted Northeast Bastion within its urban setting in time and space provides a beginning. It is now clear that the paintings were executed in Period VI. The only other painting that is known to have existed at the site during this relatively short time is the so-called Splash Pattern from the Columned Hall above Rooms 37/39 in the northeastern section of House A.123 This part of the building, incorporating the large adjacent Courtyard 36, entered from the south alley, appears to have been the core of the Period VI building and has been identified as the state reception hall complex.124 The Splash Pattern comprises a blue-gray ground on which is an apparently random but no doubt controlled combination of yellow ocher, red ocher, and white splashes of paint, which surely evokes the colorful streaking of the island’s predominant stone, schist. Ellen Davis has argued that the painting is “a direct display of the power of nature,” evoking religious forces that, as Anne Chapin has proposed for landscape painting in the Aegean, reinforced the social supremacy of the elite.125 Interestingly, fragments of a similar painting of “white on black” were found in situ on Wall G of Room V in the Temple.126 Though not yet studied, it is likely that the painting was of the same date. It points to an important conceptual link between House A and the Temple at this time. A little later in Period VI, perhaps, Room 19 of House A was painted with a pattern of wavy lines.127 Other paintings from the town that have survived in context appear to have been executed later, after those from the Northeast Bastion had fallen from the walls. In House A, it was only in Period VII (LC II/LM IB/LH II) that the Frescoed Parlor above Room 31, with its adjacent Courtyard above Room 30, was built.128 The walls of the Frescoed Parlor were painted with the Bluebird Frieze (rock doves against a plain yellow ocher ground)129 along with imitation stone, and feathered and “notched plume” 123 Coleman 1970, 17–19, 153, 177–178; Abramovitz 1980, 77, 81, pl. 11:a; Davis 2007, 145–147, col. pl. 17.1:A–D. 124 Cummer and Schofield 1984, 8–9, 31, 38, pl. 4. 125 Chapin 2004; Davis 2007, 146. 126 Caskey 1971, 386; Coleman 1973, 285 n. 4. 127 Cummer and Schofield 1984, 31. 128 Cummer and Schofield 1984, 30–32. 129 Coleman 1970, 21–32, 155–158, 179–181; 1973, 286–293, pls. 54–56:a; Abramovitz 1980, 85.

39

patterns interpreted by Ellen Davis as a griffin.130 The Dolphin Frieze131 from J2, in the Western Sector, is most likely contemporary with these, as suggested not only by the stratigraphy (which, although ambiguous, implies Period VII),132 but also by the plain background of the painting.133 House B on the southeastern edge of the site has, unfortunately, partially subsided into the sea, but a quantity of painted plaster consistent with a single scheme was found mainly in Room 2, with some in the adjacent Rooms 1 and 3.134 The painted fragments were found on top of a Period VII floor.135 A large amount of red suggests that the walls were painted in this color, while border bands were executed in yellow, red, black, and white (lime plaster). Judging from the large number of yellow edge pieces, there appears to have been a yellow dado, presumably imitating stone. Numerous pieces of thick, coarse floor plaster indicate that the floor was polychrome—pink, red, white, pale gray, yellow— divided by string lines in what were probably large squares of color or some other zoning system. A few fragments of larger-scale male figures found here perhaps come from the area immediately to the east, now under the sea. From elsewhere on the site, only minimal remains of bands and plain painted plaster— suggesting monochrome walls with borders of color separated by string lines—were found in context, and most of these also appear to have been later: in the Western Sector, House F and House C were built late 130 Coleman 1970, 32–43, 158–160, 183–184; Abramovitz 1980, 78–81, pl. 10:c; Davis 2007, 148–149, col. pl. 17.1:G–J. 131 Coleman 1970, 53–54, 160–161, 184–185; 1973, 293–296, pl. 56:b. 132 Schofield 2011, 79. 133 The background here is unpainted white (cf. the yellow background of the Bluebirds). Very few fragments survive, and the majority of the plaster from the room was unpainted. These two paintings contrast sharply with the lush seascape and landscape surroundings of the Marine Floors from Knossos and Hagia Triada and the Bluebirds from the House of the Frescoes at Knossos. The dolphins of House J belong to wall decoration, not floor (as at other Aegean sites), as the plaster is very thin. 134 Coleman 1970, 47–52, 154–155; Abramovitz 1980, 77–78. The description of this material in the present text is based on my observations of the material. 135 Dating context: A. Bikaki, pers. comm. 1987. N. Abell has recently completed her doctoral thesis on House B (2014b), which will appear as a future volume in the Keos series of publications.

40

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

in Period VI,136 but at least some of the painted (and molded) plaster in Rooms 2–4 of House F lay above a Period VIII floor (LH IIIA:1),137 while in the south, R13-16 was apparently built in Period VII–VIII.138 Some paintings from the site lack a datable context. A plaster dump with complex forms, including perhaps a lion, was found in the freestanding building (M) just south of the Northeast Bastion outside the fortification wall.139 The building was constructed in Period VII and in use through Period VIII.140 As part of a dump, the fragments lack a datable context, though Ellen Davis, on stylistic grounds, suggested that they belong to earlier rather than later wall paintings.141 Area G also contained disparate fragments probably constituting material that had been thrown out, and a small dump of painted plaster was found in the open yard W34 in the Western Sector.142 Yet the evidence of what did survive in context strongly suggests a highly selective application of wall paintings. Despite the long established history of the town, wall painting appears to have been a new 136 Schofield 1998, 120. 137 In studying the painted fragments from House F in 1987 as part of a site survey of the plasters, I consulted the doctoral thesis of L. Preston (1972), along with relevant excavation field notes, and benefited from personal communication with C. Morris and E. Schofield. 138 A. Bikaki, pers. comm. 1987. 139 Davis 2007, 147–148, col. pl. 17.1:E, F. 140 Caskey 1971, 378, building M.VI+M.III. 141 Davis 2007, 147–148. 142 Schofield 2011, 32.

phenomenon at the beginning of what we call the LBA. A few small fragments of plain red and strips of red or yellow were found in Period V (Middle Cycladic [MC] III) contexts,143 but with no figurative elements. In Period VI, the Northeast Bastion housed the first representational wall paintings on Kea, the only other murals at the time being (as far as we know) those of the Columned Hall of the fledgling House A (and perhaps the Temple), in which paint imitated stone in an evocative but singular statement. Complex meaning, drawing on human and animal action within urban and rural settings and encompassing narrative elements defined by space and time, was expressed through visual imagery only in the Northeast Bastion. Uniquely and strategically housed within the walls of the newly extended fortification, the presence of the wall paintings within this extraordinary setting has profound social implications. 143 J. Davis 1986, 74, 100 (AM-3, House A); 47, 100 (U-136, Northern Sector). These are, of course, the two areas of the town in which wall paintings were to appear in Period VI.

Part IIA Miniature Frieze

2

Human Figures: Body and Society

Human figures provide the action and hence the narrative structure of the Miniature Frieze. Their movements are defined in time and space, their gestures communicate, their garments identify gender, age, and status, and their activities define their roles in society. Without the depiction of man-made environments and artifacts (buildings, vehicles, containers) or the natural world (animals and landscape), human figures would have no structural context; but without the presence and actions of human figures, those environments would be without narrative structure. That is not to say that a linear narrative in the sense of a story, myth, or legend is represented in these paintings, but rather that the human action within its temporal and spatial settings conveys its own communicative stories of how people lived and how their society was run. This, too, is a narrative of sorts, one that defines what was considered sufficiently significant in the social life of the community to be memorialized in paint. This chapter focuses specifically on the figures in the fragments, while the narrative visualizations (the reconstructions, in which the figures interact with buildings, vehicles, animals, and landscape) appear

in Chapter 7. The first and larger part of the chapter is concerned with representation of the body. I begin with an outline of the few female and numerous male figures in the frieze in terms of their scale and distribution within the paintings, and then discuss in more detail how these figures are defined in terms of the gendered body, the head, movement, gesture, and clothing. In the second part of the chapter I focus on societies of men and women, that is, the social roles of gender as attested by occupations, actions, and especially the bringing of “gifts” (men with containers), and the issue of community identity in terms of status and role.

The Gendered Body Scale and Distribution of the Sexes In stark contrast to the large number of males, there are only six identifiable female figures (Pl. 1).

44

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

One fragment shows two women moving to the left (2), the others each contain a single figure, all in association with buildings (1, 3, 4), one with landscape (1). No men are visible with the women. Limited though this evidence is, it suggests a situation comparable to that of the Thera Miniature Frieze, in which the few women appear at windows of buildings, or going about their pastoral business, but not interacting with the male population (Figs. 2.1, 11.1:a, c, d). The women in 2 (Fig. 2.2; Pl. 71:b), however, are distinguished by their clothing but, given their lack of contextual detail (no building), their actions and social roles remain ambiguous. The women are all actively moving or gesturing. These are youthful adults, with slender limbs, narrow waists, and full breasts. No figure has survived in its entirety. Three are preserved only in the lower part, skirts and legs, while two survive only from the waist up. The latter two are framed by a door and a window respectively. A sixth woman survives only in her arm (5). That the arm is painted against a dark ground demonstrates that there was more than one woman at a window. Were they fully preserved, the women would be approximately the same height as one another, at ca. 8.5–9.0 cm, matching the average (though not the smallest) of the men. There are approximately 70 men represented in the fragments (Pls. 2–7). At an average height of 8.5– 9.0 cm, some even 7–8 cm, these are truly miniature figures. Yet they are animated and individualized. This is not a crowd (as in the Knossos miniatures), nor a passive group of onlookers (as some of the men in the towns of the Thera miniature), but an active community engaged in a variety of activities. All but the sailors (who kneel) and the man to the right of the cauldrons (who appears to sit), stand or walk. The majority actively move their arms and legs. They face both left and right in almost equal numbers, yet there is no sense of a central focal point capturing their attention. This contrasts with the Ship Procession at Thera, in which men stand watching from left and right, or the Knossos miniatures in which the men are attentive observers of performance. While most of the figures are of similar size, there is notable variation among others. The hunter (44; Fig. 7.16), for example, is significantly larger than the man with raised arms (18; Fig. 7.15:a) while the legs in fragment 54 are considerably larger than all the others. It is unclear how this worked within the overall picture plane. In the North Wall of the Thera miniatures (Fig. 11.1:a), there is a clear progression from the large naked men in the sea at the bottom of the picture (ca. 9 cm), to the smaller soldiers on the coast (ranging from 6.5 to 8 cm), to the even smaller herders in the

pastoral scene at the top (ca. 6 cm). It is tempting to see this as a form of perspective, the bottom of the picture representing the closest point to the observer, the top the farthest. The same may have been true of the Kea miniatures, judging by the sailors in the sea and the cauldron scene. The former are significantly larger than the latter (63–65, 67; Pls. 6, 7). As such, comparisons with the sizes of male figures in other miniatures can only be approximate, but it seems that the booted man in the single fragment from Phylakopi (Fig. 2.3) would have been of the same height as the average Kea male (ca. 8.5 cm), while the Tylissos figures (Figs. 2.4, 11.5) are somewhat smaller (ca. 6.5 cm), comparable to the standing men in the Knossos miniature and the smaller of the Akrotiri figures.

Colors of Skin In most cases, female and male figures would have been the same height; a few of the men were smaller (30, 31, 51), and at least one was larger (54). They are distinguished by their color, clothing, and hair, as well as their context (discussed below). All the women have white skin; all the men have red ocher skin. The women’s white legs in fragment 2 (Fig. 2.2; Pl. 1:2) are partially defined by black lines, as is one of the ankles. There are no outlines to the red bodies of the men, form being defined by color. There are no exceptions to this generic idiom of white and red, as there occasionally are elsewhere in larger scale paintings.1 This chromatic distinction, fundamental to all Aegean wall painting and common throughout the ancient world, creates an explicit duality.2 As an idiom, it surely derives from Egyptian art, where Egyptian women were light skinned—usually yellow, in some cases white or pink—and Egyptian men were dark skinned, 1 As in the yellow skin of the young boy from Room 3b of Xeste 3 (Doumas 1992, pls. 109, 112), the yellow skin of the head of a “woman”[?] from the “Porter’s Lodge” at Akrotiri (Vlachopoulos 2007a, 135, pl. 15.16), or the Tell el-Dabca bull leapers (Bietak, Marinatos, and Palivou 2007, 93–95 [A.13], 97 [A21], 100 [A30]), or the ambiguous white skinned figures wearing cod-pieces in the Knossos Taureador Fresco (Marinatos and Palivou 2007, 137–140, nos. 15–18, 27, 28, figs. 104, 107–112, 118, 121). On the idiom and ambiguities of color coding for skin, see: Damiani-Indelicato 1988; Marinatos 1989, 28–32; 1993, 219–220; 2005, 156–157; Blakolmer 1993; Morgan 1995a, 42–43; 2000, 938–940; and esp. 2020a; Alberti 1997, esp. 88–103, 216–217; 2002, esp. 102–109; Rehak 1998b, 192; Shaw 2004; Marinatos and Palivou 2007, 127–128; Chapin 2012. 2 Eaverly 1999.

HUMAN FIGURES: BODY AND SOCIETY

45

a

b c Figure 2.1. Details from the Miniature Frieze, Room 5, West House, Akrotiri: (a) “Meeting on the Hill,” north wall; (b) women with a pot, north wall; (c) men meeting across a river, south wall. Scale ca. 1:2. Doumas 1992, pls. 27, 28, 44, details.

0

5 cm

Figure 2.2. Fragments of the Miniature Frieze, Ayia Irini, Kea (2, 6, and detail of 67). Scale 1:2 (for 1:1 scale, see Pls. 1, 2, and 7).

Figure 2.3. Fragment of a miniature painting showing a man’s leg, Phylakopi, Melos. Scale ca. 1:2. Renfrew et al., eds., 2007, frontispiece, top left.

Figure 2.4. Men in the Tylissos miniature painting. Scale ca. 1:2. After Evans 1921–1935, III, 35–36, figs. 17, 19.

46

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

rendered in red ocher. (There were different conventions for foreigners.) In Egypt, too, there were occasional exceptions, in which young Egyptian boys or old men were painted yellow, like women.3 These exceptions point to the symbolic nature of the duality. It was surely not a naturalistic distinction based on observation of suntanned men working in the fields and pale-skinned women confined to the house, as formerly thought within the context of Western gender assumptions. In Egyptian art, men and women are depicted together working in the fields, and the chromatic duality still pertains. Given that in both cultures women and men were clearly distinguished by clothing and hair, as well as, in Aegean art especially, role, the distinction of color is clearly symbolic. For Egyptian art, Mary Ann Eaverly proposes that the duality arose in response to social inequality and demonstrates that it corresponds to the dominant Egyptian ideology of completeness through duality.4 Male and female are seen as complementary, and in Egyptian thought the distinction between dark red and yellow/white is symbolic of unification through opposites. “Color differentiation is thus an important signifier of ideological roles . . .”5 Eaverly points to the lack of color distinction between the sexes in Amarna art (where men and women are both red ocher) as clearly indicative not only of changes in the status of women but of a fundamental ideological change, in which unity rather than duality is stressed. To what extent ideological precepts may have been embedded in the binary color code in Aegean art is unknown. However, the fact that a young boy (not yet a man) may occasionally be shown with the light coloration of, or closer to that of, a female points to a symbolic dimension to the color duality that has been largely overlooked. There is no doubt that this duality was significant, defining gender in symbolic rather than naturalistic terms. It is interesting to note that the bare skin of the statues from the Temple at Ayia Irini (clearly identifiable as female by anatomy and clothing) was painted white, despite the more lifelike buff/terracotta color of the fired clay.6 Convention outweighed naturalism. 3 4 5 6

Morgan 2000, 931, 939, fig. 5; 2020a. Eaverly 2004, 2013. Eaverly 2004, 54. M. Caskey 1986, 27, 59, 61–63.

Individuality, Movement, and Gestures Defining the Head In accordance with the convention of ancient art, heads are depicted in profile.7 They display an astonishing variety (Pls. 1–6, 70). Some have concave foreheads, others convex. Chins are straight, pointed, or drooping. Each nose is individual, ranging from straight to hooked and from thin to bulbous, sometimes projecting beyond the chin (16, 18, 63; Pl. 70:d, e, h). Necks are thin or thick, gently curved, or with prominent Adam’s apple (16). Even the shape of the head varies, some with high forehead and narrow width, others rounder. Nose and chin form two projections joined by a clean line, void of lips. The female eye is delineated in red (3) or black (4) over the white skin (Pl. 70:a, b). The male eye is defined by a white oval applied over the red skin with the tip of a brush. One figure, 6 (Fig. 2.2; Pl. 70:c), has a clearly surviving pupil, consisting of a vertical black stroke. Traces of a black pupil are visible under magnification on four other figures (12, 36, 63; Pl. 70:f–h). There is approximation in the positioning of the eye, which in several cases is in line with the middle of the nose instead of the top. There are no eyebrows. Hair is black or blue-black (blue-gray with black). Female hair is long and appears to have been bunched into a bun at the nape of the neck (3, 4; Fig. 7.3) as seen on the women in the Thera miniature, though the exact shape is obscured by the lack of contrast between dark hair and dark door or window. Men’s hair is consistently short, again like the majority (not all) of the men in the Thera miniature,8 though it varies in shape from a narrow crescent (12) to a full head of hair (16, 17, 19). (The balding appearance of the man with upraised arms, 18 [Pl. 70:e], is the effect of the black having partially flaked off.) The man in fragment 6 stands out in having a spur of hair at the crown as well as the only indication of an ear 7 On conventions of the human body in Egyptian art, see Schäfer 1974, esp. 277–309; and on comparisons between these conventions with those of Aegean art, see Bietak 2000, esp. 210–219; Morgan 2000, 927–930. 8 Morgan 1988, 101–103.

HUMAN FIGURES: BODY AND SOCIETY

(Pl. 70:c). Clearly his depiction was more detailed than the others. The sailor in 65 (not reconstructed) has a similar but shorter spur of hair. The hunter (44; Fig. 7.16) has spiky projections or plumes at the crown of his head. His own short dark hair is visible above the forehead and neck, so it is not evident that he is wearing a helmet, though the effect of showy display is clear. As black was painted over blue, intention is in question, but it is notable that the hair at the nape of his neck is blue-gray, while that above his forehead is black. If this were an intentional distinction and not a matter of preservation, the person could be an adolescent, like those depicted with blue heads and hair-locks in large-scale paintings at Akrotiri,9 in which case an initiatory context for the hunting might be implied. The ambiguity of preservation, however, makes this speculative. This aside, the attention to his hair or headgear in the form of projections singles him out, drawing attention to the significance of his action. No two figures are the same. Even those occupied in the same activity and dressed alike (such as the three paddlers in 63; Fig. 7.9; Pl. 70:g, h) have individualized facial profiles. One can imagine encountering them walking about the town of Ayia Irini. The issue of the existence or nonexistence of portraiture in Aegean art, particularly glyptic, has been much debated.10 But portraiture (as we understand it in the West) and individualization are not necessarily the same thing, and the latter does not necessarily imply the former.11 All representational art rests on observation (of both art and life), and if there is individualization there has been observation of unique instances, even if the mind has not consciously equated the visual memory with the image. Whether they were modeled on known individuals or a product of the fertile imagination and memory bank of the artist(s), such individualization of small-scale figures is unique in Aegean painting. In the Knossos 9 Doumas 1992, pls. 18, 19, 22–25 (Fishermen and Priestess, West House), 79–81 (Boxing Boys, Beta 1), 107, 108, 112, 113, 115, 120, 121 (Xeste 3); and see n. 194 below. 10 See esp. Marinatos 1962; Foster 1997; Pini 1999; also Wingerath 1995, 88–91; Younger 1995, 165–168; Tsangaraki 2010, 377. 11 Cf. Foster (1997, 127) who comments that the words “portrait” and “portraiture” are “laden with connotative and denotative sets of encoded messages about truth, perception, and purpose . . .”

47

miniatures, the men are bunched together in lively but repetitive rows of simplified brush strokes, only the women having aspects of identity. In the Thera miniatures, the figures are separately depicted but similar in facial features. Even on a slightly larger scale, as in the taureadors of Knossos, the faces resemble one another within the same painting. The figures in the Kea miniature express individuality, even if they did not (and who knows if they did?) portray individuals.

Moving the Body All the figures are animated in their actions. Of the five women whose positions are at least partially discernable, one is clearly walking (1; Fig. 7.1), two appear to be running (2; Fig. 2.2), and all apparently raise one or both arms. The woman in the doorway holds an object on her head and is presumably walking past the doorway while carrying a vessel (3; Fig. 7.3). Her shoulders are frontal, with the far arm raised in order to balance the vessel and the near arm bent across the body, hand raised, as though steadying the body. The woman in the window has the near shoulder pushed forward (obscured by her garment), with her far arm raised high, fingers bunched together and thumb splayed, and her near arm hanging loosely down in front of the body (4; Fig. 7.3). Both postures recall those of women in the Thera miniatures, but with variations: the first is echoed in one of the women with a pot on her head by a well on the north wall (Fig. 2.1:b), though her companion stretches her arm loosely forward in balance; the second is more closely echoed in the raised arm of the two women watching the incoming ships from the Arrival Town (south wall).12 The other three figures among the Kea fragments must also have had raised arms, as no arms or hands can be seen below the waist or hip. All the women are, therefore, actively moving their limbs. Each man moves his body in accordance with his activity. Even when clearly standing rather than walking, as in the case of the two men bending over cauldrons (67; Fig. 7.8), the legs are apart, knees flexed, back heel raised from the ground as though a 12 Morgan 1988, pls. 16, 120; Doumas 1992, pl. 38.

48

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

step were about to be taken. Movement and potential movement are paramount. Shoulders are varied in form. The man in 6 (Fig. 2.2) is depicted in the conventional frontal view of ancient art, as is the woman in 3, but on some other figures there is an attempt to experiment with linear perspective. The right figure in 10 (Fig. 7.11) has a shoulder blade wrenched forward, while the figure behind him (on the viewer’s left) appears to have a shoulder with bulbous front. Despite the fact that neither is completely preserved, the angle of arm to shoulder shows that they were not the same on the two men. In both cases, the shoulders indicate movement forward from the body. The man looking back over his shoulder (36; Fig. 7.12) is the most idiosyncratic in this respect, the underarm and shoulder forming an arch before descending into the dropped arm. The shoulders of 13 and 14 (Fig. 7.12) appear to bend backward before the arm drops forward. Such experimentation is apparent in some of the large scale figures of the Thera wall paintings, leading to a few seemingly awkward angles;13 but in the Miniature Frieze, on those men who present a profile rather than frontal view of the shoulders, either both shoulders move together with outstretched or folded arms14 or the near shoulder is pulled back behind the body, with arm hanging behind.15 On the whole, however, shoulder movement is only visible on the men wearing loincloths, since, in contrast to the men in the Kea paintings, those wearing robes mostly have their arms encased in the garment, so that neither shoulder nor arm is visible. In each of the two miniatures, one man dressed in a white robe with loose fabric over the shoulder turns his head to look behind him. In the Thera Meeting on the Hill, the loose fabric moves with his head, still behind his neck (Fig. 2.1:a),16 whereas in 13 Doumas 1992, pls. 10, 105 (one shoulder forward: House of the Ladies, Xeste 3 woman), 18, 79, 115 (side view: Fisherman, Boxing Boy, Xeste 3 youth), 108, 112, 121 (both shoulders forward: Xeste 3, youngest girls and boy), 114, 123 (shoulder blade wrenched forward: Xeste 3 seated man with jug, girl offering basket of crocuses). There appears to be a pattern not only of type of action but (in some cases) of the age range of the moving figure. 14 E.g., Morgan 1988, pls. 3, 139, 159, 160 (outstretched arms: helmsman, man in the sea, rowers and paddlers), 125, 126 (folded arms: Meeting and Ship 1). 15 Morgan 1988, pls. 123 right (Meeting), 137, 138 (small male figures beneath the Arrival Town). 16 Morgan 1988, pl. 123 left.

the Kea painting, the man’s neck swivels independently of his shoulder, the loose fabric remaining behind him, now at the front of his neck (36; Fig. 7.12). Since his arm is not encased in the garment, the shoulder is visible against the white, here curiously arched, as though the twisted position of his neck had dislocated his shoulder. The movement of looking behind over the shoulder is not common in Aegean art, but it appears in several contemporary and near contemporary images. In the Thera miniature, it also occurs on the hill above the Arrival Harbor, where a running man or boy beckons to those behind him,17 and in the Knossos miniature paintings it occurs among both seated and standing women.18 It also appears in large scale at Akrotiri in the Xeste 3 paintings, in which the adolescent boy holding a cloth, the young girl with a veil, and one of the crocus gatherers all turn their heads back, the boy and the crocus gatherer from a position of frontal shoulders, the girl with veil from shoulders that reach forward.19 One of the many men in procession on the Hagia Triada Harvester Vase turns his head back to see those behind; he is not otherwise distinguished from the others.20 On a LM I seal from Vathia, Pediados, a figure dressed in what is usually identified as a priestly robe and carrying what appears to be a ritual axe looks behind him with his other arm stretched back, palm open; we do not see what or who he looks at.21 On a LM I sealing from Zakros, a man at the center of a cult scene turns from facing two men in front of him to look at one behind who is moving actively toward him.22 Each of these examples has its own context, hence reasoning for the uncharacteristic movement, but the coincidence of the white robe with loose cloth at the shoulder in the context of a male meeting draws together these two instances from the island miniatures. The arms of the men are often bent at the elbows, with the forearm loosely hanging by the side, held parallel to the waist, or raised. Hands are either clenched into a fist or outstretched with thumb separated from a single finger that stands for them 17 Morgan 1988, pl. 135. 18 Hood 2005, pl. 11:e. 19 Doumas 1992, figs. 107, 113, 118; discussed in Morgan 2000, 930, 941. 20 Marinatos and Hirmer 1960, pl. 105, below. 21 CMS II.3, no. 198. 22 CMS II.7, no. 2. Cf. Hagia Triada: CMS II.6, no. 26; and perhaps CMS II.6, no. 9.

HUMAN FIGURES: BODY AND SOCIETY

all (see below with reference to gesture). The torsos and arms of the two men with cauldrons (67; Figs. 7.8, 12.1) are positioned for their task. Both lean forward from the waist, the left man lower, with head (what little is preserved) looking forward rather than down. Shoulders are shown discretely in profile, and both arms extend toward the cauldron, separated in active mode rather than together in a controlled gesture. The far elbow of the man on the right is bent, in the effort of his action, an uncharacteristically functional position.23 The posture is virtually identical (albeit viewed from a different angle) to that of the man stirring the contents of the cauldron in the photograph of a festival feast in Brittany shown in Figure 12.3. The artist had evidently seen (or experienced) the momentum of stirring the contents of a cauldron first hand. Legs are mostly astride, the front foot flat on the ground, the back foot lifted at the heel in mid step. Calves are roundly articulated on some (57), straight on others (47), much like the musculature of the arms. Feet are in profile, ending in a narrow point (39, 41, 45, 54, 60, 61, 67) or slight curve (38, 40, 52) for the toes. Experimentally, one back foot has toes spread as they touch the ground (47, center). Each foot on this fragment is portrayed differently. Again this variety of movement is in contrast to the relative regularity of the figures in the Thera miniature. The men in the Meeting on the Hill (where the feet are preserved) all have their feet firmly on the ground, one foot in front of the other (Fig. 2.1:a), as do the men watching from the pastoral scene to the right and those around the towns on the south wall.24 Even when clearly walking, as in the man in front of the building and the soldiers on the north wall, or the fishermen on the south wall approaching the Arrival Harbor,25 the only concession to movement is to separate the legs, both feet still being flat on the ground. Only in the depiction of the men running up the hill to the lookout post does the back foot appear to lift off the ground.26 One of the women balancing a pot on her head has both heels slightly raised, however, 23 A similar, though not identical position, can be seen on a man on a sealstone now in Copenhagen (CMS XI, no. 239) who stands with legs flexed while bending over a large object. 24 Morgan 1988, pls. 122, 130, 137, 138 25 Morgan 1988, pls. 132, 136, 144. 26 Morgan 1988, pl. 135. The raised back foot of the herder on the north wall (pl. 82) is a reconstruction.

49

Figure 2.5. Seal impression from Hagia Triada (LM I). Seal area ca. 2.35 x 1.3 cm. CMS II.6, no. 29.

as though walking on tiptoes (Fig. 2.1:b), as, to a lesser extent, does the man meeting on the right side of the river (Fig. 2.1:c), where the effect is of standing on a slope.27 Among the Tylissos miniature fragments, one shows a foot flat on the ground, and two others have a back heel raised (Fig. 2.4), while the one preserved leg from the lost miniature painting from Phylakopi has a flexed foot (Fig. 2.3).28 A raised back foot is characteristic of a number of figures in glyptic art, as in the sealing from Hagia Triada shown in Figure 2.5, where the foot is flexed, toe down, heel up, like the back foot of the man in 38 and the man to the left of the cauldrons (67; Figs. 2.2, 7.8). The raised heel of the back foot clearly denotes movement and could on occasion be used to distinguish between men moving forward and those who were still.29 Most of the men are upright. Two bend their bodies over the cauldrons, while a third appears to be 27 Morgan 1988, pls. 133 (man), 140 (woman). 28 The partial reconstruction of it as a front leg in Morgan 2007a, 391, fig. 9.11 is adapted from a drawing by Mark Cameron. Either both feet were raised (as in the drawing) or this was actually the back leg, rather than the front. 29 E.g., the Lion Hunt dagger from Shaft Grave IV, Mycenae (Marinatos and Hirmer 1960, col. pl. XXXV; Morgan 1988, 47, fig. 34).

50

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

seated on a wooden (yellow ocher) seat (67 right; Fig. 7.8). While no legs of the seat have survived, the position of the man’s body and legs indicate that he sits on a stool, not on the ground. Reconstruction of this figure is difficult and therefore tenuous. Little survives, and the sitting position is not typical for depictions of men in miniature painting or indeed in Aegean art in general.30 However, one man in the Thera miniature sits on what is probably a boulder to the left of the river outside the Departure Town, meeting a standing man on the other side (Fig. 2.1:c).31 His body, encased in a hairy robe, leans forward at the waist, while the upward tilt of his head directs his gaze toward the face of the standing man. A position comparable to that reconstructed in Figure 7.8 can be seen on two sealstones, in each of which one of three men (the others standing) is in a seated position, without a visible seat, his torso leaning forward and arms outstretched.32 The helmsman on a seal in Athens33 also sits without visible seat, while on a sealing from Knossos, two rows of seated men with upraised arm each have a floating “seat” without legs beneath them (Fig. 12.2:b).34 The three paddlers in 63 kneel (Fig. 7.9), apparently almost sitting on their feet. This is the position held by the two paddlers approaching the Arrival Town in the Thera Miniature Frieze, contrasting with the seated position of the rowers outside the Departure Town (Fig. 11.1:c, d).35

The majority of figures are represented individually. Two men in white robes overlap one another slightly (10). Exceptionally, one fragment shows a group of overlapping men wearing loincloths, walking or running along the shore no doubt toward the cauldron scene (59; Fig. 7.8, detail). Unfortunately, the fragment is poorly preserved, making reconstruction difficult, not least since there is no tonal differentiation between the legs—they are all the same red ocher. Had this been an Egyptian artist, the overlapping figures would have been neatly distinguished one from the other by varying the tone of ocher alternately between light and dark. As it is, the legs and feet clearly overlap, giving a vivid picture of men close together moving rapidly in the same direction (Fig. 7.8, left). It may be that they are intended to be read as running, as the stride appears to be wide, but while the back feet are raised, the legs are not. This was, however, the posture used to depict running in the Thera miniature, as we see from the figures on the hill of the Arrival Town.36 It is quite different from the expansive raised leg of the man on the unique Runner’s Ring from Syme.37 The other indicator of movement is the bent front knee (with or without a bent back leg), evident in the women in 2 (Fig. 2.2) and the men in 40, 47, 54, and 56, as well as in the cauldron scene, 67 (Figs. 2.2, 7.8), where it indicates the motion of bending down.

30 On seated male figures in Aegean art, see Younger 1995, 168–170 (seated figures: 168–187); on female and male seated figures, see Rehak 1995. 31 Rehak 1995, pl. 133 left. 32 CMS VII, no. 130, LM I–II, now in the British Museum; CMS I, no. 263, Late Bronze (LB) I–II, Tragana tholos. The same three male types appear in both: a standing man with face, holding a weapon, a standing (or upside down) man with stylized triangular head, and the seated man, also with face, all wearing a short kilt or loincloth with multiple hems. On the British Museum seal, the seated man appears to be tapped on the head; on the Tragana seal he seems to be attacked in the back by the weapon. The context is quite different from the Kea painting, other than the presence of three, but the seated position could be comparable. If so, however, it raises unresolved questions of meaning. For an earlier version of the seated pose (EM III–Middle Minoan [MM] IA): CMS II.1, no. 385, three seated figures on an ivory cylinder seal from Archanes. 33 CMS V, no. 184b, LB II–IIIA:1. 34 CMS II.8.1, no. 242, Knossos; for the position and gesture, cf. CMS IX, no. 14a: MM II three-sided prism. 35 Morgan 1988, pls. 159 (rowing), 160 (paddling).

Gesturing As Marcel Mauss defined them, bodily movements are simultaneously biologically, culturally, and psychologically constructed.38 This is gesturing in the widest sense, in which the body in propelling itself into action communicates with its social world through kinesis. Gesturing in the narrower sense, formed of an ordered series of actions specific 36 Morgan 1988, pl. 135. 37 Lembesi, Muhly, and Papasavvas 2004. This is an exceptional portrayal of running; cf. CMS V, Suppl. 1A, no. 133, a LM I ring impression where the widely spaced stride indicates a run, but the back leg is barely raised (the feet have not survived). 38 Mauss (1935) 2005; cf. Noland 2009, who examines the legacy of Mauss’s phenomenological approach to gesture through the works of Maurice Merleau-Ponty, André LeroiGourhan, and others.

HUMAN FIGURES: BODY AND SOCIETY

to certain social contexts, is explicitly performative and hence predominantly predicated on socially constructed communicative signs.39 Gestures encode not only explicit communicative meaning but also implicit notions of relative authority and status. In images, gestures present a stop-motion moment distilled from a series of actions. It is the characteristic gesture as sign that is captured, frozen for effect. A raised arm with outstretched hand could in reality have been part of a series of beckoning, dismissing, or waving motions, an offering or acceptance, emphasis or query, or a myriad other things. In art, gestures have defined, if multivalent, meanings that communicate to the viewer the nature of relationships between human beings in specific contexts or between the human and divine. Hands in gesture are a visible extension of thought. Gestures in art are the lynchpins of contextual meaning. Among the gesturing men in the Kea Miniature Frieze, hierarchy is not visible in their appearance; gestures are clearly directed to other men of the same social class and probably age, identifiable as such by their garments. In most cases, the figures raise one or, less frequently, both arms. Though the partial state of preservation on some pieces leaves room for ambiguity (27, 66), in those cases in which both shoulder and raised arm are preserved, it is the right arm that is raised in a gesture. So on 10, where the man faces to right, it is the near arm that is raised, while on 8, 22, and 23, where the men face left, it is the far arm. (An exception may be 40, though preservation is partial.) Right-handed gesturing appears, therefore, to have been the norm, though it may not have been the rule. This practice is reflected in our lives, for people usually use their right hand to wave, greet, beckon, or point, but they might occasionally use the left. That this habit is partly cultural is demonstrated by the fact that predominantly lefthanded people still adhere to the preference for the right hand as an indicator and a tool of greeting. It is also the case that in some cultures only the right hand is deemed fit to use for social encounters, use of the left hand implying disrespect.40 39 On the semantic and social significance of gesture, see Kendon 2004; Calbris 2011. On gestures in Aegean art, see esp. Brandt 1965; Wedde 1999; Morris 2001. Also Morgan 1988, 117–118; 2000, 926, 932–933; Crowley 2013, 365–366. 40 Hertz (1909) 1973; cf. Goody 1972, 45. The proffering of the right, rather than the left hand is, of course, fundamental in Islamic societies, in which each hand has a designated function in, respectively, the feeding or cleaning of the body.

51

Greeting with a raised arm gesture, as opposed to the bringing of gifts, is not a usual feature of wall paintings.41 In votive figurines, however, when one arm is raised to the forehead rather than two, it is invariably the right arm.42 In glyptic art, where votive/ communicative greetings occur with some frequency on rings in the early part of the LBA (especially among female figures), it is not possible to determine whether there was a norm for left and right, both because of the ambiguity of reading the image in the original or in the impression (usually the “correct” view, according to Pini43), and because it is mostly the far arm that is raised, regardless of direction. That this is so is demonstrated in a LM I ring impression in the Chania Museum, in which both the male and female figure raise the arm farthest from the viewer while facing one another.44 Some hands are clenched into a fist (13, 14, 28), others are articulated in two parts, with outstretched thumb pointing up or down and fingers bunched together as though encased in a mitten (7, 22, 23, 29). The former is typical of the majority of male figures in the Thera miniatures and also of votive figurines. The latter is a forerunner of the two-part articulation 41 In the large-scale Knossos Procession Fresco, several figures are reconstructed with arms raised in a gesture of adoration. This posture, if it is correct, is quite different from the single raised hand greeting of Kea. However, it is quite likely that the Procession figures were, like others from the same painting, actually bringing gifts rather than gesturing (cf. Boulotis 1987; Hitchcock 2000, 77). 42 Verlinden 1984, esp. 90, 136. Christine Morris and Alan Peatfield comment on the relatively wide range of gestures found among the clay figurines at the peak sanctuary of Atsipades, though a few gestures predominate, with variations (2002, 110; 2004, 48). Cf. Morris (2009, 182, 186), who comments that the scarcity of open arm gestures (in which the arm extends away from the body) in figurines from sites other than Atsipades is likely to reflect the physical frailty of clay, hence lack of survival. 43 Ingo Pini (1989) established largely on the basis of weapons held in the right hand that the impression usually gives the “correct” view. 44 CMS V, Suppl. 1A, no. 180. Cf. CMS I, no. 101, LB I–II, Mycenae. For single figures, cf. the Knossos “Mother of the Mountains” ring impression (CMS II.8, no. 256) with the Chania “Master Impression” (Hallager 1985; CMS V, Suppl. 1A, no. 142), in which a figure holds a staff from an extended arm, one the right, the other the left, according to which way they are facing. Brandt (1965, 5–8), based on viewing originals rather than impressions, proposed that in glyptic art worshippers always raise their right arm, while deities mirror them by raising their left. The issue is not so simple: see Cain 2001, 41 n. 109, with further references to the debate.

52

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

of the hands in the later taureadors painting at Knossos. In the Thera miniatures, only the women and the men who are naked or in loincloths have visible hands, since all those in cloaks have their arms tucked inside the garment. Of these, the only figures with open hands are the men in the sea, with loosely curled fingers and thumb, the two women gesturing with raised arm from the Arrival Town, and possibly the man turning back to beckon.45 Two figures have an extended hand with thumb tucked in: the woman with pot on her head (Fig. 2.1:b) and the man tapping another on the shoulder.46 Only the two women gesturing from the town parallel a context in the Kea painting—that of the woman in the window—and the form of each subtly varies. Hands are expressive and “speak” like tactile words. Despite their closed mouths, the seated women in the Knossos Grandstand miniature painting gesticulate with open hands, some in thumb-finger articulation, others with two visible fingers alongside the thumb. In all these miniature paintings, then, it is those who communicate that have open hands with extended fingers and thumb. All the Kea figures with open hands are speaking with their hands. Most of those with closed hands are carrying or holding things (3, 11, 13, 14, 17, 44, 63, 67).47 The hand being open or closed bears meaning. In 11 and 14, one hand carries an object, but the other free hand also forms a fist. Communication here is in the gift, a gesture in itself. Three men hold specific gestures. The man in 7, facing right and reconstructed in the Procession of Men (Fig. 7.11), has the near arm raised with palm up and far arm outstretched downward with palm down. The man in 29, also in the Procession, has one arm across the lower body, with hand splayed outward, while the other apparently hung loose in front of him. In 18, the man raises both arms, as though in dance (Fig. 7.15:a). The latter position is also implied in the preserved shoulders of 24, where the arms evidently supported an object above the man’s head (as reconstructed in Men by a River; Fig. 7.12), but in 18 no object is visible. Since dance is associated with 45 Morgan 1988, pls. 3, 42, 135, 139, 142, 143. 46 Morgan 1988, 138, 140. 47 No comment can be made on the clenched fists in 28 and 57, where no object is visible, as the second arm has not survived. On 32 and 33, the hand is not fully preserved, but it is reconstructed as open on the grounds that both men are likely to have been gesturing rather than carrying, since they stand next to a river at such an angle that any carried object would overlap the water.

women rather than men in Aegean iconography,48 it is more likely that this figure, too, should be thought of as carrying something, though the object has not survived, or perhaps he holds a gesture that signified the act of bringing. The range of gestures appears relatively wide, but ultimately they comprise variations on a theme. All—even the enigmatic but precisely distinguished gesture of 7—are based on the raising of an arm with an open hand. Two men almost touch their face, forearm raised erect, hand curved inward: 14 (right) and 10 (left). The woman at a window, 4, adopts a similar gesture, though with her hand upright rather than curved back toward the face. Two other men hold their arm forward at an angle, one with the palm directed outward, away from the body, 23, the other with the palm facing back to the self, 22, as one can see from the relative position of the extended thumb. These subtle variations—arm erect/arm extended; palm toward face/palm away from face— may well have had significance.49 They do in life, especially the palm variation, culturally modified but often based on intended proximity of the communicator to the communicated (come here/go away). Differences in height of the hand in relation to the body, angle of the elbow and wrist, orientation of palm, and positions of the fingers and thumb are all redolent of potential meaning. In Egyptian determinatives, or classifiers, the difference between two hands raised with palms extended outward and one arm extended with palm upward is the difference between adoration and summoning. “Adore” (dua), which in art and ritual relates worshipper to deity, and “summon” (ns), which in many cultures marks a characteristic instant in the movement of beckoning, would appear to have a relatively narrow semiotic range, as would the gesture of two arms raised, meaning “rejoice” (hai).50 Yet the meaning of such a gesture can be extended by the context in which it is used, whether in art or as a classifier of a word. The “rejoice” determinative (A28) is also used for “mourn” 48 German 1999; Liveri 2008; cf. Warren 1988, 14–15; Cain 2001, esp. 42–44 and n. 196. Identifying “dance” as a specific action, as opposed to a more generic rhythmic movement especially of a processional nature, is problematic (on glyptic scenes, cf. Wedde 2004, 180–181; Crowley 2013, 351–352). 49 Cf. Morris 2001, 249. 50 Gardiner 1979, A30 (adore/praise), A26 (summon), A28 (rejoice); Wilkinson 1992, 25–29. On symbolic gestures in Egyptian art, see also Wilkinson 2001 (with further references).

HUMAN FIGURES: BODY AND SOCIETY

(relating it to dance);51 the “adore” determinative (A30) also signified “greet with respect” and was used with the word “stranger.”52 From these examples, it is clear that the gesture in each case defines the relationship of the person using it to another. Aegean scholars have generally interpreted the gesture of a raised arm or arms (mostly on sealstones and figurines) as a sign functioning as an intermediary between the human body and divine presence, interpreting an arm raised from a bent elbow, whether touching the head or held in front of it, as a form of “adoration” or “supplication.”53 Yet, as Christine Morris aptly comments, “such terminology collapses description and interpretation,”54 as well as eliding variation. At what angle the raised arm stops being an “adoration” gesture and becomes something else, for example, is hard to ascertain.55 Such an interpretation relies on accurate identification of the recipient (whether in human form or symbolic, as in the case of a shrine or sacred tree) as worthy of “adoration” by virtue of being embodied by a divine presence. Yet the example of the Egyptian hieroglyphic sign for “adore,” which is also used to designate “greet with respect,” demonstrates the ability for a gestural sign to extend its semiotic range according to the recipient. A ritual or ritualized gesture is not necessarily a response to or an evocation of divine presence. Indeed, ritual itself has a much wider spectrum, in art as in life, than that encompassed purely by religion. On the basis of the context in which so many figures in the Kea painting use the gesture of a raised arm, it can be assumed that it had a broad semantic range, which related the person using it with the one to whom it was proffered. Given that the men are all dressed alike, approaching from both left and right with no visible focal point and therefore presumably meeting one another, the impression is of mutual respect in a greeting. What the variations—palm 51 ḥ3ỉ; Faulkner 1981, 160. 52 Respect: twr and tr, Faulkner 1981, 295, 300; stranger: ḍrḍrỉ, Faulkner 1981, 324. 53 E.g., Niemeier 1989; Rutkowski 1990. Morris and Peatfield (2002, 2004) postulate that certain ritual gestures were used to induce altered states of consciousness in order to engage with the supernatural. Morris (2004) argues for a sensory and experiential approach, proposing that some glyptic images make the experience of communication with the divine visible through a shift of consciousness. Cf. McGowan 2006, who stresses the need for direct experiential evidence. 54 Morris 2001, 246. 55 Cf. Wedde 1999.

53

out or in, arm up or forward—meant in this cultural context, and how the specific gestures of 7, 29 and perhaps 18 related to the persons and the event(s) depicted, remains open to conjecture. Significantly, the gesture of open hand, thumb up, palm extended, is adopted by a robed male in the Camp Stool Fresco.56 Here the gesture is one of receiving, the hand reaching for a kylix, proffered by a man whose hand is clenched around the stem of the vessel. In this context the “fist” holds and thereby offers, while the open hand receives. In the Kea paintings, the fist offers by holding the gifts, while the open hand is variable in direction and position— toward self or other—hence variable in precise meaning, while clearly communicating with the other. What is significant is that the men wearing robes and approaching from left and right must be meeting one another, and in doing so they either bear objects, gifts in the broadest sense (as discussed in this vol., Ch. 12), or define the moment of meeting through gesture. A proffered hand, whether a visual sign as a gesture or a tactile one with physical contact, is a form of offering, communicable by those making the offering and also by those receiving.57

Dressing the Body More than any other aspect of the human body (expression, movement, gesture) dress is redolent of social significance. Jewelry is notably missing in miniature paintings (other than at Knossos),58 and there are relatively few distinctions in hair, but clothing defines each figure in terms of gender, age, status, community identity, activity, role, and participation in events. While there is more variety in fabric and color among the clothing of the few women, the numerous men are dressed in one of four distinct garments, almost all white, each appropriate to the action and community gathering. Dress here is not 56 Evans 1921–1935, IV.2, col. pl. XXXIA. 57 Goody comments that among the Gonja of West Africa the verb “to greet” covers both the meeting and visiting of others and the offering of gifts (1972, 61). 58 Some of the women in the Knossos miniatures appear to wear necklaces, as more clearly do some of the standing men (Younger 1992, 257 n. 1; Hood 2005, pl. 10:3a).

54

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

individualistic; it is a sign of the relationship of self to society.

Female Clothing Three of the five women have been included in reconstructions on the basis of the associated buildings (1, 3, 4; Figs. 7.1, 7.3). The bodice of the woman in 3 and the skirt of the woman in 1 have informed the reconstructed garments. The two women in fragment 2 (Fig. 2.2; Pl. 71:b) are without associated context, other than the land, and since they are beautifully preserved it was decided not to reconstruct the figures, since all the surviving information is visible in the photograph and what lay beyond is unknown. The women that walk on the land (1, 2; Fig. 2.2) have bare feet and wear skirts that fall to just below the knee. In the town scene (1; Fig. 7.1), the skirt is blue and without pattern. Traces of blue on the yellow ground beneath the center of the skirt suggest that it dipped down in a central curve, like that of the blue skirt in 2 (Fig. 2.2; Pl. 71:b). The waist is not preserved. The two women walking or running in 2 (Fig. 2.2; Pl. 71:b) wear distinctive skirts, one white, the other blue, each with short black lines marking the fabric. On the right figure, a slim waist is preserved, encircled by two parallel black lines suggestive of a belt, but without the profile bulge of a roll belt.59 Above this a fraction of the bodice is preserved, in the same blue color. The other two women (3, 4; Fig. 7.3), surviving from the waist up, are framed by a door and a window respectively. Their dark hair is tied back at the nape of the neck. On one (4) the hair is rendered with white highlights, helping to distinguish it from the dark window against which the woman is painted. One of their garments is red and seen from the front, the other is yellow and seen from the side. On the red garment (3), though the paint has flaked around the neck, remaining traces of red at the shoulder indicate that the bodice covered the shoulders as well as the breasts. A minimal sleeve covered the top of the woman’s left (the viewer’s right) arm, but there are no traces of red on the other arm, suggesting that the 59 A Linear B tablet from Pylos (Un 443) has a word for a belt in association with wool, suggesting that there may have been woolen belts (Nosch and Perna 2001, 474). See also Chapin 2008, 65. On belts on male costumes, see Verduci 2012.

bodice covered the shoulders but was almost sleeveless. The neckline has been reconstructed as being relatively high, but it could also have dipped down. The bodice narrowed to a slender waist, and traces of red paint below indicate that the color was continuous into the skirt. On the yellow garment (4), the paint has flaked off smoothly from all but the lower part of the bodice. However, traces of yellow higher up indicate that the garment continued to the shoulder, and the brush strokes of the applied white skin that underlay the garment form a perceptible ridge across the neck, implying that the body was distinguished from the neck. The garment almost certainly followed this line. As the shoulders are pushed forward on this figure, we are seeing the back and side of the garment, not the front, so the neckline would not have been visible. It is evident from the bodice in 3 that the garment was not open at the front. How it was put on and taken off is not clear. While the skirt could have been wrapped around the waist and secured with a belt, such a tight fitting bodice must have been sewn at least under the arms.60 Tailoring is time consuming and skilled, and while the elaborate clothing of the large-scale female figures in the Thera paintings are shown in elite and ritual contexts, these women, like those bringing water in the Thera Miniature Frieze, are townsfolk in a broader sense. It is thought that many garments in the Aegean Bronze Age would have been draped,61 while fitted garments would often have been made not by cutting the cloth (difficult without scissors) but by sewing together rectangles of cloth made to size on the loom.62 This would be especially necessary in the case of wool, which has a tendency to unravel if cut. Blue, red, and yellow are the colors of dyes implied in these garments. The fibers of linen are difficult to dye permanently, being best left in their natural offwhite shade, but white wool (as opposed to the darker 60 I have used the neutral term “bodice” rather than “blouse,” without implication as to construction (cf. Chapin 2008, 65–66). 61 Marcar 2005, 34–35. Bronze sewing needles are known from Crete, the Cyclades, and mainland Greece from the Early Bronze Age on (Jones 2015, 11). 62 Lillethun 2003, 466–467. Lillethun, however, concludes that the bodice of the young saffron gatherers from Xeste 3 could only have been made by cutting the cloth (pp. 467–471). More recently, see Jones 2015 on the construction of the dresses worn by female figures in wall paintings (esp. pp. 59–70, 79–93, 99–113, 124–131, 140–142 on the Thera paintings), including cutting, selvages, and seams.

HUMAN FIGURES: BODY AND SOCIETY

browns) absorbs dyes well, as it contains substances that act as mordants.63 It is, therefore, likely that these garments are made of wool. On the other hand, linen dyed yellow or red from natural ocher (iron oxide) has been identified from various dated contexts in Egypt.64 It is also possible to combine flax with wool, and a carbonized textile band found at Minoan Chania combines a linen warp with weft of goat hair and supplementary threads of nettle fiber,65 a combination that is likely to have produced a strong and slightly hairy fabric. A yarn of (as yet unidentified) plant origin has also been found in combination with flax in textile fragments from Akrotiri.66 While three of the women have smooth garments, the short black lines on the skirts of the two walking together (2; Fig. 2.2; Pl. 71:b) suggest a shaggy surface. The fabric represented may have been sheep’s wool, coarse goat’s wool (with or without nettle), or hide. Woolen garments with a shaggy texture like fleece can be made by a series of loops made with additional wefts, a technique that Iris Tzachili proposes for the fleecy textiles of the women bringing water and for some of the men wearing colored robes around the towns in the Thera Miniature Frieze.67 The process is akin to flokati, a technique in which sheep’s wool is carded and spun, then fluffed by extended washing in a stream or waterfall, looped, and finally cut. Although nowadays in Greece flokati is used for rugs, the fashion trade has been known to appropriate it for skirts or dresses. A garment of looped wool would be bulky but relatively lightweight, and it would certainly have been warm. The garment is fitted at the waist, and it is likely that although the color was the same for both, skirt and bodice were made separately, one shaggy textured, the other smooth. This was apparently the case for the very similar garment worn by a female figure on the Vapheio seal in Figure 2.6:a and on a somewhat comparable garment worn by both women and men on the Hagia Triada sarcophagus, where, however, the fabric appears to be hide.68 In the same way, the two women 63 Barber 1991, 15, 21, 29; Lillethun 2003, 465–466. Cf. Morgan 1988, 101. 64 Vogelsang-Eastwood 2009, 278. 65 Spantidaki and Moulherat 2012, 189, fig. 7.3. 66 Spantidaki and Moulherat 2012, 188. 67 Tzachili 1990, 388. 68 Marinatos and Hirmer 1960, col. pls. XXVII–XXIX. KontorliPapadopoulou (1996, 91) sees all these skirts as made of hide, a garment fabric she designates as exclusively ritual

55

walking in the pastoral scene of the Thera Miniature Frieze wear red and blue-black skirts that are fringed along the sides (Fig. 2.1:b), implying a rough surface, which differ from their smooth white bodices. A similar fabric is worn in robes by some of the men around the towns (Fig. 2.1:c), which, like the skirts of the two women, appears to have been a non-elite, everyday garment.69 The skirts fall to the ankles, almost covering the bare feet, and there are no black lines on the skirts, only outside them, yet the coincidence within the miniatures of Kea and Thera of two women walking together wearing differently colored skirts of rough fabric is notable. In the Kea painting, however, the type of garment worn is distinctive, and the context may not have been the same as at Thera (see below). One of the two shaggy garments is white, the other blue. The other three garments are blue, red, and yellow. White here probably represents natural, undyed wool, particularly since it has the lines of a shaggy texture. White wool in sheep is an effect of domestication; wild sheep have largely darker-toned, buff, reddish, grayish, or brown wool, except for their underbellies or occasional patches of white.70 Blue dye for textiles is absent from the Linear B texts.71 Yet female clothing in Aegean wall paintings frequently includes blue, along with yellow and red, and a scrap of textile from a Mycenaean tholos tomb at Routsi is blue with traces of red at the edge.72 Blue dye is likely to have been made from woad (Isatis tinctoria), a plant widely domesticated since early times.73 Indigotin has been identified as blue dye on Egyptian textiles, but while indigo (Indigofera tinctoria) is known to have been imported from India in later times in Greece, the dye substance indigotin is actually found in a number of related plants, including woad.74 The simplest and most widely available and ceremonial in LM I–III. In both the Kea and Thera Miniature Frieze, however, the fabric is more likely to be wool. 69 Morgan 1988, 98. 70 Barber 1991, 29. 71 Landenius Enegren 2000, 32. 72 Marinatos 1967, A16; Barber 1991, 312. Carbonized textile fragments recently discovered at Akrotiri (in well 25, next to Xeste 3) include evidence for embroidery, a fringed hem and tassel (Spantidaki and Moulherat 2012), which, as we see in the wall paintings from the town, were presumably colored. 73 Barber 1991, 233–235. 74 Vogelsang-Eastwood 2009, 278; cf. Barber 1991, 234.

56

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

source, as Elizabeth Barber points out, would have been berries,75 though berries tend to stain purple. Red is the most commonly used color for textiles throughout the ancient world and can be achieved with a number of materials, producing various shades.76 The most important in the Mediterranean area are madder root, lichen, kermes insects, or tannins from leaves (such as blackberry) and barks (such as oak). Barber comments that the simplest coloring method is the soaking of the yarn or fabric in mud containing iron-rich earth—in other words, red ocher.77 Evidence for earth dyes have not, of course, survived, but given the widespread occurrence of ocher it is surely no coincidence that the earliest pigments and the most widespread early dyes are red. Madder (Rubia tinctorum), which is indigenous to Greece and the Levant, has been identified, however, on Eighteenth Dynasty Egyptian cloth.78 In the Linear B tablets, there are a number of color terms pertaining to textiles that are interpreted as red (or purple).79 Some may refer to the natural brown of certain sheep,80 but the word po-ni-ki-jo is usually thought to be madder. Purple would have been produced from murex, as evidenced by archaeological remains of crushed shells at Cretan sites and at Akrotiri,81 and it is identified in Linear B tablets.82 Given that purple is only very rarely used as a pigment,83 if murex-dyed garments were to be depicted in wall paintings they would presumably appear as either blue or red. Indeed, our linguistic distinction between red, purple, and blue is culturally determined. Safflower (Carthamus tinctoria), which would have produced a somewhat fugitive reddish yellow, has been tentatively identified in the Linear B 75 Barber 1991, 233. 76 Barber 1991, 225, 230–232. Most vegetable dyes require a mordant to permanently fix the color into the fabric, usually sourced from tannin or alum, the latter having been identified in Linear B texts (Barber 1991, 235–238). On textile production see also Evely 2000, 485–511 and the papers in Gillis and Nosch, eds., 2007. 77 Barber 1991, 231. 78 Barber 1991, 322; Vogelsang-Eastwood 2009, 279. 79 For recent discussions with further bibliography, see Landenius Enegren 2000, 31–32; Blakolmer 2004, 63–64, table 1; Nosch 2004. Nosch (2012) discusses the textile trade overall in relation to the Linear B tablets, with bibliography (esp. nn. 5–11). 80 Nosch 2004. 81 Barber 1991, 228; Brogan et. al 2019. 82 po-pu-re-ja: Ventris and Chadwick 1973, 321; Nosch 2004, 33–34. 83 See this vol., Ch. 10, p. 246.

tablets.84 More than likely, saffron from the stigmas of crocuses (Crocus sativus or the wild Crocus cartwrightianus) would have been used as a yellow dye.85 The Xeste 3 paintings make explicit the importance in ritual of the collection of crocus stigmas,86 and while the intended economic use could have been as either a spice or a dye (or both), it is surely significant that one of the girls picking the crocuses and the girl who offers the stigmas to the goddess both wear a garment with a yellow bodice. The four colors worn by the Kea women—white, blue, red, yellow—are precisely those worn by other women in Aegean wall paintings.87 They are also, however, the main colors of pigments used in wall paintings. What is unusual in the Kea painting, as in the two women bringing water in the Thera miniature, is the fact that the women’s garments are monochrome. Those in the Knossos miniature paintings are multicolored, like the dresses of large-scale women throughout Aegean painting. This is partly a factor of the layering of the characteristic flounced skirt, but also their bodices are, on the whole, a different color from the dominant color of their skirts, as is also the case with the two full-length women with pots in the Thera miniature, who do not wear flounced skirts. Although the evidence at Kea is circumstantial, only two of the figures being preserved at the waist, on these two at least the same color continued throughout their clothing. Was there significance in the different colors worn by the women? While the white, blue, and red may have had similar value, worn by women shown outof-doors on the fringes of urban space, like those in the pastoral scene from Akrotiri, it is notable that yellow is only worn by the woman with raised arm, framed by a window (4; Fig. 7.3). (There are no yellow garments in the Thera miniature.) Interestingly, Georgina Muskett, referring to the “Mykenaia,” asks whether the wearing of a yellow bodice (as opposed to a yellow skirt) in Mycenaean painting may mark the individual as being of special status.88 She notes that the “Women in a Loggia” from Mycenae also wear yellow bodices and may be watching bull sports 84 ka-na-ko (e-ru-ta-ra): Ventris and Chadwick 1973, 131, 226, 228; Barber 1991, 232–233, cf. 227. 85 It is identified on a Linear B tablet from Pylos, carefully weighed (Rougemont 2007, 46). 86 Doumas 1992, pls. 116–130. 87 See for example Muskett 2004; Whittaker 2012. 88 Muskett 2004, 69.

HUMAN FIGURES: BODY AND SOCIETY

a

57

b

Figure 2.6. Sealstone (a) and seal impression (b): (a) Vapheio (LB I–II), sardonyx amygdaloid, 1.1 x 2.2 cm, CMS I, no. 226; (b) Knossos (LM I), surviving seal area 1.25 x 1.25 cm, CMS II.8:1, no. 266.

in a cult context.89 The latter provides a direct parallel for the earlier Kea painting. As we saw at Thera, the girl who delivers the crocus stigmas to the Goddess in Xeste 3 also wears a yellow bodice. Are these instances sufficient to make assumptions about color symbolism in the case of yellow, and if so, did such symbolism extend from the islands to the mainland, from LB I to LB III? Perhaps this was the case, given that the color chosen to paint both the bodices and the skirts of the large statues from the Temple at Ayia Irini was yellow, and a piece of yellow ocher was stored in the Temple no doubt for their retouching.90 89 Immerwahr 1990a, 190 (Mycenae no. 1); color: Marinatos and Hirmer 1960, pl. XLIII, above; Shaw 1996a, 176–177, col. pls. A:9, B:3 (reconstruction). Unfortunately the two fragments of women at a window and a woman behind a balustrade from Knossos are insufficiently well preserved to show us the color of the bodices (Morgan 1988, figs. 57–58; Hood 2005, col. pl. 9:b). 90 M. Caskey 1986, 27, 59, 61–63. A piece of yellow ocher was found in a conical cup in Room 3 of the Temple (27). The garlands were painted white and red, distinguishing them from the white skin and the yellow bodice, belt, and skirt. Interestingly, in Classical Greece, where only women wore yellow, the peplos offered annually to Athena was saffron yellow (E. Barber 2007, 176.)

In terms of Aegean iconography, the garments worn by the five women are distinctive in their relative simplicity.91 There are no patterns and no flounced skirts or naked breasts of the Cretan fashion, as seen on the women in the Knossos miniatures, in large-scale paintings from Crete and Thera, and, as far as one can tell of the skirts, in the Tylissos miniature. There are no striped garments like those of the women in the Arrival Town of the Thera Miniature Frieze. The hems are shorter than those of women in any paintings from Crete, Thera, or later ones on the mainland, in all of which the hem ends at or just above the ankle. The same is true in glyptic art, in which women most often wear flounced skirts to the ankle or above. Perhaps the closest parallel to the plain skirts of the Kea women is that worn by the women in the LM I sealing from Knossos seen in Figure 2.6:b; their plain skirts end above the ankle and seem to continue into the bodice without a belt. 92 Apparently in procession, 91 On women’s clothing in Aegean iconography, see in particular: Televantou 1982; B. Jones 1998, 2005, 2015; Laffineur 2000, 892–895; Marcar 2005; Chapin 2008, 62–69; Murray 2016. 92 CMS II.8.1, no. 266. Cf. CMS V Suppl. 1A, no. 129, the lower half of a woman (the top not preserved) wearing a straight

58

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

the women have one arm raised, as though holding a container, though none is depicted. The terracotta statues from the Temple at Ayia Irini have smooth skirts without flounces and with a roll belt, though the hems (on which the statues are supported) reach to the ground. For the shaggy skirt worn by the two women in 2 (Fig. 2.2), although there is some relationship with the skirts of the two women in the Thera pastoral scene, there are also notable differences (length, shaggy only at the edges). A much closer parallel occurs on the LB I–II seal from Vapheio illustrated in Figure 2.6:a. In this scene the woman is poised in a dance-like motion while raising a pole, similar to the depiction on a seal now in Geneva, in which a woman wearing the same garment is accompanied by a griffin.93 These are not everyday activities. Unfortunately, the iconographic context of the two Kea women within the frieze is unknown, but it could well be that (like the long robes worn by the men) they are not wearing everyday garments. This observation will be reviewed in the wider context of social roles toward the end of the chapter.

Male Clothing All the men are clothed; there are no naked men or boys as there are in the Thera miniature, no doubt because there are no drowning/diving figures in the sea, no fishermen, and no young boys represented.94 All feet are bare; there are no boots, as there are in the single surviving fragment from Phylakopi and in the Tylissos miniatures (Figs. 2.3, 2.4). Four basic types of male garment can be discerned. The first covers only the loins and appears in two variants: one with front and back flap revealing the thigh, the other a short wrap-around garment covering the thighs. The second is a knee-length wrap-around garment divided at the front (usually referred to as a “kilt,” sometimes as “culottes” or “shorts”). The third is a figurehugging, short-sleeved tunic. The fourth is a long, loose robe. The Kea Miniature Frieze therefore skirt with a narrow waist encircled by a rolled belt, ending just above the ankle. The shortest hems are perhaps those of the smooth bell-shaped skirt of a floating figure on a LM I sealing from Zakros (CMS II.7, no. 1), often interpreted as an epiphany or perhaps an “idol,” and the shaggy skirts of two figures touching hands with outstretched arms on a seal from the Isopata tomb at Knossos (CMS II.3, no. 56). 93 CMS VIII, no. 146. 94 Morgan 1988, 97–98.

assembles the main forms of male costumes known to Aegean iconography in one group of images (excluding nakedness, armor, and the relatively unusual diagonal robe and hide skirt or “apron”).95 The different types do not occur together in single fragments, but all are present in the frieze. This affords a remarkable opportunity to study the different iconographic contexts of the garments within a single series of images, in which issues of geographic or chronological differences do not factor into the analysis. All but two of the men’s garments are white. The exceptions are worn by the man in 12, who appears to be wearing a red garment (as discussed below), and the man on the left in 54 who wears a short blue garment. As the two men in 54 are on a larger scale than any of the others, they are not included in any of the reconstructions, but their differentiation is noteworthy. It is likely that linen, made from flax (Linum usitatissimum), is implied in the white garments. Natural white wool is also a possibility, especially for the loose robes. Although neither the plant nor the processing of flax appears in representations in Aegean art (as it does in Egypt), traces of linen textiles have been retrieved at archaeological sites in the Aegean, and the occupation of flax-worker has been identified in the Linear B tablets.96 Focus in the textile tablets is of course on wool, as the context is that of sheep rearing, but two ideograms have been interpreted as flax for linen (at different stages of cultivation).97 Wool is specified in relation to the material of both cloaks (robes) and tunics, while linen is specified for tunics.98 In the Cretan Linear A tablets and roundels, the signs identified as linen and wool do not appear frequently, suggesting not that either fabric was rare but that, in contrast to the situation in the Mycenaean palaces, Minoan workshops for textiles were situated outside the elite centers.99 Flax could well have been grown on the islands, and at Akrotiri there is evidence for the production of both wool and flax; prior to the volcanic eruption the island had more marsh-like lands providing the fresh water necessary both for animal husbandry (which is, 95 The types are conveniently listed in Crowley 2012, 234–235; cf. Marinatos 1967, A21–A25; Laffineur 2000, 891–895. 96 On flax and wool production see: Barber 1991, 11–15, 20–30; Vogelsang-Eastwood 2009, 269–276 (Egypt); Lillethun 2003, 463–466; Valamoti 2011; Andersson Strand 2015, 40–44. 97 Rougemont 2007. 98 Ventris and Chadwick 1973, 319 (219=L594), linen; 320 (220=L870), woolen. 99 Militello 2007.

HUMAN FIGURES: BODY AND SOCIETY

of course, represented on the north wall of the Miniature Frieze) and for the cultivation and processing of flax.100 (1) The Loin-Covering Garments: Loincloth/ Breechcloth and Short Wraparound The smallest item of clothing, revealing most of the body and freeing the limbs for action, is one that covers only the loins. Traditionally a loincloth or breechcloth (the terms are almost interchangeable) is a garment that passes between the legs to cover the genitals and is either wrapped around the waist or tucked into a belt.101 A short wraparound is a piece of fabric that winds around the waist, falling to the upper thighs and fastened at the waist either by tucking in one end, by tying the two ends, by rolling the top over, or by securing it under a belt. A loincloth can be worn on its own or as underwear. It is likely that one would be worn beneath a short wraparound. Egyptian loincloths, which have been found in tombs, were worn by both sexes as underwear. Most were made of two triangular shapes of fine linen sewn together, with two strings at both sides of one of the wider ends. This wider part was placed at the back and the strings tied at the front, then the narrow part was passed between the legs and the other wide end was tucked into the string at the front.102 They are occasionally depicted on male workers or female acrobats or dancers. Loincloths are the most frequently depicted form of male clothing in Minoan art, and are shown in a number of different ways, being worn as outerwear by men in different contexts.103 The distinction between a loincloth and a short wraparound is a convenient classification, but it is not always unambiguous, not least since one cannot tell from two-dimensional representations 100 Tzachili 2007, 192–193; Vlachopoulos and Zorzos 2014 (on the pre-eruption landscape). 101 Here I have not distinguished between “loincloths” and “breechcloths,” but have preferred the more generic and descriptive of the two words. I have, however, distinguished between the loincloth/breechcloth and the short wraparound (described by Rehak 1996 as a “kilt”), both of which are subsumed by the Greek term ζῶμα. 102 Vogelsang-Eastwood 1993, 10–17, esp 12–13; Eaton 2008, 32–33. Vogelsang-Eastwood points out that depictions of loincloths show some individual differences in methods of fastening (1993, 14–15). 103 See especially Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1971; Rehak 1996; also Marinatos 1967, A21–A25; Giesecke 1988; and on bronze figurines, Verlinden 1984, 98–104.

59

(or even from figurines), how or if the fabric of such a garment passed between the legs. Among the men in the Kea painting, a small, loincovering garment is worn by the paddlers and by the men walking and cooking along the coast. They are not all the same. The best preserved is that on the man standing to the right of the cauldrons (67; Fig. 7.8; Pl. 71d). The garment has two distinct flaps, one at the front that is blunt and a longer one at the back that is curved, clinched into a roll belt on an extremely narrow waist, and leaving the side of the thigh uncovered. The group of overlapping men walking along the coast (59; Fig. 7.8, detail) evidently wore the same garment, as did the man in 57, though there the belt is not preserved. On this one, the outer edge of the back flap is distinctly outlined in black. This type is what is commonly termed a loincloth or breechcloth. A different type of loin-covering garment is worn by the man on the left in the cauldron scene (67; Figs. 2.2, 7.8). It covers the upper thighs (rising on the right owing to the posture), with a slight dip at the front, and does not have a visible belt. On the paddlers (63; Fig. 7.9; Pl. 71:c; cf. 62), the shape of the garment is unclear, though it appears to cover the entire area from waist to upper thigh, and again there is no visible belt. A similar garment is probably worn by the man carrying a pole (56); it is poorly preserved but the garment evidently covered the upper thighs, while a speck of white indicates that it continued up to the waist, but again there is no sign of a belt. This garment is more ambiguous, but to distinguish it from the clearly defined loincloth, it will be termed a short wraparound (with the proviso on distinctions mentioned above). Finally, the very fragmentary man seated to the right of the cauldron scene, if correctly interpreted, appears to wear a combination of these two types, the garment covering the whole of the upper thigh but with a roll belt at the top. This belt flares out at the top, above the thinnest point of the waist. There are then, two different ways of representing a loin-covering garment in the painting: one in which the thigh is exposed at the sides, the other in which the cloth is wrapped completely around, covering the upper thighs. In the cauldron scene, in which each of the three men is differently positioned, it could be that the variations on the short garment have to do with the angle of the body. If so it would show an extraordinary attention to the visual effects of transitory motion. The other, much more likely

60

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

conclusion would be that there were two main types of loin-covering garment, involving different ways of attaching the cloth to the body: a loincloth (breechcloth) and a short wraparound. That this was the case is borne out by comparative iconography. This tiny item of clothing has many versions in the Minoan art of Crete. The smallest is comprised merely of a belt with a piece of fabric or codpiece covering the genitals. This type appears in the Thera miniatures, without codpiece, and it was common in Cretan art, but it does not occur at all in the Kea paintings. A more distinctive type has two flaps, a longer one behind and a shorter one in front, with or without a codpiece, again held in place by a belt. This type appears in all the miniature wall paintings, without the codpiece, and is the only male garment in the miniatures at Tylissos and Knossos, where, however, there are far fewer individual (as opposed to crowd) male figures than there are in the Thera and Kea miniatures. At both Tylissos and Knossos, a belt clinches the waist, while the garment is extremely brief and the rendering is cursory, with back flap hardly covering the buttocks (a rendering that recurs on the LH IIIA bull sports fragments from the Ramp House at Mycenae and from Pylos).104 There is no variation in those renderings. In the Thera miniature, however, there is variation, five types having been distinguished, all with parallels from Crete.105 Of these, the hemmed short wraparound worn by a man on a ship making a distinctive gesture106 appears to have had a ceremonial significance akin to the robe with hem in the Meeting on the Hill. This does not appear at Kea. The particular form of the well-preserved loincloth in 67—blunt at the front and curved at the back— is a type recognizable from certain Cretan figurines, sometimes with front shorter than the back, as here, sometimes with front longer.107 As there was variety of form, there would have been different methods of construction. The passing of the fabric between the legs is not visible in the paintings, and one is left to wonder how the two dangling flaps in the most distinctive type of loincloth were attached. Paul Rehak provides a diagram showing a long piece of cloth that passed between the legs and was threaded first under then over a belt at both 104 Immerwahr 1990a, col. pls. XVI, XVII; Shaw 1996a, pls. A:4, B:2; Lang 1969, pl. 124, col. pl. C:36 H 105. 105 Morgan 1988, 96–97. 106 Morgan 1988, pl. 126, right. 107 E.g., Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1971, figs. 6:75 (Tylissos), 7:83 (Skoteinou), 8:97 (Psychro Cave), 9:106 (Hagia Triada).

ends to produce the front and back flaps.108 Presumably, since such overlapping of the belt is not apparent in the paintings, the initial belt was no more than a functional string or sash; a more pronounced belt was then added on top of the whole construction in order to accentuate the waist. The bulging material defining a narrowly constricted waist in 59 and 67 and other representations of loincloths, such as those in the Knossos and Tylissos miniatures, no doubt represents a roll belt made of padded fabric, presumably secured by thongs.109 In the Knossos taureadors paintings, the loincloth and belt are combined with a padded codpiece, which is not the case in the Kea paintings, where the front flap runs straight down from the waist (67, standing figure on right; Fig. 7.8; Pl. 71:d), nor does it appear to be the case in any of the other miniature paintings. In contrast to the loincloth, the short garment that covers the thighs would have been constructed of a long rectangular piece of fabric wrapped around the body and secured at the waist.110 Being so short, a brief loincloth would no doubt have been worn underneath. In the case of the man on the left in 67 (Figs. 2.2, 7.8), the rectangular fabric of the short wraparound itself may have passed between the legs. In cases where there is no distinct belt, the ends of the fabric would have been tucked into the top or tied, perhaps with the top end of the fabric rolled over, as seems to be the case for the garment worn by the mature man in Xeste 3.111 Both the Thera and the Kea wraparounds are short, like loincloths, and relatively straight at the hem, in contrast to those worn by the men on the Fishermen Vase from Phylakopi, which slope down from front to back.112 All loincloths and short wraparounds in the miniatures are plain white, as is the longer kilt-like wraparound worn by the seated adult male in Xeste 3,113 which, like that worn by the man on the ship in the Thera miniature and by the fisherman on the Phylakopi Fisherman Vase, has a 108 Rehak 1996, 40, fig. 2:a, b. 109 On belts and waist constriction, see Younger 2001; Verduci 2012. The form here does not suggest a metal belt, as has been interpreted for some Minoan figures (Evans 1921– 1935, III, 444–448; Younger 2001, 3) but rather the softer padding of fabric. 110 Rehak 1996, 41, fig. 2:e, f. 111 As suggested by Rehak (1996, 47). 112 Edgar 1904, 123–125, fig. 95, pl. XXII; Rehak 1996, 46, fig. 8. 113 Doumas 1992, pl. 114; Rehak 1996, 47, fig. 9 (drawing).

HUMAN FIGURES: BODY AND SOCIETY

black hem. A slightly longer version is worn by two men in the faience plaques of the Middle Minoan (MM) IIIA Town Mosaic.114 A later version of this very short wraparound may be seen in a line of four men in the paintings from the Vestibule (5) at Pylos (one colored, the others probably plain white), distinguished from but alongside a procession of men in long white robes bearing gifts, as well as among the warriors fighting in a scene from Hall 64 (where the garment is blue). A plain white version is worn by men in a line on a fragment from Orchomenos.115 In contrast, the wraparounds or kilts worn by men in the Procession Fresco at Knossos and in a processional figure from Xeste 4 at Akrotiri, still thigh length though longer than those in the miniatures, are elaborately patterned and colored.116 Rehak’s drawing of the Xeste 4 garment clearly shows, from the layered diagonal positioning of the fabric’s hem, that this was wrapped around the body and fastened at the top. In Minoan art, the loincloth is worn by young active figures, including those in combat sports and (exclusively) by bull-leapers. It is also seen on votive figurines and on some men in cult scenes on rings (as in the Master Impression from Chania; Fig. 4.10).117 It therefore appears to have had a dual function in freeing the limbs for action and for the iconography of cult activity. The short wraparound has a similar range of contexts, though it is less widespread. Our understanding of who wore the garments in life and 114 Foster 1979, 102, figs. 33, 35; Morgan 1988, pl. 190. 115 The Pylos fragments are burned and very difficult to read, but the reconstructions clarify what can be made out of the garment: Lang 1969, no. 5 H 5, 64–65, pls. 3–5, 119, N; no. 24 H 64–65, 72–73, pls. 18, 19, 124, N. The line of men in the Orchomenos fragment preserves only the upper part of the garment, as does that of a man with offering gesture, while the preserved torsos of the hunters are naked, implying a loincloth or short wraparound: Spyropoulos 2015, fig. 24 (line of men), fig. 18 (man offering), figs. 15, 16 (hunters). 116 Knossos: Evans 1921–1935, II.2, suppl. pl. XXVII; Rehak 1996, 44, fig. 6 (drawing). Xeste 4: Doumas 1992, pl. 138; Rehak 1996, 47, fig. 10 (drawing). 117 Some notable examples on rings and ring impressions of LM I are: CMS II.8.1, no. 279 (Knossos), a combat chase; CMS II.6, no. 17 (Hagia Triada), combat; CMS V, Suppl. 3, no. 400 (Thera), a hunt; CMS VI, no. 181 (Priene?), bullleaping; CMS VI, no. 184 (Knossos?), acrobats; CMS II.8.1, no. 259 (Knossos), a processional figure; CMS I, no. 514 (Crete?); CMS II.8, no. 256 (Knossos); CMS, V, Suppl. 1A, no. 180 (Chania region), cult scenes.

61

under what circumstances is, however, compromised by the fact that daily life is rarely depicted in Minoan art, while ritual action is a much elaborated theme.118 It is, therefore, of particular interest to see how the garments appear in miniature scenes, which, while doubtfully portraying daily life in the wider sense, nonetheless include vignettes drawn from the lives of the people within the broader theme of festival and ceremonial gatherings. There are both correspondences and some interesting differences in the contexts of their usage. While all the men in the Knossos and Tylissos paintings wear loincloths, the more numerous men in the Thera and Kea miniatures wear a variety of garments, so that the contexts of each can be compared. In both, active seamen wear a loincloth or short wraparound, without a visible belt. In the Thera miniature, the numerous male figures (probably youths) walking along the outer edges of the Arrival Town by the coast have almost imperceptible loincloths. In the Kea frieze, a group of men walking along the coast wear loincloths (59; Fig. 7.8, detail). The rendition, in which the bodies overlap one another and the legs move rapidly, contrasts with the line of Thera figures, but the context of walking along the coast is broadly comparable. So too, the men cooking in cauldrons (67) wear loincloths, or in one case perhaps a short wraparound. These, then, are active men either in or by the sea. Interestingly, two men in the Thera miniature making identical gestures but in different contexts (Meeting on the Hill and ship’s stern) each wear a different version, the man in the Meeting on the Hill with the loincloth with flaps, the man standing at the top left ship wearing the short wraparound. One might think this was a variant dependent on context, but in the cauldron scene at Kea two types are worn by men in the same context occupied in the same activity. It could be an age distinction, since the man wearing the short wraparound has a broader (more natural) waist, unfettered by a tight belt, while the man in a loincloth has an artificially small waist pinched into a roll belt, suggesting a younger physique. In the Thera painting, however, both men have the same small waist, even without belt. An alternative interpretation relates to status. The man on the ship wearing the short wraparound is distinguished by an artificially curled hair piece. But this hypothesis fails to stand up to scrutiny, 118 Cf. Crowley 2012, 235.

62

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

as the paddlers in both paintings, evidently not of high status, also wear a form of short wraparound. Similarly, ethnicity is not a clear option, since both types are known on Crete. There are no easy answers, though relative age is the more likely of the options, especially when one considers that a version of the short wraparound is worn by the mature man from Xeste 3 and the portly sistrum player on the Hagia Triada Harvester Vase.119 In both cases they are distinguished from younger males (naked in the former, loincloth and belt in the latter) by their loose, beltless attire. Besides the similarities in garments worn by sailors and those at the coast at Kea and Thera, there are also some notable differences between the men in the Kea paintings and those in the other miniatures. One man wearing a loin-covering garment (56) apparently carries a pole, which brings to mind the men in loincloths carrying pots on poles in the Tylissos miniature (Figs. 2.4, 11.5). But the men bringing produce on poles in the Kea painting wear robes, not loincloths. Similarly, in the Thera painting, at least two (probably originally more) men on the left of the Meeting on the Hill wear a loincloth. This is not the case at Kea, where all the men meeting or bringing gifts are dressed in enveloping clothing. Are we to understand from this that the Meeting on the Hill at Thera is composed of men from different places or of different age or status or executing different roles, while those meeting in the Kea painting belong to the same social grouping? It is curious that one of the two herdsmen (herding goats) wears a simple red loincloth, while the other (herding sheep) wears a shaggy robe or cloak (as if one were in summer, the other in winter). The painting is, of course, so much better preserved than the Kea miniature, and we cannot, for example, be sure that the man in a loincloth outlined in black (57) did not in fact belong in one of the scenes of meeting. But on balance, the evidence suggests that there was a narrower range of context for those in loincloths at Kea than at Thera, and that this context was tied to the coastal scene, near and with the ships, focusing on the cooking in cauldrons next to the sea. (2) The Knee-Length Wraparound Garment: Kilt or Shorts A broad knee-length garment, divided down the middle, is worn by the man walking in 47 (Figs. 119 Marinatos and Hirmer 1960, pl. 104, below; Doumas 1992, pl. 114; Rehak 1996, 43–44.

7.15:b, 7.18a). It has a double hem outlined in black at the lower edges, down the side, and down the divided front. The single hemmed garment in 31 may be the same garment. Above the rocky landscape in 326, there is what looks like the lower edge of a similarly outlined garment, though experiments in reconstructing it as such were problematic, since the position at the edge of the fragment with no second leg visible makes the stride of a man exceptionally wide (Fig. 7.18:a). This garment is quite distinct from the short loincovering wraparound discussed above. It is much longer, clearly divided at the front, and hemmed. In some ways, it resembles a long kilt in the terminology used in Aegean archaeology. The term is used to mean a wraparound garment consisting of a rectangle of fabric that would have been wound around the waist to overlap at the front, where it often falls lower than at the back owing to the positioning of the fabric, and was secured at the waist, usually by a belt. It could be made of a single piece of cloth or of several pieces sewn together in zones of different color or patterns. Such a garment, best known from the Knossos Procession Fresco and some depictions in Theban tombs of men from Keftiu, where the wraparound construction is particularly evident, usually falls to just above the knee. It may be plain or elaborately patterned, and although it is less frequently depicted than the loincloth, it has a long history from perhaps the MM period through LM/LH III.120 Patterned kilts are worn by the processional men painted up the stairway of Xeste 4 at Thera, while a white one is worn by the mature man in Xeste 3, and another, more like a skirt, appears on a hunter/animalgrappler in the Vestibule of Xeste 3.121 120 Rehak 1996, 41–50, 1998a, 43–45. Rehak identifies the kilt on MM II figurines from Petsophas; whereas Ariane Marcar (2004, 231) considers that, with the exception of the Malia acrobat on the gold hilt-guard, who wears a unique version, kilts begin to appear only in LB I. The kilt worn by a “Master of Animals” on the Aegina gold pendant (Hood 1978, 196, fig. 193), with its central patterned tassel, is of Egyptian inspiration (cf. Rehak 1996, 43). Rehak’s other example of MM kilts, in the Town Mosaic faience plaques, is instead a short wraparound (see above). On the construction of male kilts, see also Jones 2015, 217–223. 121 Xeste 4: Doumas 1992, pl. 138; Rehak 1996, 47, fig. 10 (reconstruction drawing). Xeste 3, Room 3b: Doumas 1992, pls. 110, 114; Xeste 3, Vestibule: Vlachopoulos 2008b, pl. 41:6 (the garment has horizontal lines, as though made out of strips of cloth).

HUMAN FIGURES: BODY AND SOCIETY

In Egypt a wraparound kilt was the most commonly depicted male garment.122 It was made of white linen, usually secured at the waist by a sash, sometimes with triangular stiff fabric at the front (Old and Middle Kingdom) or pleating (New Kingdom); sometimes with a fringe or tassels. In the Old Kingdom, some tomb owners would have two contrasting statues: one with a slim body wearing a short kilt, representing the tomb owner as a young man at his physical peak, the other with a longer kilt on a more corpulent body, defining him as a mature, high-status official.123 There was significance to the side on which the fabric was folded. In the Old Kingdom, the king’s kilt was shown wrapped left over right, while officials’ kilts were wrapped right over left. In the Middle Kingdom elite men appropriated the left to right royal fold.124 (Interestingly, the men from Keftiu depicted in the Theban tombs of Rekhmire and Menkheperrasenb also have their kilts folded left to right, unlike other foreigners.125) Craftsmen and even laborers might also be depicted wearing short kilts, and the gods wore kilts like kings and elites. It was, therefore, a ubiquitous male garment, distinguished according to age and status by length, folding, embellishment, and patterning. In the Aegean, the kilt was much less commonly depicted than in Egypt, but the variations apparent in the examples that survive may well have had a similar range of cultural connotations. 122 Vogelsang-Eastwood 1993, 63–72; Eaton 2008, 33–34. Vogelsang-Eastwood distinguishes between an “apron” (32–52) and a “kilt” (53–72). 123 E.g., Robins 2001b, 46–47, fig. 42, two statues of the Fifth Dynasty official Khnumbaef from his tomb at Giza. 124 Simpson 1988. 125 Rekhmire (TT 100): Davies (1943) 1973, 25, fig. 3, pls. XVIII–XX; Davies 1935, pls. IV, V; Vercoutter 1956, pls. XIX–XXV; Wachsmann 1987, pls. XL–XLIII. Menkheperrasenb (TT 86): Davies and Davies 1933, pls. IV (right), V (top); Vercoutter 1956, pl. XXVI; Wachsmann 1987, pls. XXXIV–XXXVI. In the Tomb of Rekhmire, men from Punt wear a plainer version of the kilt, which is, however, folded right to left (Davies 1935, pl. I; [1943] 1973, pl. XVII) In the Tomb of Menkheperrasenb, two hybridized men wear Keftiu kilts but have Syrian heads (Wachsmann 1987, 46 [43–48 on clothing], pls. III, VIII, XXX; cf. Rehak 1998a, 47). The land of Keftiu (like that of Punt) lay outside the reach of Egyptian military force, so the visiting “chiefs” (as they are called) have a different status from that of the Syrians and Nubians (Davies [1943] 1973, 18). The higher status is symbolically indicated by Egyptian artists by the red color of their skins and by their kilts, allying the men of Keftiu in particular with Egyptians (cf. Morgan forthcoming).

63

The garment worn by the man in 47, if a kilt, would have been folded at the front from left to right along a central line falling between the legs. It is distinctly hemmed and has a single vertical line on each side, which may suggest a pleat. But is it a kilt? It most clearly resembles a garment termed “shorts” or “culottes.” This garment is usually thought to have been tailored, but Marcar comments (in the context of a broader enquiry into loose-fitting and draped rather than tailored garments in the Bronze Age) that the absence of “primary seams” makes it more likely that it is a parted kilt.126 This particular garment is known on images from Crete and the mainland in LB I. It is worn, for example, by a man carrying an animal in a processional walk on the seal impression from Hagia Triada in Figure 2.5,127 by a man in combat on a seal from Crete,128 and by a bearded archer against a pattern signifying the sea on a fragment of a steatite vessel from Knossos.129 A tighter, somewhat shorter version, in which the legs are sheathed in the garment rather than extending from a broad hem, is worn by an archer on a sealing from Hagia Triada, by two men in active pose on a sealing from Zakros, and by a running winged man-animal composite on two sealings from Zakros.130 Variants on the garment are worn by a fisherman displaying his catch on two Cretan seals, one of which is from Knossos.131 From Shaft Grave IV at Mycenae, the loose divided garment is worn by all the men on the Lion Hunt dagger, by two of the men fighting in the Battle in the Glen gold ring, and by all the men (not covered by shields) on the silver Battle Krater. On a gold bead seal from Shaft Grave III, a sealstone from Grave Δ at Pylos and another from Kakovatos, and a (mainland?) seal from Siteia, the garment is worn by a man combating a lion.132 In all these instances, the man 126 Marcar 2005, esp. 31, 35. 127 CMS II.6, no. 29. Cf. CMS I, nos. 9, 12, 16; CMS XI, no. 208; CMS V, Suppl. 1A, no. 135 (Chania, LM I). Marinatos (1993, 169–170, fig. 162) interprets the figure as a god on the basis of an identification of the animal as a griffin. Wedde (2004, 171 n. 137) is skeptical (cf. n. 164). 128 CMS VII, no. 129. Cf. CMS XII, no. 292. 129 Evans 1921–1935, III, 106, fig. 59; Marinatos 2005, 154, fig. 9.11; Warren 2006b. On the “net or scale pattern,” which occurs unequivocally as sea on the Mycenae Siege Rhyton, see Morgan 1988, 35. 130 CMS II.6, no. 21 (Hagia Triada); CMS II.7, no. 10 (Zakros); CMS II.7, nos. 139A, B, 140 (Zakros man-animal composite). 131 CMS VI, no. 183; CMS VII, no. 88. 132 CMS I, no. 16; Karo 1930–1933, pl. CXXIX; CMS I, no. 9 (Mycenae); CMS I, no. 290 (Pylos); CMS XI, no. 208

64

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

is active, and where the action is defined it is aggressive: archers, battles, lion-hunts.133 Only the processional man in the sealing from Hagia Triada has a calm motion as he carries his offering (Fig. 2.5), as do the fishermen bringing theirs. In all these instances of the garment, it is worn secured around the waist, while the torso (where clear) is bare. For that reason, I have reconstructed the figure with the divided kilt (shorts) only, without a garment on the torso (Fig. 7.18:a). In an earlier (unpublished) version of Figure 7.12 (Men by River), I had placed this fragment in association with 24, in which the top of a tunic has outlining and a central black line, which I thought might have allied the garment with that in 47. Through internal analysis alone, this would have been a reasonable assumption, but the overwhelming evidence of comparative iconography says otherwise. It is a salutary reminder of the nature of reconstruction, a continuous process of adjustment as the evidence accumulates. (3) The Close-Fitting Tunic A figure-hugging, short-sleeved tunic was worn by at least seven, probably eight men. It is best exemplified by the men in 18 and 24, both with raised arms, the latter supporting a container. It has short sleeves with neck just above the collarbone, and it fits tightly across the chest and waist. On 24, a black line runs down the center, suggesting that it opened at the front, but this detail does not recur on the others. The short sleeves of the fragmentary figures in 22 and 23, both of whom have a single raised arm, should belong to the same type of tunic, as presumably does the garment on the man in 30 (on a smaller scale and not reconstructed), which, however, falls straight at the waist. The hunter (44) wears a similar garment, though it is less tight fitting than those in 18 and 24. The men by rock or water in 38 and 40 probably wear a tunic; only the lower part, which is knee length, is preserved. Unlike the loincloth, kilt, or robe, the tunic is a fitted garment. It would have been cut and sewn, and (Kakovatos); CMS IX, no. 152 (Siteia). In contrast, but within the same theme, a man in combat with a lion on a Cretan sealing now in the Chania Museum (CMS V, Suppl. 1A, no. 125) wears a hemmed, relatively long wrap-around garment. In somewhat later mainland glyptic, men attack lions wearing a much shorter version of the divided kilt/shorts: CMS I, no. 165 (seal impression); CMS XI, no. 272 (gold ring). 133 Cf. Rehak 1996, 50; 1998b, 194–195, on “shorts” as limited to men in scenes of hunting and fighting.

as such it is more likely to have been made of linen than wool. In the Linear B tablets a tunic (with characteristic ideogram) is described alongside a cloak as either of linen or of wool.134 The tunic is often compared to the Greek chiton (χιτών), also a cut rather than draped garment. However, the chiton, like the Roman tunica, was quite a different garment in appearance, being made of voluminous fabric that was gathered by a belt, over which the surplus cloth fell in soft pleats. The tunic in the paintings, in contrast, is relatively tight fitting and has no belt. Rehak reconstructs such a garment as made of three cut pieces of fabric, one for the back with sleeves and two front pieces with sleeves, which would have been joined at side seams, shoulders, and down the front.135 This seems an unnecessary amount of cutting and sewing; it would have been simpler to have made the entire thing from one rectangle, with a wider part for the arms and shoulders, cut narrower for the body, and with an opening in the middle for the head. In this way, only the side seams and underarms would have needed to be stitched together. To achieve this simplicity, the garment could not have been too close fitting around the body and the hole for the neck would have had to have been wide enough to receive the head. For a more fitted garment, either one or both sides would have needed fastenings (pins, buttons, lacing) or the front would have been cut down the middle (as in Rehak’s three pieces of fabric), hemmed, and fastened after putting on the garment. Later, quite different versions of the tunic clearly depict seams, ankle length on Crete, as in the colored male garments in the Knossos Procession Fresco and male and female garments on the Hagia Triada sarcophagus, to mid-thigh length on the mainland, as in the white tunics in the Pylos and Tiryns wall paintings. At Pylos, the tunic is either patterned with flecks and belted, the seam running down the center of the skirt, as worn by a hunter (16 H 43), or plain with seam extending from below the sleeve down the front off-center, as worn by men with cauldrons and dogs (21 H 48) and charioteers (26 H 64).136 The same two types of short tunic are worn by men who are hunters (with spears or associated with dog and 134 See n. 98; for the ideogram, see Ventris and Chadwick 1973, 313 (no. 162), 319–320. 135 Rehak 1996, 42, fig. 3. 136 Lang 1969, no. 16 H 43, pls. 12, 121, B; no. 21 H 48, pls. 15, 116, 122; no. 26 H 64, pls. 18, 123.

HUMAN FIGURES: BODY AND SOCIETY

horse) in wall painting fragments from Tiryns.137 In Egypt, cut and fitted garments were worn by women, rather than men, either cut to shape from a single piece of cloth or with the body as a simple tube, with two additional pieces of cloth for the sleeves attached, tube-like, at the shoulders.138 They were worn by slipping them over the head. Fitted tunics with long sleeves are worn by Syrian men in Theban tomb scenes of foreign “tribute.”139 On the man in 18, the red skin of one of the shoulders is partially revealed above the sleeve yet is then outlined in black, while the black outline on the shoulder on 24 extends into the background, beyond the garment. Such lack of precision can be characteristic of outlining in some Aegean painting, but here it raises the question of whether the fabric was partially open and fastened at the shoulders. There may have been a wider range of context in the men wearing the tunic than that of the other garments. The man in 24 carries a vessel and has, therefore, been associated with the gift-bringing meeting in Figure 7.12. The raised arms of the man in 18 suggests that he, too, may be bringing something. The men in 22 and 23 have a distinctive gesture of greeting, arm bent at the elbow and hand extended. The former is associated with rising rock and has been placed in Figure 7.14, in which 38 has also been included. The man in 40 also has a single raised arm and walks along a blue and white area that may be either rocks or sea; he has been included in Figure 7.13 along with 23. The hunter, 44, has his own specific context, returning from a hunt with an animal on a pole (Fig. 7.16). His headgear distinguishes him from the others, but his garment, while not identical, is of the same type as the others in quite different contexts. It appears from present evidence that this is the first appearance of a tunic in Aegean wall painting. It does not appear in the Thera miniatures; the kneelength garment worn by the men in the pastoral scene on the north wall are loose, sleeveless, and (with one exception) colored. Although women’s fitted bodices, such as those depicted in the Thera paintings, are tunic-like in construction,140 they are not the same garment and were worn beneath a wraparound skirt, 137 Rodenwaldt (1912) 1976, 110, 117, figs. 47, 49, pls. I:6, XI:4. 138 Vogelsang-Eastwood 1993, 93, 111–125; Eaton 2008, 35. 139 E.g., Tomb of Rekhmire (TT 100); Davies 1935, pls. X–XII; (1944) 1973, pls. XXI–XXIII (top rows). 140 Televantou 1982, 121, fig. 3:α–γ.

65

and so were probably quite short. A tunic may possibly be represented in a unique context in the contemporary large-scale paintings of Xeste 4, for which a preliminary report describes a man either wearing or carrying “a long-sleeved himation or chiton, from which protrudes the tip of his hand with ‘manicured’ nails.”141 If (as sleeves suggest) it is a tunic, it would be a significant occurrence of this garment, but we must await conservation and publication of the figure. Tunics, if they exist at all, are exceptionally rare in glyptic art, and I am not aware of them in other media. Elizabeth Barber, however, suggests that a sleeved tunic was already in use at Mycenae in LH I, on the basis of an analysis of the placements of the gold foil ornaments found on bodies in the Shaft Graves.142 Slightly later, a tunic may be worn by a warrior “Master of Animals” on a seal from Mycenae, though the garment is loose, hence more like a robe.143 A man slaughtering a sacrificial pig on a seal from a chamber tomb at Mycenae appears to wear a fitted garment, though it is longer (to mid calf) and appears to be sleeveless.144 The context of preparing meat is, however, interesting. The hunter in the Kea painting wears a tunic, and, much later as we saw, so do the hunters in the wall paintings at Pylos and Tiryns. Although there are no tunics in Aegean art to closely match those at Kea, and none at all for this early date (pending conservation of the Xeste 4 processional man), later tunics have specific contexts concerned with processions, as in the long (anklelength) colored tunics with contrasting seams in the Knossos Procession Fresco and on the Hagia Triada sarcophagus. They also appear in scenes of hunting and with dogs, as exemplified by the much shorter (mid thigh) tunics with belts and seams from Pylos and Tiryns. They also occur with men in processional chariots, as at Pylos and perhaps the Mycenae Grooms Fresco and Megaron Frieze.145 Rehak suggested that a tunic was the clothing of “everyday life.”146 Yet the male tunic appears to be a costume associated with processions and hunting in the Mycenaean world, prefigured in the Kea miniatures (and perhaps Xeste 4) in what appears to be wider contexts, all of which, however, fit within the overall 141 142 143 144 145 146

Vlachopoulos and Georma 2012, 40. Barber 1991, 315. CMS VI, no. 313, dated to LH II–IIIA:1. CMS I, no. 80. Immerwahr 1990a, 192, pls. 64, 65 (Mycenae nos. 10, 11). Rehak 1996, 50.

66

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

theme of the frieze of a festival involving ceremonial processions and meetings of men, with the hunting and cooking of meat. (4) The Long, Loose Robe Strikingly, the most frequently depicted garment in the Kea painting is also the most distinctive: the long, loose white robe (a type of garment also known as a mantle and sometimes equated with the Greek himation). This garment is worn by the 10 men reconstructed in the Procession and 11 of those reconstructed in the Meeting by a River (Figs. 7.11, 7.12), as well as by the man in 28, probably the one in 34, and perhaps the one in 64 (not reconstructed). It falls to below the knee (32, 33), hanging loosely from the neck, without sleeves. Judging by the well-preserved fragment 6, this was a wrap-around garment, which wound under the man’s right arm and over the left shoulder, leaving a piece of fabric trailing behind. The trailing piece is clearly visible on 6 (Fig. 2.2), 8, 9, 11, 14, 25, 36, while traces of it are visible on 32. On others, the looseness of the garment implies that it is the same type (7, 10, 13, 15, 26–29, 33, 34). On 10, two men overlap, which is why the trailing fabric is not visible on the figure on the right; the other man’s garment may or may not have had this feature. Fragment 12 is curious, in that the same shape applies, with loose body and trailing piece, but the color is red, like the body, rather than white. It is almost as though the artist forgot the clothes, but this could not be so as the method of painting was to apply red arms after applying the white garment onto the yellow ground (see this vol., Ch. 10, p. 349; Fig. 10.2). Did something go awry, or are we to understand that one man alone wore a red robe? That the red form was intentional is shown by the outlining in black of the contour of chest and belly and by short black lines defining parts of the bulging waist, the shoulder, and the trailing cloth behind. Several of the white robes are partially outlined in black, while on some figures short diagonal lines imply folds or pleats in the fabric (10, 13, 14, 26, 27). Two parallel vertical lines along the side are visible on 11, along with a short diagonal fold. This garment was evidently made from a very long rectangular cloth, no doubt designed on the loom to be of a width that, when wrapped around the body, would end just below the knee. It would have been wound perhaps twice around the body, then pulled

up under the left arm for the end of the fabric to be thrown over the right shoulder, where it is visible hanging behind. To ensure it stayed in that position, it would have had to have been either knotted (for which there is no sign) or pinned at the right shoulder. Only on 6 is the free left shoulder visible (Fig. 2.2), but the bulbous nature of some of the shoulders (10, 13, 14, 26, 36) may have had something to do with the desire to show that the garment looped under the one arm and over the other shoulder. Fragment 13, for example, has an area of red to the right of the top of the arm, which should correspond to the upper part of the chest on that side, bare as in 6 (Fig. 2.2). All the garments hang freely, without belts, and the short diagonal lines indicating folds intimate that the cloth had considerable volume. In 11 and especially 32, the curved profiles of the garments indicate the movement of the men wearing them. This remarkable gathering of men wearing a distinctive robe is worthy of special note. Only in the Kea and the Thera miniatures does such a gathering of robed men occur.147 Yet there are significant differences in the garment. At Thera, with one exception, no arms are visible outside the white robes, indicating that these are cloaks passed over the shoulder and tied at the neck. This is confirmed by the ties visible at the neck of at least two of the men in the Meeting on the Hill (Fig. 2.1:a) and some of the elite passengers beneath the awnings on the ships in procession, as well as by the double lines down the front of the garment, indicating that it was open. The exception, the third man on the right of the meeting, has a single arm extending behind him, indicating that the cloak (which also has neck ties) had a slit on either side through which the arm might pass. Despite the seeming similarities, this is not, therefore, a wraparound garment like that in the Kea painting. Most importantly, only one of the garments worn by the men in the Thera painting has fabric trailing behind (the second on the right in the Meeting, who, as already mentioned, is looking behind him, like the man in 36). It appears, like the garment in 6, to have been thrown over the right shoulder. It would be tempting to ask if this man is wearing a robe from Ayia Irini or is himself from Kea, were it not for differences in the garment, which is hemmed and has 147 On the Thera robes (cloaks) see Morgan 1988, 93–96; Televantou 1994a, 214–215, fig. 48.

HUMAN FIGURES: BODY AND SOCIETY

parallel lines on the trailing fabric. The Thera white cloaks have single or double hems on some (increasing the length) as well as bands at the neck from which the ties project. They are worn not only by men in the Meeting on the Hill and under the awnings on the ships, but also by those seated at the sterns of the ships. In addition, there is a small group of men in simpler versions, shorter and without hem bands, gathered above the Arrival Town, one outside the Departure Town, and one looking toward the Meeting from the building to the right (who, being at the end of the Meeting, does have a hem band). In all these contexts, there are also colored versions of the shorter, simpler cloaks, presumably made of wool rather than linen, some shaggy, others smooth. Significantly, though, the men at the center of the Meeting wear long white cloaks with double hems, signaling their high status in the ritual action. In the Kea painting, all the robes, with the exception of the red man in 12, are white, not colored, none have hems, neck bands, or ties, and all (with the exception of the overlapping figures in 10) have a piece of fabric trailing behind and expose the shoulders and arms. To some extent, the Kea robe is unique, yet it is clearly based on a well-known type of garment. Long cloaks, either wrapped around the body and held at the front or fastened with ties at the neck (like those in the Thera miniature) were commonly worn in Egypt among elites for warmth, but representations showing a fringed piece of cloth slung over the right shoulder and hanging loose behind are very rare and are not applied to a loose garment.148 The Kea robe, like the Thera cloak, is surely worn not for warmth but for status. Long wraparound or fringed robes in Near Eastern iconography consistently distinguished the highest elite personages from others. In different places and periods, these figures represented gods, rulers, priests, and sometimes high officials in the presence of the ruler or divinity.149 Certain long-robed figures on Aegean sealstones have, accordingly, been seen as priests or priest-kings, and hence male.150 148 See Vogelsang-Eastwood 1993, 159–168 on cloaks; for the construction of the cloak with ties at the neck, fig. 9:11; rare instances of cloth thrown over the right shoulder: pp. 163–164, figs. 9.8, 9.9. The representations are of elite men and women, so prestige is combined with practicality (cf. E. Barber 2007, 177, on coverup clothing for status). 149 Cf. Morgan 1988, 94 with references. 150 Evans 1921–1935, IV, 397–405, 412–414; Marinatos 1993, 127–141; 2010b, 19–21. Marinatos’s emphasis shifts from

67

On balance, the gender assumption is probably correct, but the representations are not without ambiguity.151 Each of these figures, on seals from Crete and the mainland (not, interestingly, on rings), wears an ankle-length garment with a hem band and distinct diagonal lines up the length of the skirt and above. Two that face right (in the impression) have a piece of fabric trailing behind the body, one clearly (Fig. 2.7:a), the other subtly.152 On those that face left (as seen in the impression), several lines pass over the left shoulder (Fig. 2.7:b).153 All but one of the garments is loose and has no sleeves;154 all imply that a piece of fabric was thrown over the shoulder and attached there. Yet the garment is clearly different from that in the Kea painting: it is ankle length rather than ending below the knee, and instead of one width of cloth being wound around the body in a single horizontal sweep from neck to hem, it is staggered in diagonal strips, evidently composed of several narrower pieces of cloth sewn together, then wound around the body. Closer to the Kea and to the Thera robes are the garments worn by figures associated with lions on a sealstone now in the British Museum and on a sealing from Pylos.155 On the former, the figure wears a long, plain cloak with hem band; on the latter, the

151

152 153 154

155

sacerdotal (1993) to royal (2010b). See also Koehl 2006, 337–342 on priests; and Alexandri 1994, 51, 93. The carrying of an axe or mace suggests, but does not confirm, male identity, and one or two appear to have beards; the hair is ambiguous (mostly ending at the neck), none have breasts, and the portly physique of some could be interpreted as that of an older man. However, the Priestess in the painting from the West House at Akrotiri (discussed below) also lacks breasts but is surely, from the white skin and red lips and ear, female, albeit, with her blue head, young. Glyptic images, lacking the possibility of added color, are inevitably more ambiguous than painted images. CMS VI, no. 318 (Knossos?) = Fig. 2.7:a; CMS II.3, no. 147 (Malia). CMS I, no. 225 (Vapheio) = Fig. 2.7:b; CMS II.8.1, no. 258 (Knossos); CMS VI, no. 319 (Knossos?); CMS I, nos. 223, 225 (Vapheio). The exception is CMS II.3, no. 198 (Vathia, Pediados), referred to above as turning his head back over his shoulder. The “sleeve” in Fig. 2.7:a (CMS VI, no. 318) is ambiguous, since it is continuous with the trailing fabric behind the shoulder. CMS VII, no. 118; CMS I, no. 374 (Pylos) (= Morgan 1988, 46, figs. 29, 30).

68

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

b a c Figure 2.7. Sealstones (a, b) and ring impression (c): (a) Knossos(?) (LB I–II), jasper amygdaloid, 3.5 x 1.3 cm, CMS VI.2, no. 318; (b) Vapheio (LB I–II), onyx amygdaloid, 0.9 x 1.85 cm, CMS I, no. 225; (c) Hagia Triada (LM I), surviving area 1.45 x 1.2 cm, CMS II.6, no. 12.

two figures wear a long robe with hem band, one plain, the other with bands, but with a freed arm and distinct trailing fabric behind the shoulder. A shorter (Kea length), plain loose robe or possibly tunic (as mentioned above) is worn by a helmeted figure flanked by lions on a seal now in the Ashmolean.156 A garment that affords an interesting comparison with the Kea robe is worn by one of two (the other lost) processional figures on a LM I sealing from Hagia Triada (Fig. 2.7:c). One hand, arm bent at the elbow, carries a pole, extending over the shoulder (cf. 13 and 14) with something (an axe?) on the end of it. As on the other seals, the garment is ankle length, but loose fitting and probably intended to be read as plain, with folds to indicate that it is voluminous. It appears as though the man’s far (right) shoulder is bare, and, trailing below his elbow, evidently having come from behind his shoulder, is loose cloth. The context of these figures is important. One is accompanied by a griffin, two by lions, another by a dolphin, one carries a bird, and others hold what look like a mace or an axe. According to Nanno Marinatos, by analogy with similar (though rarely identical) Syrian long robes, the male figures on 156 CMS VI, no. 313.

these Aegean seals should be gods or rulers.157 While their attributes support this identification, it cannot be extended to all figures wearing a wraparound garment or long robe, nor indeed is the gender invariably male. A simpler version is worn by the Priestess from the West House at Akrotiri.158 Her costume is evidently composed of two garments, one with sleeves, which was worn under a yellow wraparound with bands and an extremely long but distinctive fringed cloth trailing behind her shoulder. This outer garment passed under her left arm and over her right shoulder—the opposite of the trailing fabric in the Kea painting. The Priestess is identifiable as such not just by her garment, but also from the offering gesture with which she holds an incense burner. All other instances of a long robe in wall paintings are later, but all contexts are ceremonial.159 There is less consistency in these garments than is usually assumed: the painted Processions from Knossos, Hagia Triada, and Pylos show an ankle-length garment 157 Marinatos 2010b, 19–21. 158 Doumas 1992, pl. 24. On the construction of the garment, see Jones 2015, 262–264. 159 The “garment” worn by the two standing men on the Siege Rhyton from Mycenae that appears to go under one arm and reaches to the other shoulder is not included here, as it is surely a shield, not a robe, given its martial context.

HUMAN FIGURES: BODY AND SOCIETY

with hem, central vertical band, and, where preserved, fitted bodice and sleeves. These are more akin to long tunics, as discussed above. The seated figures in the Camp Stool Fresco wear a garment with diagonal zones not unlike those on the seals, but fitted at the waist.160 The Lyre Player from the megaron at Pylos wears a looser robe with diagonal band, while the banqueters appear to wear a plain white version.161 The Lyre Player has another garment draped over the shoulders, but in the Camp Stool Fresco, the bestpreserved figure has a distinct fringed piece of cloth reaching behind the left shoulder. Sir Arthur Evans interpreted this as having been thrown over the shoulder, but Bernice Jones reconstructs it as tied in a knot behind the right shoulder, which she thinks was also the case for the Kea robes.162 This is not visible in the paintings, though it would have been a satisfactory way of securing the loose fabric. It was a common method used in Egypt for wraparound dresses, but knotted at the front, and less commonly for cloaks, knotted at the shoulder.163 What is important in the painting is the presence of this feature, which clearly had significance beyond the functional. Though none of the examples discussed above are a perfect match for the garment in the Kea painting, they are the closest relatives, and their contexts are revealing: processions bearing gifts and drinking/feasting ceremonies. In the same way, the white robes in the Thera miniatures, although they were apparently cloaks rather than wraparounds and only one has the trailing fabric, are clearly related in appearance and contextual use to those in the Kea painting. They appear in the context of processional meetings, and they were evidently worn by the highest elite on ceremonial occasions. Interestingly, the figure on the seal from Vapheio illustrated in Figure 2.7:b lifts his far hand up toward his face in the open-handed gesture of some of the men in the Kea painting. It is surely not a 160 Bernice Jones proposes in a reconstruction of the garment that the zones are contrasting colors on a single piece of fabric wound around the body, draped over a tunic with sleeves, then clinched with a belt (Jones 2003, pls. LXXXVIII–XC; 2015, 264–266). For a discussion of the trailing fringed fabric behind the shoulder, with iconographic parallels, see Lenuzza 2012. 161 Lang 1969, 43 H 6, pls. 27, 125, 126, col. pl. A. 162 Evans, 1921–1935, IV.2, 404, pl. XXXI; 1967, fig, 7, pl. VI; Jones 1998, 217, 219, pl. 7.10; 2003, 448, pls. LXXXIX–XC; 2015, 264–266. 163 Vogelsang-Eastwood 1993, 107–111 (dresses), 164–168 (cloaks); Eaton 2008, 35.

69

typical gesture for a ruler. Perhaps more cautiously we should say that the long robe, variants of which were worn by rulers, gods, and priests in the Near East, was appropriated in various forms as an elite garment in Aegean iconography, applicable to different levels in the hierarchy. Figures with griffins are associated with the supernatural,164 some such figures could be (divine) rulers, but perhaps most are indeed priestly or even just ceremonial. In the Kea paintings, the garment is shorter and simpler than any of these other figures, and clearly those who wear them are not on the same level of unique prestige. Yet their robes, with the distinctive cloth over the shoulder, single them out as highly significant personnages. Who they might have been and the significance of their apparel and actions is discussed in the following section of this chapter.

Social Roles of Gender Women and men are distinguished unambiguously through both idiomatic and cultural determinants. Their gender is constructed through appearance and performance: how they look and what they do.165 As discussed above (pp. 44, 46), the chromatic distinction between white and red, a binary code of light/dark familiar throughout ancient art, creates an explicit duality that is not naturalistic but symbolic of social differentiation, probably with ideological implications. Clothing and hair are also clearly gender specific.166 Unlike the color code, which is an entirely iconographic idiom, these determinants reflect social custom. 164 Thomas and Wedde (2001, 9) suggest that a griffin need not imply a divine presence, though there can be little doubt that its presence implies “otherness” within a supernatural or mythic realm (cf. n. 127) 165 On gender in Aegean art and its implications for social structure see especially: Marinatos 1987b, 1995; Alexandri 1994, 2009; Alberti 1997, 2002; Rehak 1998b; German 2005; Chapin 2007a; Zeimbeki 2009 and the other papers in Kopaka, ed., 2009. On the people and society in Minoan wall paintings see also Immerwahr 1983. 166 On gender categorization in Minoan clothing, see in particular: Lee 2000; Muskett 2008. Weilhartner (2012) points out that in the Linear A and Linear B ideograms gender differentiation is primarily established through clothing (2012, 288, pl. LXVI).

70

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

Most significant is the social context of women and men and their consequent roles in the cumulative meanings of the paintings. There is no instance of a man and a woman on the same fragment. Though the fragmentary nature of the paintings cautions against generalization, it is more than likely that the sexes were segregated in the scenes. This is a notable feature of Aegean art in general that has been much commented on in relation to other images.167 Women evidently played a comparatively minor role in the frieze, given the very small number depicted relative to the large number of men. This situation is mirrored in the Thera miniature (not in the Cretan ones) and is an important indicator of function.168 Three of the women are contextualized through architecture, giving them an urban identity. However, one carries a pot on her shoulders, which allies her (at a distance) to the men bringing containers in another scene. At least one woman is distinguished, not by size or style of garment, but by her appearance in a window, with arm raised in an open-handed gesture. This gesture allies her to the men meeting with raised arm and open hand, again in another scene, and a fragment of another arm intimates that there was more than one woman in a window. This detail of “women at windows” is an iconographic theme that recurs in other wall paintings (see this vol., Ch. 4, p. 127–128), clearly with social connotations in which the selected women observe and react through gesture to events of ceremonial importance. Unfortunately, we do not know what this woman is reacting to, but the context in which the fragment was found allies her to the other women associated with buildings, not to the scenes of procession, meeting or ships. The women and buildings were found in N.18, fallen from the northern part of N.20, while the men were mostly (though not exclusively) found farther south, in N.20. There is, however, one notable exception: the fragment with two women wearing shaggy skirts (2; Fig. 2.2) shares the same broad context in N.20 as the majority of the men. The women are quite distinctive in their shaggy skirts, and their flexed legs speak of rapid movement. This type of garment is only tangentially related to that worn by the women in the pastoral scene of the Thera miniature. More significantly, clearer parallels exist on two sealstones, in one of which a woman raises a pole above her head, knees bent and heels 167 Esp. Marinatos 1987b; cf. Rehak 1998b, 196. 168 Cf. Morgan 1988, 93; Chapin 2007b.

raised, in a performative action allied to dance (Fig. 2.6:a), while on the other the woman is accompanied by a griffin (n. 93). It is probably not, then, an everyday garment. Of all the fragments that have survived, this one is the most tantalizing: the women are in motion and their arms must have been raised, but what were they doing and how did they relate to the scenes with the men? Is this the sole instance of an association between the sexes in the social arena of performative action? Or, more likely, were they part of a subscene that reflected female activity in the ceremonial aspects of the event? All of the men are outdoors, and (with the notable exception of the hunter) all are actively engaged in group activities, most involving communication between peers. Unlike the Thera and Knossos miniatures, none is shown inside a building or architectural structure. The only building associated with men is in the cauldron scene (67; Fig. 7.8), where a large, windowless structure lies behind them. This building is most likely connected with the ships rather than with the town (see this vol., Ch. 4). Their various activities, as discussed below, define them as male participants in the community, separate from the women, with actions that determine the social significance of the events depicted.

Occupations and Actions Occupations or occupational activities are rarely depicted in Aegean art. For men, those that are depicted usually have to do with the provision of meat or fish—hunters, fishermen, herders—or with warfare. In the Thera miniatures both herders and warriors are included, while the large-scale youths painted in the same room represent young (probably initiatory) hunters of fish. There are no fishermen in the Kea paintings, but there is evidence for herders, though it is not well preserved (cf. this vol., Ch. 5, pp. 158–160; Fig. 7.7). More unusually, an actual hunter is portrayed returning with his slaughtered prey on a pole (44). This explicit scene (complementing the dogs hunting deer from the adjacent wall, discussed in this vol., Ch. 5) is evidently included as a narrative link with the scene of men cooking in cauldrons (67; Fig. 7.8). Given the position of his body and the nonchalance of his one-handed lifting, it is doubtful that he would have been alone, as is the case on

HUMAN FIGURES: BODY AND SOCIETY

occasional sealstones depicting a hunter with animals suspended from a pole.169 More likely, there was a second man at the other end of the pole (as reconstructed in Fig. 7.16). There is a possibility that (as in many societies) the man is both hunter and warrior, though he is not wearing armor, and the projections at the crown of his head are not easily identifiable as part of a helmet. It should be stressed that, unlike the Thera miniatures, which have a line of warriors and a shipwreck on the north wall and helmets hanging on the ships in procession, in the case of the Kea frieze, there is no sign of any conflict, warfare, or armed warriors. The event(s) and the allusions are entirely peaceful. Fragments of a chariot are preserved (this vol., Ch. 3), implying the existence of at least one charioteer, who has, however, not survived. There are horses but no riders. Since there is no sign of any warfare, the chariot and hence the charioteer would have been ceremonial. Sailors are represented by the three paddlers in a small boat (63; Fig. 7.9), as in a related fragment (62). There is no surviving evidence for any paddlers or rowers for the large ships (see this vol., Ch. 3), though it seems unlikely that they did not exist, at least in a rudimentary rendition. One fragment, 71, hints at elite passengers under the awning of a ship (Fig. 7.8), though preservation of the figures (if the identification is correct) is minimal. Two other fragments strongly suggest the presence of men on a ship, but unfortunately they did not lend themselves to reconstruction with the other surviving pieces. On one (64), there is a man of somewhat larger scale than the others, wearing a white robe, depicted against a blue background, with what looks like another man to the right. On the other (65), the head and bare shoulder of a man of more typical size is rendered against a blue background on which there are two areas of white at angles to one another. While the piece cries “sail,” attempts to reconstruct it as such belied the ease of that initial impression. However, since the man does not wear a robe and so presumably wore a loincloth, he should be an active sailor rather than an elite passenger. The lynchpin of interpretation for these paintings is the Cauldrons and Ships scene (67; Fig. 7.8). It 169 CMS VI, no. 25a, MM I, four-sided seal, Malia(?); CMS II.8.1, no. 238, LM IIIA:1, Knossos. Cf. CMS XI, no. 37 (now in Berlin), in which the “hunter” is a genius/daemon and the “prey” hanging on a pole are lionesses. See also Crowley 2013, 229, 259.

71

shows two men bending over cauldrons, their arms bent as their hands engage with the contents. The implications of this scene are discussed more fully in the penultimate chapter, Chapter 12. Here, more briefly, the role of the men in relation to the cauldrons will be addressed. The scene is unique and redolent of significance for the meaning of the frieze. Later, in the Pylos paintings from above Hall 46, men in procession carry cauldrons, but in no known painting other than the Kea miniature is the act of cooking depicted. A sealstone from Knossos provides the only known parallel (Fig. 12.2:a). Two figures, one presumably wearing a loincloth, the other a loose robe, attend to what appears to be the leg of a hoofed animal projecting from the enormous tripod cauldron. In the painting the cauldrons are depicted in red ocher and around the base, above the legs, are black markings evidently representing burn marks from the fire. (The fire itself is not shown, no doubt since combining it with the red of the cauldron legs would have been visually confusing.) Tripod cauldrons were Cretan in origin but had by this time become a part of the kitchen ware of the islands.170 The red color brings to mind the gritty red-brown clay of the local Kea pottery, including that of tripod jars. Those tripod jars, however, like the terracotta ones on Crete, are relatively small, on average 20–30 cm high.171 These, on the other hand, are huge pots, big enough to cook large quantities of meat for crowds of people (cf. Fig. 12.3). It is not, I think, a matter of idiomatic size (making the pots large for effect), particularly since all the other vessels are of normal relationship to the size of the men. Such large cooking pots were most likely made of bronze and would not normally survive in the archaeological record.172 Large bronze cauldrons are likely to have been flat bottomed, mounted onto a separate tripod stand, though such a distinction is not visible in the painting. Significantly, four bronze cauldrons of comparably huge size (without legs) were found in House 170 Cherry, Davis, and Mantzourani 1991, 168–169. 171 Cummer and Schofield 1984, nos. 363, 364, 594, 692–694. 172 Ventris and Chadwick comment that most Linear B ideograms of vessels, including the tripod cauldron (ti-ri-pode), represent metal rather than pottery, as they are accompanied by the “bronze” ideogram and are counted in small numbers (1973, 324).

72

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

A at Tylissos, the building (though not the room) in which the miniature painting there was found,173 while a small bronze cauldron (with legs) was found in Room 4a adjacent to the rooms with the paintings in the West House at Akrotiri.174 These, then, are the men with specific occupational activities: hunter, cooks, sailors, and (by deduction) charioteer. They have in common their involvement in a ceremonial event involving feasting: preparations for the mass consumption of meat and public display for a ceremonial event (as discussed in detail in this vol., Ch. 12). The vast majority of men have less specific occupations or activities, but highly significant roles in the preparation for and maintenance of the social and ceremonial gathering that forms the core of the painted narrative. Moving sedately from left and right, the majority of men communicate with one another with raised arms and hand gestures. Several meet in a rocky landscape or beside water. Most wear the white tunic. Others meet on the yellow ground, some beside a river, others with little identifiable landscape beyond a few areas of darkened ocher, perhaps indicating marsh or scrub vegetation. These men wear the loose white robe with trailing piece behind the shoulder and, as with the men in tunics, approach one another from left and right. Two exceptional instances depicting the wearing of the tunic are the hunter (44) and the man in 24, who carries a container on his shoulder. In both cases the tunic is slightly different from the norm. The relationship of those very few men wearing the long kilt or shorts to others is, unfortunately, unknown. While the placements of the men into groups in the visualizations can be no more than tentative, they are based on associated landscape such as rockwork or water, or on functional factors such as the carrying of containers. From such associations, it appears that, on the whole, there were small groups of men in tunics, while those wearing robes congregate together. This was probably not without exceptions, as one man in a tunic carries a container (24). It should be clearly stated that the men in robes, some with containers, some making gestures, included in the two compositions of Procession of Men (Fig. 7.11) and Men by River (Fig. 7.12) could be rearranged in relation to one another in different ways and these 173 Hazzidakis 1921, 54–55, fig. 29. 174 Marinatos 1968–1976, VI, 29, pl. 63:a.

compositions have, in fact, gone through a number of variations. The aim in the visualizations is to give an impression of numbers, action, and relationships, not to categorically state that this is how they were positioned in their groups. Several men carry containers or poles. All but three wear a robe. The man in the poorly preserved fragment 56 is the only one wearing a loincloth or short kilt; he carries what looks like a wooden pole on his shoulders. As it is thicker and of a different color from the pole carried by the hunter, perhaps the man is bringing wood for the fire to heat the cauldrons (Fig. 7.8). The hunter (44; Fig. 7.16), who wears a tunic somewhat looser than the norm, carries a dead animal on a pole, with a second, long pole over his shoulders. This second pole is probably a spear for killing the prey. The other men with containers are evidently bringing produce. The man in 13 carries two poles, one over his shoulder, one at hip height, though the fragment has not preserved what they held. The man on the left in 14 carries a pliable sack on a pole. It is depicted with a simple outline, as though transparent, but the undulating contour and broadening at the base suggests that it was made of leather.175 It is attached to the pole by two short black lines, presumably denoting string. The pole itself curves up at the end beyond the strings to prevent the sack from slipping off. The man behind (to the right) holds his hand open with fingers curved toward his face, in a gesture that signals the ceremonial context in which the container is brought. The man in 15 carries a pot on a pole at shoulder height. The pole crosses his garment, but should presumably be read as being on his shoulders. As with the (probably) leather sack, the pot is depicted simply by a red outline on the yellow ground, here neatly capturing a bufftoned vessel with the minimum of effort in a shape that is instantly recognizable as a jar.176 Even the base and rim are delineated, each with a short horizontal red line. The vessel is attached to the pole by two red lines (one well preserved), suggesting that on the 175 The imprint of a leather container was found in Room Delta 18a at Akrotiri, complete with traces of stitching (Doumas 2008, 16–17, fig. 14). 176 The local clay at Ayia Irini is a ruddy tone, rather than buff, but on some vessels the potters applied a yellow slip over the red (E. Gorogianni, pers. comm., August 2013).

HUMAN FIGURES: BODY AND SOCIETY

prototype there may have been lugs below the rim to thread string through. The man in 11 carries a black container in one hand, the unusual color perhaps denoting that the vessel was made either of stone177 or of metal. Behind the heads of the men in 17, 24, and probably 19 is a container, evidently balanced on their shoulders. Each is outlined in black, and those in 17 and 24 are filled in with ocher. These probably represent baskets (such as those known from Akrotiri, from actual impressions as well as depictions in the wall paintings of Xeste 3 and Xeste 4).178 These activities of bringing what are presumably food and liquids tally with the cauldron scene, in which the two men bending over the massive cauldrons are apparently in the process of cooking. As discussed in Chapter 12, these are most likely brought as gifts as part of the preparations for a feast. Scenes of the ceremonial bringing of produce, familiar from (mostly later) large-scale paintings of processions, are rare in small-scale art of the Aegean, while the association of such a scene with cooking is unique. Despite the ceremonial nature of the procession of men in the Meeting on the Hill in the Thera miniatures, none of the men carry containers (though the large-scale Fishermen in processional pose from the same room bring special produce). The closest parallel is undoubtedly the miniature painting from Tylissos (Figs. 2.4, 11.5). Fragmentary though the painting now is, men carrying poles on their shoulders can be identified. From one pole hangs a pot, while another fragment clearly shows an amphora on a pole. The relative scale is less realistic than in the Kea painting and from what little survives it appears that the range of containers was limited. In addition, the men wear loincloths, not robes, and one fragment includes both a man and a woman, the woman higher in the pictorial field but remarkably close. Objects—containers or flowers (carried by women)—are more commonly brought by large-scale 177 As suggested by Abramovitz: “steatite?” (1980, 59). 178 Beloyianni 2000, 2001, 2007; see also Doumas 1992, pls. 116–118, 122, 123 (Xeste 3); 2007b, 44, fig. 42: a red basket with blue bands carried on the shoulder of a man in the staircase Procession painting from Xeste 4. On basketry in the Aegean, see also Evely 2000, 511–519.

73

figures in Procession scenes.179 Some suggest communication with a divine presence (Xeste 3 corridor of women, Mycenae Cult Centre), others have complex associations suggesting community redistribution within the context of cult and rulership (Knossos Procession Fresco) or are clearly indicative of diplomatic relations among foreign elites (so-called tribute scenes in Eighteenth Dynasty Egyptian tombs). As proposed in Chapter 12, the occasions of such gift bringing were most likely to coincide with major festivals. Male processions in later Aegean paintings are less frequent than female, though interestingly, the earliest clearly preserved large-scale processions are from Akrotiri, Thera, and two out of three are male: the youths in Room 3b of Xeste 3 and the men mounting a staircase in Xeste 4. The two youths in Xeste 3 carry a (metal) bowl and a cloth respectively, while the mature man holds a large water (or wine) jug.180 The processional men in Xeste 4 await full conservation, but one carries an irregularly shaped vessel (a bit like a rhyton) held by two straps,181 which is probably to be understood as being made of leather, while another carries a wicker basket on his shoulder (n. 178), in much the same way as do (in abbreviated form) three of the men in the Kea miniature (17, 19, 24). Men carrying bowls in procession occur, appropriately, on a fragment of a Minoan stone vessel, and on a related fragment a man places produce in a basket before a sanctuary.182 Given the fact that stone vases 179 On processions in Aegean art see: Peterson 1981; Boulotis 1987; Kontorli-Papadopoulou 1996, 134–137; Hägg 2001; Wedde 2004; Warren 2006b; Blakolmer 2007, 2008; Vander Beken 2010. 180 Doumas 1992, pls. 109–115; it is unclear what the youngest boy holds (pl. 112), though he has the conventional offering gesture (cf. the boy with the bowl, pl. 115, and the Priestess from the West House, pls. 24, 25), and the shape of his two hands suggests a small bowl with a handle (cf. pl. 115). On containers carried in processions in the Akrotiri paintings, see Televantou 1994b; Doumas 2007b, 44, fig. 42. 181 Doumas 1992, pl. 138 (left); Rehak 1996, 47, fig. 10 (drawing). 182 Warren 1969, 85, 175, 181, P 474 (HM 426), P 476 (HM 2397); 2006b; Marinatos 2005, 152, figs. 9.6, 9.7; Koehl 2006, 179–180 (nos. 763, 764), pl. 47. The Harvester Vase

74

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

have exclusively male iconography, it has been plausibly suggested by Robert Koehl that these vessels were used for male feasts in association with rites of passage festivals.183 Some glyptic scenes are clearly abbreviated processions; most are of women, though a rare procession of three men (wearing loincloths) appears on a ring impression dated to LB II–IIIA:1.184 What may be an abbreviated male procession appears on a sealing from among those found in Delta 18 at Akrotiri, but it is fragmentary, and the man’s arm position suggests he is stationary.185 The theme of gift bringing is not apparent in the glyptic record.186 Two exceptions— Figure 2.5 and 2.7:a—each show a single male figure carrying an animal (quadruped and bird respectively) but not containers. Two later painted processions, in medium scale, show men bringing containers: those from Hagia Triada187 and from the Vestibule leading to the Megaron at Pylos.188 In these, as in the Kea miniature, it is likely that the containers—baskets, and boxes and bowls respectively—signify offerings associated with preparations for a feast. In a fragment from the West House at Mycenae a man carries something white (a cloth container?) on a pole balanced on his shoulder.189 He is associated with the hunt and perhaps brings provisions. In the Thera miniature, the clear procession of men approaching one another from left and right that constitutes the Meeting on the Hill is predicated on communication through gesture. The same is true at Kea, where a number of robed men make distinctive gestures. They have been reconstructed, on the model of the Meeting on the Hill, as approaching one another in processions from left and right (Fig. 7.11). At the same time, a unique aspect of the Kea painting is the group of men in robes carrying

183 184 185 186 187 188 189

is also processional in form, though the men carry implements usually identified as agricultural (Koehl 2006, 90–91). Koehl 1986a; 1997, 145–147; 2006, 336; cf. Marinatos 2005, 149, 154. CMS I, no. 170. CMS V, Suppl. 3, no. 399. Cf. this vol., Ch. 3, n. 59, for details about the impressions. Wedde 2004, 171. Militello 1998, 139–142, 283–308, pls. I (lower left), L (“della Donna ed Altare”). Lang 1969, 119–120, pls. 7–9. Tournavitou 2015, fig. 12; 2017, 50–52, 120, fig. 21, pl. 17 (WH F52). An earlier (LH IIIA:2) fragment from Argos preserves a pole with a small container attached, but not the man holding it (Tournavitou and Brecoulaki 2015, 228–229, fig. 8).

containers. They too approach from left and right, presumably meeting one another. In Figure 7.12 they have been combined with other fragments of men in robes by a river, and a relatively diffuse distribution of figures has been adopted. There is, however, another possibility: that they met in lines, like those in the Meeting on the Hill and in the visualization in Figure 7.11. On balance, the diversity of containers and the mobility of the Kea figures (there is no evidence in any of the preserved legs for a static stance with both feet on the ground, so common in processional scenes) favors the more dynamic distribution. However the men with containers were related to one another and to the scenes as a whole, their presence is of primary importance to the meaning of the frieze. Each carries a different container, and a gesture associated with greeting is directly linked to the bringing of produce (14). These men appear to be involved in a form of gift exchange, bringing their gifts of varied produce in, what the hunter and cooks also tell us, are preparations for a feast.

Community, Status, and Role Clothing defines people in the social eye. Identities are forged through appearance, achievement, and action, solidified through the communication of relationships. Clothing signals these determinants of identity. In paintings, as in life, clothing distinguishes gender, age, status, activity, and the distinctiveness of community. In ancient art, clothing does not express individuality within those categories. Unraveling which of those factors is preeminent in signaling identity within a given representation is not without difficulty, not least since they inevitably overlap. The Kea miniatures, as in those from Thera, afford an opportunity to observe different types of male clothing together. That is relatively unusual in Aegean art.190 The dangers of distinguishing community or cultural identity (often misleadingly called 190 Cf. Rehak 1998b, 195, who cites as examples the Harvester Vase, Hagia Triada sarcophagus, Knossos Procession Fresco, to which one should add the Pylos Vestibule procession. On identities and their ambiguities in the Thera miniatures, see Morgan 1988, 118–120.

HUMAN FIGURES: BODY AND SOCIETY

“ethnicity”) and chronological changes of style in clothing have been commented on by Paul Rehak in particular.191 That said, it is worth noting some approximate statistics regarding the garments depicted. With rare exceptions, loincloths are not depicted in Mycenaean art. This was a Minoan garment, and when it does occur in mainland painting, it is with the characteristically Cretan codpiece in the context of bull leaping, a Minoan sport.192 The short kilt is Minoan and Cycladic, not early Mycenaean (though it recurs 200 years later in the Pylos paintings), while the long kilt or shorts is known in all three regions but occurs relatively infrequently and is restricted in time to the early part of the LBA. In contrast, the tunic is represented in Mycenaean, not Minoan, art, and its first known appearance is in the Kea miniatures. Finally, the long white robe is uniquely portrayed in groups of men (as opposed to individuals) only in the miniatures of Thera (where it appears to be a cloak) and Kea (where it is a robe). As can be seen from these generalizations, the span of garment types in the Kea miniatures is surprisingly wide, bridging divides in both time and space. With the possible exception of the tunic, however, these garments do not self-evidently signal a distinction of people in terms of geographic or cultural origin. What they do reflect is the appropriateness of certain garments to aspects of community action and location. It is cooks, sailors, and men closely associated with the sea who wear loincloths; it is men involved in ceremonial meetings and the bringing of produce who wear long robes. This distinction between the active seafaring men in their loincloths and the more sedate dignitaries in their robes is paralleled in the Thera miniatures. The young men walking along the coast (with a calf as potential meat) wear only the loincloth, as do the fishermen, the men running to the lookout post, and the paddlers, rowers, and helmsmen working the boats and ships. The occupants of the Departure Town wear loose shaggy garments, as do a group of men outside the Arrival Town, but the elite passengers on the ships and the men in the Meeting on the Hill wear the long, loose white cloak, tied at the neck. As the 191 Rehak 1996, esp. 35, 39, 50. Cf. Trnka 2007. 192 Cf. Rehak 1998a, 42–43, with n. 30. Mycenae: Shaw 1996a, fig. 3, pls. A:4, B:2; Pylos: Lang 1969, no. 36 H 105, pls. 24, 116, 124, C.

75

Meeting moves to the pastoral scene, the men’s garment changes to the shaggy robe, while those who wear a simpler version of the white cloak outside the town are high up in the pictorial plane, between the hills and the town, signifying distance from the sea. It is conceivable that the loose robe distinguishes age, as the clothing of elders, as it does in many societies. Such a suggestion has been made for the distinction between loincloths and robes or between loincloths and kilts in Cretan art,193 and age distinctions (predicated on bodily proportions, hair and nakedness/clothing) are, of course, very much in evidence in the large figures of both males and females in the Xeste 3 paintings,194 while in the Thera miniatures, the slight figures walking along the coast in front of the Arrival Town may represent boys or adolescents. As mentioned above, a distinction between youth and maturity through relative body girth and garment type was a feature of some Egyptian statuary (n. 123). In later periods in Greece, older male citizens were sometimes shown wearing only a himation draped over the right shoulder, leaving the left arm free.195 In the painting, however, there is nothing other than the garment itself to verify such an assumption. What is clear—both from internal evidence within the painting and from other representations of long robes—is that this is an elite, ceremonial garment, often associated with processions, sometimes with ceremonial drinking, and, in the more elaborate versions on single personages, possibly identifiable (as in the Near East) as priestly, royal, or divine. In the Kea painting, the large numbers of such men as well as the contexts of the scenes in which they appear preclude any reference to royalty or divinity. What of priests? It is hard to imagine that there were so many priests in one place at the same time. However, Ayia Irini was a town with 193 German (2000, 98), e.g., comments on the distinction on sealstones between a “younger” male with narrow waist, broad shoulders, and scant clothing versus an “older” body with “bulky” robe. Cf. Rehak (1996, 50) on possible age distinctions in relation to the loincloth versus the kilt. The portly sistrum player on the Hagia Triada Harvesters Vase is distinguished also in clothing (though only the waist is preserved) from the lithe men in loincloths (e.g., Marinatos 2005, 153). 194 E. Davis 1986; Doumas 1987, 2000a; Withee 1992; Morgan 2000, 937–940; 2016; Chapin 2007a. 195 Chi and Bonfante 2008, 88.

76

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

a unique and very special temple. It could be that, as in Egypt, certain elite men served as priests only part-time, being on duty for a few months of the year, but otherwise having different professions, being doctors, judges, state officials, or practitioners of various trades.196 The presence of priests or men with priestly duties in public, in Egypt as elsewhere, coincided with calendrical festivals, in which their appearance signaled the ritual importance of the occasion, ensured the efficacy of ritual, and highlighted the ceremonial nature of the events through their appearance and actions. Another possibility that needs to be considered, although the evidence is later and strictly palatial in context, is that these long garments with trailing fabric were provided to the participants for the occasion of the gatherings. In the Linear B tablets from Knossos, we hear of cloaks or cloth “suitable for guest-gifts” and “suitable for Followers, well made.”197 Followers (e-qe-ta) distinguishes a class of people; Michael Ventris and John Chadwick suggest military or religious, probably members of court, and John Killen proposes “significant figures in the state” with “close links with the palace.”198 They were also owners of chariots.199 It is understandable that “well-made” cloaks or cloth would be considered suitable for them. More importantly, such garments must surely have been worn for public occasions. As for “guest-gifts” (ke-se-nu-wi-ja), while they could have been a form of gift exchange, it is worth 196 Sauneron 2000, 13; Teeter 2011, 17–18. There were, of course, different levels of priesthood, and high priests and those with specialized duties were professional, but for others, the role of priest would have been a civil appointment (Blackman 1998, 143). On the likelihood of Aegean priests being nonprofessionals, cf. Marinatos 1997, 97, who likewise suggests that Aegean priesthood was probably made up of high-ranking administrators rather than professional priests. 197 Ventris and Chadwick 1973, 317 (214 + Ld 571): “Twentyfive cloaks with white o-nu-ke suitable for Followers provided with pe-ne, of better quality. . .”; 318 (215 = Ld 573): “Thirty-five cloaks with white o-nu-ke, suitable for guestgifts, with red (somethings). . .” and (216 +Ld 871): “Six [garments] with pe-ne, suitable for Followers, well made.”; Killen 1994, 69; 2007, 56–57; cf. Barber 1991, 312; Jones 2003, 448–449. 198 Killen 2007, 57. 199 Ventris and Chadwick 1973, 429, cf. 121, 374, 519.

remembering that the provision of clean clothes by the host was de rigueur for household guests in the early Greek social code of Homer.200 The white robes of Kea were specially donned for the occasion. Since they reveal the shoulder, they are not cloaks, so could not have been worn over tunics; more likely, they were worn over a loincloth. The robe is a distinctive garment and one that has few parallels, none of which are exact, but all of which are worn in ceremonial contexts. The men wearing them have, as a group, either been asked to wear or chosen to wear a rare and distinctive garment. The robes are an identity marker, no doubt redolent of symbolic meaning in terms of both status and occasion, and they define, in this case, not the individual but the specific group. The men’s clothing, like their actions, display and legitimize their authority and allegiances within society. Whoever they were, these men in their white robes are marked out as dignitaries with a special role in the ceremonial gatherings represented in the paintings. One cannot but feel that it was they who were to be the elite participants in the anticipated feast.

Summary Men are the main participants in the action of the Miniature Frieze. There are an estimated 70 male figures in the preserved fragments, versus a mere six female figures. The sexes are clearly distinguished through gender codes of color duality, garments, and roles. The women are youthful; the men may perhaps be distinguished in age by physique and clothing, though such differences are more an indicator of action, status, and role. Three of the women are associated with buildings, indicating an urban setting. All the men are outdoors, none inside a building, and all are engaged in group activities. This disparity of numbers and contextual setting matches that of the Thera miniatures. The context of the two women wearing shaggy skirts implies that they may have been positioned closer to the men in the frieze, 200 van Wees 2005, 46.

HUMAN FIGURES: BODY AND SOCIETY

and their garments might have singled them out as participating in the ceremonial action. However, no fragments preserve men and women together, a circumstance which suggests that the sexes were segregated in the scenes. All the figures are animated in their movements. Faces are remarkably individualized; gestures specific. These are not impersonal crowds, passively looking on, but active participants in the action. All move their bodies in accordance with their activity. Legs are astride, the back heel raised in potential motion forward. Shoulders are experimentally varied according to the angle of the body and the position of the arms. In most cases, one or both arms are raised, hand(s) either holding something or open in a gesture of communication. The wide range of figures using the raised arm gesture and the precise variations suggest a broad semantic range within the theme of greeting and respect. Clothing is not individualistic, but a sign of the relationship of the wearer to society and to the group. The women wear colored garments, implying dyed wool; almost all the men wear white, which probably denotes linen. The women’s garments are simple, without patterns or any distinctive features of Cretan fashion. There are no naked men or boys. Men wear one of four types of garment: one that covers only the loins (loincloth or short kilt); a knee-length wraparound (kilt); a fitted, short-sleeved tunic; or a long, loose robe. It is relatively rare to find so much variety in a single group of images. Loincloths are worn by sailors and men by the coast, including those cooking in cauldrons. There are very few long kilts, and unfortunately their iconographic context is unclear. Men in tunics and robes meet with gestures or containers. On the whole, it seems that they were in separate groups, most of the tunic-wearers greeting, robe-wearers both greeting and bringing gifts. But this may be misleading, as at least one man in a tunic has a container. Loincloths are a Minoan garment. Knee-length kilts are known from both Crete and the mainland (but not from Thera) at this time. Tunics are Mycenaean, and the examples in the Kea frieze are the earliest known representations of the garment. Long wraparound robes are characteristic of elite personages in Aegean (as in Near Eastern) art. The Kean robe is shorter than most and has a distinctive trailing piece of cloth behind the

77

shoulder. It differs from the white robes in the Thera miniature in leaving the arms free rather than enveloped. Notably, more men wear the robe than any other garment. Long robes are elite, ceremonial garments, frequently associated with priesthood. They occur in Aegean art in the context of processions and associated with ceremonial drinking (potentially banqueting). There is a possibility that (as implied in Linear B texts) such robes were distributed as guestgifts or to a certain class of people to be worn in public on ceremonial occasions. Few occupations are shown. There is circumstantial evidence for herders and an unequivocal instance of a hunter. Sailors are represented by the paddlers, and there were almost certainly elite passengers in the ships. There is no sign of any conflict or warfare in the frieze. A charioteer is implied by the chariot, which, like the ships, would have been ceremonial. Most significantly, there are two men cooking in massive cauldrons by the coast. The majority of men have less specific but nonetheless significant roles in social and ceremonial gatherings. Several carry produce. The hunter brings an animal carcass on a pole; one man carries two poles. Other men bring containers: two on poles, one perhaps of leather, the other clearly ceramic; one perhaps of metal, carried in the hand; and three probably wicker baskets balanced on the shoulders. This combination of cooking and the bringing of produce is unique, and it distinguishes the painting from those of offerings in procession scenes. The men in white robes and tunics move to left and right in almost equal numbers, yet no central focal point is visible. Instead, they appear to be moving toward one another, their gestures and the carrying of containers speaking of arranged meetings of a ceremonial and gift-giving nature. There is no apparent hierarchy in these meetings, which appear to be among men wearing the same garments. The containers imply gifts or exchange, either in terms of community redistribution or diplomatic relations. Hunting, cooking in cauldrons, and bringing produce imply preparations for a community feast. As is emphasized by the ceremonial garments and gestures, such a feast would almost certainly have taken place on occasions of significance to the whole community, such as a major festival.

78

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

Catalog of Human Figures In this and all subsequent catalogs in the book, the fragment photographs (left) and study drawings (right) are shown at a scale of 1:2. The plates at the end of the book present the photographs at a scale of 1:1.

Women 1 (U6). N.18 East. Fig. 7.1 (Town by a River); Pl. 1. Woman and building. H. 6.0 x w. 5.2 x th. 1.1–2.1 cm. Woman walking to the right. She wears a blue skirt, partially defined by a fugitive black line at the back. Specks of blue paint on the yellow ground suggest that the skirt may have dipped down between the legs (cf. 2). The study drawing shows the skirt line as it appears to the eye; the reconstruction in Figure 7.1 incorporates the specks into a longer dress. Her right leg, painted white, is extended back, heel raised in movement. The left leg was beyond the edge of the fragment, indicating a stride. Beneath her foot is a blue horizontal area (water) with extremely fugitive parallel vertical black lines that extend upward (a bridge?). Behind her, at the left edge, are three large lanceolate leaves in darker yellow ocher. Around the woman, traces of ocher over the yellow ground suggest generalized vegetation (not included in the study drawing, but incorporated into the reconstruction). Above, center top, is part of a building, white with a horizontal black line parallel to the base, and a vertical line defining the right edge. A gouge in the plaster cuts through the black vertical line. The blue beneath the woman is thinner paint than her skirt, giving a greenish hue over the yellow. Her white foot was painted over the blue, but the blue skirt appears to be over the leg. Frit in the blue paint indicates Egyptian Blue. Specks of microorganisms on the surface. At the back of the fragment is a projecting ridge with one flat edge, which abutted a vertical structure (such as a beam) in the wall. This ridge matches the backs of fragments of buildings 87 and 88, as well as river with reeds, 422, providing a unique opportunity to reconstruct a vertical section of the composition. Straw impressions are visible in places and specks of green schist are embedded in the plaster, except along the ridge. This indicates that the lime plaster was applied over mud mixed with straw, on top of rubble schist blocks, interspersed with vertical wooden beams.

2 (N1). N.20 East. Pls. 1, 71:b. Two women. H. 4.5 x w. 5.8 x th. 0.8 cm. One piece with small fragment joined on the right. Two women walking to the left on yellow

ground; only the lower halves preserved. The woman on the right is preserved to above the waist. As no arms are visible, they must have been raised. Forward leg of the left woman and feet of both not preserved. The bent knee and stride of the legs indicate movement. Legs are painted white, skirts white (left) and blue (right). Both colors were applied over the yellow. Legs partially outlined in black including the ankle bone. The preserved leg on the left figure has been hastily outlined, the straight black line not encompassing the curve of the white calf (cf. the buttock line of the right figure). The forward leg of the right figure is carefully delineated, but the back leg has no outline. Black lines define the belt of the better-preserved figure on the right, the outlines of her dress, and the texture of the fabric on both skirts. The blue skirt dips down between the legs. White at the edge of the blue skirt may be a sketch line, or the skirt may have had a first coat of white over which blue was painted, as suggested by the crescent of white on the skirt. Frit is visible in the blue. 3 (U144). N.18 East. Fig. 7.3 left (Women and Buildings); Pls. 1, 70:a, 71:a. Woman and building. H. 6.8 x w. 6.7 x th. 1.1 cm. Three pieces joined. Woman facing right,

balancing a yellow ocher object on her head, against a blue-black background. One arm is bent at elbow and wrist, partially outlined in black, the hand missing. The other arm is raised in support of the object (presumably a vessel) on her head, though the fist-like hand barely touches it. The surface is very worn, especially around the figure, making the sequence of colors hard to ascertain and the profile of the face tentative. However, flaking reveals that the blue-black of the doorway was achieved by using two layers of paint, first blue, then black or blueblack. Over the blue ground (and not over the surrounding black layer), white was applied in slight relief for the face and arms, with a red eye and black hair added last. A

HUMAN FIGURES: BODY AND SOCIETY

reserved spot in the eye provides a white pupil. The red garment, painted over the white, has partially flaked away. A patch of yellow ocher behind the lower elbow at the fragment’s left edge is probably a wooden structure, like the yellow ocher vertical band to the right, the two framing the blue-black against which the woman stands. A string line divides the yellow ocher “wood” (painted over blue-black) from orangey red ocher (painted over white ground) with horizontal lines indicative of brick or stone. At the lower left edge, ocher is visible beneath the blue-black. The lower part of the woman has not been preserved, but it can be assumed that she is walking past the doorway of a building, carrying a vessel. 4 (Y1 + V). N.18 Center + N.18 East. Fig. 7.3 right (Women and Buildings); Pls. 1, 70:b. Woman at window. H. 8.0 x w. 7.1 x th. 0.8–1.1 cm. Nine pieces joined.

79

the ground over which the woman’s flesh is painted, reverses the usual rule of applying black as the last color in the painting sequence. In contrast, the white building is reserved plaster, with applied black lines of polygonal masonry. Top right is an area of black that probably continued as a window, but has flaked away. Sequence of colors: applied white on blue-black, ocher on white plaster and on applied white, black details last. 5 (U7). N.18 East. Pl. 1. Woman’s arm. H. 1.9 x w. 2.3 x th. 0.9 cm. White arm against a blue-gray ground. Like 4, the woman faces to the left, framed in what is presumably a window. The slightly flexed arm ends in a fist-like hand and would have hung loosely in front of the body. This is evidence for another woman within the buildings. White painted over blue-gray, flaked in places, leaving an impression, as, when the white flaked, it took part of the blue-gray with it. Bluegray also flaked above the arm.

Men

Woman facing left with raised arm, framed in the window of a building. Surface worn. The white skin is thickly applied over the blue-black of the window. Yellow garment flaked at the top, painted over the white skin. Fleck of black at the lower edge. The sense of a shoulder (marked in pencil in the study drawing) arises from the way in which the paint was applied, the brushstroke resulting in a slight ridge, while the neck was painted with separate strokes. The eye is rendered black with a small white dot (reserved) for the pupil. Hair is black, with strokes of white overlaid, including a white bun at the nape of the neck. Her left shoulder is pushed forward, the arm hanging loosely down, while her right arm is bent at the elbow (sharply delineated) and raised, hand held upward, fingers mitten-like and thumb extended. The woman’s head is close to the top of the blue-black area, indicating that she is framed within a window, not a doorway. The window is framed by yellow ocher, representing wooden beams, outlined only on the right edge. A pink sketch line (dilute) marks the position of a string line but does not continue beyond the actual string line, which ends short of the top of the yellow structure, before resuming above on the white of the building’s wall. A black outline was applied after the string line, left of it on the white above, right of it on the yellow below, continuing over the area in which the string line disappears. The sequence is probably: pink sketch line, string line, yellow ocher, black line. The window, on which blue-black is

6 (P1). N.20 East. Fig. 7.11 (Procession of Men); Pls. 2, 70:c. Man. H. 5.0 x w. 2.4 x th. 0.8 cm. Surface restored center left behind garment. Man facing right on yellow ocher ground. He wears a white garment, wrapped under his right arm and thrown over his left shoulder (missing), leaving a piece of fabric dangling behind him. The painting appears to have been executed with speed: the red of his neck and upper arm has an irregular outline (undefined by black), and in the position of his ear a reserved area of yellow ocher ground is left between the red skin and the black hair (unless the red has flaked here). The eye, positioned low on the face, is applied white with a stroke of black for the pupil at far right, giving the distinct impression of looking forward. Beyond this to the right the paint has flaked, so that the profile of the face and the line of the hair on the right are unknown. In the photograph, the right-hand spur of hair is, therefore, misleading, though the one on the crown of the head appears to have been intentional. White was applied for the garment, with black lines on top defining the cloth across the chest, the shoulder piece, and the sides under the elbow and wrist. These lines also betray speed of application: the shoulder lines do not entirely encompass the cloth, the chest line overlaps the bicep, and the left side line is abbreviated. Application of black paint is thicker for hair and chest line than elsewhere. Red and white colors were applied over the yellow ground, red over white garment, black lines painted last. Darker yellow ocher above the head, indicative of vegetation. Fugitive thin blue paint behind the head, painted before the ocher. The black hair has a slightly bluish tinge,

80

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

probably from a dilute underlayer of blue, distinguishing it from the clear black of the pupil. 7 (S6). N.20 East. Fig. 7.11 (Procession of Men); Pl. 2. Man. H. 3.5 x w. 2.9 x th. 0.8 cm. Man facing right on yellow ground. He wears a white garment with a black vertical line. His right arm is bent at the elbow and raised, the hand outstretched facing upward. His left arm (overlapped by the right) is stretched downward with the hand facing down. Both hands have the fingers defined as one, with the thumb outstretched. White painted over the yellow, red over both the yellow ground and the white garment, black painted over the white. Specks of microorganisms on the surface. On the back of the plaster are narrow vertical ridges. 8 (T1). N.20 East. Fig. 7.11 (Procession of Men); Pl. 2. Man. H. 9.0 x w. 4.2 x th. 1.1 cm. Man facing left on yellow ground. His head and legs are missing, but at the top of the fragment part of the red chin is visible. He wears a white garment with a high, irregular neckline and a shoulder piece extending behind. No black outlines are preserved. Much of his left arm has flaked off, revealing the white beneath. His right arm is bent at the elbow and the forearm raised. White painted over yellow, red over white. 9 (Q13). N.20 East. Fig. 7.11 (Procession of Men); Pl. 2. Man. H. 4.0 x w. 3.1 x th. 0.8 cm. Extremely poorly preserved. Man facing left, on yellow ground. The head has completely flaked away (in Fig. 7.11, it is reconstructed). Directly comparable with 8, the man wears the same loose garment with piece trailing behind his shoulder. Here the red arms are barely visible, but the neck and shoulder piece of the garment can be seen to have black outlining. White over yellow, red over white, black last. 10 (U122). N.18 East. Fig. 7.11 (Procession of Men); Pl. 2. Two men. H. 4.2 x w. 3.6 x th. 0.9 cm. Two men facing right, slightly overlapping. Their heads and legs are missing. Both wear a white garment, defined at neck (right figure) and sides by black lines, with short slanting black lines down the sides, suggesting folds or creases. Behind the men, at the left edge of the fragment, is a strip of white with blue partially painted over. The blue is presumably part of the landscape; the white may be the end of a shoulder piece (cf. 6), though it is

irregular in shape (neither color has been reconstructed in Fig. 7.11) The well-preserved shoulders display an experimental approach rather than anatomical accuracy. The arm of the left figure is bent at the elbow, forearm raised, with poorly preserved hand bent at the wrist toward the face. The right figure, whose shoulder is pushed forward, also has a bent elbow, but the forearm is missing. White painted over yellow, red over white, black last. The red neck of the right figure streaks down to the shoulder, faintly overlapping the white garment. 11 (S2). N.20 East. Fig. 7.12 (Men by River); Pl. 2. Man with container. H. 6.0 x w. 5.7 x th. 0.6 (0.4–0.9) cm. Three main pieces joined (eight in total), with surface restoration at the cracks. Man facing left on yellow ground. Head and legs missing. He wears a long white garment, which reaches up to the neck (missing), and has a piece of fabric at the back, extending from the shoulder. Both red ocher arms are poorly preserved. His left hung loosely by his side, his right held a black object, probably a container (either stone or metal). Black lines outline the garment and run in two parallel lines down his side under his left arm, with a short diagonal line near the arm and traces of other short lines at the lower edge of the fragment. Red was painted over both white and yellow; black was added over the white. Faint traces of black behind the shoulder and on parts of the trailing shoulder piece that appear to underlie the white may be preliminary sketch lines. The black outline of the back lies beyond the white of the garment, with only a thin wash of white in between, implying speed of execution. Black container on yellow ground. Microorganisms over the fragment. 12 (S1). N.20 East. Fig. 7.11 (Procession of Men); Pls. 2, 70:f. Man. H. 4.3 x w. 4.0 x th. 0.9–1.4 cm. Man facing left on yellow ground. His head is well preserved, with applied white for the eye and a distinctive profile with long nose and no indication of mouth. Hair is blueblack. His body is hard to interpret, being amorphous, yet with no visible garment. What appears to be his right arm extends loosely in front of him, yet is uncharacteristically narrow at the shoulder. There are no traces of white indicative of a garment on the red ocher body, but there are faint traces of black: a wide outline following chest and belly, short lines at shoulder and around part of the belly. It may be that he wore a red garment, the same color as his skin, outlined in black. That it is a garment and not a naked body is clear both from the overall shape and from the area of red behind him, beginning broad at the

HUMAN FIGURES: BODY AND SOCIETY

shoulder and ending almost in a point at the lower edge of the fragment. This echoes the shoulder piece of the white garments in 6, 8, 11, and 14. Red painted over the yellow, black and white (eye) over the red. 13 (P3). N.20 East. Fig. 7.12 (Men by River); Pl. 2. Man with poles. H. 4.7 x w. 4.8 x th. 0.6 cm. Two pieces joined. Restoration in yellow to right of lower hand. Man facing right, holding two poles, one on his shoulder held by a raised arm bent at the elbow, the other held in line with his lower body. He wears a white garment, which covers his left shoulder but reveals his right by passing under the right arm. A black line runs vertically near the edge of the lower part of the garment, and two short lines appear on the chest. Both hands are clenched around the poles, which, like his skin, are red ocher. The front part of the lower pole is barely visible as a faint red line to the right of the restored area. Slightly bluish tinge to the white beneath the lower arm. Order of painting: yellow, white, red, black. Microorganisms on the surface. 14 (N.16–N.17). Doorway between Corridors N.16 and N.17. Fig. 7.12 (Men by River); Pl 2. Two men, one with vessel on pole. H. 4.7 x w. 6.1 x th. 1.3–1.6 cm. Two pieces joined. Two men facing left on yellow ground. The man

on the left carries a pole over his shoulder, curved at the end, from which dangles an irregularly shaped container, defined only by a red line and attached to the pole by two black lines at the top. He wears a broad white garment with trailing piece behind, delineated with fugitive black lines close to the sides, down the back piece, and diagonally along the front. His head is missing and the neck and shoulder are poorly preserved, leaving the shoulder and the top of the garment ambiguous. His left arm hangs loosely by his side, the hand rendered without fingers or thumb. At the right edge of the fragment is the red ocher profile, part of the shoulder and a raised arm and hand of a second man. His hand is opened in a gesture toward his face, thumb spread, fingers curved in one form serving as the profile for them all. Specs of white between the man and the container, presumably accidental splashing. A faint grayish black line continues down from the right strap parallel to the container and partially runs along the base, evidently a second outline. White is painted over yellow, red over yellow and over white, black over white. Black very faded.

81

15 (J1). N.20 West. Fig. 7.12 (Men by River); Pl. 2. Man with vessel on pole. H. 3.8 x w. 3.0 x th. 0.8(–1.0) cm. On yellow ground, man carrying a pot on a pole. Of the red ocher skin, only the neck survives. A speck of white at the upper edge of the fragment cannot be explained in terms of an eye, as there is no sign of chin or nose. However, very faint traces of a red arm, hanging loosely down the side of the white garment, are evidence that he faced left (cf. 11, 14, 29, 32, 33). He wears a white garment with curvaceous outline indicative of movement (cf. 32), and traces of black lines. It is unclear whether this is the wide garment with shoulder piece (as worn by 11) or the tunic (as worn by 18). Where the shoulder should be and extending behind the pole is white, suggesting a sleeve (cf. 18), but the loose line of the garment over the belly suggests the wide garment. In Figure 7.12 it has been reconstructed as such, and an arm has been suggested, though the red on the white garment is too fugitive to be certain of direction or shape. The pole is red, as is the outline of the vessel, which is not filled in, perhaps using the yellow ocher ground to suggest the color of pottery. White painted over yellow, red over both yellow and white. Straw impression on the back and a thin layer of micaceous material (impression from schist). 16 (M2). N.20 East. Fig. 7.11 (Procession of Men); Pls. 3, 70:d. Head of a man. H. 3.4 x w. 3.5 x th. 1.2–1.4 cm. Head of a man facing right, on yellow ground. He has a narrow hooked nose and slight curved indentation for the mouth and pointed chin. As preserved, he appears to have a distinct Adam’s apple. His eye is applied white. Two fugitive black streaks—one curved across the cheek, the other across the jaw line—with traces of black in between, indicate that he was bearded. The black has traces of blue. Red painted over yellow, white and black over red. Parallel striations on the back. 17 (H3). N.20 West. Fig. 7.12 (Men by River); Pl. 3. Man with container. H. 3.5 x w. 3.2 x th. 0.6 cm. Two pieces joined. Head and shoulder of a man carrying a container, facing right, on yellow ground. Profile with straight forehead and chin, relatively narrow nose, no indication of mouth, and slight suggestion of Adam’s apple on the neck. White eye set low on the face. A raised arm with hand shaped like a fist supported the container, but the corresponding area of the container has not survived. The container, which originally rested on his shoulder, is a mid yellow ocher with traces of bluish gray, including a defining line on the left reaching down to his shoulder, and white around the top and down the back. The man’s hair is bluish gray, standing for black.

82

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

White of garment was painted over the yellow ground, before the red skin (a red streak over the garment continues down from the neck). Surface is worn, but it appears that the blue-gray hair was painted after the ocher vessel. Small area of white at top right of the container and over the ocher top left. Darker mottling on the yellow ground at the top may be an indication of landscape. Specks of microorganisms on parts of the surface. 18 (C1). N.20 West. Fig. 7.15:a; Pls. 3, 70:e. Man with upraised arms. H. 5.0 x w. 2.9 (3.3) x th. 1.1 cm. Man with raised arms facing left, on yellow ground. The red ocher forearm is poorly preserved. He has a strikingly large nose, with bumpy profile, like that of the chin. No indication of a mouth. Eye has been thickly applied with white. Slim curved neck offset from the center of the body, with slight indication of Adam’s apple. Black hair surrounds an undefined ear, while the top has worn away, giving the impression of baldness, which was surely not the case. His white tunic-like garment has short sleeves and a narrow waist. A red preliminary sketch outlines the left side of his garment (viewer’s right). Black lines, now fugitive, define the final outlines of the garment throughout. At the end of the sleeve, the line extends beyond, whether unintentionally from speed of execution, or intentionally to indicate a ribbon-like cloth. His right shoulder is red outlined in black. Clearly the artist thought of this area as part of the sleeve, since red arms are never outlined. It seems that a broad red stroke served as a preliminary drawing defining flesh areas and the outline of garment, and here it was not covered by the white garment, though it was included in the final outline. It is evident from small flaked areas that the white garment was painted directly over the yellow ground. White painted over yellow, red over white, black last. Microorganisms on the surface. 19 (U2). N.18 East. Fig. 7.12 (Men by River); Pl. 3. Head of a man. H. 1.6 x w. 1.7 x th. 0.8 cm. Man’s head facing right. Profile of nose and forehead missing, but the pointed chin is preserved, as is the neck. Black hair ending in a bob at the nape of the neck. Behind the head is an oblique black line, suggesting the outline of something on the shoulder; traces of ocher suggest a container. Red ocher skin painted over yellow ground, black over red. The eye was rendered in thick white paint with a yellowish hue, now a murky grayish ocher. 20 (P5). N.20 East. Fig. 7.11 (Procession of Men); Pl. 3. Head of a man. H. 1.3 x w. 1.2 x th. 0.7 cm. Very fragmentary head of a man facing right. Red ocher skin with applied white eye. Traces of black hair, mostly flaked away. Ocher at the right edge of the fragment, perhaps landscape. Black and white both painted over the red.

21 (U3). N.18 East. Pl. 3. Head of a man. H. 1.7 x w. 2.4 x th. 0.5–0.7 cm. Man’s head facing left. Poorly preserved red skin and black (bluish gray) hair.

22 (H1). N.20 West. Fig. 7.14 (Men by Rocks); Pl. 3. Man by rocks or water. H. 3.0 x w. 3.0 (4.0) x th. 0.8 cm. Three pieces joined. Man with raised arm, facing left. Yellow ocher ground with a blue strip at the edge of the fragment indicating rock or water. His head has not survived. His left arm is bent at the elbow and raised, with thumb extended upward and fingers, mitten-like, outward. A faint red preliminary sketch defined the front of the garment, which is painted white over the yellow ground. However, the white sleeve was painted over the red ocher shoulder and upper arm. As the elbow is uncharacteristically flattened to avoid overlapping the blue, it appears that the painter worked in the following order: yellow ground, blue, preliminary red sketch of garment, skin of man (head, limbs), white garment (within the outline and over the shoulder). No visible black. 23 (O1). N.20 East. Fig. 7.13 (Men by Rocks or Sea); Pl. 3. Man with raised arm. H. 2.9 x w. 3.5 x th. 0.9 cm. Crack on the surface, but a single piece. Man with raised arm facing left, on yellow ground. His head has not survived except for traces of the chin projecting from the long slim neck. He wears a white short-sleeved tunic, with (now fugitive) black outlines. His right arm is extended and raised from the elbow and his hand held up with palm facing outward. Fingers are mitten-like with thumb extended. Traces of his left hand cross his chest, thumb uppermost, indicating that his left arm was bent across his body. White garment painted over yellow ground, red skin painted afterward (slightly overlapping the white), black lines last. 24 (E1). N.20 Southwest. Fig. 7.12 (Men by River). Pl. 3. Man with container. H. 3.5 x w. 2.6 x th. 0.9 cm. Man with container facing left, on yellow ground. Profile and hair are unclear owing to surface erosion. Eye thickly applied white. The red neck stops short of the white garment. Behind the man’s head is a mid ocher shape outlined on the right with a black line. Poorly preserved, this must have been a container balanced on the shoulders and held up by the man’s hand (cf. 17). He wears a slimfitting white tunic, outlined throughout in black and with a black vertical line down the middle. The black lines of the shoulder do not contain the white but are more curved in form (cf. the red shoulder of 18). In the study drawing, the shoulder lines stop short at the neck, but under magnification, specks of black suggest that the lines

HUMAN FIGURES: BODY AND SOCIETY

originally joined the central vertical, giving a V-neck to the garment. White garment and mid ocher vessel painted over the yellow ground, red over yellow and mid ocher, white eye over red, black last. Specks of mid ocher around the eye suggest that a reserve area was left for the eye when the red skin was painted. 25 (P22). N.20 East. Fig. 7.11 (Procession of Men); Pl. 3. Man. H. 2.00 x w. 3.1 x th. 0.6–0.9 cm. Two pieces joined. Man facing right, on yellow ground. Fragment with red shoulder and upper arm, white loose garment with trailing piece behind the shoulder (cf. 6). No trace of black lines. Red at the upper right edge indicative of the neck. White painted over yellow, red over white. 26 (R9). N.20 East. Fig. 7.11 (Procession of Men); Pl. 3. Man. H. 2.4 x w. 1.3 x th. 0.7–1.0 cm. Man facing right, wearing loose white garment. Red shoulder irregular in form, but the bulge in relation to the upper arm indicates direction, as do the two black diagonal lines on the garment (cf. 10). Red partially flaked, revealing white beneath. 27 (W27). N.18 Center. Fig. 7.12 (Men by River); Pl. 3. Man. H. 2.4 x w. 1.7 x th. 0.6 cm. Man facing right, wearing a white loose garment. Only a part is preserved, leaving the fragment ambiguous. In the reconstruction, the red at the top is interpreted as shoulder rather than chest, since all instances of arms fall in front or to the side of the body, not to the back. Given the angle, the arm is likely to have been raised at the elbow. The short curved black lines on the garment are comparable to those on 10. For these reasons, direction to the right is assumed. Order of painting: white, red, black on white. 28 (V11). N.18 East. Pl. 3. Man. H. 1.4 x w. 4.0 x th. 1.0 cm. Man facing left, on yellow ground. His arm hangs loosely across his side, hand mitten-like, without thumb. His loose white garment has outlines front and back. Behind his arm are traces of a trailing shoulder piece (cf. 11). A second red shape to the right might belong to another man, though it is uncharacteristically wide and there is no white garment. Alternatively, it may be landscape (rock). White over yellow, red over white (man) and over yellow (right-hand shape), black over white painted last. 29 (S5). N.20 East. Fig. 7.11 (Procession of Men); Pl. 3. Man. H. 3.6 x w. 3.4 x th. 0.8 cm. Man facing left, on yellow ground. Head and legs not preserved. He wears a wide garment in white with black outline enclosing the form on the left, but not on the right, where it parallels the line of the back of the garment. His left arm is bent, with forearm across his body, hand pointing down with

83

thumb extended. Red at the extreme left of the fragment should belong to his right wrist and hand, the arm being extended at a similar angle, beyond the body. White painted over yellow, red over white, black over white. Microorganisms on the surface. 30 (S4). N.20 East. Pl. 3. Man. H. 2.4 x w. 3.2 x th. 0.7 cm. Crack on the surface, but a single piece. Man with raised arm, facing to right on yellow ground. He wears a sleeved garment, less fitted than those of 18 and 24, with a sleeve that is wider than the arm. His left arm is bent at the elbow, forearm raised in front of him. Unusually, the forearm is thicker than the bicep. White and red both painted over yellow, white probably after red though the sequence is unclear. Specks of microorganisms on the surface confuse the issue of whether the garment was outlined. 31 (S3). N.20 East. Pl. 3. Man. H. 3.0 x w. 3.0 x th. 0.5 cm. Man facing left, on yellow ground. Just his hem and one leg survive. His garment falls low on his leg and is outlined with broad black strokes. White paint has dripped down beyond the garment. The black hemline does not encompass the white, while the side outline extends beyond the hem to the bottom of the garment. The study drawing of the leg suggests a knee, which gives an inaccurate impression of a slight bump in the profile of the leg at this point. Almost certainly this garment hung below the knee and the leg was, therefore, not as short as it appears in the drawing. The foot is curved with a high instep, and the angle of the ankle and heel suggests that the toe is touching the ground with the heel raised. The expanse of yellow ground behind indicates that this is the back leg, striding. White painted over yellow, red leg painted before the white, black over white. A few specks of microorganisms on the surface. 32 (P4). N.20 East. Fig. 7.12 (Men by River); Pl. 4. Man by water. H. 5.5 x w. 5.1 x th. 0.7 cm. Man walking to left on yellow ground, next to “river.” Poorly preserved. Long white garment, loose, with curves indicative of movement and an irregular lower edge (cf. 33). Applied white behind him suggests a trailing shoulder piece. His left arm hangs loosely by his side (red painted over white), the right must have been raised higher than the preserved edge of the fragment. The red of both arms and legs is fugitive. To the man’s left is an area of dark grayish blue with lighter gray-blue at the edge, interpreted as water. Traces of bluish gray around the garment and minute specks within the garment suggest either that the painter’s brush still had blue on it when the white was painted, or, less likely, that a thin wash of blue preceded the white. The blue of the “river” on the left was painted over the yellow ground and has black over it, or it was mixed with black to produce gray-blue.

84

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

33 (A1). N.20. Fig. 7.12 (Men by River); Pl. 4. Man by water. H. 4.0 x w. 4.8 x th. 0.9–1.1 cm. Man facing to the left on yellow ground, next to “river.” He wears a long, loose, white garment with an irregular lower edge (cf. 32). Only the lower part is preserved. Red ocher legs were painted after the white, the beginnings of the brush strokes overlapping the hem of the garment. On the right are traces of red, which may be his left arm, though there are no parallels in this painting for a loose arm at the back of, rather than across, the body. Some of these traces appear to be beneath the white, so they may have incorporated sketch lines. Around the legs are blobs of darker yellow ocher, indicative of landscape. On the left, a blue area, interpreted here as water, was painted over the same darker yellow ocher, which appears to have mapped out the landscape details. The blue is paler than that in 32. Like that fragment, minute traces of blue can be made out below and within the garment, suggesting application of blue and white using the same brush. 34 (M35). N.20 East. Pl. 4. Man. H. 3.6 x w. 4.7 x th. 0.7 cm. Extremely poorly preserved. Man facing left, on yellow ground, wearing a loose white garment. Traces of red ocher show that his right arm extended in front of him with forearm raised, his left hung loosely beside him with elbow bent and forearm extended across his body. Traces of blue-gray on the left suggest water (cf. 32, 33, 35, 36). Red over white. 35 (N4). N.20 East. Fig. 7.12 (Men by River); Pl. 4. Man’s leg near water. H. 5.0 x w. 5.2 x th. 0.6–1.0 cm. Three pieces joined. Man’s leg and foot walking to the right on yellow ground. It must be his back leg as the other lies beyond the fragment. Behind him, on the left, is a wavy area of blue (blue-gray) clearly outlined in black and with a projection, also outlined. This is an Aegean sign for water (see this vol., Ch. 6), the only example surviving from Kea. The black outline was painted last, thick on the left, where it does not entirely encompass the blue, finer around the projection. Blue painted over yellow, flaked, taking some of the yellow surface with it.

36 (P2). N.20 East. Fig. 7.12 (Men by River); Pl. 4. Man facing left with head turned to right. H. 5.5 x w. 5.1 x th. 0.7 cm. Upper part of a man in a landscape of ocher and blue on yellow ground. As preserved, this is an ambiguous piece. It appears to show the man facing left, with his head turned to look behind him. This is indicated by the position of the shoulder and arm (the left part of the red being longer, therefore indicative of the forearm) and by the trailing piece of white fabric behind the shoulder, familiar from several other figures wearing the long, loose white garment. His body is therefore reconstructed as facing left, with his head looking back over his shoulder. Hair is bluegray with traces of black over it, and the white eye is partially preserved. Yellow ocher ground is darker around the man, indicative of landscape. Blue-gray areas to the left, preserved as a narrower and a broader strip, are interpreted as a river. White garment painted over the yellow and dark ocher ground, indicating that the landscape was painted before the man. Red skin painted over the white garment (body) and the yellow ground (head). Black hair painted over yellow ground, white eye over red skin. Bluegray over yellow ground. 37 (Q10). N.20 East. Pl. 4. Men and water or rocks. H. 3.3 x w. 2.0 x th. 0.6 cm. On yellow ground, a man’s red ocher arm is outstretched with open hand facing upward, thumb extended. Below is a blue area, over which is painted red ocher, now fugitive but suggestive of a second man’s head and torso. A trace of black at the top of this shape may be his hair, however, this would make the head very small in relation to the other figures. Difficult to interpret, it seems that the piece shows two men walking past water (a river) or rockwork. Both bodies would have overlapped the blue. Comparable fragments are 38, 22, and 35, all of which show parts of male figures that would, when complete, partially overlap blue. 38 (D2). N.20 West. Fig. 7.14 (Men by Rocks); Pl. 4. Men by rocks or water. H. 4.2 x w. 4.2 x th. 0.5 cm. Three pieces joined. Red ocher legs and lower part of the white garment of a man walking to the right. His right leg is behind, heel raised as he steps with the ball of his foot onto the yellow ground. His

HUMAN FIGURES: BODY AND SOCIETY

left leg is in front, foot stepping onto an area of blue. Blue denotes both rock and water in this painting. Logically, one would expect that he is stepping onto rock; however, traces of red ocher to his right create ambiguity. Is this a second figure? If it were, he would be in (not on) the blue, which would then be water. Or is it part of multicolored rockwork? In all fragments of the multicolored rock, red only appears over yellow ocher as an internal veining of the rock or as descending rocks, spiked like stalactites (Pls. 22–25), not at the edge of the blue profile against the yellow ground. The ambiguity of the red on the right leads to major problems of reconstruction, so in Figure 7.14 it has been left undefined. Blue and white painted over the yellow. Red painted over the yellow ground and over the blue. A stroke of black below the hem of the garment (not in the drawing) is probably accidental. 39 (D1). N.20 West. Fig. 7.14 (Men by Rocks); Pl. 4. Man’s foot and rocks. H. 3.2 x w. 3.9 x th. 0.6 cm. Man’s red foot on yellow ground, next to blue rock or water. The blue is two-toned, darker from the addition of black where it meets the yellow ground. For this reason, it is taken to be rock rather than water. Blue over yellow. 40 (X1). N.18 Central. Fig. 7.13 (Men by Rocks or Sea); Pl. 4. Man. H. 6.4 x w. 7.6 x th. 0.8 cm. Four pieces joined.

Surface is worn and scratched. Man walking to right on yellow ground, blue and white water or rocks below. He wears a knee-length garment with wavy hemline expressive of movement. His weight would have been on his left foot (eroded), the right heel being raised behind in mid motion. At the top of the fragment, a red elbow indicates that his left arm was bent and raised. Near the top join, at the left edge of the fragment, red is revealed beneath the flaked white of the garment. In the reconstruction (Fig. 7.13) this is the position of his right hand. However, arms are consistently painted over the white. The position of the hand is, therefore, uncertain, and the red beneath the white remains unexplained, though it may have been a

85

guide line. His red ocher legs are fugitive. The terrain below is applied white over the yellow ground and blue (light blue-gray) painted over white on the left, partially flaked. There are no clear remains of blue on the right, only specks. Some microorganisms on the surface. 41 (D3). N.29 West. Fig. 7.13 (Men by Rocks or Sea); Pl. 4. Man. H. 4.0 x w. 4.5 x th. 0.9 cm. Two fragments joined. Leg of a man walking to left on yellow ground with blue and white water or rock. Traces of red ocher at the right edge of the fragment belong to the back leg of the man, his weight being on the front foot. Red, blue, and white, all painted over yellow ground. The blue in all these “foot and blue” fragments has no visible sign of Egyptian blue frit and is a duller, grayer blue. Some blue is mixed with some (not all) of the white. White painted last. 42 (U1). N.18 East. Pl. 5. Man’s limb. H. 3.5 x w. 3.8 x th. 1.0 cm. Three pieces joined. Red ocher limb of a man on yellow ground. Ambiguous, this could be either an arm or a leg, but either way it is uncharacteristic. If an arm, the wide angled area (top/left) would be the shoulder, but while the “elbow” is well defined, the section of red below this widens, unlike a forearm. As a leg with knee, the wide angled area would make little sense (unless it were a red garment). Red on yellow, somewhat carelessly applied. Faint ocher streak parallel to the limb. Speck of white below the streak and a small area of ocher at the top edge of the fragment. 43 (N5). N.20 East. Pl. 5. Man’s limb. H. 5.8 x w. 3.9 x th. 0.7–1.0 cm. Three pieces joined. Very poorly preserved.

Red ocher limb on yellow ground—bent leg or arm. Where the red has flaked, part of the yellow ground has gone with it. Traces of ocher landscape on the yellow ground (not included in the drawing).

86

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

44 (F1). N.20 West. Fig. 7.16 (Hunter with Prey); Pl. 5. Man with poles and animal. H. 7.5 x w. 7.0 x th. 1.0 cm. Three pieces joined. Man facing left, on yellow ground. He wears a white, short-sleeved garment and black spiky

headgear. Traces of a white eye are visible, set low in the face, blue-gray hair at the nape of the neck. The long upright spikes on the crown of his head resemble the plumes of a helmet but may be another form of adornment, given that his hair is visible. Both arms are bent at the elbow and raised. In each hand he carries a pole, painted red ocher like his skin, held diagonally in his left, horizontally in his right. Dangling from the horizontal pole is the dark yellow ocher neck of an animal, probably a deer. At the upper edge of the fragment is a black form. It is partially flaked and gives the impression of a black horse’s hoof, but as such it would be on a smaller scale than clearly identifiable hooves (as in 219); nor is there a parallel for a raised hoof. More likely, it was part of the landscape. Owing to the uncertainty, this feature is not reconstructed. Beneath this are traces of blue-gray suggesting an element of landscape such as rock. White over yellow, red over white, black last. Two layers of plaster, the top one being 0.5–0.7 cm thick. 45 (Q15). N.20 East. Fig. 7.11 (Procession of Men); Pl. 5. Man’s feet. H. 3.8 x w. 1.9 x th. 0.7 cm. Two feet facing right on yellow ground. Both feet are flat on the ground and are close to one another, indicating a standing posture. Darker yellow ocher beneath the feet provides an indication of landscape. Speck of yellow ocher above the left foot. 46 (O3). N.20 East. Pl. 5. Man’s leg. H. 3.8 x w. 4.4 x th. 0.8 cm. Man’s leg walking to left on yellow ground. His back leg would have been beyond the preserved edge of the fragment, indicating a wide stride. His foot steps onto a darker area of yellow ocher, a color shift indicative of landscape, on which traces of white paint are just visible.

47 (R3). N.20 East. Figs. 7.15:b (Man wearing kilt/ shorts); 7.18:a (Sea and Rocks and Men); Pl. 5. Two men. H. 6.0 x w. 8.0 x th. 1.0–2.3 cm. Two pieces joined, restoration center left. Two men walking to the left on yellow

ground. At the top are the feet and ankles of one man, weight on the front foot, the back one having a raised heel and toes uncharacteristically splayed in a perspective view of a three-quarter angle. On the right are one leg and the lower part of the garment of the other man. His back leg must have been extended far back, as there is no sign of it at the edge of the fragment. Well-preserved black parallel lines border the garment at the side, center, and hem, not always encompassing the white, which trickles down the side of the man’s red ocher leg. The garment is divided down the center, like a long kilt or shorts. The yellow ocher ground is slightly darker in places. At the lower edge of the fragment is a red line with faint streaky red lines on either side—an indication of landscape. Red leg probably painted after the white, black last. Thick plaster with small pieces of gray metallic stone (schist) visible at the back. 48 (G1). N.20 Northwest. Fig. 7.12 (Men by River); Pl. 5. Man’s legs. H. 3.3 x w. 3.4 x th. 0.6 cm. Three pieces joined. On yellow ground, two red ocher male legs. The left leg has preserved foot and a white garment at knee length, just visible at the edge of the fragment. The stride between the two legs is appropriate for a single walking figure, as is the relative angle, making the one on the left the back leg, with slightly raised heel. Some ocher deposit over the surface, including the red. 49 (R18). N.20 East. Pl. 5. Man’s leg and foot. H. 2.7 x w. 3.2 x th. 0.7 cm. Man’s red ocher leg and foot facing left, painted over yellow ground.

50 (V12). N.18 East. Pl. 5. Man’s feet. H. 2.0 x w. 3.7 x th. 0.7 cm. Man’s feet facing right, on yellow ground. The feet are close together. Beneath, at the edge of the fragment, are red ocher (man, pole [cf. 44], or landscape?), a black tripartite form (plume?), and traces of gray suggestive of landscape.

HUMAN FIGURES: BODY AND SOCIETY

51 (S26). N.20 East. Pl. 5. Man’s foot. H. 1.3 x w. 2.3 x th. 0.6 cm. Man’s foot facing left, with foot flat on the yellow ground. Immediately above are three tiny curved lines, two black, one red. 52 (U33). N.18 East. Pl. 5. Man’s foot. H. 4.2 x w. 3.9 x th. 0.7–0.9 cm. Man’s foot facing right, on yellow ground. Faint streaks of red and black on the yellow ground.

53 (U4). N.18 East. Pl. 5. Man’s foot. H. 3.2 x w. 3.3 x th. 1.0 cm. Man’s lower leg and foot walking to right. The foot is larger than most and curved as though it had a high instep.

54 (U5). N.18 East. Pl. 5. Two men. H. 6.3 x w. 8.3 x th. 0.9–1.2 cm. Two fragments joined. Surface is worn on the

right joined fragment. Two legs walking to left on yellow ground. They both appear to be stepping forward, with no sign of a back leg, so presumably they belong to two different men. They are on a larger scale than all the other figures in this painting. The legs have well-defined calves and (especially on the left) knees. The foot may not have been as long as the study drawing suggests. Where it curves in at the toes, the red extending to the edge of the fragment becomes straighter and may have been something that the man was stepping onto. On the right is an open hand, curiously backward, with thumb extended behind. On the left, a short blue garment is preserved. It ends at the upper thigh with a wide curved hem, marked by a blue line beyond the garment, painted over the yellow ground and the red leg. (There are no black outlines, despite the illusion of this in the study drawing.) Traces of darker yellow ocher landscape with black dashes (a bush?) at lower right. The large scale and the blue garment are unique among the male figures. Blue garment painted over red leg. Specks of microorganisms on the surface.

87

55 (H2). N.20 West. Pl. 6. Man. H. 3.2 x w. 4 x th. 0.8 cm. Poorly preserved, making the form uncertain. Man facing toward the left, on yellow ground. Profile of face not preserved, but a speck of white indicates the position of the eye and blue-gray marks the hair. Red ocher indicates a naked torso with left shoulder and arm forward. At the lower edge are traces of a small area of white with red ocher to the left, indicating that the man wore a garment around the loins and was kneeling. The position matches that of the paddlers in 63, but the ground here is yellow (land) rather than blue (sea). Blue-gray hair painted on yellow ground. 56 (W26). N.18 Center. Pl. 6. Man carrying a pole. H. 4.8 x w. 4.1 x th. 0.6–0.7 cm. Poorly preserved. Man walking toward the left, carrying a pole or log of wood across his shoulders, on yellow ground. Specks of blue-gray hair survive above the head, while two specks on the face give an eerie, inaccurate impression of black eyes. The actual eye has not survived. His torso leans forward, shoulders in frontal view, and his arms (fugitive) are bent at the elbow, one in front of him and one behind, forearms raised to support the pole across his shoulders. His right (far) leg strides forward (only the thigh survives), and his loins are covered by a white garment, too flaked to preserve the exact form. Across his shoulders he carries a long object painted in dark yellow ocher over the red of his skin. Presumably representing wood, this suggests a pole or log of wood. It is thicker and of a different color from the pole carried by the hunter (44). Top right of the fragment is a patch of applied white (animal?), and lower right is dark yellow ocher (landscape). White over red, ocher over red. 57 (T2). N.20 East. Fig. 7.8 (Cauldrons and Ships), cf. 7.26; Pl. 6. Two men. H. 2.9 x w. 2.3 x th. 0.6 cm. Two men walking to the left, on yellow ground. On the left, the left leg and arm of a man wearing a short garment. On the right, at the edge of the fragment, the front leg of a second man. The exact shape of the garment is unclear, as the white paint has flaked off slightly in the middle. It appears to have been a loin cloth, with a flap at front and back (cf. 59 and 67, man standing on the right). The man’s knee is bent, in a walk, and the calf is well defined. His arm hangs by his side, the hand curiously bumpy, as though an attempt has been made to show the knuckles. Red painted

88

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

over yellow ground, white garment over the red skin. Traces of bluish gray on yellow next to the shin, probably extraneous (since it does not continue) but evidence that blue paint was being used in the vicinity. 58 (W29). N.18 Center. Pl. 6. Man? H. 3.3 x w. 1.3 x th. 0.7 cm. Red ocher form on yellow ground. The red has flaked in parts, revealing white, and there are small patches of applied white. The form eludes interpretation but is presumably a man. Perhaps it belongs with 59, which shows several men in loincloths bunched together. 59 (W25). N.18 Center. Figs. 7.8 (Cauldrons and Ships), 7.8 detail, cf. 7.26; Pl. 6. Men by water. H. 5.5 x w. 7.2 x th. 0.6–0.7 cm. Nine pieces joined. Several men walking

toward the right on yellow ground with white, next to blue “water.” Only the feet and legs and one loincloth are preserved. The figures are bunched together, and the surface is much eroded, making reconstruction problematic, but the overlapping legs, some with foot flat on the ground and others with raised heel, indicate that they are walking together in a group. Onto the yellow ground was painted an area of white. The red ocher figures are painted partially over the white and partially (their feet) over the yellow. The one preserved loincloth has been painted over the red. This has a clinched-in waist with rolled belt and is cut high on the thigh, covering front and back of the loins. Beneath the figures is an area of blue painted over the yellow ground. It has flaked, leaving the outline unclear. As preserved it looks bumpy, like rocks, but specks of blue suggest that it was originally straight. Most likely these figures are related to the Cauldron Scene (Fig. 7.8), and the blue is the sea where it meets the land. 60 (A2). N.20. Fig. 7.8 (Cauldrons and Ships), cf. 7.26; Pl. 6. Man and sea. H. 3.7 x w. 3.2 x th. 0.1 cm. Man’s leg walking to right on yellow ground. A trace of red at the upper left edge of the fragment reveals his second leg, outstretched behind in a stride. Very faint ocher tone to the ground beneath the red. Beneath the man is a strip of blue with a vertical strut of dark yellow ocher and a horizontal area of white painted over the blue, reconstructed as sea with a pole for the awning of a ship in

Figure 7.8. Blue appears to be over yellow ground, at least at the juncture of the two. White and ocher painted over blue. 61 (O2). N.20 East. Figs. 7.8 (Cauldrons and Ships), cf. 7.26; Pl. 6. Men by water. H. 2.2 x w. 2.4 x th. 0.6 cm. Legs of two men, overlapping. The leg on the right is striding back, with foot facing to right. The angle of the leg on the left indicates that it, too, was straight, so it should also be a back leg. The two men are reconstructed in Figure 7.8 walking along the seashore with feet overlapping, one moving toward the cauldrons, the other away. Blue beneath them represents the edge of the sea. Red and blue both painted over the yellow. 62 (N14). N.20 East. Pl. 6. Two (?) men (paddling?). H. 3.0 x w. 3.2 x th. 0.6 cm. Poorly preserved, hence ambiguous. Blue ground (sea) with red ocher, much flaked, suggesting a paddler facing left with arm outstretched, wearing a white loincloth (cf. 63). Just visible at the left edge of the fragment is red, most likely belonging to a second man in front. Beneath them is dark yellow ocher painted over white, with partial black outline—perhaps the gunwale of their boat. White over red, ocher over white. 63 (M1). N.20 East. Fig. 7.9 (Paddlers); Pls. 6, 70:g, h; 71:c. Three men paddling. H. 4.8 x w. 7.0 x th. 0.7 cm.

Surface is worn in parts. Three men facing left, on blue ground representing the sea. The two on the right are more fully preserved. They are kneeling, each with an object painted yellow ocher, presumably a wooden paddle, vertically placed between body and arm and presumably meant to be read as held in the far hand. Each man has a different, distinctive profile, a large round white dot for the eye (left partially flaked, others well preserved), and short black hair. Their torsos are naked and they bend slightly forward with left (near) arm outstretched. Their legs are tucked under their buttocks in a flat kneeling position, and they wear a short white loincloth (flaked, so presumably less revealing than it now appears). The men are presumed to be paddling in the sea. The blue is grayish, without visible frit. Red painted over the blue, white over the red. Black hair painted directly over the blue, slightly overlapping the red skin. Applied white upper left is likely to be dots of spume on the sea (cf. this vol., Ch. 6).

HUMAN FIGURES: BODY AND SOCIETY

64 (R2). N.20 East. Pl. 6. Two (?) men on blue “sea.” H. 5.4 x w. 3.2 x th. 1.3–1.5 cm. Two pieces joined. A man facing right, against blue, with perhaps a second man and a sail (?). On the left is the well-preserved head of a man, somewhat larger than most, with clear profile, black hair, and a white eye placed extremely low on the face. To the right of his face is a black area, with no sign of red, that has so far eluded interpretation. To the right of this is a white area with black outline, two curved black horizontal lines, and two short red vertical lines (a sail?). Beneath these forms is the white of one or, more likely, two garments, with traces of red limbs suggesting arms bent at the elbow and raised. Blue and white both appear to be painted directly onto the plaster. Face and black area painted half over blue, half over the white plaster. Black hair painted over blue and red. Specks of microorganisms on the surface. 65 (U140). N.18 East. Pl. 6. Man and sail (?). H. 2.9 x w. 3.6 x th. 1.3 cm. Man facing left, on blue with white. Just his head and shoulder are preserved, but it is clear from the curve of his upper back that he is leaning forward. His profile has not survived, but the applied white eye is set low on his face. Black hair, painted mostly over the blue, has a wavy outline with a projecting piece at the crown. A white diagonal area (no outline) is above him, and a white vertical area with black outline behind him, the latter with traces of dark yellow ocher and a black diagonal line. Most likely the man is a sailor and the white represents sails. All colors painted over the blue, which has no visible signs of frit. 66 (R10). N.20 East. Fig. 7.12 (Men by River); Pl. 6. Man against blue (water). H. 3.0 x w. 3.1 x th. 1.5 cm. Man facing left on blue, interpreted in Figure 7.12 as a river (but could also be rock). Only his shoulder, upper left arm, and part of his garment survive. His arm reaches forward. The garment covers the torso, but not the arm, and has curved vertical black lines. The blue is light blue-gray and has flaked. Blue painted over light yellow, white painted over blue, red after white, black last. 67 (R1 + R22). N.20 East. Figs. 7.8 (Cauldrons and Ships), cf. 7.26; Pls. 7, 71:d. Three men with cauldrons, building, sea with ship. H. 18.2 x w. 15.4 x th. 0.9–1.2 cm (1.6 at extreme thickness). Thirteen pieces joined. The surface is worn, but the joining of so many pieces has produced a large, informative fragment. Two men facing toward one another are bent over large cauldrons, on yellow ground, beneath (i.e., in front of) a large building and above (i.e., behind) the blue sea with part of the awning of

89

a ship. A third man appears to be seated facing right, away from the others, on the extreme right of the fragment, but this area is very poorly preserved, and a seated posture is rare in Aegean iconography (see this vol., p. 50). Much of the red ocher has worn away, especially the heads, upper parts of the bodies, and the legs of the men on the right. The well-preserved legs of the man on the left have flexed knees and a raised back heel, which gives movement

90

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

to the figure. His torso is bent over a cauldron, which he touches with his (fugitive) hands. A patch of black hair and a white fleck of eye survive, but not his profile. However, a speck of red below the string line shows the position of the nose and indicates that the man looks directly in front. The hands of the man facing him, bending over the other cauldron, are putting something into the cauldron or pulling something out. His legs and arms are also flexed, heel raised, body bent over the cauldron. On the far right, only the white of what appears to be a garment and the red of fugitive “legs” survive, along with a tiny speck of red and black at the edge of the fragment above, interpreted in Figure 7.8 as a head. Below the white (probable) garment is a dark yellow ocher block (wood), most likely a stool (though without legs) on which the (supposed) man appears to sit. The white of the loincovering garments of the men was thickly applied and has survived well. Each is slightly different: dipping at the front (left), high on the thigh at the sides (center man), straight across (right). Like the men, the two large tripod cauldrons are painted in red ocher, here representing either terracotta or more likely bronze. At the base of each are black markings, indicating burn marks from the heat of flames during cooking, though no actual fire is depicted. The large building above is badly worn, but the surviving part appears not to have had features such as doors, windows, or beams. The ocher of the building is brown, rather than red, distinguishing it from the skin of the men. It was painted directly over the plaster slip, which

was left unpainted for the white vertical section on the right. Two string lines, applied to the plaster while wet, mark the vertical edges of the white section. To the right of the building, above the men, there are traces of blue and pink on the poorly preserved surface. It may be that these were rocks, reconstructed as such in Figure 7.26. In the blue sea below is an area of white with a curved black line and a vertical yellow ocher (wooden) support, interpreted as an awning. (The ocher structure is short and has no eyes for lines, as it would were it a mast.) White is here applied over the blue, ocher over the white and blue. Where the red ocher legs of the men on the right have worn away, there are slight depressions in the surface of the plaster, taking with it some of the depth of color of the yellow ground, though not all. This suggests that the plaster was still slightly damp when the legs were applied, rare evidence for partial al fresco technique (this vol., Ch. 9). A depression is also visible where the blue sea meets the yellow ground, revealing horizontal striations presumably from brush strokes. Elsewhere, both red and the yellow ground paint have flaked, as happens when applied al secco. Blue painted over yellow ground at the juncture between sea and land, then probably over plaster. White plaster between the string lines is smooth, whereas where the brown of the building and the blue of the sea have flaked the surface is rough. There seem to be two layers of plaster, apparent at the thickest diameter (1.6 cm), where the upper layer is ca. 0.6 cm. Specks of microorganisms on the surface.

3

Vehicles: Ships and Chariot

Within the frieze, two modes of transport were depicted: ships on the sea and at least one chariot on land. The ships evoke obvious comparisons with the Thera Miniature Frieze, while the chariot is the first known instance in a wall painting and among the earliest in any media in the Aegean. The inclusion of both within a single painting is remarkable. That they were positioned close to one another is evident from the fact that they share the same context, from the east side of N.20 at contiguous depths (Table 1.1: context codes P–R). The fragmentary state of both types of vehicle means that many of the details of construction are lost, and reconstruction is tentative. Yet their presence is of vital significance for the meaning of the scenes.

Ships At least three large ships existed, but the fragments are so few that little can be said about their

structure and nothing survives of their propulsion. What is evident is that the ships had a central awning and stern cabin and that the hulls were painted with motifs (Figs. 3.1, 7.8, 7.26; Pls. 8, 9). We can, therefore, safely assume that, rather than being employed for the carrying of cargo or warriors, their use was ceremonial. In Aegean painting of this period (LM IA/LC I), other than the Kea fragments, the only other ship depictions that have survived are those from Thera; none are preserved from Crete. The Theran examples (Figs. 3.2, 11.1), although partially reconstructed, are spectacularly well preserved, and they have been the subject of extensive discussion.1 Recent discoveries have revealed that the theme of ships was included in the repertoire of Mycenaean painting. From 1 For discussion and further references, see Morgan 1988, 121–142; Televantou 1994a, 100–112, 274–288; Wedde 2000, 52–53, 125–130, 320–323 (cat. nos. 612–635); Wachsmann (1998) 2009, 86–99, 105–108.

92

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

a

b Figure 3.1. Schematic reconstruction drawing of one of the Kea ships: (a) without oars or paddles; (b) with oars (but without oarsmen). The ship here is longer than in Figures 7.8 and 7.26, as the central awning has been extended to accommodate oars, and the fragment with two dolphins (72) has been moved to the right. Scale ca. 1:4. Drawings L. Morgan.

Figure 3.2. Flagship, detail from the south wall of the Miniature Frieze, Room 5, West House, Akrotiri, Thera. Scale ca. 1:4. Doumas 1992, pl. 36, detail.

Messenia, fragments of a flotilla of ships from Hall 64 at Pylos (LH IIIB) have now been reconstructed,2 while a fragment of a ship with rowers in small scale 2 Brecoulaki et al. 2015, reconstructions by Rosemary Robertson and Emily Egan. I am most grateful to the authors for communicating with me about these remarkable ships prior to publication. The fragments have the same checkerboard pattern bordering the frieze as the battle scene and chariot scene from the same room (Lang 1969, pls. M: 22 H 64, N:25 H 64, 123:26 H 64), as well as some fragments of hunters from the northwest slope dump (pl. N:31 H nws) and one of the ship fragments from the northeast dump (pl. 113:19 M ne), which presumably belonged to an earlier version of such scenes. The earlier ship from the dump is on a blue sea, whereas the later ships are on purple (Brecoulaki et al. 2015, figs. 4, 6, 8, 16, 17 [Hall 64], 14 [dump]; cf. fig. 9).

dated to LH II–IIIA:1 was found at nearby Iklaina.3 During conservation, a fragment of a boat with rowers was also recognized among the material from Orchomenos.4 Outside of wall paintings, naturalistic 3 Cosmopoulos 2010, 34, pl. 21b; 2015, 251–254, fig. 2. 4 As yet unpublished. Cited by Aravantinos and Fappas 2015, 324. It is on the same small scale as the Orchomenos hunting scene, and it was probably associated with this and the buildings (Aravantinos and Fappas 2015, nn. 28, 29, with references; Spyropoulos 2015). Cf. Tournavitou 2017, 98, “yet another flotilla-type scene”.

VEHICLES: SHIPS AND CHARIOT

representations of ships are relatively rare. A few models partially survive, including three fragmentary ones from Kea, two in bronze, dated to the beginning of the Late Bronze Age (Period VI or VII), and one in terracotta, dated to LH IIIA–B (Period VIII).5 The bronze boats were found in the Temple, a context that brings to mind the ritual scene in which a model boat is carried by one of the male figures on the later Hagia Triada sarcophagus. These offerings or stored boats in the Ayia Irini Temple are most likely contemporary with the Northeast Bastion paintings.6 One can imagine them being carried in ceremonial procession before being deposited inside the cult building. The models no doubt reflect a long association of boats and ships with cult in Cycladic island societies, as reflected in ships associated with spirals and schematic female pudenda on Early Cycladic ceramic “frying pans” (whatever they really were),7 and even earlier associated with animals in rock engravings.8 On Cretan sealstones, depictions of ships or boats date back to Middle Minoan prism seals.9 Stylized ships appear in the apparently amuletic repertoire of talismanic seals, and the vessels on LM I rings are usually interpreted as having cult significance. Indeed, Shelley Wachsmann has argued for “the clear cultic significance of virtually all known iconographic representations of Minoan ships.”10

Emblems, Cabins, Status, and Role In the Kea painting, one of the hulls was painted with a festoon pattern of two parallel black zigzag 5 Caskey 1962, 273, pl. 99:f (terracotta); 1964, 327–328, pl. 56:c (bronze); Johnstone 1985, bronze: 26–27 (BA 17), 30–31 (BA 23), terracotta: 27–28 (BA 18); Wedde 2000, 309, nos. 309, 310; Wachsmann (1998) 2009, 102–105, figs. 6.33–6.35. Johnstone comments that the two bronze boat models, both only partially preserved, may have been associated. 6 Caskey (1964) comments that the bronze boat was found below the water table in Corridor VII, at a lower level than part of a bronze male figurine “saluting in Minoan fashion” (p. 328) like the well-known Tylissos figurine. The figurine was evidently a LM I import from Crete. 7 Coleman 1985. On the social significance of these Early Cycladic boats, see Broodbank 1989. 8 Doumas 1965 (Naxos, third millennium); Televantou 2008; 2018 (Andros, fourth millennium; but cf. n. 54 below). 9 Betts 1973. On the dating of all but one of these to MM II (rather than earlier, as previously thought) see Broodbank 2010, 255. For extensive discussions on representations of ships in the Aegean Bronze Age, see Wachsmann (1998) 2009, 69–161; see also Wedde 2000. 10 Wachsmann (1988) 2009, 105.

93

lines, the lower ending in three projections at the downward edge, with a row of red dots running between. Three fragments of this pattern are preserved (68–70), painted on white for the hull, with blue sea below. A single fragment has delicately painted dolphins, in blue and yellow, on white ground (72). These two—festoon and dolphins—are reconstructed as part of the hulls of two ships (Figs. 7.8, 7.26). Three other fragments are likely to have belonged to another or two other hulls. One of the fragments has a double row of ocher dots, also painted on white (75, incorporated into the right ship in Fig. 7.26); one has a star pattern in a colored surround (76), which may be related to the third fragment, also multicolored (77). The zigzag pattern with red dots reconstructed on the right-hand ship (Fig. 7.8) is a feature echoed on other ancient ships. The dots call to mind the festoon hanging from mast to prow and stern on the “Flagship” of the Thera Ship Frieze (Fig. 3.2). There, the tripartite appendage, which hangs from the dots, resembles a crocus. This festoon, painted yellow, is echoed in LM IB pottery motifs associated with the sea.11 Another of the Theran hulls (Ship 1, on the left of the frieze; Fig. 11.1:c) has a small pattern of similar appendages, without the dots but with lines that approximate a slight zigzag. Strikingly, a distinctive zigzag, though painted in vertical rows rather than horizontally, adorns the hull of one of the ships from Pylos.12 A gold ring from near Herakleion dated to LM I has a zigzag design running horizontally along the hull, as well as dolphins in the sea below.13 This depiction is distinctive, since usually the small surfaces of rings or sealstones preclude details of hull decoration. Other, talismanic seals have horizontally arranged zigzag lines beneath the boat,14 like the Egyptian hieroglyphic sign for water, which translates into large-scale art as a fill sign in depictions of river, pool, or sea.15 In hieroglyphs the zigzag lines are arranged horizontally, but in Egyptian art they are usually vertical, as on the hull of the Pylos ship. This association of zigzags marking the hull goes back to EC times, appearing in some depictions of boats on the ceramic so-called frying pans, and in 11 Morgan 1984, 166–167, 171. 12 Brecoulaki et al. 2015, 283, figs. 6:a, b, 8, 16, 18, 19. 13 CMS VI, no. 80; Morgan 1988, 136, fig. 89. 14 E.g., Wachsmann (1998) 2009, figs. 6.21:a, 6.25:e–g, j, k. 15 Gardiner 1979, 490, sign-list N35–36, “river, lake, sea;” Wilkinson 1992, 136–137, N39, “pool.”

94

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

Figure 3.3 the zigzag is also repeated above the hull.16 It is conceivable that a row of tiny triangles above the hull corresponds to the festoon dots.17 Interestingly, a zigzag runs along the central line of the interior of the terracotta boat fragment from Kea (n. 5). Zigzag lines evoke movement through water. The earliest Egyptian depictions of seagoing ships, on the reliefs from Sahure’s mortuary temple at Abusir (Fifth Dynasty), also have a zigzag design running horizontally along the hull between two lines.18 Here it represents a rope hogging-truss used to support the structure of the wooden hull, but in echoing the water sign the zigzags evoke movement.19 On the Thera ships, spirals and blue wave patterns on the hulls similarly evoke the idea of movement, as, on the sailed cargo boat, do the birds. Dolphins, also evocative of movement in the sea, are a major part of the Thera Ship Frieze, leaping up and down in the sea surrounding the ships. The Flagship (Fig. 3.2) also has dolphins painted on the hull, alongside lions in flying gallop. Dolphins, curiously facing the opposite direction, also appear to have adorned the hull of the fragmentary ship at lower left in the procession.20 Otherwise, all hull emblems (dolphins, lions, birds), with the exception of the lion toward the stern of the Flagship, face the direction in which the ships are traveling, left to right. The emblems also indicate the direction of the Kea ships, as the dolphins similarly point toward the right. The Kea and Thera hull dolphins are remarkably similar, both having blue upper bodies and yellow underbellies, representing contrasting coloration of the common dolphin, which is grayish black on top, white underneath. In the Kea painting, the detail is more pronounced, with black rostrum (beak), head carefully rounded, and the pectoral fin (flipper) uncharacteristically blunt on the left dolphin, more accurately rounded on the right. Neither the dorsal fin nor the fluke (tail) have survived. One leaps down, 16 Coleman 1985, 199, 209, cat. no. 27, ill. 5:27 (two illustrations, one being Fig. 3.3 here). 17 Coleman, calling this pattern “Kerbschnitt” suggests that they may represent oars (1985, 209). However, this seems unlikely, given their diminutive size, shape, and the fact that they only occur above the boat, not below. 18 Wachsmann (1998) 2009, 12–14, fig. 2.3. 19 Zigzag lines evocative of movement are also drawn on the strips of cloth that make up the sails of ships in two Sixth Dynasty tombs at Saleh, Thebes (Stevens 2012, 12, fig. 4; 108, fig. 58; 187–188, cat. nos. TI H [a], T2 H [c]). 20 Doumas 1992, pl. 36; drawing: Marinatos 2000, 909, fig. 3.

Figure 3.3. Early Cycladic depiction of a boat on a ceramic pan. Not to scale. After Coleman 1985, 199, ill. 5, no. 27.

the other leaps up, just as dolphins do in the sea, in life as in the art of the Thera frieze (Fig. 11.1:c). Dolphins are a notable feature of MC III–LC I ceramic art at Akrotiri, appearing, mostly with marine vegetation, on polychrome jugs, ewers, pithoi, a kymbe, and tripod tables, one of which was found in Room 4 of the West House.21 They also appear on pottery from Phylakopi, though with considerably less frequency.22 On Crete, with a few notable exceptions, such as the two MM III pots from Pacheia Ammos and the relief stand from Phaistos, the naturalistic image of the dolphin is less common until the Marine Style of LM IB.23 Jacques Vanschoonwinkel comments, “As the Black-and-Red and polychrome techniques are generally Cycladic, it is not unreasonable to see here a characteristic Cycladic motif.”24 Dolphins (and fish) appear on Minoan seals from the MBA to LBA, occasionally in association with a ship.25 They also occur in some mainland art of the beginning of the LBA, as in inlaid daggers from Prosymna and Pharai, a gold cup from Mycenae Shaft Grave III, an ostrich egg from Shaft Grave V, and in association with a ship with stern cabin approaching the coast on a stone fragment from Epidauros.26 Dolphins also appear in the sea alongside the ships in the wall painting fragments from Hall 64 at Pylos, Iklaina, and 21 Vanschoonwinkel 1990, 334 (cat. 32–35, 38–43), 341–343 (in which Aegean parallels are cited); Papagiannopoulou 2008, 444, fig. 40.23. See also Morgan 1988, 60–63, on dolphins. 22 Bosanquet 1904, fig. 93, pl. XVI.21; R. Barber 2007, 197–198, no. 67. 23 Vanschoonwinkel 1990, 342, with references. Earlier Middle Minoan examples are schematic and more fish than dolphin. 24 Vanschoonwinkel 1990, 343. 25 CMS II.1, no. 287b; CMS V Suppl. 1A, no. 330a. 26 Morgan 1988, 62, fig. 45 (cup), pl. 193 (stone fragment); Vanschoonwinkel 1990, 343.

VEHICLES: SHIPS AND CHARIOT

Orchomenos.27 But in terms of painting on pots or walls, it was at Thera in particular that artists focused on the dolphin within its marine environment. In the later paintings from Knossos, Hagia Triada, and the mainland the dolphin appears on floors.28 On walls, they appeared at Glas (LH IIIB), in large scale,29 and, notably, in the Period VII small-scale painting from House J at Ayia Irini.30 There, in the second stage of Kean painting, equivalent to LM IB, the background is plain white and the dolphins float in a void. In contrast, on Theran pottery and miniature painting they swim and leap in the sea, and at both Thera and Kea they appear as motifs on the hulls of the ships. Significantly, a terracotta model of a dolphin was found in the Temple of Ayia Irini in association with the statues; the date is unclear, but it appears to have come from the earlier strata of the Temple.31 This contextual association between dolphin and cult is noteworthy and brings to mind the association of a dolphin with a sarcedotal figure on a sealstone from Knossos dated to LM I.32 The Temple with its statues is, however, a local phenomenon, and the dolphin within a cult building facing the sea is clearly at home. Dolphins on the hull idiomatically define travel by sea. That they are on a ship, rather than in the sea, signifies their emblematic function.33 If the emblem were to inform us as to whose fleet this was, there is little in the surviving evidence to support an exclusively Cretan source and much to recommend the Cyclades, particularly Thera. That said, we should beware of reading the dolphin as a specific emblem tied to a locale. Dolphins, even more than the zigzag, are natural symbols of movement through the sea for island people living in waters in which dolphins can be seen leaping up and down in the vicinity of ships. 27 Nn. 2–4; Boulotis 2015, 393 (also citing the unpublished Orchomenos fragment). 28 Hirsch 1977, pls. 1:2 (Hagia Triada), 9 (Pylos), 12:24, 13:27 (Tiryns); Koehl 1986b (Knossos); Boulotis 1988, 101, cat. no. 30 (Tiryns). 29 Boulotis 2015. 30 Coleman 1973, 293–296, pl. 56:b. The plaster is fine and thin, indicative of wall, rather than floor plaster. 31 Caskey 1962, 281, pl.101:e. 32 CMS II.8.1, no. 258. 33 Cf. Marinatos 2000. There is, however, no indication here of an association between dolphins and aggression, as is apparent in the mainland daggers and has been mooted for the Theran ships in their juxtaposition with lions (Marinatos 2000. Cf. on dolphins as a symbol of power and predation: Marinatos 1986, 48, figs. 33, 36, 1993, 131–132).

95

A star may have decorated the hull of one of the Kea ships as well, though the fragment (76) has not been included in the reconstruction. A star form punctuates the center-right portion of the hull of the Thera Flagship (Fig. 3.2) as well as being the dominant prow motif, clearly serving as an emblem for the ships and perhaps as a reference to the sun.34 The same motif in association with a spiral was found in a fragment at Pylos that most probably belonged to a ship.35 As the image in 76 is fragmentary and the context within the paintings uncertain, it cannot be used as an identifying element for the fleet. A distinctive fragment (71) appears to represent a white awning, resting on a wooden (ocher) beam and supported by vertical beams, one of which has survived. On the white is an unusual pattern of yellow ocher with a red circle and two ovals, partially outlined in black. Above and below the white are the blue of the sea, with traces of white and fugitive traces of red ocher on the blue below. The red has been interpreted in the illustration in Figure 7.8 as the heads of male passengers. This interpretation draws upon what we know from the ships in the Thera frieze. A fragment of a man’s leg walking on yellow ground above blue sea (60) is related to the awning, having the tip of another vertical yellow ocher support next to white, which is reconstructed on the right side of the awning. In the large fragment of men with cauldrons (67), the distance between the shore line and the ship is preserved. On the blue of the sea, a white awning is visible at the lower edge of the fragment, with a vertical yellow ocher timber support and a curved black line that suggests a crease in the fabric of the awning. This ship is positioned 2 cm from the shoreline, leaving no room for a mast. No fragments of a sail or rigging are preserved. A large fragment of sea with preserved flat edge indicating the base of the frieze (74) has remnants of white, red, and yellow ocher paint. This, surely, was another ship, though it is too poorly preserved to allow for reconstruction. What it does provide is an indication of the distance from the hull to the bottom of the frieze, which here is 3.5 cm. That the ships had stern cabins is evidenced by one fragment in particular (78). It shows a white 34 On sun symbolism in Aegean art, see Goodison 1989; Marinatos 2010b. 35 Morgan 1988, 132, pl. 167; Shaw 2001, pl. 6:1, reconstruction.

96

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

rectangular area with black amorphous markings and a horizontal yellow ocher beam against the blue of the sea. This is interpreted as bull hide stretched over a wooden support to create a cabin, like those at the sterns of the cabins in the Thera frieze. Two other fragments (79, 80), though anomalous, may also belong to cabins. The significance of a stern cabin as a sign of elite occupancy has been discussed elsewhere in relation to the ships in the Thera miniature.36 Its semiotic power is evinced by its repetition in large-scale panels in the adjacent Room 4. These large images of cabins must have had associations for those circulating between the two rooms, most likely functioning as reminders of ceremonial action involving the actual structures themselves.37 Though the concept of large-scale painted cabins was echoed later in panels at Mycenae,38 it is notable that in the Northeast Bastion it is not ships’ cabins that fill the walls of the room adjacent to the miniatures but plants. This tips the balance of the significance of the ships in the painting, in which they appear not as the central image but as part of a larger sphere of action. All the features of the surviving fragments interpretable as belonging to ships indicate distinctive features that were added to the basic seagoing vessel: painted motifs on the hulls, stern cabin, and central awning. The motifs of zigzag with pendants and dots, dolphin, and perhaps star are relatable to movement through the sea and to navigation; at the same time, there can be little doubt of their emblematic function. The stern cabin signals authority for its occupant, just as the central awning denotes a position of status. Such attention to semiotic detail makes the ships distinctive, whether in terms of social or geographical identification, state authority, ceremonial occasion, or a combination of these factors.39 Together, these added features signify the theatrical nature of the vessels’ use, in which the ships’ appearance creates a public spectacle. 36 Morgan 1988, 137–142. 37 Niemeier proposed that the cabins painted in Room 4 acted as signposts, the actual structures being folded in this compartment in preparation for being carried to the ships (1992, 100). 38 Shaw 1980; 1982; and see now Shaw and Chapin 2016, 155– 176, in which the term “ikria” is preferred in describing unroofed portable structures (p. 155). 39 Cf. Morgan 1988; Foster 2012.

The Question of Propulsion What is notably missing from among the fragments is any evidence for propulsion. With at least five fragments of hull, there is not a single sign of oars or paddles, nor is there any evidence for a sail, mast, or rigging, or even of a rudder with which to steer. Using the ships from the south wall of the Thera frieze as the best preserved model, the following is clear. Central awnings presuppose the presence of elite passengers, probably indicated in the now fugitive red. A stern cabin presupposes a stern platform. In addition, such ships need a helmsman. All these features—elite passengers, “captain” in the stern cabin, landing plank, helmsman with rudder— have been reconstructed as probable on the basis of the surviving evidence and the comparanda. Fragments from dumps and Room 31 at Pylos show rigging and a mast,40 while the newly reconstructed fragments from Hall 64 have oars and rudders. Parts of three ships have been reconstructed together, the hulls estimated to have been 70–90 cm each in length (somewhat larger than miniature scale), the length of the frieze being estimated at 2.50 m. There are dolphins or fish in the sea, but only possible traces of people, which have been tentatively reconstructed.41 Another ship with argonauts along the hull has no sign of people among the fragments, even though parts of oars and awning are preserved.42 The Iklaina fragment shows rowers beneath an awning, with a white hull decorated with spirals (n. 3). The background is blue for sea, and traces of two dolphins are visible beneath the oars. The dolphins apparently face toward the left, though the rowers appear to be propelling the boat toward the right. In the Thera frieze, a cargo ship has a sail; the other, larger ships are propelled by closely packed sailors leaning over the gunwales with paddles. Two out of six of these ships have a tall mast, one with the festoons, the other with loose rigging ropes attached to the awning, which is probably to be understood as a furled sail. On three of the others, the awning is yellow with curved red lines, perhaps representing a stored mast. A smaller boat is 40 Brecoulaki et al. 2015, figs. 14, 15. Cf. Morgan 1988, 122, pl. 166 (photo from Lang 1969, pl. 113:19 M ne); Shaw 2001. 41 Brecoulaki et al. 2015, 283, fig. 8:b. The figures in the battle scene from the same room are considerably larger than miniature scale and would match the upper estimate for the ships. 42 Brecoulaki et al. 2015, fig. 7:b; Egan and Breoulaki 2015, fig. 14.

VEHICLES: SHIPS AND CHARIOT

Figure 3.4. Seal impression from Knossos (LM I–II). Seal area ca. 2.8 x 2.2 cm. CMS II.8.1, no. 133.

propelled by five rowers and a small two-man boat is propelled by paddles (while some of the boats in the north wall frieze have what look like abandoned oars). In the Kea frieze, too, there is a small boat with three paddlers (63; Fig. 7.9); but what of the large ships? Minoan glyptic scenes with representations of a single ship, usually with central or stern cabin, sometimes show oars, sometimes do not.43 Most have no people aboard, some have passengers, but only rarely are there rowers or paddlers (Fig. 3.4),44 the latter being the mode of propulsion for the single figure in a cult scene on a ring from Hagia Triada.45 A seal impression from Knossos was reconstructed by Evans as having two rows of five paddlers, but the new drawing in CMS does not support this interpretation (Fig. 12.2:b).46 Most of the EC depictions of ships on the socalled frying pans have multiple rows of oars or more likely paddles47 (above and below, i.e., on both sides of the boat), though interestingly, not those with zigzag patterns on the hull (Fig. 3.3). Egyptian representations of ships are similarly varied in their depiction or lack of depiction of propulsion. The earliest painting of a procession of ships, from late Predynastic Tomb 100 at Hierakonpolis, shows central cabins but no propulsion.48 Only one of the six ships has people on it (as opposed to around it). In contrast, one of two boats on a contemporary 43 Betts 1973; Wachsmann (1988) 2009, figs. 6.21, 6.23, 6.25, 6.26, 6.28–6.31, 6.48, 6.52–6.55. 44 Wachsmann suggests that the men on this sealing are paddling, given the likelihood that the horse is facing the ship’s bow ([1998] 2009, 107). Cf. n. 46. 45 CMS II.6, no. 20; cf. Wachsmann (1998) 2009, fig. 6.52. 46 CMS II.8.1, no. 242; Evans 1921–1935, IV, 521, fig. 463 (Wachsmann [1998] 2009, 107, fig. 6.44). 47 Wachsmann comments that the large number of lines implies paddles rather than oars ([1998] 2009, 109, cf. 111). 48 Wilkinson 2003, 69, fig. 12.

97

fragment of painted linen from Gebelein clearly shows rudder, helmsman, and crew with large paddles, while the other only shows rudder and helmsman.49 Much later, in the New Kingdom, Nile fowling scenes and some state and funerary procession boats are likewise shown without propulsion other than an unattended rudder.50 The Deir el Bahri painted reliefs of Hatshepsut’s expedition to Punt distinguish between ships entering or leaving the port and ships that are being loaded at the port and are therefore stationary by the presence or absence of rowers and oars. All have masts and rigging as well, with those that are stationary having furled sails and those that are moving having raised sails.51 This corresponds to the depiction of Canaanites arriving at an Egyptian port painted in the Tomb of Kenamun.52 The merchants have landed, and the sailors are bringing down the sails, so there is no sign of rowers. Similarly, the two small boats in the Arrival Harbor in the Thera frieze have no rowers or paddlers, nor oars or paddles, though a single man is seated at the back of each boat (Fig. 11.1:d). In contrast, in the naval battle of Ramesses III depicted in relief at Medinet Habu, it is the conflicting parties that are distinguished, the Egyptian ships having rowers, those of the Sea Peoples having none.53 Both ships have fighters aboard, and the Egyptian ones have prisoners, but only the Egyptians have visible propulsion, as though the Sea Peoples were grounded even before the inevitable outcome. The question then arises: did the Kea ships have oars/paddles? The close analogy between the Kea and Thera Miniature Friezes would suggest that they did. However, the complete lack of evidence for them in the surviving fragments makes their reconstruction hazardous. If the ships are to be understood as 49 Wilkinson 2003, pl. 12. The same variation is apparent on ships in Predynastic rock engravings, which show a central awning or cabin, smaller stern and prow cabins, a distinctively large rudder, and even on one a mast and furled sail, but in many cases no paddles or oars, e.g., (with and without) Wilkinson 2003, fig. 17, pls. 9, 11, 13, 16, 18, 19, 21, 23, 51–55, 58. Cf. ships on Middle to New Kingdom rock engravings in the Sinai, the only form of propulsion for which is rudder with tiller (Wachsmann [1998] 2009, 34–38, figs. 2.45–2.60). 50 E.g., Morgan 1988, figs. 95, 96; Parkinson 2008, 123, fig. 129. 51 Säve-Söderbergh 1946, 14, fig. 1; Landström 1970, 122–123, fig. 372; Shaw 2000b; Wachsmann (1998) 2009, figs. 2.11, 2.15–2.18. 52 Davies and Faulkner 1947; Morgan 1988, 126, fig. 75. 53 Nelson 1930, pls. 37, 39, 40; Wachsman (1998) 2009, 165, fig. 8.1.

98

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

stationary in the harbor, then oars would not be necessary. Yet if the interpretation of figures under the awning is correct, then propulsion would be expected. A consideration of comparative iconography favors the use of oars or paddles, but also shows that both options—presence or absence—are viable. Given the lack of evidence among the fragments, no oars or paddles have been included in the main reconstruction. A separate, schematic drawing indicates what the ships might have looked like (on the basis of the Thera ships) if they were propelled by oars or paddles (Fig. 3.1:b). In this version, the ships have been lengthened, to accommodate the oars/paddles, in line with the length of the Thera ships. One should not, however, expect the ships on the two paintings to have been identical. With so few fragments, a firm reconstruction of the ships in their entirety is not feasible. As such, the visualizations in Figures 7.8 and 7.26 are intended to give an impression of form and scale rather than an exact rendering of how they appeared. Central awning, stern cabin, and decorated hulls are all known from the surviving fragments. Prow, stern, landing plank, and helmsman with rudder are all hypothetical, based largely on the well-preserved contemporary ships in the Thera Miniature Frieze. Three compartments have been drawn beneath the central awning, on the basis of the apparent width between the vertical posts and the assumed centrality of the red and yellow design (71). Five compartments would also be possible, if the outer four were narrower than the central one. A boxlike structure attached to or in front of the stern cabin (78) does not exist on the Thera ships but may correspond to the hide box aft of the central awning. A minimal number of elite passengers has been reconstructed, though the Thera ships suggest there were several more. No attempt has been made to visualize the prow and stern emblems, as these significant features would no doubt be fleetor ship-specific.

The Flotilla and the Ceremonial Role of Maritime Iconography Alongside the two ships reconstructed in Fig. 7.8, on the basis of other fragments of men against blue (Pl. 6:62, 64, 65) and what appear to be parts of ships on blue sea (Pls. 8:73, 74, 9:75–77), one should imagine at least one or two more ships in a small flotilla (as in Fig. 7.26, but perhaps with a longer awning, as in

Fig. 3.1). In addition, the fragment with the paddlers (63; Fig. 7.9) and another less well preserved fragment of another paddler (62) demonstrate that small boats were also present, facing in the opposite direction, hence toward the incoming ships. This combination is, of course, evocative of the flotilla and small vessels in the Thera frieze. There can be little doubt of a connection between the two. Strikingly, the concept of representing a flotilla of ships (or row of boats) appears in the Cyclades as far back as the Late Neolithic Period in rock engravings on the exterior of the fortification wall (the earliest known in the Aegean) at Strophilas on Andros.54 With them are images of animal hunts, linking primary concerns of the settlement on land and sea. This remarkable discovery is like a distant echo of the Northeast Bastion with its ships and animal hunt in the context of a fortification wall at an island harbor settlement. Whether there were other such scenes in the Cyclades in the long interim period, now lost, or whether one is witnessing a remarkable coincidence rooted in environmental and economic factors, is currently unknown, as is the presence or absence of such scenes in LM I Crete. Certainly in the shorter interim between the LC I paintings and those of Iklaina and (later) Pylos and Orchomenos on the mainland, iconographic tradition (zigzags, dolphins, central awning) play a notable part in the creation of the images. The Kea ships, like those of Thera (and, indeed, Strophilas and Pylos), by the very fact of being several, proclaim the importance of the sea and sea transportation to those who commissioned, executed, and experienced the frieze. At the same time, the decorated hulls, cabin and awnings of the Kea ships, as those of Thera, Iklaina, and Pylos, are witness to the special nature of the vessels, the occasion depicted, and the painting itself. There can be little doubt of the ceremonial nature of the procession of large, decorated, paddled ships in the Theran Miniature Frieze, no matter how one interprets the particulars of the occasion, whether a triumphant return from a voyage, a nautical festival, or a cultic boat race.55 The Kea ships, albeit extremely fragmentary, likewise speak of a ceremonial occasion, not only in terms of 54 Televantou 2008; 2018. They have been dated to the fourth millennium b.c., though Broodbank draws attention to the problems of dating the individual images, since the site continued into the third millennium (2010, 252). 55 For a summary of ceremonial interpretations (including the present author’s [Morgan 1988]) and the idea of a boat race with cultic significance, see Wachsmann (1998) 2009, 105–122.

VEHICLES: SHIPS AND CHARIOT

their decorative emblems but also in the unique association of the ships with cauldrons indicative of feasting and the highly significant inclusion of at least one chariot nearby. All of these factors signal a social gathering of considerable importance. To whom did the ships belong? The question is, alas, unanswerable. The specific emblems, though echoing those of the ships in the Thera Frieze, are generically evocative of movement and, like the stern cabin and central awning, form an integral part of the iconography of Aegean ships from a wide range of dates and places. The dolphin on the hull is the most specific, as although in many representations it occurs beneath ships as a sign defining sea, it only occurs upon a ship in the two miniature friezes from Thera and Kea. Dolphins, as we saw, are a notable feature of Theran iconography, yet it is significant that not only a dolphin model but also a bronze boat model were found deposited in the Temple at Ayia Irini. In life, more than likely, the ships represented would have been occupied by men from a variety of locales within the Aegean, as seems to have been the case with the rowers in the Linear B tablets from Pylos, in which sailors are classified according to their geographic origins, with implications for their length of association.56 It seems unlikely that each island would have owned a large fleet, yet it is quite possible that islanders gathered for festivals involving processions of men on land and ships in the sea. Such a ship procession could well have taken place in the bay, close to the Temple and overlooked by the Northeast Bastion.

Chariot A mere two fragments can be unequivocally identified as the box and wheel of a chariot (84, 85),57 a third most likely represents the reins and plume of a horse (86), while several fragments of horses’ hooves are identifiable (this vol., Ch. 4). In addition, three fragments (81–83) with patterns may have belonged 56 Wachsmann (1998) 2009, 123–128, with references. The rowers are classified as ki-ti-ta, me-ta-ki-ti-ta, and po-sike-te-re, interpreted as “settlers,” “new settlers,” and “immigrants,” as well as by an unidentified term, po-ku-ta (Wachsmann [1998] 2009, 124, 355 n. 7). See also Petrakis 2011 on references to shipping in the Linear B tablets. 57 The wheel of the chariot was first identified by Mark Cameron (Abramovitz 1980, 59 n. 9).

99

to decorated chariots but are open to other interpretations. The chariot is reconstructed in Figures 3.5 and 7.10, and the fragments are illustrated in Plate 9.

Chariot Forms The chariot representation is among the earliest in Aegean Bronze Age art, contemporary with the schematic renderings on carved stelae from above Shaft Grave V at Mycenae,58 a gold ring from Shaft Grave IV (Fig. 3.6:a), and a ring impression found at Akrotiri, Thera (Fig. 3.6:b), and slightly earlier than the seal from Vapheio and gold ring from Aidonia seen in Figure 3.6:c and d (LB I–II). The Akrotiri ring impression, of which there are three with the chariot, is one of a cluster of sealings with Minoan iconography found in Room Delta 18b, the clay of which is not local.59 The chariot scene is almost identical to impressions found in slightly later (LM IB) contexts at Hagia Triada and Sklavokampos on Crete.60 Other than the Kea chariot, the earliest painted example is found in a wall painting from Knossos (Fig. 3.7),61 probably datable to LM II,62 followed by those on the two ends of the LM IIIA Hagia Triada sarcophagus.63 Chariots are, of course, more familiar from Mycenaean wall paintings and the pictorial style pottery of LH III. Chariots of the second millennium have been fully studied by Joost Crouwel and Mary Littauer, and, most recently, in a wide-ranging study investigating them as prestige items by Marion Feldman and 58 Crouwel 1981, 59, pls. 35–39 (S1–S5); see also Heurtley 1921– 1923; Karo 1930–1933, pls. V–VII, X; Marinatos and Hirmer 1960, pls. 146, 147. Only one is clearly identifiable, the others being poorly preserved. 59 CMS V, Suppl. 3, no. 391, 567–568, 574–575; Doumas 2000b; Weingarten 2010, 396–398. The clay of most of the sealings has been traced to the Knossos area (Goren and Panagiotopoulos 2009), and the sealings appear to have sealed parchment or leather documents (Weingarten 2010, 396), i.e., texts not containers. In the adjacent room were fragments of Linear A inscriptions, implying that part of the building was used as an archive (Boulotis 1998; Karnava 2008, 378–381). 60 CMS II.6, nos. 19 (Hagia Triada), 260 (Sklavokambos). The chariot box and wheel are better preserved on the Akrotiri sealing, while in front of the ears on the top of the horse’s head (the poll) there is a projection (tufted mane?) that is missing on the other two. 61 Alexiou 1964; Cameron 1967b. 62 Hood 2005, 69–70, no. 19. 63 Long 1974, 29–32, 54–60, figs. 18, 26, 73, 75.

100

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

front rail reins

pole stay pole brace

box felloe spoke nave (hub)

pole 0

a

5

10 cm

Figure 3.5. Reconstruction of the Kea chariot (cf. Fig. 7.10:a), with parts of the chariot labeled. Scale 1:3. Drawing L. Morgan.

b

c

d

Figure 3.6. Scenes of chariots on rings and a sealstone: (a) gold ring from Shaft Grave IV (LH I), 3.45 x 2.1 cm, CMS I, no. 15; (b) clay impression from a ring found in Delta 18b at Akrotiri (LM I), originally 3.0 x 1.85 cm, CMS V, Suppl. 3.2, no. 391; (c) sealstone from Vapheio (LB I–II), agate lentoid, 3.0 x 3.1 cm, CMS I, no. 229; (d) gold ring from Aidonia, Corinthia (LB I–II), 3.34 x 2.09 cm, CMS V, Suppl. 3.2, no. 244.

0

5 cm

Figure 3.7. Reconstruction of a wall painting from Knossos. Cameron 1967b, fig. 12.

VEHICLES: SHIPS AND CHARIOT

Caroline Sauvage.64 This section draws from these detailed works and is informed by Crouwel’s drawings labeling the parts of the chariot (cf. Fig. 3.5). Unlike the situation in New Kingdom Egypt, where chariots have been found in royal tombs, notably in that of Tutankhamun,65 there are no physical remains of chariots from the Aegean, and there are only a few archaeological remains of bits and osteological remains of horses.66 Our understanding of chariot construction depends largely on representations, with the Linear B tablets providing additional information. The box fragment (84), like the fragment identified as a stern cabin on a ship (78), is white with irregular black splotches indicative of oxhide. Unlike the cabin, however, which sits on a blue background for the sea, adjacent to the hide is a wide vertical strut of yellow ocher, indicative of wood. This strut marks the outer frame of the box, which would have joined the pole brace at the top and the draft pole at the bottom, harnessing the horses to the chariot (as in a preserved fragment of the Knossos painting; Fig. 3.7). The few contemporary representations of chariot boxes are summary in their depictions. The box on the gold ring from Mycenae (as on the chariots on the Mycenae stelae) is too short in terms of relative proportions to accommodate the legs of the men; it is marked by decorated horizontal strips and has a curved top border (Fig. 3.6:a). The betterproportioned box on the ring impression found at Akrotiri shows a plain covering with a curved border, descending toward the back (Fig. 3.6:b). It is only with later painted representations that the outer material of the box is recognizable as animal hide, evidently stretched over the frame. It survives in two fragments associated by Mark Cameron with the Knossos chariot painting,67 as well as on another 64 Crouwel 1981, 2005; Littauer and Crouwel 1979, (1983) 2002; Feldman and Sauvage 2010. For the named parts of the chariot, see Crouwel 1981, figs. 1, 4, 5; Littauer and Crouwel 1982, fig. 1. See also Catling 1968; Wiesner 1968; Moorey 1986; Littauer and Crouwel 1996; Fansa and Burmeister, eds., 2004. 65 Littauer and Crouwel 1985. Six chariots were found in the tomb of Tutankhamun, partly or entirely dismantled. Remains of chariots, harness, and bridle parts have also been found in the Theban royal tombs of Amenhotep II, Thutmose IV, Amenhotep III, and probably Ay, as well as (of simpler construction) in the “semi-royal” tomb of Yuia and Tuia (Littauer and Crouwel 1985, 97–98). Veldmeijer and Ikram, eds., 2018 (including Sabbahy 2018) appeared too late to be considered in this book. 66 Crouwel 1981, 32–35, 101–107. 67 Cameron 1967b, 335–336, figs. 3:A, B, 7–9.

101

fragment from the east wing at Knossos.68 It is also seen on the chariot boxes on either side of the Hagia Triada sarcophagus, and in more summary depictions on Mycenaean pictorial pottery. In addition, it is implied in the abstract crosses on a chariot in a fragmentary wall painting from Orchomenos.69 Hides are usually depilated by scraping and soaking. When tanned for use as leather they become virtually monochrome, no longer retaining the visible color splotches of the live animal, though in rawhide some of the dappled effect is retained in impressions of the hair follicles. Interestingly, the Linear B word o-pi-ra-i-ja has been identified as “hide with the hair left on.”70 In Egypt, tanning of leather appears to have been unknown until the Greco-Roman period, and hides were only lightly cured.71 It is unclear, however, whether the many depictions of dappled oxhide shields from Middle and New Kingdom Egypt, for instance, reflect the result of the method of processing hides in life or simply idiom in art. Whichever is the case, there is no doubt that the dappling on the chariot fragment is an effective idiomatic way of signifying the material of the outer casing as oxhide. The wheel fragment (85) preserves the top left quadrant of the wheel, with the lower part of the hide box. In between is the yellow ground, seen below the box through the aperture of the wheel. A patch of black visible beneath the rim continues the idea of oxhide. Less easily explicable are two parallel black lines at the lower left of the box. I am not aware of any parallels for such lines in this position,72 68 Cameron 1970, 165; 1975, 187, slide 21 (color reconstruction). 69 On the pots, most are stylized rows of dots, which are also sometimes used for the robes of the chariot occupants and for bulls themselves. For the cloverleaf form, more clearly representing oxhide, see: Vermeule and Karageorghis 1982, no. III.21 (=Crouwel 1981, pl. 74, V8) from Enkomi, and no. V.8 from Ugarit. The application of crosses on the chariot in the wall painting fragment from Orchomenos (Spyropoulos 2015, 361, fig. 9:a, b) is a device used for deer in the Tiryns paintings (Rodenwaldt [1912] 1976, figs. 60–62, pl. XV; cf. Pylos: Lang 1969, no. 16 H 43, pls. 12, 121, B) and occasionally for parts of bulls on vases (e.g. Vermeule and Karageorghis 1982, no. V.41). 70 Schon 2007, 135, table 13.1, Cn 1286 (relating to sheep and goat), citing Blegen and Lang. 71 Van Driel-Murray 2009, 299, 304–305. 72 On the dual chariot from Hall 64 at Pylos, there are two parallel lines on the front part of the box, as seen through the wheel spokes (Lang 1969, no. 26 H 64, pl. 123).

102

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

and they are hard to interpret in terms of the oxhide covering of the structure. What is notable is that the white ground of the box extends lower (beyond the edge of the fragment) to the left of the wheel than it does within the wheel. This means that the lower back edge of the box dropped down slightly beneath the horizontal lines. The earliest form of chariot in the Aegean is a simple box (Fig. 3.6:a–d), which would have been enclosed on three sides around a (usually) D-shaped floor and open at the back.73 The form is derived from Near Eastern models and can be observed on actual chariots found in New Kingdom Egyptian royal tombs. In representations it sometimes appears more or less square in profile; in other cases the back edge is curved, which corresponds more to the reality of the majority of the examples that survive from Egypt. The framework would have been of wood, heat bent for the curved edges, and the siding of thin sheet wood would have been covered in rawhide, while the floor was made of heat-bent timbers and hide thongs. Tutankhamun’s decorated chariots were gessoed, gilded, and inlaid,74 and there is evidence in the Linear B tablets for ivory inlays and red coloring,75 but none of these features are visible in Aegean iconography. While most sidings in the Aegean, as elsewhere, would have been of wood and hide, the cross-hatching on the Vapheio seal in Figure 3.6:c suggests either wickerwork or leather thongs as covering.76 In (or by) the 14th century, a new form was devised in the Aegean, known as the dual chariot, in which the sides of the box were extended at the back with curved structures resembling wings.77 This peculiarly Aegean form of chariot is what we see in the Knossos painting and on Mycenaean wall paintings and 73 Catling 1968, 42–44; Littauer and Crouwel 1979, 50–54; Crouwel 1981, 59–62. Box-shaped chariots with rectangular sidings and spoked wheels are first known on sealings from Anatolia and a terracotta model from Uruk of the early second millennium, but the siding appears to be open railing, showing the whole body of the occupant (Littauer and Crouwel 1979, pls. 28–30; Crouwel 1981, pls. 122–123; Moorey 1986). Enclosed sides are represented on Syrian cylinder seals of the 18th–17th century (Littauer and Crouwel 1979, pls. 33, 35; Crouwel 1981, pls. 124, 125). 74 Littauer and Crouwel 1985. 75 Ventris and Chadwick 1973, 364–369. 76 Crouwel 1981, 60–61. 77 Catling 1968, 44–46; Crouwel 1981, 63–70.

pictorial pottery, as well as in Linear B ideograms.78 The main part of the box in the Knossos painting in Figure 3.7 appears to be plain (little is preserved), while the curved projection at the back has a row of short lines around the circumference and across the center, indicative of stitching.79 Other fragments thought to be related are, however, dappled (see n. 61), as is part of a dual chariot in a fragment of wall painting datable to LM II–IIIA from the east wing at Knossos, on which the box part has red dapples on white, the wing extension blue-gray.80 The oxhide boxes of the chariots in this fragment, on the Hagia Triada sarcophagus, and on Mycenaean pictorial pottery have a vertical strut dividing the animal hide in line with or just behind the central spoke of the wheel. This marks the divide between the original box shape and the additional curved structure at the back, as does the color change in the painting fragment. On the Kea fragments, there is no evidence for a vertical divide and, given the early date, a simple box form is to be expected. Nonetheless, the presence of the horizontal lines toward the lower back and the fact that the structure clearly dropped down at this point suggests at least a curve to the back of the design. Given the date, reconstruction as a simple box is the most plausible, most likely with a curved top, as on the Akrotiri sealing and Aidonia ring (Figs. 3.5 [= 7.10:a], 3.6:b, d),81 or otherwise straight (Fig. 7.10:b), but given these peculiarities, an alternative reconstruction as a dual chariot is also offered (Fig. 7.10:c). The wheel itself evidently had four spokes, as did all Aegean chariots and Near Eastern ones of this 78 Ventris and Chadwick 1973, 361; Vandenabeele and Olivier 1979, 76–149. The whole chariot, with or without wheels, is clearly dual (ideograms 240, 241), whereas the chariot frame on its own (242) is a simple rectangle. 79 Cameron 1967b, 335; 1975, 61–62, 83, pl. 59, slide 20 (color reconstruction). 80 Cameron 1970, 165; 1975, 62–63, 175–176, 187, pl. 60:A, B, slide 21 (color reconstruction); Crouwel 1981, 66 (cat. no. W 75), 172–173. The chariot has two occupants who are said to be female, though this is unlikely; only the lower parts of the robes have survived, with no identifying features of skin color, waist, or hair. The charioteer of the Knossos painting in Fig. 3.7 here has the red skin of a man (Cameron 1975, slide 20). 81 Cf. less clearly: CMS I, no. 229 (LB I–II, Vapheio seal, here Fig. 3.6:c); CMS II.8.1, no. 193 (LM I ring impression, Knossos, where the profile of the box is angular); CMS V, no. 585 (LH I–II, Kasarma cylinder seal, where the box profile slopes straight down); CMS VII, no. 87 (LB II–IIIA:1, Knossos seal, where the curve is convex).

VEHICLES: SHIPS AND CHARIOT

period and earlier.82 The preserved spoke widens at the juncture with the felloe (rim), which is characteristic of the wheels of dual chariots represented in wall paintings,83 the Hagia Triada sarcophagus (see n. 63), and some, though not all, glyptic scenes (Fig. 3.6:a, d) and Mycenaean pictorial pottery. It could represent an actual widening of the wooden spoke, wedges, or binding with thongs, serving to strengthen the structure of a four-spoked wheel. (It occurs on some representations of four-spoked wheels on Syrian cylinder seals84 but does not, for example, occur on the six-spoked wheels found in the Tomb of Tutankhamun.) In the Kea painting, there is also a curve where the spoke joins the central nave (hub), a relatively unusual feature, but one that is seen on the griffin-drawn chariot on the Hagia Triada sarcophagus and on a chariot brought by a Syrian in the tribute scene in the Tomb of Rekhmire.85 In Egypt, the spokes were part of a composite construction joined to the nave and felloe using glue and wet rawhide, which would have dried tight, to bind them together. This composite nave and spoke construction, which provides strength and resilience at speed, is assumed for Aegean Bronze Age chariots as well. The entire wheel in the Kea fragment is painted with yellow ocher, implying wood. In the Linear B tablets, woods interpreted as willow, elm, and cypress appear to have been used for wheels. Bronze and silver are also occasionally referenced, perhaps as bindings, the former functional, the latter decorative.86 The wheels on the two Hagia Triada sarcophagus chariots have two concentric rims in contrasting colors, as do the chariot wheels in fragments of wall paintings from Mycenae, Tiryns, and Pylos (see n. 83). This may represent an inner felloe of heat-bent wood with an outer rawhide tire, put on wet to dry taut over the felloe, or bronze (as mentioned in a Linear B tablet from Knossos), or it might represent two wooden felloes, 82 Crouwel 1981, 81–90. From the 14th century, six-spoked wheels were common in Egypt and the Near East but not in the Aegean. A rare instance of a six-spoked wheel on Mycenaean pottery appears on a krater from Pyla-Verghi, Cyprus (Crouwel 1981, 81, pl. 78 [V138]). 83 Cf. Myceane and Tiryns (Crouwel 1981, pls. 85 [W8] and 95 [W46], respectively) and Pylos (Lang 1969, no. 26 H 64, pl. 123), and the recently published chariot wheel from the West House at Mycenae (Tournavitou 2015, fig. 14:a, b; 2017, 56–59, 126–127, fig. 26, pls. 21, 22). 84 Littauer and Crouwel 1979, 54, fig. 33; Crouwel 1981, 83, pl. 124. 85 Davies (1943) 1973, pl. XXII; Littauer and Crouwel 1979, fig. 43. 86 Ventris and Chadwick 1973, 369–375; Crouwel 1981, 86–90.

103

an outer and inner, bound with thongs.87 Either structure strengthens wheels carrying a load, especially over a rough terrain. The rim of the Kea wheel is simpler in design and looks as though it were of single construction. It is, however, likely that the felloe was composite, given the need to bend the wood, and the width here would accommodate two rims. Perhaps the lack of distinction between two colors in a relatively wide rim suggests two identically colored wooden felloes. The central nave (hub) of the wheel, through which the axle passed, is not preserved in the fragment. It is notable, however, that its position would have been low in relation to the bottom of the chariot box. In reality, the axle would have run immediately beneath the floor of the box, on which it rests.88 This low placement of the wheel is a characteristic feature of Aegean depictions of chariots, significantly exaggerated in those on the Mycenae stelae, on sealstones, and on some Mycenaean pictorial pottery, and more subtly rendered on the Hagia Triada sarcophagus and the fragments of wall painting from Orchomenos and Tiryns, which include both wheel and box.89 The placement is realistic, however, in the Pylos painting.90 Separation of box from wheel visually distinguishes the parts. On other representations of box chariots, the wheel is positioned centrally and occupies the entire width of the box (Fig. 3.6:a–c) or even more (Fig. 3.6:d). In the Kea fragment, however, it is clear that the box continued to the left of the wheel, a position that is unusual in ancient representations of chariots. No fragments from Kea preserve the traction system linking chariot to horse-draft pole, pole stay and brace, yoke, or the harness. The reconstruction in Figures 3.5 and 7.10 is based on comparative iconography.91 A draft pole running obliquely up from the base of the chariot and disappearing behind the body of the horse is seen on the contemporary sealing found at Akrotiri (Fig. 3.6:b) and in a small fragment of the Knossos painting between and beyond the horses’ tails (Fig. 3.7). The Knossos painting also has a pole brace at the top, as is evident as well on the dual chariot in the later painting from Hall 64 at Pylos 87 Crouwel 1981, 84–85. 88 Crouwel 1981, 78–81. 89 Crouwel 1981, nos. W89, W46, pls. 89, 95. 90 Lang 1969, no. 26 H 64, pl.123. 91 See Crouwel 1981, 90–112 for the traction system, harnessing, and bridle control of Aegean chariots.

104

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

(see n. 83). Another fragment from Knossos preserves part of a yoke and harness attached to a horse’s neck.92 One fragment (86), showing two red ocher strips against yellow ground with a curved blue-gray form below, is interpreted as the reins and tufted mane of a horse. The tufted mane is characteristic of Mycenaean depictions of horses in paintings and on pictorial pottery, as well as in Linear B ideograms.93 The head of the horse in the Knossos painting has not survived, but two fragments of horses’ heads from Knossos have tufts, and one fragment with two black and one red tuft (on blue ground) was included by Cameron in a later version of his reconstruction.94 They would have been bound close to the head, but that part has not survived in either the Kea or the Knossos fragment. This dressed form of mane appears rarely in glyptic art, though it is evident on the LM I sealing from Knossos showing what appears to be the transport of a horse by ship (Fig. 3.4).95 Interestingly, this horse, larger in scale than the ship and superimposed over the rowers, also has traces of harness and girth, as though ready to be attached to a chariot, which itself is not shown. A single tuft appears in front of the ears on the horse in the Akrotiri sealing (Fig. 3.6:b), and two appear on the neck of the horse(s) on the Aidonia gold ring (Fig. 3.6:d). There would, of course, have been two horses parallel to one another, and the usual way of showing this in ancient art was to overlap two heads and four feet attached to a single body. In the ring from Shaft Grave IV (Fig. 3.6:a), two bodies overlap, clarifying the duality. On the Akrotiri sealing there are eight legs, two tails, and overlapping profile of the head. On the slightly later Vapheio sealstone and Aidonia ring (Fig. 3.6:c, d), the heads and legs overlap. In the reconstruction in Figure 7.10, a fragment of two differently colored horse’s legs (223) has been 92 Hood 2005, 70, pl. 20:3 (color facsimile in the Ashmolean Museum). The scale is larger than that of the charioteer and the horse is against a yellow, rather than blue, background. 93 E.g., Rodenwaldt (1912) 1976, pl. XIV:3 (Tiryns painting); Vermeule and Karagheorghis 1982, no. XI.24 (Tiryns krater). Linear B ideograms: Vandenabeele and Olivier 1979, pls. XXVI–XXXV. 94 Cameron 1970, 165; 1975, 175, slide 20; Crouwel 1981, 37–38, 172–173, nos. W74, W77. 95 CMS II.8, no. 133. Betts was of the opinion that the two engravings—ship and horse—were executed at different times (1973, 329–330). He viewed the combined scene as mythic or cultic in meaning. However, such sequential imaging (if it were the case) would not necessarily negate an interpretation of transportation; on the contrary, it is hard to see why horse would be superimposed onto ship if transport by sea were not the intended meaning.

added to the composition. It is likely that each of the red strips, given their width, represent a pair of reins, each pair used for one of the two horses. As on the Akrotiri ring impression (Fig. 3.6:b), the Vapheio seal (Fig. 3.6:c), and most other earlier representations of the chariot in the Aegean, the horse would have been harnessed with a bridle in which the reins were attached to a headstall (and bit), and not to a neck strap. The latter appears on the Aidonia ring (Fig. 3.6:d) and some later representations and is characteristic of Egyptian representations of chariots where the reins ran through loops or terrets.96 On the Vapheio seal, the reins are clearly attached to a noseband, and the same is probably true of the sealing found at Akrotiri. On both there is also a neck strap and girth looped around the horses’ neck and chest (the breastwork brace) and attached to the front of the chariot box, which would help to control the movement of horse and vehicle. This feature occurs on other sealstones (Fig. 3.6:d),97 occasionally on Mycenaean pottery, and on a well-preserved representation of a horse in harness in a fragment of wall painting from the West House at Mycenae.98 There are no indications of the use of a whip, as there is in the seal impression from Akrotiri, the Aidonia ring and other glyptic examples, the Knossos painting, and the Hagia Triada sarcophagus. Whether there was one driver of the chariot or two is open to question, as is the issue of what he (and it was surely a he) wore. Glyptic scenes show either one or two men. Two men ride in the chariots on the Mycenae gold ring and the Vapheio seal (Figs. 3.6:a, c), but in both a driver is serving an armed warrior. On the ring impressions from Thera and Crete there is only one driver (Fig. 3.6:b), as there is on the Aidonia ring (Fig. 3.6:d) and in the Knossos painting in Figure 3.7. As on the ring impressions from Thera and Crete and on the Aidonia ring, a fragment of wall painting from a LH IIIA:2 context at Argos shows a man, apparently a charioteer, with naked torso, stretching his arms forward while holding two pairs of reins.99 However, in the Kea painting, given the prevalence of white robes, it is likely that the driver of the 96 Crouwel 1981, 108. 97 Cf. CMS VI, no. 285 (Crete) and CMS VII, no. 87 (Knossos), both dated to LB II–IIIA:1. 98 Tournavitou 2012, pl. CLXIX:a, b; 2015, color photograph opposite p. 144, pl. 13; 2017, frontispiece, fig. 22, pl. 18 (WH F54). Several other fragments of horses include harnessing (Tournavitou 2017, 52–56, 121–125, figs. 23, 24, pls. 19, 20). 99 Tournavitou and Brecoulaki 2015, 220–222, fig. 4.

VEHICLES: SHIPS AND CHARIOT

chariot also wore a robe. Unlike the Mycenae ring, on which the men wear belts and loincloths, ready for action, there is no indication from horses’ hooves that the Kea chariot was moving at speed, and it was almost certainly depicted as traveling at a slow, stately pace, like those on the Hagia Triada sarcophagus and the Knossos painting, as well as, later, most chariot scenes in Mycenaean painting and pictorial pottery.100 As on these, a robe indicating elite and ceremonial status is likely. The vast majority of chariots in Aegean representations are drawn by horses, animals that would have been accessible only to the elite at this time (see below and this vol., Ch. 5). That occasionally chariots are shown drawn by griffins, lions, or agrimi, however, alerts us to the special status of chariots within iconography, in these cases implying a mythic level of meaning.101

The Significance of the Chariot At the time of this painting, the chariot was a new phenomenon in the Aegean. Though the technology of wheeled carts was previously known, the light twowheeled chariot as a prestige item was a new technological and ideological import in LB I, arriving more or less simultaneously in the Aegean and in Egypt, almost certainly from the Levant.102 It came with a quite 100 Cf. Tournavitou 2018, 497–501 (esp. 501). 101 Griffins: Hagia Triada sarcophagus (one of the ends); CMS II.8.1, no. 193, LM I ring; CMS V, Suppl. IB, no. 137, LH II– IIIA gold ring from Anthia, Messenia. Lions: CMS V, no. 585, LH I–II cylinder seal from Kasarma. Agrimi: Hagia Triada sarcophagus (the other end); CMS VI, no. 285, a LB II–IIIA agate ring from Speliaridia near Avdou Pediados, Crete. Goodison draws attention to the symbolic significance of the chariot on the Hagia Triada sarcophagus and a small number of other larnakes (1989, 94–96). 102 Crouwel 1981, 2005. References in Egyptian texts predate representations, while the Egyptian words for both “horse” and “chariot” are Semitic, suggesting Canaanite origins (Feldman and Sauvage 2010, 83 n. 162; cf. Caubet 1998, 108). In Egypt, the chariot was developed during the Second Intermediate Period (Spalinger 2007). The earliest known pictorial evidence comes from temple reliefs from Abydos at the time of Ahmose (Harvey 1998, 302–372, esp. 316–320, figs 76–78; 2001; Spalinger 2007, 123–125). In tomb paintings the earliest known representations of chariots in Egyptian tombs are said to come from the Tomb of Renni at El Kab (No. 7), from the time of Amenhotep I, and the Tomb of User at Thebes (TT 21), from the time of Thutmose I (Littauer and Crouwel 1985, 96 n. 2); both

105

different set of functions from the cart, with significant symbolic implications. Presumably the chariot was known on Crete before or at the same time as in the islands, but evidence for its existence there in LM IA has been lost. As we saw, the clay of the Akrotiri sealing is not local, and the same or an almost identical ring was used on Crete, found in the slightly later context of LM IB. Several fragmentary pieces from different paintings indicate that in LM II–IIIA horses and chariots formed part of the palatial program, but it is possible that the theme first appeared in wall paintings there in LM I and is simply lost. The image with its associated ideas might have come to Mycenae independently, but at the same time. The chariots on the Mycenae grave stelae and the gold ring of LH I are quite different as representations from those of the sealing found at Akrotiri or, from what one can tell, the Kea painting. In the Mycenae representations, the chariot box is not attached to the animals (somewhat bovine on the stelae, equine on the ring), and on the ring there are no reins. Both versions are unique in the Aegean in showing the use of weapons from the chariot, one of the chariot riders on the ring drawing a bow to shoot at a stag, and a charioteer on a stele holding a sword. This portrayal is more characteristic of Near Eastern glyptic depictions and of later New Kingdom Egyptian royal chariot scenes (where the weapon is usually the bow). As argued by Littauer and Crouwel, the mostly rocky terrain of Greece is unsuitable for the use of chariots in hunting or fighting, and the use of chariots appears to have been restricted to the transport of elite military men and for ceremonial parades. The early images of chariots from Mycenae take a visual idea of the rhetoric of power from the Near East, which is unlikely to be based on the reality of local chariot use.103 In contrast to these summary depictions from Mycenae, the Akrotiri sealing has a carefully depicted curved chariot box and clear indications of the traction and harnessing system. This appears to be a are contemporary with LM IA. The vehicle depicted in the Tomb of Renni, however, is not preserved above the wheel, and the two horses are controlled by a man walking on the ground behind the wheel, while the context of the surrounding scenes is agricultural (Tylor 1898, 2, 5, pl. II). In the Tomb of User, the context is hunting in the desert, but only a quadrant of a wheel has survived in a register above the bringing of captured animals, rather than within the hunt itself (Davies 1913, 23, pl. xxii). 103 Littauer and Crouwel (1983) 2002, 61; Crouwel 2005, 40– 42. But cf. other arguments cited by Schon 2007, 139.

106

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

vehicle that is understood. The charioteer leans forward energetically, with one arm raised, goading the horses with a whip. The same posture, yet more exaggerated, is held by the figure on a griffin-drawn chariot on a ring from the Temple Repositories at Knossos104 (and in a less extreme case, on the Aidonia ring). This is, again, a posture and movement known from Syrian seals,105 though the naked torso on these examples (like that on the Mycenae ring) is an Aegean idiom. Like the Mycenae Shaft Grave chariots, the chariot on the Knossos ring is visually unattached to the creatures pulling it, and ideology, here mythic, is the root of the image. Yet on the ring that made the Akrotiri sealing, no doubt in Crete, acquaintance and understanding of the new technology is melded with ideology. Chariots may well have come to the Aegean, as they did in Egypt and throughout the Near East as evidenced by texts, as royal diplomatic gifts.106 Among the earlier Eighteenth Dynasty Theban tombs with depictions of chariots cited by Porter and Moss (1960), one (out of four for this reign) is equivalent to LM IA (Thutmose I), and 25 (out of 115 for these reigns) to LM IB–LM II (Hatshepsut-Thutmose III-Amenhotep II).107 In a few of these tombs, the chariot appears more than once, in different contexts.108 Six representations are in the context of the tomb owner engaged in hunting, all but two significantly placed opposite the funerary procession, in the liminal zone between this world and the next.109 Six are brought in the funerary procession itself.110 Five are shown being made 104 CMS II.8.1, no. 193. 105 Littauer and Crouwel 1979, fig. 32. 106 Crouwel 2004, 342; 2005, 42; Feldman and Sauvage 2010, 81–85. 107 Porter and Moss 1960; see individual tombs referred to in the following notes, with positions on their plans noted in parentheses. The earliest is TT 121 (8). Cf. Feldman and Sauvage 2010, 124–132. For the earlier evidence of chariots in a battle scene, see n. 102 on the temple reliefs from Abydos. 108 Porter and Moss 1960: TT 155 (hunt/temple workshop/ tribute, great herald of the king, time of HatshepsutThutmose III); TT 86 (hunt/funeral, first prophet of Amun, reign of Thutmose III); TT 56 (temple workshop/tribute, royal scribe to Amenhotep II). 109 Porter and Moss 1960: Thutmose I: TT 21 (10); HatshepsutThutmose III: TT 123 (10), TT 155 (10), TT 342 (4); Thutmose III–Amenhotep II: TT 56 (13–15), TT 72 (4). Exceptions to the placement of hunt opposite funerary procession occur when the charioteer is royal, as in TT 342 (the deceased as hereditary prince) and TT 72 (the king). 110 Porter and Moss 1960: Hatshepsut-Thutmose III: TT 121 (8); Thutmose III–Amenhotep II: TT 56 (16–18), TT 78 (9),

in temple workshops.111 Eight are tributes or gifts, brought by Syrians or offered to the temple. Of the scenes of gift-bringing, three include men from the land of Keftiu (Aegeans) bearing gifts, and three specify the occasion as being the New Year Festival in the presence of the ruler, in which the gifts are brought for the Temple of Amun.112 In the reigns equivalent to LM IA–B, chariots appear in the hunt, temple workshop, and so-called tribute scenes; in those equivalent to LM IB–II, they appear less frequently in the hunt and temple workshop, more frequently in the funerary procession, with an equal number in the tribute scenes. There are fewer representations of chariots in the subsequent pre-Amarna tombs, equivalent to LH IIIA,113 and even fewer thereafter, when tomb scenes undergo changes. All chariots, whether ridden or brought, are in the tombs of men close to the king and/or overseers of the Temple of Amun.114 Clearly, the inclusion of a depiction of a chariot in a tomb, whether ridden or brought, was restricted to the highest echelons of officials associated with palace or temple, and their placements within the tombs resonate with symbolic meaning. Later, in the private tombs at Amarna, the chariot is shown as a processional vehicle for the king and his family, and the Royal Road at Amarna, linking the palaces, is TT 80 (10), TT 85 (22), TT 172 (21, 22). 111 Porter and Moss 1960: Hatshepsut-Thutmose III: TT 39 (3), TT 67 (3), TT 86 (5), TT 155 (6); Thutmose III–Amenhotep II: TT 66 (2), TT 75 (2). 112 Porter and Moss 1960: Hatshepsut-Thutmose III: TT 73 (3), TT 86 (8), TT 100 (4), TT 155 (3); Thutmose III– Amenhotep II: TT 42 (4, 5), TT 84 (9), TT 93 (9). Cf. TT 143 (6) (reign of Amenhotep II), where chariots appear as military escort for the collection of goods from Punt. Men from the land of Keftiu appear in tribute scenes with Syrian chariot-bringers in TT 86, 100, 155. The New Year Festival is specifically referenced as the context of gifts for the temple estate of (among other items) chariots in TT 73, TT 86, and TT 93. 113 From the reigns of Thutmose IV–Amenhotep III, chariots also occur brought in funerary processions: Porter and Moss 1960, TT 57 (21, 22), 63 (11, 12), 151 (8), 172 (5, 6), and as tribute: TT 89 (15). But they also appear (waiting) in scenes of the official inspection of grain for temple and royal estates: TT 57 (13), 69 (2), Tomb of Nebamun, fragments now in the British Museum (Parkinson 2008, 110– 119), TT 297 (1), Eighteenth Dynasty. 114 Titles of the tomb owners frequently refer to duties toward the king and his estates (scribe, steward, herald, overseer, vizier) or to the temple of Amun (prophet, lector, overseer); military titles only appear twice (both in the reigns of Thutmose III–Amenhotep II). See Porter and Moss 1960, tombs cited above in nn. 107–113.

VEHICLES: SHIPS AND CHARIOT

assumed to have been the route of the royal chariot parades.115 At the same time, chariots appear (in smaller scale) in scenes of the king rewarding elite officials, and parts of harnesses were found in several nonroyal houses in the city. After the exceptional depictions of horses and chariots in the recently discovered battle scenes of Ahmose on temple reliefs from Abydos (see n. 102), it is only considerably later in images of royal power from the reign of Tutankhamun and on Ramesside temples that the chariot is depicted in use in war or the royal hunt. Such images of royal rhetoric, beloved in the Near East, do not fit the ideology of chariot use in the Aegean (outside the Mycenae Shaft Graves) or of Eighteenth Dynasty Egypt. Instead, the contexts of the earliest depictions in Eighteenth Dynasty tombs clearly demonstrate the special significance of chariots in the role they played in the lives of those responsible for temple and royal administration. Throughout the ancient world, chariots were conveyances restricted to use by those in the highest echelons of royal or temple life, transmitting unequivocal messages of power and elite status. Just as chariot scenes in private tombs in Egypt cluster around the period equivalent to LM IB– II, Aegean glyptic scenes with chariots almost disappear after this period.116 Their context on such small surfaces is not always clear, though: as we saw, a few are mythic in character through their use of composite or wild creatures for draft, as on the Hagia Triada sarcophagus where a funerary context is implied. A ceremonial function is apparent in the Knossos wall painting, associated with what is probably a sacrificial bull and with elite male figures, one of whom is either carried on a litter or “palanquin,” as Evans thought, or seated within a fenestrated podium, as suggested by N. Marinatos.117 In contrast to LM I–II Crete and 115 Kemp 2006, 284, 287, fig. 104; Feldman and Sauvage 2010, 129–131, fig. 29, with further references. The royal charioteers are shown enveloped in the beneficent rays of the sun, and Barry Kemp puts forward the intriguing proposal that in these chariot drives, Akhenaten was “trying to replace with military dash and public adulation of himself the stately, colorful and noisy carrying of the divine images of old” (Kemp 2006, 284). 116 Krzyskowska 2005, 204, 279. 117 Evans 1921–1935, II, 771–773, figs. 502, 503 (reconstruction); Cameron 1967b; Marinatos 1993, 70–71, fig. 60. Responding to the idea of a palanquin, Gulizio proposes that the seated individual may have been a divinity or religious official representing the god (2012, 284). One might also propose the processional transportation of a statue of the god. How one interprets the individual depends on how one interprets the structure—as chair or stand.

107

the Cyclades, in the LH III mainland paintings, there is (as in the LH I Shaft Grave ring and stelae) an association with hunting and warfare.118 The chariot from Hall 64 at Pylos, driven by a helmeted man and associated with other scenes of a battle, is notable as being from the same room as a scene with ships,119 a combination of vehicles (though associated with hunt, not battle) that is discernible among the Orchomenos fragments120 and is otherwise apparent only in the Kea frieze. The Tiryns chariot scenes appear to be ceremonial, as do the scenes on Mycenaean pictorial pottery, all of which show the horses walking at a slow pace, and which only occasionally show a walking figure or figures carrying a weapon. On a particularly interesting fragment of an amphoroid krater from Tiryns, what is thought to represent a chariot race is strategically placed on the other side of the handle from a rare scene of a seated female holding a kylix, with a krater on a stand in front of her,121 the two vessels being references to drinking. Kraters and deep bowls, the most common pot shapes for Mycenaean pictorial pottery, are ideal shapes for mixing relatively large quantities of wine. Louise Steel proposes that the pictorial style, found mostly in settlements, especially within citadels around palaces, was specifically used for drinking sets, with the winemixing vessel as the central element.122 Despite numerous examples of chariot kraters, the pictorial style appears on only a fraction of Mycenaean pottery, which, along with the images themselves, defines it as an elite commodity. Besides chariots, less frequent scenes include processions, warriors, boxers, and hunting, reflecting elite male activities,123 with a 118 For bibliographic details, see Crouwel 1981: Mycenae, W1– 30; Orchomenos, W31–34; Pylos, W35–37; Tiryns, W38–69. 119 Chariot: Lang 1969, no. 26 H 64, pl. 123. Ship: see above, n. 2. 120 Chariot associated with the boar hunt: Spyropoulos 2015, fig. 9:a, b. Ship: see above, n. 4. 121 Kilian 1980; Crouwel 1981, pl. 66, V51; Vermeule and Karageorghis 1982, 230 (X1.19.1). Kilian saw the kylix as a trophy and the seated figure was identified as a goddess (Kilian 1980, 26–31; Vermeule and Karageorghis 1982, 230). The scene, however, echoes the banqueting scenes in wall paintings from Knossos and Pylos (see this vol., Ch. 12). 122 Steel 1999. 123 The figures on Mycenaean pictorial pottery are mostly identifiable as male; female figures (identifiable by long hair and slim waist) are rare (e.g., Vermeule and Karageorghis 1982, nos. III.10–III.12). For recent discussions on chariot scenes in Mycenaean pictorial pottery, see Rystedt 2018; Thaler and Vetters 2018; Tournavitou 2018, 497–501.

108

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

few landscape elements to indicate action outdoors and numerous animals, mostly cows/bulls, goats, deer, birds, octopus, and fish—all of which are usually defined as edible. On this particular vessel, the drinking scene underlies the ceremonial and social function of the use of the chariot. While of a later era than the Kea painting, the link between chariots and elite drinking (and by implication feasting) ceremonies may help to throw light on the significance of the presence of the chariot. What, then, do we make of such an early depiction of a chariot, complete with dappled hide, a feature that cannot have been imitated from Syrian glyptic? There is no sign in the Kea painting of warfare. There is a hunt, but the kill by dogs, although implying human hunters, is separated from any representation of human action (including the chariot), both by its likely position in the room and by its larger scale (see this vol., Chs. 5, 7; Fig. 7.17). Although there is only evidence for one chariot, there are several fragments of horses, so there may have been at least one more chariot (Ch. 5). There are no chariots and no horses in any of the other known miniature paintings. It seems clear that the chariot in the Kea painting has a ceremonial function, no doubt associated both with the ships and with the narrative structure of hunt, hunter, and cooking in cauldrons on the coast. The question is: did Kea actually have chariots on the island? The terrain is not exactly suitable. But then, horses were apparently transported by ship, as we know from osteological remains on the islands (this vol., Ch. 5), and as the seal impression from Knossos in Figure 3.4 may demonstrate. Alternatively, the Akrotiri sealing offers a scenario for how the idea (rather than the animal) might have reached the islands. While it would be satisfying to know whether a real chariot was included in the processional displays of the Kea festival depicted in the painting, the symbolic importance of the horses and chariot within the iconographic program is apparent. Horses and chariots were prestige items unquestionably restricted to use by those of elite status, most often, though not exclusively, associated with kingship and temple, throughout the ancient world at this time.124 Are we to assume the presence of a ruler or official royal representative, whether by proxy (through the painting) or in reality? Nothing else in the painting implies this, but then ruler iconography 124 Feldman and Sauvage 2010; Marinatos 2010b, 24–25.

is notoriously inconspicuous in Aegean art. In fact, as Feldman and Sauvage have demonstrated, there are “clear regional patterns in each culture’s rhetorical deployment of the vehicle,” in which the “international” message of authority denoted by the chariot intersects with regional ideology, modifying meaning in response to local concerns.125 This is well borne out by the case of the Eighteenth Dynasty tombs, in which only elite officials associated with palace and temple have chariots in their tomb imagery, and specific contexts within the tomb, such as temple workshop, tribute, and later, grain inspection, reflect the royal and sacerdotal duties of the tomb owner in life. Might the Kea chariot be an indication of an association of the scene with the Temple at Ayia Irini, itself adjacent to what appears to be the administrative center of the local ruling elite, House A? Ownership and care of horses and chariots are not necessarily synonymous.126 The making of a chariot, like the breeding of horses, is a highly skilled, laborintensive task, and both need continual maintenance. With chariots and horses must have come expertise or experts in their care. All of this, along with rights to use them, must have been organized by the highest ruling elite. Linear B tablets imply that the production of relatively large numbers of chariots was controlled by palace authorities, as was distribution, presumably to nonroyal high-ranking individuals.127 These texts are, of course, later than the Kea painting and specific to their palatial administrative context. Yet they demonstrate that chariots were a status item that was distributed beyond the domain of palatial rulership. Chariots were elite items of prestige, but at variable levels.128 They would have served as marks of rank in social events that served to consolidate affiliations between members of the aristocracy.129 Standing in a chariot, literally and metaphorically, elevates a man to a higher level; moving in a horse-drawn chariot past gatherings of spectators clearly signals supremacy. In incorporating chariot and horses into 125 Feldman and Sauvage 2010, 67, 161. 126 Chariot fittings, for example, have been found in royal, religious, and domestic contexts in Ugarit, where horses were owned by the king, queen, and temples but cared for by individuals (Feldman and Sauvage 2010, 73–79). 127 In the Knossos tablets, some 400 chariots are recorded, either assembled or unassembled, the wheels stored separately; Ventris and Chadwick 1973, 365. Cf. Crouwel 1981, 150; Feldman and Sauvage 2010, 87, 139. On the Pylos tablets, see Schon 2007. 128 Feldman and Sauvage 2010, 87, 167–168. 129 Cf. Schon 2007.

VEHICLES: SHIPS AND CHARIOT

the composition, the artist, whether recording or not, is making a clear statement about elite status, while signaling the social and ceremonial importance of the events represented.

Summary Though little survives of the ships and chariot, the significance of their presence in the frieze cannot be overestimated. The ships, with their emblematic designs painted on the hulls, stern cabin, and central awning, were clearly decked out for a ceremonial occasion. The questions of who owned the ships represented, who organized the ceremonial events, and who commissioned their depiction on the walls, remain unanswerable, yet the close relationship with the Ship Procession in the Thera Miniature Frieze speaks of a strong Cycladic element in the iconography. It is significant that models of both a dolphin and a boat were found in the Temple at Ayia Irini, placing both within a clearly cultic context in the vicinity of the sea. Horse-drawn chariots were new to the Aegean at this period, and they clearly signal, in life as in art, prestige use by an elite class of men, not necessarily themselves royal but perhaps associated through patronage with sovereignty or the temple. As novel, expensive, and showy vehicles, they would have been used as marks of rank on ceremonial occasions aimed at social cohesion and elite display. Rather than attempting to identify the fleet or chariot owner in specific terms, one might envisage islanders from several locations gathering for festivals in which men processed on land and in ships on the sea, in a form of theatricality aimed at impressing not only the populace but also one another in a socially cohesive public spectacle. It seems highly likely that the presence of both ships and chariot in the painting marks the iconography and the event portrayed as closely associated with the administrative center of the local ruling elite, House A, and the adjacent Temple.

Catalog of Vehicles The photographs and study drawings of ships and chariots presented below are shown at 1:2 scale.

109

Ships 68 (R17). N.20 East. Figs. 7.8 (Cauldron and Ships), cf. 7.26; Pl. 8. Ship’s hull with festoon. H. 4.4 x w. 3.0 x th. 0.4 (at base)–1.0 cm. Festoon in black with red on white ground with blue beneath. Reconstructed with 69 and 70 as the hull of a ship with sea beneath. Technique of paint application matches those two pieces (see 70, below). The red has flaked away, leaving the impression of an outline. This fragment is slightly convex at the center, slightly concave at the lower edge, indicating that it was close to the base of the painting (the edge is slightly broken). Such a formation occurs when the plaster is pushed down onto the horizontal beam. 69 (R6). N.20 East. Figs. 7.8 (Cauldrons and Ships), cf. 7.26; Pl. 8. Ship’s hull with festoon. H. 4.0 x w. 3.1 x th. 0.9 cm. Festoon in black with red on white ground with blue beneath. Reconstructed with 68 and 70 as the hull of a ship with sea beneath. Technique of paint application matches those two pieces (see 70, below). Here, the red slightly overlaps the black, indicating that it was applied last. At the top edge, the blue ground of the sea is visible under the white. 70 (Q1). N.20 East. Figs. 7.8 (Cauldrons and Ships), cf. 7.26; Pl. 8. Ship’s hull with festoon. H. 4.5 x w. 3.0 x th. 1.0 cm. Festoon in black with red on white ground with blue beneath. Reconstructed with 68 and 69 as the hull of a ship with sea beneath. On all three fragments, the blue is painted directly onto the plaster, while the white is thinly applied on top (without outline). Red and black are painted onto the white, probably the red last. 71 (R4). N.20 East. Figs. 7.8 (Cauldrons and Ships), cf. 7.26; Pl. 8. Ship’s awning. H. 4.2 x w. 7.7 x th. 0.7 cm. Two pieces joined. Over blue is painted a strip of white, framed

at its base by a yellow ocher horizontal beam outlined on its upper side in red. On part of the white is a pattern of a red circle and two ovals painted over yellow ocher, partially outlined with vertical black lines. A vertical post crosses the horizontal beam and ends in a point on the blue above.

110

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

This entire structure is reconstructed as the awning of a ship. Below the awning are areas of applied white (left) and fugitive traces of red ocher. The red has been interpreted in the reconstruction as the heads of male passengers. Given the state of preservation, this interpretation (though likely) is tentative. The paint has flaked in places, revealing the sequence of color application: blue, white, red, ocher, black. 72 (P6). N.20 East. Figs. 7.8 (Cauldrons and Ships), cf. 7.26; Pl. 8. Ship’s hull with dolphins. H. 3.1 x w. 8.5 x th. 1.0–1.1 cm. Three pieces joined. Hull of a ship painted with dolphins, with sea below. The body of the right dolphin curves upward, the left curves down, gray-black snout touching the base of the ship, as though diving into the sea. Their underbellies are yellow ocher, flippers, head, and back are blue, brighter than the blue of the sea and with visible frit. The blue sea is painted directly over the plaster, the white hull over the blue, and the blue and yellow ocher dolphins over the white. Much of the white paint has flaked away, as has some of the blue at the lower edge. A thin wash of white partially overlaps the blue of the sea at the base of the hull. 73 (R14+Q41). N.20 East. Pl. 8. Ship or building? H. 2.4 x w. 6.2 x th. 0.7–0.8 cm. Five pieces joined. Blue with

a yellow ocher strip. At top left (as oriented) the pale grayish blue appears to be painted over yellow ocher. The darker yellow ocher strip presumably represents a broad wooden beam and is painted over the blue. It could be part of a ship or architectural, but yellow ground beneath blue (rather than simply plaster) would be anomalous for either. 74 (Q19). N.20 East. Pl. 8. Ship on sea. H. 11.2 x w. 11.0 x th. 1.0–1.03 cm (lower edge). Four pieces joined. Poorly preserved. Hull of a ship with sea below. The piece is convex toward the edge, which is flattened, indicating that it abutted a wooden beam at the base of the painting. The blue sea is painted directly onto the plaster and has a row of applied white dots painted over it (see Pls. 45–49). The exact form of the hull and its decoration cannot be determined, owing to extreme flaking of the paint layers. Over the blue of the sea, the hull is painted white, onto which details were painted in yellow ocher, red ocher,

and blue, with further applied white in places and traces of black horizontal lines. Mud plaster on the back, toward the base.

75 (R7). N.20 East. Fig. 7.26 (Cauldrons and Ships Scene with Rocky Landscape); Pl. 9. Ship’s hull with festoon. H. 1.7 x w. 2.1 x th. 1.6 cm. Blue ground (sea), over which white (hull) is applied. Two rows of dots, like beads, form a festoon, one row in yellow ocher, the other in red. Blue on plaster, white painted over blue (partially flaked), yellow and red ocher over white (well preserved). The fragment forms the basis for the hull of the right-hand ship in the visualization in Fig. 7.26. 76 (N7). N.20 East. Pl. 9. Ship’s hull with star? H. 2.5 x w. 2.2 x th. 1.0 cm. Pattern, probably belonging to the hull of a ship, perhaps a star within a frame. On a blue ground (sea), yellow ocher, red ocher and white are painted. Below this is an oblique pale pink strip, short horizontal strips of light greenish and white, and a broad band of yellow ocher. The pink was applied before the yellow and red ocher and is outlined in gray. 77 (R26). N.20 East. Pl. 9. Ship’s hull? H. 2.4 x w. 2.5 x th. 0.7 cm. Pattern, probably from the hull of a ship. Blue ground (sea), over which white and red are painted, with yellow ocher details on the white.

VEHICLES: SHIPS AND CHARIOT

78 (R16). N.20 East. Figs. 7.8 (Cauldrons and Ships), 7.26; Pl. 9. Hide ship’s cabin. H. 3.5 w. x 4.5 x th. 1.2–1.6 cm. On a blue ground (sea), a white animal hide with black markings and a horizontal strip of yellow ocher. Given the blue (rather than yellow) ground, this is most likely a ship’s cabin, with wooden strut and cow hide for the covering. Poorly preserved traces of red lines painted on top of the white and at the edge of the fragment over the blue; a black line over the yellow ocher strip. At the lower right of the fragment are traces of white over the blue, which together with a patch of red at top right may suggest a seated, robed man. This possible figure has not, however, been reconstructed. 79 (T4). N.20 East. Pl. 9. Ship? H. 3.9 x w. 3.7 x th. 1.5 cm. White painted over a blue ground (sea?), with parallel strips of pale greenish blue outlined in black and divided by a black line between them. Red visible at two edges, and slight red smears on the white beneath one (top left in photo). Frit visible in the blue. Perhaps part of a ship or ship’s cabin. Related to 80. 80 (T3). N.20 East. Pl. 9. Ship? H. 2.1 x w. 3.5 x th. 1.5 cm. Poorly preserved. Blue ground (sea) with white (left as oriented) and traces of red over muddy yellow ocher (right). Pattern of pale greenish blue with visible frit, outlined in black. Related to 79. Perhaps part of a ship or ship’s cabin.

Chariots 81 (N13). N.20 East. Pl. 9. Chariot? H. 3.5 x w. 3.4 x th. 0.7 cm. Undetermined pattern of yellow ocher and bluegray, with red streaks on the ocher. Perhaps part of a chariot?

111

82 (P7). N.20 East. Pl. 9. Chariot? H. 2.1 x w. 2.0 x th. 0.7 cm. Pattern of angled bands. Perhaps part of a chariot? Applied white, with yellow ocher, red, and greenish blue-gray spot over the white, red being painted after the yellow. Black painted over the blue area (now flaked) and short black lines on the white band. 83 (T5). N.20 East. Pl. 9. Chariot? H. 3.0 x w. 2.3 x th. 0.7 cm. Pattern of yellow ocher and dull white, with red outlines. Red and blue at the edge, both over white. Part of a chariot?

84 (R5). N.20 East. Fig. 7.10 (Chariot); Pl. 9. Animal hide of a chariot box. H. 3.5 x w. 2.5 x th. 1.1 cm. Part of a chariot. White with black spots indicating bovine hide, divided by a thin black outline from a yellow ocher vertical strut. Black painted last. 85 (P8). N.20 East. Fig. 7.10 (Chariot); Pl. 9. Wheel of a chariot. H. 2.3 x w. 3.5 x th. 0.6 cm. Wheel and base of a chariot, on yellow ground. Applied white over yellow ground, with darker yellow ocher wheel painted on top. Black lines on white and outlining parts of the inside of the wheel. A gray-black dot with a bluish tinge center top continues as a line across the wheel. 86 (R25). N.20 East. Fig. 7.10 (Chariot); Pl. 9. Reins and horse’s mane? H. 2.1 x w. 2.6 x th. 0.9 cm. On yellow ground, two horizontal red bands and a curved blue-gray one, interpreted as reins and the plume of a horse, respectively.

4

Buildings: Urban Space

The Miniature Frieze had a significant urban component. Some 95 of the surviving fragments depict or include buildings. It is not entirely clear how these buildings related to one another and to the composition as a whole. However, it is notable that only women are associated with the towns, walking past doorways (1, 3) or appearing at a window (4). Men, in contrast, are all outdoors, away from the town(s), appearing in association with a building in only one fragment, the coastal scene of men with cauldrons and ships below (67). This building is uncharacteristically large and monotoned, distinguishing it from the houses occupied by the women. Seven compositions incorporating buildings have been reconstructed. The rationale behind each composition is discussed in Chapter 7, along with tentative placements of the groups in relation to the room. On the basis of contextual and iconographic factors, I suggest three groups: (1) Figures 4.1 and 7.1–7.3 (1, 3–4, 87–109, 111; cf. 110, 112–121; Pls. 1, 10–12), in which the presence of women, doorways, windows, and dome-like structures on the roofs are the coordinating features; (2) Figures 7.4–7.6 (135–177; cf. 133, 134; Pls. 14, 15), all of which associate buildings with

plants; and (3) Figures 7.8 and 7.26 (67, 123–127; cf. 122, 128; Pls. 7, 13), the Cauldrons and Ships scene, in which large surfaces appear without visible windows. The first and the second belonged to the north wall of N.20. The third most likely belonged to the east part of the southern wall opposite (see this vol., Ch. 7). Group 1 is the most informative in terms of architecture. It includes the only scene, Figure 7.1 (Fig. 4.1:a), in which, for technical reasons, it was possible to securely align pieces vertically (see p. 226). The sky is blue with clouds. The buildings in Figure 7.2 (Fig. 4.1:b, c) probably lay close to that scene, perhaps to the left. Here the color above the buildings is yellow, rather than blue, a discrepancy that can be explained perceptually by considering that the former is viewed lower down a hillside or slope, so outlined against land, while the latter is higher up and hence outlined against the sky. Figure 4.2, a photograph of Chora on Kea, looking up from the road approaching the town, shows just such a perceptual vantage point. The scene in Figure 7.3, with two women framed by a door and a window, respectively, most likely lay to the right of these two parts of the town.

114

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

a

b

c

Figure 4.1. Details of buildings in the Ayia Irini Miniature Frieze: (a) from Figure 7.1; (b, c) from Figure 7.2. Scale 1:2. Watercolor (a) and colored drawings (b, c) L. Morgan.

Figure 4.2. View of Chora, Kea. Photo L. Morgan.

BUILDINGS: URBAN SPACE

Whether each section of town was physically joined is unknown, though they surely represent one community. If they were joined, the total length of the town would have been ca. 1.47 m. The length of the north wall was ca. 6 or ca. 4 m if, as seems likely, the room had a partition wall (Fig. 1.7:b). In contrast to the two towns in the Thera Ship Procession Frieze, this would be an exceptionally large urban expanse. Town IV, the Departure Town, is 38 cm from side to side, 63 cm including the outlying buildings; Town V, the Arrival Town, is 49 cm, 92 cm including the hilltop buildings and the space between them and the walled town.1 However, Town II, from the north wall, had a more horizontal arrangement. It is very fragmentary, but as reconstructed by Christina Televantou it measures some 1.44 m.2 Group 2 comprises Figures 7.4–7.6, Thistles, Building and Plants, and Horse and Building. It is the plants that link the compositions. The first building is defined by only one surviving fragment, to the left of the thistles, in which a string line divides the land from white wall. The second comprises a large-scale building with windows and delicate plants along the lower wall, divided on both sides from the yellow ground and plants by string lines. The third survives only as the left edge of the building, to the right of the horse. The building is framed by a vertical strip of white with horizontal black lines, followed by red ocher with black vertical lines. It is hard to anticipate how the building continued, but it most resembles those of Group 3 (which came from a different context), the white vertical strip being approximately the same width (8 cm). Group 3 should belong on the eastern part of the south wall, with the cauldrons and men and ships in the sea (Figs. 7.8, 7.26). Large expanses of brownishred ocher are punctuated by vertical strips of white, along with wall surfaces of blue-gray and perhaps white. Many of the pieces are poorly preserved, resulting in a lack of clarity as to the intentional colors. There are no windows punctuating the surfaces, and no dome-like structures were found associated with them. The discussion that follows will focus on Group 1, referring to the windows of Group 2 in the relevant section. Group 3 will be discussed separately, at the 1 Cf. Morgan 1988, 70. The photographs are printed to scale. 2 Televantou’s drawings of the frieze (1990, figs. 7–11, 14; 1994a, foldout drawings 1–3; 2000, foldout pls. 1–3) provide a continuous scale at the top, enabling calculations to be made for the relative size of each town.

115

end of the chapter. First, however, it is necessary to consider some comparative scenes of architecture in Aegean art.

Comparative Images Architectural depictions in Aegean art have been the subject of several studies.3 In wall paintings, the fundamental point of reference is, of course, the well-preserved Miniature Frieze from the West House at Thera (Figs. 4.3–4.5, 11.1, discussed below). The Knossos miniatures have palatial/shrine architecture rather than urban depictions4 (as do the later Mycenaean wall paintings), though two fragments from the North-West Fresco Heap depict women at windows and a woman on a balcony (see n. 78, below). Other comparisons include a fragment of the Tylissos miniature frieze (Fig. 4.9)5 and several significant instances of small-scale portable art (Figs. 4.6– 4.11): from Crete, the faience Town Mosaic,6 the clay house model from Archanes,7 an ivory house facade from the Royal Road,8 the Master Impression from Chania,9 and two seal impressions from Zakros;10 and, from the mainland, the silver Siege Rhyton from Shaft Grave IV at Mycenae.11 Of these, the Town Mosaic and Archanes model are earlier than the Kea paintings (MM III), while the Royal Road facade is later (LM IIIA context), but the others should be approximately contemporary. All have been extensively discussed, both in terms of their architecture 3 Most recently by Palyvou (2005b) and Boulotis (1990, 2009); also Morgan 1988, 68–87; Schoep 1994; Krattenmaker 1995; Pavúk 2002. Palyvou 2018 appeared too late to be considered in this book. 4 Grandstand: Evans 1921–1935, III, pl. XVI (opp. p. 47); 1967, pls. II, IIA, V, figs. 1–3; cf. fragments from Magazine XIII: Evans 1921–1935, I, figs. 319, 321; 1967, pls. V, VI, figs. 1, 2, 12; Sacred Grove: Evans 1921–1935, III, col. pl. XVIII (opp. p. 67); Marinatos 1987a, fig. 7 (left). The latter is a fragment with coursed masonry (Cameron 1967a, figs. 7, 8). 5 Evans 1921–1935, III, 88, fig. 49; Shaw 1972, 178, no. 12, fig. 9. Shaw reported that the fragment is now lost and the measurements are unknown. Judging by the drawing in Evans, it appears to be two related fragments. 6 Evans 1921–1935, I, 301–314; Foster 1979, 99–115; Palyvou 2005b, pls. 50, 51 (reconstruction). 7 Lembesi 1976; Schoep 1994. 8 Morgan 1988, pl. 112; Palyvou 2005b, pl. 53:2a. 9 CMS V, Suppl. 1A, no. 142; Hallager 1985. 10 CMS II.7, nos. 218, 219. 11 Karo 1930–1933, no. 481:106–108, 174, 175, figs. 35, 83, 84, pl. CXXII; Smith 1965, figs. 84–86.

116

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

b a

d

c

e

Figure 4.3. Details of buildings in the Thera Miniature Frieze, Room 5, West House, Akrotiri, Thera: (a) Town II building and man, north wall; (b) Town II, north wall; (c) Town II at coast, north wall; (d) Town I, west wall; (e) Town III buildings and river, east wall. All images scale ca. 1:2. After Doumas 1992, 14–15, pls. 28, 29; Televantou 1994a, fig. 19, pls. 25, 43, 53, foldout pls. 1, 2.

BUILDINGS: URBAN SPACE

117

Figure 4.4. Departure Town (Town IV), detail from the south wall of the Miniature Frieze, Room 5, West House, Akrotiri, Thera. Scale ca. 1:4. Doumas 1992, pl. 35, detail.

Figure 4.5. Arrival Town (Town V), detail from the south wall of the Miniature Frieze, Room 5, West House, Akrotiri, Thera. Scale ca. 1:4. Doumas 1992, pl. 35, detail.

and in terms of the thematic links between them and the Thera miniatures (see this vol., Ch. 11). In my study of the Thera miniatures, I attempted to analyze the buildings in terms of the relationship between iconography and reality, as well as in terms of their roles within the frieze as a whole.12 Subsequently, in her primary publication of the West House paintings, Christina Televantou added 12 Morgan 1988, 68–87, 161–162.

several previously unpublished fragments. She identifies a total of five separate towns, dispersed on all four walls of the room.13 Town II was situated on the north wall.14 A single story building is associated with the pastoral scene between the Meeting on 13 Televantou 1990, 1994a. 14 Televantou 1994a, 63–67, 409, fig. 18, pls. 29β, 30α, 34, col. pls. 32, 35, 38, 43, 44, foldout drawing 1, foldout col. pl. 1; 2000, foldout pl. 1 (drawing).

118

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

the Hill and the warriors, but at a lower level on the coast (Fig. 4.3:a). I originally called this a “pastoral building,”15 but it may have had another function, comparable to that of the Kea Group 3 buildings (see below). Warriors are marching toward the main part of Town II (Figs. 4.3:b, 11.1:a). At a lower level in the pictorial plane, associated with the coast, is a unique tiered structure with black triangular projections not only on the roofs but also on the sides of the structure (Fig. 4.3:c). Town I, apparently from the upper part of the southwest (i.e., west) wall,16 survives in only two fragments, characterized by overlapping structures surmounted by the same black triangular projections on the roofs (Fig. 4.3:d). Town III is represented by just two fragments, which show the lower parts of buildings along the bank of a river (Fig. 4.3:e).17 Televantou interprets this town as coming from the upper part of the left side of the northeast (i.e., east) wall, which was otherwise occupied by the hunting scene in a riverine landscape, on a larger scale than the rest of the frieze. How the two were combined on a single wall is unclear, and the buildings would have been on a significantly smaller scale than the animals and plants. Town IV is the left town on the Ship Frieze, which ran along the south wall (Figs. 4.4, 11.1:c).18 This is what I termed the “Departure Town,” as it appears to be the departure point for the ships. The town is tiered and clustered and lies within a delta of rivers. To the left of the town and river lay several outlying buildings. Town V is the grandest and lay at the west end of the south wall (Fig. 4.5).19 It is what I termed the “Arrival Town,” as it is the apparent destination of the procession of ships. It has a massive gateway and what looks like a fortification wall, which is crowned by so-called horns of consecration. To the left of this fortified town, high up on the pictorial plane and overlooking the harbor, is a massive rock-cut structure, with what are probably look-out buildings perched on top of the hill above (Fig. 11.1:d). Whether these groupings of buildings actually represent five separate towns is an open question. Town III is too small (as preserved) to warrant the 15 Morgan 1988, 78, 85. 16 Televantou 1994a, 61–62, 409 (Δ24, Δ25), fig. 17, col. pl. 25, pl. 24β, foldout drawings 9–11. 17 Televantou 1994a, 82–90, 409, fig. 19, col. pl. 53, foldout drawings 2, 12, 13; 2000, foldout pl. 2 (drawing). 18 Televantou 1994a, 97–100, 409–410, fig. 20, col. pls. 54–57, foldout drawing 3, foldout col. pl. 4. 19 Televantou 1994a, 112–117, fig. 22, col. pls. 65–68, foldout drawing 3, foldout col. pl. 4.

identification of a separate town. The buildings are of the same type and scale as those of Town II. If indeed the group did begin on the east wall, while the other lay on the north wall, there is no reason why a town should not have been continued across two walls. Similarly, Town I is of the same type and scale as Town II, though with the addition of the triangular projections, which, however, recur in the structure beneath Town II. This perceptual link suggests an iconographic continuity. Such questions are particularly pertinent for a study of the Kea Miniature Frieze, for here the fragmentary nature of the scenes makes the spatial and iconographic intentions open to a wide range of interpretative options.

Scale and Spatial Organization As in all Aegean art, the viewpoint of the buildings is frontal—facades seen straight on, without perceptible reference to the third dimension—combined with an overall “cartographic” structure in which what is closer to the viewer is placed lower on the pictorial plane and what is farther from the viewer is placed higher, a device that perceptually tallies with the experience of looking up at a town that ascends a hill (Fig. 4.2).20 In the more complete scenes of the Town by a River (Fig. 7.1) and the Cauldrons and Ships scene (Fig. 7.8), it is clear that the buildings are viewed as though the onlooker were looking at the coast from the sea. The relatively large scale of the windows in Group 2, Building and Plants (141–152; Fig. 7.5), is anomalous. Otherwise, within Group 1, the large expanse of window in which the woman appears is explicable in terms of her presence, while the corresponding window, placed symmetrically in Figure 7.3, is designed to agree with this scale. Together with the doorway, the buildings in the scene of Women and Buildings (104–109; Fig. 7.3) appear to be on a slightly larger overall scale than that of the other buildings in this group. What is notable is the apparent height of the two doorways in two of the compositions (Figs. 7.1, 7.3), both of which partially frame a 20 Cf. Palyvou 2005b, pl. 59:1. On spatial organization, including relative size, scale, proportions, and perspective, see Iliakis 1978; Walberg 1986, 117–120; Morgan 1988, 12, 70– 71; Blakolmer 1996; Palyvou 2005b, 185–188.

BUILDINGS: URBAN SPACE

woman walking past the respective building. As their legs (present in one case, implied in the other) walk on the ground outside the doorway, there is no evident necessity for such height. The vessels they hold (one surviving, the other surmised) clearly do not reach to the top of the door frame, since in both cases another fragment shows the continuation upward of the doorway. By raising the height of the door in relation to other architectural features, a perceptual link is made between the height of the woman and the height of the door. To have drawn the entire town on a scale commensurate with the women would have been unwieldy, given the limited height of the surface and the profusion of detail. Scale is therefore broken down into components, organized according to relative needs, in this case the accommodation of the human figure. Such organization reflects a notion of compatibility designed for readability. Given the exigencies of space in representing a complex town with clusters of buildings at different levels, heights, and depths, the artist inevitably selects, choosing to show what is significant, diagnostic, and relevant to the visual story.21 An indication of the third dimension, depth, can be achieved through variable viewpoints, relative size (which can also signify symbolic distinctions), or the device of overlapping surfaces. The last of these, while usually open to ambiguity, is particularly clear in Figure 7.2, in which the dome-like structures appear not only against the yellow ground (93, 94, 96–98, 100), indicating a view of rooftops rising up the slope of a hill, but also, at a lower level in the pictorial plane, set against a white wall, complete with its own cornice below (93, 102). This is unmistakably one building in front of another. In the case of fragment 93, reconstructed on the left of the composition, the combination of this feature with two further indented tiers above, a vertical string line, and two horizontal yellow ocher beams, suggests three houses, one in front of the other, the right-hand side of the central house corresponding to the string line. This use of several short vertical string lines to mark divisions in town buildings of a miniature frieze is particular to Kea, according to our current knowledge. String lines do not appear at all in the Thera miniatures, though they do, sparingly, in the Knossos miniature paintings, to mark structural divisions of the so-called Grandstand and pathways (this vol., Ch. 10, p. 348 nn. 26, 27), and later on the mainland 21 Morgan 1985, 10; Palyvou 2005b, 185.

119

(n. 83, below). It is an extraordinarily precise use of the technique and, given the fact that the string impressions would have been made into the plaster prior to the application of ground color, demonstrates the detailed planning of the towns to be painted (cf. this vol., Ch. 10). It is ubiquitous, used in all parts of the towns in all the compositions. In some cases the string line divides changes of color, which may constitute changes of structure (two buildings) or simply of material (one building).22 In other cases the string line divides areas of white,23 which implies change of structure rather than surface, or it differentiates the edge of the building from the ground.24 It is interesting to find the use of string lines in the planning of architectural representations, since occasionally, as in the case of Xeste 4 at Akrotiri,25 surfaces of walls may be architecturally delineated by string lines, and of course the most time-honored way of planning the foundations of a building is with string. Such techniques—the use of string lines, changes of color, overlapping of roof lines with “domes”— enable the artist to signify what is separate and what is continuous, creating from the chosen constituent parts a two-dimensional equivalent of a town. This is not so much a portrait of a place, but more the “idea of a house” and the “idea of a town”.26 Buildings are compiled into a dense network of forms and colors, which together evoke the impression of a “city on a slope.”27 It is an impression well known to those who live or travel on the rocky islands of the Cyclades (Fig. 4.2). To this idea of a place, certain features (such as the gateway, circuit wall, and so-called horns of consecration in the Thera frieze, or the rounded rooftop projections in the Kea Frieze) may act as signifiers, even, on occasion, as a “determinative for the city’s identity.”28 Yet precise identification is a precarious pursuit, as many features that act as signifiers recur in other images, sometimes in different combinations (rounded projections and gateways on the Master Impression, the circuit wall on the Siege Rhyton). The image of a town is the result of a compilation of significant elements. For the iconographer, such a melding of forms inevitably leads to ambiguity. How would it look from 22 Fragments 3, 4, 67, 87, 88, 98–100, 102–104, 121, 126, 127, 136, 138. 23 Fragments 4, 93, 109, 114, 154, 155, 165–167. 24 Fragments 67, 122, 135, 138, 139, 141, 142, 153, 156, 176. 25 Palyvou 2000, 429. 26 Palyvou 2005b, 197. 27 Pavúk 2002. 28 Boulotis 2009, 96.

120

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

an angle is a question addressed by Joseph Shaw in relation to the Zakros rhyton, and by Eric Hallager and Clairy Palyvou in terms of the Chania Master Impression.29 Their isometric drawings aim to translate two dimensions into the perspective lines of three dimensions as seen from a three-quarter view. Both the fragmentary nature of the Kea Miniature Frieze and the complexity of its arrangement preclude such attempts, but the question is particularly relevant to the issue of whether the woman appears at a window or on a veranda, as well as how to interpret the rounded structures on the rooftops.

Facades and Walls Relationships between Exterior and Interior How we interpret the three-dimensionality of two-dimensional depictions and whether we see structures as single buildings or multiple complexes are problems fundamental to our understanding of construction and the number of stories represented. While the viewer is presented with external facades, interior space is implied though the placements of doors, windows, string courses, and cornices.30 In the case of the Ayia Irini fragments, the evidence is somewhat equivocal. Windows with walls beneath (87, 88) are signs of a second floor, as is the presence of a horizontal course in the middle of the wall. But the horizontal yellow beams, indicative in their color of wood, are variable in distribution. One is just below the roof (93), while another on the same fragment could indicate a floor line. Others relate to window frames, or approximately align with a window on an adjacent wall, as though the window frame touched the ceiling (4, 88). The same applies to the Master Impression, and is surely a matter of artistic convention rather than quantitative space. The horizontal and vertical ocher divisions in 102 may indicate reinforcement beams rather than correlating with a ceiling/floor. Projecting cornices, as in 93 and 96, are characteristic of the extraordinarily detailed town on the Chania Master Impression (considerably enlarged in Fig. 4.10). Some unequivocally belong to 29 Shaw 1978b, fig. 9; Hallager 1985, fig. 17; Palyvou 2005b, fig. 12.3. 30 Palyvou 2005b, 197.

rooftops, and some overlap a building behind, indicating variable depth, while a few lie directly between windows, implying different stories.31 In the Departure Town of the Thera Miniature Frieze, an ocher beam, contained within the corner stones, separates floors of the tall tower-like building on the far left, (Fig. 4.4), while elsewhere cornices (ocher, blue, or white) define the roof, either at the top of the town or overlapping another building. In the Arrival Town, cornices in white or blue are distinguished from ocher window frames and lintels (Fig. 4.5). While several of the Ayia Irini fragments imply overlapping buildings, the one with a woman framed by a window (4) provides clear evidence for at least two separate stories, both of which had windows (Fig. 7.3). The differential heights of the rooftops, clearly evident in fragments 87, 93, 97, 98, 100, and 103, imply either that some of the buildings are higher up the slope, or that some of the buildings have an additional third story. These two interpretations are not mutually exclusive. At Akrotiri, where the upper stories are uniquely preserved, all houses had at least two stories, while a few had a third, covering only part of the second, resulting in a tiered profile to the rooftops.32 On Crete, where evidence for upper stories in Neopalatial houses is mostly circumstantial,33 two stories, usually covering the entire ground floor, was the norm, thereby creating a unified elevation for houses built at the same level of ground.34 In certain grand buildings built on hillsides (such as the South House and the Royal Villa at Knossos), at least three stories have been identified,35 but in many LM I houses the upper stories may well have been open areas used for industrial and social activities,36 as suggested by the Archanes house model, in which steps lead up to an open roof with parapet.37 Iconographic evidence for two and three stories is otherwise clearest in the 31 Cf. the reconstructions by Hallager (1985, fig. 17) and Palyvou (2005b, fig. 12.3). 32 Palyvou 2005a, 103–104, pl. 2:A, B (the West House reconstruction); see also Michailidou 1990b; 2001. Since the ground on which the houses were built sloped, the ground floor was sometimes tiered, bringing some of the rooms down into a basement (the West House was built on seven different levels, Xeste 2 and 4 on at least two), but by varying the heights of the ceilings, the second floor (which covered the whole of the ground floor) was all at one level, so the string courses and cornices are horizontally aligned on the facade (Palyvou 2005b, 188; cf. 2005a, 46). 33 Driessen 2005. 34 Palyvou 2009a, 79. 35 Graham 1969, 186. 36 Hallager 1990. 37 Lembesi 1976.

BUILDINGS: URBAN SPACE

Town Mosaic plaques. Originally (presumably inlaid into a wooden object) they would have been clustered into interlocking rows, as reconstructed by Palyvou in Figure 4.6.38 The individual plaques clearly define the stories through the placement of windows and the string courses dividing the floors. In representations in which the houses are clustered, doorways provide clear evidence of the ground floor, as facades show exteriors, not interiors, while windows are more likely applicable to upper stories, since ground floor windows for storage rooms were usually small. The houses at Ayia Irini were built on a slope, so they no doubt had variable rooflines, but, with the notable exceptions of the bastions, the buildings appear not to have had the projections and recesses characteristic of some Minoan architecture and well preserved at Akrotiri.39 In art, the Town Mosaic plaques define projections and recesses through low relief and varying thicknesses,40 while the three-dimensional Archanes house model has a projecting columned portico on one side. In the Thera Miniature Frieze (Figs. 4.4, 4.5), the massive wall of the Arrival Town (V), usually interpreted as a fortification,41 lies at two different levels, implying indentation, but the ambiguity of its form highlights the difficulties in translating painted townscapes into literal structures.42 The Departure Town (IV) has a recessed appearance to the base of 38 Palyvou 2005b, pl. 50. 39 Palyvou proposes that these were designed to enable rectangular buildings to follow curved streets (1986, 192–194; 2009a, 80). Such rhythmic solutions to the organization of space were apparently not used for individual large buildings on Crete (Graham 1960), presumably because unlike in towns there was no necessity to follow curved routes. It was, however, characteristic of palaces. Knossos was built of blocks of projecting and recessing facades, with rooflines that shifted levels according to the arrangement of the blocks (McEnroe 2010, 69–71). 40 Palyvou 2005b, 188. 41 The town is frequently identified as Akrotiri (which may, like Phylakopi and Ayia Irini, have had circuit walls, though the limits of the town have not been reached). Televantou added windows to the upper part of the wall (1994a, fig. 22). While true fortifications are usually without full-size windows, the Northeast Bastion with its painted upper story, which must have been adequately lit, shows that windows are not incompatible with upper levels of circuit walls. 42 The disparity of level between the wall left and right of the gateway as reconstructed creates an Escher-like improbability, resolved in Televantou’s drawing by continuing the corner stones on the right side down to match those on the left, thereby implying a recessed wall. Televantou’s solution necessitates that the men and ground are moved to the right and the right-hand wall is extended (1994a, fig. 22), making the frieze slightly longer than reconstructed in the museum and in previous publications.

121

the buildings and, to some extent, to some of the rooftops. The tiered rooftops and overlapping buildings in the Kea painting might reflect this characteristic, but the evidence for the base of the town(s) is lacking.

Walls The representations of walls are strikingly diverse. Some have black masonry lines, others white, bluegray, or red ocher. The same variety is apparent in the Thera Miniature Frieze. The Departure Town (IV) has a number of upper stories (or buildings higher up the slope) in white with black lines, while in the Arrival Town (V) blue predominates, with some red at the high levels, but no white, except for areas designated “blank space,” usually windows, for the appearance of figures. The small outlying buildings to the left of the Departure Town are similarly varied, as are those on the other walls (Towns I–III), so color does not seem to signify grandness of material, structure, or function. Rather, while alluding to the colors of the volcanic rocks of Thera,43 the variation helps to differentiate structures and, most importantly, adds a visual dynamic to the mass of buildings. The same is true of the buildings of the Kea frieze. In Figure 7.1, fragment 87 has walls of an orangetoned ocher. Traces of horizontal lines, along with one vertical line, punctuate the surface of the wall. The central part of Figure 7.2 (100–103) uses blue-gray for sections of the walls, while the red ocher walls to the right in the composition (97–99) have parallel horizontal lines, akin to those on a few of the buildings in the Thera Miniature Frieze, perhaps representing lines incised into the rendering44 or, more likely, simply as an abbreviation for coursed masonry.45 In the Cauldrons and Ships scene (Fig. 7.8) a distinct brown ocher covers the broad expanse of the building in the unique, informative fragment 67, and in related, less well-preserved fragments, shown in Plate 13. It is unclear what the brown signifies, whether open interiors (i.e., looking through massive doors) or large unbroken surfaces of external wall. Much depends on one’s interpretation of the function of the structures (discussed below). Of particular interest is the depiction of stonework. The large blocks in 88, created by a series of horizontal lines with linking verticals alternately 43 On the stones of Thera, see Einfalt 1978; Palyvou 2005a, 113–114. 44 Morgan 1988, 74. 45 Palyvou 2005b, 191.

122

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

arranged, give the impression of cut and dressed ashlar masonry (Figs. 4.1, 7.1). Four courses are preserved, the lowest being wider than the others. There must have been nine or ten courses in total (given the position of the base of the building in relation to the woman), which is more than the norm of six courses corresponding to a story.46 The building was presumably of significance, perhaps even part of a fortification wall (which would make the doorway a gateway). It is notable that there are nine courses in the fortification wall represented on the Mycenae Siege Rhyton (Fig. 4.7), which contrasts sharply with the small houses above (i.e., behind it), and eight reconstructed for the Arrival Town (Fig. 4.5). Narrower courses of the same type of masonry appear beneath the cornices of the roof in 90 in the same composition and in fragment 99 incorporated into Figure 7.2. The problem is that the houses at Ayia Irini were not built of ashlar. At this time, the use of ashlar masonry had spread from purely palatial use to villas and some town houses on Crete and on Thera for parts of buildings.47 The technique did not spread to Kea, where the local schist was inappropriate for ashlar.48 The entire site of Ayia Irini is built of rubble masonry, as are the traditional houses on the island today. Nonetheless, the blocks are well made and relatively regular, the best of the masonry being dry built,49 with mud mortar used only sometimes, while the fortification walls and grander houses, which included some fine-grained, bluish-gray limestone (marble) with the schist, were constructed of massive blocks “sometimes producing . . . handsome near-ashlar faces.”50 Other houses were built of “an irregular, though imposing, pile of huge stones.”51 46 Palyvou 2005b, 191. In the Xeste 4 walls, the upper courses were narrower than the lower ones, in a sequence of diminishing heights applied to both stories (Palyvou 2005a, 157), a principle that was not extended to rubble walls (Palyvou 2005a, 114). Architectural lines in the Kea frieze are not, however, drawn with great precision, and it is unlikely that such a detail is expressed here. 47 Palyvou 1999, 611. At Akrotiri, all houses have some elements made of dressed stone, but only a few buildings (Xestai 1–5) were built of ashlar masonry, and only one (Xeste 4) in its external entirety. 48 Shaw (2009, 23–24) comments that schist splits easily into thin horizontal layers, making it unsuitable for ashlar walls, though ideal for paving slabs, and that Bronze Age walls made entirely of schist are only occasionally found on Crete. 49 Cf. Shaw 2009, 58, on Cretan walls of limestone and schist. 50 Caskey 1971, 389. 51 Caskey 1971, 389.

Interestingly, a uniquely detailed rendition of irregular rubble masonry appears in fragments 4 and 105 on an upper story wall with windows, reconstructed in Figure 7.3. On Crete, most town houses had lower stories of rubble, while upper stories are assumed to have been mostly of mudbrick,52 as they are at Akrotiri, where the rubble masonry of the ground floors are mostly strengthened with dressed corner stones.53 While ashlar masonry, designed to impress, was left bare, both rubble walls and mudbrick walls at wellpreserved Akrotiri were rendered with mud plaster, to protect the mortar in the joints and the exposed wooden beams from rain water. This mud plaster created a smooth monochrome exterior appearance, the natural color of the mud being gray, yellow, or red, while the use of lime plaster painted pinkish ocher was less frequent.54 It is usually assumed that all the walls at Ayia Irini—upper as well as lower—were built of rubble masonry, no mudbrick having been found. Part of the upper story of the Northeast Bastion survived at the time of excavation, built of the same stone as the ground floor (this vol., Ch. 1, p. 35 n. 114). But these were rooms inside the fortification wall. Elsewhere in the site, Caskey reported that “large quantities of earth and clay fell into the basements, presumably from upper parts of walls . . .”55 Most partition walls, at least, should have been made of mudbrick, and the issue of whether some of the external walls of upper stories of the houses were mudbrick remains open. The question arises as to whether we are to interpret the colored walls in the painting as rendering with mud plaster (gray, yellow, red) or, less likely, with painted lime plaster, and the coursed masonry walls as exposed stone, without rendering. This would match the surface treatments of the exterior walls at the site of Akrotiri—ashlar without rendering, rubble and mudbrick with rendering—though not the distribution of wall colors in the towns of the 52 Graham (1962) 1969, 151; Palyvou 2005a, 112; Shaw 2009, 56–58, 127–132. 53 Palyvou 2005a, 111–123. 54 Palyvou 2005a, 189. In the case of Xeste 3, two of the walls (north and east) were built of ashlar masonry, while the south wall was of rubble, plastered with lime mortar painted a pinkish ocher color, to blend with the ignimbrite stone of the grander walls (Palyvou 2005a, 120–121). 55 Caskey 1971, 389. This phenomenon has also been interpreted as repairs to the town using mud plaster (Caskey and Tountas 1998).

BUILDINGS: URBAN SPACE

West House miniature paintings, in which ground floor walls are often blue and upper walls sometimes coursed. Palyvou draws attention to the difference between rubble and mudbrick as depicted in the Town Mosaic plaques, both being rendered but the rubble being shown with horizontal lines corresponding to timber reinforcement.56 This offers a good interpretative solution for the horizontal ocher structures in the Kea buildings in Figures 7.1 and 7.2 (esp. 93, 100, 103), which may represent wooden beams set into the walls as stabilizers against earthquake, as utilized in the rubble (not ashlar) architecture of Akrotiri as well as in Cretan architecture.57 But were they envisaged as visible to the eye and hence exposed to the elements, or would they have been plastered over? Is this, in other words, a literal depiction of what was seen on the exterior walls, or does it combine internal with external views to provide an idea of a wall? Do we then have to interpret the coursed masonry of the Kea paintings as ashlar? Such an interpretation would mean that the town could not be identified as Ayia Irini. It would also raise the question of why the irregular rubble masonry in 4 and 105 of Figure 7.3 is depicted “in the raw” rather than rendered. In considering these issues, it should be noted that evidence for colorful plaster on the exteriors of Minoan buildings (as opposed to neutral white or beige) is not forthcoming.58 The excavations at Ayia Irini seem to have revealed no evidence for plaster (whether mud or lime) on the external walls of any of the buildings. Although rendering protects rubble walls from moisture, stone can be sealed with a light wash of lime without obscuring its appearance, and it is common in Greece, as elsewhere, for houses built of rough-cut stone to have no apparent plaster rendering. Stone is pleasing to the eye, often colorful, as in the local schist used at Ayia Irini, with natural textures that catch light and shade in a play of tones that subtly changes with the sun throughout the day and 56 Palyvou 2005b, 189, pl. 51. 57 Graham (1962) 1969, 150; Palyvou 2005a, 111–112, 119, 121–123; Shaw 2009, 94–104. At Akrotiri, projecting stone cornices (string courses) were used for both ashlar and rubble exterior walls, where they indicate (though do not necessarily correspond with) the level of the upper floors and enliven the morphological structure of the facade, while helping to protect timber beams beneath from rainwater (Palyvou 2005a, 116, 160–161). There is, however, no surviving evidence for such structural devices at Ayia Irini, where wooden beams would be more in keeping with the use of local schist. 58 Preziosi 1983, 5.

123

evening. While the plain white and the colored surfaces, in orange, red, and blue-gray may relate to the reality of rendering, they could also constitute an artistic device to vary the rhythms of the town, while simultaneously referring to the varying tones of bluish gray, red, and ocher that are distinctly visible in the local schist of the island (Fig. 4.14). The white walls with black lines are less ambiguous, clearly representing stone. But need the horizontals and verticals necessarily depict the precision of ashlar masonry? Surely not. There are far too many buildings, both in this painting and in the better-preserved towns of the Thera Miniature Frieze that are depicted with such masonry, for all to be considered ashlar. Even some of the little outlying buildings, which are surely not prestigious buildings constructed of expensive materials, are depicted with such masonry. Several of the buildings in the Thera frieze have coursed masonry on colored surfaces, suggesting the varied hues of building stones, but also linking them with the plain-colored surfaces. Furthermore, in the tall, tower-like building on the left of the Departure Town (Fig. 4.4), there is the anomaly of a colored, hence rendered rubble, surface on the ground floor with coursed masonry usually interpreted as ashlar above. In reality, such a reversal of the norm is extremely rare, while as Palyvou points out, the corner stones that link the two stories are a feature that belongs exclusively to rubble walls.59 Surely the courses of black lines on white constituted an artistic convention for depicting stone.60 In fact, shrine models from Piskokephalo dated to MM II–III have incised lines of the same pattern,61 yet they predate the use of ashlar masonry in houses (as opposed to palatial buildings). In the Kea painting, only the unusual depiction of irregular masonry is distinguished as specifically of rubble construction. The rest display a generic (and mostly none too precise) use of horizontal and vertical lines to create a visual impression of coursed masonry, regardless of how the stones were cut. We may conclude that the primary function of the different colors and surface treatments of the walls was to provide variety, both in functional terms, in distinguishing between individual structures and 59 Palyvou 2005b, 190. 60 Palyvou (2005b, 191) suggests that ashlar walls are part of the convention for depicting a major town, which is a similar conclusion, though does not account for the outlying buildings in the Thera Miniature Frieze. 61 Schoep 1994, 194, 208–209, figs 10, 11. She considers the models to have been “ritual screens.”

124

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

houses within a clustered complex, and, more generally, as a method of enhancing the scene. On the same principle, both the Thera miniature paintings and the Town Mosaic faience plaques62 differentiate through color and surface texture, while the monochrome Master Impression achieves a similar effect through the rhythmic repetition of projecting cornices and numerous windows of varying sizes. As such, the use of colored surfaces or coursed masonry cannot be used as accurate indicators of architectural construction or of the location of the scenes.

Doorways and Windows Doorway or Gateway A single doorway is implied in Figure 7.1 by the color changes to the right of fragment 88 and by the link (through matching ridges on the backs of the fragments) with the woman walking beneath the building (1). No details have survived other than a patch of red ocher suggesting the outer frame. In contrast, the doorway in Figure 7.3, Women and Buildings, is well represented by four fragments. The woman in 3 is painted against a dark, gray-blue background, which should be the doorway itself. To the right are two vertical frames, the inner one yellow ocher, the outer red ocher with black horizontal lines. While the yellow ocher clearly denotes wood, it is unclear what the red ocher represents. That it is also part of the framing of the door is, however, indicated by 104, in which the width of the red ocher is defined (cf. 107, 108). Doorways are well preserved at Akrotiri, and Palyvou comments that the timber frame was carefully secured to the ashlar corner stones (when at the side of the wall) or to the wall, sometimes with mortises and dowels.63 The outer frame in Figure 7.3 cannot represent corner stones—which may be depicted in the building behind the horse in Figure 7.6 (135– 138) and in Figure 7.8 (67), Cauldrons and Ships— since they are flanked by more vertical structures, white and ocher (104), rather than being at the ends 62 Rarely reproduced in color, but consisting of white, red, and dark gray surfaces. 63 Palyvou 2005a, 136–140.

of the building. Perhaps the ocher frame represents the jambs of the door itself, recessed into the wall, while the red frame stands for stone piers, outside the recess, in line with the external wall. The entrance door of the West House had a strip of wide stones above the lintel, and the wooden jambs were slightly indented from the surface of the wall, giving an impression of a secondary frame.64 Another possible interpretation is that the red ocher with lines represents open wooden doors with parallel planks.65 Palyvou notes that one of the Town Mosaic plaques has vertical lines on the (closed) door, indicating planks of wood, a feature also evident in the large gateways of the Master Impression.66 The lines in the Kea painting, however, are horizontal, rather than vertical, and this would be a unique depiction of open double doors in Aegean art. Furthermore, the doors at Akrotiri at least were set into a recess, against which they would have lain flat when open, rather than flush with the exterior wall.67 Most likely, the doorway in the painting is defined in this way less as a literal depiction of an actual doorway than as a means of expressing its iconographic importance. Perhaps it is even a gateway into the town, rather than a mere door. Doorways are relatively rare in Aegean representations of buildings, and nothing in the comparative iconography matches this double framing of the doorway or the relatively large scale of the structure, other than, on an even grander scale, and with a somewhat different framing, the gateway of the Arrival Town in the Thera Miniature Frieze (Fig. 4.5). Given the limited preservation of the scene, it is unclear whether the attention given to this large doorway signifies its role as a city gate or whether it acts as a determinative for the role of the woman. Comparative iconography suggests that either interpretation could apply, perhaps in combination. What may be doors in the Departure Town and outlying buildings in the Thera Frieze are small (Fig. 4.4). Only in the building between the shipwreck and the pastoral scene of the North Wall (Fig. 4.3:a) do we find doorways that match the height of a person, for the same 64 Palyvou 2005a, 139, fig. 203. Impressions of the original wood have been filled with concrete. 65 An imprint of a door leaf made of two upright planks with transverse horizontal beams at top and bottom was preserved in the east entrance to Delta 19 at Akrotiri (Palyvou 2005a, 137–139, fig. 202). 66 Palyvou 2005b, 194. 67 Palyvou 2005a, figs. 202, 203.

BUILDINGS: URBAN SPACE

reason: a figure (here a man) walks past, framed in one of the openings. This single-story building, comprised only of openings, has jambs with horizontal lines, like the outer frame of the Kea doorway, but white rather than red. The two openings on the right are blue-gray, almost black, while the left openings (a fourth is just visible) are white. This enabled the artist to distinguish the man, with red ocher skin and dark garment, against the white ground, a reversal of the Kea color coding in which the white-skinned woman appears against a dark doorway. The significantly large scale and the double framing of the Kea doorway or gateway signals its importance as a framing device for the woman, who carries a vessel on her head as she walks past the building.

Windows The windows of 87 and 88 in Figure 7.1 are painted black, with ocher frames indicative of wood. Lintel and sill extend beyond the jambs, and the area encompassed by the width of the frame is marked by vertical lines, as though occupying the entire width of a room. The wall of the lower window (88) is narrow, in order to provide a white space next to it as a backdrop for the plants that overlap the wall. A cornice suggests a roof (the building above being different), informing us that the window is on the upper story, as is the double window (87) in the building above, which has a single mullion splitting it into two. Another fragment (111) has been tentatively added to the same composition. It has smaller windows, reconstructed with six openings, though there could have been four. In Figure 7.3, a woman is framed against a large dark gray-blue window or balcony, as she raises her hand facing left (4). A second fragment (109) is incorporated, while a comparable window, black rather than blue-gray and without the woman (106), is reconstructed to the right. The window is framed by yellow ocher beams, the lintel being double with a horizontal dividing line on the right. The lower (as reconstructed) horizontal beam extends beyond the vertical, as it does in the windows of Figure 7.1, while the left jamb is narrower than the right. The right edge of the frame corresponds with a string line, beyond which is the wall with irregular masonry, whose stories are divided by a horizontal ocher beam, above which is a gray window in the white masonry wall. Another window (105) matches this. The two are sharply differentiated from the other windows by

125

their lack of frame, just as the wall surface is differentiated by the irregular masonry. Another, smaller rectangular window is partially preserved on the white surface of a wall in 93, reconstructed in Figure 7.2. It also has no wooden frame, but here the viewer can assume the surface of the wall is rendered, the whitewashed plaster covering the window frame as well as the stone (or brick) wall. The window lies beneath a horizontal beam below the cornice of a roof, indicating that it, too, is to be understood as belonging to an upper story. A second window might be imagined to the left, omitted on account of the dome-like shape on the roof of the building below. In the same composition, the yellow beams of 102 may represent windows divided by mullions but are more likely a wooden framework in the wall. Finally, a large window with ocher lintel and sill is reconstructed in Figure 7.5, Building and Plants. Fragment 141 provides the width of a window, and three others have been reconstructed from numerous related pieces, with a proposed single mullion, for which, however, there is no surviving evidence. The horizontal frame is narrow, preserved in its full width in 142. There is no vertical frame, at least on the left side, where the building is separated from the ground by a string line.68 There are several other fragments that appear to have belonged to windows (Pl. 12), but it was not possible to incorporate them into any of the reconstructions. This means that there were indeed more buildings in the frieze. The variable size and the presence or absence of wooden frames is characteristic of the miniature format in which diversity lends interest and definition to the clustering of buildings that form a town. This is evident in the Town Mosaic (Fig. 4.6), the Master Impression (Fig. 4.10), and the Royal Road ivory house facade (Fig. 4.8), which has a window low on the facade, a form and position that is matched in the west facade of the West House and north wall of Xeste 3 at Thera69 but is relatively unusual in representations. A single architectural fragment surviving from the Tylissos miniature painting has a vertical mullion with two, probably three, horizontal transoms (Fig. 4.9), its frame set within a wall of coursed 68 This was probably also the case on the right side, if 154, with its string line, is an indicator. However, another small fragment with string line and ocher, perhaps a vertical beam, to the right, may have belonged to a related window (155; Fig. 7.5, center top). 69 Palyvou 2005b, pl. 53:2a–c.

126

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

0

1

2

5 cm

Figure 4.6. Town Mosaic faience plaques from Knossos, visualized as a group by C. Palyvou (2005b, pl. 50).

Figure 4.7. Silver Siege Rhyton, Shaft Grave IV at Mycenae, detail of the town. H. ca. 10.4 cm. After Smith 1965, fig. 84, detail. Drawing S.E. Chapman.

Figure 4.8. Ivory plaque from the Royal Road, Knossos. H. 4.5; w. 5.5 cm. After Palyvou 2005b, pl. 53:2a.

Figure 4.9. Fragment of a building from the Tylissos Miniature Frieze. Not to scale; cf. Fig. 11.5. After Evans 1921– 1935, III, fig. 49.

BUILDINGS: URBAN SPACE

masonry. Various window types are depicted in the Thera Miniature Frieze.70 The Departure Town, Figure 4.4, includes three large openings (center), nine openings divided by two mullions and two transoms (the tower-like building on the left), and several narrow slit windows in pairs, which look as though they might have lit stairways. In the Arrival Town, Figure 4.5, there are multiple openings within the large circuit wall and above the gateway,71 two large openings with male figures positioned center right of the gateway (interpreted by Palyvou, however, as a sheltered roof or veranda),72 and traces of paired narrow slit windows in the blue building at the top. This feature occurs high on the ground floors of houses at Akrotiri73 and in the Period VII part of House A at Ayia Irini,74 though I am not aware of earlier evidence there. Interestingly, though it is characteristic of the towns of the Thera miniatures and occurs in the Town Mosaic and the Royal Road ivory plaque, it does not appear in the surviving fragments from Kea. Representations of buildings are valuable sources of information. Although clearly bound by an editing process determined by conventions and the need to abbreviate to fit the exigencies of space, art shows areas that archaeology cannot access. Thus the frames and lattices of vertical and horizontal divisions (the mullions and transoms) common to all the main representations—Thera, Kea, and Tylissos miniatures, Town Mosaic and Royal Road plaques, Master Impression, and Siege Rhyton—must have been common throughout the Aegean at this time, and they are reflected in imprints in windows at Akrotiri, but are inevitably missing in the less well-preserved sites on Crete and elsewhere.75 All of the windows in the Kea paintings have either gray-black (when empty) or gray-blue (with the woman) openings, indicative of space between the slats or frames, rather than shutters. No evidence of shutters was found at Akrotiri,76 and coverings of parchment, matting, or linen might be imagined in reality, though it is understandable that such details would not be represented in the art. All the windows appear to belong to upper stories (Figs. 7.1, 7.2) or at least the 70 Morgan 1988, 79–81. 71 Televantou 1994a, fig. 22. 72 Palyvou 2005b, 193. Interpreted as windows by Morgan 1988, 80, and Televantou 1994a, 272. 73 Palyvou 2005a, 147. 74 Cummer and Schofield 1984, 15–16. 75 Palyvou 2005a, 150; 2005b, 196. 76 Palyvou 2005a, 150.

127

upper parts of the walls of a ground story (Fig. 7.5, Building and Plants). Most of the windows appear to be accommodated within a single wall space, suggesting that window and frame relate to one room on the interior. As each looks to be a separate building, however, and single-roomed stories are not to be expected, we must assume that this is a shorthand way of showing a building with windows, interior and exterior space being only loosely related. Figure 7.3 provides a different layout of windows from the other buildings in the frieze. Here there were two large windows, one occupied by the woman (4), one blank (106), which presumably belonged to the same level. But the windows above (4, 105) imply that they must have been some distance apart, symmetrically placed as in the illustration. This suggests an altogether grander building (as does the related doorway), in which the large windows relate either to an enormous single room or to two large rooms on the interior.

Balcony or “Window of Appearance”? The theme of women at windows is well known in Aegean art.77 Unlike the related scene of many women seated in a palatial setting of the Knossos Grandstand painting, it presents either a single woman or a few, framed by an architectural structure. The theme occurs in two fragments of miniature wall paintings at Knossos. In one of these, from the North-West Fresco Heap, three women face left within a latticed window, the horizontal beam intercepting the figures beneath their heads.78 In the other (actually two fragments), from the area of the miniature paintings, a woman faces to right raising her arms, framed in a composite structure, with beam ends above, interlocking pier at the side, and a balustrade protecting her from ground to waist, overlapping her skirt.79 In 77 Morgan 1988, 82–83; Palyvou 2005b, 192–193. 78 Drawing: Evans 1921–1935, II, 602, fig. 375; Morgan 1988, 82, fig. 57. Color facsimile: Evans 1967, pl. IV, fig 15; Morgan, ed., 2005, pl. 9b. 79 Evans 1921–1935, II, 603, fig. 376; Morgan 1988, 82, fig. 58; Palyvou 2005b, pl. 54:1a. A male figure appears lower left. I have not had the opportunity to see these fragments, which are published only as a reconstruction in a black-and-white drawing. It is therefore not possible to comment on the gesture (do the fingers survive?) or to interpret the area surrounding the woman’s head, which in the drawing is rendered by criss-cross lines, which look like matting.

128

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

Mycenaean painting, the theme continues with fragments from the Ramp House,80 the Mycenae Megaron Frieze,81 Thebes,82 and a recently found fragment from Ayios Vasilios in Laconia.83 The Megaron structure echoes that of one of the Knossos fragments, with beam ends, interlocking piers, and a balustrade, here made of solid horizontal strips. Both structures are no doubt palatial and relate to the Tripartite Shrine of the Knossos Grandstand Miniature Frieze and other miniature (of somewhat larger scale) fragments from Magazine XIII,84 though these resemble entrance ways more than windows. The fragment from Ayios Vasilios (probably datable to LH IIIA:2), which also has beam ends, exhibits specific technical as well as some iconographic similarities with Kea fragment 4: blue interior of the window against which the woman’s head (all that survives) is applied in thick white paint, and an ocher surround to the window, which is marked by a vertical string line on the right side of the frame. The Thera Miniature Frieze affords the widest range and fullest context of this theme (Figs. 4.4, 4.5). Yet no woman appears within a window. Men and women watch the action from rooftops; men appear in large openings within the Arrival Town, interpreted by Palyvou as verandas;85 and a woman with arm raised before “horns of consecration” appears in a 80 Rodenwaldt 1911, 222–231, pl. IX; Lamb 1919–1921, 190– 192, nos. 1–3; Evans 1921–1935, I, 444, fig. 320; Marinatos and Hirmer 1960, col. pl. XLIII (above); reconstruction: Shaw 1996a, pl. B:3; reproduced in Morgan, ed., 2005, pl. 41:3b. Three women face to the left, one with raised arm, framed by windows hung with festoons. The window openings are blue, similar to the gray-blue of the Kea window and door, providing a contrast for the white of the women’s skin. In the Mycenae fragment, this blue continues beneath the window frame, somewhat incomprehensibly in terms of architectural structure. 81 Rodenwaldt 1921, pl. 2, frag. 8; Morgan, ed., 2005, pl. 49:5. A woman appears facing to right within an elaborate architectural structure. A warrior falling from a chariot above (of which only the belly of a horse survives) is reconstructed above and to her left (out of eyeline) on the basis of an architectural link with the building in which she appears. Related fragments from the Megaron show other women (now facing left) associated with buildings, though the structures are not entirely clear (Lamb 1921–1923, pl. XLIII). 82 Morgan 1988, pl. 156. The head of a white-skinned (female?) figure wearing a helmet is framed within a window. 83 Adamandia Vasilogamvrou, at the workshop, “Mycenaean Wall Painting in Context,” held in Athens in February 2011. 84 Evans 1921–1935, I, figs. 319, 321; Hood 2005, 65 (with references). 85 Palyvou 2005b, 193.

privileged position at the edge of the town, with full view of the incoming ships. The structure in which the woman appears projects from the building and is open air, rather than the usual position of a balcony, which projects from a middle story.86 We must assume steps going up to this open structure, as in the Archanes Model, in which steps on the inside lead to a roof with a projecting balcony surrounded by a balustrade, in which was found a lump of clay interpreted by Lembesi as the feet of a female figure.87 There is no evidence in the Kea painting for figures on rooftops; indeed, the dome-like structures on the roofs militate against the possibility of there having been any. The woman in 4 (Fig. 7.3) belongs to a tradition that may have started in a palatial context at Knossos, in which women appear both in a window and on a balcony, and continues in later Mycenaean paintings. The tradition is contextualized within the various towns in the Thera Miniature Frieze. How, then, do we understand the structure in which the woman in the Kea painting appears? Her lower arm, which does not overlap and is not overlapped by any wooden beam, indicates that the lower part of the figure was visible. By comparison with the Knossos fragment from the area of the Miniature Frieze (see n. 79), the only other surviving instance in which the lower part of the figure was exposed, the structure should be a balcony, rather than a window, since all other instances of women at windows are cut off below the head. But there is no surviving railing or balustrade. Since both the wooden frames and the woman’s dress are yellow ocher, had there been such a balustrade it should have been in red, as in the Mycenae Ramp House fragment, where the color of the beams changes to red to accommodate the overlapping yellow sleeves. There is, however, no evidence for such a railing in the surviving fragments, and it has not, therefore, been reconstructed as such. Ultimately, the structure presents the idea of a window or the idea of a balcony, in which its importance lies less in a precise relationship to the physical structures of reality (which it may well conflate) than to the appearance of the woman. The idea of a “Window of Appearance” has been posited for Room 3 of the West House at Akrotiri,88 the West Facade 86 Palyvou 2004, 211. The structure in the Thera painting was interpreted by Televantou as a shrine (1994a, 268). 87 Lembesi 1976. 88 Marinatos 1983, 16–17; 1984, 51.

BUILDINGS: URBAN SPACE

at Knossos89 and for the “Sacred Grove and Dance” miniature painting,90 while balconies have been recognized on the second stories of Xeste 3 and Xeste 4.91 Palyvou has commented on the balconies of the Thera painting and Archanes model that “The peculiarities of these rare cases of balconies point to some specific function, perhaps not entirely secular. They form a pronounced platform, intentionally meant for one person only (a female, as it seems), with the aim to see as much as to be seen.”92 Whether at a window or on a balcony, in the Kea painting, as in the Thera frieze, the appearance is notable. But we see a woman who is not articulated as a royal presence or an epiphany (as assumed for Knossos), in a setting that is not, as far as we can tell, palatial. Whoever the woman in the Kea painting depicts, whatever role she played in the painting, she is defined by the architectural structure that frames her, communicating with the outside from the inside. Like the structures represented in Amarna art,93 whatever we call them and wherever we think they were—“Window of Appearance” or “Balcony of Appearance”—it is the appearance itself that is significant.

Rooftops Aegean Bronze Age rooftops were flat and functional as extended outdoor space, according to both iconographical and archaeological evidence, and were arranged at different heights, according to the level of the ground and the thickness of the walls.94 Some of the Town Mosaic house plaques have a straight-edged projection in the center of the roof (Fig. 4.6), which is no doubt understandable as a partial third story, for which there is clear evidence in the town of Akrotiri, notably in the West House, where, however, the projecting story lay on one side of the building.95 One unique fragment from Kea (not included in the reconstructions) has two sloping (half 89 Hägg 1987. 90 Alušík 2006. 91 Palyvou 2004, 211. 92 Palyvou 2004, 212. 93 Kemp 1976. 94 Graham (1962) 1969, 160; Preziosi 1983, 4–5, 17; Palyvou 2005a, 128–129; 2005b, 188, 192; Shaw 2009, 153. 95 Palyvou 2005a, pl. 2; 2005b, 188.

129

pitch) roofs (114),96 a format that one occasionally sees in Chora on the island today.

Cornices The flat roof was supported by a broad cornice, which projected out in order to divert rain water away from the walls. This cornice, though missing from the majority of the Town Mosaic houses and from the Royal Road plaque, is otherwise consistently depicted in art. The Archanes House Model, in its three-dimensionality, shows how the projecting cornice, with a parapet encircling the roof, linked to the balcony that projects from one side. In twodimensional representations, the cornice is usually single, as in the majority of the buildings in the Thera Miniature Frieze, Zakros sealings, the Master Impression, and the Siege Rhyton. In the Thera Departure Town, cornices are white, yellow, or occasionally blue, while the tall tower-like building has a double cornice, the lower yellow one corresponding to a coping frieze, being a timber reinforcement at ceiling level, a feature that is visible in the Akrotiri building Xeste 2.97 Within the compact group of buildings, several cornices overlap other buildings. In the Arrival Town, single cornices (none double) are white or blue. In the Kea painting, as represented by the fragments incorporated into Figures 7.1 and 7.2, all but one of the cornices are white, the other being blue (94; Fig. 7.2:left). All the roof fragments in Figure 7.1, with blue sky, and some from Figure 7.2, have a coping frieze and a cornice. One fragment with yellow ground (96) implies a projecting cornice.98

Domes or Crenellations? What is striking about the roofs of the Kea painting is the white dome-like shapes. Their preponderance suggests that most of the rooftops had them. The well-preserved house of 87 (Fig. 4.1:a), central in 96 The fragment is unique in two ways, both for the sloping roofs and for the horizontal as well as vertical string line. 97 Palyvou 2005b, 191. 98 It is unclear to me what the projection beneath the cornice and beam in 93 represents.

130

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

the composition of Figure 7.1, has two symmetrically placed structures, and two (with a slightly wider gap between them) are also apparent on the adjacent fragment 90. In Figure 7.2, there are no surviving pairs, though the proximity of the structure to the edge of the building in fragment 96 implies their symmetrical existence (and there may originally have been two on 98). On the other hand, those against yellow ground in 93 and overlapping buildings on the same fragment and on 102 are represented singly. What do these rounded shapes represent and how might they correspond to actual structures? The question has been much discussed, but no conclusive answer is forthcoming, since, inevitably, no actual instances of such rooftop structures have been recovered in the archaeological record, even at Akrotiri. What follows is a description of the iconographic parallels, followed by interpretative options. In wall paintings, the only glimpse of such a structure outside Kea comes from two tiny semicircles atop the white cornice of the red building top left in the Arrival Town from Thera (Fig. 4.5). As the rest of the rooftop has not survived, there may have been more, but whatever they stand for they are ineffectually small. However, three of the rooftops in Town I, two at sky level, one overlapping another building, each have a distinctive black triangle on top of the cornice (Fig. 4.3:d). These unique structures recur in the tiered building on the coast, beneath and to the left of Town II on the north wall (Fig. 4.3:c). The surviving two rooftops show rows of these triangles, which are then repeated in rows down the sides of the buildings in two fragments. They give the impression of projecting deterrents on a fortified structure (the ancient equivalent of barbed wire), though it looks as though the side projections would have made convenient ladders for scaling the walls.99 It is interesting to note, however, that the Egyptian hieroglyphic sign O13, “battlemented enclosure,” used as the determinative (classifier) for “gateway,” is composed of pointed projections that run continuously both on the top and down the sides of a rectangular 99 Cf. the projecting wooden stakes, known as toron, on the sides of adobe architecture in West Africa, notably Mali, used as fixed scaffolding for repairs (Shamir and Kounta 2007, 62–63 [pl.]) but also thought to be symbolic. Along with oval projections at the roof, they occur mainly on mosques (e.g., the Great Mosque of Djenne, 13th century, rebuilt 1907) and the Djinguereber Mosque of Timbuktu (14th century), but also on houses (e.g., Elleh 1997, fig. 1.8; Shamir and Kounta 2007, 26–32, 80–83).

structure.100 Whatever the triangular projections in the Thera painting are, they are unique to these two parts of the towns and do not recur in the surviving corpus of Aegean art, though one may surmise a relationship with the rounded projections. Dome-like rooftop structures are also rare. The towers on the Zakros sealing in Figure 4.11 have a single conical structure on four of their roofs (the fifth lying too close to the edge to provide room for one). Their tower-like structures and the juxtaposition of two figure-of-eight shields at the base of the walls suggest fortifications. In the Master Impression, a rhythmic array of broad cornices project beyond the sides of each wall unit, those within the overall conglomerate of structures being plain, those at the edges, outlined against what can be interpreted as the sky, crowned by small rounded projections (Fig. 4.10). These provide the best parallel to the Kea painting. The building complex has been interpreted as a fortification wall with two massive gates and either (according to Hallager) a palatial building behind or (according to Palyvou) several town buildings (see n. 31). While it was commonly thought that fortifications, typical of Cycladic towns, were mostly lacking on Crete, a study by Tomáš Alušík has identified parts of defensive architecture at numerous sites, including several towers and bastions.101 This reappraisal of the situation means that the Master Impression and Zakros sealing are no longer iconographically anomalous as Cretan products. While we cannot be sure that a fortified town is reflected in the architectural structures of the Kea painting, we have noted that the number of courses of masonry in Figure 7.1 should (according to the links between fragments) match those of the fortification wall on the Siege Rhyton rather than those of houses, and the huge doorway past which a woman walks has the air of a massive gateway. Ayia Irini was, of course, a fortified town, and the Northeast Bastion 100 Gardiner 1979, 494, O13. Cf. O4 (reed shelter, without the projections) and O14 (partial structure with the projections, without the gate, an abbreviation of O13). 101 Alušík 2007, 136–141. Identification of towers and bastions is largely through increased size of the stones, width of the foundations, and protrusions in the walls. Relatively few are datable to the Neopalatial period, with more being Protopalatial, but Kato Zakros is one of those that is (Alušík 2007, 36–37). See, however, Letesson, Knappett, and Smith. (2017, 368–369), who comment on the lack of evidence for “a complete circuit” of defensive walls in Minoan Crete.

BUILDINGS: URBAN SPACE

that housed the Miniature Frieze was one of the most prominent parts of this circuit wall. Katherine Abramovitz, at the suggestion of Edith Porada, proposed that the Kea dome-like structures are rounded crenellations, akin to those represented on a Hittite model (Fig. 4.12).102 This proposal has much to recommend it. Though it is open to the pertinent objection that crenellations are relevant to circuit walls, rather than to houses,103 domestic buildings even today occasionally have crenellations as markers of status,104 and they were applied to a variety of nonmilitary medieval buildings.105 The fact that they are so large need not detract from such an interpretation, as, whatever they are, they have clearly been emphasized to signify their value. Before reflecting on this option, we should consider the alternatives, both in terms of archaeological evidence and ethnographic comparison among the huge variety of domed roofs and crenellated parapets found on buildings in southern Europe, northern Africa, and the Middle East.106 All but crenellations and “horns of consecration,” which would have had little depth when seen from the side, are fully dome-shaped in the round. All but the first option are secular interpretations. It should be remembered, however, that there is no reason why a single structure might not have had both functional and symbolic significance. “Horns of Consecration” Eric Hallager was under the impression that the dome-like shapes on the Master Impression (Fig. 4.10) were so-called horns of consecration.107 Such structures, known from stucco examples, notably at 102 Abramovitz 1980, 60; cf. Porada 1967; J. Davis 1986, 101. 103 Pavúk 2002, 578. 104 Cf. Stokstad 2005, 64, referencing “college halls, government buildings, and even private houses.” 105 In medieval times a licence was required in order to crenellate, and these were given to “monasteries, towns, builders of clearly non-military structures in general” (Johnson 2002, 24, 104; cf. Coulson 2003, 161–163, 187, 199, 238, 353, on the fortification of “noble” architecture). 106 See, e.g., Dollfus 1954, pls. 74:a–e (Italy), 77:b (Greece, Santorini), 88:a, c, j, l–o, r (Morocco), 90:c, i, j (Tunisia), 91:d, i, 92:l, v (Sahara), 93:b, c, f, g, n, o, 100:q (Sudan), 102:n (Palestine), 103:a, d, i–k, m (Arabian Peninsula), 104:l, m (Iraq), 107:a, b (Iran). See also Elleh 1997, for adobe examples in West Africa, notably Mali. 107 Hallager 1985, 18–21. The shape is perhaps better understood as a mountainous horizon; cf. the Egyptian determinative N26 (Gardiner 1979, 489). Cf. Powell 1977, 72–73; MacGillivray 2000, 129; Marinatos, 2010b, 103–110 (who all suggest horizon or mountain peaks rather than horns).

131

Knossos and Akrotiri, are represented on the wall of the Arrival Town of Thera (Fig. 4.5, far right) as well as before the woman on the balcony (far left). The angular, concave shape is quite different from the convex dome-like forms, which are represented both in pairs and, at the ends of cornices of overlapping walls, singly (to avoid obscuring the wall above, i.e., behind). Their close similarity with the Kea structures, which are yet more rounded and clearly not “horns of consecration,” rules out that interpretation. Whatever the Kea structures are, those of the Master Impression should have the same or related function. Rooftop Granaries Thomas Strasser proposed that the domes in the Master Impression and Kea painting are rooftop granaries.108 For comparison, he illustrates Egyptian and Mesopotamian representations of raised granaries. Storing grain off the ground is a practical way of avoiding damage from rodents, but most of the representations cited do not show granaries on top of domestic houses, but rather specialized storage buildings.109 Grain silos were placed next to houses, sometimes in their own buildings, in which the tops of the silos were accessed by stairs,110 hence the ambiguity of some of the images. In one example that does show a house (in a wall painting in Theban Tomb 104), the rounded forms have been interpreted in terms of Egyptian perspective as behind the building, that is, in the courtyard, rather than on top.111 Granaries filled with grain would be far too heavy to be supported by domestic roofs.112 Structural Support against Earthquakes Domes are a common feature of the architecture of modern Santorini, vaulted with bands of stone on a framework of branches,113 designed as structural support against damage from earthquakes. Such domes, 108 Strasser 1997. 109 Badawy 1966, 31–36 (Egypt); Curtis 2001, 197 (Near East); Arnold 2003, 99 (Egypt). 110 Arnold 2003, 99–100. 111 Davies 1929, 237–238. Cf. the trees behind but perceptually on top of the roof of a house in TT 23 (Davies 1929, fig. 7). 112 I am grateful to architect Erhan Acar for informative discussions in 1988 on the matter of domes and to Clairy Palyvou for her advice on this, as well as many other architectural issues over the years. 113 Radford and Clark 1974, fig. 12.

132

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

however, span the area of single rooms, carrying their weight down onto the supports of the walls, or they cover the span of two rooms divided by a partition. They would not appear as pairs of domes, which, as we clearly see in the case of 87, do not correspond to the walls beneath. No surviving ceiling plaster at Ayia Irini indicates vaulting. Cooling Devices Previously, I suggested that one possible function of the Kea domes might have been to serve as cooling devices, with a hole at the top of each.114 Ventilation shafts on roofs for cooling the interior air are known in various forms in the Middle East,115 and domed cooling devices are found in the traditional houses and storerooms of Harran in eastern Turkey, where they were made of mudbrick, and in the trullo animal shelters and peasant houses of Apulia in southern Italy, which are made of dry-stone walling. Neither of these, however, matches the small domelike shapes on the rooftops in the Kea painting, either in shape or in location, both consisting of very large domes on single story buildings. Furthermore, one has to ask why only the Kea painting, the Master Impression, and the Zakros sealing show them, since this, had it been a functional cooling component, would surely have been more widely in use in domestic architecture. Strasser suggested that the triangular structures on the Thera buildings in Figures 4.3:c and 4.3:d might have been ventilation shafts, comparing them with Egyptian Eighteenth Dynasty examples in the papyrus of Nakht and the Tomb of Nebamun (TT 90).116 This is unlikely, given the fact that the triangles in the Thera painting continue down the sides of the walls (Fig. 4.3:c).

Ovens As Palyvou has pointed out, ovens for baking on rooftops would make good use of elevated open-air spaces in architecturally compact towns, where open spaces for cooking were at a premium.117 Two ovens per roof, however, seems unlikely, and, as with cooling devices, if this were the case one would expect it to be more commonly represented.

Chimneys Today on Kea (and elsewhere) one sees domed chimney tops projecting from roofs of some of the houses, the dome acting as a cap for the rectangular chimney, with a gap between the dome and the chimney bridged by narrow supports. There is, however, no evidence for hearths or chimney stacks on upper stories or for the common usage of upper floors as kitchens in the Aegean. Most cooking would have been done on portable braziers or out-of-doors (see this vol., Ch. 12).

Crenellations Finally, we return to the notion of crenellations. These are repetitive shapes, either rounded (dome like) or angular (square or rectangular) when viewed frontally, but with little depth, projecting upward on the tops of defensive walls. Their functional purpose was to provide shields for lookouts and soldiers on the tops of the walls, with gaps between them through which missiles could be dispatched. Their symbolic function is to impress approaching visitors with high structures, visible from a distance, signaling that the settlement is both powerful and protected. The wall of the Siege Rhyton does not have such projections, but it could not, in terms of the image, since the top of the wall is filled with gesticulating people. The wall of the Arrival Town (V) at Thera does not have dome-like projections but is instead crowned with symbolic “horns of consecration.” The other buildings of the town lack all but token domelike projections, since they, like the Siege Rhyton, are filled with spectators. However, the tiered building on the north wall with (to us) enigmatic black triangles lies strategically between a row of marching warriors armed with shields and spears above and a shipwreck (again with shields and spears) below (Fig. 11.1:a).118 It is surely no coincidence that the towers with domes on the Zakros sealing in Figure 4.11 are juxtaposed with shields,119 while the Master Impression is dominated by an authoritative male figure with a staff (spear?) standing on the rooftop between two dome-like structures. The Hittite clay model in Figure 4.12, which apparently belonged to a vessel, has three large elongated dome-shaped projections above a cornice of a tower with windows and two more projections on top of a wall to the side of the tower. It was found at Hattusa (Boğazköy), the Hititte capital, which was surrounded by fortification walls with rectangular

114 Morgan 1998, 203. 115 Johnson 1995. 116 Strasser 1997, 205 n. 25. Papyrus of Nakhte: Davies 1929, fig. 11; Tomb of Nebamun (TT 90): Davies 1929, fig. 10.

117 Palyvou 2005b, 192. 118 Town I, with the same triangles, has no surviving context. 119 Cf. CMS II.7, no. 219, in which, however, the towers are less well preserved.

BUILDINGS: URBAN SPACE

Figure 4.10. “Master Impression” sealing from Chania (LM I), original ring area 2.75 x 2.0 cm. CMS V, Suppl. 1A, no. 142.

Figure 4.11. Seal impression from Zakros (LM I), seal area ca. 1.85 cm. CMS II.7, no. 218.

133

Figure 4.12. Hittite clay model from a vase, from Boğazköy. Drawn after MacQueen 1986, 66, fig. 36. Not to scale.

Figure 4.13. Syrian fortifications, Tomb of Amenmose (TT 42), Thebes. After Davies and Davies 1933, 30, pl. XXXVI, detail.

a b Figure 4.14. Details of a house on Kea with projections on the roof: (a) seen from the front; (b) seen from an angle. Photos L. Morgan.

134

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

projecting towers approximately every 30.5 m and bastions midway between these.120 Anatolia already had a long history of defensive walls, and the impressive remains of the second millennium are likely to have been provided with the necessary battlements, such as those represented on the model. The use of crenellations was widespread in the ancient Near East. Rounded merlons (as opposed to the rectangular form of Mesopotamia) apparently originated in Egypt.121 Egyptian depictions show such battlements on fortresses and sometimes temples, with similar form to those of Canaanite fortresses.122 Occasionally, model houses and depictions of private houses have a roof with an undulating edge reminiscent of battlements.123 Rounded crenellations are characteristic of Syrian fortresses depicted in Eighteenth Dynasty Egyptian paintings, as in the Tomb of Senneferi (TT 99)124 and the Tomb of Amenmose (TT 42)125 at Thebes (Fig. 4.13). In the former, both crenellations and wall are painted red, implying that they are made of the same material (presumably mudbrick). They run continuously along the top of the wall and the tops of the two towers, on which Syrian men are shown with raised hands. In the latter, the crenellations run along two levels of walls, one overlapping the other, as the rounded shapes appear both against sky (and trees) and against the wall of the building behind. Either buildings within the fortification wall were also crenellated or we are simultaneously seeing two sides of the fortification, the near and the far. Rounded crenellations continued in use in the Near East, as represented in reliefs at Medinet Habu and Karnak in the context of Egyptian campaigns by Seti I, 120 121 122 123 124

MacQueen 1986, 64–67, esp. 66. Porada 1967. Arnold 2003, 28–29. Davies 1929, 248–249, fig. 12; Arnold 2003, 28–29. Strudwick 1995, 130, fig. 1, col. pl. 47:1. The Tomb of Senneferi in ‘Abd el-Qurna is dated to the reign of Thutmose III. The wall and the crenellations are ocher. 125 Davies and Davies 1933, 30, pl. XXXVI. Ellen Davis first drew my attention to the Syrian fortress represented in the Tomb of Amenmose, in a letter of November 24, 1986. The tomb is dated to the late Eighteenth Dynasty, postAmarna, but the scene is associated with Thutmose III(?), with whom Amenmose must have served during campaigns to the Levant. Davies and Davies (1933, 30) comment that the structure resembles “the typical Syrian fortress in having a crenellated wall with turrets,” with the addition of “a tower with shuttered window” in the center, which suggests that it may be “the fortified residence of the chief” rather than just a fortress. The colors are not stated.

Ramesses II, and Ramesses III against Canaanite, Syrian, and Hititte fortresses,126 as well as in Assyrian reliefs telling of conquests of foreign lands.127 In terms of actual remains, battlements are in evidence on fortresses in Nubia, while on temples, rounded stone battlements have survived on the High Gate of Medinet Habu at Thebes and on the temple of Onias at Tell el-Yahudiya.128 Their appearance on temples signals what Porada called “their protective power” and probably their sanctity.129 Ultimately, with all these options, how we identify the rooftop projections in the Kea painting depends first on our understanding of dimensionality: do they depict three-dimensional domes or relatively flat rounded structures? What looks like a dome from the front can be a slab from the side. Perception of dimension depends on the viewer’s perspective. Recently, walking in the hills to the north of Ayia Irini, I was struck by a modern stone house with two structures on the roof that looked at first glance like the “horns of consecration” (Fig. 4.14:a). As I passed the building, eyes glued to the structure, it changed into a three-dimensional square with a protrusion at each corner (Fig. 4.14:b). The structures look like chimneys, from which the form no doubt derives, but they sit on the outer walls of the house, not on the roof itself, apparently with no other function than adornment, signaling the top of the building from afar. Just as in the buildings in Figure 7.2, projecting structures that lie closer to the observer appear to the viewer against the wall behind, while those farther from the viewer appear silhouetted against the ground beyond (93; cf. Fig. 4.14:a). My guess is that were we to walk around the dome-like structures on the buildings represented in the Kea painting we would experience a similar shift of dimension and perspective, in this case from what appears to be domed to what is actually a slab, and perhaps also a shift from the functional to the symbolic. Crenellations could well be appropriate for the Kea painting if it reflects the walled town of Ayia Irini. But the tiered structuring of the rooftops and the 126 Pritchard 1969, figs. 329, 334 (Karnak), 344–346 (Medinet Habu). 127 Pritchard 1969, figs. 350, 366–367 (Nimrud), 356, 362 (gates of Tell Balawat), 370 (Khorsabad); cf. the Ishtar gates at Babylon as reconstructed in Berlin, fig. 760. 128 Arnold 2003, 28–29. For a reconstruction of the high gate at Medinet Habu, see Porada 1967, fig. 2 (after Hölscher 1910, frontispiece). 129 Porada 1967, 7, 11.

BUILDINGS: URBAN SPACE

placement of crenellations on what clearly look like houses appears to be problematic (as is the case for the Master Impression). Yet, as we have seen, perceptual ambiguities relating to the vantage point of the viewer complicate the issue. Perhaps we might conclude that the idea of crenellations has been extended to the buildings of the painting in a symbolic rendering of a walled town, simultaneously encompassing both the near wall and the far wall along with the houses in the middle. Such a multiple perspective is in keeping with aspects of Egyptian art,130 as seen in the walls of the fort in Figure 4.13, and is structurally related to the cartographic perspective of Aegean representations, as in the relationship of river to town in the Thera Miniature Frieze (Fig. 4.4), and houses to wall in the Master Impression (Fig. 4.10) and Siege Rhyton (Fig. 4.7). From a high vantage point, it is actually possible to simultaneously see front, back, and middle of a fort, as demonstrated in photographs of the 17th-century a.d. fort at Nazwa in Oman, with its staggered towers adorned with rows of rounded crenellations.131 Alternatively or in addition, we might (rather more simply) conclude that rounded projections used as crenellations on fortification walls also adorned the rooftops of certain houses, symbolically expressing their status, whether in reality or in the world of the image.

Shipsheds? Figure 7.8 centers on the crucial fragment 67, which relates sea, ships, land, men, and cauldrons with a massive building (Pl. 7), while Figure 7.26 is an extended visualization of the scene. In Aegean art (as in the art of many other cultures), buildings are downscaled in order not to dominate the action of the figures. The principle is well demonstrated in the towns of the Thera Miniature Frieze (Figs. 4.4, 4.5), as well as in the Mycenae Siege Rhyton (Fig. 4.7), while the most exaggerated instance occurs in the Master Impression (Fig. 4.10). This principle is adapted in the case of the doorway and window framing the two women in Figure 7.3 (3, 4), enabling the incorporation of the women into the structural components of the buildings at the same figurative size as the other human figures in the frieze. Yet 130 Schäfer 1974; Bietak 2000. 131 Damliye 1998, 233 (pl.). The crenellations (shmis) were partly for show and partly functional (Damliye 1998, 239).

135

the men in fragment 67 are not inside or against the building but outside it. There is no apparent morphological necessity to enlarge the scale of the building in relation to the men. Significantly, there are no visible windows or doors, just a huge expanse of ocher with a side strip in white. What does it represent? The building is painted in a tone of brown ocher unmatched in the other buildings in the frieze, except in seven fragments from the same context (Pl. 13:122–128), five of which have been included in the composition. It is neither the yellow ocher of wood nor the orangey red ocher tones of some of the wall surfaces in Figures 7.1 and 7.2. It is clearly differentiated from the red ocher of the men. The white strip distinguishes the outer corner of the building. Very faint traces suggest that there may have been horizontal black lines representing corner stones, like the white strip of the building to the right of the horse in 138 (Fig. 7.6), in which, however, the ocher is lighter and has two parallel vertical lines. Like the large building in 67, none of the other fragments incorporated into Figure 7.8 have any apparent windows, doors, or surface demarcation lines, just expanses of brown ocher, white, and fugitive gray-blue. One unequivocal area of white belongs to a pier-like vertical (123), as might another (127). Other areas are so poorly preserved that the color cannot be determined, so they have been left white in the reconstruction but may originally have been colored (124, 126; cf. 122). Their characteristics, coloration, and context imply that all these fragments belong together. The building in 123, however, must be understood as a little way from the sea, as the ground extends farther than the distance between building and sea in the main fragment of the composition (67). It is unclear what structures were represented by these other fragments (placed on the left in the composition), but the building behind the men with cauldrons brings to mind a possible interpretation. No other building, either in this frieze or in the corpus of Aegean art, has such a large expanse of undifferentiated wall surface in relation to the scale of the figures. It is not a fortification wall, since it is brown and has no masonry lines. It is surely not a house, as it has no windows or doors. But the location is significant: the building lies next to the sea in the presence of ships. Could it, perhaps, represent a shipshed? In iconographic terms, the only parallel in wall paintings that might suggest a representation of shipsheds is the coastal building on the north wall of Room 5 of the West House at Thera (Figs. 4.3:a, 11.1:a). Previously, I called this a “pastoral building,”

136

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

Figure 4.15. Reconstruction of Building P at Kommos. Shaw and Shaw, eds., 2006, 962, pl. 1.12.

relating it to the scene with animals and herders above (since a shepherd with a stick walks past it).132 But if, instead, we relate the building to the scene below, it could be seen as a series of shelters for ships, as Maria Shaw has suggested.133 A similar building appears in one of the Zakros sealings,134 which, like the Thera building, consists of a series of three or four rectangular openings. Also like the Thera building, it is juxtaposed with the trappings of warfare—at Thera with warriors wearing helmets and shields, at Zakros with a helmet and shields. Both flocks (open to raiding) and ships (the transport for raids) would be appropriate correlates of armor. There is no martial element to the building in the Kea painting, but the proximity of the ships is significant. Shipsheds are well known in Greco-Roman times,135 but until recently identification of Bronze Age shipsheds has proved difficult. A possible identification was made at Nirou Khani.136 More recently, shipsheds have been recognized at Katsambas (Poros), the harbor of Knossos,137 and Gournia,138 while extensive remains have been identified at Kommos. Slightly set back from the sea, Building P at Kommos consists of a series of six consecutive, elongated and extremely deep rooms (ca. 40 m long x 6 m wide), without doors at its seaward ends. This building was identified by Maria Shaw as a series of shipsheds.139 The dimensions correspond closely to Classical shipsheds and fit well with the estimated dimensions of ca. 132 Morgan 1988, 78, 85. 133 M. Shaw 1985, 23–24; cf. J. Shaw 1990, 430; Shaw and Shaw 1999, 373. J. Shaw (1990, 430–431) cites the Kea cauldrons fragment as a possible comparison for the building. 134 CMS II.7, no. 219. 135 Blackman 1968, 1987; Blackman and Rankov 2013. 136 Marinatos 1925–1926, 147; 1933, 193–194; Shaw 1990, 425–426. Blackman (2012) is sceptical. 137 Whitley et al. 2006–2007, 109; Vasilakis 2010. 138 Watrous 2012. 139 M. Shaw 1985; J. Shaw 1986, 255–269; 1990, 426–427; 2006, 159–160; Shaw and Shaw 1999; Shaw and Shaw, eds., 2006, 70–85.

20–30 m for Aegean Bronze Age ships. Set back from the shore, they would have provided safe storage for ships in winter, offering protection from the waves. M. Shaw postulates that the open area to the west of Building P may have been used for shipbuilding, while the galleries were used for winter storage prior to the launching of the ships. The reconstruction by J. Shaw, M. Shaw, and G. Bianco is reproduced in Figure 4.15.140 Building P dates from LM IIIA:2–IIIB, but surrounding grand buildings (such as T) date to LM I. One must assume the existence of storage facilities for the ships of LM I, as represented on Cretan seals and most notably in the wall paintings of Thera and Kea. The shipsheds identified at Katsambas are dated to LM II–IIIA, but remains beneath a floor imply the same type of structures existed earlier in the Neopalatial period. Also set back from the original shoreline, there are at least five elongated rooms of a size suitable for large boats. The best evidence for LM IA shipsheds comes from Gournia, where the recently investigated structures, which were destroyed by the effects of the Theran eruption in later LM IA, were similar in coastal position, scale, structure, and apparent functions to the shipsheds of Kommos. At Kommos, Gournia, and Katsambas there is evidence of cooking or food preparation associated with the shipsheds, a striking parallel for the Cauldron and Ships scene, which will be discussed in Chapter 12. An identification of shipsheds would fit both the iconographic program and the geographic location of the painted room. All the other buildings represented in the painting came from the other side of the room, separated physically from this scene, while this building appears to lie outside the town and is directly related to ships. The Northeast Bastion lay at the interface between the town inside the walls and the outside world. Depending on the sea level 140 Shaw and Shaw, eds., 2006, 962, pl. 1.12. Earlier reconstruction: Shaw 1986, 264, fig. 10. I am grateful to Joe and Maria Shaw for sending me the revised version.

BUILDINGS: URBAN SPACE

in Bronze Age times (cf. this vol., Ch. 1, p. 22), the windows of the room with the Miniature Frieze may have overlooked the eastern harbor, and the space between bastion and sea could conceivably have provided a mooring and storage area for ships.141 Such a direct correlation between image and location would have made the action in the painting all the more relevant to the occupants of the building.

Summary Buildings were an integral part of the frieze. The majority are defined by their small scale, tiered positioning in relation to sky and ground, rounded projections on the roofs, a significant number of windows, wooden horizontal beams, and a combination of coursed and rubble masonry and plain white, red ocher, or blue-gray walls. One large doorway (or gateway) is preserved, and another implied, both associated with a woman walking past, while one of the windows, in which a woman gestures, may have been a balcony. Some of the buildings with rounded projections on the roofs are silhouetted against a cloudy sky; others are against yellow ground. While this could imply two separate towns, it is more likely that they belonged together, those with sky having been higher in the composition, those with ground lower. Since some of the buildings overlap others, it is clear that this is a representation of a town rising up the slope of a hill. The women at a doorway and a window/balcony are likely to belong together, probably in a separate building or group of buildings, but within the vicinity of the tiered town. The clustering of overlapping buildings rising up a slope and viewed from below is characteristic of Aegean urban representations of the time, the Miniature Frieze from Thera and the Master Impression providing the best parallels. The latter has similar rounded structures on the rooftops to those in the town in the Kea painting. There are several possible interpretations of these structures, most of which 141 Just to the southeast of the Northeast Bastion is a long wall (Fig. 1.5), dated to Hellenistic times, that Jack Davis (pers. comm. 2012) suggests may have been shipsheds. The wall blocks the bastion and the main Gateway to the town, so

137

are predicated on an interpretation of the form as three-dimensional (granaries, vaults, cooling devices, chimneys, ovens). Alternatively, and more likely, the structures on which the forms were based may have been relatively flat, like crenellations, either applied to the skylines of houses as well as to walls or in a representation that includes near wall, far wall, and houses in between. Larger-scale buildings were associated with plants. Other than the exceptionally large windows, there is little architectural information to be gleaned from these pieces. In these, as in all the other buildings, tiny string impressions were used to mark vertical divisions of the buildings, a technique that in relation to the depiction of a town is peculiar to Kea. An exceptionally large, undifferentiated building lies above (i.e., behind) the men with cauldrons. This is the only part of the frieze in which men are associated with buildings. This scene was clearly separate from the town with women, probably from the opposite wall. The lack of features and proximity to the sea and ships suggests that this and related pieces may represent shipsheds. Identification of location on the basis of buildings is untenable, given the widespread Aegean use of current idioms in expressing the idea of a town. Nonetheless, no two representations of a town are identical in Aegean art, and the Kea buildings are uniquely composed of their own combination of elements. The rounded projections on the roofs, in their insistent repetition, surely signal location, as does the presence of what may be shipsheds by the coast. Nothing in the painting militates against the possibility of the buildings reflecting the town of Ayia Irini, even what looks like ashlar masonry, since this is a well-known idiom denoting built walls. Nor is there anything in the buildings that indicates a specific identity elsewhere. The image of a building and the image of a town are built of composite structures, in which parts rather than wholes are amalgamated into an overall sense of a place.

141 had there been Bronze Age moorings for ships in the vicinity they would have been farther east, closer to the sea. The Hellenistic structures signal the direction and proximity of the harbor shoreline at that time.

138

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

Catalog of Buildings For additional fragments with architectural elements, see the catalog of human figures in Chapter 2 (1, 3, 4, 67) and the catalog of landscape, seascape, and sky in Chapter 6 (247, 560, 561, 574, 575). Relative positional descriptions (left, right, above, below, top, bottom, etc.) refer to the orientations of the fragments as shown in the catalog, which have been determined according to the author’s best judgment. The photographs and study drawings are presented at 1:2 scale.

the top is irregular plaster (in depth and texture) with what appear to be straw impressions in all directions. 88 (U16). N.18 East. Fig. 7.1 (Town by a River); Pl. 10. Building and plant. H. 9.5 x w. 5.6 x th. 1.1–2.6 cm. Two fragments joined. Part of the right window frame restored

87 (U10). N.18 East. Fig. 7.1 (Town by a River); Pl. 10. Building and sky. H. 10.2 x w. 7.5 x th. 0.8–1.5–3 cm. Four pieces joined. Building with dome-like shapes set against

sky. The building is white with two shades of yellow ocher: a mid tone for the wooden window frame and beam, and a deeper orangey tone for the body of the structure. Two black windows are painted over the yellow ocher. A white double cornice and two dome-like structures on the roof are outlined in black, as are horizontal courses of the adjoining buildings to left and right of the main ocher structure, which also has fugitive black lines. At lower left, there is the beginning of a string line, marking the side of the building; the line continues upward with black paint. Remarkably, above and to the side of the building, sky is portrayed in tones of blue, with added gray-black and yellow ocher, giving the impression of a wintry, cloudy day. The gray around the right dome-like structure creates a sense of depth. The blue has frit, and both gray and yellow were painted over it, the yellow having partially flaked. The white is applied and has a slightly bluish tone, implying that the sky was painted first. The mid yellow is painted over the darker yellow, the latter having a few specks of red (visible with magnification), suggesting that the color was obtained by mixing yellow with red. On the back of the fragment is a distinct vertical ridge, which shows that the plaster abutted a beam. This ridge matches that on the backs of 1 (woman), 88 (building), and 422 (river). To the right near

during conservation. This piece fits directly beneath 87 and above 1, as can be seen by the string line marking the side of the building and the ridge on the back. Top right is the orangey ocher of 87, while traces of gray-black, ocher, and red to the right of the string line show that the building next to it changed colors (here the surface is virtually destroyed). The building is white, with yellow ocher window frames and a black window. Black horizontal and vertical lines delineate courses of stone. Lower left there is vegetation with ocher leaves, painted in a slightly different, less bright tone of ocher from that of the window frame. Trace of greenish blue among the vegetation. The plant compares with that of several other fragments (Pl. 36), notably 420, which is also against a white building, 419, and 422, which also has the distinctive ridge on the back (Fig. 7.1). The creamy white looks like polished plaster slip. Unusually, the black window may have been painted before the yellow ocher window frame, though the outline at the top of the frame appears to have been added after. Black lines of the building painted before the ocher vegetation, which overlaps them. Vertical black line over the string line has not penetrated the indentation and therefore was applied when the plaster was dry. On the back of the fragment is a distinct vertical ridge, which shows that the plaster abutted a beam, and matches that of 1, 87, and 422. To the side of the ridge, the back surface has evidence of mud plaster with tiny stones and some straw impressions. 89 (V22). N.18 East. Fig. 7.1 (Town by a River); Pl. 10. Building and sky. H. 3.0 x w. 2.0 x th. 0.7 cm. Poorly preserved scrap of blue sky above the creamy white cornice of a building outlined in black. Patches of yellow ocher are painted over the blue.

BUILDINGS: URBAN SPACE

90 (U9). N.18 East. Fig. 7.1 (Town by a River); Pl. 10. Building and sky. H. 4.5 x w. 4.6 x th. 1.0 cm. White building with two domes, outlined in black, with black horizontal lines forming a double cornice and vertical lines representing courses of masonry. Between the domes the paint has flaked away. Sky above is blue. White is a lime plaster slip. Blue is pale and has frit, matching the paler parts of the sky in 87, with which it is associated in the reconstruction. Broken on a vertical string line at the right edge of the fragment. 91 (U62). N.18 East. Fig. 7.1 (Town by a River); Pl. 10. Building and sky. H. 2.6 x w. 2.8 x th. 1.1 cm. Corner of the double cornice of a building, with sky beyond. The building is white, outlined in black, and with a string line marking the right vertical edge. Sky is blue-gray with applied white dots. The white plaster is visible beneath the paint. 92 (U125). N.18 East. Fig. 7.1 (Town by a River); Pl. 10. Building and sky. H. 2.0 x w. 3.0 x th. 1.1 cm. Blue-gray sky with applied white dots and patches of yellow ocher and gray-black over. To the left is a string line, being the edge of a building. Related to 91. 93 (P9). N.20 East. Fig. 7.2, left (Buildings); Pl. 11. H. 8.2 x w. 9.3 x th. 1.1 cm. Two fragments joined. Conservation restoration of small parts of the white painted surface (in beige). On a yellow ground, two white domed buildings, one in front of the other. The building in front is lower on the pictorial plane, with cornice and rounded dome outlined in black and traces of gray and dark yellow ocher horizontal elements, which extend beyond the cornice, visible at the edge of the fragment. Above, in other words behind, rises a twotiered building in white, with a single dome, curved into a slight peak, to the left of a taller structure that extends beyond the upper part of the

139

fragment. The building was probably entirely outlined in black, but only fugitive specks have survived. Both parts have a dark yellow ocher horizontal beam representing wood, the lower one clearly marking the juncture between cornice and wall as well as framing the top of the window. On the left, beneath this beam, the white building juts out. From the right edge of this beam, a thin, fugitive string line extends down vertically, also visible above, but interrupted where it was not so firmly pressed into the damp plaster. What this aid to design was marking architecturally is unclear. The black window is now amorphous but was presumably originally rectangular. There is no evidence of an ocher frame below or to the sides of the window. White is a thin layer over the yellow ground, not reserved plaster. Order of paints: yellow ground, white, dark yellow ocher, black. The back is smooth in part, elsewhere ragged with a slight ridge where the plaster went into a crevice, and has remnants of mud plaster with tiny stones and straw impressions. 94 (R11). N.20 East. Fig. 7.2, left (Buildings); Pl. 11. H. 2.5 x w. 2.8 x th. 1.8–2.3 cm. On yellow ground, building with blue cornice and white dome outlined in black. The pale grayish blue is painted over white. String line at the right edge of the fragment. 95 (S32). N.20 East. Fig. 7.2, left (Buildings); Pl. 11. H. 1.8 x w. 1.7 x th. 1.1 cm. Scrap of building, with blue cornice and white wall. Blue and white painted over yellow. Touch of fugitive red at the edge. 96 (U60). N.18 East. Fig. 7.2, right (Buildings); Pl. 11. H. 2.2 x w. 2.6 x th. 1.1 cm. On yellow ground, top of building with dome and double cornice, both outlined in black. (A patch of white on the yellow ground is extraneous.) White over yellow. 97 (U19). N.18 East. Fig. 7.2, right (Buildings); Pl. 11. H. 3.3 x w. 4.8 x th. 0.6–1.0 cm. Buildings with two string lines. On left, a white building with dome outlined in black, with yellow ground above. On the right of the string line is a taller building, white below, in line with the white building next to it, red ocher above, and white at the top. A second string line on the right presumably defined a change of structure below but here lies within a continuous color scheme. Fugitive traces of black horizontal lines on the red ocher and on the white, which may originally have had vertical divisions as well. White dome painted over the yellow ground. Though unclear, the remaining white may be plaster slip, which probably also lay under the red ocher.

140

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

98 (U13). N.18 East. Fig. 7.2, right (Buildings); Pl. 11. H. 4.3 x w. 4.6 x th. 1.3–2.5 cm. Two buildings, with yellow ground above. On the left is a white building with dome above and horizontal divisions below. The white is applied on top of the yellow ground and the black outlines are clearly preserved. To the right of the dome are specks of black and white, which may indicate a second dome (not included in the reconstruction). An indistinct string line appears to divide the white building from a red ocher building, also with horizontal black lines, more widely spaced. A black line also defines the left edge of this building, immediately to the right of the string line. Beneath the red paint appears to be plaster. Surmounting the red structure is white, segmented horizontally by black lines, like the building to the left. The white is applied paint. The left edge has a trace of a black outline and, as preserved, looks tiered like a pagoda, the lowest course being longest. This is most probably an illusion created by the state of preservation. 99 (W3). N.18 Central. Fig. 7.2, right (Buildings); Pl. 11. H. 2.2 x w. 3.4 x th. 1.1 cm. Part of a building, with fugitive black horizontal and vertical lines representing coursed masonry. On the right edge of the fragment is a string line, dividing the white from reddish ocher. 100 (U18). N.18 East. Fig. 7.2, center (Buildings); Pl. 11. H. 6.1 x w. 3.3 x th. 0.9 cm. Building(s) divided by a vertical string line, on yellow ground. Poorly preserved, especially in the lower section, leading to ambiguity of colors. A horizontal division separates two color zones. Above is white, with touches of blue. On the left of the string line is a domed roof with yellow ground above, on the right the white building continues beyond the top of the fragment. Traces of black outline to the dome and a black horizontal line on the right at the level of the left-hand roof. Below, on either side of the string line, are traces of blue-gray, on the left revealing yellow ground beneath, on the right revealing plaster beneath. Separating the upper and lower sections of the building on both sides are patches of ocher, probably the remains of a horizontal wooden beam. Applied white over yellow ground for the domes and wall at the top. 101 (U112). N.18 East. Fig. 7.2, center (Buildings); Pl. 11. H. 2.2 x w. 2.3 x th. 1.0 cm. Poorly preserved. Pale blue-gray painted directly onto plaster, with a strip of yellow ocher painted over, representing a beam.

102 (U17). N 18 East. Fig. 7.2, center (Buildings); Pl. 11. H. 5.5 x w. 9.3 x th. 1.0 cm. Four pieces joined. Buildings,

divided by a vertical string line. Surface poorly preserved. The section left of the string line is white, with black drawing of a dome-like structure, a cornice, the left edge of the building, and a curved mark (indicating rough-cut stone?) within and below the cornice. On the right are three horizontal ocher beams, with a vertical division between two of them, seemingly forming windows. Blue-gray fills the spaces between the beams. The ocher has a couple of tiny specks of red and at least one black outline. To the far left are remains of ocher, and traces of blue-gray beyond, which appears to have been overlaid at least partially by the ocher (and so is not included in the reconstruction). The ocher is quite thickly painted and appears in blotches beyond the actual structures it demarcates. It appears that the buildings here were painted directly over a fine slip of plaster, evident from the flaked blue-gray, revealing plaster beneath, and the position of the string line, which is very slightly left of the ocher and blue-gray windows. The string line would have been made when the plaster slip was damp, before the painting began. The white to the left, with dome, is somewhat blotchy, but probably also plaster slip. 103 (U12). N 18 East. Fig. 7.2, center (Buildings); Pl. 11. H. 4.2 x w. 5.7 x th. 1.2 cm. Buildings divided by a string line. To the left is an ocher wooden beam separating a

surface of blue-gray above and white coursed masonry beneath, articulated with black lines. To the right is a surface of blue-gray defined by a black horizontal line at its upper edge and a vertical line on the left. Above is yellow ground. The painter followed the string line as a guide only, since the vertical line falls to one side of it. Similarly, the black outline of the ocher beam on the left continues (faintly) across the right, over the yellow ocher ground, the building itself ending some way below it, while the ocher beam partially overlaps the string line into the structure on the right following the new line of the top of the right-hand building. All these are signs of either indecision on the part of a painter or, more likely, that the process involved more than one painter, since the planning stage and completion only partly match. The blue-gray is particularly worn. None of the colors appear to have been painted over

BUILDINGS: URBAN SPACE

other colors but were most likely directly applied over a white slip of plaster. 104 (U15). N.18 East. Fig. 7.3, left (Women and Buildings); Pl. 12. Building. H. 5.6 x w. 6.0 x th. 0.9 cm. Architectural fragment interpreted as a door frame. Two adjacent vertical strips, one yellow ocher, the other brownish red ocher with fugitive horizontal black lines. To the right of the ocher is a poorly preserved area that was originally blue-gray. To the left of the brownish red is a vertical string line separating the color from an area of white plaster. Adjacent to the white, at the edge of the fragment, is again ocher, implying the presence of another vertical strip. Cf. 107, 108, and 3 (woman and building). 105 (V15). N.18 East. Fig. 7.3, right (Women and Buildings); Pl. 12. Building. H. 5.2 x w. 3.0 x th. 0.4–0.8 cm. Two pieces joined. On a slip of white plaster is a grayblack rectangular window, partially flaked. Around it are irregular curved black lines (now fugitive) portraying rubble masonry. The ground is a thin slip of almost white plaster. Below is a yellow ocher beam. 106 (U63). N.18 East. Fig. 7.3, right (Women and Buildings); Pl. 12. Building. H. 3.0 x w. 3.5 x th. 1.0–1.4 cm. Part of a window. Black on plaster, with an ocher surround painted after. At top right is applied white over the black, now faint (not included in the reconstruction). 107 (A3). N.20. Fig. 7.3, left (Women and Buildings); Pl. 12. Building. H. 3.3 x w. 2.1 x th. 0.7 cm. Brownish red ocher with parallel black lines painted over. Part of a building, cf. 104, 108, and 3 (woman and building). The color is less red than the flesh of the male figures, but more so than the reddish yellow ocher of architectural fragments 97 and 98. Surface smeared with an extraneous ocher deposit. 108 (U50). N.18 East. Fig. 7.3, left (Women and Buildings); Pl. 12. Building. H. 1.8 x w. 1.7 x th. 1.0 cm. Orangey red ocher with traces of parallel black lines painted over. Vertical string line at the left edge of the fragment. Applied white at the lower right edge (not included in the reconstruction). Part of a building. Cf. 104, 107, and 3 (woman and building).

141

109 (U20). N.18 East. Building. Fig. 7.3, right (Women and Buildings); Building. Pl. 12. H. 2.4 x w. 3.9 x th. 0.9 cm. Part of a black window, with vertical and horizontal ocher timber for the frame, against a white building. The yellow ocher appears to have been painted after the black, but the order is unclear. A vertical string line descends on the white, stopping short of the horizontal window frame. It does not correspond to a color change. Three short oblique lines either side of the string line on the white are unusual in their direction. 110 (U11). N.18 East. Pl. 12. Building. H. 1.5 x w. 2.3 x th. 0.7 cm. Window fragment against white building. The white appears to be lime plaster slip. Onto this are drawn two black lines, oriented here horizontally. The lower black line is slightly overlapped by the ocher frame on the left. Faint trace of a vertical line between the horizontals. Cf. 87, 97, 98. 111 (N3). N.20 East. Fig. 7.1 (Town by a River); Pl. 12. Building. H. 2.1 x w. 3.4 x th. 0.7 cm. Part of a black window with ocher timber surround, against a white building, with traces of what may have been black horizontal lines. The black window has a blue-gray tone and is worn. White is applied, probably a slip of plaster. Trace of yellow ocher at the top is probably under the white slip, so was not included in the reconstruction. 112 (U64). N.18 East. Pl. 12. Building. H. 1.8 x w. 2.0 x th. 0.9–1.0 cm. Part of a black window with ocher frame. Black on plaster (worn), ocher painted after. Trace of red on white with black beneath at the lower left edge of the fragment, beyond the ocher frame. Imprints of vegetation (straw?) on the back. 113 (X57). N.18 Center. Pl. 12. Building. H. 2.8 x w. 3.5 x th. 0.6 cm. Part of a building, with ocher painted over almost white plaster slip. The ocher is slightly reddish on the left side. String line on the plaster ends at the paint. Trace of gray line to the side of the string line. 114 (X56). N.18 Central. Pl. 12. Building. H. 4.7 x w. 2.3 x th. 0.7 cm. Three pieces joined. Ocher (window?) on a white building, with yellow ground above. Two string lines intersect, one vertical, following the structure, the other horizontal. Above the latter the white building slopes down, like a half-roof. Beneath the horizontal string line and beside the vertical one is a pink sketch line. At lower left, the building slopes down in the opposite direction, the contour marked in ocher. The white building is reserved plaster, over which the ocher is painted.

142

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

115 (U40). N.18 East. Pl. 12. Building? H. 2.0 x w. 2.8 x th. 0.9 cm. Blue-gray (blackish) on yellow ground. Perhaps part of a building.

116 (X54). N.18 Central. Pl. 12. Building. H. 3.2 x w. 2.2 x th. 0.6 cm. Part of a white building with a vertical and a horizontal ocher beam. White is lime plaster slip. The ocher is partially outlined in gray.

117 (X72). N.18 Central. Pl. 12. Building. H. 2.2 x w. 3.0 x th. 0.6 cm. Part of a white building with an ocher strip, probably intended as a wooden beam. A gray line marks the left side of the ocher, as does a string line, which, however, stops abruptly. Other gray markings, vertical and oblique on the white, which is lime plaster slip. The fragment apparently broke between drawing and photography, so there is a discrepancy between the two.

looks as though a wash of bluegray may have been painted first, covered by applied white, then ocher in a vertical strip. Some of the ocher has spread beyond the string line onto the yellow, which is murky and also has minute traces of blue-gray but was probably originally the yellow ground. This piece can be associated with the buildings in the Cauldron and Ships scene (Fig. 7.8) but was too poorly preserved to include in the composition. 123 (N2). N.20 East. Fig. 7.8 (Cauldrons and Ships), cf. Fig. 7.26; Pl. 13. Building. H. 12.5 x w. 6.5 x th. 0.8–1.4 (avg. 1.1) cm. Four pieces joined. Surface worn. Building

118 (U66). N.18 East. Pl. 12. Building. H. 2.0 x w. 2.5 (1.7) x th. 1.2 cm. Poorly preserved. Blue-gray over white plaster slip, with black and ocher over. Probably a window with wooden frame. 119 (X55). N.18 Central. Pl. 12. Building. H. 2.4 x w. 3.4 (3.0) x th. 0.6–0.8 cm. Four pieces joined. On a buff-white ground, a gray (black) rectangle with an ocher structure above. The gray-black has a murky ocher tone and a black line at the edge of the shape. Probably a window and a wooden beam. 120 (X121). N.18 Central. Pl. 12. Building. H. 2.9 x w. 2.0 x th. 0.7 cm. Black on white ground, with a horizontal yellow ocher structure above. Probably a window with frame (cf. Fig. 7.5: Building and Plants, compared to which, however, the dimensions do not match). 121 (C3). N.20 West. Pl. 12. Building. H. 3.0 x w. 3.4 x th. 0.6 cm. Poorly preserved scrap of building with string line dividing ocher from traces of blue-gray, both over plaster slip. The ocher has a patch of red over it. 122 (N10). N.20 East. Pl. 13. Building. H. 5.5 x w. 4.7 x th. 1.1 cm. Two pieces joined. Surface very worn. Building divided from yellow ground by a string line. The surface is extremely worn, and it is hard to make out what colors were intended. Traces of blue-gray underlie a patch of applied white on the far right of the fragment, while to the left of this, next to the string line, there are remains of ocher painted over applied white, with traces of blue-gray beneath. It

of ocher and white, with yellow ground below. The white vertical strip was 2.4 cm wide, framed by two parallel black vertical lines on the right and a black line, partially preserved, at the bottom. Traces of gray reveal where the paint has flaked. White applied over the yellow, ocher over the white. Judging by the type of building, which closely matches that in 67, this should belong in the Cauldrons and Ships scene, though there is no sign of blue sea beneath. Presumably the building was slightly higher up on the terrain. 124 (N11). N.20 East. Fig. 7.8 (Cauldrons and Ships), cf. Fig. 7.26; Pl. 13. Building. H. 5.0 (5.5) x w. 3.7 (4.0) x th. 1.0 cm. Part of a building. Surface poorly preserved and the colors unclear. A rectangle of ocher lies next to an area of white, which appears to have been applied over ocher and over blue-gray. At the left of the fragment is bluegray, over which is a patch of otherwise flaked ocher. Inclusion of this piece in the reconstruction of the building in the Cauldron and Ships scene is tentative.

BUILDINGS: URBAN SPACE

125 (M19). N.20 East. Fig. 7.8 (Cauldrons and Ships), cf. Fig. 7.26; Pl. 13. Building. H. 2.4 x w. 2.6 (3.0) x th. 1.1 cm. Surface worn. Part of a building. Blue-gray painted directly onto the plaster, ocher adjacent. 126 (P32). N.20 East. Fig. 7.8 (Cauldrons and Ships), cf. Fig. 7.26; Pl. 13. Building. H. 5.8 x w. 5.3 x th. 0.8 cm. Surface very worn. Part of a building with string line. Partially preserved ocher to left. Above the ocher and the other side of the string line there are traces of bluegray, a few smudges of ocher, and a touch of black at the edge of the fragment. It is unclear what the original color was. Inclusion of this fragment in the building of the Cauldron and Ships scene is tentative, and no attempt has been made to interpret colors besides the ocher. 127 (R12). N.20 East. Fig. 7.8 (Cauldrons and Ships), cf. Fig. 7.26; Pl. 13. Building. H. 2.0 x w. 3.6 x th. 0.6 cm. Part of a building, with ocher divided from white by a thin string line. The white has partially flaked, revealing that it was painted over blue-gray. The brown of the ocher is close to that of the building in 67, the Cauldron Scene, to which the piece is related. 128 (M20). N.20 East. Pl. 13. Building. H. 5.0 x w. 4.3 x th. 0.9–1.9 cm. Surface very worn. Yellow ground to left. White applied over the yellow ground, entirely on the right, in patches on the left. Fugitive traces of gray. Traces of ocher painted over the white. The original pattern of colors is hard to detect, but the piece is likely to have belonged to the buildings of the Cauldrons and Ships scene. 129 (P29). N.20 East. Pl. 13. Building. H. 2.3 x w. 4.0 x th. 0.8 cm. White building with red line defining the side,

next to a discrete blackish-ocher line, and two short ocher lines with black over toward the top of the structure. Applied white over yellow ground.

143

130 (P31). N.20 East. Pl. 13. Building. H. 4.5 x w. 6.9 x th. 0.9 cm. Yellow ground, with part of a white structure

outlined in black at far right and a stroke of red at far left. Perhaps the foot of a man walking toward a building. 131 (X53). N.18 Central. Pl. 13. Building. H. 3.6 x w. 6.0 x th. 0.6 cm. Four pieces joined. White structure with

gray-black lines (the lack of string lines suggests horizontals rather than verticals), and a parallel strip of ocher below. A pink sketch line is visible beneath part of one of the black lines. Above is yellow ground with a blue-grayishblack form over, probably landscape (though, as preserved, it has the appearance of a horse’s hoof); cf. 132. The white is plaster; pink sketch line painted over the plaster, before yellow ground; black line painted last. 132 (X2+Y). N.18 Central. Pl. 13. Building. H. 9 x w. 3.5 x th. 0.8 cm. Five pieces joined. White structure with grayblack horizontal lines, and a parallel strip of ocher below. The structure ends at the right edge of the fragment, with a thin wash of reddish ocher marking the vertical end. Beyond and above is yellow ground with poorly preserved patches of blue painted over. Darker, brownish ocher vegetation at top right. White is polished lime plaster slip, over which the ocher was painted. The fragment clearly belongs with 131. Specks of microorganisms on the surface. 133 and 134 (S20 and S19). N.20 East. Pl. 14. Building and plant. S20: H. 4.0 x w. 3.5 x th. 1.0 cm; five pieces joined. S19: H. 3.2 x w. 1.8 x th. 1.0 cm; two pieces joined. Two fragments with white structure defined by a red vertical line. To the right on the larger fragment, 133, yellow ground with ocher reedlike plant. The red approximates the contour rather than closely adhering to it.

144

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

White is applied over yellow ground; red painted over white. On 134, speck of white splashed on the yellow. The two fragments almost join. 135 (W2). N.18 Central. Fig. 7.6 (Horse and Building); Pl. 14. Building. H. 2.8 x w. 3.5 x th. 0.6–1.0 cm. White building and yellow ground divided by a vertical string line. Black horizontal line on the white, not entirely straight. Faint pinkish gray sketch line over the string line. 136 (U71). N.18 East. Fig. 7.6 (Horse and Building); Pl. 14. Building. H. 2.6 x w. 3.4 x th. 0.6 cm. Ocher and white structure divided by a string line. Two black lines on the white, slightly oblique from the horizontal. Black vertical line painted over the ocher and another along the string line. Striations on the back, which match the orientation of the string line and black line as vertical. Cf. 137, 138. 137 (U70). N.18 East. Fig. 7.6 (Horse and Building); Pl. 14. Building. H. 3.8 x w. 3.6 (4.0) x th. 0.6–0.8 cm. Ocher with two black vertical lines. Striations on the back, which match the orientation of the lines. Cf. 136, 138.

138 (U8). N.18 East. Fig. 7.6 (Horse and Building); Pl. 14. Building, plant, and horse’s hoof. H. 4.7 x w. 8.5 x th. 0.8–1.2 cm. Four pieces joined. Building of ocher divided by a string line from a vertical strip of white. To the left of this is yellow ground with a black horse’s hoof and an ocher plant beneath. Two vertical black lines painted over the ocher, with another (fainter) partially over the two string lines defining the white. White is a thin slip of plaster, over which are painted three horizontal black lines, the center one being slightly oblique. Striations on the back match the vertical orientation of the string lines and black lines, as well as the horse and plant. Cf. 136, 137.

139 (X125). N.18 Central. Fig. 7.5 (Building and Plants): Pl. 14. H. 1.5 x w. 1.8 x th. 0.7 cm. White building divided by a string line from yellow ground. Trace of a pink sketch line on the white, marking the divide. 140 (X126). N.18 Central. Fig. 7.5 (Building and Plants); Pl. 14. H. 2.9 x w. 1.3 x th. 0.5–0.7 cm. Two pieces joined. White building with ocher, reconstructed as a window frame.

141 (X58). N.18 Central. Fig. 7.5 (Building and Plants); Pl. 14. H. 7.6 x w. 5.6 x th. 0.7 cm. Six pieces joined (X50, X58, X69, X99, X123). White (buff) building divided by a

string line from yellow ground. Partial pink sketch line on the white approximately marks the division. On the white is a gray (black) rectangle, interpreted as a window, with part of a horizontal ocher wooden frame above. On the yellow ground is a large blue plant with two bluegray-ocher thorns, related to the thistles (247–262; Pl. 21). White is lime plaster slip. Where the blue has flaked, rough plaster is revealed beneath, implying either that the area was reserved when the yellow ground was painted or that the blue has reacted with the yellow, lifting them both off together. The former fits better with observations on sea and sky, which were clearly painted directly over the plaster, but cf. 142. 142 (W40). N.18 Central. Fig. 7.5 (Building and Plants); Pl. 14. H. 3.2 x w. 3.9 x th. 0.8 cm. White building divided by a string line from yellow ground with blue plant. White is lime plaster slip. To the right of the string line is a vertical pink sketch line, painted first, a horizontal ocher strip representing a wooden beam, and a gray vertical line painted last. The pink and gray lines mark the end of the wooden beam, which does not reach the string line. Blue plant painted over yellow ground. Fugitive traces of possible thorns at the bottom (not included in the drawing). Cf. 141. 143–152. N.18 Central. Fig. 7.5 (Building and Plants); Pl. 14. Windows. Ten fragments showing parts of windows. White lime plaster slip with gray-black over. Where the gray-black has flaked off, the plaster beneath is whiter. (On 148, only the black internal part of the window is preserved.) Cf. 141.

BUILDINGS: URBAN SPACE

143 (Y11). H. 1.6 x w. 1.1 x th. 0.5 cm.

144 (W39). H. 1.8 x w. 1.1 x th. 0.6 cm.

145 (Y72). H. 1.9 x w. 1.8 x th. 0.6 cm.

146 (X109). H. 2.0 x w. 1.7 x th. 0.7 cm.

147 (X110). H. 1.7 x w. 2.0 x th. 0.7 cm.

148 (X188). H. 2.0 (2.4) x w. 1.8 (2.4) x th. 0.9 cm.

149 (X189). H. 1.1 (1.5) x w. 1.1 (1.3) x th. 0.8 cm.

150 (X59). H. 3.0 x w. 3.5 x th. 0.6–0.8 cm.

151 (X187). H. 1.5 x w. 2.2 x th. 0.8 cm.

152 (X120). H. 1.0 x w. 1.5 x th. 0.8 cm.

153 (X94). N.18 Central. Fig. 7.5 (Building and Plants); Pl. 15. H. 3.2 x w. 2.6 (3.0) x th. 0.6–0.7 cm. White building divided by a string line from yellow ground. Traces of a pink sketch line on the white, and a gray line on the yellow, marking the divide. Cf. 139, 156.

145

154 (X124). N.18 Central. Fig. 7.5 (Building and Plants); Pl. 15. H. 2.2 x w. 1.6 x th. 0.6 cm. White building with ocher strip depicting a wooden beam. String line to right, dividing this section of the building from another, also white. A pink sketch line, painted first, marks the left side of the string line. Gray lines, painted last, define the top and side of the ocher beam. Between drawing the fragment and photography, a small piece apparently crumbled from the bottom. The drawing provides the width of the ocher beam. 155 (X101). N.18 Central. Fig. 7.5 (Building and Plants); Pl. 15. H. 3.0 x w. 2.0 x th. 0.5 cm. Two pieces joined (X101+X103). White building with string line. At the lower right edge of the fragment is ocher, presumably from a vertical wooden beam, perhaps from a window. Fugitive traces of horizontal pink and ocher marks top left. 156 (X93). N.18 Central. Fig. 7.5 (Building and Plants); Pl. 15. H. 1.7 x w. 1.9 x th. 0.6 cm. White building divided by a string line from yellow ground. Traces of a pink horizontal sketch line on the white. Cf. 139, 153. 157 (M26). N.20 East. Fig. 7.5 (Building and Plants); Pl. 15. H. 1.8 x w. 2.5 x th. 0.8 cm. Dark gray over very pale gray-blue on plaster. Plant (dark gray) painted against the wall of a building. The pale blue undercoat extends over the white building but is probably not part of the defined plant. Cf. 158, 160–163, 171–174. 158 (M25). N.20 East. Fig. 7.5 (Building and Plants); Pl. 15. H. 1.2 x w. 2.5 x th. 0.8 cm. Dark gray plant, painted over very pale gray-blue over plaster (cf. 157), with the tip of an ocher plant beside it. Plants against the wall of a building. Cf. 157, 160–163, 171–174. 159.1 (X83). N.18 Central. Fig. 7.5 (Building and Plants); Pl. 15. H. 2.5 x w. 2.7 x th. 0.8 cm. Part of a building. Smooth white lime plaster slip with horizontal pink sketch line. The brush stroke is visible in the pink, indicating that the guide lines were executed while the plaster was damp. 159.2 (X111/X112/X113). N.18 Central. Fig. 7.5 (Building and Plants); unpainted plaster. H. 2.3 x w. 3.8 x th. 0.6 cm (X111). H. 3.5 x w. 2.7 x th. 0.7 cm (X112). H. 3.0 x

146

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

w. 2.5 x th. 0.8 cm (X113). Three pieces that almost join. Smooth, white lime-plaster slip. Reconstructed as part of a building. Specks of microorganisms on the surface. 160 (X115). N.18 Central. Fig. 7.5 (Building and Plants); Pl. 15. H. 2.0 x w. 2.1 x th. 0.8 cm. Part of a building with blue-gray and ocher plants against it. Smooth white (buff) slip of lime plaster, with a pink horizontal guide line. The top of a blue-gray leaf overlaps the pink; part of an ocher plant is seen on the right. Brush stroke of the pink line visible. Cf. 161. 161 (X116). N.18 Central. Fig. 7.5 (Building and Plants); Pl. 15. H. 2.7 x w. 2.9 x th. 0.8 cm. Part of a building with blue-gray and ocher plants against it. Smooth white (buff) slip of lime plaster, with a pink horizontal guide line at the top, visible as a brush stroke. Ocher painted last. Faint gray marks near and slightly overlapping the pink line. Surface scratches, postdepositional. 162 (X52). N.18 Central. Fig. 7.5 (Building and Plants); Pl. 15. H. 1.4 x w. 2.7 x th. 0.7 cm. Part of a building with blue-gray and ocher plants against it. Pink horizontal sketch line between the plants, painted first, over the buff plaster slip. Ocher painted after blue-gray. 163 (Y29). N.18 Central. Fig. 7.5 (Building and Plants); Pl. 15. H. 2.1 x w. 2.5 x th. 0.8 cm. Part of a building with blue-gray and ocher plants against it. Pink horizontal sketch line at the top, painted first. Buff plaster slip. Ocher painted after blue-gray, partially overlapping it. 164.1 (X84). N.18 Central. Fig. 7.5 (Building and Plants); Pl. 15. H. 2.5 x w. 1.5 x th. 0.7 cm. On white lime plaster slip, two parallel pink sketch lines, faint but visible as horizontal brush strokes. 164.2 (X182). N.18 Central. Fig. 7.5 (Building and Plants). H. 1.0 x 1.1 x 0.9 cm. Pink sketch line on white plaster slip. This tiny piece was drawn in the 1980s and later included in the reconstruction but could not be located for photography in 2010. 164.3 (X183). N.18 Central. Fig. 7.5 (Building and Plants). H. 1.4 (2.0) x w. 1.0 (1.8) x th. 0.8 cm. Pink sketch line on white plaster slip.

165 (X6). N.18 Central. Fig. 7.5 (Building and Plants); Pl. 15. H. 4.6 x w. 4.8 x th. 0.7 cm. Four pieces joined. White building with plants against it. The building is divided by a vertical string impression, the plants different on either side. Five pink sketch lines, painted first; four horizontal (one at top, the others center and lower left), and one vertical in line with the string impression. Brush strokes visible in the lower pink lines. To the left of the string division is a largeleafed blue plant with ocher internal markings and a short pinkish ocher stem that appears as though floating rather than grounded. To the right of the string division is a gray plant, with a pinkish-gray stem, and part of another gray leaf below. The blue leaf overlaps the string impression. Buff plaster slip, with slight yellowish tone beneath the blue plant (only). Ocher painted over blue. 166 (X91). N.18 Central. Fig. 7.5 (Building and Plants); Pl. 15. H. 2.0 x w. 1.8 x th. 0.7 cm. String impression on white (buff) lime plaster slip. Gray leaf overlaps the string impression. Its stem is visible at the lower right edge. Faint pink sketch line parallel to string line at the bottom and another, pinkish ocher, beneath the gray leaf. Slight traces of ocher over the gray. Cf. 167. 167 (X100). N.18 Central. Fig. 7.5 (Building and Plants); Pl. 15. H. 2.0 x w. 1.5 x th. 0.4 cm. String impression on white lime plaster slip. Pink sketch line with hint of black parallel to the string line, and another line, pinkish ocher, to the left. Part of a gray plant on the right. Cf. 166. 168 (M13). N.20 East. Fig. 7.5 (Building and Plants); Pl. 15. H. 3.2 x w. 5.1 x th. 0.5–0.7 cm. White slip of lime plaster, over which are painted delicate plants in gray and red. In this fragment, the slip is painted over yellow ocher ground. Cf. 169, which is overpainted. 169 (X62). N.18 Central. Fig. 7.5 (Building and Plants); Pl. 15. H. 2.8 x w. 1.6 x th. 0.5–0.8 cm. White slip of lime plaster with gray plant painted over. Uniquely, in this fragment, the slip with its gray plant was clearly painted over an earlier version, visible where the slip has flaked. Originally this area

BUILDINGS: URBAN SPACE

of the painting had a yellow ground (cf. 168), onto which was painted ocher and red, probably also plants. The white slip is clearly visible as a separate layer. The two drawings show what is visible of the under layer and what is the overpainted upper layer. 170 (W20). N.18 Central. Fig. 7.5 (Building and Plants); Pl. 15. H. 3.7 x w. 4.2 x th. 0.9 cm. On white lime plaster slip, poorly preserved gray plants and red stems. Pink painted first; traces of ocher under the gray.

171 (X119). N.18 Central. Fig. 7.5 (Building and Plants); Pl. 15. H. 3.4 x w. 2.0 x th. 0.8 cm. Overlapping blue-gray and ocher grasses painted on white plaster slip. Ocher on the left is a stronger brown tone than the fainter ocher on the right. Ocher painted after the blue, giving a slightly greenish hue where it overlaps. 172 (X118). N.18 Central. Fig. 7.5 (Building and Plants); Pl. 15. H. 1.7 x w. 2.6 x th. 0.6–0.8 cm. Ocher grasses on white (buff) plaster slip, with fugitive gray grass on the left. 173 (X114). N.18 Central. Fig. 7.5 (Building and Plants); Pl. 15. H. 3.9 x w. 2.0 x th. 0.4–0.8 cm. Tips of two ocher grasses painted on white plaster slip. The left one overlaps the tip of a gray grass.

147

174 (X117). N.18 Central. Fig. 7.5 (Building and Plants); Pl. 15. H. 3.0 x w. 3.3 x th. 0.4–0.5 cm. Two pieces joined. Blue-gray and ocher grasses painted on white plaster slip. The painter has varied the overlapping of colors, ocher overlapping blue on the right, blue overlapping ocher on the left with another ocher leaf then overlapping the blue. Preservation of the ocher is stronger when applied to the white slip than when overlapping the blue. 175 (X82). N.18 Central. Fig. 7.5 (Building and Plants); Pl. 15. H. 3.0 x w. 2.0 x th. 0.4–0.7 cm. On white plaster slip, the pinkish-red stem of a plant, with the beginnings of a gray leaf at the top of the fragment.

176 (X51). N.18 Central. Fig. 7.5 (Building and Plants); Pl. 15. H. 3.5 x w. 2.8 x th. 0.6–0.8 cm. White building divided from yellow ground by a string impression, over which is a gray line. On the white is part of a gray leaf. On the yellow are three grass-like leaves in ocher. The white building is plaster slip. Related to 177, which it almost joins. The string line disappears just before the bottom of the fragment but probably continued. 177 (X25). N.18 Central. Fig. 7.5 (Building and Plants); Pl. 15. H. 3.8 x w. 4.2 x th. 0.6 cm. Five pieces joined. Ocher plant on yellow ground. Related to 176, which it almost joins.

5

Animals: Hunting and Herding

The Miniature Frieze included a scene of hunting, as well as some domesticated animals (Pls. 16– 19). Several deer are hunted by dogs (178–191; Figs. 5.1, 7.17). The dogs do not wear collars (as they do in Egyptian or Mycenaean hunt scenes), but their presence as hunters implies the presence of man the trainer. The two types of animals in the hunting scene are larger in scale than the other animals and human figures preserved, so presumably they belonged to a separate part of the frieze. A good comparison for this diversity of format exists in the Thera Miniature Frieze, where the animals in the hunt from the east wall are larger than any of the animals or human figures on the other walls (Figs. 5.2:a, 11.1:b).1 In the Kea frieze, the outcome of the hunt was depicted on the adjacent south wall, where a hunter carries the carcass of a deer on a pole (44; Fig. 7.16), 1 Doumas 1992, pls. 30–34. For the scenes at 1:4 scale, see also Fig. 11.1, below, and Morgan 1988, color pullout. The fallow deer doe or fawn on the east wall (here Fig. 5.2:a) is larger than the adult male fallow deer on the south wall (Fig. 5.2:b), both printed here at 1:2 scale for comparison to Fig. 5.1.

and it is implied in the cooking in large cauldrons of what was presumably venison (67; Fig. 7.8). Several white animals—presumably goats and perhaps sheep—were apparently part of a herding scene (192–216, 224–232), as exemplified in Figure 7.7, which shows that animals domesticated for food were included in images of daily life. Some fragments that defied interpretation but, on the grounds of their white coloration, might also have been parts of animals, have been included in Plates 18 and 19. Finally, several fragments of horses reflect an elite aspect of society, particularly in their relationship to a chariot (217–223; Figs. 7.6, 7.10). Dogs and horses are new features of wall paintings at this time, though they are known from sealstones and other media. Both were to become staple features of Mycenaean painting. Deer are the prey of powerful felines in the contemporary Miniature Frieze of Akrotiri (lions, leopard or serval) and the slightly later Hunt Frieze from Tell el-Dabca (lions, leopards, and griffin), as well as in other media. At Tell el-Dabca, dogs hunt alongside men.

150

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

0

5

10 cm

Figure 5.1. Color drawings of Deer and Dogs, reconstructed from fragments 178–181 (right) and 182, 183 (left); cf. Figure 7.17. Scale 1:2. L. Morgan.

a b Figure 5.2. Details of deer from the Miniature Frieze, Room 5, West House, Akrotiri, Thera: (a) deer (hunted by griffin) in riverine landscape, east wall; (b) deer (hunted by lion) on hilltop, south wall. Scale ca. 1:2. Doumas 1992, pls. 32, 36, details.

Deer At least four deer (178–188) were depicted in a hunt scene with dogs, on a larger scale than the rest of the frieze (Figs. 5.1 [1:2], 7.17 [1:3]; Pls. 16, 17). The fragments come from both N.18 (Center and East) and from N.20 West. Since they are unlikely to belong to more than one part of the frieze, we must assume that the scene belonged either to the north wall of N.20 (which fell northward into N.18) or the northern part of the west wall of N.20. In terms of the iconographic program of the room, the latter is more likely.

Hanging from a pole held by the hunter in 44 (Fig. 7.16) is the neck of an animal, upside down. It is painted in ocher, without spots, and, like the hunter, is on a smaller scale than the deer hunted by dogs. But this, too, should represent the deer as prey, here of man. This fragment came from the southwest part of N.20, presumably from the west side of the south wall. From the hunt scene (Fig. 7.17), three wellpreserved fragments display a delicate and precise portrayal of the animal: 179, the belly and hind leg of a galloping deer, with a dog beneath; 178, the neck; 183, the body and legs of a standing deer. There are also fragments of a muzzle (182) and hind legs (188),

ANIMALS: HUNTING AND HERDING

as well as another, less well preserved but recognizable standing deer (186). One piece eluded reconstruction: fragment 184 probably represents more than one deer, overlapping. Two other pieces probably belong to deer legs (185, 187). The hide is ocher with distinct white spots on the back and a white underbelly and inner thigh. Although there are no surviving antlers, the spotted hide identifies the animal as the fallow deer (Dama dama), rather than the red deer (Cervus elaphus).2 Fawns and adult fallow deer have white spots on brown coats in summer, while in winter the spots are barely discernible (except when seen from close up) and the coat appears as a duller grayish brown. Season is therefore indicated here. Only the males have antlers, which they shed annually in late spring, the new ones growing from the permanent pedicle to be fully formed again by late summer in time for the rutting and mating season, at which point the animals still retain their summer coats. In mid summer, when the males are renewing their antlers and the females give birth, bucks and does usually live in separate herds. Given the fact that no heads have survived, no assumption can be made on the presence or absence of antlers or pedicles. While the standing deer (183) has a smooth white underbelly, the galloping deer chased by a dog (179) has a wedge-shaped pubic tuft, representing the long hairs hanging from the penis sheath, clearly indicating that the animal is male. This is the only surviving feature signaling the sex. It is significant that it is the male deer that is hunted. There is individuality in the way in which each deer is portrayed: the standing deer has a neat row of spots along the upper back, more random spots on its side; the galloping deer (whose upper back has not survived) has a double row of tiny spots in alternate directions running above the belly, as well as random spots on the hind thigh; the neck fragment has a neat row of oval spots on the upper neck, with round spots beneath. These differences signal individual artistic preferences. On the whole, the deer are well observed, but inevitably there are anomalies. Only a snout survives of the head (182), which, were it not for the dog’s leg above, might be hard to identify. It is more rounded 2 On fallow deer, see in particular Chapman and Chapman (1975) 1997; Whitehead 1993, 220–222; Nowak 1999, 1098– 1100; Masseti 2002a.

151

than the projecting muzzle of a deer, the lower lip of which runs farther back than the nose. The snout is ocher, like the body, with a black nose (painted over the ocher) and white underneath in line with the jaw. This white strip is somewhat exaggerated. Though visible close-up on fallow deer, on most individuals it is less noticeable from a distance. In the fragment, it is idiosyncratically accentuated with a row of three short black lines, suggesting hairs. No ears have survived. Clearly not belonging to the same deer, a single, well-preserved fragment of a neck (178) has no white strip, suggesting either that the white along the jaw line ended at the neck, or that the two deer were painted differently. Given the abrupt manner of ending the white of the upper thighs (183, 188), the former is likely. This neck, identifiably long and elegantly narrowing, is depicted in ocher, with rows of white dashes and dots running up its length, a feature that bears no relationship to the neck of fallow deer, which is brown, fading into white on the underneath, with only a few white spots on the upper surface. The prominent larynx of the male fallow deer is not depicted or perhaps not preserved. Two of the well-preserved fragments (179 and 183) yield a great deal of information on how the body and legs were depicted, though the only hoof is obscured by a dog’s tail, and no deer tail has survived. The fragment with a dog (179) shows a galloping deer, with underbelly and back leg surviving. A thick white strip along the belly with a distinct protrusion accurately represents the white belly and long tuft of hairs hanging from the penis sheath of the male. The body and leg are ocher. Running parallel to the white underbelly is a double row of white spots set obliquely to one another, which captures the narrow strip of white that runs parallel to the underbelly on the summer coat of fallow deer. Above that would be the spots, which have not survived on this fragment, though they have on the upper thigh. Here, the spots run farther down the thigh than in reality, and the diagonal row of spots that almost melds into a line running down the side of the rump is missing in the painting. Similarly, the hind leg continues to the end in uniform ocher, whereas in reality it fades into a whitish tone toward the hoof. The fragment of a standing deer (183) is quite different in its depiction of both body and legs. Here the white underbelly is smooth, without pubic tuft, and, since the standing posture reveals the far hind leg as well as the near, the white continues into the inside upper thigh.

152

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

There, however, it stops abruptly, the leg continuing in ocher, whereas in life the inner leg is continuously white. Numerous white spots fleck the hide of the back, but there is no strip of spots parallel to the underbelly. Instead, a row of larger spots lines the top edge of the back. This feature is paralleled on the actual animal, consisting of two parallel lines of spots flanking the spine (i.e., one on each side of the animal). It is, however, rather more discrete than in the painting, with smaller spots. There is little evidence in the fragment of spots on the rump and no diagonal strip. Each of these two deer, then, picks up on one aspect of the patterning of white spots—the lower horizontal strip or the upper—while neither defines the white diagonal strip of the rump. Only one is distinctly male. Movement varies between a standing position (186), a walking gait (183), and a gallop (179). Fallow deer walk, trot, bound, gallop, and “pronk,” a stiff-legged bounce off all four feet characteristic not only of deer but of many African ungulates.3 Only the norms within Aegean iconography are depicted, though the distinction between static and active is notably apt, since only the deer directly chased by a dog extends its legs in a gallop. When alarmed, fallow deer stay still and acutely attentive while bunched together, but once danger is close they run. These deer are well observed and clearly played an important role in the structure of the Miniature Frieze. Their presence is significant and the level of observation and iconographic emphasis are remarkable. There are no (unequivocal) contemporary representations of deer in Cretan wall paintings. The quadruped in the wall painting from Room 14 at Hagia Triada is only partially preserved, with no head, and therefore ambiguous; the slender body is characteristic of deer, but there are no spots to secure identification. Mark Cameron and Pietro Militello both reconstructed the animal as the wild Cretan goat, agrimi.4 The closest iconographic links for the Kea deer are with Thera and also Tell el-Dabca, in both of 3 Chapman and Chapman (1975) 1997, 172. 4 Cameron 1975, col. slide 54; Militello 1998, 111 (frammento 15), 266–258, fig. 28, pl. 6; Evely 1999, 111 (Cameron reconstruction). Militello plausibly compares it with the agrimia on the Zakros sanctuary rhyton (1998, 267). Others previously have referred to the animal as deer, including myself (1988, 55) and Immerwahr (1990a, 49, 180). A LM IIIA painting from Hagia Triada unequivocally shows two spotted deer being led (to an altar?) by a woman (Militello 1998, 139–142, 287–290, pl. 11:B, col. pls. I (left), L).

which, however, the deer are not alone as prey, and their hunters are mainly felines. Like the deer in the Thera hunt, the Kea deer hunt is on a larger scale than the rest of the miniatures, and it must also have belonged on its own wall, physically distinct from the other scenes but, even more than at Thera, integral to the overall meaning of the frieze. That the Theran deer are fallow is evident by the spots of the small deer hunted by a griffin (Figs. 5.2:a, 11.1:b), and by the palmate antlers of the three deer (with their unspotted winter coats) chased by a lion on the hilltop above the Departure Town (Figs. 5.2:b, 11.1:c).5 But the spots of the small deer hunted by a griffin are black, rather than white, and distinctly regular, distancing the representation from reality. The deer in the Tell el-Dabca Hunt Frieze are closer both to reality and to the Kea deer, clearly fallow, with white spots and one surviving head with palmate antlers.6 Fallow deer, of varying degrees of naturalistic rendering, also appear in the art of the Shaft Graves, in some glyptic art, occasionally on metal vessels, and, later, in Mycenaean paintings from Pylos and Tiryns, pictorial pottery, and carved ivories.7 The majority, though not all, are either explicitly or implicitly prey, but the depiction of dogs pursuing deer is not as common in Aegean art as one might think. One unusual instance is a silver chalice from a tholos tomb at Dendra, in which the chase follows the circularity of the vessel.8 In glyptic art that may be contemporary with the Kea painting, several depictions of fallow deer show the animal collapsing on its front legs, sometimes visibly hit by an arrow (Fig. 5.3:a), while an actual attack by dogs is less common (Fig. 5.3:b).9 The collapsing legs fit the rounded format of 5 On the deer in the Thera miniatures, see Morgan 1988, 54–56. 6 Six deer have been reconstructed by the present author and will appear in the final publication of the Hunt Frieze. For the head with antlers, see Morgan, fig. 7, in Bietak et al. 2012–2013; Morgan forthcoming, fig. 1:b; for the body of a deer, see Morgan 2018a, pl. 1:6. 7 For references, see Morgan 1988, 55; Vanschoonwinkel 1990, 330–332, 334, nos. 30, 31; esp. 1996, 358–359, 393, nos. 286–295. 8 Persson 1931, 51–54, fig. 30, pl. XVII. The vessel was found on the breast of the “royal” male. 9 Fig. 5.3:a in this vol. is a clear example of a fallow deer (with spots and antlers) struck down by an arrow (CMS II.3, no. 74 [Knossos, Hogarth’s tombs, LM I–II]); cf. CMS I, nos. 497, 501; CMS II.4, no. 113 (Knossos House of the Frescoes). Deer (with antlers) are less frequently identifiable as pursued by dogs than are wild goats (with horns); two other clear

ANIMALS: HUNTING AND HERDING

153

a b c d Figure 5.3. Sealstone (a) and seal/ring(?) impressions (b–d) with deer and dogs: (a) Knossos, Hogarth’s tombs, amethyst lentoid, LM I–II, 1.05 x 1.2 cm, CMS II.3, no. 74; (b) Pylos, LB I–II, 2.0 x 2.4 cm, CMS I, no. 308; (c) Akrotiri, Thera, LM I, original seal area 1.5 x 1.0 cm, CMS V, Suppl. 3.2, no. 396; (d) Akrotiri, Thera, LM I, original ring(?) area ca. 1.3 x 1.35 cm, CMS V, Suppl. 3, no. 400.

a sealstone better than the elongated shape of the flying gallop and reveal more of the implicit context than would a single image of a standing animal. Occasionally, a deer appears associated with a cult symbol or signifier of sacrifice—double axe, sacral knot, or palm tree.10 The only instance of men represented in a deer hunt in glyptic art is the gold ring from Shaft Grave IV reproduced in Figure 3.6:a. This is not insignificant, as in both the Kea and the Thera miniatures the deer are shown hunted by other animals, not by men: lion and griffin at Thera, dogs at Kea. Similarly, though men with dogs are present in the slightly later Tell el-Dabca Hunt Frieze, the only clear hunter of deer is a leopard.11 Men accompanied by dogs are shown explicitly to be the hunters of deer only in the later paintings of Pylos, and implicitly in the paintings of Tiryns and Argos.12 However,

the predatory dogs in the Kea painting imply human ownership and hence instigation of the hunt, and the men with dogs and the dogs hunting goats in the Tell el-Dabca Hunt Frieze clearly belong to the same predatory cycle as the leopards and lions.13 Interestingly, the deer on the Shaft Grave ring is the most naturalistic known in glyptic art and bears a resemblance to those of the Kea painting, both in the distribution of spots on back and neck and in the shape of the hind leg. On the ring, antlers define the deer as a buck, but there is no pubic tuft. Deer would have been hunted for meat, skins, and antlers. Treated deerskin is particularly flexible and soft, and, though deer are rarely mentioned in the Linear B texts, a tablet from Pylos refers to deerskins in relation to leather goods.14 There can be little doubt, however, given the related scenes of returning

examples are CMS I, nos. 308 (Fig. 5.3:b) and 363. On deer pursued by dogs on sealstones, see also Vanschoonwinkel 1990, 332; 1996, 393, no. 286. Olga Krzyszkowska comments that in glyptic art deer first appear in MM II–III, though instances are rare at that time (2005, 89, cf. 144). See also Krzyszkowska 2014, 343–344. 10 E.g., CMS I, no. 412—figure-of-eight shield, deer attacked by two dogs (Syros, LB I–II); CMS II.8.1, no. 398—“sacral knot” with fallow deer (Knossos, LM I–II). On the sacrificial role of deer (less common that that of bulls or goats), see Marinatos 1986, 12. 11 As shown by the association of a particular plant. The leopard and plant are illustrated in Morgan 2010b, fig. 7. The associated deer, reconstructed as collapsed on its back, will appear in the final publication of the Hunt Frieze. 12 Pylos: Lang 1969, 40–43, 68, 205–207, no. 6 H 43, pls. 12, 121, B. The main prey of the Tiryns hunt is boar, but fallow deer are also prevalent: Rodenwaldt (1912) 1976,

96–137, pls. II–XIV; deer: Rodenwaldt (1912) 1976, 140–154, figs. 60–62, pls. XI:1, XV, XVI:2, 3, XVII:2, 4, 5, 8. A fragment from Argos of the hind legs of what is probably a deer in flying gallop was recently published, along with fragments of men, including a charioteer, and wild goats, so presumably a hunt scene is represented (though so far without dogs): Tournavitou and Brecoulaki 2015, 222–224, fig. 5. 13 Dog hunting goats: Marinatos and Morgan 2005, pl. 15; hunter and dogs: Bietak and Marinatos 1995, 55, fig. 55; Morgan forthcoming, fig. 1a; reconstruction of the several hunters and dogs is still in progress; leopards: Morgan 2010b; lions: Marinatos 2010a. 14 Ventris and Chadwick 1973, 132, 195 (no. 104 for the ideogram “deer”), 490 (317 = Ub 1318). The ideogram has only been identified at Pylos, where herds of deer appear to be monitored at small-scale sites (Palaima 1992, 72–73; Yannouli and Trantalidou 1999, 254; Palmer and Hofstra 2000; Palmer 2014, 391–394).

154

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

hunter and cooking in cauldrons, that the deer hunted by dogs in the Kea painting are destined to become venison. To what extent was this iconography based on real events and where might the artists of the Kea paintings have seen fallow deer? Fallow deer inhabit a variety of relatively low-lying habitats.15 In winter they congregate in woodlands where they feed off seasonal herbs and fruits, shrubs, and evergreen brambles. In summer they frequent open areas with grassland or scrub vegetation. Their main foods are grasses, rushes, and sedges, so they tend to congregate near water courses for the vegetation, and they have been documented as inhabiting marshes.16 They are most visible at dawn and dusk when they graze in the open during the summer.17 The optimum times for hunting deer are, therefore, early morning and late afternoon to evening, especially in late summer when fawns are mature enough to join the adult herd. There is little on the surviving fragments to confirm the environment of the deer in the painting, other than traces of blue on the far lower right of 179, which has been interpreted in Figure 7.17 as river. Traces of red and black to the left of the deer in 186 perhaps suggest landscape, but are insufficiently preserved to define. As a result, the visualization in Figure 7.17 uses landscape fragments on the basis of their context, as being likely to have been associated with the deer. The illustration postulates a river (on the basis of the surviving blue), and sea and sky (on the evidence that the entire Miniature Frieze had blue edges at bottom and top). Among the sky pieces from the same context as 182 and 183 are fragments with pink at the juncture between blue and yellow ground. If their inclusion with the deer hunt is correct, this would suggest that the atmospheric conditions of the sky identify time as dawn or dusk— the best times of the day to hunt deer. Such remarkable attunement to the natural world, added to the close observation of the spotted hide, suggests that the artists were well versed in hunting and knew fallow deer. While iconographic borrowing might explain the spotted hides, there are no known surviving images contemporary or earlier that show such fidelity to nature. Furthermore, if this were merely 15 Chapman and Chapman (1975) 1997, 173–179; Masseti 2002a, 104. 16 Apollonio et al. 1998. 17 See, e.g., Chapman and Chapman (1975) 1997, 166, 181; Nowak 1999, 1098; Masseti 2002a, 104.

iconographic borrowing, one would not expect such variation between one deer and another. More fundamentally, if the inclusion of pink sky is indeed an indicator of time of day, such knowledge of optimum hunting times would be based on first-hand knowledge of hunting deer. Are we witnessing artists who knew deer hunting from elsewhere? Or is it possible that fallow deer existed on the island of Kea? Fallow deer are thought to have been imported from their native range in coastal Anatolia to the islands, notably Chios and Rhodes (where there is still a sizable feral population of fallow deer), in the Neolithic Period and, including Crete, in the Bronze Age.18 Marco Masseti comments that “Even animals up to the size of a deer can be transported fairly easily over long marine distances on small, rudimentary boats” and that fallow deer easily adapt to new environments.19 Since deer were never domesticated, it has been suggested that the Minoans kept the animals in parks, releasing them for hunting purposes.20 The central and southern Cycladic islands, being relatively arid compared to Crete and the eastern Mediterranean islands, are less suited to supporting populations of deer,21 though Kea (and nearby Euboea), farther north, would no doubt have had more vegetation. In the Cyclades, scant osteological remains of red deer have been found at Akrotiri, including a few bones and an antler still attached to part of a skull, leading Clive Gamble to assume that the animal was living on the is­land at the time, having been imported.22 Katerina Trantalidou, however, does not believe that deer lived on the Cycladic islands, but rather attributes the sporadic existence of finds to trade of bones and antler for use as raw materials for tools 18 On the distribution of osteological evidence for fallow deer in prehistoric times, see Halstead 1987, 75; Hubbard 1995; Masseti 1999; 2002b; Yannouli and Trantalidou 1999, 248– 251; Trantalidou 2000, 716–722; Isaakidou 2007, 16. For tables of the Bronze Age sites where remains of fallow deer have been found, see Yannouli and Trantalidou 1999, 272– 277, appendix 1; Trantalidou 2000, 718–721, table 4; Masseti 2002b, 132 (all with further references). 19 Masseti 2002b, 128; 2002c, 142; cf. Clutton-Brock (1987) 1999, 203–205, fig. 18.6 (a photograph of a deer [Axis axis] of similar size to fallow deer being transported in small wooden boats off the Andaman islands). 20 Jarman 1996, 219; Gamble 1978, 752 (citing a manuscript of Jarman). 21 Yannouli and Trantalidou 1999, 260. 22 Gamble 1978, 746–747, 752.

ANIMALS: HUNTING AND HERDING

as well as skins,23 which make excellent, soft leather. She comments that red deer predominate in the Cyclades (though in small numbers of samples), with fallow deer being “extremely rare, being restricted, as a rule, to its antlers,” implying commercial exchange.24 Worked red deer antler was found at Ayia Irini, as well as a few bone fragments,25 but not, as far as I am aware, fallow deer bones or antler. Trantalidou comments more generally on the disjunction between osteological remains and representation in the art of Akrotiri, only dolphins being known to the region, while antelope, fallow deer, monkeys, and lions (not to mention griffins) belong to habitats outside the Cyclades.26 (Andrew Shapland makes a similar point in showing the different ratios of specific animals across Linear A ideograms, wall paintings, and sealstones.27) Equally notable is the fact that while the remains from the islands are largely of red deer, representations are of fallow deer. What do we make of this disjuncture? In the painting, cooking takes place in the cauldrons in the open air. Butchering would certainly have taken place outdoors. If the cauldrons and their equivalents in life held venison stew, the meal would not have included bones. In addition, venison would have been a relatively infrequent meal. All this means that deer bones are unlikely to be found archaeologically in domestic contexts. Iconography presents a different picture from that of osteology. Osteological remains in Aegean sites, including from Kea, show that goats, sheep, cattle, and pigs were the mainstay of animal protein. But there are no domestic pigs in any of the iconography, only the wild boar hunt.28 Domestic cattle are less frequently depicted 23 Trantalidou 2000, 716; cf. Trantalidou, appendix B in Birtacha 2008, 368. 24 Trantalidou 1990, 402; cf. Yannouli and Trantalidou 1999, 251. 25 Coy 1986, 110–111. Cf. Coy 1977, 132 (on red deer antler [unstratified] at Late Neolithic Kephala); Davis 1977, 127–128 (on worked antler at Ayia Irini); Krzyszkowska 1990, 30 n. 34, pls. 26, 27:a, 28:b, c. 26 Trantalidou 2000, 713. 27 Shapland 2010, 115–116, fig. 4. 28 Morris 1990. For recent publications of boar hunts in Mycenaean wall paintings, see Tournavitou 2015 (cf. 2012), on the House of the Oil Merchant, the West House, the House of the Sphinxes, and perhaps the West House at Mycenae (cf. Tournavitou 2017, 59–60, 63); and Spyropoulos 2015, on Orchomenos.

155

than wild or feral bulls—shown in bull sports, captured, or hunted by lions—and domestic goats and sheep appear relatively rarely. Hunting scenes have special significance, and the hunting of fallow deer was apparently of iconographic importance even as early as Late Neolithic. The remarkable series of rock engravings discovered at Strophilos on Andros, with its many images of boats and hunting scenes, includes a representation of fallow deer with characteristic palmate antlers.29 An animal beneath the deer, identified by Televantou as jackal, provides an unexpected prototype for the theme of dog aiming at the belly of its prey, the deer. Hunting and seafaring were evidently of particular significance to the Late Neolithic inhabitants of Andros (an island that lies close to Kea), so significant that they were immortalized on rock. Deer have aggressive competitive behaviors among males, antlers acting as weapons. Even when introduced to the environment by humans, they are, therefore, unsuited to domestication and remain in the realm of the wild.30 As such, the hunting of deer by men carries an embedded symbolic significance that lies beyond the acquisition of meat, antler, and hide. Deer hunting is redolent of elite male identity and power within the social arena.31 As discussed further in Chapter 12, the reason for including deer in the Miniature Frieze is that the occasion is special. The hunt, the bringing home of the slaughtered animal, and the implication of stew in the cauldrons all point to preparations for a special occasion, one that surely had relevance for the occupants of Ayia Irini and, more specifically, those who met and no doubt dined in the Northeast Bastion. They, at least, had seen fallow deer, knew of its distinctive taste, and appreciated its significance in the social world of men. 29 Televantou 2018, figs. 15:a–b, 17:b–c; cf. this vol., Ch. 3, p. 98 n. 54. Male fallow deer with their distinctive antlers also appear (in rows, rather than hunted) on an Early Cycladic jug now in Berlin but thought by Doumas to have come from Phylakopi (2013, 46, fig. 5.6:d). 30 Cf. Halstead 1987, 75, citing A.N. Garrard. 31 Cf. Hamilakis 2003.

156

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

Dogs Among the several fragments of white animals are some that are recognizable as dog (179–182, 189– 191; Fig. 7.17; Pls. 16, 17). They were mostly found in N.18 central, with one being from N.20 west. One fragment unequivocally provides the context of the dogs within the frieze. On 179, the tail and outstretched hind legs of a dog in full gallop lies immediately beneath a fleeing deer, while under the belly of the deer is the white of the top of the dog’s head. Two almost joining pieces of the slender body (180, 181) complete the surviving animal, who rushes forward to attack the deer from below (Figs. 5.1:right, 7.17). Unfortunately, the head itself has not survived. Part of a white leg also lies above the snout of the deer in 182, and to this have been added three fragments—one interpreted as the curve between neck and back (190), the other of the slender body (191), and the third of outstretched forelegs with a wellpreserved paw (189)—to make a second dog in the composition (Fig. 7.17). Other dogs may well have been included in the hunt, but no other fragments among the white animals could be unequivocally identified as such (Pls. 17–19). The slender body of these dogs identifies them as belonging to the greyhound family. Greyhounds are easily trained and are reputed to be pliant, friendly companions to humans, making them ideal as hunting (and in modern times, racing) hounds as well as pets. Their pelage may be white, brown, black, or dappled. The long legs, slim body with deep chest, flexible spine, and long tail make the greyhound an extremely fast sprinter. It has a long flat skull and narrow muzzle, which in conjunction with its slender body and elongated legs with compact paws, gives a projectile-like quality to its gallop. When in full extended gallop as depicted here, the neck is extended, the head may be held low or high, the long forelegs extend considerably beyond the muzzle, and the ears are swept back, lying flat against the neck or pointing upward. While the tail is usually held low, in galloping it curves upward at the end. Some of this is apparent in the surviving fragments: the flat skull just visible lower left of 179, the hind legs with hock joint and the upward swaying tail at the lower right of the same fragment, the narrow waist (181, 191), slight arch of the neck (180, 190), and the compact paws (189). The legs capture the characteristic extended moment of a canine gallop. The hind legs are rendered

overlapping in a single form until they divide, the near one straight, the far one with a distinctive curve, articulated by the protruding hock joint. The forelegs are parallel to one another, with gray dots marking the carpal (wrist) bone and delicately clumped paw. This gray dot for the wrist bone is echoed in the blue dots for the wrist on lions, leopards, and griffin in the Hunt Frieze of Tell el-Dabca.32 The dogs, therefore, are depicted with a degree of veracity. No doubt domestic dogs were to be found on the islands. Yet one should not expect significant evidence of their presence from faunal remains as, since dogs were kept for purposes other than food,33 they would not have been visible in the domestic refuse. A few canine remains have been found at Akrotiri, and an entire skeleton (in an unclear context) and other skeletal fragments were recovered at Ayia Irini.34 In Egyptian art dogs appear relatively frequently in hunt scenes, and it is possible to distinguish different breeds.35 Greyhounds were not commonly represented,36 but two greyhound-like breeds are: the tesem (tsm) and the slughi, akin to the modern saluki. Both are slender and long, with attenuated muzzles (the saluki’s being somewhat shorter), and have various coloration. The two breeds are distinguishable in representations by their ears and tails: the tesem has pricked up ears and a tightly curled tail; the saluki has dropped ears and an open curved tail. Both are known from Late Predynastic times. The hieroglyphic determinative for hunting hound takes 32 Morgan 2010b, 277. 33 Though they were apparently eaten in Neolithic times and perhaps occasionally in the Bronze Age in mainland Greece (Trantalidou 2000, 723 n. 28), on Kea (Coy 1973, 241), and at Knossos (Isaakidou 2007, 16). Dogs were interred with humans in some Mycenaean tombs on the mainland and Crete (Day 1984), and in a chamber tomb at Galatas there are signs that they may have been skinned (Hamilakis 1996a). 34 Akrotiri: Gamble 1978, 746; Trantalidou 1990, 400–401; Ayia Irini: Coy 1973, 241; 1986, 111, table 1. Phylakopi yielded one specimen, but from the Sanctuary, hence later (Gamble 1985, 482, table D.2). Dogs are also attested on Crete at Archanes (Sakellarakis and Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1997, 319), while the skeletal remains of 28 dogs were recently found in two wells at Palaikastro (Wall-Crowther 2007, esp. 195– 197). For a review of the skeletal evidence throughout the Aegean, see Trantalidou 2002. 35 On dogs in ancient Egypt, see Boessneck 1988, 83–85; Janssen and Janssen 1989, 9–13; Brewer, Redford, and Redford 1994, 110–118; Houlihan 1996, 75–80; Osborn and Osbornová 1998, 57–68; Brewer 2001; Rice 2006. 36 Osborn and Osbornová 1998, 64–65, who cite the TwelfthDynasty Theban Tomb of Antefoker.

ANIMALS: HUNTING AND HERDING

the characteristics of the tesem, in line with representations in Old and Middle Kingdom hunt scenes. By the New Kingdom, the saluki is the most commonly represented dog, both as a pet and as a hunter.37 Both hunting dogs and pets are shown wearing collars. The loose curved tail of the Kea dog is akin to greyhound or saluki. In Aegean art, dogs first appear in EM II on stone lids from Malia, Hagia Triada, and Zakros, and on several MM and LM sealstones, where the narrow muzzles and slim bodies perfectly describe a greyhound-like breed (Fig. 5.3:b–d).38 On a MM III gold discoid recently found in a rock-cut tomb at Poros, near Herakleion, a mastiff, with its characteristically bulky head and chunky body, appears in conjunction with an enclosure interpreted as a garden;39 other representations occur in figurines recently found at the peak sanctuary site of Juktas.40 This breed, also known in the Near East and Egypt,41 was occasionally associated in Aegean glyptic with a human figure, evidently serving as a guard dog.42 The majority of glyptic representations, however, are of the slender greyhound type. Some are represented on their own, with or without collar, but many are depicted hunting, usually wild goat, occasionally deer.43 Typically 37 It is also included among live tribute brought from Nubia in representations in New Kingdom Theban tombs, implying that it was bred outside Egypt (Osborn and Osbornová 1998, 65), though their origins in Egypt are more ancient. It has been suggested that they were first known in Mesopotamia, where skull bones were discovered predating any known Egyptian evidence (Clark 2001, 79 [cf. 53]). 38 On dogs in Aegean art, see esp. Vanschoonwinkel 1996, 363–364, 394, nos. 300–311 (the lids are cited as nos. 307– 309); Dimopoulou 2010, 97. 39 Dimopoulou 2010. 40 Karetsou and Koehl 2014. The six figurines are variously dated to MM II–LM IB; comparative instances of representations of mastiffs are cited in the article. I am grateful to Robert Koehl for sending me the manuscript prior to publication. 41 Brewer, Redford, and Redford, 1994, 117; Borowski 1998, 138–140; Osborn and Osbornová 1998, 59, 66–67. 42 CMS II.3, no. 52 (with two male figures, Knossos, LM II– IIIA:1); CMS II.8.1, no. 236 (with a warrior, MM III–LM IB); CMS V, Suppl. 1B, no. 58 (with a female figure, Asine, LM I–II). 43 E.g., CMS I, nos. 308 (= Fig. 5.3:b) and 363, both LB I–II impressions. The hunting dog also appears earlier, e.g., dated to MM II–III: CMS VI, no. 153b, Sphakia; CMS VII, no. 35b; dated to MM III–LM I: CMS VI, nos. 179 (Knossos), 180 (Archanes).

157

one dog is shown attacking the animal, more rarely two, and occasionally the dog accompanies a human hunter, as in the seal impression found at Akrotiri in Figure 5.3:d.44 The frequent collar demonstrates that dog and prey act as an abbreviation (a metonym) for the wider concept of man as hunter. On the mainland, dogs are carved in relief on the side of a wooden box from Shaft Grave V,45 but it is not until LH II, with the Dendra hunt chalice (see n. 8) that they are depicted actually hunting. In wall paintings, the Kea Miniature Frieze provides the earliest known example of dogs. Remarkably, they differ in three important ways from later examples: they are plain white, there is no evidence for a collar, and they hunt alone without the visible presence of man (though he is implied in the returning hunter from the adjacent wall). Like the dogs of the Tell el-Dabca Hunt Frieze, many of the dogs in Mycenaean hunt scenes are dappled (Tiryns, Orchomenos); a few are white (West House at Mycenae, Orchomenos) or red (House of the Oil Merchant at Mycenae). The Pylos dogs are varied according to context: those from Hall 46 area are white or black (with men carrying cauldrons) and yellow (with hunters), those from Hall 64 are red or dappled (couchant).46 All (where preserved) wear a collar, and all are associated with male hunters. These characteristics are also common to Egyptian representations of dogs, which, in hunting scenes, are always overseen by male hunters or elites (noblemen or royals), are sometimes dappled, and usually wear collars. At both Pylos and Tiryns, the dogs are disproportionately large compared to the hunters, 44 Cf. CMS I, no. 165 (attacking a lion, LB IIIA impression); CMS V Suppl. IB, no. 341 (two dogs attacking an animal, LM I, impression); CMS VI, no. 179, (attacking a wild goat, Knossos, MM III–LM I); all with a hunter. 45 Karo 1930–1933, 144–145 (no. 912), pl. CXLV. Four gold chalices found near Grave Circle A, one of which is well preserved, have handles ending in dogs’ heads biting the rim (Marinatos and Hirmer 1960, 169, pl. 189), associating dogs with elite drinking ceremonies but not specifically referring to hunting practices. 46 Tell el-Dabca: see n. 13. Tiryns: Rodenwaldt (1912) 1976, 109–111, 113–116, 123–131, figs. 47, 48, 55, pls. XIII, XIV:6, 10. Orchomenos: Spyropoulos 2015, 360–361, figs. 8, 11–13. Mycenae: Tournavitou 2012, pl. CLXV:c; 2015, 149, 151, fig. 3:a (House of the Oil Merchant); 2015, 155, 161, figs. 8, 10, 11; 2017, 40, 48–50, 119–120, fig. 20, pl. 16 (West House; one of the dogs appears to be dappled). Pylos, Room 48: Lang 1969, 40–41, 70–71, 212, no. 21 H 48, pls. 15, 116, 122; Room 43: 40–41, 107–108, 205–207, nos. 12–14 C 43, pls. 50, 51, 133, M; Hall 64: 103–104, 119–122, 214–215, no. 38 C 64, pls. 62–67, 137, G, P.

158

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

emphasizing their importance. No doubt this referred to the vital part they played in hunting, and it is an interesting echo of the larger scale given to the dogs and deer in the Kea painting. Perhaps we are indeed witnessing an early experiment in painting dogs in the Aegean. There are no dogs in the wall paintings from Thera, and none among the surviving paintings from Crete. Nor, more strikingly, are dogs depicted in the act of hunting in the art of the Shaft Graves (see n. 45). The idea as an iconographic theme, however, could have been gleaned from glyptic art. As we have seen, the theme of dog hunting prey (wild goat) dates back to Middle Minoan times. Two sealings among those in the remarkable cache of clay sealings found in Delta 18b at Akrotiri (the clay of which shows they came from Crete) have representations of dogs (Fig. 5.3:c, d).47 On one, two dogs, with exceptionally long necks and wearing collars with what look like ribbons attached, stand side by side; on the other, a man and a dog have successfully felled their prey. Neither, however, has the theme of a single dog in flying gallop attacking its prey from below, familiar from some Cretan seals. In the Kea painting, one of the dogs attacks from beneath, its body rearing upward toward the belly of its prey, the deer (179–181; Figs. 5.1:right, 7.17:right). Judging by the position of the hind leg in relation to a deer’s head, the other dog is also likely to have been oriented upward, attacking another animal above (182; Figs. 5.1:left, 7.17:upper left). This is the characteristic method of hunting ungulates by wild dogs: in packs they attack the larger animal from the rear, biting into the belly and hind legs. The underbelly, groin, and jugular are the most vulnerable parts of the animal, and the aim is to pull down the prey to then kill it by disemboweling.48 It is precisely this method of hunting (though singly, rather than in packs, and always in the moment before the kill) that is most frequently represented in the glyptic scenes, attacks from above occurring more rarely, unless (as in the later Tiryns Boar Hunt wall painting) there is more than one dog. It is the method of hunting for at least one of the dogs attacking a goat in the Tell el-Dabca Hunt Frieze,49 and, interestingly, it was depicted in Eighteenth Dynasty tombs after the Tell el-Dabca painting, replacing or coexisting with an earlier Egyptian 47 CMS V, Suppl. 3, nos. 396, 400; Doumas 2000b, figs. 2:d, 3:b. Cf. this vol., Ch. 3, n. 59. 48 Estes 1991, 425; cf. Haltennorth and Diller 1980, 178. 49 Marinatos and Morgan 2005, pl. 15:a.

idiom of dog attacking throats or legs from a standing rather than running position or mounting the back of the prey.50 On present surviving evidence, the Kea painting appears to have been both innovative and influential. More importantly for the meaning of the paintings as a whole, the dogs hunting deer were emphasized through their larger scale and thereby highlighted as crucial to the structure of the frieze.

Goats, Sheep, and Unidentified Animals In addition to the deer and dogs, goats, sheep, and some unidentified animals were depicted in the Kea Miniature Frieze (192–216, 224–232; Fig. 7.7; Pls. 17– 19). With the exception of the deer and some of the horses, almost all the animals are white. This convention enabled the artist to distinguish the animals clearly against the yellow ocher ground. It does, however, make it hard to distinguish which types of animals were depicted among the fragmentary remains. A few of the fragments of white animals, including the one with a herder’s arm (208), came from N.18 Center, but the majority came from N.20 East, with a few from N.20 West. Most likely, a scene of herding lay near the town(s) in the northeastern part of the room. Besides heads, which (with one possible but ambiguous exception) have not survived, hooves or paws are the most diagnostic part of the animal. They also permit an estimate of numbers and directions of movements. The hooves tell us that at least five white animals moved toward the left, at least four to the right. On Plate 17, all but one (189, reconstructed as dog) is oriented as though standing, but only those with landscape provide clear evidence for this position. The hooves and legs differ subtly between each depiction, and their scale is variable. The paws in 189 are small, delicate, and well articulated, almost certainly belonging to a dog, as might also the paw/ hoof of 192, which has what look like heel and toe pads. Fragments 193, 196, and 200 each have a heel bone and black outlining suggestive of a hoof; fragment 201 is shaped like a hoof, but with no heel bone 50 E.g., Tomb of Rekhmire (TT 100; Davies [1943] 1973, pl. XLIII) where dogs attack from both beneath and above their prey, legs extended in the so-called flying gallop.

ANIMALS: HUNTING AND HERDING

159

Figure 5.4. Herding scene, detail from the north wall of the Miniature Frieze, Room 5, West House, Akrotiri, Thera. Scale ca. 1:2. Doumas 1992, 28, detail.

or outlining. The legs of 194 (hooves not preserved) are long, but the leg and hoof of 228 is exceptionally short. All but the last are likely to belong to goats and sheep; fragment 228 may belong to a calf. Landscape is associated with 200 and 201, with ocher vegetation and, on the latter, traces of red. There are two small scale tails: 225, belonging to a white animal facing to right, and 226, part of a gray animal facing to left. Both are slender and long, unlike the tails of sheep or goat, and more like those of cows or calves. Several other pieces of white against a yellow ground presumably belong to the animals. One piece in particular intimates that these animals belonged to a herding scene. In 208, the distinctive arm and clenched fist of a man reaches out to the back of a white animal. The man’s hand touches the animal’s back in a gesture that indicates control. The same theme is probably represented in 211. Unfortunately, these pieces are too fragmentary to warrant a large-scale reconstruction. Yet it is likely that there was a pastoral scene of men herding goats and sheep akin to that from the North Wall of the Miniature Frieze at Akrotiri (Fig. 5.4). Three fragments (193, 208, 225) have been combined to suggest such a scene, with a goat being led by a man and part of second animal included to provide a sense of plurality (Fig. 7.7). In fragment 228 the short-legged animal stands among landscape of a blue bush (lower right) with traces of red on the yellow ground. The long legs of 194 and the leg in 241, which is also above a blue bush (this vol., Ch. 6; Pl. 20), suggest an animal on a larger scale. Though the legs of 194 are oriented neutrally in Plate 17, as though standing, they may

also have belonged to a wild goat, with the hind legs kicked backward (see catalog, below). If this were so, it could have belonged to the hunt scene with the deer and dogs. The animal is smaller than the deer but larger than the herded animals, and, as a goat, would relate to the size of the dogs. Given the ambiguity of orientation, the fragment has not been reconstructed. Two fragments of legs within landscape (200 and 201) are of similar scale, but these may belong to standing animals, again probably goat. The remaining pieces of white against yellow ground remain enigmatic. Most probably belong to the bodies of animals, but a few have curious projections that have so far eluded interpretation. They are presented together on Plates 18 and 19 and include one large fragment (207) that Abramovitz identified as the head of an animal (see n. 62), but which I was unable to verify through reconstruction. One can be identified as the back and neck of an animal, with the tail or leg of a second animal above (202). The association of at least one man with the animals places the scene within the context of subsistence through animal husbandry, calling to mind the pastoral scene on the north wall of the Thera Miniature Frieze (Fig. 5.4).51 There, pairs of longhorned sheep are herded by a man with a stick, moving from left to right, while another man herds goats from right to left immediately below. The animals are paired, in contrasting colors, and are clearly identifiable by horns, beards, head shape, markings, and hairs (though with one hybridization 51 Morgan 1988, 58–60.

160

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

of domestic with wild goat). Such a scene of domestic herding is otherwise unique in Aegean wall paintings, though one was evidently part of the urban and pastoral scenes of the MM III faience Town Mosaic plaques from Knossos.52 A ceramic bowl dated to MM I from Palaikastro contained a modeled herdsman with a vast flock.53 Sheep are otherwise relatively rarely depicted in Aegean art, and goats are more often wild than domestic.54 This is consistent with the tendency in Aegean art to focus on special events rather than daily life. Domestic goats and sheep are by far the most common animals to be found among faunal remains in settlement sites throughout the Aegean, including those of the Cycladic islands.55 Though not always easy to distinguish osteologically, sheep were apparently numerous at Knossos, as, later, the Linear B tablets clearly demonstrate,56 and were present in significant numbers at Akrotiri.57 Goats are better adapted than either sheep or cattle to the rocky environment of the Cyclades, being browsers of shrubs rather than grazers of grass, though all three animals were represented among the faunal remains of Ayia Irini (as was pig).58 Clearly a vital part of subsistence, the animals would have been kept for milk and wool, no doubt only rarely being slaughtered for meat.59 The miniature paintings of Thera and Kea afford rare glimpses into pastoral life, though it is likely that their appearance is less about the life of shepherds than a statement about ownership of flocks.60 It is unfortunate that no heads are identifiable among the Kea fragments, and so little can be reconstructed 52 Foster 1979, 104–105; animals: figs. 45 (goat), 46, 47 (donkey), men: figs. 33, 35–37; Morgan 1988, 59, pl. 190. 53 Marinatos and Hirmer 1960, pl. 18 (above). 54 Vanschoonwinkel 1990, 328–329; 1996, 355–357 (with lists of capridae); pp. 389–392, nos. 216–276 (goat); pp. 402, 403, nos. 484–495 (sheep). 55 On faunal remains on the islands, see Gamble 1978, 1979, 1985; Trantalidou 1990, 2000; Winder 2007; cf. Reese, Rose, and Payne 1995 on Kommos, with comparative statistics. 56 Halstead 2003 (with references); Landenius Enegren 2004, 15–16. In the Linear A texts, Shapland comments that “half of the animal logograms refer to sheep” though “the concomitant evidence for wool flocks is missing” (2010, 114). 57 Gamble 1978, 750. 58 Coy 1973, 1986; cf. 1977, on the remains from Neolithic Kephala. 59 Gamble comments that only 5% of ovicaprine bones at Akrotiri had cut marks indicative of butchery (1978, 747). 60 Cf. Borowski 1998, 49, on the hiring of shepherds by flock owners as being “well-known in preindustrial societies.”

of these animals, but their presence should not be forgotten, as they would have been an integral part of the frieze.

Horses Several pieces of black and white horses survive (Figs. 7.6, 7.10; Pls. 14:138, 19:217–223). Like the chariot and the dogs, these are the earliest representations surviving in Aegean wall paintings and among the earliest in any medium. Some discussion of the horse was included in Chapter 3 in relation to the chariot. The fragments were found in N.20 West, N.20 East, and N.18 East. In two fragments of hooves (219, 223) the artist painted black and white legs next to one another to distinguish pairs of horses, one behind the other. That this was the intention, rather than variation of color within a single animal, is clear from 219, which preserves three legs in close proximity. The legs in this fragment are clearly equine, with a solid hoof combining toe and heel, and the protruding fetlock on the ankle carefully defined with a tuft of hairs, a detail of significant accuracy revealing close observation.61 On modern horses, the color between hoof and knee or hoof and fetlock frequently differs from the rest of the leg and body, white with brown or black, black with brown. Very occasionally the color differs between pairs of legs, but the majority of horses have the same color pattern on all legs. The white and black hooves in 220 may also represent two overlapping horses, though the pronounced ankle bone could belong to a goat or cow/bull. Exaggeration of the fetlock is, however, apparent on some horses in glyptic scenes (Fig. 3.6:b, c); it is also apparent in 138 (Fig. 7.6; here the feature is so exaggerated that it is tempting to see the hoof as goat rather than horse, but only horses were depicted in black in the paintings). Other fragments with the single leg or hoof of a horse are 221 and 222. As with all the animals, in small fragments legs are more easily identifiable than bodies, unless part of the leg survives with it, as is the case in 218. One fragment, 217, is identified as the head of a horse (Fig. 7.6); though its closeness to nature is somewhat tenuous, it is hard to 61 For horse anatomy, see Ellenberger, Dittrich, and Baum 1956, pls. 1–20 (leg and hoof on pl. 17).

ANIMALS: HUNTING AND HERDING

see to what other animal it could belong.62 The poll (crown) and mane have not survived on this fragment, though another small fragment has been identified as a tuft of a horse’s mane in association with red reins (86; Fig. 7.10). Among the representations of horses that have been reconstructed, one is a single black horse facing left (138, 217, 218, 221, 222) and standing or walking next to a building with plants below (Fig. 7.6). Another shows the reins and front hooves of two horses (86, 223) drawing a chariot, facing right (Fig. 7.10). In 219, as in 223, the implication of the differently colored legs is of a pair of horses drawing a chariot (see this vol., Ch. 3). Here the legs face left, suggesting that there were at least two chariots, facing in opposite directions or moving toward one another. If the white and black legs of 220 are horse, they, too, would suggest a horse-drawn chariot facing left. Intriguingly, at the upper edge of the fragment of the hunter with his prey (44; Fig. 7.16) is what looks like a black horse’s hoof and lower leg lifted in a trot. However, a raised leg would be idiomatically unique, the scale would be smaller than that of the other horses, what appears to be the leg widens too much in relation to the hoof, and traces of blue on the yellow ground indicate that there was landscape in this part of the composition. It has not, therefore, been reconstructed, and its identification must remain in doubt. Excluding this example, judging by the number of surviving legs, there were at least four representations of horses, of which three belonged to overlapping pairs and one was single, or seven horses in total. Presumably, the three overlapping pairs were drawing chariots, while the single horse was not. There is no bridle on the only surviving head (217), reconstructed in Figure 7.6. Horses were not native to the islands, but did they reach Kea or are we witnessing iconographic rather than physical transfer? Faunal remains are likely to be misleading, since normally only the bones of animals that were eaten would end up in domestic 62 Also identified as a horse’s head facing left by Abramovitz (1980, 67, no. 1178 [F.44]). In addition, the white form in 207 was cataloged by Abramovitz as “White horse head looking left, black eye and outline, trace of red over large ear . . .” (1980, 67, no. 116 [F.282]; cf. Coleman 1970, 116), but several factors militate against such an interpretation (orientation according to the striation marks on the back and the red line at the bottom, scale, angle, and shape of the “ear,” and position and color of the “eye”).

161

refuse. Among the more than 7,000 animal bones studied at Akrotiri, only one was identified as equid, a small tibia from an animal reckoned to be equivalent to the size of a modern donkey,63 similar to the size of ancient horses, which most closely resembled the modern Arabian breed.64 A similar specimen came from LC II Phylakopi,65 and a few small equid bones (either horse or donkey) were found in a LM I/II context at Tylissos.66 I am not aware of any equid bones from Ayia Irini, but full publication of the faunal remains is pending.67 That horses were imported to islands is evidenced by a horse skeleton found among human burials in the LB IA cemetery of Trianda on Rhodes68 and a dismembered horse skeleton found in a LM III tholos tomb at Archanes.69 On the mainland, horse bones appear from the early Middle Bronze Age at Lerna and Nichoria, while several Mycenaean tholos tombs have yielded horse remains, including complete skeletons at Marathon (Attica), Dara (Messenia), and Dendra (Argolid).70 Osteological evidence for the existence of horses on the mainland therefore precedes that from the islands and continues into LH III. Yet it is noteworthy that the instances from Thera and Rhodes are contemporary with the Kea painting, with those from Phylakopi and Tylissos being just a little later. The beginning of the LBA is the period in which chariots first reached the Aegean, contemporary 63 Gamble 1978, 746, 752; cf. Trantalidou 1990, 401; 2000, 710. 64 Osborn and Osbornová 1998, 136. Remains of horses in Egypt and Anatolia indicate a shoulder height of between ca. 134–150 cm (Littaeur and Crouwel 1979, 82), while an estimate for the Aegean runs at ca. 145 cm at the withers (Crouwel 1981, 33). 65 Gamble 1978, 752. Gamble assumes both animals were used for draft purposes. 66 Crouwel (1981, 35) cites LM I Tylissos as having had horse bones, but the few bones referred to in the publication (Hazzidakis 1921, 76 [LM II context]; cf. Hazzidakis 1912, 231) were identified as Equus asinus, donkey. 67 The late Jennie Coy commented on the lack of evidence for equids “as yet” (1973, 240). Preliminary reports on the faunal remains were prepared by her for Neolithic Kephala (1977) and Period V Ayia Irini (1986), but to date the other periods remain unpublished. 68 Marketou 1998, 61, pl. III:b; 2010, 784. 69 Sakellarakis 1970, 198–215, 218–219, no. C3; Crouwel 1981, 34. In a settlement context, two horses were caught in the fire that destroyed the citadel of Koukounaries on Paros in LH IIIB (Crouwel 1981, 35). 70 Crouwel 1981, 32–40; cf. Trantalidou 1990, 401, who cites occasional occurrence of the horse in the EBA.

162

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

with their main importation from the Near East to Egypt (this vol., Ch. 3). Domesticated horses had become widespread in the Near East as carts developed into chariots during the first half of the second millennium.71 As in MBA mainland Greece, in Egypt the earliest physical remains of horses date to the Middle Kingdom, earlier than the first textual references, which coincide with the expulsion of the Hyksos, and the first clearly identifiable representations, which occur in the exceptional relief from Abydos of the time of Ahmose and then in the Eighteenth Dynasty, equivalent to LM IA–B.72 These finds mark the beginning of the use of horses in both areas as prestige animals, linked to the new technology of the chariot first developed in the Near East.73 It is this prestige use that is reflected in the funerary contexts of horse interments first attested at Trianda in LB I and subsequently in LB III tholoi.74 In New Kingdom Egypt, horse breeding was practiced, but the majority of horses were imported either through gift exchange (so-called tribute) or as loot from war in the Levant. As in the Near East and apparently the Aegean, horses were valued especially for their ability to pull chariots swiftly; horseback riding was less commonly practiced, and horses were far too valuable to be used as draft animals in agriculture. They are recorded in military contexts from records of Thutmose III relating to the Near Eastern usage of the animal, situations in which huge numbers of horses were acquired as loot.75 Given the considerable effort and cost involved in obtaining and 71 Borowski 1998, 89–90, 100. 72 Abydos: Harvey 1998, 316–320, figs. 76–79; 2001; Spalinger 2007, 123–125, 133. On the horse in ancient Egypt, see Boessneck 1988, 79–81; Janssen and Janssen 1989, 3–43; Rommelaere 1991; Brewer, Redford, and Redford 1994, 10–12; Houlihan 1996, 33–38; Osborn and Osbornová 1998, 136–138; Germond 2001, 78–87. 73 On equids in the Near East: Littauer and Crouwel 1979, 26– 31, 41–43 for horses in the second millenium, see pp. 56–60, 82–84; Clutton-Brock 1992, 67–95; Borowski 1998, 87–90, 99–108; Hyland 2003. On the chariot, see this vol., Ch. 3. 74 A horse was buried, wrapped in fine linen bandages, and placed in a wooden coffin at the entrance to the Theban tomb of Senenmut (TT 71), Steward of Amun and Chief Steward to Queen Hatshepsut (Houlihan 1996, 35; Porter and Moss 1970, 139–142). The tomb includes a “tribute” scene with men from the land of Keftiu (Aegeans) and is probably slightly later than the horse burial at Trianda. 75 Borowski 1998, 103, 106–107. Thutmose III is recorded as having captured 2,041 horses at Megiddo (Borowski 1998, 107).

maintaining horses, ownership was an unequivocal sign of prestige and privilege, restricted to the king, the nobility, and high-ranking military officials. Aegean representations of horses are almost always associated with chariots, rather than existing in their own right.76 A notable exception is an inlaid dagger blade from Shaft Grave V at Mycenae, on which the animals stretch their bodies in flying gallop down the length of the narrowing weapon.77 This format of swift creature metaphorically facing the enemy beyond the point of the metal is also applied to lions on a dagger from Shaft Grave IV.78 Though there are occasional appearances of equine animals on earlier seals,79 the first unequivocal horse appears at the beginning of the LBA, in tandem with the arrival of the chariot.80 Besides the inlaid dagger from Shaft Grave V, depictions of horses from LB I have already been discussed in Chapter 3, in relation to chariots. Those contemporary with the Kea paintings are limited to a sealing found at Akrotiri (Fig. 3.6:b), a gold ring from Shaft Grave IV at Mycenae (Fig. 3.6:a), and on stelai from above Shaft Grave V. The latter are more bovine than equine in appearance, and the iconography of warfare and hunting from a chariot is evidently transported here from the Near East rather than reflecting local reality (this vol., Ch. 3, p. 105). But the owners of Shaft Graves IV and V appear to have been well acquainted with horses and horse iconography, as shown by the ring and inlaid dagger, as well as four bone disks found in Grave IV, identified as cheek-pieces and argued by Harding to have northern connections.81 This was the richest of the Shaft Graves, with its gold masks, gold and silver vessels, bull’s- and lion’s-head rhyta, and an array of weapons, including the metaphorically potent Lion Hunt Dagger.82 The clay of the Akrotiri sealing 76 Cf. Bradfer-Burdet 2005, 87. Regarding glyptic, Krzyszkowska (2005, 141) comments that “once engravers abandon chariot scenes, they ignore horses too.” See also Vanschoonwinkel 1996, 360–362, 394–395, nos. 315–329. 77 Karo 1930–1933, 136, no. 748, pls. LXXX, LXXXVI. 78 Karo 1930–1933, 97, no 395, pls. XCIII, XCIV; Marinatos and Hirmer 1960, col. pl. XXXV, XXXVII (below). 79 CMS II.1, no. 391 (Archanes, Phourni, EM II–MM IA context); CMS II.5, no. 260 (MM II, Phaistos); cf. Crouwel 1981, 158, no. G5, pl. 13. 80 Krzyszkowska 2005, 141. 81 Harding 2005. 82 Karo 1930–1933; Dickinson 1977, 48–49.

ANIMALS: HUNTING AND HERDING

has been traced to Crete, in the vicinity of Knossos (this vol., Ch. 3, n. 59), where, however, such early representations have not survived. It is striking to note that the earliest examples of horse and chariot appear in the aristocratic, no doubt royal context of two of the richest Shaft Graves at Mycenae and in a sealing that was probably made at Knossos, yet Thera and Kea were simultaneously á la mode in elite iconography, with the sealing at Akrotiri and, more significantly since made in situ rather than imported, the wall painting at Ayia Irini. The question of whether the chariot and horses were imported to Kea was discussed in Chapter 3, along with the elite status of both. A sealing from Knossos of LM I–II date shows a well-engraved horse superimposed over a ship with rowers (Fig. 3.4). It has tufts of a dressed mane and traces of harness and girth around head, neck, and body, indicating its intended use to draw a chariot. Larger in scale than the ship, with legs over rather than in the vessel, it has been argued that the horse was engraved later than the ship.83 Whether or not this was the case, the juxtaposition between ship and horse was clearly intentional, implying transport of the animal across the sea. In mid-Eighteenth Dynasty Theban tombs, horses are represented as tribute brought by Syrians, with chariots (this vol., Ch. 3, p. 106). Horses on their own are less frequent, also brought as tribute or being recorded by scribes along with other animals. The tomb owners are mostly commanders of troops, governors/ viceroys/viziers, or scribes, and the time span is limited to the Eighteenth Dynasty, all but one (which is post-Amarna) belonging to the reigns of Thutmose III or Thutmose IV.84 As is the case with chariots, horses were rare in paintings in private tombs, demonstrating that in life they were available to relatively few people. They came to Egypt as loot from war and as tribute from Syria or as diplomatic gifts, as recorded later in the Amarna letters.85 Once in Egypt, ownership and responsibility was limited and controlled. Most horses belonged to the state, with 83 Betts 1973, 329–330; CMS II.8.1, no. 133. 84 Porter and Moss 1960 (positions in plans noted in parentheses): tribute: TT 39 (8, 9), TT 100 (4), TT 78 (8), TT 90 (9), TT 239 (2, 3); recording produce: TT 123 (11), TT 85 (2), TT 92 (5), TT 143 (4), TT 145 (2), TT 74 (10), TT 40 (8, 11) (post-Amarna). 85 Houlihan 1996, 36

163

royal horses usually distinguished from others by plumed headdresses.86 In the Linear B tablets, horses, singly and in pairs, are allocated along with chariots and armor to named individuals, implying state ownership and elite usage.87 In Mycenaean wall paintings horses are inextricably linked with chariots (this vol., Ch. 3); they also appear unattached, being prepared by grooms or led by a hunter with dog, but in both cases with harnesses already on and mane tufts prepared.88 Although mainly deriving from palatial contexts in Mycenaean painting, horses and chariots are associated with hunting scenes in the remarkable (if fragmentary) wall paintings found in the Lower Town at Mycenae, in the West House (LH IIIB:1) and the House of the Oil Merchant (LH IIIA:2).89 The evidence from the Aegean, as of the Near East and Egypt, of the inextricable link between horses and chariots, along with the fact that the Kea horses are the earliest known in Aegean wall paintings and among the first in any media, makes it all the more remarkable that horses appear with such frequency among the fragments, not least since they are also represented as unharnessed and without bridle (217, 218; Fig. 7.6). Horses represent prestige, wealth, and public display throughout the ancient world.90 Were they brought to Kea for a very special occasion? Or is this symbolic expression in the iconographic sphere? Whichever scenario we envisage, the existence of horses in the paintings is highly significant. Relatively rare at this time, their presence implies a ceremonial occasion dominated by male dignitaries, in which the role of horses in the social arena is that of conspicuous display. 86 Brewer, Redford, and Redford 1994, 102. 87 Landenius Enegren 2004, 12–13. 88 Mycenae: Rodenwaldt 1911, fig. 2, pl. X; 1921, 24–27, pl. 1:2, 3; Lamb 1921–1923, 164–165, pl. XXVII; Immerwahr 1990a, 123–124, 192, Mycenae no. 10, pl. 64. Tiryns: Rodenwaldt (1912) 1976, 110, fig. 47, pls. XI:4, XIV:3. 89 West House: Tournavitou 2012, 727, pl. CLXIX:a, b; 2015, 161–163, col. photograph opposite p. 144, fig. 13; 2017, 32–64 (esp. 52–56), 121–128, figs. 22–27, pls. 19–22; House of the Oil Merchant: Tournavitou 2012, 725, pl. CLXV:d, e; 2015, 151, fig. 3:e. 90 For ancient Greece, cf. Howe 2008, 108–123.

164

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

Summary The animals belong to three parts of the frieze, each distinct in its context: deer and dogs in a hunting scene, herding of domestic goats and perhaps sheep, and horses associated with chariots. The deer and dogs are on a larger scale than the rest of the frieze and most likely lay on a separate wall, the west. There are no human figures associated with them: this is an animal hunt. Nevertheless, dogs imply hunters, and from (presumably) the western part of the adjacent south wall was a hunter with a deer slung on a pole. The hunt moves from right to left, as does the hunter, in the direction of the scene of cooking in cauldrons, no doubt the intended destination of the deer. The lean dogs are identifiable as greyhound or saluki, ideal hunting hounds, while the prey is identifiable as fallow deer, the season being indicated by their summer spotted coats. Other instances of fallow deer within hunt scenes in wall paintings are known from contemporary Thera and slightly later Tell el-Dabca, as well as in later Mycenaean paintings, but are not known in the surviving wall paintings from Crete. Dogs appear first in wall paintings at Kea; they are not known in any surviving paintings from Thera, Melos, or Crete, though they figure prominently in the Tell el-Dabca Hunt Frieze and then later in Mycenaean wall paintings. Dogs are, however, known in Cretan art from the Early Minoan period on, and contemporary glyptic scenes focus on the dog as a hunter. There were at least four deer and at least two or three dogs. Both animals are well observed, and their notably larger scale and iconographic link to the hunter show that they played a significant part in the narrative structure of the Miniature Frieze. Their presence signals the special nature of the occasion, in which hunting was a prelude to large-scale cooking and, by implication, feasting. Deer hunting with dogs was a signifier of elite social relations among men. Within the frieze, probably on the north wall, was a herding scene, perhaps a sub-scene to the town, as it was in the Thera Miniature Frieze. The evidence is, however, fragmentary and does not permit clear identification of species. It is likely that most were goat. The presence of man as herder is evidenced by a fragment with the arm and hand of a man reaching to the back of a white animal. Animal husbandry

therefore formed at least a part of the frieze. It is not, however, the focus of the frieze, and it is likely that the appearance of flocks and herder(s) was a statement about ownership rather than merely a comment on daily life. Horses appear here for the first time in the known corpus of Aegean wall paintings. Both black and white horses were depicted, sometimes overlapping, hence in pairs, and therefore most likely associated with chariots. Only one chariot has been identified, yet there were at least seven horses, three pairs and one single. The single horse, apparently unharnessed, indicates that horses were also portrayed unattached, while the pairs suggest either that there were more chariots or that they were paired in anticipation of harnessing. This is the period in which horses and chariots first reached the Aegean, at the same time as their importation to Egypt from the Near East. It is remarkable that it is at Kea that we find the first horses represented in wall paintings, that there were so many depicted, and that not all appear to have been attached to chariots (as became the iconographic norm). Horses had to be imported and required a significant amount of maintenance. Their ownership in the ancient world was a clear sign of wealth, prestige, and privilege, restricted to the highest echelons of society—rulers, nobility, and military officials—and used for public display. In the Aegean, the first simultaneous appearances of horse and chariot are in the richest of the aristocratic Shaft Graves at Mycenae, in a sealing from a ring probably made in Knossos but found at Akrotiri, and in the Kea painting. The presence of both deer hunting by dogs and horses with chariots is highly significant. Were these animals present on Kea, brought by ship to the island? Were deer, dogs, and horses seen? Whatever the answer, their presence in the paintings is a reflection of symbolic expression in a shared iconographic scheme developing at this time among elites at Knossos, Mycenae, and, apparently, the islands. New as subjects of wall paintings, the inclusion of dogs and horses in the Miniature Frieze signals elite ownership. The association of horses with chariots and of deer with hunting and feasting implies a ceremonial occasion in which display was a vital element in the social arena of men.

ANIMALS: HUNTING AND HERDING

Catalog of Animals This catalog includes the deer, dogs, goats, sheep, and other unidentified forms that might have been animals, along with horses (for which, see also the related discussion and catalog entries in this vol., Ch. 3). The photographs and study drawings are presented at 1:2 scale. 178 (X9). N.18 Central. Figs. 5.1, 7.17 (Deer and Dogs); Pl. 16. Deer. H. 3.3 (3.7) x 2.1 x 0.6 cm. Three pieces joined. Ocher neck of a deer with applied white markings in a parallel row of dashes along the upper edge and dots below. Ocher on yellow ground, white on ocher. 179 (X3+W). N.18 Central. Figs. 5.1, 7.17 (Deer and Dogs); Pl. 16. H. 7.5 x w. 10.1 x th. 0.8 cm. Eight pieces joined. Belly and hind leg of a deer with the hind legs and tail of a dog beneath. White at lower left edge of the fragment indicates head of dog. The spots of the deer are arranged in two slanting parallel rows on belly and more randomly on thigh; underbelly and pubic tuft are white, and the thigh is faintly outlined in black. Spots differ in shape from those of the deer in 183. On the yellow ground at far right are faint traces of blue, suggesting water, next to areas of ocher vegetation to the right of and beneath the dog. Ocher body of the deer painted over the yellow ground, with white spots applied last. The white belly and genital tuft of the deer was painted directly over the yellow ground, as was the white of the dog, which has partially flaked to reveal that the dog was painted after the ocher vegetation. At the upper edge the ocher of the deer has partially flaked; at the lower edge the yellow ground has partially flaked or been abraded in deposition.

165

180 (Y12). N.18 Central. Figs. 5.1, 7.17 (Deer and Dogs); Pl.16. Dog. H. 1.2 x w. 1.4 x th. 0.8 cm. White body of a dog painted over yellow ground, with faint gray-black outline defining the form. 181 (Y14). N.18 Central. Figs. 5.1, 7.17 (Deer and Dogs); Pl. 16. Dog. H. 3.2 x 2.3 x 0.5–0.7 cm. White body of a dog painted over yellow ground, partially flaked. Specks of blue on the yellow suggest water or rock was painted nearby. 182 (D4). N.20 West. Figs. 5.1, 7.17 (Deer and Dogs); Pl. 16. H. 3.6 x w. 3.5 x th. 0.5 cm. Part of an animal, interpreted as the snout of a deer. Ocher with white below, both painted over yellow ground and outlined in black, with short parallel black hairs over the white and a black nose at the end of the ocher. At the top of the fragment is white outlined in black, interpreted as the hind legs of a dog. Trace of probable vegetation in ocher at lower left (not included in the drawing). White over yellow (dog) and over ocher (deer); black over ocher and over white. 183 (I1). N.20 West. Figs. 5.1, 7.17 (Deer and Dogs); Pl. 16. Deer. H. 6.5 x w. 7.2 x th. 0.7 cm. Seven pieces joined, cracks restored. Deer standing or walking. Applied

white round spots on the body, in a row following the outline of the back, and seemingly randomly placed beneath, though probably some have flaked, with a white underbelly extending into the inner thigh. Black outlines the legs, back, and lower neck (as preserved). The underbelly may also have been faintly underlined. Ocher body and legs painted on yellow ground. Unlike the deer of 179, the white underbelly was painted over the ocher body, rather than directly onto the background. The spots also differ in shape and placement, as does the posture, and there is no pubic tuft.

166

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

184 (U23). N.18 East. Pl. 17. Animal: Deer? H. 8.0 x w. 7.0 x th. 0.9–1.2 cm. Very worn, with both the ocher

and the yellow ground beneath it having partially flaked in unison. A white underbelly is painted over the ocher, outlined in black along the lower edge. The lower right ocher form has a reddish tinge, with three small white spots applied over and traces of a white strip at the edge. The ground has patches of slightly darker yellow below and a bluish tone on yellow at top right, suggesting vegetation. Two (or three) deer overlapping, one standing behind the other? 185 (U21). N.18 East. Pl. 17. Animal: Deer? H. 3.2 x w. 3.6 x th. 1.1 cm. Two pieces joined. Ocher leg outlined in black and part of the bluish black body of an animal. Black lines on either side of the leg do not accurately enclose the ocher. Ocher over yellow ground, black painted last. 186 (U24). N.18 East. Fig. 7.17 (Deer and Dogs); Pl. 17. Deer. H. 7.3 x w. 6.0 x th. 1.2 cm. Poorly preserved, standing deer. Cf. the better preserved 183. White spots applied

187 (M24). N.20 East. Pl. 17. Animal: Deer? H. 2.6 x w. 3.6 x th. 0.5 cm. An ocher leg of an animal (deer?) outlined on one side in black. On the yellow ground are patches of ocher, bluish gray, and four spots of applied white painted last. 188 (U25). N.18 East. Fig. 7.17 (Deer and Dogs); Pl. 17. Deer. H. 2.6 x w. 3.2 x th. 1.0 cm. Leg(s) of a deer. On yellow ground, ocher with a reddish tinge and a white strip to the side. Black outline on the right, with thinner ocher paint beyond it. Interpreted as hind legs, associated with 186. Reddish ocher painted after the white, the order being: yellow, light ocher, white, reddish ocher, black. 189 (X10). N.18 Central. Fig. 7.17 (Deer and Dogs); Pl. 17. Dog. H. 2.7 x w. 1.6 x th. 0.6 cm. Front paws of a dog, facing left. The white legs are painted over yellow ground, and the wrist bones are articulated in gray. 190 (X131). N.18 Central. Fig. 7.17 (Deer and Dogs); Pl. 17. Dog. H. 1.9 x w. 1.4 x th. 0.7 cm. Part of a white animal, interpreted as dog, on yellow ground.

191 (X11). N.18 Central. Fig. 7.17 (Deer and Dogs); Pl. 17. Dog. H. 1.6 x w. 1.8 x th. 0.6 cm. Part of a white animal, interpreted as dog, on yellow ground. Cf. 180 and 181. 192 (X130). N.18 Central. Pl. 17. Animal. H. 2.5 x w. 2.2 x th. 0.7 cm. White animal’s leg and hoof/paw articulated with blue-gray. Blue-gray over the yellow ground to the left of the leg is probably part of the landscape.

over the ocher body. White underbelly applied directly over the yellow ground but continuing in tiny specks over the ocher body above the front leg, indicating the order of painting: yellow, ocher, white. Front leg almost entirely worn away. Probable black outline to the surviving leg. Yellow ground also poorly preserved, with traces of red and ocher to the left of the animal and black at top left.

193 (M5). N.20 East. Fig. 7.7 (Herder with Goat); Pl. 17. Animal. H. 2.5 x w. 2.5 x th. 0.5–0.9 cm. Three pieces joined. Surface restored over the cracks. White animal’s legs, interpreted as goat, the upper part outlined in gray-black, with hooves articulated at the ends in blue-gray. Relatively thick applied white painted over the yellow ground, gray over white.

ANIMALS: HUNTING AND HERDING

194 (M4). N.20 East. Pl. 17. Animal. H. 3.2 x w. 2.4 x th. 0.7 cm. Two pieces joined. Legs of a white animal,

alternative orientation

without visible black outlines, on yellow ground. Applied white relatively thick. The legs are oriented in Pl. 17 as though standing, but they may have been kicked out at the back, in which case the fragment would be rotated. Both possible orientations are shown here. 195 (W35). N.18 Central. Pl. 17. Animal. H. 3.0 x w. 1.8 x th. 0.9 cm. White animal(s)—legs or leg and tail—on yellow ground. Gray outlines one side of one of the forms and articulates the tip of the second. Applied white relatively thick.

196 (M10). N.20 East. Pl. 17. Animal. H. 2.2 x w. 2.6 x th. 0.8 cm. Poorly preserved leg and hoof of a white animal. Traces of blue-gray articulating the hoof.

197 (P23). N.20 East. Pl. 17. Animal. H. 1.7 x w. 2.3 x th. 0.7 cm. Leg of a white animal on yellow ground (somewhat darker than usual).

198 (M11). N.20 East. Pl. 17. Animal. H. 2.9 x w. 4.4 x th. 0.9 cm. Part of a white animal(s)—paws or tail— outlined in black, on yellow ground.

199 (K1). N.20 West. Pl. 17. Animal. H. 4.1 x w. 2.1 x th. 1.2 cm. White paw or tail of an animal, partially outlined in black, on yellow ground (slightly darker than usual).

200 (M12). N.20 East. Pl. 17. Animal. H. 2.8 x w. 2.3 x th. 0.7 cm. Leg and hoof of a white animal facing to left, probably a goat, on yellow ground. Gray outlines the front of the leg and the hoof, overlapping part of the leg. Ocher

167

vegetation is painted beneath the hoof, onto which is applied a small patch of white. Order of paint: yellow, ocher, white, gray. 201 (A9). N.20. Pl. 17. Animal. H. 4.4 x w. 4.0 x th. 0.7 cm. Leg and hoof of a white animal on yellow ground with landscape; ocher vegetation to the left and traces of red to the right. Top right is poorly preserved. The hoof compares with that of the animal in 241, though it is slightly larger, and probably belongs to a goat. 202 (H16). N.20 West. Pl. 18. Animal. H. 4.6 x w. 3.0 x th. 0.6 cm. Neck and back(?) of a white animal with the paw or tail of another animal above, on well-preserved yellow ground.

203 (G3). N.20 Northwest. Pl. 18. Animal. H. 4.1 x w. 3.8 x th. 0.8–1.0 cm. White animal with black markings, perhaps back and rump facing to left. White painted on to yellow ground; black on white.

204 (M8). N.20 East. Pl. 18. Animal? H. 2.2 x w. 4.6 x th. 0.9 cm. Poorly preserved. White animal(?) with black outline and markings, on yellow ground.

205 (E12). N.20 Southwest. Pl. 18. Animal? H. 5.5 x w. (6.0) x th. 0.9–1.5 cm. Poorly preserved. White animal(?), perhaps the back and rump of a bovine facing right, outlined black with ocher and black markings. White over yellow ground, ocher and black over white.

206 (S27). N.20 East. Pl. 18. Animal. H. 3.2 x w. 2.3 x th. 0.6–0.9 cm. White animal outlined in black, with short black lines on the white. White painted over yellow ground, black over white.

168

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

207 (M6). N.20 East. Pl. 18. Animal. H. 9.4 x w. 7.8 x th. 1.0 cm. Two pieces joined. Poorly preserved. White animal on yellow ground with blue, probably water. Trace

212 (S25). N.20 East. Pl. 18. Animal or building? H. 1.9 x w. 1.6 x th. 0.7 cm. White on yellow ground, with two narrow red lines painted on to the white. This may be part of a white animal, or it might be architecture (cf. 133 and 134; Pl. 14). 213 (U146). N.18 East. Pl. 18. Animal or rock? H. 3.9 x w. 4.7 x th. 0.7 cm. White shape (perhaps partly flaked) on yellow ground, with traces of red and faint bluegray over.

of blue lower right, indicating that it continued behind the white animal. Thin red line near the white form. Blue has flaked off, revealing a rough plaster surface (marked on the drawing by lines). White over yellow with black outlines and markings. Striation marks on the back of the plaster. Cataloged by Abramovitz as a horse’s head (see n. 62). 208 (X14). N.18 Central. Fig. 7.7 (Herder with Goat). Pl. 18. Animal and man’s arm. H. 2.9 x w. 1.9 x th. 0.7 cm. Red arm and hand of a man reaching toward a white animal. Red and white painted on yellow ground. The hide of the animal is marked by a curved pink line and a patch of blue-gray. Red arm painted after white. Interpreted as goat in the reconstruction; could also be sheep. 209 (H17). N.20 West. Pl. 18. Animal? H. 3.0 x w. 2.6 x th. 0.9–1.0 cm. White (animal?) on yellow ground, with a strip of red ocher with patches of bright dark yellow ocher along the edge of the form.

210 (X13). N.18 Central. Pl. 18. Animal or rock? H. 2.7 x w. 1.6 x th. 0.6 cm. White form on yellow ground, with red over the white on the left and traces of blue-gray at the edge of the form on the right, around the red, and at the edge of the fragment on the right. This was included in Pl. 18 as a possible animal, perhaps with a man, as the barely visible blue was interpreted as a gray outline. Alternatively, it could be rock (cf. 328, 329.1). 211 (X15). N.18 Central. Pl. 18. Animal and man? H. 3.6 x w. 2.3 x th. 0.7 cm. On yellow ground, partially flaked white (animal?) and red at the edge of the fragment (man?).

214 (W31). N.18 Central. Pl. 18. Animal and man? H. 4.0 x w. 2.2 x th. 0.6 cm. Two pieces joined. White form on yellow ground, with red on parts of the white and a patch of ocher on the yellow. Neither the applied white nor the red has survived sufficiently well to enable identification, but the two could suggest an animal and a man. 215 (X12). N.18 Central. Pl. 18. Animal and man? H. 2.5 x w. 2.6 x th. 0.5 cm. White animal(?) outlined in gray, on yellow ground. A narrow red form touches the white, perhaps a man’s hand? 216 (U147). N.18 East. Pl. 18. Animal(s)? H. 4.3 x w. 3.5 x th. 0.8 cm. White form on yellow ground, with a bluishwhite form beneath. Perhaps two animals, or one animal and landscape.

217 (U22). N.18 East. Fig. 7.6 (Horse and Building); Pl. 19. Horse. H. 3.6 x w. 3.2 x th. 0.7 cm. Black head of a horse facing left, with muzzle, ear, and traces of an eye. The black paint has partially flaked off, including above the eye, which is preserved only as fugitive specks of white, circular but irregular. The mouth was not originally open, as it now appears to be, owing to flaking of the paint. Traces of white on the yellow ground to the left. 218 (I2). N.20 West. Fig. 7.6 (Horse and Building); Pl. 19. Horse. H. 4.5 x w. 2.8 x th. 0.7 cm. Front part of the black body and upper forelegs of a horse facing left, on yellow ground. A patch of white is applied on to the black at the top left of the fragment.

ANIMALS: HUNTING AND HERDING

219 (P10). N.20 East. Pl. 19. Horses. H. 4.5 x w. 5.5 x th. 0.9–2.8 cm. Two legs of a white horse and one leg of a

black horse, facing left on yellow ground. The horses would have overlapped one another. Black defines the front outline of each of the white legs and the fetlock hairs and hoof of the one on the right. The black leg is fugitive, and it is likely that the white leg on the left also had a black hoof. Beneath them, on the yellow ground, are fugitive traces of red, suggesting landscape. 220 (E2). N.20 Southwest. Pl. 19. Animals. H. 3.0 x w. 3.1 x th. 0.7–1.0 cm. Two pieces joined. Two animals’ hooves facing to left, one white and one black, on yellow ground. Since the black is partially flaked, the shape of the black animal’s hoof is unclear. The relatively large size of the white animal’s hoof suggests a horse, as does the presence of two contrasting colors, indicating overlapping animals. In its present condition, however, it looks like a cloven-hoofed animal with distinct dew claw behind. This may be an accident of preservation, both white and black of the hoof having flaked off at this point, but the black does appear to enclose the protrusion. If the impression of a dew claw is original, the white animal would be bovine. Black hoof painted on the white. 221 (E15). N.20 Southwest. Fig. 7.6 (Horse and Building); Pl. 19. Horse. H. 2.5 x w. 1.7 x th. 1.8 cm. Black on yellow ground, interpreted as the leg of a horse. The paint appears blue-gray near the edge of the fragment, clear black at the outline of the form. Trace of red visible at the edge. 222 (Y10). N.18 Central. Fig. 7.6 (Horse and Building); Pl. 19. Horse? H. 5.0 x w. 2.6 x th. 1.0–1.2 cm. Black hoof(?) and the tip of an ocher plant below, on yellow ground. Little is preserved of the black form, and identification as a hoof is speculative. 223 (Q11). N.20 East. Fig. 7.10 (Chariot); Pl. 19. Horses. H. 2.0 x w. 3.2 x th. 0.6–1.1 cm. Two hoofs of animals, facing to right on yellow ground. The right hoof is black; the left is white with black outline and traces of red. The left appears to be cloven, but that is probably the way the black is preserved, and these are most likely horses.

169

224 (R20). N.20 East. Pl. 19. Animals? H. 3.8 x w. 2.7 x th. 0.7 cm. Two forms, perhaps legs facing right, behind a white animal outlined in black, on yellow ground. The possible leg on the left has a blue-gray tone outlined in black; the other is blacker and irregular in form. Both are fugitive. 225 (H18+U37). N.20 West + N.18 East. Fig. 7.7 (Herder and Goat); Pl. 19. Animal. H. 3.0 x w. 3.9 x th. 0.7 cm. Two pieces joined. Back and tail of a small white animal facing right, on yellow ground. The color is now a very fugitive grayish white with a slightly more distinct black at the outline of the body. The tail is curved and partially raised, as though in movement. Perhaps goat, though the tail is rather long, which might indicate calf. The fragment is included with the reconstructed man herding a goat in order to give an impression of a line of animals. This is a rare instance of two pieces from quite different contexts joining, one from N.20 west, the other from N.18 east. There is some difference in the tone of the yellow ground on the two pieces, as a result of differing postdepositional conditions. 226 (Y9). N.18 Central. Animals. Pl. 19. H. 5.5 x w. 3.7 x th. 0.5 cm. Two gray-black animals on yellow ground. On the left, the hind part and tail of an animal facing left. The tail is very faint gray. Three strokes of white applied over the gray mark the rear. The animal on the right is also gray (where preserved), with a stroke of ocher painted over at the edge of the form. 227 (U34). N.18 East. Pl. 19. Animal? H. 3.2 x w. 2.4 x th. 0.7 cm. White parallel forms, partially outlined in black, on yellow ground. Perhaps the legs of a horse. Irregularity of the white form may be an issue of preservation, some paint having flaked. 228 (M3). N.20 East. Pl. 19. Animal. H. 5.0 x w. 3.1 x th. 0.7 cm. Body and leg of a white animal painted on yellow ground with landscape. The body is chunky compared to the short hind leg, which ends in a black hoof. It may have been a calf. The far hind leg must have extended behind, indicating that the animal is walking. The body has a slightly bluish tone to the white, a black line at upper right, and a row of short black lines in the middle. Further traces of white and

170

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

black on the left. Beneath the animal are indications of landscape: blue defined with black lines, probably a bush, and traces of red. 229 (Y13). N.18 Central. Pl. 19. Animal? H. 2.5 x w. 3.0 x th. 0.7 cm. On yellow ground, white applied thickly, flaking at the edges of the form, with a trace of black at the lower edge. 230 (U35). N.18 East. Pl. 19. Animal or landscape? H. 4.4 x w. 5.2 x th. 0.9 cm. White form on yellow ground, with a faint small red circle at the lower end.

231 (E13). N.20 Southwest. Pl. 19. Animal? H. 2.6 x w. 2.7 x th. 0.5 cm. On yellow ground, a white form with appendage, the white marked with a red spot. Perhaps a dappled animal with a second animal’s leg behind. 232 (V13). N.18 East. Pl. 19. Animal? H. 2.2 x w. 5.1 x th. 0.7 cm. Two pieces joined. On yellow ground, a white form with appendages, the white marked with two red spots. Traces of outlining to the appendages and a clear horizontal outline to the main form, painted first in red then painted over in black, with faint traces of blue in the white above the line.

6

Landscape, Seascape, and the Sky

Miniature Landscape and the Ambiguity of Blue Plants, multicolored rocks, meandering rivers, streams and marsh, sea, and sky provided the environment for the action of the Miniature Frieze, set on a light yellow signifying both ground and air. Stunningly varied, this extensive landscape clearly occupied the major part of the frieze. More than a backdrop, the landscape had a significant, cohesive role to play in the overall composition. Both the top and the bottom of the frieze were blue, as evidenced by the fact that all surviving pieces with a flattened edge (where the plaster abutted the beam) are blue. There are no fragments of yellow ground or multicolored rock with a flattened edge.1 Only a few fragments that can be identified as side pieces survive: one yellow ground, one yellow ground and blue sea, and one blue with black markings. The category of subject with the largest number of fragments is undoubtedly blue sea or sky and the transition between that blue and the yellow of land. 1 See 322 for an ambiguous fragment, either rock or sky.

Given the artists’ use of blue and blue-gray for sea, sky, river, and rock, pieces of blue are steeped in ambiguity for the interpreter. While difficult to distinguish between sea and sky, these two elements can be separated from river and rock on technical grounds, the former being painted directly onto the plaster, the latter being mostly on yellow ground (see this vol., Ch. 10). This, at least, is the case for fragments close to the edges of the frieze. All pieces with a flattened edge, where it abutted a beam, are blue painted on to the plaster. But as the artist(s) moved into the transition from sea to the yellow of the ground or from sky to yellow, then the blue overlaps the yellow. First the yellow was painted, reserving white areas for the application of the blue. Then the blue was painted. Rather than having a sharp division between the two, the artist(s), well versed in the painterly effects of brushwork, swept the blue over the division to soften the transition. This is well exemplified in the combination of pieces used in the transition from sea to land in the marsh landscape (455–473; Figs. 7.19– 7.21; Pls. 40, 41). More enigmatic are the pieces in Plate 44, clearly related to one another in their use of ocher patches, white blobs, and gray streaks on blue. So unlike

172

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

anything we know from Aegean painting, how do we interpret this small section of the frieze? Is it a peculiarity in the treatment of the sea? Did blue rocks also rise from the base—as they did, for example, in the Hunt Frieze from Tell el-Dabca?2 Or is this, rather, a unique depiction of the sky transitioning into the ground? Such a thought would not have entered the equation, were it not for the clear use of blue, gray, ocher, and white in the sky around the buildings in fragments 87, 89–92, and 553–562 incorporated into Figure 7.1. The unexpected needs a tangible iconographic context in order to be unequivocally interpreted. Without contextual cues, fragments from the broad sweep of landscape—sea, sky, rock—remain ambiguous. Even when contextual cues firmly establish orientation, ambiguity as to the nature of an element may arise. In the reconstruction in Figure 7.13, two men greet one another above a landscape element that might be interpreted as either sea or rock (309; cf. 40, 41).3 The blue is painted over the yellow ground as rock would be, rather than over white plaster as is the case for the sea. Large white circles of paint near the curved contours also suggest rock, yet the ambiguity remains, for flecks of white escape the blue, landing on the yellow ground like coastal sea spray. Indeed, at the transition between sea and land, just as blue frequently transgresses the confines of the reserved plaster by overlapping on to the yellow ground, so too, occasionally, does white. One can admire the painterly solution to this landscape element while remaining uncertain as to which element was intended. Among the details from the center of the frieze, too, there are ambiguities. How does one interpret a fragment of blue with a distinct contour against (and on) a yellow ground—as rock or river? The problem is compounded when part of a human figure appears in the same fragment—is the man walking up a hill or by a winding river? The illustrations in Figures 7.12 (Men by River) and 7.14 (Men by Rocks) were created out of just such problematic fragments. The viewer should be warned that the ambiguity remains but informed that other diagnostic elements were taken into consideration. Rocks tend to have a relatively wide area of blue-gray at the contour and to have more bulbous short curves, hence the pieces chosen for Figure 7.14 (Men by Rocks). One piece in this composition (300) also has 2 Marinatos and Morgan 2005, pl. 15; Marinatos 2010a, figs. 19, 20, 23, 27; Morgan 2010b, figs. 6, 7. 3 Abramovitz cataloged 309 as “flowers” (Coleman 1970, 90).

descending red rock, confirming the interpretation. A man can step on to a rock (38, 39) but not usually under a rock. In the latter case, the blue is interpreted as river (32, 33, 35, 36). One fragment (35) confirms this, as the contour of the blue includes a bifid protrusion signifying, in Aegean iconography, water (see n. 30). In Chapter 7, the ambiguities and diagnostic features of particular fragments are commented on under the relevant compositions. Decisions on where to place ambiguous fragments rested with relationships (context) and visual aptness (composition). The men, it is assumed from the surviving evidence, appeared in rocky, riverine, and maritime landscapes. The reconstructed compositions provide glimpses of how parts of the frieze might have looked.

Plants and the Land Fragments 233–266 (Figs. 7.4, 7.12, 7.25; Pls. 20, 21) depict elements of plants and the land. Four fragments of plants with tiny leaves have been included in Figure 7.12 (Men by River; 233–236), on the grounds that the stems of one of them traverse blue, which is most likely a river (233). On three of the fragments, the stems are red, the tiny leaves ocher. On one (235), the stems bend, as though caught in the wind. Ocher around the base of the stems, suggesting generic vegetation, indicates that this plant is short and perhaps situated next to a river. The fourth has ocher stems with irregularly placed tiny ocher leaves and large red berries (236). While the other three plants are too generic to safely identify, the berries on this suggest that it is a representation of Butcher’s Broom. One other depiction of this plant is known from a LM IA town house on the north side of the Royal Road at Knossos, reconstructed from three fragments by Mark Cameron.4 There, the leaves and stems appear to be dusty green, and the berries are large and irregular. Butcher’s Broom (Ruscus aculeatus) has greenish brown stems, blending visually with the tone of the leaves, and berries that are at least as broad as the leaves. It is an evergreen shrub that grows in Europe in hedgerows, woodlands, and on coastal cliffs. The distinctive red berries begin to appear in late summer and autumn. The shrub grows up to one meter in height. While the plant as reconstructed in Figure 7.12 is larger in scale, the relative sizes of plants to animals, human figures, 4 Evely 1999, 214, no. 46.

LANDSCAPE, SEASCAPE, AND THE SKY

and especially buildings is rarely precise in naturalistic terms, and there is much variation. A large bushy plant with small ocher leaves, the same color as their stems, is preserved in a fragment that also has the Minoan convention of red and blue so-called descending rocks (237). Abramovitz suggested it might be an olive tree,5 though it does not have the characteristic alternation of light and dark leaves of Minoan representations of olive.6 Given the descending rocks, it is likely to have been high up in the composition, on a hilltop, which is not a natural location for olive trees. The fragment has been reconstructed in Figure 7.25 (Rocky Landscape). Several other fragments, also reconstructed in this composition, show that small-leaved ocher plants were depicted growing from the tops and sides of the hills (269, 270, 272–275), often overlapping the descending rocks. From a different part of the frieze, but also with descending rocks, here only red, came a blue plant with ocher spikes or thorns (247–262; Fig. 7.4). The plants are of relatively large scale (though on a smaller scale than those in the Plant Panels). The blue areas are long and oval, clumping together at the base of the plant, narrowing toward the top. The spikes are an integral part of the plant, growing up the entire length of the blue. There are no surviving stalks or stems. The plants are thistle-like and I have tentatively identified them as eryngo (Eryngium Creticum), a common plant in dry, stony places, the roots of which are used as an antidote for snake bites.7 Today, thistlelike plants grow abundantly on the hills behind the Ayia Irini peninsula. In early summer the heads are bluish purple with green spiky leaves; in late summer, the heads dry to a yellow russet, and the lower leaves shrivel. In both cases, there is a chromatic contrast. Seen from above, the stems are not visible. On the same, somewhat larger scale are plants associated with a building as reconstructed in Figure 7.5 (see Pl. 15). To the left of the building (defined by a string line), parts of two blue plants are preserved against yellow ground, one with blue-gray-ocher spikes or thorns similar to those of the thistle-like plants (141, 142). Presumably the two parts of the 5 Coleman 1970, 90. 6 For examples of olive in Knossian wall paintings, see Chapin and Shaw 2006, 87 (with references). The branches draped over the shrine or altar in the adyton of Xeste 3 at Thera (Vlachopoulos 2008b, pls. 41.12, 41.13) should also be olive, given the dense bunching of the leaves and the fact that their size is consistent along the stems. 7 Huxley and Taylor 1977, 110, pl. 181; Morgan 1998, 202.

173

composition were linked. Against the white of the building are delicate overlapping grasses painted in pale gray and yellow ocher, some broad leaved, others narrow (157–163, 170–174). Along with these are two instances of another delicate plant with smaller pale gray (and one red) ovoid leaves on a pink stem (165:right, 166, 168–170, 175, 176). In the center, adjacent to a string line marking a division in the architecture, is a blue plant with ocher spikes, apparently floating with a short unattached pink stem (165). It is unclear whether this is intended as a single head or two thistle-like heads overlapping, but the spikes are longer and more centrally placed than those of the thistles. Other, somewhat smaller scale ocher grasses and reeds appear intermittently, associated with buildings (133, 138, 176, 177). There are also several pieces of what appear to be blue bush-like plants with black markings (240–246), which I have not been able to incorporate into the reconstructions for lack of further diagnostic information. One of them (241) is associated with the paw or hoof of a white animal, another (242) perhaps with a deer. It is, however, remarkable how rarely the fragments of animals have indications of associated landscape.

Rocks and Hills Rocky Landscape A vivid, multicolored landscape with ascending and descending rocks, which formed part of the frieze, surely constituted one of the great landscape paintings of the ancient world. Fragments 267–299 (Fig. 7.25; Pls. 22–25) belong to this scene. A few wellpreserved pieces give a breathtaking glimpse of the extraordinary, painterly quality of the original (Pls. 22, 23). An impression is presented in the watercolor in Figure 7.25, and the wider context is suggested in Figure 7.26. Most of the pieces fell and were preserved together within a relatively narrow range of depth on the east side of Room N.20, so the scene would have come from either the east wall or, more likely, the eastern part of the south wall. Rising up into peaks and dipping down into crevices, the undulating contour tells of a craggy, hilly landscape. As they ascend and descend, the contours of the hills are consistently blue, with some blue-gray

174

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

outlining. Thick white paint is applied in blobs near the contours, a technique used by the Kean artists for the junctures of sky, sea, and rock with air or ground. In the rocky landscape, it surely expresses the gray and white hues of local rocks. Geologically, the Cycladic islands are the tips of an otherwise submerged mountain range, formed as a result of the gradual subsidence of the land and a corresponding rise in sea levels. Kea, as one of the northernmost of the Cycladic islands, is dominated by rocky hills, not only in the center but also sloping down toward the coasts. Surveys have shown the main rock to be micaceous schist with some fine-grained blue-gray limestone (i.e., marble).8 Schist, which predominates especially in the north of the island, is a gray stone with white streaks. Also in the northern part of the island is some dolostone breccia, which is buff colored, sometimes with a dark reddish hue.9 In the painting, red, pink, and yellow ocher forms rise up from the base into the rock, some with bluegray vertical markings within. Blue, consistently at the top, is also interspersed between the red. On the whole, the white blobs are on the blue, only very occasionally on red or yellow. Ocher is applied around some of the white blobs and partially defines the red forms. At the tops of some of the rocks grow ocher plants, which occasionally overlap the descending rocks. While the overall effect recalls the schist stones of the island, there can be little doubt that the artist(s) had in mind the Aegean techniques for depicting rocks so vividly preserved in the Thera paintings, where the vibrant reds, yellows, and blues arguably reflect the volcanic rocks more common in the southern Cyclades.10 There are, however, notable differences. In the Spring Fresco from Delta 2,11 the rocky landscape occupies the major part of the large-scale composition that covered three walls of the small room, enveloping the spectator. These rocks, on which red lilies grow with swallows flitting around them in the air, are irregularly compartmentalized into blue-gray, red, and yellow sections. Each colored section rises from the ground (the literal ground of the room) up to the peaks of the rocks, and each colored section is 8 Cherry, Davis, and Mantzourani 1991, 57. 9 As reported by a team of Greek and Austrian geologists at the International Geological Congress, Oslo, August 6–14, 2008 (Nikolakopoulos et al. 2009, 747800-2). 10 Rackham (1978, 759) identifies the location of the multicolored rocks of the Spring Fresco as an old lava flow less than 1 km west of the site of Akrotiri. 11 Marinatos 1968–1976, IV, pls. A–C; Doumas 1992, pls. 66– 71; Morgan, ed., 2005, pl. 1:2.

delineated within by black lines, executed as concentric ovals, either with single thick lines or, as a shading device, with numerous parallel lines. The contours of the rocks are executed in the same manner. Only occasionally do the red forms rise into the blue-gray, to terminate in the center of the rock face rather than at the top. In contrast, all the tops of the rocks in the Kea painting are blue-gray, while internal markings are indicated toward the tops by the white blobs (themselves partially outlined in dark blue-gray) and farther down in the rock by the red and yellow forms. While in both cases the contours follow an up-and-down pattern, those of the Spring Fresco are expressionistically craggy, the Kea rocks more gently curved. Though arguably more naturalistic, the difference could also be between the volcanic rocks of Thera, which sometimes weather into pinnacles and angular projections, and the more regular surfaces of the metamorphic rocks of Kea. Closer to the Kea formation are the rocks of the Crocus Gatherers from Xeste 3.12 Here, the majority of the tops of the rocks are blue-gray, though the red and yellow forms occupy large areas of the rock face and occasionally reach the top to become the contour. Internal markings are dark red and blue-gray. The rocks beneath the wounded girl from the adyton below fit the format of the Spring Fresco, mostly juxtaposing red and blue-gray from ground to top contour, as do the rocks from the staircase of Xeste 3 and those beneath the calves from Beta 6.13 In miniature scale, the Ship Procession frieze offers an interesting parallel (Fig. 11.1:c, d).14 Here, the activity of ships in the sea is framed by two towns beneath rocky peninsulas. The Departure Town has many of the elements of the Kea frieze in one section: buildings, men, a river, marsh and sea, an animal hunt, and a rocky landscape. The uppermost rocks, on which trees grow and a lion chases deer, are blue gray with undulating contour marked out in black by a line that regularly dips down into the rock like a scalloped edge. Beneath are irregular horizontal bands of yellow, pink, red, and blue, all defined by similar scalloped edges in black or red, and a river descending then dividing like a delta. As the peninsula extends into the sea, rocky land with scrub vegetation is indicated by pinks, yellows, and reds with 12 Doumas 1992, pls. 116–118, 120, 129; Morgan, ed., 2005, pl. 22:1. 13 Doumas 1992, pls. 91 (Beta 6), 100 (Xeste 3); Vlachopoulos 2008b, figs. 41.12–41.14 (Xeste 3 staircase). 14 Morgan 1988, 32–34; Doumas 1992, pls. 26–29, 35–38, 44.

LANDSCAPE, SEASCAPE, AND THE SKY

gray-black delineation. This rocky peninsula drops directly into the sea, the ships passing it and continuing to the right. It seems likely that the Kea rocks similarly dipped down to the sea, with the ships off to one side. The Cauldrons and Ships scene, Figure 7.8, incorporates fragments from the same context in both depth and area—the east side of N.20. While the land on which the men and buildings stand is the usual yellow ground, on either side of the upper torso of the right-hand man leaning over the cauldron there are traces of blue, with traces of pink above (67). These colors around the man and to the right of the building presumably belonged to rocks. We may, therefore, imagine the Rocky Landscape to be close by on the right, as suggested in Figure 7.26. In the Ship Procession, the peninsula of the Arrival Town harbor differs significantly, being broadly stylized with vivid concentric areas of color (Fig. 11.1:d). On the far right, however, the black outlining of the contour delineating the tops of the hills drops down to resemble descending rocks. It is as though descending and ascending rocks were incorporated into one. Indeed, the tops of these hills virtually touch the top of the frieze. The only instance of actual descending rocks in the Thera miniatures is from the North Wall, linking the Meeting on the Hill and the Pastoral Scene (Fig. 11.1:a). There the rocks fall in multicolored clumps, closely resembling those beneath the feet of the men in the Meeting on the Hill. The concept of descending rocks is peculiar to Aegean depictions of landscape, yet the rocks are usually highly stylized, giving an impression of a split view in which what is below is mirrored above. Perhaps the rationale for this idiosyncratic organization of space arises from the experience of being surrounded by mountainous land. Looking up, rocks and pinnacles with overhanging cliffs may evoke a sense of simultaneous rising and falling.15 In the reconstruction of the Knossos Saffron Gatherers, the monkeys are surrounded above and below by multicolored stylized rocks,16 a pattern that 15 Such was my experience walking through a valley flanked by rocky summits with projecting schist ridges of red and gray on the path down from Chora to Otzias on Kea. Perspective and space in landscape painting are discussed by Chapin (1995, esp. 40–165, 220–231); Crowley 1989, 146–147; on the Thera paintings, see also Betancourt 1977; Laffineur 1990. 16 Platon 1947; Morgan, ed., 2005, pl. 4:1. The likely but tenuous interpretation of descending rock appears to have been made on the basis of a fragment with a crocus flower upside down above the tail of a monkey.

175

is echoed more securely in the Monkeys Frieze from Beta 6 at Akrotiri.17 With clearer definition, multicolored rocks descend above the Frieze of Monkeys from Room 2 of Xeste 3 on the upper floor and above the wounded woman from the adyton (Room 3b) on the ground floor.18 In the Bluebirds and Monkeys Frieze from the House of the Frescoes at Knossos, multicolored rocks are joined as they ascend and descend around plants growing from the ground.19 Above the white blooms in the Lily Fresco from Kommos are irregular red rocks, apparently descending from the upper border of the painting.20 Above the birds and plants in the Caravanserai Frieze at Knossos,21 stylized banded rocks mirror those beneath, while similar colored bands descend from above the heads of the Knossos Cupbearer.22 Such undulating forms are echoed, though not defined, in the wavy red forms above the heads of the Boxing Boys and Antelopes from Beta 1 at Akrotiri, as well as in the multicolored forms above the plants and animals (as reconstructed) in the painting from Room 14 at Hagia Triada and also, intermittently, above the plants from the Unexplored Mansion at Knossos.23 Later, the Groom Fresco from Mycenae and both the Bluebird Frieze and the Olive Tree and Rocks from Pylos have clearly delineated, highly stylized rocks descending from above.24 Seascapes, such as the Flying Fish Frieze from Phylakopi, the Dolphin Floor from Knossos, and the painted table of offerings from the West House at Akrotiri also utilize the idea of encompassing rockwork.25 Other media, too, use the concept 17 Doumas 1992, pls. 86, 87. 18 Doumas 1992, pls. 96 (monkeys), 100 (woman). 19 Cameron 1968b; Hood 2005, pl. 6:a, d. 20 Shaw and Chapin 2012, 62–63, 66, frontispiece (top fragment), col. pl. IB (reconstruction: A. Chapin). 21 Evans 1921–1935, II, frontispiece; Shaw 2005, foldout A-B. 22 Evans 1921–1935, II, 2, pl. XII; Morgan, ed., 2005 frontispiece (drawing by M. Cameron). 23 Akrotiri: Doumas 1992, pls. 79, 81–84. Hagia Triada: Militello 1998, figs 29, 30, pls. 5, 6; Cameron reconstruction: Evely 1999, 242; Morgan, ed., 2005, pl. 2:3. Unexplored Mansion: Cameron 1984; Morgan, ed., 2005, pl. 2:2 (drawing by M. Cameron); Chapin 1997, esp. 7. 24 Mycenae: Immerwahr 1990a, pl. 64. Pylos: Lang 1969, no. 9 F nws (Bluebird Frieze), pls. 83, J, R; no. 10 N nws (Olive Tree and Rocks, upside down), pls. 68, 69, 72, H, Q; Chapin 2005 (who in the text correctly reverses top and bottom to have ascending tree with descending rocks). 25 Phylakopi: Bosanquet 1904, col. pl. III; Morgan 2007a, 381– 383, pl. 46:a. Color: Christopoulos, ed., 1974, 140. Knossos: Evans, 1921–1935, III, frontispiece (pl. XXVI); Koehl 1986b. Akrotiri, Thera: Doumas 1992, pls. 142–144.

176

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

of descending rocks, notably the gold cups from Vapheio and an ivory plaque from Palaikastro.26 Yet unlike all these examples, what is extraordinary about the Kea rocks is that those that descend differ significantly from those that ascend, the latter firm and grounded, the former dropping like icicles or crystallized stalactites into narrow points. Nowhere else are the descending rocks as expressive of the delicately dropping pinnacles of actual stalactites as here at Kea. Yet this is no cave, since, given the fact that all the edge pieces of the Kea frieze are blue, there must have been sky above or alongside the descending rocks. It is a unique solution to spatial organization in landscape painting. Another difference between the Kea painting and others is the context of the rocks. With the notable exception of the rocky hills on the wall of the staircase in Xeste 3 (see n. 13), in each of the Thera paintings, the rocks provide the environment for other significant elements and action: crocuses and women in Xeste 3, lilies and swallows in the Spring Fresco, trees and an animal hunt in the Miniature Frieze. Above, in each case, the white plaster is left to indicate air or ground, through which and on which the action happens. The same applies to rocks in the Cretan examples cited above as well as to those in the Hunt Frieze from Tell el-Dabca. This does not appear to be the case in the Kea Miniature Frieze, where, strikingly, descending and ascending rocks are given almost equal emphasis. While the pale yellow wash is still used to indicate ground and air (the equivalent of the white plaster at Thera), and while plants do indeed grow from the contours of the rocks, above them there are no birds, animals, or humans, no activity of any kind. Instead, the blue, red, and pink descending rocks are a feature in themselves. While we cannot be sure what lay beneath the rocks, as the overall height of the frieze is estimated at 54– 55 cm, there would be enough space for sea and just possibly some maritime activity (see this vol., Ch. 7, p. 264; Fig. 7.26), the ships deriving from the same context as most of the rocks. Whether or not they were associated, as I think they probably were, the extraordinary emphasis on these multicolored rocks implies their geographic importance as a setting for the action on the wall from which they came.

Rocks within the Landscape

26 Marinatos and Hirmer 1960, pls. 178–185 (Vapheio cups); pl. 109, above (Palaikastro ivory). On descending rocks in glyptic art see Krzyszkowska 2010, 180–182, figs. 17.10:c (CMS II.8.1, no. 268), 17.13:a, b (CMS I, nos. 15, 16), 17.15:a (CMS I, no. 227).

27 Doumas 1992, pls. 30–34; Morgan 1988, 34. In my book on the Thera miniatures, I referred to this frieze as the “Landscape.” Having worked for a number of years on the Hunt Frieze from Tell el-Dabca, I am now more inclined to call it the “Hunt Frieze,” albeit a hunt in a spectacular landscape.

Elsewhere in the frieze, rocks were included in the landscape and integrated into the action, but were a less substantial part of the composition (fragments 300–337; Figs. 7.13, 7.14, 7.18; Pls. 26–29). Blue rocks with the typically curved contours outlined broadly in blue-gray appear to have formed a part of the frieze from the west side of N.20, in association with a group of men (22, 38–39, 300, 302, 303; Fig. 7.14). (One fragment from the same context [293] includes applied white on the blue, so matches the rocks in the landscape from the east side [Fig. 7.25]). Multicolored rocks descend to meet the rising contour. On the whole, however, the complexity of the rockwork in Figure 7.25 is not repeated in other parts of the frieze. Red descending rocks appear above the thistles in Figure 7.4 (248–251, 254, 256) as well as above a river with riverine plants in a few fragments (429–432; Fig. 7.19, Marsh A). These mostly monochrome parallel lines are, however, executed in a manner quite different from the subtle combinations of colors in the descending rocks of the Rocky Landscape. Whether rising from the sea or falling from the sky, the red rocks in the two alternative versions of Figure 7.18 (Sea/Sky with Rocks; esp. 324–326), are also simpler in form than those of the Rocky Landscape. In only one fragment does blue mingle with the red (325). Crucially, however, these fragments show the uniqueness of the artistic solutions to transitions between one element and another, as water or air meets rock. Related to this solution, but slightly different, are the fragments in Plate 29 that are not used in any of the compositions. Along an almost straight line dividing blue from yellow are red ovals or circles, some directly over the juncture between the two colors, others over a blob of applied white. In one case, the white oval has two strips of gray painted over it (327). These ovals are either small (327–329) or large (335–337), the latter including ocher as well as red. Presumably they are to be understood as pebbles or individual rocks, distant cousins of the more sharply delineated egg-shaped banded stones that feature in the Hunt in Landscape painting from the east wall of the West House Miniature Frieze (Fig. 11.1:b),27 in the Monkeys

LANDSCAPE, SEASCAPE, AND THE SKY

and Birds Frieze from the House of the Frescoes, in the Caravanserai Frieze, and in a border band above the Taureador Frieze from Knossos.28 Of a simpler nature, and hence closer to those in the Kea painting, are the white ovals on red rock in the Tell el-Dabca Hunt Frieze.29

Marsh and Streams A marsh with rivulets or streams, bounded by the sea below and a river above, provides a unique depiction of a watery environment in which the focus is the landscape itself (fragments 338–416; Figs. 7.19–7.24; Pls. 30–35). There are no animals, not even waterfowl, and no human figures associated with this marshy, riverine landscape. The compositions in Figures 7.19– 7.21 have been joined together in Figure 7.22 to give an impression of the whole composition, while additional passages are reconstructed in Figures 7.23 and 7.24. As such, the marsh runs 1.60 m long and clearly, given the large number of fragments, it would have been much longer (see this vol., Ch. 7). It probably ran along most if not all of the east wall. As is the way with Aegean wall paintings, the marsh in the Kea Miniature Frieze incorporates known idiomatic principles with fresh observations and iconographic solutions. The central elements are the streams or rivulets, rendered in undulating red bands running parallel to one another. On the whole, the wider bands run singly, with more undulation, while the narrower bands run two or three abreast and are somewhat straighter. On occasion, the wider band separates into two; often it is partially covered by vegetation. One fragment (389) shows the meeting of two wider streams. One shows how three parallel narrower streams end (340), another how a narrow one ends while a wider one continues (391). There is elasticity in their arrangement, varied and full of motion. Running along the sides of the streams, rendered in the usual perspective above and below the red bands, is ocher vegetation. Often it overlaps the streams (notably 354, 389), occasionally it disappears (387). Traversing the streams at intervals are blades 28 House of the Frescoes: Cameron 1968b; Morgan, ed., 2005, pl. 5.1. Caravanserai: Shaw 2005, foldout A-B. Taureador Frieze: Evans 1921–1935, III, 213, fig. 144; Marinatos and Palivou 2007, esp. fig. 104. 29 Marinatos 2010a, fig. 15.

177

of grass rendered in gray-blue (at times almost black), and less frequently pale gray-blue and once red (cf. 358, 364). The multiplicity of red bands, two, three, or more deep, aptly portray the trickles of water among vegetation characteristic of marshy lands. That they are red rather than blue is unusual, but serves to distinguish the streams from the blue of the river or the sea. Most likely they reflect the muddy tones of the trickling waters of marshes. The marsh is, according to current knowledge, unique in miniature painting and would have been a profoundly impressive statement about environment. In the West House Miniature Frieze, the deltaic land around the river surrounding the Departure Town should, by definition, be marshy, but the manner of representing damp soil and plants is very different (Fig. 11.1:c). The soil is red, with darker ocher for the quite inconspicuous grasses, and between the river and the rocky hills above lies a yellow ocher area outlined in red ocher with the bifid signs of water indicating the nature of the environment.30 It is a completely different conception of marshy land and one that links environments rather than standing on its own as a statement. The river of the east wall frieze (Fig. 11.1:b) is fringed by yellow marked out by red curved lines, implying vegetation and perhaps, with the red, marshy land around the river.31 Yet this is not a clear statement of marshy land such as we encounter in the Kea frieze. There is little surviving evidence of marsh landscapes in Cretan painting, except perhaps in a few fragments from the South 30 This “water sign” was discussed in relation to pottery as well as paintings in Morgan 1984; 1988, 34–38. My analysis was challenged by Schiering, who sees the form as “roots under the earth” when outside a “wavy band” and “reflections of trees or bushes in the river” when inside, and considers the coastal projections to be unrelated (1992, 317, 321–322). This seems to me to miss the point of iconographic links (“water”) within the context of variability of meaning (river, marsh, coast). The sign in different contexts may subtly shift in form or in position (inside/outside), yet the broader meaning resides in the cognitive link between the contexts (here the notion of “wet environment”). More specifically, it is hard to see how the form could be reflections of trees or bushes in the water when on the banks of that water are reeds. Cf. Shank (2016, 82–83, 87), who identifies the feature as the roots of plants. See also Strasser and Chapin on the multivalent meanings of the sign and its variants in rockwork (2014, 62). 31 Doumas 1992, pl. 30–34. Vlachopoulos (2000, 644) suggests the yellow with red depicts “the muddy shallows of the river bed.”

178

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

Figure 6.1. Reeds and stream, details from the Reed Bed painting, Xeste 3, Akrotiri. Photos L. Morgan.

House at Knossos. One has a reed or grass against undulating red and yellow land, which Evans interpreted as banks rising from a blue pool;32 others show a reed and probable papyrus stem rising from a yellow ground, a variegated rock (“pebble”), and (from this or another painting) a bird. Evans likened them to the House of the Frescoes. The miniature marsh was picked up thematically in the Plant Panels of the adjacent room, N.18 (Figs. 8.5–8.8; this vol., Ch. 8). Though like the miniature marsh, devoid of animal life, the large reeds of N.18 bear an iconographic relationship to the remarkable marsh scene from Room 3b on the upper floor in Xeste 3,33 both in the treatment of the leaves and in the intimations of water and land (Fig. 6.1). Interestingly, a red undulating band serves as a watercourse in the Xeste 3 painting (Fig. 6.1: left)34 and in at least part of the Reeds and Grasses Plant Panel of N.18 at Kea (703; Fig. 8.5). In the former, the bifurcated “water sign” characteristic of Theran painting punctuates the red band. This combination of reeds and undulating band with water sign is carried over into LM IB pottery, where the color of the painted slip naturally echoes the dark reddish tone of the ocher band in the two paintings. It is, however, 32 Evans 1921–1935, II.1, 378–379, fig. 211:b; Mountjoy 2003. 33 Vlachopoulos 2000; Zeimbeki 2005; Vlachopoulos and Zorzos 2014, 192–196, pls. LXIII, LXV–LXVI. 34 Vlachopoulos 2000, figs. 3–6; 2008b, 41.22–41.24.

in the Kea Miniature Frieze that the full context of these undulating bands is provided, in a remarkable portrayal of a marsh with red streams, here devoid of birds or insects, yet with intimate awareness of moist earth with trickles of water and overlapping vegetation. In the Xeste 3 painting, ducks and dragonflies inhabit the reed bed, their presence echoed in the necklace with the same motifs worn by the (assumed) goddess in a scene in close proximity.35 Whether the marsh in the Kea frieze also held a symbolic resonance for the viewers is unknown. It is, however, significant that it occupied such a large proportion of the frieze. Most likely, it functioned primarily as a mnemonic reference to environment. From the windows that must have existed on the east wall, there would have been a view of the coastal land of the inner bay, constituting the main approach to the town. Today, it is full of reeds and grasses growing from the damp ground (Fig. 6.2; cf. center left in Fig. 1.3). A few fragments document the link between the marsh and a river (Fig. 7.20, esp. 436, 442), while others document the link between marsh and sea (Fig. 7.21, esp. 394, 470), thereby completing the landscape. Individual in iconographic terms, recognizable as a particular type of environment, this 35 Marinatos 1984, 68–71 (on the thematic link); Doumas 1992, pls. 122, 125, 126 (the goddess).

LANDSCAPE, SEASCAPE, AND THE SKY

Figure 6.2. A view toward Ayia Irini through coastal reeds. Photo L. Morgan.

extensive coastal, marshy and riverine landscape must have had significance for those who made and viewed the paintings.

River, Reeds, and Grasses Rivers play an important role in the landscape setting of the Miniature Frieze, not only in the marsh landscape, but in other scenes as well (fragments 417–454; Pls. 36–39). Whether it is one continuous river across walls or several separate ones cannot be said with certainty, but the different contexts imply the latter. A river is included in four quite different compositions: beneath a town (Fig. 7.1), with men bringing produce (Fig. 7.12), with dogs hunting deer (Fig. 7.17), and above the marsh (Figs. 7.19–7.22). In each case, the river is seen from above, the bank closer to the observer being below in the compositional plane, the far bank being above. Placement of the river beneath the town in Figure 7.1 is secure, as a large fragment of river (422) has a distinctive ridge on the back that matches that on the backs of three other fragments, one with a woman (1) and two with buildings (87, 88). In this fragment, the river runs straight at the top, widening and bending on the left at the beginning of a shift in direction. The interior of the blue river is marked by gray-black lines, in a pattern that resembles a plant, but laid horizontally in line with the river course and apparently intended to define the water. On the upper contour of the river on the right edge of the fragment are short black lines placed diagonally. From the rest of the upper contour rises a dense thicket of reed-like plants.

179

They have a central stem with opposite leaves that are rather too short and broad for reeds, but other related fragments indicate that the plant was tall (419), reaching up to the woman (1) and building (88, 420), suggesting that the giant reed Arundo donax was the dominant inspiration. These plants continue beneath the river (424), but then give way to low-lying bushy vegetation along a sharply curving part of the river (428). Related to this vegetation is a strip of blue traversed by black lines (427), which also lies beneath the feet of the woman (1). It is possible that this is intended as a bridge over the river, though the repeated use of the color blue leaves the structure open to ambiguity. The placement of urban buildings next to a river and perhaps a bridge leaves unresolved the question of where this town was thought to be. Despite the ambiguity of blue rock and blue water discussed above, there are some pieces that clearly indicate that men were gathered around a river. In these, the man stands beneath or to the side of the blue (32, 33, 35, 36). In gathering these fragments together with others in Figure 7.12, it appears that a group of men meet by a river. While there are no internal markings to the water, one fragment includes a projection on the lower outer edge of the river (35), with heavy black outlining along the rest of the contour, beyond rather than closely containing the blue, while on another fragment (36) the blue divides, suggesting an escaped rivulet. The projection on 35 resembles in form the internal markings on the rivers of the Thera Miniature Frieze (Figs. 2.1:c, 4.4, 5.2:a, 11.1:b, c), as discussed below. Given the angle of the contour of the river in relation to the men, the water clearly flowed on a winding course. A winding course is also intimated in the few fragments of river included in Figure 7.17, the deer hunt in a coastal landscape. The association of a river with the hunt is evidenced by traces of blue behind the legs of the dog in fragment 179. The largest number of fragments of river have been incorporated into Figures 7.19–7.21, the Marsh Landscape. In Figure 7.19, the reed-like plants of the Town by a River (Fig. 7.1) recur in association with a river, and the river itself has internal gray-black markings (431). The markings, however, differ from those of the fragment in the other composition (422), and above the river is not a town but the characteristic pointed descending rocks. This river, therefore, lay toward the top of the frieze. That this part of the river lay on a separate wall is indicated by a fragment from the juncture between two walls (433). It is likely that this river ran above the marsh across the whole of the

180

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

east wall, while the composition of Town by a River lay at the eastern end of the north wall. There would, therefore, have been a continuation of environmental theme along with a shift in both emphasis and location. Such a shift existed in the West House at Thera, where the concentrated riverine landscape with hunt on the east wall gave way at the eastern part of the south wall to the Departure Town, above which was the deltaic river with hunt scene above (Fig. 11.1:b, c). This visual link between the two walls creates a bridge between two otherwise different scenes. Other fragments of river, placed in Figure 7.20, have short black lines rising from the upper contour (445), in one case traversing the blue (438), some partial outlining (439, 440), and occasionally dots of white (441). The vegetation and grass-like plants beneath the fragments placed in this composition link the river with the marsh below (436, 437, 440–442), one fragment including the end of a red stream (442). In the fragments placed in Figure 7.21, the plants above and below the river comprise delicate grasses, either rising individually from the ground or in a leafy spray, like a short reed (447–451). In one case, the grasses from below overlap the river (448). In 447, the leafy plant has subtle gradations of tone for the leaves, giving an impression of depth, the leaves closer to the observer being more distinct, while the whole plant clearly overlaps the single blades of grass to the right. Clearly there was variety in the ways in which a river was depicted. In some cases, there are internal gray-black lines, even forming an elaborate pattern (422), yet the majority of fragments have no such lines. Some areas have short, black diagonal lines at the upper contour, a few have outlines following the contour, and one has a bifid projection (35). A variety of tall reed-like plants and short aquatic grasses line the river banks. Exact identification of species is problematic, and botanical categorizations are, of course, culturally determined concepts. Reeds and grasses are familiar plants in Cretan and Theran art.36 It is likely that ancient identifications would have rested on environmental associations (river, marsh, hedgerow, hillside, etc.) and usefulness to the community (economic, medicinal, etc.). At Akrotiri, a number of aquatic plants have been identified among the 36 See, e.g., Höckmann 1978, 608; Morgan 1988, 20–21; Sarpaki 2000, 664–665, 668–672; Nugent 2012, 594–596. Reeds are usually identified as either the giant reed, Arundo donax, or the common reed, Phragmites communis. Doumas (1999, 56) identifies the reed-like plant below the river in the Thera Miniature Frieze as couch-grass (Agropyrum repens, family of Gramineae).

archaeobotanical remains—reeds, rushes, “wicker”— used in the town for basketry, mats, and as a substitute for timber in shelving and roofs,37 while recent phytolith analysis of pre-eruption Thera has documented the prevalence of moist, marshy environments in a number of locations on the island.38 While variation of plants is to be expected along a single river course (and there is less variety than along the river in the Thera Miniature Frieze), the variation in methods of defining a river is more surprising. The river in the West House Hunt Frieze runs continuously with consistent outlining, bifid projections, and the lining of the banks with generic ocher vegetation (Figs. 5.2:a, 11.1:b). These projections provide a leitmotif for watery environments—rivers and coasts—throughout the paintings, recurring inside the deltaic river surrounding the Departure Town on the south wall and echoed along the coast by the shipwreck on the north wall (Fig. 11.1:c, a). As such, they constitute a sign for water (see n. 30). Even more striking is the variety of contexts in which a river appears: with a woman outside a town (Fig. 7.1), with men meeting in the countryside (Fig. 7.12), with the hunting of deer by dogs (Fig. 7.17), and as a landscape in itself associated with a marsh and the coast (Figs. 7.19–7.22). This concentration of riverine landscape is unique in Aegean art. The closest is, of course, as in so many other aspects, the Thera Miniature Frieze. Two of the contexts in the Kea miniatures match those of Thera, albeit with different emphasis: the hunt and the town (Fig. 11.1:b, c). In addition, a small part of the latter includes two men meeting across a river (Fig. 2.1:c). The scale of width of river in relation to animals, people, and buildings is comparable, but the differences in context are as striking as the similarities. The Hunt in Landscape frieze of Thera has a variety of flora and fauna, including palms, large cat, and griffin, which add an exotic, perhaps mythic, aspect to the composition. The river is the dominant feature integrating the scene. The hunt of Kea appears to have only deer and dogs, while the landscape is coastal, with, probably, an atmospheric sky. The scene is of the natural world, even if deer may not actually have been hunted in the neighbouring countryside. Being considerably more fragmentary, the extent to which the river relates to the rest of the scene is uncertain. The town in the Thera painting is surrounded by a delta descending 37 Beloyianni 2007. 38 Vlachopoulos and Zorzos 2014.

LANDSCAPE, SEASCAPE, AND THE SKY

from the hills, and the town is occupied largely by men. The town in the Kea painting has a river running horizontally beneath the buildings, and the only surviving figure associated with it is female. The Meeting by a River in the Kea painting was evidently a major theme within the frieze, and the event took place in the countryside. In the Thera painting, the two men meeting across a river are merely a subscene of the town and do not appear to be a major part of the narrative thread. Finally, the most significant use of the river as a landscape element in the Kea frieze, in the Marsh scene, is unparalleled at Thera or anywhere else. Rivers are relatively infrequently depicted in Aegean art, at least in naturalistic form. In Minoan painting, the best example is the Birds and Monkeys frieze from the House of the Frescoes at Knossos.39 In a reconstruction of a detail by Gilliéron, flowering reeds and papyrus grow along the upper (far) bank, the plants embraced by a monkey. In the whole frieze as reconstructed by Mark Cameron, a waterfall descends into this winding river with riverine plants, with a wider environmental context of rocky landscape. The theme is reflected in more abstracted form in the Monkeys Frieze from Beta 6 at Akrotiri.40 A river has been identified in fragments from the North Building at Knossos, showing blue wavy strips and crocuses, though several features of the painting (including the plants) point to an identification of rocks instead.41 In the later Mycenaean paintings from Pylos, wavy vertical lines are used as dividers between parts of compositions. When they occur in association with a deer hunt, as they do in Hall 43,42 an iconographic allusion to riverine action, as elaborated in the earlier paintings of Thera and Kea, is surely intimated. In other media, rivers occur rarely. 39 Cameron 1968b; Morgan, ed., 2005, pls. 5:1, 5:2. Rivers in Aegean art are the topic of the recent doctoral dissertation of Ariel Pearce (2017). 40 Doumas 1992, pls. 85, 86. 41 Warren 2005, 143, figs. 8.21, 8.22, col. pl. 17. The blue “river” course has internal black lines and is set against a ground color of yellow, seen as the land. However, as Warren comments, the internal markings look like rocks and continue on the yellow “ground.” In addition, the crocuses (not usually a riverine plant) are on a larger scale than the strip of blue identified as river (which also has red ocher on its borders and nearby, appropriate for rock) and (curiously) there is a string line in the painting. 42 Lang 1969, no. 16 H 43, pls. 12, 121, B; cf. the battle scene from Hall 64: Lang 1969, no. 24 H 64, pl. 124.

181

That on an inlaid dagger from Shaft Grave V at Mycenae parallels the hunt scene in the Thera painting, with cats chasing waterfowl in a papyrus thicket, a theme that is echoed on an ivory comb from Routsi.43 As an indicator of environment, the river is equally rare in glyptic art, appearing occasionally in association with waterfowl, once with a Mistress of Animals.44 Recognition of watercourses—river or marshy rivulets—on pottery depend on identification of the wavy line with bifid projections in association with riverine plants such as reeds, as I have discussed elsewhere (see n. 30). The question arises as to the significance of the unusual emphasis on marshy and riverine environments in the Kea paintings. As we shall see in Chapter 8, one, or more likely two, of the large-scale Plant Panels from adjacent Room N.18 comprised aquatic grasses and reeds with (in one part at least) a red marshy stream. Kea has the only known instance of a riverine landscape without the presence of waterfowl or any animals. Unlike the Theran Hunt in a Landscape with its theme of cat chasing waterfowl, which has iconographic parallels from elsewhere, the Marsh Landscape with its river and streams is unique iconographically and highly specific as a natural environment. What initiated this emphatic statement? Landscape plays an important mnemonic role in images as in life (as discussed in the Epilogue). Whether symbolic (evoking mythical dimensions of being), utilitarian (reflecting economic concerns), or atmospheric (recalling persons and events through location), landscape has the power to bring forth memories of time and place. Is it possible that such a large concentration on riverine landscape played a mnemonic role referencing locations outside the local Kean experience? Or is it more likely that it drew attention to environments that directly affected the occupants of (and visitors to) Ayia Irini? Rivers are not, today, a common feature of the Cycladic islands. But even on dry, volcanic Thera, streams are known,45 while the pre-eruption landscape included marsh environments (see n. 38) conducive to streams. On Kea, they must have been more common, at least 43 Morgan 1988, 34–35, pls. 185, 186. 44 CMS VII, no. 134; Morgan 1988, 35, fig. 50; cf. CMS VI, no. 458. Krzyszkowska (2010, 174) comments that marshes and riverine settings are usually indicated on seals by vegetation (grasses, reeds, papyrus), only sometimes with wavy lines for “water.” 45 Morgan 1988, 39, citing Naval Intelligence.

182

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

seasonally; even today, dried-up riverbeds are a frequent feature of the countryside. Although we do not know the lay of the land and its watercourses during the Bronze Age, it is worth noting that running northward from the bay of Vourkari is a dried-up riverbed that extends a few kilometers to the northern coast of the island, where modern day Otzias now stands in a sheltered bay.

Sea and Sky Sea and the Transition from Sea to Land Uniquely at Ayia Irini, both sea and sky are portrayed with painterly detail, brushwork, and colors creating new solutions to the representation of these natural elements. Nowhere in the surviving corpus of ancient art is so varied an expression given to sea, the transition from sea to land, and sky. (Fragments 455–502 define the transition between sea and land, while 503–552 are identified as sea; Figs. 7.1, 7.8, 7.17– 7.22, 7.24; Pls. 40–49.) Ayia Irini was built on a peninsula, surrounded on three sides by sea, two of which are small bays, providing natural anchorage for ships. Looking out of the windows of the room in which this frieze was painted, one would have had a direct view of the sea eastward as it approached the coast of the bay of Vourkari (Fig. 1.3). Perhaps, depending on the heights of the southern buildings in relation to the lay of the land, one might have had a view from the southern windows of the wider bay of Hagios Nikolaos, leading to the open sea. All along the coast are small bays with marshy land bordered by peninsulas with craggy rocks. As the sea reaches the flat bays, it laps gently onto the coast. As it reaches the craggy peninsulas, especially on windy days, it hits the rocks with force, sending spray high into the air. At the extreme end of the peninsula on which Ayia Irini stands, a point that ships would have passed before entering the calmer waters of the bay, there is a geological break in the massive rocks. Even in the summer months, the waves crash against the rocks, spraying dramatically into the air. It is no more than 150 m from the Northeast Bastion. Walking around the coast toward the west, it is a mere kilometer to the farthest, longest peninsula, beneath the hill of

Troullos. On the western side of this narrow peninsula, the coast is exposed to the waves of the open sea. Living on the coast of a small rocky island, the people of Ayia Irini would daily have encountered the sea. This familiarity with a marine environment is expressed throughout the Miniature Frieze. Fragments of sea were found in all contexts, and one must assume that it ran along the base of the entire frieze. Judging from the compositions I have reconstructed (esp. Figs. 7.1, 7.8), it would have occupied an area varying from 10 to 16 cm in height from the base of the frieze to where sea met land. The transition between sea and coast is innovative. Rather than draw a line between one element and the other, as the artist(s) might have done and occasionally did do, an imaginative range of solutions to this transition was achieved. Part of the sea impinges on the land to create inlets (Fig. 7.17; cf. Fig. 7.19). The sea laps around these irregularly shaped inlets, which, like the rest of the ground, are colored yellow. We must assume the land at these points is seen as rising slightly to stand above the water around. The entrances to the inlets are narrow (477, 488), some continuing as narrow snake-like strips (455), others broadening out (477, 484). As the water reaches the coast, in fragments such as this, the blue of the sea overlaps the yellow of the ground, creating a seamless transition in which paint is allowed to flow in the direction of the movement itself. Within one of the inlets grow ocher plants, and elsewhere touches of ocher suggest vegetation or rocky ground. White blobs indicative of sea spray cluster near the coast, evoking the swish of water as it hits land. Occasionally, the blue water sweeps up over the land in peaks of splashing waves (464, 466, 469). Sometimes the white bubbles escape out of the water onto the yellow ground, droplets of sea spraying upward into the air (466, 476). Lining the shore in places were large red and ocher pebbles or small red and gray-banded pebbles (Pl. 29). Red rocks ascend from the sea (or descend from the sky; Fig. 7.18). As one would expect, the marsh lay close to the coast. For the main body of the sea, blue paint was applied directly on to the plaster, which had been reserved for the sea at the planning stage. The blue itself is uniform in color, but onto it were placed dabs of white paint, applied as thick impasto, often in short rows. They surely capture the glint of sunlight on the bobbing water and the bubbles caused by movement, technically known as spume. The little rows give a lively impression of the crests of approaching waves.

LANDSCAPE, SEASCAPE, AND THE SKY

These white blobs, or bubbles, vary in size and shape from small and oval to large and amorphous. They are intermittently arranged in rows, either singly or in tiers. These rows occur between one to four centimeters from the base, usually at around three. They are short and irregular, never entirely straight, and are interspersed with stray individuals (not in a row) and areas of solid blue, thereby avoiding any sense of regimentation. Sometimes, the small blobs are neat and precise, sometimes they are larger or several blend in to one. Occasionally, they are large and angled obliquely, as on two pieces from the base of the frieze (508, 515), which is otherwise uniformly blue, and on two pieces where they lie a few centimeters above the base (512, 516). Such expressive variety in the depiction of the sea and its approach to the coast, in which the rhythmic movements of water are central to the portrayal, is, to our present knowledge, unique. It is of course coastal, island living that created the impetus for the Thera Miniature Frieze. The Ship Procession frieze from the south wall, with its distinctly maritime theme, offers a panoramic view of sea, land, and sky, as though seen from the sea itself (Fig. 11.1: c, d). The Kea Miniature Frieze surely did the same. Yet there is a difference, both in spatial organization and in approach to form. In the Thera painting, the sea is blue (sometimes blotchy, as though applied with a sponge), fading in places into the white hue of the plaster ground. It is difficult to tell whether this fading is entirely a matter of preservation, or whether the sea was originally bluer in some places than others.46 There is, however, little doubt that the artist(s) controlled the intensity and the fading-out process. Blue ends at the hill above the Departure Town, leaving the lion hunting deer against white, distinguishing the air/sky from the sea. Blue appears beneath the boys under the Arrival Town, separated from the urban space by a thick red line on which the figures stand, but it is faded out around the rowboats so that there is no jarring of color as sea meets town. On the Flagship, the hull is white plaster onto which the motifs were painted, and there is no sign of blue beneath the awning where the men sit, yet around the ship there are varying intensities of blue, no doubt in varying degrees of preservation. Most intense is the blue of the sea beneath the Departure Town, in which the small boat is rowed. 46 See also Vlachopoulos and Sotiropoulou 2013, 252–253.

183

There are no white markings on the sea, nothing to draw the eye toward the water at the expense of the ships. In the Shipwreck scene of the north wall, the sea is white, the natural ground color of the plaster, slightly mottled with faint gray marks around the drowning figures (Fig. 11.1:a). But extending from the coastal rock, immediately above the drowning men, is a confined area of clear blue with a distinct black outline punctuated by bifid water signs, which took their inspiration from coastal algae and were used by the artists to define the juncture of land and sea (see n. 30). These are entirely different solutions to how to show the element “water” in a coastal scene. The Kea artists focused attention not on action within the sea, but on the sea itself, hence devising original methods of expressing the lively movements of the ebb and flow of the sea as it approaches land. In doing so, the artist(s) explored the potential of the medium paint and the tool of the paintbrush, using them to express the unpredictability of the rhythmic movements of the sea. This is unique in Aegean art. Closest in approach is the Flying Fish Frieze from Phylakopi on Melos, in which the painter(s) focused on movement of sea as a corollary to the swooping movements of the fish (see n. 25). The solution as to how to portray this was ingenious. Since the fish are largely blue, a blue sea would have made them indistinct. Instead, the sea in which they swim (or above which they fly) is the white ground of the plaster. At the edges of the frieze, above and below, are rocks, doubling in intent, perhaps, as marine rocks and the coast of the land. Around the rocks the artist(s) made numerous dabs of blue paint, deftly echoing the up-and-down motions of the fish and creating an illusion of the bubbles on the sea as the fish jump in and out of the water. It is similar in approach to the dabs of ocher paint emanating from the backs of the dolphins like bubbles on the marine table of offerings from the West House at Thera.47 The Flying Fish Frieze takes a more naturalistic approach than that of a fragment of another seascape from Phylakopi,48 in which a section of the sea is designated with a scale pattern, a convention elaborated upon in the later seascape floor from Knossos49 and 47 Marinatos 1968–1976, V, col. pl. C. 48 Bosanquet 1904, 72, fig. 60; Morgan 2007a, 383, pl. 46b. 49 Evans 1921–1935, III, frontispiece (pl. XXVI), fig. 251; Koehl 1986b. In contrast, the background of the Dolphin Floor from Hagia Triada is said to have been “bright blue-green” (Hirsch 1977, 10) though little color survives.

184

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

used on other media, notably the silver Seige Rhyton from Mycenae (where its linear solution is appropriate to a monochrome surface).50 Two recently published examples in Mycenaean wall painting—a seascape with marine creatures from Argos and the naval scene from Hall 64 at Pylos—demonstrate individual solutions, with the former rendering the sea in two tones of blue with varying degrees of opacity, and the latter depicting it in purple.51 Other recently published fragments of ships from Pylos are against solid blue sea, as is the new fragment from Iklaina.52 What is remarkable at Kea is that the painter(s), working along a broad expanse of walls, focused attention on the effects of wind and the impact of water on rock or marsh as it reached the land, brilliantly utilizing the adaptability of paint.

Sky So unexpected is the depiction of the sky with clouds, that, had it not been for the fact that some of the surviving fragments directly associate it with the rooftops of buildings (Figs. 4.1:a, 7.1), it would probably not have been possible to identify it as such. Yet, once realized, the depiction is strikingly effective (fragments 87, 89–92, 553–573; Figs. 7.1, 7.17; Pls. 10, 50, 51). Recognition that sky formed the upper part of the Kea frieze depends on two factors: firstly, every fragment of the edge of the frieze (where the plaster abutted a wooden beam) is blue; secondly, blue sky surrounds the top and side of the buildings in 87 and 89–92 (Fig. 7.1), matching in its application of pigments fragments of the edge of the frieze (553, 554, 556). These pieces are distinctive. Onto the blue, which like the sea is painted directly on plaster, circles or blobs of ocher and irregular dabs of impasto white are applied, with blue-gray adding depth of tone around the colors. Once the context of the rooftops is known, the impression of a cloudy sky is unmistakable. (Cloudy skies can be seen on Kea in late summer, not only in winter.) 50 Karo 1930–1933, 176, fig. 85; Morgan 1988, pl. 192. On conventions for “sea” in Aegean art, see also Morgan 1988, 34–38; Crowley 1991; Schmitz-Pillmann 2006, 43–44; Shank 2016. 51 Argos: Tournavitou and Brecoulaki 2015, 241–243, figs. 14– 16; Pylos: Brecoulaki et al. 2015, 285, 287, figs. 4, 6:a (where the purple is fugitive) and the reconstructions in figs. 6:b, 8, 16, 17 (which demonstrate it more clearly). 52 Pylos: Brecoulaki et al. 2015, 280–281, figs. 14 (Room 31), 15 (southwest slope); Iklaina: Cosmopoulos 2015, 251–254, fig. 2.

The only place in which this sky could legitimately be reconstructed is in Figure 7.1, above the buildings. Otherwise, the problem of distinguishing sky from sea makes choices of fragments insecure. There are several pieces of blue with small patches of ocher and blobs of white that are more probably sky than sea, but there is nothing to say which of those fragments that have just blue or blue with white blobs were originally sky rather than sea. In truth, I expected to find edge pieces of yellow to go above the buildings on a yellow background (93–103; Fig. 7.2) and edge pieces of multicolored descending rocks to go above the rocky landscape (267–299; Fig. 7.25). But there are none. We are left with the question of how ground and rock transitioned into sky. As with the transition from sea to land, the artist(s), rather than make a neat line, swept the blue paint across the boundary of reserved white plaster onto yellow ground. There are large numbers of such pieces, in which the transition is loosely defined, creating a subtle shift from one element to the other. Version 2 of Figure 7.18 provides an impression of how the transition from sky to descending rocks might have looked: blue with clusters of white blobs and touches of blue-gray along an irregular contour from which red descends in stalactite-like columns (324–326, 330–333). The ambiguity of the central fragment in this composition (326) does not permit unequivocal interpretation as sky (see pp. 250– 253), but several of the pieces might have been. One other area of sky has been reconstructed, above the deer hunt, Figure 7.17 (570–573). Here, blue transitions into pink before meeting the yellow of the ground. On a partially cloudy day, this combination of a soft pinkish hue with light gray-blue clouds over it is characteristic of the early morning and early evening (cf. Fig. 1.3, photographed on Kea in the early evening, late summer). If this interpretation of the pink is correct (and it is hard to interpret it any other way), then that, too, is a unique representation of atmospheric conditions within the sky. In the painting, sea occupies the lower section of the frieze, while the central portion is occupied by land and the top is defined as sky. This is quite a different spatial plan from that of the Thera Ship Procession, in which the largest part of the frieze is taken up with sea from bottom to top, dolphins occupying even the uppermost part of the painting (Fig. 11.1:c, d). The mountains above the Departure Town touch the top of the frieze, creating a convenient shift from sea to the right and sky to the left, thereby enabling the sub-scene of lion hunting deer to exist in terrestrial space. There, the sky is no more than the white ground of the plaster.

LANDSCAPE, SEASCAPE, AND THE SKY

The naturalistic portrayal of a cloudy sky is unprecedented in the surviving corpus of ancient art. Not until the landscapes of Roman painting do we find sky depicted as an element distinct from ground, and even there, it is largely blue, not cloudy.53 In Minoan and Cycladic painting, blue is used in the background only in seascapes. From Late Minoan II and into Mycenaean painting of the 14th–13th centuries, while the tradition of white backgrounds continues, blue was frequently used instead. But these blues are uniform, without distinction between ground and air, literally a background. Only in the Thera Ship Procession do we see a distinction between blue and white for the elements, but it is just the sea that is blue, as it follows through to the top of the frieze, while the small patch of unequivocal sky to the left of the mountains is the usual white color of the unpainted plaster—the background. Definition of sky as sky occurs in ancient art of this period only in scenes of astronomical significance, in which the placement of sun, moon, and stars mark an otherwise blank ground. No surviving Aegean paintings display these celestial marks, but they occur on glyptic and other media.54 Egyptian royal tombs of the New Kingdom sometimes include a ceiling depicting the cosmic sky, as in the tomb of Ramesses VI, in which yellow figures and red and black constellations are picked out against a uniformly blue-black background.55 But in the entire known corpus of ancient paintings of the second millennium, there are no naturalistic paintings of cloudy skies, or indeed any skies, as seen through terrestrial eyes. This astonishing experimentation raises many questions. What is clear is that the artist(s) were doing more than simply being witness to a series of events. The focus on the sea defines the environment, while the waves and splashing sea spray intimates the presence of wind. In portraying the sky as cloudy, a visual comment on the weather, and hence perhaps the season, is complete.

Summary and Conclusions The greatest part of the Miniature Frieze was composed of what we define as landscape. It is easy 53 The Hellenistic Hunt Frieze of Tomb II at Vergina has traces of blue sky with, in one part, pink (Franks 2012, foldout, fig. 4:a [original], b [reconstruction]). 54 Goodison 1989. 55 Hornung 1990, pls. 12, 68, 70, 77.

185

to forget this basic fact when the human mind innately focuses on what is specific to the human species: human figures, their technological products and built environments, and the animals and plants with which they interact, economically and symbolically. While summarizing the findings of this chapter, therefore, I will raise the question of why there is such an extraordinary concentration in the paintings on natural environment. Rocks, ascending in multicolored array, descending in idiosyncratic pinnacles, define the interior contours of an island such as Kea, where hilly terrain rises from every part of the coast and dominates the countryside within. Schist, the predominant stone of northern Kea in particular, glints as sunlight hits the bluish gray stone, shot with reds, yellows, and dashes of white. The Rocky Landscape in the painting is created from forms and colors recognizable from Minoan and especially Theran conventions of rockwork, but with individualistic details, and surely referencing the local schist, idiom blended with observation. Rivers and marsh formed an integral part of the frieze, the marsh extending over a great expanse of wall as a landscape in itself, and the river recurring in different contexts: with a town, a meeting of men, a deer hunt, and within the marsh landscape itself. This focus on watery environments is unusual, the marsh unique. While rivers in Aegean art usually accompany waterfowl and animal action and are limited in application, here their inclusion in so many scenes makes a statement about environment that goes beyond iconographic association. The marsh scene is unique not only in the representation itself, but in the exclusion of fauna. It is highly likely that it reflects the ancient view of the bay from the windows on the wall on which it was painted, today replete with reeds as the sea and moist land meet. Most surprising are the emphasis on the sea, the unique inclusion of a sky, and the close attention to atmospheric and temporal conditions of wind and weather through spume, splashes of coastal waves, clouds, and intimations of dawn or dusk through the subtle inclusion of pink. In the Miniature Frieze, landscape defines habitats. There is no indication of cultivation, either as economic horticulture or in the form of a garden.56 This is the natural world, varied and, in local Aegean terms, fully representative, with sea, coast, marsh, river, hills, and sky. There is nothing exotic, hybrid, 56 On gardens in Aegean art, see in particular Shaw 1993.

186

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

or overtly symbolic. Yet the question remains as to why so much emphasis was given to the different landscape environments, and why in the case of the marsh frieze there is no associated fauna or human action. Why expend so much effort in portraying water, land, plants, and rocks? Does the landscape have meaning beyond that of setting? Debate on meaning in Minoan landscape paintings has centered on the modern distinction between secular versus religious, a separation that almost certainly held little relevance for the Aegean Bronze Age, as in other cultures of the ancient world, where what the modern western mind sees as distinct states were inextricably intertwined.57 Anne Chapin points to the restricted access to most landscape paintings and comments on the striking impression that those paintings would have had on those admitted to their presence. Landscape painting, she argues, was used by the (mostly nonpalatial) elite as an evocation of the divine power apparent in nature and as a statement of the privileged position held by the elite in relation to that power.58 Strikingly, those plants most clearly resonant of divine power, mythical symbolism, or ritual action in Cretan and Theran art—lilies, crocuses, papyrus, and hybrids—are notably missing from Kea. Yet the apparent lack of implicit spiritual content does not negate underlying beliefs, nor does it militate against the concept of landscape as an evocation of power. The question is, what or whose power? By definition, all mural painting in the Bronze Age is elite. Patronage was a prerequisite; access and reception were controlled. Landscapes are multivalent in their symbolic content, and like all iconographic elements meaning is reflected through context.59 The coast, marsh, and hills need to be seen within the framework of the frieze as a whole, its iconographic threads, its spatial position, and its temporal ambience. Landscape is infinitely more than setting. It is the cohesive thread that holds together action, themes, and narrative 57 Cf. Chapin (2004), who summarizes the debate in relation to landscape. Subsequently, Herva (2006a, 2006b), using what he calls an “ecological perspective,” argues that the association between landscape and some human activities in Minoan art usually seen as “religious or ritual” should instead be understood as “practical engagement” with the environment, i.e., as a social relationship. In this view, people and environment are seen as an “indivisible” continuously developing relational system. This seemingly contradictory view (the “indivisible” being evocative of the notion of animism) should actually negate the distinction between “religious” and “practical” experience of landscape. On the cultural relativity of ontological notions of nature and culture, see Descola 2013. 58 Chapin 2004; see also 1995. 59 Cf. Angelopoulou 2000.

structure. Landscape that is natural rather than cultivated and local rather than exotic transcends urban living while encapsulating the familiar. In wall paintings, as in life, landscape plays a crucial part in the maintenance of sociocultural memory. This mnemonic role of landscape and its implications for the meanings of the Miniature Frieze as a whole are discussed in the Epilogue.

Catalog of Landscape Relative positional descriptions (left, right, above, below, top, bottom, and so forth) refer to the orientation of the fragments as shown in the catalog, which have been determined according to the author’s best judgement. The photographs and study drawings are presented at 1:2 scale.

Plants 233 (Q3). N.20 East. Fig. 7.12 (Men by River); Pl. 20. Plant. H. 3.7 x w. 2.6 x th. 0.6 cm. Four pieces joined. Over blue water below and yellow ground above is a delicate plant of smooth red stems with small ocher leaves. Blue painted over yellow, red after blue, ocher after red. 234 (U110). N.18 East. Fig. 7.12 (Men by River); Pl. 20. Plant. H. 1.5 x w. 1.5 x th. 0.4–0.7 (0.7 ridge) cm. Plant with red stem and ocher leaves, on yellow ground. Ridge on the back.

235 (R48). N.20 East. Fig. 7.12 (Men by River); Pl. 20. Plant. H. 4.5 x w. 3.6 x th. 1.0 cm. Poorly preserved. Plant with red stem and ocher leaves, on yellow ground. Traces of blue patches beneath the ocher in places. Ocher painted after red. Irregular grooves on the back. 236 (Q2). N.20 East. Fig. 7.12 (Men by River); Pl. 20. Plant. H. 3.6 x w. 3.0 x th. 0.7–1.1 cm. Ocher leaves and stem with red fruits or berries, on yellow ground. Probably the bush known as Butcher’s Broom. Some of the leaves have been darkened by blue-gray paint, creating a greenish hue. Groove on the back.

LANDSCAPE, SEASCAPE, AND THE SKY

237 (P11). N.20 East. Fig. 7.25 (Rocky Landscape); cf. Fig. 7.26; Pl. 20. Plant and descending rocks. H. 9.2 x w. 5.4 x th. 0.7 cm. Two pieces joined. Plant with small ocher

187

white, without outline, perhaps the paw or hoof of an animal. Cf. 201, where the shape is more clearly defined. 242 (T7). N.20 East. Pl. 20. Plant and deer(?). H. 3.8 x w. 3.0 x th. 0.9 cm. On yellow ground, blue bush with black parallel lines painted over, and an ocher shape above that may be the back leg of a running deer. Yellow ground slightly darker than usual. Visible frit in the blue.

leaves and ocher stems, on yellow ground. Above are red descending rocks. To the right is a poorly preserved area interpreted in the reconstruction as descending rock, marked off vertically by a blue-black line, with areas of red and blue over yellow ground and patches of ocher over the blue (deposit?). Ocher plant and blue-black line both painted after the red. 238 (R8). N.20 East. Pl. 20. Plant. H. 4.7 x w. 3.5 x th. 1.1 cm. Two pieces joined. Ocher leaves densely placed on yellow ground. Red blobs (berries?) painted over the ocher leaves.

243 (H15). N.20 West. Pl. 20. Plant. H. 5.8 x w. 4.5 x th. 0.9 cm. Blue painted over yellow ground. Lower form, water or a rocky mound, is blue-gray, poorly preserved, probably black over blue. Upper form, perhaps a tree, is light blue with black veining lines, now fugitive, painted over. 244 (R34). N.20 East. Pl. 20. Plant (or river?). H. 3.0 x w. 3.8 x th. 0.9–1.4 cm. Two pieces joined. Blue, with yellow ground below. Black lines overlapping both colors. Where the blue has flaked, plaster is revealed. Either blades of grass by a river (cf. 437, 440, 441, or a bush, cf. 240–243).

239 (M7). N.20 East. Pl. 20. Plant. H. 2.5 x w. 3.1 x th. 0.9 cm. Ocher leaves on smooth white plaster. The leaves are more rounded than usual. Probably a plant represented against a building. For other plants against buildings, see 88 in Figure 7.1 (Town by a River), and 161–176 in Figure 7.5 (Building and Plants). Cf. also fragments M14, M15, M16, with indistinct plants, not illustrated here.

245 (E6). N.20 Southwest. Pl. 20. Plant (and river?). H. 3.2 x w. 4.5 x th. 0.8 cm. Blue over yellow ground, with black lines overlapping both and small black spots on blue. Perhaps bush, possibly river with grasses. Cf. 244, 246.

240 (E8). N.20 Southwest. Pl. 20. Plant. H. 2.5 x w. 3.6 x th. 0.8 cm. Blue painted over yellow ground. The lower, rounded shape has short black lines with slightly pointed tops painted over the blue, representing a bush.

246 (U111). N.18 East. Pl. 20. Plant (and river?). H. 2.0 x w. 3.0 x th. 0.7 cm. Blue on yellow ground, with black lines painted over. Visible frit in the blue. Perhaps a bush, possibly river. Cf. 244, 245.

241 (B1). N.20 West. Pl. 20. Plant and animal(?). H. 4.0 x w. 5.7 x th. 0.8 cm. On yellow ground, a blue round-

247 (X49). N.18 Central. Fig. 7.4 (Thistles); Pl. 21. Building and thistle. H. 2.4 x w. 2.5 x th. 0.6 cm. White plaster divided from yellow ground along a string line. On the yellow is part of a blue thistle plant with ocher thorns, ocher painted over the blue. The yellow ground is slightly pinkish. A pink line along the string line is a preliminary sketch. The white presumably belongs to a building. The white is a thin plaster slip, smooth and polished, into which the string line is impressed.

ed shape (poorly preserved) with short, curved gray lines at the contour, representing a bush. Above is applied

188

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

248 (X5). N.18 Central. Fig. 7.4 (Thistles); Pl. 21. Thistle and descending rock. H. 3.5 x w. 3.3 x th. 0.8 cm. On yellow ground, blue thistle plants with ocher thorns. Faint gray outline around the blue, which has visible frit. Above is a red shape, by analogy with 251 and 254 probably descending rock (cf. Figs. 7.19 and 7.25), but here (as in 249) rounded rather than ending in a point. Ocher painted last. 249 (V3). N.18 East. Fig. 7.4 (Thistles); Pl. 21. Thistle and descending rock. H. 3.4 x w. 3.0 x th. 0.6 cm. Blue thistle with ocher thorns painted on yellow ground, with red descending rock of uncharacteristically rounded shape above, which compares with 248. 250 (U106). N.18 East. Fig. 7.4 (Thistles); Pl. 21. H. 1.7 x w. 2.8 x th. 0.8 cm. Two blue thistles with ocher thorns painted on yellow ground, with the end of a red descending rock (right). Red painted last, overlapping the ocher, which is over blue. 251 (W11). N.18 Central. Fig. 7.4 (Thistles); Pl. 21. Thistle and descending rock. H. 4.3 x w. 4.2 x th. 0.5–0.8 cm. Blue thistle with ocher thorns painted on yellow ground, with a narrow line of red rock descending from the top. Blue-gray at lower left is the outline of a second thistle. Ocher painted over blue. Cf. 254. 252 (X45). N.18 Central. Fig. 7.4 (Thistles); Pl. 21. H. 1.8 x w. 2.1 x th. 0.6–0.9 cm. Blue thistle with ocher thorns painted on yellow ground. At the edges of the fragment and in a patch toward the center, the surface of the blue paint and the ocher over yellow are partially worn away, revealing the plaster. The paint lies on the plaster (rather than penetrating it), and, where it has flaked, the yellow ground has lifted off with the other colors. 253 (Y24). N.18 Central. Fig. 7.4 (Thistles); Pl. 21. H. 2.1 x w. 1.7 x th. 0.7–0.8 cm. Two pieces joined. Blue thistle with ocher thorns painted on yellow ground. Ocher over blue. 254 (Y36). N.18 Central. Fig. 7.4 (Thistles); Pl. 21. Thistle and descending rock. H. 3.1 x w. 2.8 x th. 0.4–0.5 cm. Poorly preserved. Murky blue of thistle with ocher thorns painted over, on yellow ground, with two pointed ends of red descending rock above.

255 (X37). N.18 Central. Fig. 7.4 (Thistles); Pl. 21. H. 3.3 x w. 2.6 x th. 0.7–0.8 cm. Poorly preserved. Murky blue of thistle with ocher thorns painted over, on yellow ground.

256 (X47+W10). N.18 Central. Fig. 7.4 (Thistles); Pl. 21. H. 4.1 x w. 2.5 x th. 0.5–0.7 cm. Two pieces joined. Blue thistle with ocher thorns painted over, on yellow ground. The pointed thorns have distinct round blobs at their base. Trace of red at top left of the lower fragment, presumably descending rock. The blue of the upper joined fragment is better preserved, hence brighter. 257 (X168). N.18 Central. Pl. 21. H. 1.8 x w. 1.5 x H. 0.7 cm. Scrap of blue thistle with ocher thorns painted over, on yellow ground. A thorn at a different angle on the left implies a second thistle in close proximity. Part of the Thistles composition but not included in Figure 7.4. 258 (X171). N.18 Central. Fig. 7.4 (Thistles); Pl. 21. H. 1.1 x w. 1.3 x th. 0.7 cm. Scrap of blue thistle with ocher thorns painted over, on yellow ground. 259 (X48). N.18 Central. Fig. 7.4 (Thistles); Pl. 21. H. 2.2 x w. 3.0 x th. 0.6 cm. Three pieces joined. Two blue thistles with ocher thorns painted over, on yellow ground. As on several of the thistle pieces, there is a slightly pink tone to the ground color. 260 (N16). N.20 East. Fig. 7.4 (Thistles); Pl. 21. H. 3.7 (4.5) x w. 3.0 x th. 0.9–1.1 cm. Poorly preserved. Parts of three blue thistles with ocher thorns painted close together on yellow ground. Ocher over blue.

261 (X44). N.18 Central. Fig. 7.4 (Thistles); Pl. 21. H. 3.4 x w. 4.2 x th. 0.4–0.8 cm. Blue of thistles with ocher thorns painted over the blue. The pointed thorns have distinct round blobs at their base. The thistles here must be bunched together. Over the blue there appears to be bluegray in places, and lastly a thin wash of white has been applied in a curved vertical strip (left).

LANDSCAPE, SEASCAPE, AND THE SKY

262 (X46). N.18 Central. Fig. 7.4 (Thistles); Pl. 21. H. 2.2 x w. 1.6 (2.2) x th. 0.6–0.7 cm. Blue thistle with ocher thorns painted over. Yellow ground, visible at the edges. The pointed thorns have distinct round blobs at their base.

189

269 (R55). N.20 East. Fig. 7.25 (Rocky Landscape); cf. Fig. 7.26; Pls. 22, 71:e. H. 10.3 x w. 7.0 x th. 0.9 cm. Two

263 (P24). N.20 East. Pl. 21. Plant. H. 3.1 x w. 5.9 x th. 1.2 cm. Poorly preserved colors, making the piece hard to

interpret. Blue plant with what appears to be ocher thorns painted over—probably a thistle. Ocher to the right. A black diagonal strip to the left, too narrow to be a horse’s hoof, is probably part of the landscape. Dash of red center top. 264 (W36). N.18 Central. Pl. 21. Plant. H. 2.5 x w. 3.4 x th. 0.9 cm. Red grasses, poorly preserved, on yellow ground. Cf. 265.

265 (S11). N.20 East. Pl.21. Plant. H. 3.6 x w. 3.8 x th. 0.9 cm. From blue-gray (water) at the bottom, grasses of ocher, red, and blue-gray rise over the yellow ground. Red painted last. Cf. 264 and a fragment found in the Northeast Tower (N.18.15).

pieces joined (R55+R45). Blue ascending rock from which an ocher plant grows on the right, and descending rocks of red, pink, blue, and blue-gray above, on yellow ground. Dilute black appears to have been applied over the blue to create the darker tone, both in the descending rocks and at the contour of the ground rock. This is applied thinly over the blue rock to make it blue-gray, especially around (beneath) the white, but is clearly visible as black paint where it extends above the blue contour (cf. 274). The black outline overlaps the tips of the red descending rocks in the lower fragment. The plant appears to have been painted last. 270 (R51). N.20 East. Fig. 7.25 (Rocky Landscape); cf. Fig. 7.26; Pl. 22. H. 13.7 x w. 9.0 x th. 0.8 cm. Twelve pieces joined. Blue and red rocks, with descending rocks above in pink, red, blue, and black on yellow ground. Both pale

266 (Q5). N.20 East. Pl. 21. Plant. H. 2.5 x w. 3.0 x th. 0.7 cm. Ocher plant of varied tones on yellow ground, with a trace of blue on the left and a row of blue dots painted over the ocher.

Rocks 267 (U119). N.18 East. Fig. 7.25 (Rocky Landscape); cf. Fig. 7.26; Pl. 22. H. 3.0 x w. 3.5 x th. 0.5–0.7 cm. Over yellow ground, blue-gray (flaked) rock with black outlining. White blobs applied over the blue-gray and black. Above are descending rocks of blue-black and pink outlined in red. 268 (S9). N.20 East. Fig. 7.25 (Rocky Landscape); cf. Fig. 7.26; Pl. 22. H. 1.5 x w. 2.5 x th. 0.8 cm. On yellow ground, red, blue and black descending rocks.

and dark tones of the blue have a grayish tone, without visible frit. Blue appears to have been painted first, over yellow ground, with a space left in which to insert the red section of rock, which varies in tone between red, pink, and ocher. A touch of pink over the blue is added at bottom left. Over the blue toward the top contour of the rock, black adds depth of tone, becoming blue-gray. Two large white blobs, one filled, one circular, are applied near the top of the rock, and a smaller one toward the bottom of the

190

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

fragment. Finally, ocher touches were added at the top of the red rock and toward the contour of the blue, near the white blobs. This variety of hue, executed with deft painterly technique, creates a striking impression of a rock surface. Similarly, the descending rocks above are given depth through the use of varying dilutions of ocher tones. Here the order of colors appears to be blue, pink, red, with touches of ocher and black. At the left edge of the fragment, painted last, is part of a delicate ocher plant, which must have risen from an adjacent rock. The ocher is less intense than that on the rock, suggesting two separate stages of the painting process. 271 (R41). N.20 East. Fig. 7.25 (Rocky Landscape); cf. Fig. 7.26; Pl. 22. H. 2.8 x w. 3.1 x th. 0.6 cm. Two pieces joined. Blue with a white blob applied over. Yellow ground above. Where the blue has flaked, plaster is visible, rather than the yellow ground. 272 (R52). N.20 East. Fig. 7.25 (Rocky Landscape); cf. Fig. 7.26; Pl. 22. H. 6.3 x w. 4.7 x th. 0.8 cm. Four pieces joined. Blue rocks on yellow ground, with an ocher plant above. The contours of the rocks are defined by bluegray; blobs of applied white (right) and ocher (left) over the blue. 273 (R49). N.20 East. Fig. 7.25 (Rocky Landscape); cf. Fig. 7.26; Pl. 22. H. 2.2 x w. 1.6 (2.1) x th. 0.1 cm. Ocher plant on yellow ground. Cf. the plant in 272, above the rocks.

274 (Q20). N.20 East. Fig. 7.25 (Rocky Landscape); cf. Fig. 7.26; Pl. 23. H. 7.0 x w. 11.4 x th. 1.0 cm. Three pieces joined. Blue rocks, with blue, pink, red, and black descending rocks. The rock contour is clearly outlined in black and a blue-gray tone is created through the application of black over parts of the blue. On the left, the blue has flaked, revealing the yellow ground beneath, while remaining patches of black sit on top of the blue toward the contour. Solid blobs of white were applied on top of the blue-gray. Above, the blue of the descending

rocks appears to have been painted first, then pink and red, and finally black. In the center, ocher streaks, like disassociated leaves, were painted over the descending rocks, apparently intended as vegetation. 275 (Q27). N.20 East. Fig. 7.25 (Rocky Landscape); cf. Fig. 7.26; Pl. 23. H. 5.7 x w. 3.5 x th. 0.6 cm. Five pieces joined. Blue rock beneath, descending rocks above, and an ocher plant overlapping both. The blue is partially flaked. It was painted over the yellow ground, and it has areas of blue-gray and a white blob (lower right) painted over. The upper part of the fragment is pink-red, apparently rocks, as indicated by the fugitive black descending lines. Ocher was painted last, overlapping all the other paints (including the white), presumably representing leaves rising from the rock. 276 (Q22). N.20 East. Fig. 7.25 (Rocky Landscape); cf. Fig. 7.26; Pl. 23. H. 6.3 x w. 7.1 x th. 0.7 cm. Two pieces

joined. This fragment of ascending rocks visually joins (though not physically) with 277. The rockwork is composed of blue above with varying tones of red and ocher peaks rising into the blue. Blue-gray (added black) defines the juncture of the colors. Two white blobs are applied to the blue (right). The red has partially flaked. Blue painted first, then ocher, red, and finally the black lines. 277 (O6). N.20 East. Fig. 7.25 (Rocky Landscape); cf. Fig. 7.26; Pl. 23. H. 7.1 x w. 10.4 x th. 0.7 cm. Six pieces joined. Ascending rocks, visually relating to 276. On yellow ground, blue was painted first, leaving areas for insertion of ocher, pink, and red, the red being last. Some bluegray over the blue and one blob of applied white.

LANDSCAPE, SEASCAPE, AND THE SKY

278 (R62). N.20 East. Fig. 7.25 (Rocky Landscape); cf. Fig. 7.26; Pl. 23. H. 5.0 x w. 7.2 x th. 0.5–0.8 cm. Three

pieces joined. Blue and red ascending rock with patches of yellow ground on the left and below the blue in parts. Three small white blobs applied over the blue. The contour is outlined in black and the dull blue has blue-gray patches. Red at top left. To the right is rockwork of pink with red painted over. Faint black streaks over the blue, at the juncture between the two colors, and in a narrow black line over the red. 279 (Q25). N.20 East. Fig. 7.25 (Rocky Landscape); cf. Fig. 7.26; Pl. 23. H. 3.0 x w. 3.4 x th. 0.8 cm. Blue and pink with red rockwork. The areas of color were planned and do not overlay one another. Red painted over pink. A narrow line of black over the blue, with a curved line to the left.

191

and pink areas were painted first, a little ocher (left), then red over the pink and finally, now fugitive, thin black lines. 284 (R53). N.20 East. Fig. 7.25 (Rocky Landscape); cf. Fig. 7.26; Pl. 24. H. 2.7 x w. 3.5 x th. 0.6 cm. Pinkish red and blue rocks on yellow ground. Traces of thin black lines over the red, and a hint of white applied over the blue (top right). The presence of the white could suggest that the blue is ascending rock, with the pinkish red descending to meet it. However, the blue is parallel to the red, implying that it is all descending rock, which is how it has been reconstructed in the composition. 285 (R47). N.20 East. Fig. 7.25 (Rocky Landscape); cf. Fig. 7.26; Pl. 24. H. 3.0 x w. 2.6 x th. 1.0 cm. Multicolored rocks, over yellow ground. Much of the blue has flaked. Order of application of colors: yellow ground, ocher and red, blue, black. 286 (M29). N.20 East. Pl. 24. H. 3.6 x w. 6.4 x th. 0.4– 0.5 cm. Pink and red descending rocks, with fugitive blue

280 (R81). N.20 East. Fig. 7.25 (Rocky Landscape); cf. Fig. 7.26; Pl. 23. H. 3.5 x w. 2.4 x th. 0.8 cm. Blue and pink with red rockwork (cf. 279). Specks of applied white on the blue.

281 (R43). N.20 East. Fig. 7.25 (Rocky Landscape); cf. Fig. 7.26; Pl. 24. H. 3.2 x w. 4.6 x th. 0.7 cm. Two pieces joined. Descending rocks of red and ocher on yellow ground, with blue at left and fugitive black lines over the red. 282 (O5). N.20 East. Fig. 7.25 (Rocky Landscape); cf. Fig. 7.26; Pl. 24. H. 3.0 x w. 3.0 x th. 0.7 cm. Red, blue, and blue-gray descending rocks on yellow ground. A sense of depth is achieved by contrasting red with pink, achieved by diluting the red pigment. 283 (R42). N.20 East. Fig. 7.25 (Rocky Landscape); cf. Fig. 7.26; Pl. 24. H. 5.5 x w. 5.0 x th. 0.9 cm. Four pieces joined. Descending rocks on yellow ground. Blue-gray

between and to the left. Below are blobs of applied white. Tiny specks of blue-gray around the white suggest that this lower area was originally blue ascending rock. It appears that the applied white has enabled the blue beneath it to adhere, while the surrounding areas of blue have flaked away. Cf. 287 and 288. 287 (M28). N.20 East. Fig. 7.25 (Rocky Landscape); cf. Fig. 7.26; Pl. 24. H. 4.7 x w. 4.0 x th. 1.6 cm. Poorly preserved. Ascending blue rock meeting descending pink and red rocks. The blue has mostly flaked, but traces of blue-gray (black) and of white at the right edge are visible on top of it. 288 (R56). N.20 East. Pl. 24. H. 4.9 x w. 5.5 x th. 0.7 cm. Poorly preserved. Ascending blue-gray rocks with descending blue, pink, and red rocks on yellow ground

above. The blue above is considerably lighter and brighter than the ascending rocks, which are virtually black and partially overlap the red. Cf. 286 and 287.

192

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

289 (U88). N.18 East. Pl. 24. H. 2.1 x w. 4.5 x th. 0.8– 1.0 cm. On yellow ground, fugitive blue (left), narrow red and blue lines (top right), and several ocher strokes that partially overlap the blue. Probably rocks, with descending rocks above, and vegetation. Black microorganisms on the surface. 290 (P19). N.20 East. Fig. 7.25 (Rocky Landscape); cf. Fig. 7.26; Pl. 24. H. 3.1 x w. 3.2 x th. 0.5 cm. Blue-gray below, with, above, a pinkish red streak and substantial ocher over yellow ground. Probably rock with plants. Ocher has blue mixed with it and overlies the pink. Black over the blue. 291 (R44). N.20 East. Pl. 24. H. 3.2 x w. 5.2 x th. 0.8 cm. Rockwork comprised of blue-gray with black delineation

294 (W15). N.18 Center. Fig. 7.25 (Rocky Landscape); cf. Fig. 7.26; Pl. 25. H. 4.8 x w. 3.4 x th. 0.8 cm. Blue rock with traces of blue-gray at the contour and a white applied blob. Above are descending rocks of red with black, on yellow ground. Striations on the back.

295 (R60). N.20 East. Fig. 7.25 (Rocky Landscape); cf. Fig. 7.26; Pl. 25. H. 2.5 x w. 2.9 x th. 0.7 cm. Blue with black partially painted over to produce blue-gray, and a streak of ocher. 296 (Q26). N.20 East. Fig. 7.25 (Rocky Landscape); cf. Fig. 7.26; Pl. 25. H. 3.0 x w. 4.8 x th. 0.8 cm. Poorly preserved rockwork of blue and red. A white blob applied over the blue, partially overlapping the red. Red is over pink; ocher over red at the edge of the fragment.

and applied white blobs, along with dark pink or red, punctuated by black lines. The white dots have a bluish hue and are painted over black surrounds. Black dots appear to form a row over the red and the yellow ground. These are black paint (rather than black over blue as elsewhere), not microorganisms on the surface.

297 (R79). N.20 East. Fig. 7.25 (Rocky Landscape); cf. Fig. 7.26; Pl. 25. H. 2.8 x w. 2.5 x th. 0.8 cm. Red and blue rockwork, blue probably painted first, over yellow ground. Some black over the blue.

292 (R30). N.20 East. Fig. 7.25 (Rocky Landscape); cf. Fig. 7.26; Pl. 25. H. 6.5 x 4.1 x 0.6–1.0 cm. Poorly preserved blue ascending rock below, with descending red rocks on yellow ground above. Black lines on the red. Traces of black and white over the blue in places. Where the colors have flaked, the plaster is revealed.

298 (Q23). N.20 East. Fig. 7.25 (Rocky Landscape); cf. Fig. 7.26; Pl. 25. H. 6.7 x w. 4.5 x th. 1.0 cm. Blue, pink,

293 (D10). N.20 West. Fig. 7.25 (Rocky Landscape); cf. Fig. 7.26; Pl. 25. H. 4.6 x w. 3.7 x th. 1.0 cm. Gray-blue ascending rock meeting red and gray-blue descending rocks. The ground color at the juncture to the two is a soft pinkish ocher. Two white blobs applied over the blue (right).

and red rock, with touches of ocher. The blue is dull, with blue-gray, and is poorly preserved. Three small white blobs applied over the blue. Red painted over pink. Ocher at lower right painted last.

LANDSCAPE, SEASCAPE, AND THE SKY

299 (R54). N.20 East. Fig. 7.25 (Rocky Landscape); cf. Fig. 7.26; Pl. 25. H. 10.0 x w. 4.2 x th. 0.5–0.7 cm (as oriented: h. 6.6 x w. 5.6). Seven pieces joined. Poorly

193

303 (B3). N.20 West. Fig. 7.14 (Men by Rocks); Pl. 26. Rock. H. 2.5 x w. 3.6 x th. 0.8 cm. Blue over yellow ground. Traces of added white over the blue. The outer edge of the shape is blue-gray, from the addition of black, and this has survived better than the pure blue area. 304 (C19). N.20 West. Pl. 26. Rocks. H. 4.9 x w. 3.7 x th. 0.6 cm. Blue, much faded, painted over yellow ground in an undulating form.

preserved rockwork of blue, blue-gray, red, and ocher. White blob applied over blue, with the speck of a second above, and, unusually, a third painted largely over red. Black painted last over the blue, also overlapping the red. 300 (D6). N.20 West. Fig. 7.14 (Men by Rocks); Pl. 26. Rocks. H. 10.0 x w. 4.4 x th. 0.6 cm. Seven pieces joined. Blue ascending rock with blue and red descending rocks above, on yellow ground. The edge of the ascending rock is bluegray, a thin layer of black painted over to add depth of tone. Black has also been added over the descending blue in places, and a black line descends between the reds on the left. Part of the blue has flaked, revealing the plaster; the remaining blue, however, was painted over the yellow ground, and areas of the yellow ground are also somewhat eroded. 301 (O16). N.20 East. Pl. 26. Descending rocks? H. 2.6 x w. 4.5 x th. 0.7 cm. Three narrow pink-red lines, almost parallel, on yellow ground. Descending rocks (vertical) or reins (horizontal)?

305 (D12). N.20 West. Pl. 26. Rocks. H. 4 x w. 5.7 x th. 0.8–2.3 cm. Two pieces joined. On yellow ground, blue rocks with pink descending rocks (or sky?). Order of colors: yellow ground, pink, blue, ocher.

306 (O10). N.20 East. Pl. 26. Rocks or water. H. 4.6 x w. 3.0 x th. 0.8 cm. Blue-gray (black over blue) on yellow ground, with specks of red. Surface eroded at the lower edge.

307 (C8). N.20 West. Pl. 26. Rocks (or water). H. 8.0 x w. 5.9 x th. 0.9 cm. Blue over yellow ground, poorly

302 (D7). N.20 West. Fig. 7.14 (Men by Rocks); Pl. 26. Rock. H. 4.2 x 3.5 x 0.7 cm. Blue on yellow ground, with black over to produce bluegray, especially at the contour. Cf. 39. preserved. Yellow ground at the lower edge may or may not indicate the edge of the form. A pinkish hue underlies or is mixed with the blue in places. Two vertical streaks of blue ascend over the yellow ground. Two white blobs are applied, impasto, over the blue.

194

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

308 (U76). N.18 East. Pl. 26. Rocks (or Water). H. 2.5 (3.0) x w. 2.4 (2.7) x th. 1.2–1.3 cm. Blue, partially flaked, revealing yellow ground beneath. White applied over the blue in blobs, forming an approximate circle. Cf. 309. 309 (A5). N.20. Fig. 7.13 (Men by Rocks or Sea); Pl. 26. H. 7.0 x w. 6.8 x th. 1.3 cm. Blue over yellow ground, with

314 (U29). N.18 East. Pl. 27. Rocks. H. 2.9 x w. 4.7 x th. 1.0–1.5 cm. Red streaks painted over yellow ground, with black and blue-gray. The black borders the blue-gray and overlaps the red. Over the black and blue-gray are a white applied blob (left) and ocher strips (right). Order of colors: blue-gray, red, black, white, and ocher. 315 (U107). N.18 East. Pl. 27. Rocks. H. 2.1 x w. 1.6 x th. 0.8–1.2 cm. Tones of pink and ocher over yellow ground, with black painted last.

blue-gray at the curved edge of the form and a vertical blue-gray line above. Blobs of applied white over the blue, forming two approximate circles. The blue is dull and is better preserved where black has been added to produce blue-gray.

316 (W17). N.18 Central. Pl. 27. Rock? H. 2.8 x w. 3.9 x th. 0.7–1.0 cm. On yellow ground, blue and bluegray (black).

310 (H26). N.20 West. Pl. 27. Rocks. H. 2.4 x w. 3.0 x th. 0.6 cm. Blue and red, both painted over yellow ground, with traces of black on top.

317 (U115). N.18 East. Pl. 27. Rocks. H. 2.4 x w. 4.0 x th. 1.7–1.8 cm. On yellow ground, dull blue-gray, over which are black, an ocher oval, and a blob of applied white (top right). Straw imprint on the back.

311 (W37). N.18 Central. Pl. 27. Rocks. H. 3.4 x w. 3.7 x th. 0.5–0.7 cm. Rocks of blue, ocher, red over pink.

318 (R36). N.20 East. Pl. 27. Rocks. H. 5.9 x w. 3.5 x th. 0.6 cm. Blue-gray and orangey ocher, with black lines on the blue-gray and outlining the division between the two colors, and a blob of applied white (right).

312 (P14). N.20 East. Pl. 27. Rocks. H. 3.4 x w. 2.8 x th. 0.8 cm. Blue and blue-gray painted first. Above, red over pink, with traces of black lines. A pinkish ocher overlaps the blue.

313 (Y40). N.18 Central. Pl. 27. Rocks. H. 3.5 x w. 3.8 x th. 0.6 cm. Three pieces joined and surface cracked. Blue, partially flaked, and red painted over yellow ground. Red overlaps blue.

319 (U113). N.18 East. Pl. 27. Rocks. H. 6.0 (6.6) x w. 4.0 x th. 1.0 cm. Two pieces joined. Dull blue-gray with black then ocher over. The ocher has partially flaked at the edge of the fragment but appears to have been a filled circle. It is framed by black, which it overlies. Some frit is visible in the blue. Parallel striations on the back (straw?). 320 (U116). N.18 East. Pl. 27. Rocks. H. 2.2 x w. 4.3 x th. 0.6–0.9 cm. On yellow ground, blue-gray, with black painted over and ocher painted last. Indistinct striations on the back.

LANDSCAPE, SEASCAPE, AND THE SKY

321 (U114). N.18 East. Pl. 27. Rocks. H. 3.5 x w. 3.4 x th. 0.4–1.0 cm. Dull blue painted over yellow ground, with black painted over and an ocher shape painted last. The black is concentrated around the contour of the blue, above which is pinkish yellow.

195

blue-gray, which has flaked revealing plaster. Blobs of white applied over the blue-gray and specks of white, probably splashed, over the red at the top. The thickness of the fragment increases toward the lower edge, suggesting that it was close to the lower (or top) border of the painting. 325 (H4). N.20 West. Fig. 7.18 (Sea or Sky and Rocks); Pl. 28. H. 4.8 x w. 6.9 x th. 0.7–0.9 cm. Two pieces joined.

322 (W23). N.18 Central. Pl. 27. Rock or Sky. H. 3.8 x w. 5.4 (edge 5.0) x th. 0.6–1.1 cm. Dull blue painted over

On yellow ground, red ascending or descending rocks, with a narrow black vertical line between, and patches of blue-gray over the surface, painted after the red. Two white blobs applied on the right, over blue-gray, and lower right, over yellow. alternative orientation

plaster, with blue-gray (black) and ocher over. Flattened edge, indicating the lower or upper border of the painting. Where black has been applied, the paint is better preserved, indicating that paint over the blue preserves the surface. Cf. 323. This and fragment 323 are placed on Plate 27 (miscellaneous fragments of rockwork, not used in reconstructions) by analogy with 319, but they may in fact not have been intended as rock (as there are no other instances of rock at the base of the frieze) but rather as sky (553, 554 in conjunction with 87 in Fig. 7.1). Cf. the ambiguity of orientation in 324–326 on Plate 28, which have been reconstructed together in two alternative versions, as top and as bottom of the frieze (Fig. 7.18:a, b).

326 (A4). N.20. Fig. 7.18 (Sea or Sky and Rocks); Pl. 28. H. 9.5 x w. 10.5 x th. 2.1 (1.5)–4.2 cm. Three pieces joined.

323 (X153). N.18 Central. Pl. 27. Rock or Sky. H. 1.7 x w. 2.5 x th. 7–1.1 cm. Dull blue painted over plaster, with

alternative orientation

streaks of blue-gray painted over. Flattened edge, indicating the lower or upper border of the painting. Cf. the comments on orientation for 322. 324 (A12). N.20. Fig. 7.18 (Sea or Sky and Rocks); Pl. 28. H. 8.4 x w. 5.0 x th. 1.0–2.8 cm. Two pieces joined. Red

rocks, terminating in points, either ascending or descending, painted on yellow ground. Below (as oriented here) is

Blue, dull grayish, which has partially flaked and appears to have been painted over the plaster. Large white impasto applied in amorphous blobs over the blue. Above (as oriented) are red ascending rocks, in hues varying between dark red and pink, according to how thick or dilute the paint was applied, interspersed with the blue. At the top edge, on yellow ground, is white approximately outlined in black. In Figure 7.18:a, this is interpreted as the lower hem of a man’s kilt (cf. 47). However, the stride of the man is exceptionally wide. No other interpretation for the white with black has come to mind and in Figure 7.18:b, the alternative orientation of the reconstruction, without the man, this feature is not completed. The two

196

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

different orientations in Figure 7.18 show rocks ascending from the bottom of the frieze or sky and rocks descending from the top. Some black over the blue. The red was painted after the blue and applied white, which it overlaps in places. The profile is exceptionally thick and is concave at the bottom edge, indicating that the fragment was situated close to the lower or upper border of the painting. 327 (S7). N.20 East. Pl. 29. Rock. H. 3.1 x w. 3.3 x th. 0.8 cm. Two pieces joined. Well-preserved fragment of rockwork. Blue (with visible frit) with yellow ground above. Over the juncture of yellow and blue are two red oval shapes, partially flaked, and over the blue is an applied white oval with three black vertical bands painted over it. Traces of a second white shape with black at the bottom of the fragment. Specks of red and white and a couple of horizontal smears of blue on top of the yellow ground suggest paint splatter during brushwork. Red overlaps the blue. White over blue, black over white. Cf. 328, 329. 328 (X22). N.18 Central. Pl. 29. Rock. H. 1.9 x w. 2.2 x th. 0.8 cm. Well-preserved fragment of rockwork. Yellow ground above with blue rock below and an applied white oval over the juncture between the two. Over the white are strips of red, with another to the side. The blue is clear and bright, without any gray. Cf 327, 329.1. 329.1 (Y37). N.18 Central. Pl. 29. Rock. H. 3.6 x w. 2.6 x th. 0.7 cm. Poorly preserved fragment of rockwork in which most of the blue paint has crumbled away to reveal the rough eroded surface of the plaster beneath. On top of the blue is an applied white oval with red painted over it. Cf. 327, 328. In this fragment it is clear that the blue applied directly on plaster has crumbled, whereas the blue painted on yellow ground has adhered better. Interestingly, the applied white appears to have helped the blue beneath it to adhere to the surface of the plaster. 329.2 (Y79). N.18 Central. Rock. H. 1.5 x w. 1.1 x th. 0.5 cm. Scrap of clear bright blue with an applied white oval with red painted over it. Where the blue has flaked off, it is clear that it was painted directly onto the white plaster. Cf 327, 328, 329.1. 330 (H7). N.20 West. Fig. 7.18 (Sea or Sky with Rocks). Pl. 29. H. 2.6 x w. 4.0 x th. 0.6 cm. Blue and blue-gray (black over blue) painted over yellow ground. Red at the top edge of the fragment, painted over both blue and yellow ground. White blobs applied over both the blue-gray and the red.

331.1 (C40). N.20 West. Fig. 7.18 (Sea or Sky with Rocks); Pl. 29 (C40). H. 6.8 x w. 4.0 x th. 0.8 cm. Blue and red, most likely Sea or Sky and Rocks. The blue is largely over plaster, while the red is mostly over yellow ground. On top of the blue (lower right) and over both colors at the juncture are applied white blobs. Cf. 331.2–331.4, 332, 333. 331.2 (C41). N.20 West. Fig. 7.18 (Sea or Sky with Rocks). H. 2.2 x w. 1.5 x th. 0.5 cm. Blue and red, most likely Sea or Sky with Rocks. Over the red at the junction between the colors is an applied white blob. Cf. 331.1, 331.3, 331.4, 332, 333. 331.3 (C42). N.20 West. Fig. 7.18 (Sea or Sky with Rocks). H. 3.5 x w. 10.6 x th. 0.5 cm. Three pieces joined. Blue and red, most likely Sea or Sky with Rocks. The blue is over plaster, while the red is over yellow ground. At the

juncture between the colors and over the red are applied white blobs. Cf. 331.1, 331.2, 331.4, 332, 333. The drawing was made in the 1980s. Subsequently, Ellen Davis (who was studying technique in the 1990s) joined the fragment to two uncataloged pieces. The new joined fragment was photographed in 2010 and is included in the reconstruction. However, the study drawing only covers the righthand piece (the original C42), since the two pieces now joined to it are very poorly preserved. In the reconstruction (Fig. 7.18), the white blobs on the left-hand piece are estimated. 331.4 (D22). N.20 West. Fig. 7.18 (Sea or Sky with Rocks). H. 4.8 x w. 4.7 x th. 0.7 cm. Red (rock) and blue (sea). Blue on plaster, with applied white dots over. Cf. 331.1–331.3, 332, 333.

332 (N15). N.20 East. Fig. 7.18 (Sea or Sky with Rocks). Pl. 29. H. 4.8 x w. 1.9 x th. 0.8 cm. Dull blue (no visible frit) partially over plaster(?), partially over yellow ground. Red at the juncture of rock and ground, painted over blue and white, and a touch of ocher over the yellow. White blob applied over the blue and a relatively

LANDSCAPE, SEASCAPE, AND THE SKY

large area of white with bluish tinge overlapping the yellow ground above. Cf. 331.1–331.4, 333.

197

336 (G4). N.20 Northwest. Pl. 29. Rocks. H. 10.10 x w. 8.0 x th. 1.4 cm. Two pieces joined. Poorly preserved rockwork of blue, painted over plaster, with red and ocher

333 (F6). N.20 Southwest. Fig. 7.18 (Sea or Sky with Rocks). Pl. 29. H. 6.7 x w. 6.6 x th. 0.7–1.0 cm. Two pieces joined. Blue rockwork and yellow ground above. Blue appears to be mostly over plaster, partially over the yellow ground. Over both blue and yellow are areas of red with thick white applied over (partially flaked). Other specks of white on the blue and an area of white with a bluish tinge on the yellow. Cf. 331.1–331.4, 332. 334.1 (N17). N.20 East. Pl. 29. Rocks. H. 6.1 x w. 3.4 x th. 0.8 cm. Two pieces joined. On yellow ground, an area of light dull blue at top either lying on a thin layer of white or more likely mixed with white, with darker gray-blue at the edge of the blue on the right. At the lower part of the fragment is an area of white slightly tinged with blue (visible under magnification), over which are painted two red blobs and some ocher. Ocher appears to have been painted last, but this is not clear. 334.2 (O7). N.20 East. Rock. H. 3.7 x w. 4.4 (5.0) x th. 0.7–1.0 cm. Blue painted onto the yellow ground (at the top of the fragment). In the lower part of the fragment are two areas of white applied over the yellow ground. Onto the left patch is painted red with ocher over. Cf. 334.1, to which this is related. 335 (F7). N.20 Southwest. Pl. 29. Rocks. H. 5.0 x w. 5.0 x th. 0.7 cm. Two pieces joined. Blue rock with yellow ground above. The blue was painted over the yellow. At the juncture between the two, ocher has been painted over the blue, outlined in red. Cf. 337.

filled circles on the yellow ground above. Ocher overlaps the red circles. Where the central circles have flaked, they reveal a pitted plaster surface, with traces of blue. 337 (L1). N.20 West. Pl. 29. Rocks. H. 8.5 x w. 4.2 (or 7.1 x 4.6 at angle drawn) x th. 0.9 cm. Four pieces joined. Blue rock with yellow ground above. Blue painted over the yellow, a dull, pale hue, mottled as preserved, with a few specks of visible frit. At the juncture between rock and ground, overlapping both blue and yellow, are circles of color: thick applied white with red painted over (left), red (center), ocher (right). Cf. 336.

Marsh and Streams 338 (X34). N.18 Central. Pl. 30. Marsh. H. 2.3 x w. 1.3 x th. 0.5–0.6 cm. Red irregular shape with a tinge of black, along with ocher vegetation, on yellow ground.

339 (X38). N.18 Central. Pl. 30. Marsh. H. 2.3 x w. 1.4 x th. 0.6–0.8 cm. Vegetation of ocher with bluish tinge (probably superimposed), on yellow ground. Two dark red shapes and a faint red streak below. Red painted last, with black over to darken the tone. Thin wash of pinkish red below.

198

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

340 (X17). N.18 Central. Fig. 7.19 (Marsh A); Pl. 30. H. 8.2 (9.0) x w. 9.5 x th. 0.7–0.9 cm. Five pieces joined. Poorly preserved, the top right surface having worn away.

344 (V33). N.18 East. Fig. 7.19 (Marsh A); Pl. 30. H. 2.1 (3.1) x w. 2.4 x th. 0.9 cm. Red stream, partially eroded, bordered by ocher vegetation (darker on the right) over yellow ground.

345 (O23). N.20 East. Fig. 7.19 (Marsh A); Pl. 30. Marsh. H. 1.5 x w. 2.5 x th. 0.6 cm. Yellow ground with two blue-gray grasses.

346 (Q6). N.20 East. Fig. 7.19 (Marsh A); Pl. 30. H. 3.3 x w. 1.6 x th. 0.6 cm. Narrow red stream with ocher vegetation around. Red mostly over ocher.

Three red lines of meandering streams surrounded by ocher vegetation and traversed by blue-gray blades of grass (faint, originally perhaps black). The streams end on the left of this fragment. Slight traces of blue mixed with ocher at lower left. At the top are three dark red blobs and two bluish dabs of paint, surrounded by faint bluish ocher. Ocher painted after the red. 341 (A14). N.20. Fig. 7.19 (Marsh A); Pl. 30. H. 3.7 x w. 2.4 x th. 0.7 cm. Red stream, poorly preserved, surrounded by ocher vegetation on yellow ground. More vegetation at the top, indicating another stream in close proximity. Ocher over red. 342 (X18). N.18 Central. Fig. 7.19 (Marsh A); Pl. 30. H. 2.3 x w. 2.5 x th. 0.9 cm. Two narrow red streams bordered by ocher vegetation and traversed by a single blue-gray blade of grass (faint, perhaps originally black). Trace of red within the vegetation on the right. Ocher over red, black last. 343 (W41). N.18 Central. Fig. 7.19 (Marsh A); Pl. 30. H. 5.4 x w. 3.5 x th. 0.8 cm. Poorly preserved. Red stream bordered by ocher vegetation on yellow ground. Traces of red suggest two or three narrow streams. The top of a blue-gray blade of grass below. Ocher painted over red. Notably, the yellow ground has flaked as well, leaving the plaster stained ocher in patches and without paint elsewhere. The ocher paint sits on top of the plaster.

347 (S46). N.20 East. Fig. 7.19 (Marsh A); Pl. 30. H. 4.0 x 4.0 x 0.6–0.9 cm. Ocher vegetation on yellow ground, with two faint blue-gray blades of grass rising from a single stem. The positions of the vegetation below and above on the left suggest that they bordered two parallel streams. 348 (Q40). N.20 East. Fig. 7.19 (Marsh A); Pl. 30. H. 1.5 x w. 1.8 x th. 0.7 cm. Two narrow red streams surrounded by ocher vegetation. Ocher over red. 349 (Q33). N.20 East. Fig. 7.19 (Marsh A); Pl. 30. H. 3.6 x w. 2.8 x th. 0.6–0.7 cm. Two narrow red streams bordered by ocher vegetation. Ocher over red.

350 (Q39). N.20 East. Fig. 7.19 (Marsh A); Pl. 31. H. 2.5 x w. 3.1 x th. 0.7 cm. Two narrow red streams bordered by ocher vegetation and traversed by a single blue-gray blade of grass. Ocher over red, blue-gray last. 351 (Q34). N.20 East. Fig. 7.19 (Marsh A); Pl. 31. H. 3.8 x w. 4.4 x th. 0.5 cm. Two narrow red streams bordered by ocher vegetation on yellow ground. Ocher over red.

LANDSCAPE, SEASCAPE, AND THE SKY

199

352 (R57). N.20 East. Fig. 7.19 (Marsh A); Pl. 31. H. 3.1 x w. 3.3 x th. 0.7 cm. Two narrow red streams, with the end of a third above, bordered by ocher vegetation on yellow ground. Touch of bluegray with ocher at top right.

358 (V1). N.18 East. Fig. 7.19 (Marsh A); Pl. 31. H. 3.5 x w. 6.0 x th. 0.9–1.1 cm. Two pieces joined. Red meandering

353 (M42). N.20 East. Fig. 7.19 (Marsh A); Pl. 31. H. 2.6 x w. 1.6 x th. 0.6 cm. Traces of red stream(s) surrounded by ocher vegetation, traversed by a single blue-gray blade of grass. Ocher over red, blue-gray last.

stream bordered by ocher vegetation on yellow ground. Blue-gray, almost black, narrow leaves lower right and upper left and a wider blue-gray leaf top right. The paint of the upper leaf is more dilute and is perhaps mixed with white. Applied white at top left, over which the leaves are painted. Order of colors: yellow ground, red, ocher, blue-gray.

354 (S16). N.20 East. Fig. 7.19 (Marsh A); Pl. 31. H. 6.0 (6.5) x w. 5.5 x th. 0.7–1.3 cm. Ocher vegetation traversed

by two blue-gray blades of grass that cross one another. Traces of one or two other blades to the right. In the center of the vegetation are traces of the red meandering stream that it once surrounded. The stream ascends gently from left to right. 355 (U100). N.18 East. Fig. 7.19 (Marsh A); Pl. 31. H. 2.4 x w. 2.2 x th. 0.7–0.9 cm. Red stream bordered and partially overlapped by ocher vegetation. The stream appears to divide at this point. Two narrow blue-gray, almost black leaves rise from a single stem, overlapping the stream. These were painted last. Traces of blue in the ocher. 356 (U93). N.18 East. Fig. 7.19 (Marsh A); Pl. 31. H. 1.9 x w. 2.2 x th. 1.0–1.1 cm. Ocher vegetation on yellow ground, with a faint blue-gray leaf.

357 (U99). N.18 East. Fig. 7.19 (Marsh A); Pl. 31. H. 3.0 x w. 3.5 x th. 0.9 cm. Red stream bordered by ocher vegetation on yellow ground, traversed by two blue-gray leaves. Order of colors: yellow ground, red, ocher, blue-gray.

359 (V4). N.18 East. Fig. 7.19 (Marsh A); Pl. 31. H. 3.2 x w. 1.9 x th. 0.8–0.9 cm. Ocher vegetation on yellow ground, with blue-gray leaves, and red stream at top. The leaves are almost black, and they were painted last.

360 (U90). N.18 East. Fig. 7.19 (Marsh A); Pl. 31. H. 3.1 x w. 3.1 x th. 0.8–1.0 cm. Ocher vegetation on yellow ground. The ground is relatively dark. Cf. 361, 400–402.

361 (U89). N.18 East. Fig. 7.19 (Marsh A); Pl. 31. H. 2.2 x w. 2.2 x th. 0.8–1.0 cm. Dark yellow ocher vegetation on yellow ground.

362 (U91). N.18 East. Fig. 7.19 (Marsh A); Pl. 31. H. 3.7 x w. 3.9 x th. 0.2–0.9 cm. Ocher vegetation on yellow ground. Three narrow bluegray leaves overlapping the vegetation, one rising from the yellow ground below. The blue-gray is faint and was painted last. 363 (X162). N.18 Central. Fig. 7.20 (Marsh B); Pl. 32. H. 2.0 x w. 1.5 x th. 0.7 cm. Ocher vegetation on yellow ground, with blue-gray leaf.

200

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

364 (U101). N.18 East. Fig. 7.20 (Marsh B); Pl. 32. H. 3.9 x w. 4.0 (4.4) x th. 0.8–0.9 cm. Red meandering stream bordered by ocher vegetation on yellow ground. Pale blue-gray narrow leaves adjacent to a thin red vertical line. Trace of a darker blue-gray leaf top left. Ocher over red, blue-gray over ocher. 365 (Y78). N.18 Central. Fig. 7.20 (Marsh B); Pl. 32. H. 3.6 x w. 1.2 x th. 0.6 cm. Ocher vegetation divided by yellow ground. Red at the upper edge indicates a stream. A speck of blue on the yellow ground suggests water (sea or river) was nearby. Ocher above is relatively thickly applied. Red painted over the ocher. 366 (O22). N.20 East. Fig. 7.20 (Marsh B); Pl. 32. H. 1.8 x w. 1.5 x th. 0.6 cm. Ocher vegetation on yellow ground.

367 (U102). N.18 East. Fig. 7.20 (Marsh B); Pl. 32. H. 3.3 x w. 2.6 x th. 1.0–1.1 cm. Two narrow blue-gray leaves on yellow ground. Slight darkening of the surface at the top may indicate vegetation (not shown in the drawing). 368 (U94). N.18 East. Fig. 7.20 (Marsh B); Pl. 32. H. 3.2 x w. 3.1 x th. 0.9 cm. Ocher vegetation on yellow ground, with trace of red stream at the top. Individual yellow ocher leaves below, with one narrow blue-gray leaf of the same height and a tinge of blue-gray far right. 369 (U92). N.18 East. Fig. 7.20 (Marsh B); Pl. 32. H. 3.0 x w. 1.3 x th. 0.5–0.6 cm. Ocher vegetation on yellow ground, including a leaf-like shape.

370 (P33). N.20 East. Fig. 7.20 (Marsh B); Pl. 32. H. 6.4 x w. 6.1 x th. 0.8–1.0 cm. Red stream with ocher vegetation and narrow blue-gray leaves, three of which are

top implies the existence of another stream above. Ocher over red, blue-gray (almost black) over red. 371 (P12). N.20 East. Fig. 7.20 (Marsh B); Pl. 32. H. 3.6 x w. 3.9 x th. 0.7–1.1 cm. Ocher vegetation on yellow ground, with three thin blades of grass in bluegray. Blue-gray overlaps ocher.

372 (T12). N.20 East. Fig. 7.20 (Marsh B); Pl. 32. H. 4.5 x 5.0 (5.4) x 0.9–1.0 cm. Red stream with ocher vegetation on yellow ground, thin blades of bluegray grass. Ocher over red, bluegray last.

373 (X163). N.18 Central. Fig. 7.20 (Marsh B); Pl. 32. H. 2.8 x w. 3.0 x th. 0.9 cm. Ocher vegetation on yellow ground.

374 (P34). N.20 East. Fig. 7.20 (Marsh B); Pl. 32. H. 4.0 x w. 0.9 x th. 0.7 cm. Ocher vegetation traversed by a narrow blue-gray blade of grass.

375 (U95). N.18 East. Fig. 7.20 (Marsh B); Pl. 32. H. 4.3 (4.8) x w. 3.0 x th. 1.0 cm. Ocher vegetation, in part with bluish tinge, on yellow ground. Trace of red stream at the top. Blue-gray leaf below. Two layers of plaster, the top being ca. 5 mm, the lower broken hence partial. 376 (R31). N.20 East. Fig. 7.20 (Marsh B); Pl. 32. H. 3.8 x w. 4.3 x th. 0.8–0.9 cm. Red stream with ocher vegetation, mainly executed as individual dabs of paint.

377 (T13). N.20 East. Fig. 7.20 (Marsh B); Pl. 32. H. 4.8 x w. 4.0 x th. 0.7 cm. Red stream surrounded by ocher vegetation on yellow ground. The vegetation, painted last, partially obscures the stream. thin like blades of grass, on yellow ground. The red stream is only partially preserved. Traces of ocher at the

LANDSCAPE, SEASCAPE, AND THE SKY

378 (O15). N.20 East. Fig. 7.20 (Marsh B); Pl. 32. H. 4.2 x w. 1.6 x th. 0.8 cm. Blue-gray narrow leaf on yellow ground. Slightly darker ocher with a tinge of red around the top of the leaf.

379 (E4). N.20 West. Fig. 7.20 (Marsh B); Pl. 32. H. 4.3 x w. 4.6 x th. 0.9 cm. Ocher vegetation traversed by a narrow blue-gray (almost black) leaf, with four thin blades of grass above. Traces of red beneath ocher vegetation indicate two lines of a stream. On the left is a wide section of the red stream, descending vertically, parallel to the leaf. The stream therefore meandered downward at this point in the composition. 380 (U39). N.18 East. Fig. 7.20 (Marsh B); Pl. 33. H. 1.3 x w. 2.2 x th. 0.6–1.1 cm. Red on yellow ground, presumably a stream, though the entire width is not preserved. Over the red is partial ocher vegetation, and the ground is darker than usual, hence may also represent vegetation. Cf. 385, 386. 381 (X164). N.17 Center. Fig. 7.20 (Marsh B); Pl. 33. H. 1.7 (2.3) x w. 3.1 x th. 0.9 cm. Two pieces joined. Red on yellow ground, presumably a stream, though the entire width is not preserved.

201

385 (X19). N.18 Central. Fig. 7.23 (Marsh D); Pl. 33. H. 2.2 x w. 2.1 x th. 0.7 cm. Red stream with partial ocher vegetation, on yellow ground. Ocher over red. Cf. 380, 386.

386 (X20). N.18 Central. Fig. 7.23 (Marsh D); Pl. 33. H. 2.5 x w. 2.2 (3.1) x th. 0.9–1.0 cm. Red stream with partial ocher vegetation, on yellow ground. Ocher over red. Cf. 380, 385. 387 (H14). N.20 West. Fig. 7.23 (Marsh D); Pl. 33. H. 4.3 x w. 4.7 x th. 0.9 cm. Red meandering stream on yellow ground, with ocher plant beneath. Faint traces of ocher vegetation around the left section of the stream. Traces of blue at the right edge interpreted as river in Fig. 7.23 but could also be grass. A speck of red lower right. 388 (S41). N.20 East. Fig. 7.21 (Marsh C); Pl. 33. H. 2.3 x w. 3.2 x th. 0.9 cm. Red stream on yellow ground. Ocher vegetation at the top, implying another stream.

389 (V2). N.18 East. Fig. 7.21 (Marsh C); Pl. 33. H. 7.0 x w. 9.2 x th. 0.7 cm. Three pieces joined. Red meandering streams, a solid one on the left, with traces of lines

382 (U148). N.18 East. Fig. 7.20 (Marsh B); Pl. 33. H. 1.3 x w. 1.4 (1.7) x th. 0.8 cm. Red on yellow ground, presumably a stream, though the entire width is not preserved. 383 (V8). N.18 East. Fig. 7.23 (Marsh D); Pl. 33. H. 3.1 x w. 1.9 x th. 0.6–0.8 cm. Red stream on yellow ground.

384 (R19). N.20 East. Fig. 7.23 (Marsh D); Pl. 33. H. 4.6 x w. 2.1 x th. 1.0 cm. Red stream on yellow ground. Traces of ocher above and blue-gray painted over red below.

below, and a solid stream on the right. Ocher vegetation surrounds and partially covers the streams. Further vegetation above implies the existence of another level of streams, verified by a faint red line at the top. Fugitive narrow blue-gray leaves, two in pairs rising from single stems, one single at the lower edge of the fragment. Over the yellow ground, the red stream was painted first, ocher over the red, followed by stronger ocher dots added after. Blue-gray painted last.

202

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

390 (O18). N.20 East. Fig. 7.21 (Marsh C); Pl. 33. H. 3.6 x w. 2.4 x th. 0.6–0.9 cm. Two narrow red streams surrounded by ocher vegetation on yellow ground. Ocher over red.

ground at the juncture with land), grayish on the left, lighter on the right. Short parallel black lines, now faint, mark the edge of the blue in places. Ocher over red, black last. 395 (U149). N.18 East. Fig. 7.21 (Marsh C); Pl. 34. H. 3.5 x w. 2.7 x th. 1.0 cm. Three red streams surrounded by ocher vegetation. Ocher over red.

391 (U121). N.18 East. Fig. 7.21 (Marsh C); Pl. 33. H. 3.3 x w. 2.6 x th. 1.0–1.1 cm. Two meandering red streams

on yellow ground, surrounded by (now barely distinguishable) ocher vegetation. The lower stream ends within the fragment. A narrow blue-gray leaf rises from below. Applied white at lower left (cf. 401, 403). 392 (A10). N.20. Fig. 7.21 (Marsh C); Pl. 33. H. 5.3 x w. 5.0 x th. 0.6 cm. Two narrow red streams surrounded by

ocher vegetation on yellow ground. Trace of reddish ocher at the top may be another stream. The central stream is clear red, while the other two are faint. Ocher over red. 393 (N21). N.20 East. Fig. 7.21 (Marsh C); Pl. 34. H. 2.7 x w. 3.9 x th. 0.7 cm. Three red streams with ocher vegetation around and a single blue-gray blade of grass. The red streams diverge from one another, and the grass lies across the central stream, rather than traversing it as in other fragments. Ocher over red. 394 (V6). N.18 East. Fig. 7.21 (Marsh C); Pl. 34. H. 6.9 x w. 7.0 x th. 0.7–1.2 cm. Three narrow, red meandering streams bordered by ocher vegetation on yellow ground.

Two black grasses painted obliquely over. Below is an irregular area of blue, presumably the sea (painted over yellow

396 (G12). N.20 Northwest. Fig. 7.21 (Marsh C); Pl. 34. H. 2.1 x w. 3.1 x th. 0.8 cm. Three narrow red streams surrounded by ocher vegetation. The surface is eroded in the center, but it appears the top and bottom stream continue, while the center one ends at this point, starting again at a higher level. Ocher over red. 397 (Y33). N.18 Central. Fig. 7.21 (Marsh C); Pl. 34. H. 7.0 x w. 5.5 x th. 0.5–0.6 cm. Four pieces joined. Worn,

fragile surface. Two red meandering streams bordered and partially overlapped by ocher vegetation. The upper stream (as oriented) is solid, the lower one divides into two narrow streaks. Areas of muted blue on the yellow ground between. Red is over ocher in places, under in others. 398 (W42). N.18 Central. Fig. 7.21 (Marsh C); Pl. 34. H. 4.5 x w. 2.9 x th. 0.7 cm. Ocher vegetation on yellow ground, with a dark reddish leaf-like shape. Below, on the yellow ground, are patches of blue.

399 (X161). N.18 Central. Fig. 7.21 (Marsh C); Pl. 34. H. 2.6 x w. 1.7 x th. 0.7 cm. Two faint streaks of red streams on yellow ground, with ocher vegetation beyond.

400 (S39). N.20 East. Fig. 7.21 (Marsh C); Pl. 34. H. 2.7 x w. 2.7 (3.2) x th. 0.8 cm. Ocher vegetation on darkish yellow ground. Trace of red at the lower edge, most likely a stream. White at the upper right edge of the fragment.

LANDSCAPE, SEASCAPE, AND THE SKY

401 (S8). N.20 East. Fig. 7.21 (Marsh C); Pl. 34. H. 2.4 x w. 2.2 x th. 0.7–0.9 cm. Ocher vegetation on dark yellow ground above a red stream. Three narrow blue-gray leaves. On the yellow ground are spots of applied white, one also overlapping the central ocher vegetation. This is interpreted as spray from the sea. The fragment was oriented according to the leaves, which usually divide as they rise. There is a possibility, however, that it could have been the other way up, in which case the white spray would have been closer to the sea. Order of colors: yellow ground, red, ocher, blue-gray, white. The somewhat darker yellow ground on this and a few other fragments may be a reaction to deposition rather than an intentional variation. 402 (R46). N.20 East. Fig. 7.21 (Marsh C); Pl. 34. H. 2.0 x w. 3.3 x th. 0.8 cm. Ocher vegetation on darkish yellow ground, which begins as a solid block then divides into individual blobs. Three narrow blue-gray, almost black leaves traverse the vegetation. 403 (M18). N.20 East. Fig. 7.21 (Marsh C); Pl. 34. H. 3.0 x w. 3.9 x th. 0.9 cm. Ocher vegetation on yellow ground. Surface partially eroded at the top, with traces of red and applied white over the red at the upper edge. 404 (P16). N.20 East. Fig. 7.21 (Marsh C); Pl. 34. H. 2.5 x w. 3.7 x th. 0.5 cm. Ocher vegetation, above and below, on yellow ground. Three red lines and one blue-gray, which, given the orientation, should all be blades of grass. 405.1 (P13). N.20 East. Fig. 7.23 (Marsh D); Pl. 35. H. 3.5 x w. 2.7 x th. 0.7 cm. Poorly preserved. Three narrow red streams with ocher vegetation on yellow ground. Ocher over red.

405.2 (N20). N.20 East. Fig. 7.23 (Marsh D). H. 5.4 x w. 8.0 x th. 0.6–1.3 cm. Two pieces joined. The surface has a

mottled effect, with darker ocher over yellow. Traces of red lines (streams) on the right. Blue-gray at lower left, interpreted as a grass.

203

406 (R86). N.20 East. Fig. 7.23 (Marsh D); Pl. 35. H. 2.0 x w. 3.5 x th. 1.2 cm. Narrow red stream with ocher streaks of vegetation around, on yellow ground. Tip of a blue-gray grass at the lower right edge. Ocher over red, blue-gray last. 407 (R85). N.20 East. Fig. 7.23 (Marsh D); Pl. 35. H. 3.1 x w. 1.7 x th. 0.8 cm. Ocher vegetation with traces of red at the edge, apparently ending or beginning a row of streams. Ocher over red.

408 (X29). N.18 Central. Fig. 7.23 (Marsh D); Pl. 35. H. 2.0 (2.5) x w. 2.8 x th. 0.7–0.8 cm. Ocher vegetation and two light blue blades of grass on yellow ground. Traces of red toward the right edge. Some of the blue is pure, some is mixed with ocher or with ocher over blue. 409 (P15). N.20 East. Fig. 7.23 (Marsh D); Pl. 35. H. 4.0 x w. 5.0 x th. 0.8–1.2 cm. Light blue grasses among ocher vegetation.

410 (Q30). N.20 East. Fig. 7.23 (Marsh D); Pl. 35. H. 2.2 x w. 2.9 x th. 0.9 cm. Light blue and blue-gray grasses with ocher vegetation on yellow ground. The grasses rise from left and right, meeting at their tips. Those on the left are lighter in hue. 411 (V5). N.18 East. Fig. 7.23 (Marsh D); Pl. 35. H. 5.2 x w. 3.9 x th. 1.0–1.2 cm. Two fragments joined. Bluegray (black) grasses on yellow ground, with ocher below and traces of red at the top. The surface has postdepositional abrasion. 412 (S10). N.20 East. Fig. 7.23 (Marsh D); Pl. 35. H. 2.1 x w. 2.6 x th. 0.9–1.4 cm. Blue-gray lines on yellow ground. Either grass or sea spray. Touch of dark red at the right edge. Two tones of blue.

204

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

413 (S47). N.20 East. Fig. 7.23 (Marsh D); Pl. 35. H. 2.3 x w. 3.9 x th. 0.9 cm. Two faint, narrow red streams surrounded and partially covered by ocher vegetation traversed by four blue-gray blades of grass, with yellow ground above.

419 (Y3). N.18 Central. Fig. 7.1 (Town by a River); Pl. 36. Reed-like plants. H. 12.4 x w. 5.5 x th. 0.8 cm. Fourteen pieces joined. Ocher plants on yellow ground. At the top of the fragment is blue in the shape of a leaf. At the bottom is a trace of blue, probably from the river.

414 (U103). N.18 East. Fig. 7.24 (Marsh E); Pl. 35. H. 2.4 x w. 3.2 x th. 0.8–0.9 cm. Blue-gray lines on darkish yellow ground. Either grass or sea spray.

415 (E5). N.20 Southwest. Fig. 7.24 (Marsh E); Pl. 35. H. 2.7 x w. 4.5 x th. 0.7 cm. Red stream with blue lines above on yellow ground. The blue has some black paint over. Black microorganisms on the surface. 416 (U105). N.18 East. Fig. 7.24 (Marsh E); Pl. 35. H. 2.9 x w. 4.4 x th. 0.7 cm. Two pieces joined. Two red lines, streams, on darkish yellow ground, surrounded by blue-gray area and lines. The black spots are most likely microorganisms on the surface.

River and Plants 417 (Y34). N.18 Central. Fig. 7.1 (Town by a River); Pl. 36. Reed-like plant. H. 5.0 x w. 3.0 x th. 0.6–0.9 cm. Four pieces joined. Ocher plants on yellow ground.

418 (U28). N.18 East. Fig. 7.1 (Town by a River); Pl. 36. Reed-like plants. H. 2.3 x w. 6.4 x th. 1.5 cm. Two pieces joined. Ocher plants on yellow ground.

420 (U109). N.18 East. Fig. 7.1 (Town by a River); Pl. 36. Reed-like plant and building. H. 2.9 x w. 2.6 x th. 0.6–1.1 cm. Ocher plant on whitish plaster ground, probably a building (cf. 88). Very slight ridge on the back.

421 (U83). N.18 East. Fig. 7.1 (Town by a River); Pl. 36. River and reed-like plant. H. 3.2 x w. 4.6 x th. 1.0–1.3 cm. Ocher plants on yellow ground with poorly preserved blue river below, painted over the yellow. 422 (U145). N.18 East. Fig. 7.1 (Town by a River); Pl. 36. River and reed-like plants. H. 5.9 x w. 10.0 x th. 1.0–2.5 (ridge) cm. Three pieces joined. Ocher plants growing

ridge high low

along the bank of a blue river, which has fugitive black lines within. The width of the river is preserved on the left. Blue painted over the pale yellow ground, black over the blue; ocher plants painted on yellow ground, with the

LANDSCAPE, SEASCAPE, AND THE SKY

base of their stems overlapping the blue. Dots of blue overlapping the ocher leaves are probably splashes of paint, rather than intentional. Impressions of what was probably straw on the back of the plaster and a ridge that projects 1.5 cm. This ridge, formed when the plaster abutted a timber structure in the wall as it was applied, matches that on the backs of 1, 87, and 88, greatly facilitating the reconstruction in Figure 7.1. 423 (M17). N.20 East. Fig. 7.1 (Town by a River); Pl. 36. River and reed-like plants. H. 2.7 (3.0) x w. 3.5 (4.0) x th. 0.8 cm. Ocher plants on yellow ground. Traces of blue lower left.

424 (W12). N.18 Central. Fig. 7.1 (Town by a River); Pl. 36. River and reed-like plants. H. 6.0 x w. 3.0 x th. 0.9–1.4 cm. Two pieces joined. Ocher plants on yellow ground. Traces of blue river (painted over yellow) at the top.

425 (U117). N.18 East. Fig. 7.1 (Town by a River); Pl. 36. Water and land. H. 2.1 x w. 1.6 (2.1) x th. 0.7 cm. Blue and yellow ground, the blue over yellow, so most likely river.

426 (U118). N.18 East. Fig. 7.1 (Town by a River); Pl. 36. Water and land. H. 2.4 x w. 2.7 x th. 0.8 cm. Blue with yellow ground below, the blue painted over the yellow, so most likely river. At the juncture between the two is an ocher spot and a speck of black (probably microorganisms). 427 (U98). N.18 East. Fig. 7.1 (Town by a River); Pl. 37. Vegetation. H. 3.5 x w. 4.1 x th. 1.0–1.1 cm. Two pieces joined. Ocher vegetation on yellow ground with pale dull blue above and traces of a brighter blue beneath the ocher. Four white dots applied over the ocher. Black lines, three vertical, one horizontal at the top, painted last, over the blue. 428 (U96). N.18 East. Fig. 7.1 (Town by a River); Pl. 37. Vegetation and River. H. 2.7 (3.2) x w. 4.0 x th. 1.0 cm. On yellow ground, ocher vegetation with four white dots applied over. Blue, above right, and tinge of blue mixed

205

with the ocher especially around the white dots. Diffuse ocher at top left. Blue over yellow, white over ocher. 429 (Y35). N.18 Central. Fig. 7.19 (Marsh A); Pl. 37. Reed-like plant and descending rocks. H. 5.0 x w. 2.7 x th. 0.7 cm. Four pieces joined. On yellow ground, ocher plant and red parallel lines. Faint trace of blue on the right. On the pinkish red here brush strokes are evident. They have not dragged the plaster, as would be the case if the painting were al fresco, but show as thicker or thinner paint according to whether pressure was on the side or the point of the brush. 430 (U82). N.18 East. Fig. 7.19 (Marsh A); Pl. 37. Reedlike plants and descending rocks. H. 8.5 (9.0) x w. 3.8 x th. 0.7–1.0 cm (together). Two pieces virtually join. Ocher

plant over yellow ground, with red streak upper right and faint traces of blue between the plants. The two fragments almost join. 431 (R27). N.20 East. Fig. 7.19 (Marsh A); Pl. 37. River, plants and descending rocks. H. 8.0 x w. 6.7 x th. 0.7–1.3 cm. Three pieces joined. Blue river with faint traces of

black internal lines (cf. 422). Above, ocher plants on yellow ground. Red lines at the top, indicative of descending rocks. Order of applying paints: yellow, blue, ocher, black and red. Yellow ground is paler in the lower left fragment, demonstrating differential preservation in joining fragments. Slight irregular ridge at the back. 432 (X27). N.18 Central. Fig. 7.19 (Marsh A); Pl. 37. Plant and descending rock. H. 3.5 x w. 3.0 x th. 0.6–0.7 cm. Ocher plant on yellow ground, with descending rocks above in red and soft faint pink, with pale gray and faint ocher. All but the red rock have been applied with dilute paint, giving

206

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

an ethereal quality suggesting depth. Gray and red over pink. 433 (M27). N.20 East. Fig. 7.19 (Marsh A); Pl. 37. River and plants. H. 4.3 (5.1) x w. 3.2 x th. 1.5–1.0 cm. Yellow ground with ocher vegetation above and blue below. The blue appears to be over the yellow, but it is worn. Side edge, at the juncture between two walls.

434 (X23). N.18 Central. Fig. 7.19 (Marsh A); Pl. 37. River and plants. H. 3.3 x w. 4.9 x th. 0.5–0.8 cm. Three

pieces joined. Blue bordered by ocher plants on yellow ground. One of the leaves is reddish in tone, and the top ocher patches have a bluish tinge. The plants identify the fragment as river, but the blue appears to be on plaster, which is anomalous. 435 (Y46). N.18 Central. Pl. 37. River. H. 3.7 x w. 2.5 x th. 0.7 cm. Two pieces joined. Blue with yellow ground and ocher vegetation above. Blue appears to be on plaster at the bottom but then overlaps the yellow. However, the presence of vegetation suggests river rather than sea and land. 436 (P41). N.20 East. Fig. 7.20 (Marsh B); Pl. 38. River and plants. H. 5.4 x w. 5.3 x th. 0.7 cm. On yellow ground, blue river above, ocher vegetation below. Rising from the vegetation are two blue-gray grasses on the right and two ocher grasses on the left. This piece provides evidence for marsh beneath river. 437 (R35). N.20 East. Fig. 7.20 (Marsh B); Pl. 38. River and plants. H. 2.9 x w. 3.4 x th. 0.5–0.7 cm. On a slightly deeper yellow ground, blue at top, bordered with a tinge of blue-gray, and plants beneath in ocher and blue-gray, perhaps originally black. Blue over yellow, ocher painted last.

438 (U85). N.18 East. Fig. 7.20 (Marsh B); Pl. 38. River. H. 3.4 x w. 4.7 x th. 0.7 cm. Blue river with faint black lines traversing the blue as it meets the yellow ground above. Blue over yellow, black on blue. 439 (U120). N.18 East. Fig. 7.20 (Marsh B); Pl. 38. River. H. 2.6 x w. 2.2 x th. 1.0 cm. Blue (worn) and yellow ground, divided by a black line, painted last.

440 (R37). N.20 East. Fig. 7.20 (Marsh B); Pl. 38. River and plants. H. 4.3 (5.0) x w. 5.1 x th. 0.6–0.7 cm. On a

slightly deeper yellow ground, blue at the top, with a black line, and plants beneath in ocher and in blue-gray, the latter preserved only faintly. 441 (R38). N.20 East. Fig. 7.20 (Marsh B); Pl. 38. River and plants. H. 4.0 x w. 5.2 x th. 0.7–0.9 cm. Two pieces joined. On slightly deeper yellow ground, blue at the top

and plants beneath. The plants are blue-gray, perhaps black, while dots of ocher are probably also intended as vegetation. Three white dots are applied, one on the blue, with black defining it, the others on yellow at the edge of the blue, overlapping one of the plants. Blue on yellow, gray-black and ocher on yellow and over the blue, white painted last. 442 (C43). N.20 West. Fig. 7.20 (Marsh B); Pl. 38. River and plants. H. 3.6 x w. 3.7 x th. 0.4 cm. On yellow ground, faint trace of blue above right, the end of a thin line of red at bottom left, and blobs of ocher between. The red and ocher represents the marsh. Blue over yellow ground, ocher painted after the blue. Striations on the back.

LANDSCAPE, SEASCAPE, AND THE SKY

443 (S29). N.20 East. Fig. 7.20 (Marsh B); Pl. 38. River. H. 2.8 x w. 2.7 x th. 0.8 cm. Pale dull blue and yellow ground, the blue over yellow. Ocher over part of the blue (deposit?) and a streak of red paint at right. 444 (M37). N.20 East. Fig. 7.20 (Marsh B); Pl. 38. River. H. 4.3 x w. 3.0 x th. 1.0 cm. Blue flaked, with yellow either side, indicating the width of a river (or inlet). A dot of applied white is preserved over the blue.

445.1 (U86). N.18 East. Fig. 7.20 (Marsh B); Pl. 38. River. H. 4.5 x w. 7.2 x th. 0.7–1.1 cm. Blue river (much worn)

over pale yellow, with yellow ground above and below. Faint traces of short black lines obliquely rising from the river. The width of the river is preserved. Traces of yellow ocher vegetation lower right. Blue painted over yellow, but as it flaked, it appears to have taken some of the yellow with it, leaving a paler tone beneath. Alternatively, the river may have been reserved in paler yellow to mark where the blue was to be applied. 445.2 (X173). N.18 Central. Fig. 7.20 (Marsh B). River. H. 2.1 x w. 1.4 x th. 0.7 cm. Two pieces joined. The lower part of the blue, by the edge of the fragment, is on plaster. The faint streaks of grayish-blue are on yellow ground. Traces of pinkish tone on the yellow beneath the blue, where the two colors meet. 446 (A18). N.20. Fig. 7.12 (Men by River); Pl. 38. River and plant. H. 4.4 x w. 5.0 x th. 0.8 cm. Blue strip of river on pale yellow ground, bordered by yellow ground above and below, with ocher vegetation on the left, painted after the blue.

207

447 (U26). N.18 East. Fig. 7.21 (Marsh C); Pl. 39. River and grasses. H. 6.1 x w. 5.2 x th. 1.0 cm. Two pieces

joined. Ocher plants over yellow ground. Between the leaves of the larger plant are traces of other leaves painted very faintly in ocher, evidently intended to provide variety and depth through contrasting tones. The lower leaf of the larger plant overlaps the smaller leaves on the right. Very faint pinkish horizontal line top right (pink, not red, therefore unlikely to be marsh). Below the plants, the blue river has almost entirely flaked off, leaving only minimal traces of yellow ground. The plants appear to have overlapped the river in places, as ocher still adheres to small patches of remaining blue. Tiny accidental spatters of blue between the leaves, from the paint brush. 448 (U27). N.18 East. Fig. 7.21 (Marsh C); Pl. 39. River and grasses. H. 6.5 x w. 4.5 x th. 1.0 cm. Blue river with ocher plants overlapping. The blue appears to have been painted over yellow ground. Paler blue, probably mixed with white, either side of the more intense central section of blue. Fugitive black lines on the blue, to the right. 449 (W7). N.18 Central. Fig. 7.21 (Marsh C); Pl. 39. River and grasses. H. 4.0 x w. 3.6 x th. 0.6 cm. Blue above, interpreted as river, ocher plants below, both painted on yellow ground. Some of the ocher grasses are mixed with blue, giving a greenish hue, and providing depth and variety of tone. This fragment is included in the Marsh Landscape; the blue-green tone of some of the leaves, however, may indicate that it belonged with the large scale Blue and Yellow Grasses composition (Fig. 8.7; cf. 719).

208

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

450 (R59). N.20 East. Fig. 7.21 (Marsh C); Pl. 39. River and grasses. H. 4.4 (5.0) x w. 4.3 x th. 0.9 cm. Ocher plants on yellow ground, with blue river above. Blue on yellow, ocher plants overlap blue. Speck of white at right suggests paint spatter from nearby, presumably the sea. 451 (R58). N.20 East. Fig. 7.21 (Marsh C); Pl. 39. River and grasses. H. 4.4 x w. 5.0 x th. 0.8–1.2 (slight ridge) cm. Poorly preserved ocher plants on yellow ground with blue river beneath. Blue over yellow, ocher grasses overlap blue. White applied over part of the blue, painted last. 452 (Q9). N.20 East. Fig. 7.21 (Marsh C); Pl. 39. River and plants. H. 1.6 x w. 2.0 x th. 0.9 cm. On yellow ground, blue above, with ocher immediately below on the right, within which is a trace of red. At an oblique angle are two black lines. Blue over yellow, black painted last, after ocher and red. 453 (X33). N.18 Central. Fig. 7.21 (Marsh C); Pl. 39. River and plant. H. 2.6 x w. 1.7 x th. 0.7 cm. Ocher plant on yellow ground, with traces of blue below.

Sea and Land 455 (V26). N.18 East. Fig. 7.19 (Marsh A); Pl. 40. Sea and land: inlet. H. 9.4 x w. 9.8 x th. 0.6–0.9 cm. Three pieces joined. A wavy band of buff slip or wash of color, bordered by blue. The blue appears to be painted directly onto the plaster. White spot applied over the blue top left. Ocher specks on the blue and large ocher dots overlapping buff and blue. The line of blue immediately below the buff has a darker gray-blue outline in parts, and traces of an ocher line above this may have been a sketch.

456 (W21). N.18 Central. Fig. 7.19 (Marsh A); Pl. 40. Water and land. H. 6.6 x w. 5.5 x th. 0.7–0.9 cm. Wide

454.1 (S31). N.20 East. Fig. 7.21 (Marsh C); Pl. 39. Plant. H. 4.1 x w. 2.5 x th. 0.8 cm. Ocher yellow ground with slightly darker ocher blades of grass painted over.

454.2 (X28). N.20 East. Fig. 7.21 (Marsh C). Plant. H. 1.8 x w. 2.6 x th. 0.6 cm. Ocher blades of grass.

454.3 (S43). N.20 East. Fig. 7.21 (Marsh C). Plant. H. 1.2 x w. 2.0 x th. 0.8 cm. Tips of an ocher plant.

strip of blue painted directly on plaster, bordered by yellow ground above and below. Three white dots applied at the junctures of blue and yellow, one with an ocher spot over part of it, another with traces of gray over part of it. 457 (X24). N.18 Central. Fig. 7.19 (Marsh A); Pl. 40. Water and land. H. 3.4 x w. 4.5 x th. 0.8 cm. Two pieces joined. Worn blue, which appears to be over plaster, with yellow ground above. Gray-blue oblique lines rise from the top of the water’s edge. Two white dots over the yellow ground, one clearly applied over the gray lines. Touch of red far left.

LANDSCAPE, SEASCAPE, AND THE SKY

458 (X134). N.18 Central. Fig. 7.19 (Marsh A); Pl. 40. H. 2.5 x w. 2.3 x th. 0.6 cm. Land and sea. Yellow ocher ground overlaps the blue of the sea at the juncture between the two. Blue beneath this is on plaster. Applied white on the left, over the yellow ocher. 459.1 (Y56). N.18 Central. Fig. 7.19 (Marsh A); Pl. 40. Water and land. H. 2.3 x w. 2.4 x th. 0.4–0.5 cm. Blue over plaster, partially flaked. At the top, smooth buff color, probably slip or alternatively a thin wash. 459.2 (Y83). N.18 Central. Fig. 7.19 (Marsh A). Water and land. H. 1.6 x w. 1.8 x th. 0.5 cm. Blue over plaster, then over yellow ground at the juncture between the two.

209

the lower or upper border of the painting. The fragment slopes forward as it rises from the flattened base. Reconstructed as sea in association with 461 and 455. 463 (Q32). N.20 East. Fig. 7.20 (Marsh B); Pl. 41. Sea and land. H. 3.4 x w. 8.9 x th. 0.6–1.0 cm. Two pieces joined. Light yellow ground with pale blue below over the yellow. Ocher (vegetation) at left and right sides. Some black over the blue.

464 (Q28). N.20 East. Fig. 7.20 (Marsh B); Pl. 41. Sea and land. H. 6.9 x w. 7.5 x th. 0.7–1.0 cm. Two pieces

460 (Y49). N.18 Central. Fig. 7.19 (Marsh A); Pl. 40. Water and land. H. 2.9 x w. 2.2 x th. 0.7 cm. Blue with white dot applied over. Yellow ground above with a speck of darker ocher. The blue appears to be over a thin wash of yellow. 461 (Y6). N.18 Central. Fig. 7.19 (Marsh A); Pl. 40. H. 8.6 x w. 8.9 x th. 0.8 cm. Four pieces joined (Y6+Y71).

Blue on plaster, flaked. The surface was originally entirely blue. Over this are very faint gray (black) lines and patches of ocher. Partially preserved slightly flattened edge, indicating either the lower or upper border of the painting or, more likely, the juncture between two walls. Reconstructed as sea.

joined. Blue over yellow ground. Mottled surface. Some of the blue has flaked off, but the form in the drawing approximates the impression of sea spraying onto land that was probably intended. Traces of gray-black in parts of the blue spray. 465 (X132). N.18 Central. Fig. 7.20 (Marsh B); Pl. 41. Sea and land. H. 4.6 x w. 3.5 x th. 0.6 cm. Two pieces joined. Blue over yellow ground, flaked in places. Faint pinkish gray tone mixed with parts of the blue. White blob applied over blue and traces of a second at the top. Ocher at the top, over yellow ground. 466 (U74). N.18 East. Fig. 7.20 (Marsh B); Pl. 41. Sea and land. H. 6.5 x w. 9.0 x th. 0.7–0.9 cm. Two pieces joined.

462 (Y68). N.18 Central. Fig. 7.19 (Marsh A), Pl. 40. Sea. H. 3.0 x w. 6.2 x th. 0.6–1.3 (edge) cm. Blue on plaster,

worn. Speck of ocher over the blue. Only one area (top right) is smooth and well preserved. The blue may have partially bonded with the plaster, but the smooth layer clearly sits on top. Flattened edge that “sits,” indicating

Blue over plaster in the lower and left sections, over yellow ground toward the central area where it sprays up. Ocher patches over the blue, some with a reddish tone. One (or two joined) white blob(s) applied over the central blue

210

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

spray. A larger white blob to the left applied over blue, overlapping on to yellow ground. Far right, two further white blobs were probably over blue, now flaked. The blue has a gray-greenish tone. This piece is significant in determining the transition between blue sea over unpainted plaster and the yellow ground. 467 (Y23). N.18 Central. Fig. 7.20 (Marsh B); Pl. 41. Sea and land. H. 3.3 x w. 7.0 x th. 0.6 cm. Three pieces joined.

Blue on yellow ground. The blue has partially flaked off but evidently sprays upward, representing splashing water. Patches of ocher over the yellow. At the lower edge of the fragment the blue is either painted directly on to plaster or onto an added slip of white (the division between yellow wash and plain plaster is indicated by a horizontal pencil line in the drawing). On this lower part is an applied white dot. The fragment exemplifies the technique of transitioning from sea to land. 468 (Y47). N.18 Central. Fig. 7.20 (Marsh B); Pl. 41. Water and land. H. 3.5 x w. 3.0 x th. 0.5 cm. Poorly preserved blue and yellow ground above with probable vegetation in ocher at the edge. The blue appears to have been applied partially directly onto plaster, partially over light yellow, indicating a transitional piece between water and land. 469 (Y43). N.18 Central. Fig. 7.20 (Marsh B); Pl. 41. Water and land. H. 5.7 x w. 4.8 x th. 0.5 cm. Blue over yellow ground. Blue is pale, dull, with no visible frit. Parts (right) are gray in tone. One irregular white dot applied over the blue, partially f laked. Darker ocher toward the top of the fragment. 470 (Y41). N.18 Central. Fig. 7.21 (Marsh C); Pl. 41. Water and land. H. 3.4 x w. 5.3 x th. 0.6–0.8 cm. Two pieces

joined. Blue water below yellow ground. On the yellow is a red streak surrounded by pink and ocher with a gray grass, indicative of marsh or riverine vegetation. The blue is worn and appears to be directly on plaster, then overlapping the yellow ground at the juncture of the two colors. Traces of muted red within the blue. White dot applied over the blue at the lower edge of the fragment.

471 (Q29). N.20 East. Fig. 7.21 (Marsh C); Pl. 41. Water and land. H. 3.5 x w. 3.1 x th. 0.7 cm. On yellow ground, patches of ocher. At the bottom edge of the fragment, blue is painted over the ocher. Faint red streak at top, traversing the ocher. 472 (R65). N.20 East. Fig. 7.21 (Marsh C); Pl. 41. Sea and land. H. 3.5 x w. 3.0 x th. 0.8 cm. Yellow ground with ocher at the top, blue-gray irregularly rising from below, interpreted as splashing sea with vegetation above. Black over the blue, with ocher areas painted after and white dot last. Faint red streak at top right. 473 (Y45). N.18 Central. Fig. 7.21 (Marsh C); Pl. 41. Water and land. H. 3.7 x w. 2.2 x th. 0.6 cm. Blue and yellow ground. Trace of red line top left. Blue on yellow. The red line should be a marsh stream.

474 (C14). N.20 West. Fig. 7.17 (Deer and Dogs); Pl. 42. Water and land. H. 2.3 x w. 4.3 x H. 0.7 cm. Blue on yellow ground, with patches of ocher over the yellow.

475 (C12). N.20 West. Fig. 7.17 (Deer and Dogs); Pl. 42. Water and land. H. 5.7 x w. 6.0 x th. 0.9 cm. Six pieces

joined. Pale blue over light yellow ground, the blue much flaked. Faint pink tone to the yellow at top and right under the blue. White amorphous blob applied over the blue (right). Specks of ocher (lower left) over blue. 476 (C13). N.20 West. Fig. 7.17 (Deer and Dogs); Pl. 42. Water and land. H. 4.7 x w. 2.6 x th. 0.5 cm. Two pieces joined. Pale yellow ground with traces of blue at the bottom, ocher vegetation on the right, and applied white dots, one large and four small, over the yellow. The ocher surface has partially eroded, lifting some of the color from the yellow ground.

LANDSCAPE, SEASCAPE, AND THE SKY

477 (P20). N.20 East. Fig. 7.17 (Deer and Dogs); Pl. 42. Water and land. H. 7.6 x w. 8.5 x th. 0.9 cm. Areas of blue

211

unpainted plaster to yellow ground takes place. The yellow has a mottled surface with a darker ocher. Some black over the blue. 482 (H21). N.20 West. Fig. 7.17 (Deer and Dogs); Pl. 42. Water and land. H. 6.2 x w. 2.4 x th. 0.6 cm. Pale blue over a light yellow ground, which continues above.

and yellow ground, the blue over the yellow. Gray-blue in places over the blue. Dot of white applied over the blue left and two specks of white right. Ocher specks of vegetation over the yellow. Dull ocher patches over the blue probably extraneous.

483 (C16). N.20 West. Fig. 7.17 (Deer and Dogs); Pl. 42. Water and land. H. 4.2 x w. 6.3 x th. 0.5 cm. Blue over yellow ground. Surface partially eroded.

478 (C7). N.20 West. Fig. 7.17 (Deer and Dogs); Pl. 42. Water and land. H. 5.7 x w. 6.1 x th. 0.5 cm. Yellow 484 (H19). N.20 West. Fig. 7.17 (Deer and Dogs); Pl. 42. Water and land. H. 8.5 x w. 8.8 x th. 0.7–0.8 cm. Pale blue

ground with blue painted over it above and ocher vegetation below. The blue is much worn, and the muddy ocher overlying it is extraneous deposit. 479 (Q4). N.20 East. Fig. 7.17 (Deer and Dogs); Pl. 42. Plant. H. 3.8 x w. 1.7 x th. 0.4 cm. Yellow ground, the surface worn along the left edge revealing plaster. Ocher plant. Touches of white applied over the yellow ground above.

480 (G5). N.20 West. Fig. 7.17 (Deer and Dogs); Pl. 42. Water and plant. H. 3.2 x w. 3.3 x th. 0.4–0.5 cm. On yellow ground, ocher plants, with traces of blue at top and center. The ocher overlies the blue. 481 (F3). N.20 Southwest. Fig. 7.17 (Deer and Dogs); Pl. 42. Water and land. H. 4.7 x w. 4.0 x th. 0.6–0.8 cm. Blue in the lower part of the fragment perhaps over plaster. Above is yellow ground, over which there is a further patch of blue. Specks of applied white at the juncture between yellow land and blue sea. It is unclear exactly where the transition from

over yellow, which in one place has a pinkish hue between the areas of blue. A white dot is applied over the blue (top). The blue pigment may have white mixed into it. 485 (U128). N.18 East. Fig. 7.1 (Town by a River); Pl. 43. Sea and land. H. 4.8 x w. 4.8 x th. 0.9–1.2 cm. Blue (sea or sky) with yellow ground. Blue over yellow ground, eroded, probably over plaster at the edge of the fragment. Some gray-black over the blue, especially at the juncture with the yellow ground. Some specks of reddish ocher over the blue. White dots painted last. The yellow ground has a slightly pinkish tone, so this could be sky. It is, however, reconstructed as sea, because of the white dots.

212

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

486 (U84). N.18 East. Fig. 7.1 (Town by a River); Pl. 43. Sea and land. H. 2.3 x w. 4.0 (as oriented) x th. 1.0 cm. Blue with yellow ocher ground above. The blue is over plaster, but at the juncture of the two colors, it overlaps the yellow. Most likely this represents the transition from sea to land, and that is how it is reconstructed in Figure 7.1. The faint presence of pink on the plaster at the bottom of the fragment, however, hints that it may have been the transition from sky to land. 487 (W48). N.18 Central. Fig. 7.1 (Town by a River); Pl. 43. Sea and land. H. 5.1 x w. 5.0 x th. 0.9 cm. Blue over plaster at the bottom of the fragment, possibly overlapping yellow ground at the juncture between the two. White impasto dots over the blue. A speck of white and traces of blue on the yellow ground along with tiny specks of red, probably splashes from the paintbrush. 488 (H25). N.20 West. Fig. 7.17 (Deer and Dogs); Pl. 43. Water and land. H. 4.5 x w. 2.5 x th. 0.7 cm. Blue over yellow ground. Between the two areas of blue is yellow, with faint traces of blue over. This has been interpreted in the reconstruction as yellow ground. The blue is lighter and brighter on the left than on the right, where gray-black has been added. 489 (E21). N.20 Southwest. Fig. 7.17 (Deer and Dogs); Pl. 43. Water and land. H. 3.5 x w. 3.0 x th. 1.2 cm. Blue with a row of three or four white dots applied over, a further one above. Yellow ground visible at the top, but it is unclear whether the blue is over plaster or a thin wash of yellow. 490 (L2). N.20 West. Fig. 7.17 (Deer and Dogs); Pl. 43. Water and land. H. 3.2 x w. 4.1 x th. 1.1 cm. Two pieces joined. Pale blue over yellow, partially flaked. A strip of slightly darker yellow in between suggests the ground. Three white dots, one crescent shaped, applied over the blue. 491 (E9). N.20 Southwest. Fig. 7.17 (Deer and Dogs); Pl. 43. Water and land. H. 3.7 x w. 2.8 x th. 0.6 cm. Ocher dots over blue-gray, painted onto the yellow ground.

492 (D15). N.20 West. Fig. 7.17 (Deer and Dogs); Pl. 43. Water and land. H. 3.6 x w. 3.2 x th. 0.6–1.1 cm. Dull blue on yellow ground. The grayish tone in the upper part of the blue is the result of two layers of paint, the first of ocher, the second of the blue. 493 (J2) N.20 West. Pl. 43. Sea spray(?) on land. H. 2.9 x w. 4.5 x th. 0.5–0.9 cm. On yellow ground, areas of white were painted, over parts of which was added blue, resulting in a light tone. There is a speck of black, which is not microorganisms and does not look like black paint. Assumed to be extraneous, it has not been included in the drawing. 494 (C35). N.20 West. Fig. 7.24 (Marsh E); Pl. 43. Sea and land. H. 7.3 x w. 7.4 x th. 0.4–0.8 cm. Two pieces

joined. Yellow ground with red line over, blue sea below, with white dots painted over. The yellow and red are well preserved, but the blue, painted directly onto plaster, has eroded, except around the white dots. 495.1 (C6). N.20 West. Fig. 7.24 (Marsh E); Pl. 43. Marsh and sea. H. 3.0 x w. 4.9 x th. 0.6 cm. Blue probably painted over the yellow ground. Red lines (streams) are partially overlapped by the clear blue. 495.2 (A17). N.20. Fig. 7.24 (Marsh E). Marsh and sea. H. 5.8 x w. 3.5 x th. 0.7 cm. Red lines (streams) with blue (sea) beneath.

495.3 (S50). N.20 East. Fig. 7.24 (Marsh E). Marsh and sea. H. 2.2 x w. 2.5 x th. 0.7 cm. Yellow ground with ocher vegetation and red line painted over, with blue sea to the left.

LANDSCAPE, SEASCAPE, AND THE SKY

495.4 (V34). N.18 Central. Fig. 7.24 (Marsh E). Marsh. H. 2.9 x w. 3.8 x th. 0.9 cm. Two parallel curved red lines (streams). Associated in the reconstruction with 495.1 and 495.2. 496 (Y22). N.18 Central. Pl. 44. Transition from water to land? H. 4.8 x w. 9.0 x th. 0.6–0.8 cm. Four pieces

joined. Blue on plaster. Strip of white applied over the blue (partially flaked in the middle), and streaks of ocher over the blue. Cf. 498 and 499.

213

501 (Y81). N.18 Central. Pl. 44. Transition from water to land? H. 2.8 x w. 2.2 x th. 0.6 cm. Blue on pale yellow ground, streaky. Red ocher over the blue at top left. At the top and bottom edges, there is evidence of a second layer beneath this: blue directly onto plaster. 502 (Y28). N.18 Central. Pl. 44. Transition from water to land? H. 3.4 x w. 4.0 x th. 0.6 cm. Three pieces joined. Blue on plaster, partially reserved. A smooth buffcolored slip was applied before the blue and looks polished. A reddish ocher blob applied over the blue.

Sea and Sky

497 (Y51). N.18 Central. Pl. 44. Sea. H. 2.4 x w. 2.6 x th. 0.8 cm. Blue on plaster, partially flaked, with gray over the blue. Cf. 500.

503 (E30). N.20 Southwest. Fig. 7.18 (Sea or Sky and Rocks); Pl. 45. Sea/sky. H. 3.4 x w. 3.2 x th. 0.9 cm. Blue on plaster, flaked in places. Six small applied white dots, at different heights.

498 (X135). N.18 Central. Pl. 44. Sea. H. 2.1 x w. 3.1 x th. 0.7 cm. Blue on plaster, with white strip over blue. Cf. 496 and 499.

504 (E23). N.20 Southwest. Fig. 7.18 (Sea or Sky and Rocks); Pl. 45. Sea/sky. H. 3.5 x w. 2.5 x th. 0.9 cm. Blue on plaster. Applied white amorphous dot.

499 (Y55). N.18 Central. Pl. 44. Sea (transition to land?). H. 3.1 x w. 5.2 x th. 0.9–0.8 cm. Two pieces joined.

505 (D19). N.20 West. Fig. 7.18 (Sea or Sky and Rocks); Pl. 45. Sea/sky. H. 2.8 x w. 7.3 (edge 6.4) x th. 0.5–1.3 (edge) cm. Blue on plaster. Flattened edge, indicating the lower or upper border of the painting.

Blue on plaster, with white amorphous dots applied over the blue and smooth white at the top, with a more regular outline, probably plaster slip. 500 (Y50). N.18 Central. Pl. 44. Transition from water to land? H. 6.5 x w. 5.7 x th. 0.7 cm. Four pieces joined.

506 (E7 + E19). N.20 Southwest. Fig. 7.18 (Sea or Sky and Rocks); Pl. 45. Sea/sky. H. 6.5 x w. 8.5 (edge 4.5) x th. 0.8–1.5 cm. Two pieces tentatively joined with two scraps.

Blue over plaster. Streaks of darker blue-gray over the blue, worn. Below, the plaster is smoother, with a brighter blue with visible frit. Two white dots applied over the blue. Cf. 497.

Blue on plaster, with a row of seven small dots (E7). The upper fragment (E7) is a clear light blue, whereas the joined lower fragment (E19) has a slightly darker tone.

214

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

Flattened edge (E19), indicating the lower or upper border of the painting. One side of E7 is thicker than the other, indicating an irregular wall surface. The join is tentative, and the study drawing differs from the subsequent photograph. A small break and attempt to mend the lower edge of the upper fragment apparently occurred in the interval between the two. As stored in the museum, the fragments are now separate. Included in Figure 7.18:a, b as either sea or sky, but the regularity of the dots implies the former.

511 (D20). N.20 Southwest. Fig. 7.18 (Sea or Sky and Rocks); Pl. 45. Sea/sky. H. 3.2 x w. 5.2 (edge 4.5) x th. 1.2 cm. Blue on plaster. Possibly two specks of white over the blue. Flattened edge, indicating the lower or upper border of the painting.

507 (C29). N.20 West. Fig. 7.18 (Sea or Sky and Rocks); Pl. 45. Sea/sky. H. 2.5 x w. 4.0 (edge) x th. 1.0–1.6 (edge) cm. Blue over plaster. Narrow wavy strip of white dots applied over the blue. Flattened edge that sits, indicating the lower or upper border of the painting.

512 (E16). N.20 Southwest. Fig. 7.18 (Sea or Sky and Rocks); Pl. 45. Sea/sky. H. 6.9 x w. 15.4 x th. 1.6–2.5 cm.

508 (C32). N.20 West. Fig. 7.18 (Sea or Sky and Rocks); Pl. 45. Sea/sky. H. 5.0 (5.6) x w. 8.2 (8.8) (edge 7.6) x th. 0.6–1.2 (edge) cm. Two pieces joined. Blue on plaster, flaked in places. Applied white dot and large amorphous white area at extreme left of fragment, unusually close to the base. Flattened edge, indicating the lower or upper border of the painting.

509 (C27). N.20 Southwest. Fig. 7.18 (Sea or Sky and Rocks); Pl. 45. Sea/sky. H. 3.0 x w. 3.0 x th. 0.7–1.2 (edge) cm. Blue over plaster, much eroded. Two (or one large) applied white dots sit above the surface, the surrounding blue having flaked off. Flattened edge, indicating the lower or upper border of the painting. 510 (E24). N.20 Southwest. Fig. 7.18 (Sea or Sky and Rocks); Pl. 45. Sea/sky. H. 3.0 x w. 2.2 (edge 1.8) x th. 1.0– 1.5 (edge) cm. Worn fragment, blue unevenly preserved, over plaster. A whitish film over parts of the surface, hard to distinguish if intentional or postdepositional. Flattened edge that sits, indicating the lower or upper border of the painting.

Three pieces joined. Blue on plaster, partially flaked and discolored. Two applied white dots, one large and amorphous, over the blue (top left), and two specks of white (top right). Flattened edge, indicating the lower or upper border of the painting. Convex surface toward the edge, the thickest part of the plaster being 2.5 cm above. Drawing differs slightly from the subsequent photograph at the top, indicating a slight break in the interval between the two. 513 (X157). N.18 Central. Pl. 46. Sea. H. 2.7 x w. 3.3 x th. 0.9 cm. Large white area applied over blue, flaked at the top. Traces of a pinkish hue on and beneath the white.

514 (Y52). N.18 Central. Pl. 46. Sea. H. 3.4 x w. 4.5 x th. 0.5–0.6 cm. Three pieces joined. Blue over plaster, flaked in places. Large amorphous blob of applied white over blue.

LANDSCAPE, SEASCAPE, AND THE SKY

515 (L4). N.20 West. Fig. 7.8 (Cauldrons and Ships Scene), cf. Fig. 7.26; Pl. 46. Sea. H. 3.3 x w. 2.9 x th. 0.9 cm. Blue with large amorphous applied white blob painted over. Probably an edge as in Fig. 7.8 or perhaps a side piece. 516 (Q16). N.20 East. Fig. 7.8 (Cauldrons and Ships Scene), cf. Fig. 7.26; Pl. 46. Sea. H. 6.3 x w. 6.0 (edge 4.5) x 1.0 (0.5 at edge) cm. Three pieces joined. Blue over plaster,

215

top of the blue, three or four in a row, one dot plus two white specks above. The white impasto sits on top of the blue, albeit partially flaked, while the surrounding blue has worn away. The paint surface, including the applied white, is smooth, but the slip is not. The surface is convex at the point of the row of white dots, indicating it was sloping toward an edge. The slip is much whiter than the plaster beneath, which has a yellowish tone, like the profile of the plaster. 519 (P21). N.20 East. Fig. 7.8 (Cauldrons and Ships Scene), cf. Fig. 7.26; Pl. 46. Sea. H. 3.0 x w. 4.2 x th. 0.6 cm. Blue on plaster. White applied over the blue in a line, either five amorphous dots or one continuous blob, partially flaked.

flaked in places. Large amorphous blob of white applied over the blue. Very thin edge, either indicating a broken lower or upper border of the painting, or a side piece at the juncture of two walls. Parallel to the edge is a slightly projecting ridge (4–5 cm from the edge, 1 cm diameter). If this were a side piece, the ridge would be vertical, presumably corresponding to a groove in the backing plaster, used to key the lime plaster layer. However, in terms of reconstruction, there is no way of knowing how the end of the wall related to the compositions. In order to utilize this fragment, so informative in terms of the sea, it has been placed at the base of the scene, though one should be aware that it might have been at the side.

520 (R73). N.20 East. Fig. 7.8 (Cauldrons and Ships Scene), cf. Fig. 7.26; Pl. 46. Sea. H. 2.0 x w. 2.4 x th. 1.1 cm. Clear blue on plaster. Row of two white dots applied over the blue.

517 (O11). N.20 East. Fig. 7.8 (Cauldrons and Ships Scene), cf. Fig. 7.26; Pl. 46. Sea. H. 4.5 (5.0) x 3.0 (edge 2.4) x 1.0–1.3 cm. Two pieces joined. Blue on plaster, partially flaked. Four white dots applied over the blue, one above the other. Flattened edge, indicating the lower or upper border of the painting.

white horizontal blob applied over the blue, probably partially flaked. Flattened edge, indicating the lower or upper border of the painting.

518 (M30). N.20 East. Fig. 7.8 (Cauldrons and Ships Scene), cf. Fig. 7.26; Pl. 46. Sea. H. 4.9 x w. 5.1 x th. 0.8–1.3 cm. Poorly preserved surface, revealing technique. Over

above one another painted over the blue, or one larger dot flaked in the middle. Patches of ocher, probably deposit (but if paint, the fragment would be sky). Flattened edge that sits, indicating the lower or upper border of the painting.

the off-white plaster, a thin slip of white plaster was applied. On to this, blue was painted, now much flaked. As the blue has not penetrated the upper layer, it was not applied while the slip was wet. White dots were applied on

521 (R32). N.20 East. Fig. 7.8 (Cauldrons and Ships Scene), cf. Fig. 7.26; Pl. 46. Sea. H. 3.1 x w. 5.7 (6.5) (edge 3.2) x th. 1.0–1.3 cm. Blue over plaster. Large amorphous,

522 (R74). N.20 East. Fig. 7.8 (Cauldrons and Ships Scene), cf. Fig. 7.26; Pl. 46. Sea. H. 2.3 x w. 4.4 (edge 4.2) x th. 0.8–1.0 (edge) cm. Blue over plaster. Two white dots

523 (R75). N.20 East. Fig. 7.8 (Cauldrons and Ships Scene), cf. Fig. 7.26; Pl. 46. Sea. H. 2.2 x w. 2.3 x th. 1.1 cm. Blue on plaster. Row of three white dots with two dots beneath, applied over the blue. Poorly preserved flattened edge, indicating the lower or upper border of the painting.

216

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

524 (Q42). N.20 East. Fig. 7.17 (Deer and Dogs); Pl. 47. Sea. H. 5.2 x w. 12.5 x th. 1.3 cm. Seven pieces joined. Blue over plaster, scratched in places. Several small white dots applied over the blue, five in a row and seven scattered.

527 (H8). N.20 West. Fig. 7.17 (Deer and Dogs); Pl. 47. Sea. H. 2.5 x w. 2.9 x th. 0.7 cm. Blue on plaster. Row of five white dots over the blue, in varied size and shape.

528 (H10). N.20 West. Fig. 7.17 (Deer and Dogs); Pl. 47. Sea. H. 2.2 x w. 2.0 x th. 0.6 cm. Blue over plaster. Two white dots applied over the blue.

525 (I6+H23). N.20 West. Fig. 7.17 (Deer and Dogs); Pl. 47. Sea. H. 6.2 x w. 11.0 (edge 9.5) x th. 0.9–1.3 cm. Four

529 (H9). N.20 West. Fig. 7.17 (Deer and Dogs); Pl. 47. Sea. H. 4.0 x w. 4.3 (4.8) (edge 1.2) x th. 0.6–1.2 cm. Blue over plaster, flaked in places. Row of four white dots applied over the blue. Flattened edge, indicating the lower or upper border of the painting. 530 (H24). N.20 West. Fig. 7.17 (Deer and Dogs); Pl. 47. Sea. H. 2.5 x w. 2.7 (edge) x th. 0.9–1.1 cm. Blue on plaster with two applied white dots, one above the other. Flattened edge, indicating the lower or upper border of the painting. 531 (I5). N.20 West. Fig. 7.17 (Deer and Dogs); Pl. 47. H. 2.6 x w. 3.5 (edge 2.5) x th. 1.3–1.8 (edge 1.8) cm. Blue over plaster, flaked in places. Large white dot at the top. Flattened edge that sits, indicating the lower or upper border of the painting.

pieces joined. Blue on plaster. Several white dots applied over the blue, four in a row and eight scattered, mostly very small. Flattened edge, indicating the lower or upper border of the painting.

532 (U137). N.18 East. Fig. 7.19 (Marsh A); Pl. 48. Sea. H. 5.6 x w. 6.6 x th. 1.1 cm. Very worn surface, blue on

526 (I4). N.20 West. Fig. 7.17 (Deer and Dogs); Pl. 47. Sea. H. 4.9 x w. 5.0 x th. 0.5–0.9 cm. Three pieces joined. plaster. Row of four dots and four other dots of irregular shape and size above. A speck of ocher looks like paint rather than deposit. Slight convexity toward the edge of the fragment suggests it was close to the upper or lower border of the painting. Clear blue with traces of two applied white dots below and two above (3 cm apart). Slight convexity toward the bottom, suggesting the beginnings of an edge.

LANDSCAPE, SEASCAPE, AND THE SKY

533 (Y61). N.18 Central. Fig. 7.19 (Marsh A); Pl. 48. Sea. H. 2.6 x w. 3.4 x th. 0.8 cm. Blue on plaster, flaked. The blue layer clearly lies on top. Some frit in the blue. White spot over the blue. 534 (U138). N.18 East. Fig. 7.19 (Marsh A); Pl. 48. Sea. H. 8.7 x w. 4.3 (edge 3.0) x th. 0.8–1.2 cm. Blue on plaster, some flaked off. Three white dots, one higher than others, over blue. Patches of faint extraneous deposit. Flattened edge, indicating lower or upper border of the painting. Slightly convex profile toward the edge, the thickest part being 3 cm up from the edge. 535 (U139). N.18 East. Fig. 7.20 (Marsh B); Pl. 48. Sea. H. 4.9 x w. 5.5 (edge 3.5) x th. 0.8–1.2 (edge) cm. Worn

surface of darkish blue on plaster. Row of five irregular dots, with two below. Flattened edge that sits, indicating the lower or upper border of the painting.

217

538 (U133). N.18 East. Fig. 7.20 (Marsh B); Pl. 48. Sea. H. 4.4 x w. 2.7 (edge 2.3) x th. 0.8–1.0 (edge) cm. Blue on plaster, partially flaked. Three white dots painted over the blue. Flattened edge, indicating the lower or upper border of the painting. 539 (Y31). N.18 Central. Fig. 7.19 (Marsh A); Pl. 48. Sea. H. 4.0 x w. 14.0 x th. 1.0–1.5 (edge) cm. Five pieces joined.

Blue on plaster, partially flaked. Two applied white dots on the left, at different levels. Convex toward the somewhat smooth, flattened edge, indicating the lower or upper border of the painting. The fragment sits flat. 540 (Y58). N.18 Central. Fig. 7.21 (Marsh C); Pl. 49. Sea. H. 2.1 (2.4) x w. 2.8 (3.4) x th. 1.0 cm. Blue on plaster, some frit. Two white dots applied over the blue.

536 (Y62). N.18 Central. Fig. 7.20 (Marsh B); Pl. 48. Sea. H. 3.1 x w. 2.3 x th. 0.7 cm. Blue on plaster, flaked. Some faint blue has adhered to the plaster, but the main blue layer clearly lies on top. Some frit in the blue. Large amorphous white spot over the blue, continued beyond the flaked edge.

541 (U79). N.18 East. Fig. 7.21 (Marsh C); Pl. 49. Sea. H. 4.0 x w. 3.7 x th. 0.9 cm. Blue, with frit, on plaster. White dots on blue, one being amorphous (flaked?).

537 (W24+X142). N.18 Central. Fig. 7.20 (Marsh B); Pl. 48. Sea. H. 4.0 x w. 7.8 (edge 5.2) x th. 1.0–1.5 (edge) cm.

542 (Y64). N.18 Central. Fig. 7.21 (Marsh C); Pl. 49. Sea. H. 2.6 x w. 3.1 x th. 0.9 cm. Blue on plaster, flaked. The blue layer clearly lies on top. Some frit. Trace of a white spot.

Two pieces joined. Blue on plaster. Five white dots applied over the blue, two merging into one another. Flattened smooth edge, indicating the lower or upper border of the painting. Profile thickens at the back toward the edge.

218

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

543 (U135). N.18 East. Fig. 7.21 (Marsh C); Pl. 49. Sea. H. 3.1 x w. 4.5 (edge 2.7) x th. 1.1 cm. Blue on plaster, with a row of irregular white dots painted over. Flattened edge, indicating the lower or upper border of the painting.

549 (Y86). N.18 Central. Fig. 7.1 (Town by a River); Pl. 49. Sea. H. 2.0 x w. 2.7 x th. 0.9 cm. Blue on plaster, flaked. Some frit. Three white spots in a row, painted over the blue. 550 (Y5). N.18 Central. Fig. 7.1 (Town by a River); Pl. 49. Sea. H. 5.7 x w. 4.0 x th. 0.8–1.4 cm. Blue on plaster,

544 (Y42). N.18 Central. Fig. 7.21 (Marsh C); Pl. 49. Sea. H. 2.4 (3.0) x w. 5.4 (edge 4.8) x th. 1.2–3.0 cm. Two

pieces joined. Blue on plaster. Four white dots in a row, applied over the blue (inner two well preserved, outer two faint) and two further faint dots on the right. Flattened edge that sits, indicating the lower or upper border of the painting. 545 (X146). N.18 Central. Fig. 7.1 (Town by a River); Pl. 49. Sea. H. 4.0 x w. 3.7 (edge 2.6) x th. 0.8–1.5 (edge) cm. Blue over plaster, partially flaked. Traces of a row of three white dots applied over the blue. Flattened edge, indicating the lower or upper border of the painting. The profile narrows at the center of the fragment (0.8 cm), slightly wider above (1.0 cm) and thickest toward the edge (1.5 cm). 546 (Y65). N.18 Central. Fig. 7.1 (Town by a River); Pl. 49. Sea. H. 5.7 x w. 3.5 x th. 0.5–0.8 cm. Blue on plaster, flaked, with some visible frit. The blue layer clearly lies on top. Three white spots bunched together in a row, over the blue.

547 (Y66). N.18 Central. Fig. 7.1 (Town by a River); Pl. 49. Sea. H. 3.4 x w. 3.7 x th. 0.7–1.0 cm. Blue on plaster, some frit. Row of five irregular white dots applied over the blue.

548 (U81). N.18 East. Fig. 7.1 (Town by a River); Pl. 49. Sea. H. 3.2 x w. 2.1 (2.6) (“edge” 0.5) x th. 0.7–1.0 cm. Worn surface, blue on plaster. Two white dots over the blue. Surface has slight convex slope suggesting an edge.

flaked. Four white dots of varying size and shape, applied in a row over the blue. Flattened edge, indicating the lower or upper border of the painting. The back bulges out near the edge and the fragment sits flat. 551 (U80). N.18 East. Fig. 7.1 (Town by a River); Pl. 49. Sea. H. 4.9 x w. 5.0 (edge) x th. 0.8–1.0 (0.9 at edge) cm.

Two pieces joined. Blue, with frit, painted onto plaster. Three white dots in a row applied over the blue, a further speck of white lower down on the left. Flattened edge that sits, indicating the lower or upper border of the painting. 552 (U78). N.18 East. Fig. 7.1 (Town by a River); Pl. 49. Sea. H. 6.4 x w. 3.2 (edge 2.8) x th. 0.9–1.0 (1.0 at edge) cm. Two pieces joined. Clear blue well preserved, with frit, painted directly on to the plaster. Four white dots in a row, painted over the blue. Flattened edge, indicating the lower or upper border of the painting. 553 (D11). N.20 West. Fig. 7.1 (Town by a River); Pl. 50. Sky. H. 7.0 x w. 6.4 (edge 5.0) x th. 1.5–2.2 cm. Blue with

a tinge of gray, appears to be directly over plaster, visible where the paint has flaked. Over this blue are areas of a

LANDSCAPE, SEASCAPE, AND THE SKY

black or darker blue-gray, over which are painted an ocher crescent shape and, above that, a long winding band of applied white. Flattened edge, indicating the upper border of the painting (rather than the lower), as shown by the similarity to the sky above the house in 87. 554 (N18). N.20 East. Fig. 7.1 (Town by a River); Pl. 50. Sky. H. 6.7 (7.5) x w. 6.2 (edge 6.0) x th. 1.4–2.4–4 (edge

1.4) cm. Two pieces joined. Blue with a tinge of gray, appears to be directly over plaster, visible where the paint has flaked. Over this blue are scattered areas of a black or darker blue gray, some of which encircle a white dot. Numerous other white dots merge to form a curved line of white running obliquely across the fragment. Flattened edge, indicating the upper border of the painting (rather than the lower). Cf. 553 and the sky above the house in 87. On the back of the fragment is a large stone of schist embedded in the plaster (the plaster surrounds and has gone behind part of the stone, through cracks). 555 (U129). N.18 East. Fig. 7.1 (Town by a River); Pl. 50. Sky. H. 4.0 x w. 4.4 x th. 0.6–1.0 cm. Blue on plaster with gray (black) painted over in places. Five (or three, if joined) white dots applied over the blue. Ocher may be postdepositional discoloration from the earth, rather than paint, as it partially obscures the white. 556 (R33). N.20 East. Fig. 7.1 (Town by a River); Pl. 50. Sky. H. 4.7 x w. 3.5–4.2 x th. 0.6–1.3 cm. Two pieces joined. A dull pale blue with no visible frit, painted on to plaster. Distinct streaks of black painted over the blue, the uppermost of which has a slightly reddish tinge. Seven white blobs applied over the black and blue, irregular in shape and size, in two roughly diagonal rows. Flattened edge, indicating the upper border of the painting (rather than the lower). Cf. the use of black on the sky of 553, 554, and above the house in 87.

219

557 (S35). N.20 East. Fig. 7.1 (Town by a River); Pl. 50. Sky. H. 2.9 x w. 1.5 x th. 0.9–1.1 cm. Small piece of sky, with colors blue/black/white relating it to 556. Black over blue, white impasto painted last.

558 (O9). N.20 East. Fig. 7.1 (Town by a River); Pl. 50. Sky. H. 1.0 x w. 1.2 x th. 0.8 cm. Scrap of sky, with colors blue, black, white relating it to 556. 559 (V29). N.18 East. Fig. 7.1 (Town by a River); Pl. 50. Sky. H. 3.2 x w. 1.5 x th. 0.7–1.0 cm. Blue over a creamy color, much worn. Over the blue, is black/ blue-gray. An ocher patch appears to underlie the black in parts, and a larger white blob is applied on top. The colors match those of pieces identified as sky. 560 (U75). N.18 East. Fig. 7.1 (Town by a River); Pl. 50. Sky. H. 4.2 x w. 2.1 (2.5) x th. 1.1–1.3 cm. Blue on plaster with worn applied white dots over the blue. Patch of ocher, maybe partially extraneous deposit but with ocher pigment. At the lower edge is white with faint traces of outlining suggesting the top of a building, which would make this sky. 561 (V18). N.18 East. Fig. 7.1 (Town by a River); Pl. 50. Sky. H. 4.7 x w. 2.3 x th. 0.9–1.0 cm. Two pieces joined. Blue with black/dark blue-gray over it in patches. Over the black are patches of ocher. A (now dull) white dot is applied on the upper part of the fragment. Traces of pink under the blue may indicate sketch lines, though they do not correspond to specific shapes. The colors and their order match the sky pieces 87 (with house), 553, 554, and 562. A string line is impressed into the plaster, indicating the vicinity of a building. Striations at the back of the plaster match the orientation of the string line as vertical. 562 (U73). N.18 East. Fig. 7.1 (Town by a River); Pl. 50. Sky. H. 4.0 (4.6) x w. 2.5 x th. 1.1 cm. Blue with dark bluegray over in patches. Over the darker tone is a curved line of applied white and, adjacent, what is probably a crescent shape of ocher though the center has flaked away. Touches of ocher elsewhere on the fragment and specks of black over the ocher. The colors and their order match the sky pieces 87 (with house), 553, and 554.

220

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

563 (U131). N.18 East. Pl. 51. Sky. H. 4.0 x w. 4.1 x th. 0.6–1.0 cm. Dull light blue over plaster, with traces of darker tone over. Paint partially flaked (surface abraded) around the amorphous white dot applied over the blue. 564 (R70). N.20 East. Pl. 51. Sky. H. 4.0 x w. 4.8 x th. 0.6–0.8 cm. Blue over plaster, with darker tone on one side. Two white dots applied over blue and four specks of ocher close by.

565 (R71). N.20 East. Fig. 7.1 (Town by a River); Pl. 51. Sky. H. 2.3 x w. 3.1 x th. 0.6 cm. Three small pieces joined; fourth piece drawn, missing at time of photo. Blue with two applied white dots over. Some black over blue in parts. 566 (V32). N.18 East. Pl. 51. Sky. H. 2.2 x w. 2.4 (3.2) x th. 1.1 cm. Light blue over plaster, with patches of black over the blue. Cf. 574 for the colors.

567 (H6). N.20 West. Pl. 51. Sky. H. 5.4 x w. 5.3 x th. 0.6 cm. Six pieces joined. Blue-gray with white and red

blobs over. Blue was applied to the plaster, and has grayblack painted on top, especially around the areas where white was subsequently applied.

570 (F10). N.20 Southwest. Fig. 7.17 (Deer and Dogs); Pl. 51. Sky and land. H. 4.8 x w. 3.7 x th. 0.7 cm. Blue over plaster, at least at the top. Traces of pink and perhaps yellow toward the bottom appear to underlie the blue. A white dot applied over the blue. The fragment is oriented as sky. 571 (F5). N.20 Southwest. Fig. 7.17 (Deer and Dogs); Pl. 51. Sky. H. 4.8 x w. 3.7 x th. 0.7 cm. Scrap of blue, with traces of pink underlying in places. A large amorphous white blob applied over the blue and two smaller dots. Blue appears to be over a thin wash of yellow, with pink added. The fragment is oriented as sky. 572 (H27). N.20 West. Fig. 7.17 (Deer and Dogs); Pl. 51. Sky and land. H. 4.7 x w. 4.0 x th. 0.6 cm. Faint pink painted over yellow ground, with blue and blue-gray above. Light blue on right painted over the pink. Blue at the top painted over plaster (revealed in places) with dark blue-gray over. 573 (H20). N.20 West. Fig. 7.17 (Deer and Dogs); Pl. 51. Sky and land. H. 4.3 x w. 4.0 x th. 0.7 cm. Yellow ground with a faint patch of pink painted over. Blue painted over the yellow, with a dot of white applied over the blue. Further specks of blue on the yellow and pink. The fragment is oriented as sky. 574 (V14). N.18 East. Pl. 51. Sky and structure (building?). H. 6.8 x w. 5.1 x th. 0.8–1.3 cm. Six pieces joined. In

568 (R67). N.20 East. Pl. 51. Sky. H. 3.7 x w. 2.5 x th. 0.7 cm. Blue with traces of gray (black) over in places. Two parallel rows of white dots (three and two, respectively) applied over the blue. Specks of ocher above. Probably sky, given the presence of black. 569 (E25). N.20 Southwest. Pl. 51. Sky. H. 2.8 x w. 2.8 x th. 1.2 cm. Blue on plaster. Amorphous blob of applied white over the blue and a patch of ocher at the edge of the fragment.

the upper section: pale blue, apparently on plaster with a roughish surface, with black painted over the blue, and small patches of ocher on the right. Over the blue/black, white is applied in a much worn shape toward the center, a small crescent, and a narrow horizontally winding strip. The latter separates the field. Beneath it the paint changes

LANDSCAPE, SEASCAPE, AND THE SKY

to black on smoothed buff plaster, and an ocher vertical strip with a patch of red over it. The fragment has broken along a string line, which is just visible at the top right edge. The blue, black, and white colors above suggest sky (cf. 87, 553, 554); the black, unpainted buff, and ocher strip may be part of a building with a wooden strut. The string line implies architecture (cf. 1, 88, 92, 561). The fragment probably belongs with buildings and sky and is closely related to 575. The back of the plaster slopes and has striations. 575 (U55). N.18 East. Pl. 51. Sky(?) and structure (building). H. 4.1 x w. 3.6 (4.0) x th. 0.9–1.4 cm. Two pieces joined. The colors match up with the lower section of 574 and must be part of a building. A string line on the right edge, with red beyond it. To the left of the string line is a vertical strip of unpainted plaster, next to that is a vertical strip of ocher with a red patch over it at the top of the fragment, and next to that is black, somewhat worn.

Additional Fragments of River, Coast, Sea, and Sky (Not Included in the Plates) 576 (C20). N.20 West. Fig. 7.17 (Deer and Dogs). Land and water. H. 3.9 x w. 3.2 x th. 0.8 cm. Blue over yellow ground, reconstructed as river.

577 (C15). N.20 West. Fig. 7.17 (Deer and Dogs). Land and water. H. 2.1 x w. 4.4 x th. 0.9 cm. Blue over yellow ground, reconstructed as river.

578 (J5). N.20 West. Fig. 7.17 (Deer and Dogs). Land and water. H. 3.7 x w. 3.8 x th. 0.4–0.7 cm. Blue at the edge of yellow ground, reconstructed as river.

579 (C21). N.20 West. Fig. 7.17 (Deer and Dogs). Land and water. H. 3.8 x w. 2.0 x th. 0.6 cm. Blue over yellow ground, reconstructed as river.

221

580 (B4). N.20 West. Fig. 7.17 (Deer and Dogs). Land and sea. H. 4.0 x w. 3.2 x th. 1.4 cm. Yellow ground with touches of ocher, blue sea over plaster. Cf. 477.

581 (C17). N.20 West. Fig. 7.17 (Deer and Dogs). Land and sea. H. 2.4 x w. 3.1 x th. 0.6 cm. Blue (partially flaked) and yellow ground, with applied white at the juncture between the two. Reconstructed as coast. 582 (J4). N.20 West. Fig. 7.17 (Deer and Dogs). Land and sea. H. 3.3 x w. 3.8 x th. 0.5 cm. Blue over yellow, poorly preserved, with traces of three applied white dots. Cf. 484, 489, 490, 581. 583 (C45). N.20 West. Fig. 7.17 (Deer and Dogs). Land and sea. H. 3.9 x w. 4.0 x th. 1.0 cm. Blue over yellow ground, partially flaked.

584 (G14). N.20 Northwest. Fig. 7.17 (Deer and Dogs). Land and sea. H. 2.2 x w. 4.0 x th. 0.8 cm. Blue-gray overlapping yellow ground, with blackish outline over the blue. White dot over the blue. Reconstructed as an inlet. Cf. 477, 481. 585 (P36). N.20 East. Fig. 7.21 (Marsh C). Land and sea. H. 1.8 x w. 3.7 x th. 0.9 cm. Blue at least partially over yellow where the color has flaked, with two applied white dots over. Above is yellow ground with a small area of ocher, presumably vegetation. 586 (X155). N.18 Central. Fig. 7.21 (Marsh C). Land and sea. H. 4.0 x 4.4 x 0.8 cm. Blue, now faint, and yellow. Traces of white over the blue.

222

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

587 (U87). N.18 East. River or inlet. H. 6.5 x w. 5.5 x th. 0.1 cm. Blue (partially worn) with blue-gray or black painted over. Two white dots applied over the blue. Yellow

591.3 (P39). N.20 East. Fig. 7.8 (Cauldrons and Ships Scene), cf. Fig. 7.26. Sea. H. 2.5 x 2.0 (edge 1.4) x 0.9 cm. Blue over plaster, with flattened edge. 591.4 (O19). N.20 East. Fig. 7.8 (Cauldrons and Ships Scene), cf. Fig. 7.26. Sea. H. 3.1 x 2.8 (edge 2.0) x 0.4–0.6 cm. Blue over plaster, with flattened edge.

ground above and below, with a darker streak of ocher, probably plant, and touch of blue at the top. Some white applied over the blue. The colors are murky, as they are poorly preserved, and it is unclear whether the blue was painted over plaster (which would suggest inlets and the sea) or over yellow (indicating river). The fragment is not included in a reconstruction. Microorganisms on the surface. 588 (Q36). N.20 East. Fig. 7.8 (Cauldrons and Ships Scene), cf. Fig. 7.26. Sea. H. 3.7 x w. 3.5 x th. 0.8–1.0 cm. Blue on plaster, with five applied white dots, three in a clump and two in a row.

589 (P38). N.20 East. Fig. 7.8 (Cauldrons and Ships Scene), cf. Fig. 7.26. Sea. H. 3.4 x w. 4.5 (edge) x th. 0.8– 0.9 cm. Blue over plaster. Flattened edge, indicating the lower or upper border of the painting. 590 (S37). N.20 East. Fig. 7.8 (Cauldrons and Ships Scene), cf. Fig. 7.26. Sea. H. 3.8 x w. 4.3 (edge 2.3) x th. 0.9–1.2 (edge) cm. Blue over plaster, with a row of five small dots in applied white. Flattened edge. 591.1 (N26). N.20 East. Fig. 7.8 (Cauldrons and Ships Scene), cf. Fig. 7.26. Sea. H. 2.1 x w. 2.5 x th. 0.9–1.2 cm. Blue over plaster, with flattened edge.

591.2 (P37). N.20 East. Fig. 7.8 (Cauldrons and Ships Scene), cf. Fig. 7.26. Sea. H. 3.5 x 2.9 (edge 2.4) x 0.8–1.0 (edge) cm. Blue over plaster, with flattened edge.

592 (H22). N.20 West. Fig. 7.17 (Deer and Dogs). Sea. H. 4.9 x w. 3.5 x th. 0.7 cm. Blue, probably over plaster, with two applied white dots.

593 (C31). N.20 West. Fig. 7.17 (Deer and Dogs). Sea. H. 6.5 x w. 5.3 (edge 4.0) x th. 1.9 cm. Blue over plaster, with applied white dot lower left. Flattened edge.

594.1 (C28). N.20 West. Fig. 7.17 (Deer and Dogs). Sky or sea. H. 2.2 x w. 3.3 (edge 3.0) x th. 1.1 cm. Blue-gray over plaster, with flattened edge, reconstructed as the upper edge of the sky. 594.2 (J6). N.20 West. Fig. 7.17 (Deer and Dogs). Sky or sea. H. 2.4 x w. 4.2 (edge 2.5) x th. 0.9–1.4 (edge) cm. Blue over plaster, with flattened edge, reconstructed as the upper edge of the sky. 594.3 (C24). N.20 West. Fig. 7.17 (Deer and Dogs). Sky or sea. H. 4.3 x 5.5 (edge 4.9) x 1.7 cm. Two pieces joined. Blue-gray over plaster, with flattened edge, reconstructed as the upper edge of the sky.

LANDSCAPE, SEASCAPE, AND THE SKY

223

595.1 (X150). N.18. Center. Fig. 7.17 (Deer and Dogs). Sky or sea. H. 3.0 x 3.5 (edge 3.0) x th. 1.1 cm. Blue-gray over plaster, with flattened edge, reconstructed as the upper edge of the sky.

602 (P40). N.20 West. Fig. 7.21 (Marsh C). Sea. H. 3.3 x w. 3.9 x th. 0.6–0.9 cm. Blue over plaster, poorly preserved, with a row of three applied white dots.

595.2 (X149). N.18. Center. Fig. 7.17 (Deer and Dogs). Sky or sea. H. 3.9 x 4.0 (edge 2.0) x 0.7 cm. Blue-gray over plaster, darker toward the flattened edge, reconstructed as the upper edge of the sky.

603 (Y59). N.18. Center. Fig. 7.21 (Marsh C). Sea. H. 3.4 x 3.1 x 0.6 cm. Blue over plaster, partly flaked, with two applied white dots.

596 (X147). N.18. Center. Fig. 7.17 (Deer and Dogs). Sky or sea. H. 3.2 x 4.7 (edge 3.0) x 0.5–1.0 (edge) cm. Bluegray over plaster, darker toward f lattened edge and with patches of ocher over the blue. Reconstructed as the upper edge of the sky.

604.1 (E17). N.20 West. Fig. 7.21 (Marsh C). Sea. H. 5.3 x w. 6.5 (edge 6.0) x left th. 1.9–3.4 (edge)/right th. 1.2–1.9 (edge) cm. Two pieces joined. Blue over plaster, partly flaked, with two small applied white dots. Flattened edge.

597 (X144). N.18 Central. Fig. 7.19 (Marsh A). Sea. H. 2.3 x w. 1.6 x th. 0.6 cm. Blue-gray with thick impasto white dot over.

598 (U130). N.18 East. Fig. 7.19 (Marsh A). Sea. H. 2.7 x 2.0 x 0.9 cm. Blue over white plaster, with an applied white elongated blob.

599 (R68). N.20 East. Fig. 7.20 (Marsh B). Sea. H. 4.6 x w. 3.5 x th. 0.9–1.2 cm. Blue-gray over plaster, with a small applied white blob.

600 (R72). N.20 East. Fig. 7.20 (Marsh B). Sea. H. 1.9 x w. 2.1 x th. 0.7 cm. Blue probably painted on plaster, with two applied white dots. The piece apparently broke between drawing and photography and now has a join. 601 (C22). N.20 West. Fig. 7.20 (Marsh B). Sea. H. 3.2 x w. 3.6 (edge 2.9) x th. 0.9–1.0 (edge) cm. Poorly preserved blue-gray over plaster, with five applied white dots. Flattened edge.

604.2 (E18). N.20 West. Fig. 7.21 (Marsh C). Sea. H. 4.5 x w. 5.0 x th. 4.5 cm. Blue over plaster, very poorly preserved, with an applied white dot. Flattened edge.

604.3 (C30). N.20 West. Fig. 7.21 (Marsh C). Sea. H. 4.0 x w. 4.6 (edge 4.0) x th. 0.8–1.5 (edge) cm. Blue-gray on plaster, partly flaked, with flattened edge.

605 (S34). N.20 East. Fig. 7.24 (Marsh E). Sea. H. 4.4 x w. 6.5 x th. 0.8 cm. Eight pieces joined. Blue-gray on plaster, with a row of irregular applied white dots.

224

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

606 (L5). N.20 West. Fig. 7.24 (Marsh E). Sea. H. 2.7 x w. 3.0 x th. 1.2 cm. Blue over plaster, with an applied white dot.

607.1 (G8). N.20 Northwest. Fig. 7.24 (Marsh E). Sea. H. 5.2 x w. 5.5 x th. 0.7–1.0 cm. Blue over plaster, with an irregular applied white dot.

607.2 (G7). N.20 Northwest. Fig. 7.24 (Marsh E). Sea. H. 2.1 x w. 2.3 (edge 2.1) x th. 1.4 cm. Blue over plaster, with an applied white dot. Flattened edge.

608 (J7). N.20 West. Fig. 7.24 (Marsh E). Sea. H. 5.8(6.2) x w. 8.0 x th. 2.1 cm. Blue over plaster. The color is preserved unevenly, the blue being more intense where it is thicker.

609 (B6). N.20 West. Fig. 7.24 (Marsh E). Sea. H. 2.1 x w. 1.5 (edge 1.2) x th. 1.1 cm. Blue-gray over plaster, with a flattened edge.

610 (S53). N.20 East. Fig. 7.19 (Marsh A). Ground. H. 2.0 x w. 1.6 x th. 1.4 cm. Yellow ground with a sloping edge indicating the corner between two walls. In the photograph and drawing, the piece is angled to show the sloped edge on the left.

7

Visualizing the Past: The Composition of the Miniature Frieze

To reconstruct is to recreate, to piece together a picture that forms an impression of how something was or might have been: to visualize the past. The visualizations of the scenes are presented in this chapter, either as small vignettes or as larger sections of the frieze, all at one-third scale. The methodology behind each is provided, as a reference for readers wishing to understand both how the composition was made and where each scene might originally have been placed on the walls. The rationale for this approach is transparency, that the reader may check the results through the process. Suggestions on the architectural context and how the scenes related to one another within the iconographic program follow at the end of the chapter, under the heading “The Room of the Miniature Frieze.” The process of reconstruction was discussed in the Prologue (pp. 9–14). This process evolved over the long period of time in which I was engaged in the study. Two different but complimentary methods of execution of the final stages of reconstruction have been used. The first illustrations were executed as colored line drawings. On the whole, this suited the subjects rendered—human figures, animals,

buildings, ships, chariot—the areas between the surviving elements being rendered either as line drawings (continuations of the forms) or as empty spaces (the unknown wider context). The more recent compositions were executed as watercolor paintings, in an attempt to render the painterly qualities of the landscape. In two cases, Town by a River (Fig. 7.1) and Deer and Dogs (Fig. 7.17), a colored line drawing preceded the final watercolor version. In both cases, the change was precipitated by expansion of the composition to include considerable landscape. Figure 7.17 appears in both forms in the book, in Chapter 5 as a colored line drawing of some of the animals (Fig. 5.1), and in this chapter complete with landscape as a watercolor painting. In all cases, the fragments are clearly distinguished from the reconstruction. To facilitate the reader’s understanding, each composition is provided with outlines of the fragments as related to one another, with catalog number in bold outside the fragment outline, and context number inside the outline. While the colored drawings are intended as visualizations of the iconographic content, the watercolor paintings also attempt to capture something of the painterly qualities of the originals.

226

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

Taking the process one step further, Figure 7.26 is a free rendition (without distinguishing the fragments) that combines the compositions of Figure 7.8 (Cauldrons and Ships, there a colored drawing) with Figure 7.25 (Rocky Landscape) into a unified watercolor painting, to suggest a way in which the two may have been related. The resulting composition appears in the visualization of the room, Figure 7.27, the rationale for which is discussed in the text. While the room contains many hypothetical elements—positions of windows, placement of compositions, height of the frieze—it is included to give the reader a glimpse of the impact that the paintings might have had on those fortunate enough to be inside the room. In all the illustrations, the reconstructed details were based on the information available from other fragments. In the colored drawings, the men’s profiles, hair, hands, limbs, and garments were wholly or partially traced from other fragments, whether facing in the same direction or reversed. In the case of the landscape in the watercolors, as many pieces were used as possible, combining fragments from similar areas and depths of the excavation as far as possible. Gaps were therefore filled with real pieces rather than imaginary ones. Where the landscape elements remain unknown (between, above, and below many of the men or beneath the rocky landscape), I have left the spaces blank. This often gives an unfinished appearance, which earlier generations of restorers might not have chosen to do. It was a matter of balancing the attempt to recapture the original aesthetic and keeping within the boundaries of probability. The eye of the observer is free to imagine the whole.

Figure 7.1: Town by a River Earlier, less complete versions of this scene were published in black and white in the 1990s.1 A number of changes and additions have since been made, and the composition is now presented as a watercolor painting. This new version relates the river to sea, adds some additional fragments of plants and sky, and speculates on the basic form of the town. With great good fortune, it has been possible to place four nonjoining fragments, found in the same context, into their original relationship: a building with dome-shaped projections against blue cloudy 1 Morgan 1990, 254, fig. 1; 1998, 208, fig. 4. The final version presented in Fig. 7.1 also appears in Morgan 2018b.

sky (87); part of a building with window, with plants to the side (88); a woman walking at the base of a building, with plants to the side (1); and a river, with plants above (422). Each of these fragments has a pronounced ridge on the back, which, when aligned, provide an assured vertical relationship. These ridges were formed as the wet lime plaster was applied to the backing plaster, seeping into a vertical gap in the latter, no doubt where it abutted a beam (see this vol., Ch. 9, p. 330). They provide an unprecedented opportunity for confidently reconstructing a section of the composition from close to the top to close to the bottom. With the addition of blue edge pieces for sky and sea, it has been possible to estimate the overall height of the frieze at ca. 54 cm, with the knowledge that sea consistently formed the base of the frieze. While it is possible that marsh ran between river and sea, there is no direct evidence for this in this section, and adding marsh would have substantially increased the overall height, beyond the norm for Aegean miniatures. It is assumed that the river continued both to the left and right of this part of the composition. As the river rises steeply upward at the extreme right of the composition, the higher placement of the continuing river would have left space for the marsh between river and sea. The posture and proportions of the woman (1) have been altered from the earlier version to align with the surviving upper body of the woman walking by a doorway (3) in Figure 7.3. As there is no arm in the surviving fragment, her left arm (closest to the viewer) must have been bent at the elbow, unlike that of the woman balancing a pot on her head in the Thera Miniature Frieze, which hangs down (Fig. 2.1:b). Most likely, as in Figure 7.3, she is balancing a container on her head with her right hand. The pot is reconstructed on the basis of the Thera Miniature Frieze (Fig. 2.1:b), in which the partially surviving pot has evidence of handles, and the Kea fragment 15, which does not. Alternatively, the container could have been straight, as in 3, 17, and 24. The dip at the front of her skirt is based on that of the women in 2 and follows traces of blue on the surface of the fragment. Beneath the woman (1) is a straight horizontal area of blue, traversed by vertical black lines. It ends abruptly immediately behind her. The structure is picked up in 427, where a bush lies immediately beneath it. There are no parallels for this feature. In the reconstruction it has been continued to the right to potentially cross the rising river. I assume that it represents a bridge.

VISUALIZING THE PAST: THE COMPOSITION OF THE MINIATURE FRIEZE

227

On the basis of 3 in Figure 7.3, a doorway has been reconstructed in which to frame the woman. Windows and doors are, however, consistently framed in ocher (depicting wood), and a patch of red at the right edge of 88, placed above the woman, is problematic. A fragment of windows (111) has been added to the left of the composition, though there is no direct link, and it could have belonged to another part of the town that has not survived, or even to the buildings of Figure 7.8, Cauldrons and Ships. Given the lines of the surrounding beams there are likely to have been two horizontal rows of small window openings, as reconstructed. The number of windows in each row could have been two, three, or four. Here three have been reconstructed to accommodate the estimated width of the building and by analogy with the Thera Miniature Frieze and the Akrotiri architecture. Sea has been added to the lower edge of the illustration, on the grounds that all surviving edges of the frieze are blue or blue with white dots. Six pieces demonstrate unequivocally that sky lay above the buildings, most notably 87 and 90. One of these has the corner of the building (91), while a seventh fragment continues the blue to the side of a string line belonging to the right edge of the building (92). To these seven pieces have been added others identified as sky on the basis of the addition of ocher and blue-gray and the configurations of the white dots (less orderly than for the sea), remarkably capturing an impression of a cloudy sky. Two of these (553 and 554), both large fragments, have flattened edges, providing clear evidence for the upper edge of the frieze. The majority of fragments, and all four of those linked by the ridge on the back, came from N.18 East. A few are from N.18 Center and N.20 East. One large piece of sky came from N.20 West. This part of the frieze most likely came from the eastern part of the north wall of N.20. Altogether 42 fragments were included in this reconstruction. Three of the sky fragments (553, 554, 556) preserve the upper edge of the composition, while four of the sea fragments preserve the lower edge (545 and 550–552).

of a town. All with yellow ground (in contrast to the blue sky of Fig. 7.1), and all with the projections, the passages clearly belong together, but their exact relationship to one another is unknown. This composition, which includes 11 fragments, was previously published in black and white.2 Only minor changes have been made here. On the left, three pieces are combined, the largest with overlapping buildings in white, with a single window, a vertical string line, and horizontal beams, the smaller two being a dome-shaped projection on a blue cornice with string line to the right, and part of the same blue cornice. Fragment 93 shows that the buildings are tiered, here on three levels. In the center are four pieces with blue-gray areas subdivided by horizontal beams, and in the largest piece (102) verticals divide the area into windows. White areas and dome-shaped projections connect these buildings to those on the left. There are two vertical string lines. Again, this part of the composition shows that the buildings were tiered. On the right, four fragments combine to produce a three-tiered structure, with three vertical string lines. The buildings are red ocher with black horizontal lines and white with coursed stonework on the left and horizontal lines above. The coursed stonework relates it to the lower right part of the central passage, but the two do not connect. There are three separate dome-shaped projections, two of which cannot belong to the other passages of the composition, the third (96) being placed here, rather than at the top of the central passage, as the white cornice with horizontal division is appropriate in this section of buildings. The pieces in the passage placed on the left all came from the east side of N.20. All the other pieces came from N.18, except for one from the southeast. Assuming they belonged to the same part of the overall composition, the buildings with dome-like projections ought to have been on the north wall of N.20 or, less likely, the north part of the east wall of N.20. In terms of context, it is possible that the passage presented here on the left was actually to the right (east) of the other passages, but it is placed in this relationship because it has a clearly defined left edge to the building.

Figure 7.2: Buildings

2 Morgan 1998, 209, fig. 5.

Three passages of related buildings with dome-like projections have been combined to give an impression

228

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

0

5

10 cm

Figure 7.1A. Visualization of Town by a River. Scale 1:3. Watercolor L. Morgan.

Figure 7.3: Women and Buildings Two passages with women and buildings have been combined in one composition, without actually joining. That they are related is clear from the iconography as well as the context, and their relative positions are determined by the directions in which

the women face. Eight fragments are used, four in each passage. On the left, a woman facing toward the right is framed in what appears to be a high doorway, balancing a container on her head (3). It is assumed she is walking past the door, her feet on the ground, the sway of her body and right arm suggesting forward

VISUALIZING THE PAST: THE COMPOSITION OF THE MINIATURE FRIEZE

R33

D11

U129

N18

U73

S3 556

555 553

V18

229

562

561

554

V 22 89

U75

R71

U62 559 91 U125 92

U9

560

90 87

111

V 29

565

U10

N3

557 O9 558

U16 U109 88 420

Y34 417

U6

U28 M17

Y3

418

423

1 U83

U98

419

U96

421

427

W12

428

U145

424 487 486 U84

U17 U118 426 425

422 W48

U128 546

485 Y65 X146

547 550

549

Y66

Y5

Y86

551

U78 U80 552

545

0

5

U81 548

10 cm

Figure 7.1B. Outlines of fragments from Town by a River. Scale 1:3. Image L. Morgan.

motion. A vertical string line defines the right edge of the door frame, beyond which is an area of red with black horizontal lines. The door frame on the left is not marked with a string line, but the left edge of the matching lined red area is. At the left edge of this fragment (104), beyond a white vertical strip, is a

change of color to ocher, indicating that the building continued (though the reconstruction stops here). It is assumed that the doorway was symmetrical, and matching lines have been added on the other side. On the right, a woman is framed within a window, with her hand raised, facing left (4). A second

230

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

0

5

10 cm

U18 U60 R11 S32

95

100

94

U 112

96 U19

101

97

U17

U13

P9

98

U12 102 93

W3 103

99

Figure 7.2. Visualization (top) and outlines (bottom) of Buildings. Scale 1:3. Drawings L. Morgan.

window has been reconstructed symmetrically to the right, with a piece that preserves parts of three sides of the frame (106), the width being slightly wider than that estimated for the window with the woman. The main fragment (4), demonstrates that to the right of the woman an ocher beam runs in line with part of the top of the window frames, and above this are windows without frames, surrounded

by walls of white with irregular black lines indicative of rubble masonry. A second window surrounded by the same stonework with beam beneath is shown in 105. Above the two windows in rubble masonry, a second horizontal beam is assumed. There are two string lines, one on 4, running up the outer edge of the window frame and marking the side of the rubble masonry to upper right, the other on 109,

VISUALIZING THE PAST: THE COMPOSITION OF THE MINIATURE FRIEZE

0

5

231

10 cm

V15

Y1+V

105

U15 U20 104

U144

109

U63 4 106

U50

A3 3

108

107

Figure 7.3. Visualization (top) and outlines (bottom) of Women and Buildings. Scale 1:3. Drawings L. Morgan.

reconstructed as the other side of the woman’s window frame. It is unclear how high the latter went. The top of the window frame has been reconstructed projecting, to match the bottom, but it could have ended at the string line. It is assumed that the window with the woman was some way above the ground, and the lower edge of the upper frame has been aligned with the top of the door frame. Architecturally, one would have expected a vertical line linking the lower and upper horizontal extensions to the window frame, but none survive. It is unknown whether this part of

the building was symmetrical, as suggested in the reconstruction, hence gaps have been left between the window on the right and the upper windows to indicate an unknown space. All but one of the fragments were found in N.18, the majority in the southeast. One fragment (107) was found in a combined lot from N.20. Assuming that the north wall of N.20 fell northward, as seems to have been the case, this part of the composition should have come from the eastern part of the north wall of N.20.

232

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

Figure 7.4: Thistles and Descending Rocks Fifteen fragments of blue and ocher plants have been compiled in this composition. Fragment 261, placed lower left, has a wide expanse of blue with ocher, as well as a strip of white. This suggests that the plants were bunched together near the ground, but the reconstruction has been left open at this point. Farther up in the composition, each plant is composed of an oval blue shape with several opposing ocher spikes running up the sides and a central one near the top. They appear to represent thistles (see this vol., Ch. 6). Fragment 257 is related but not included in the composition. In five of the fragments (248–251, 254) there are red descending rocks above the thistles, with the trace of another in 256. These differ from the descending rocks in Figures 7.14 and 7.25, in which the colors subtly shift between pink, red, blue, and blue-black. In 247, placed far left, the plant on yellow ground is divided from a white area by a string line accompanied by a faint pink guide line. This indicates that a building lay to the left of the plants, which is not, however, included in the composition as there is too little to go on. It is likely that the thistles lay between two buildings, as to the left of Figure 7.5, Building and Plants, where similar blue and ocher plants on yellow ground lie to the right of a string line with pink guide lines, clearly belonging to a relatively large building. That composition is in turn related to Figure 7.6, Horse and Building, as discussed below (cf. pp. 268–269). All but one of the fragments were found in N.18, mostly in the center (i.e., center-south). One fragment was found in N.20 East. All three related compositions in Figures 7.4–7.6 are likely to have come from the west and central part of the north wall in N.20.

Figure 7.5: Building and Plants Forty-four fragments are combined to produce a composition of a white building with plants growing at its base and to the sides. The white is unpainted plaster. Four pieces offer the diagnostic criteria for the combination. Fragments 141 (composed of five joined fragments) and 142 demonstrate

the juxtaposition of blue plants on yellow ground to the left of a white building with large windows framed by ocher wooden beams, the yellow and the white being separated by a string line. Fragment 165, placed in the middle, shows that plants continued against the white building, which is partitioned by another string line, while 176, placed on the far right, demonstrates that a third string line separates the white building with plants from yellow ground with plants to the right. We have, therefore, a large white building with yellow ground on either side, plants growing all the way along. As reconstructed, the building is 50 cm long. The only architectural features recognizably belonging to this building are two pairs of windows set directly within the white wall, which is framed by wooden beams. Three pieces of plain white plaster have been placed above the beam, along with a fragment of white bisected by a string line (155). (The latter, with traces of pink and ocher that have not been reconstructed, may have belonged elsewhere.) Running along what is presumably the base of the building are narrow ocher, blue, and silvery gray leaves, gently swaying as they rise, along with a large blue plant (165) and unusual silvery gray and red delicate leaves growing from thin red stems (168). Traces of pinkish-red horizontal lines on nine of the pieces, four of them with plants, mark the approximate height of the majority of the leaves, and they were presumably guide lines. Above the plants on the left are the windows; above the plants on the right must have been other architectural features, but a lack of recognizable fragments meant that this area had to be left blank. Both the building and the plants are relatively large in scale when compared to the human figures in other compositions. To the left of the building, on yellow ground, are large blue plants with ocher projections, which are probably related to the thistles, Figure 7.4. To the right of the building here, on yellow ground, are bunches of short, narrow ocher leaves, similar, though not identical, to those in the Horse and Buildings composition, Figure 7.6. We may therefore imagine a continuous passage containing all three compositions (cf. below, pp. 268–269). All but three of the fragments in this composition are from N.18 Center. The other three are from N.20 East, from a deeper level, so they presumably fell first. The majority of the fragments in the thistle composition also came from N.18 Center, and of the

VISUALIZING THE PAST: THE COMPOSITION OF THE MINIATURE FRIEZE

0

5

233

10 cm

Y36 X49 247

X5 248

V3 249

X47 + W10

W11 X 171

256 X48 258 N16 259 X44

X46

261

262

251

254 X45 252

Y 24

X37 255

U106 250

253

260

Figure 7.4. Visualization (top) and outlines (bottom) of Thistles and Descending Rocks. Scale 1:3. Drawings L. Morgan.

fewer fragments in the Horse and Buildings composition, most came from N.18 East. Therefore, the composition, over a meter in length, came from the dividing wall between Rooms N.18 and N.20, but from which side is unclear from the context, since the wall apparently collapsed northward into N.18, both sides becoming mixed in the debris. However, as the Miniature Frieze is highly unlikely to have continued in N.18, it is probable that these scenes came from the north wall of N.20.

Figure 7.6: Horse and Building In this composition, which includes eight fragments, the diagnostic piece that links animal to

environment is 138, in which a hoof with plants beneath is combined with a building to the right. The hoof is black and, as preserved, has a projection like a fetlock. While it could belong to a goat, the color, size, and shape of the front suggest a horse. It has been combined with four other pieces of a black horse: a head (217), body and forelegs (218), a leg (221), and a hoof with another plant beneath (222). While these pieces may have belonged to more than one animal, perhaps from different parts of the composition, they are combined here to demonstrate the structure of a horse as represented within the frieze. Black is the least stable of the colors used (this vol., Ch. 9), and the bumpy outline of the head may be accidental. The building as preserved comprises a vertical white strip marked out on both sides by string lines,

234

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

0

X125

139

X 126

143

144

X110

146

141 W40

X187

X59

151

145 X 189

148 X120

152

150

142

Y72

W39 X188

147

X109

X58

155

159.2

140

Y11

X94 153 X83

X93

156

M26

157 M25 M25 158

149 X 124

154 165

X6

159.1 X115

X182

164.2

160 X52 X116 162 161

10 cm

X 101

X113

X111 X112

5

X 183

164.3 X84

Y29 164.1 163

M13 X91

X62

169

167

X118

W20 170

X82

173

171

166 X 100

X114

X119

168

X117

172

Figure 7.5. Visualization (top) and outlines (bottom) of Building and Plants. Scale 1:3. Drawings L. Morgan.

174

175

X51 176

X25 177

VISUALIZING THE PAST: THE COMPOSITION OF THE MINIATURE FRIEZE

0

235

5 cm

H18+ U37

X14

225

208 M5

193

Figure 7.7 Visualization (top) and outlines (bottom) of Herder with Goat. Scale 1:3. Drawings L. Morgan. 0

5

10 cm

W2

135

U22 217

U71 136

I2

U70

218 E 15 Y10

horse, although (as demonstrated by 225 incorporated into Fig. 7.7) the two locations can occasionally yield joining pieces. This composition is associated through the architecture and plants with Figure 7.4 (Thistles and Descending Rocks) and Figure 7.5 (Buildings and Plants), all of which are likely to have come from the north wall of N.20.

137 221

Figure 7.7: Herder with Goat

U8 222 138

Figure 7.6. Visualization (top) and outlines (bottom) of Horse and Building. Scale 1:3. Drawings L. Morgan.

with roughly horizontal black lines. It lies adjacent to ocher subdivided by black vertical lines. All the widths are preserved in the fragment 138. Three other pieces of the building have been added. This building lies behind the horse, which walks away from it toward the left of the picture. All the fragments of the building, including the horse’s hind hoof, came from N.18, mostly east. Two of the other horse fragments (head and forehoof with plant) also came from N.18, while the other two came from N.20 West and Southwest. It is quite possible that those two belonged to a different

This small vignette comprises three fragments of white animals, the crucial one being 208, which has a man’s arm and hand extending across the back of the animal. Two front legs have been added to this animal (193), while the rump and tail of a second animal has been placed to the right (225). These are just a few of the numerous fragments of white ungulates (another ungulate, 226, is gray) included in Plates 17–19. The animals are presumably domestic goats and/or sheep, but legs and parts of bodies appear to be all that have survived, and there are no distinguishable heads. As there are no characteristic wool hairs on the backs of these two animals, it is likely that they were goats rather than sheep. The illustration draws attention to the fact that there was a herding scene in the frieze, perhaps comparable to the pastoral scene on the north wall of the Thera Miniature Frieze (Fig. 5.4).

236

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

One fragment was found in N.18, one on the east side of N.20, while the third is composed of two joined pieces, one from N.18 and one from N.20 west. This is a rare instance of joining pieces across the two rooms. Most likely the scene was in the northern part of N.20, perhaps on the north wall, close to the urban settlements.

Figure 7.8: Cauldrons and Ships Scene An earlier version of this scene was published in black and white and in color.3 Several changes and additions have since been made. The new version presented here incorporates a significant element of deduction in relation to the ships, based both on the available evidence from Kea and the comparative example of the Thera Ship Frieze (Figs. 3.2, 11.1:c, d). It stops short of drawing completely from the Thera ships (there are no prow or stern figureheads, and no paddlers/rowers, although some form of propulsion other than a helmsman must have existed). Instead, it incorporates only those elements that seem likely on the basis of the surviving pieces (the stern projection to accommodate the stern cabin and, by extension, the helmsman). The composition, which includes 32 fragments, centers on the large piece 67, with the unique scene of men bending over cauldrons, close to the shore of the sea. While some of the red ocher of the men has flaked off, enough survives to be able to trace the original forms. The white loincloths are relatively well preserved on all the figures; the legs of the man on the left are perfectly preserved, but only traces of his head survive, while the heads of the remaining two figures have entirely disappeared. In the colored drawing, these heads are reconstructed, both on the fragment and, in the case of the (tentatively restored) seated figure, beyond the edge of the fragment. Three fragments of men’s legs against yellow ground, with blue beneath, are included in the composition on the left, showing the men walking along the coast toward the cauldron scene. In 60 it is evident that the man was in a wide stride. In 61 the overlapping legs of two men proved problematic, as both legs are straight, whereas on all other figures 3 Morgan 1990, 255, fig. 2; 1998, 209, fig. 6; 2007b, pl. 14.1. The final version presented in Fig. 7.8 also appears in Morgan 2015, fig. 1:e. Cf. Morgan 2020b on interpretation.

in the frieze the front leg is bent at the knee. Eventually I realized that one man faced to left, the other to right, both surviving legs being the extended back one. Fragment 59 is a particularly complex piece, comprising multiple legs of overlapping men. This has been included in the composition on the far right, but is discussed separately as the Figure 7.8 detail, owing to a number of anomalous features. A fourth fragment of men’s legs (57) is included on the far right of the composition, showing two men walking left toward the cauldrons. The feet, and hence the sea, are not preserved, but the loin cloth and hand dangling behind the body provide useful information. For variety (much loved by the artists of the Kea miniatures), the figures in these fragments have been given different arm movements, based partially on the surviving evidence from Kea and partially on comparison with the men walking and running by the shore in the Thera Miniature Frieze (Fig. 4.5). Above and to the left of the men and cauldrons is a large building, without visible windows, doors, or other features. This building was planned at the outset of the painting, as evidenced by the reserved area of white on the right, which was marked out on the damp plaster with parallel vertical string lines. Several other pieces of architecture have been added to the composition, somewhat tentatively, given certain technical factors and their poor state of preservation. Like the building in 67, these fragments suggest large unbroken areas of ocher and white, divided vertically, with or without string lines, in contrast to the smaller scale architectural format of those pieces included in Figures 7.1–7.3, in which the surfaces are broken up by horizontal structures (beams) and frequent changes in texture. Somewhat problematically, however, in all the pieces except 67, the white consists of paint applied over the yellow ground color, rather than the reserved white of the plaster. Some of the surfaces of the fragments, 126 in particular, are eroded to such an extent that it is impossible to determine the color that surrounded the visible ocher. In such cases, those areas are left blank in the reconstruction. To distinguish intentional white from eroded surface, the reader is referred to the relevant catalog entries. Fragment 122 on Plate 13 almost certainly belonged in this scene (and was included in the earlier drawing), but the surface is too poorly preserved to reconstruct with color, so it was excluded in this final version. It is possible that the heads and upper bodies of the men walking along the coast overlapped white areas of the building, as in the case of the two men at

VISUALIZING THE PAST: THE COMPOSITION OF THE MINIATURE FRIEZE

the base of the Departure Town in the Thera Miniature Frieze (Fig. 4.4). Their red ocher skin is less likely to have overlapped brown (though the forehead of the man bending over a cauldron did so). However, on the basis of the extent of yellow beneath the structure in 123, it is likely that the buildings were tiered, rising from right to left, which means the men would have been clearly defined against the yellow ground. This is how the composition has been reconstructed. It is possible that originally some windows punctuated the walls, but these are very different buildings from the others in the frieze, so I have not made that assumption. The reconstruction of the architecture serves as a minimalist impression of the continuation of these structures. While the ground between sea and buildings is yellow, faint traces of blue and pink landscape are visible on the yellow ground to the right, above the right-hand man with cauldron and the seated man. This probably indicates a rocky landscape, but insufficient paint survives to justify reconstruction in this case. An impression of how it might have looked is provided in Figure 7.26, which links this composition with that of the Rocky Landscape (Fig. 7.25). Beneath the men is the blue sea, with the top of a wooden mast and awning or rolled sail of a ship. A similar construction, with a patterned emblem on the awning, a vertical beam, the horizontal beam beneath the awning, and traces of men beneath that, is preserved in 71. This is reconstructed as the awning of a second ship, with seated passengers, like the elite passengers on the ships in procession in the Thera Miniature Frieze (Figs. 3.2, 11.1:c, d). The heads are extremely fugitive patches of red and are surrounded by some white, making the interpretation somewhat tentative. Part of the awning and post are visible in the sea beneath the man in 60, assuring placement of that figure. Three paddlers wearing loincloths (63) reconstructed separately as Figure 7.9, presumably belonged close to this scene, but they are not included here as their position is uncertain. Four other fragments show male figures against blue, three of whom are evidently sailors: 62 (a paddler in loincloth), 64, and 65. None could be fitted in to the composition as presented. The large head of 64 has no awning above; the man in 65 is adjacent to what looks like a sail, though the angles are ambiguous. As there is no room for a sail on either of these ships, whose awnings are very close to the coast, the fragment cannot be included in this composition. One should, however, be aware that more ships appear to have existed, as suggested in Figure 7.26.

237

Four pieces of hull have been included in this composition: three with a festoon and one with dolphins. As the dolphins point toward the right, the direction of the ships moving from left to right is established. A third ship apparently had a double festoon of red and yellow beads (75), there being no appropriate place for the fragment in either of the reconstructed ships. This forms the basis for the third ship in Figure 7.26. A fragment of a star pattern (76) may also have belonged to this or another hull. A piece with hide and a wooden strut has a blue background and should, therefore, be on the sea (78). It has been reconstructed here as a stern cabin, on the model of those on the ships in procession in the Thera Miniature Frieze (Figs. 3.2, 11.1:c, d). Patches of ocher and red beyond the structure, over the blue, are insufficiently preserved in form to permit reconstruction but probably indicated a wooden structure and possibly a man, respectively. Given the close similarities between these fragmentary ships and the well-preserved ships of the Thera frieze, a helmsman with rudder has been sketched in, along with a stern landing plank (see this vol., Ch. 3) and additional elite passengers beneath the awning. While there is tentative evidence for passengers in 71, there are no surviving fragments of these other features, which are included on the assumption, based on what survives, that these were intended to represent functional ceremonial ships and to give an impression of what they might have looked like. However, while the Thera ships are propelled by paddlers and (in one case) rowers, the complete lack of paddles or oars over the surviving pieces of hull means that such an assumption cannot be made for the Kea ships. A drawing of one of the ships with the hull piece rearranged to provide space for paddles/oars is provided in Figure 3.1:b. In the reconstruction, the drawing of the ships provides an impression, using all the available evidence, but should not be considered as complete or definitive in structure. Beneath the hulls, the sea is blue, without the characteristic white dots of other fragments. Several pieces of sea, mostly with flattened edges indicative of the base of the frieze, have been added to the composition. One piece (74), which could not be included owing to its poor state of preservation, nonetheless defines the distance from the bottom edge of the frieze to the lower line of the hull of a ship. Unfortunately, the confusing remnants of paint make reconstruction of this piece untenable, but the row of white dots near the base show that it is sea, as does the fact that the blue is painted directly onto the plaster, while

238

N11 P32 124 M19

126

125

123

N2 W25

O2

61 A2

59

60

R4 71

516 515 L4

Q16

517

P6

72

518 590

O11 Q36 588

S37

P38 589

M30

519 P21

Figure 7.8. Visualization (top) and outlines (bottom) of the Cauldrons and Ships scene. Scale 1:3. Drawings L. Morgan.

R

239

0

5

10 cm

R12 127

R1

T2 57 67

R16 78

521521

R32 R32

68

591.2 P37

N26 591.1

R17

P39 591.3

70

69

Q1

R6 O19 591.4

522 R74

523 R75

520 R73

240

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

0

5

10 cm

the white, red, blue, and ocher painted on top of the blue can only be a ship. This piece serves to determine the lower line of the composition. That the ships are close to the bottom of the frieze is also indicated by 68, a piece of hull and sea, which is slightly convex at the center, becoming slightly concave at the bottom, a formation caused by the plaster being pressed down onto the horizontal beam. The fragments of sea, some plain blue, others with white dots, were chosen from a large number of such pieces to match the context of the cauldron scene and ships. One piece (516), placed far left at the base, may actually have belonged to the side of the frieze, at the juncture between two walls, as the edge is uncharacteristically thin. It was not possible to include it in a reconstruction as a side, however, as what lay at either end of the wall remains unknown. Virtually all pieces in this composition are from the east side of N.20. One fragment (60) is from a mixed deposit that, while mainly from the west, includes pieces from the east and southeast. Just 515, included to go with 516, came from the west, and only 59 (discussed below) had fallen into N.18. Most likely, the Cauldron and Ships scene was painted on the eastern part of the south wall of Room N.20. The overlapping men in 59 (Fig. 7.8:detail; Pl. 6) have been included in the composition of Cauldrons and Ships, but they require further consideration here. This fragment of legs and loincloths, while evidently a group of men walking toward the right with their legs overlapping one another, was extremely difficult to reconstruct. While the numerous red feet and the white loincloth provide key points in the composition, the entanglement of legs quickly posed problems in joining them to their feet. Had this been an Egyptian

Figure 7.8:detail. Overlapping men (59) in the Cauldrons and Ships scene at 1:2 scale. Image L. Morgan.

artist painting, the overlapping figures would have been differentiated through tonal distinctions—one lighter, one darker. But the artist here used the same shade of red for the skin of all the figures. Furthermore, toward the top of the fragment, red paint has been swept across the area, with the white of loincloths placed over the top. The care taken to delineate individual figures elsewhere in the frieze has given way to generalization, in a technique that distantly echoes that used for the men in the miniature paintings from Knossos, who are defined only by touches of black (hair) and white (eyes, jewelry, loincloths) painted over a mass of red. It is also entirely possible that some of the red of the legs has flaked. It was only by taking a few liberties with the legs of the two men on the right that I was finally able to construct a composition that was readable to the modern eye. There appear to be six men, and all must have been wearing white loincloths as there is no evidence for any longer garments. Though their feet are painted on the usual yellow ocher ground, their legs are painted onto white. This white was evidently applied over the yellow ground, but as it has no visible outlines, I have not attempted to reconstruct it. There are two possible interpretations: either it is a white building behind the men, or the artist has used white paint to provide a mini-canvas for the overlapping figures. Examples of the latter technique in large-scale wall painting exist at Akrotiri, Thera. One of the mature women in procession in the corridor of Xeste 3 holds a bunch of flowers that is partially painted against blue, and the same technique is applied to the olive branches associated with the altar.4 In both cases, the blue, which 4 Vlachopoulos 2008b, figs. 41.36 and 41.10. These details are not visible in the published photographs. I am most grateful to Andreas Vlachopoulos for the opportunity to observe these paintings in the Apotheke at Akrotiri.

VISUALIZING THE PAST: THE COMPOSITION OF THE MINIATURE FRIEZE

does not extend beyond the area of the branches or stems, is a shorthand device. It evokes vegetation, but it is also as if the viewer were looking up at the plants with the sky behind. Like those bending over the cauldrons and walking along the coast, the men wear short loincloths. Blue beneath the men may well be sea and is reconstructed as such. However, it is somewhat grayish and was painted over the yellow ground, which was sometimes done at the juncture of coastal land and sea but could also mean that it was rock. It should also be noted that the context of this fragment (it was one of the miniature fragments that fell into Room N.18) differs from those of the Cauldrons and Ships composition, all of which came from the east side of N.20.

0

5

241

10 cm

Figure 7.9. Paddlers (63). Scale 1:3. Drawing L. Morgan.

The fragment came from N.20 East, but from a deeper level in the excavation than the fragments in the Cauldrons and Ships scene.

Figure 7.10: Chariot Figure 7.9: Paddlers A single fragment, 63, depicts three men wearing loincloths, apparently kneeling as they lean slightly forward. Around them is the blue of the sea. Near the arms of the two best preserved are narrow ocher objects interpreted as the handles of wooden paddles. A second, wider ocher strip in front of the right-hand man has not been interpreted, as it was unclear to me what this represented. The men have been reconstructed paddling a small boat. That they are paddling, traveling in the direction they are facing, rather than rowing, facing aft, is clear from the kneeling posture. A comparison between the rowers outside the Departure Town in the Thera frieze and the paddlers in the Arrival Town make this clear (Fig. 11.1:c, d). Like the Cauldrons and Ships scene, Figure 7.8, to which it was presumably related, the fragment was found in N.20 East. Judging by the left to right direction of the dolphins painted on one of the hulls, the large ships should be moving toward the right, as they are in the Thera frieze. The paddled boat should be imagined to the right of the ships, as were it to have been to the left it would have been moving away from the action. In contrast to the Thera Miniature Frieze, the men paddle toward the ships, rather than leading the way into a harbor.

A chariot has been reconstructed from two fragments, part of a wheel and chariot box on yellow ground (85) and a section of a hide box with wooden vertical strut (84).5 As the top and back of the chariot is not preserved, three alternative versions are presented: the simple box chariot, the earliest documented type, which appears in two versions, curved (a) and straight (b); and the dual chariot (c), the most typical Aegean form from LM IB/LH II onward. The curved box (a) is the most likely model (see this vol., Ch. 3). A fragment of horses’ hooves (223) and what is interpreted as a mane and reins (86) have been added to the composition to create a horse. One hoof is black, the other white, indicating that there were two horses overlapping. Aegean artists depicted such overlapping with a single body and head, sometimes with a double outline, and eight legs. The driver of the chariot is conjectural, based on glyptic art and later wall paintings. All the fragments were from N.20 East and share the same depth as the Rocky Landscape (Fig. 7.25) and the Cauldrons and Ships (Fig. 7.8). The chariot was therefore likely to have been on the south wall. 5 Cf. Morgan 2015, fig. 1:c.

242

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

0

5

10 cm

0

5

10 cm

b

a

R25 86 R5 84 P8 85 223

0

5

Q11

10 cm

c

d

Figure 7.10. Chariot: (a) simple box type, curved; (b) simple box type, straight; (c) dual type; (d) outlines. Scale 1:3. Drawings L. Morgan.

Figure 7.11: Procession of Men An earlier version of the Procession of Men was published as a line drawing in the proceedings of the Third International Thera Congress.6 Several changes have been made for this book, both in the distribution of figures and in the individual details. The men carrying containers have been transferred to Figure 7.12, Men by River. While there can be no certainty as to which of the two compositions those figures belonged, the original version contained too many men for a plausible processional meeting, if we take the Meeting on the Hill from Thera as a model (Fig. 2.1:a). 6 Morgan 1990, 256, fig. 4. The final version presented in Fig. 7.11 also appears in Morgan 2015, fig. 1:a.

As visualized here using a total of 12 fragments, there are four men walking from right to left and six from left to right, the two leaders meeting with raised arms in the center of the composition. All wear the long white robe, many with the trailing piece of cloth behind the shoulder preserved. One (12) is entirely red, but the shape, including trailing cloth, indicates that the same type of garment was intended. Most have one arm raised in front of the face, with hand outstretched as though in solemn greeting. Four heads are included, demonstrating striking individuality. One fragment (9) is so poorly preserved that where the head should be there is nothing, but the garment is not in doubt and a head has been reconstructed. All but the two overlapping men placed at the far left are depicted individually.

VISUALIZING THE PAST: THE COMPOSITION OF THE MINIATURE FRIEZE

0

P5

M2 R 9

U122

20

10 cm

P1 25

S6

S1

T1

P22

16 26

5

243

6

8

12

Q13 9

7

10

S5 Q 15

29 45

Figure 7.11. Visualization (top) and outlines (bottom) of Procession of Men. Scale 1:3. Drawings L. Morgan.

Almost all the fragments preserve the middle or upper part of the body and/or head. Only one fragment of feet could be incorporated (45), without certainty that it belonged to this scene. Ocher coloration indicative of terrain lies beneath the feet. No specific landscape, whether rocks or river, could be incorporated beneath the men. That this composition was related to the Men by River scene (Fig. 7.12) is, however, likely, since the same garment is worn and similar gestures are used. Only three fragments here indicate landscape. Around the head of the man placed leading the left-hand procession (6) there is ocher and blue. A touch of ocher is visible at the edge of the fragment of the head of the man placed in the second position behind him (20). Behind the two men placed at the end of this procession (10) there is a touch of blue. We may assume, therefore, that landscape, with ground vegetation and either water or shrubs, was indicated above and behind the scene to the left, but, beyond generalized ocher terrain, we cannot know what lay beneath. In comparison with the Thera Meeting on

the Hill (where rockwork is clearly preserved beneath the feet), the men have been staggered slightly, as though on rising terrain. There is no confirmation of this placement of the figures, nor of their order in the procession. One fragment came from N.18 East; all the others came from N.20 East. Since only one piece fell northward, the location appears to have been the southern part of N.20, either from the east wall or more likely the eastern end of the south wall.

Figure 7.12: Men by River Of the 19 fragments used in this composition, the defining pieces are 35, 32, 33, and 36, all of which have a man in a white garment next to a curved area of blue to the side or above, which must therefore be a river, rather than rock or sea. Fragment 35 clinches the interpretation, as the blue curve has the

244

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

0

5

10 cm

Q3 U110

233

R10

234

66

R48 N4

235

Q2

H3 35

17

236

P4 U2 W 27

32

19

J1 S2

27

15 11

A1 33

A18 446 P2

N.16–N.17

P3 13

36

14

G1 48

Figure 7.12. Visualization (top) and outlines (bottom) of Men by River. Scale 1:3. Drawings L. Morgan.

E1 24

VISUALIZING THE PAST: THE COMPOSITION OF THE MINIATURE FRIEZE

characteristic Aegean water sign on its lower edge (cf. p. 177). Fragment 66 shows a man in a white garment with shoulder piece against a blue background. Since the blue is painted over yellow ground, rather than white plaster, it is interpreted as part of the river, not sea. Eight other men have been added to the composition (13 in total), all but one wearing long white robes and all carrying vessels or poles. Those with shoulder preserved have the white shoulder piece characteristic of the garment worn by the men in the Procession of Men, Figure 7.11. The man in 24 wears a different garment, with fitted top indicative of a tunic. He is included here because of the container behind his head, evidently carried on his shoulders. Gestures have been reconstructed on the basis of the surviving arms, again echoing some of the gestures of the men in the procession. Originally, some of these figures carrying vessels were incorporated in the preliminary drawing of the procession.7 There is no certainty as to which of the two compositions they belong, but given the orientation of the men next to the river (three facing left, one facing right) all of whom are on the right bank, there must have been other men walking toward the right on the other bank. Similarly, the fact that the man in 36 is looking behind him indicates that there must have been others following. The rationale for moving some of the figures into this composition was to keep those carrying containers together. As in the Procession scene, the men wear garments indicative of elite status and are evidently greeting one another. The placement of the fragments that incorporate both man and river are determined by the angle of the blue. Above the man looking behind him (36) are traces of the foot of another man, providing information on spatial relationship. For the others, placement has been chosen to build a plausible composition, but it should be stressed that this is a visualization intended to give an impression of the scene, rather than a firm indication of how the men related to one another within the composition. It could well be that the men in this composition and in the Procession belonged together. In places, the light yellow ground is enhanced with ocher, indicative of vegetation. This is best seen in 36, the fragment in which the man looks behind him, and the man placed above him (33). That there were specific plants in the composition is indicated by 233, which has a delicate red-stemmed plant with 7 Morgan 1990, 256, fig. 4. Fig. 7.12, Men by River, also appears in Morgan 2015, fig. 1:b.

245

ocher leaves next to blue, overlapped by the stems. This is interpreted as plants rising from the lower bank of the river and is placed top right. Two other delicate plants with similarly small leaves have been added to the composition. Fragment 236 has the characteristic red berries of Butcher’s Broom (p. 172). Whether it belongs in this composition is uncertain, but the context of the fragment and the scale of the leaves match the others. Fragment 235 has slightly larger leaves on red stems, rising from ocher vegetation characteristic of the bank of a river, and a small patch of blue on the yellow ground suggesting that the artist was painting blue close by. Fragments 236, 235, and the related 234 all have grooves on the back of the plaster that indicate their vertical orientation. Nine of the pieces came from N.20 East, four from N.20 West, two from a combined N.20 lot, three from N.18 (two East, one Central), while one had landed as far away as the doorway between corridors N.16 and N.17. The preponderance of pieces that include river come from N.20 East. While there is no guarantee that all these pieces belonged together, it is likely that the scene of Men by River came from a part of the room close to the river and marsh on the east wall.

Figure 7.13: Men by Rocks or Sea In this scene, reconstructed with four fragments, two men greet one another, walking on yellow ground above blue and white rocks or water. The ambiguity of rock/sea is due to the similar manner in which they are portrayed: blue surface with irregular white impasto (this vol., Ch. 6, pp. 171–172). Two splashes of white near the man’s foot on 41 look like a rendering of sea spray. However, rock is usually painted over yellow ground, whereas the sea is consistently painted directly over the plaster, except where it meets the land. In the case of these related fragments, blue and white are painted over yellow ground. There is an unusually large expanse of white, and, in some places, the blue overlays it, rather than the other way around. The men walk toward one another, with the weight on the front foot. They wear a knee length white garment (40) with round neck and short sleeves (23), shoulders frontal, near arm slightly raised across the front of the body, far arm bent at the elbow with forearm raised and hand spread outward (23). It is apparently a greeting between equals.

246

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

0

5

10 cm

O1 23 X1

D3

A5 40

41

309

Figure 7.13. Visualization (top) and outlines (bottom) of Men by Rocks or Sea. Scale 1:3. Drawings L. Morgan.

The similarities between them leave little doubt that these fragments belong together, yet they were found in disparate contexts: east and west of N.20, and central N.18. Their depths were within a similar range (0.82–1.10 m), and most likely the fragments fell around the same time, perhaps rebounding off something hard when they hit the ground, hence landing in different areas.

placed on a rising curve but could have belonged to either. Fragment 38 is a puzzling piece that is included here as a provisional solution. It shows a man whose foot is painted overlapping the blue. Is he stepping onto rock or into a river? Next to him is red paint of indeterminate shape also overlapping both yellow ground and blue. Uncharacteristically, his hand points downward, as though indicating the red form below him. My initial attempts to reconstruct the man walking into a river next to a partially submerged companion came to naught—the “companion” simply did not work. So I placed the fragment with the rocks, leaving the issue of the red unsolved. Keeping an open mind as to his original placement, here he provides an impression of how some of the men may have been meeting on a hilltop. His white garment suggests a tunic, in keeping with the shortsleeved garment of the man with outstretched arm shown on the other side of the hill (22). As blue lies immediately beneath the arm of this figure, his lower body must have overlapped it. Again, the ambiguity of blue in this painting means that this man could have been next to a river or walking by rocks. All the pieces used in this composition came from the west side of N.20. Given the distinct clumping of fragments used in the Rocky Landscape from the east side of N.20 (Fig. 7.25) it appears that there were at least two sections in the frieze with rocky landscapes. However, while the descending rocks in this passage closely match those of Figure 7.25, the ascending rocks lack the characteristic white blobs near their edges. Given the ambiguity of blue in this composition, the lower edges of the possible rock have not been drawn in, leaving open the potential for reinterpretation (of all but 300) as a river.

Figure 7.14: Men by Rocks The premise of this composition, which includes six fragments, is that some of the men were walking up a hill, advancing from both directions. While interpretation of the blue on the fragments with legs (38), a foot (39), and an arm (22) is open to the ambiguous choice of river or rock, similar pieces from the same context unequivocally show rock. Fragment 300 has the characteristic curve of a bumpy ascending hill with descending red and blue rocks above, features comparable to the more complete Rocky Landscape in Figure 7.25. Fragments 302 and 39 take the downward curve of the hill, while 303 is

Figure 7.15: Fragments of Men Two interesting, anomalous fragments are presented in Figure 7.15, minimally reconstructed. Both were tentatively included in an earlier version of Figure 7.12, Men by River, and subsequently in Figure 7.18:a, Sea and Rocks with Men, below. One of them remains tentatively placed in Figure 7.18:a. Figure 7.15:a shows the figure called here the “Man with Upraised Arms” (18). The man in this fragment, with his wonderfully idiosyncratic profile, is

VISUALIZING THE PAST: THE COMPOSITION OF THE MINIATURE FRIEZE

0

5

247

10 cm

D6 300 D7 302 H1 D1 D2 38

39

22

B3 303

Figure 7.14. Visualization (top) and outlines (bottom) of Men by Rocks. Scale 1:3. Drawings L. Morgan.

anomalous, and hence he is exhibited on his own. With arms raised but no visible sign of a supported container, the man looks like a dancer. Yet there are no other figures to match, and in Aegean iconography it is women, rather than men, who dance (this vol., Ch. 2, p. 52 n. 48). However, there are several men carrying containers, at least three of whom support the container on their shoulder. The garment he wears has a tight-fitting top with short sleeves. It might parallel that worn by the man in 24 (Fig. 7.12). However, it lacks the central line of that garment. The lower part of the garment has not survived but is convincing reconstructed as loose, like those of fragments 38 and 40 (Figs. 7.13, 7.14). The waistline is exceptionally high, and the man’s nose extraordinarily bulbous (Pl. 70:e). If carrying an unseen vessel, the man would fit within the context of Figure. 7.12, Men by River,

though he could also be placed within Figure 7.14, Men by Rocks. Experiments placing him in either composition, however, led to an awkward juxtaposition, owing to what appears to be the empty raised arms, as well as the unusually small scale. Figure 7.15:b depicts the “Man Wearing Kilt or Shorts.” This partial reconstruction also utilizes a single fragment (47). It shows the legs of two men with a wide stride (the back leg of the man on the right lay beyond the fragment). The men have been tentatively included in Figure 7.18:a, on the grounds that the white angular shape outlined in black at the edge of 326 in that composition may have been the hem of a comparable garment. Here, the fragment appears with minimal reconstruction. Only the feet and ankles are preserved of the left figure, who walks slightly higher up within the picture, and, although in Figure 7.18:a I drew the same

248

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

0

5 cm

0

5 cm

a b Figure 7.15. Fragments of men: (a) Man with Upraised Arms (18); (b) Man Wearing Kilt or Shorts (47). Scale 1:3. Drawings L. Morgan.

garment as that worn by the other man, here I have left it blank. The man on the right is wearing a garment quite unlike the robes and tunics worn by other men, discussed in Chapter 2 as a kilt or shorts (pp. 62–64). Originally, I combined this fragment with 24, owing to the central line down the bodice in that fragment, placing them in Figure 7.12, Men by River. However, such a garment, while somewhat rare in comparative iconography, is consistently shown with a naked torso. I have ended the reconstruction at the waist, since there is no indication of how the arms were positioned. Beneath the man on the right are red horizontal lines. It is possible that these indicate streams, like those in the Marsh scenes (Figs. 7.19– 7.23), but since there is no sign of any accompanying vegetation, the lines are not reconstructed.

0

5

10 cm

Figure 7.16. Hunter with Prey (44). Scale 1:3. Drawing L. Morgan.

held a second pole in his left hand but is reconstructed with arm loose by his side (cf. 29). Above the hunter are traces of blue landscape and a black shape that, as preserved, resembles the trotting hoof of a horse facing in the same direction. It has not been reconstructed, as the resemblance to a hoof may be spurious. If it were a horse, it would have been on a somewhat smaller scale than the horse and chariot (Fig. 7.10) and considerably smaller than the horse and building (Fig. 7.6). The fragment was found in the southwest part of N.20 and was most likely from the western part of the south wall.

Figure 7.17. Deer and Dogs Figure 7.16: Hunter with Prey This small composition depends on one large fragment of a hunter, facing toward the left and carrying poles, with the neck of an animal hanging downward in front of his body (44).8 The sway of the garment indicates that the hunter is walking, as would be expected. Given the position of the horizontal pole in relation to the animal’s neck, it is clear that the animal is trussed onto the pole. It is reconstructed as a deer, but given the width of the neck, it is smaller in scale than the composition of Deer and Dogs (Fig. 7.17). A second man presumably held the other end of the pole in front and has been reconstructed as such in the drawing. He, too, may have 8 Cf. Morgan 2015, fig. 1:d.

What began as two separate compositions—Deer and Dogs (originally a colored drawing, Fig. 5.1) and Sea with Inlets—are here combined, making use of 56 fragments. The relatively large scale of the plants in the inlets is appropriate with the deer and dogs, though no fragment physically links the two parts of the composition. Most likely, given the comparison of the Thera Miniature Frieze (Figs. 5.2, 11.1:b) and the later Pylos Hunt, the deer would have been associated with a river, and traces of blue are visible behind the galloping deer and dog in 179. Five fragments of what is most likely river (blue with yellow ground), one that includes plants, have been combined in the visualization to link the two parts of the composition. The fragments of deer and dogs were found in two areas (N.18 Center and N.20 West), but as the

VISUALIZING THE PAST: THE COMPOSITION OF THE MINIATURE FRIEZE

animals are to the same relatively large scale, their inclusion in one composition is almost certain. This two-scale separation between animal hunt and human activity is exactly what we find in the Thera miniatures (see this vol., Ch. 11). Most likely the scene belonged to the west wall in Room N.20. The majority of the fragments included here in the seascape and landscape also came from N.20 West, as did the fragments of what I have interpreted as sky, included at the top. These show a progression from blue through a pinkish hue into yellow ground. As all the surviving edges of the frieze are blue, we must assume that the action throughout was framed by blue sky and blue sea. The overall height of the frieze on the west wall is estimated to be ca. 46 cm, matching that on the east wall, as estimated for the Marsh (see below, p. 254).

Deer and Dogs Three deer and two dogs have been reconstructed from the surviving fragments and a fourth deer added here, in what is an expansion of the previously published version.9 One fragment (179) shows a deer in gallop attacked from beneath by a white dog in flying gallop in a typically Aegean chase. The hind legs, tail, and top of the head of the dog survive on the fragment. Two other fragments of the dog’s body have been added (180, 181), along with the neck of the deer (178). Another fragment (182) shows the snout of a deer with the hind paws of a dog in flying gallop above. To this has been added the well-preserved fragment of the body and legs of a trotting deer (183) and three fragments of the neck, body, and forelegs of the dog (189–191). The fact that the dog is above the deer implies that it is attacking another animal in front, hence the inclusion of a hypothetical deer (without fragments) above. A third deer has been reconstructed to the left, comprising a poorly preserved body and standing forelegs (186) and a fragment of hind legs (188). The third deer is hard to interpret: the visible hind leg has white, as a continuation of the underbelly (cf. 183, the trotting deer at center), but if this is the far leg there is no room for a near leg. In the illustration 9 Morgan 1998, 210, fig. 7; Marinatos and Morgan 2005, pl. 15:2

249

the posture is interpreted as a standing pose, without distinction in the thigh between far and near leg. The static position of the forelegs contrasts with the slanting angle of the hind legs, and to this element of dynamism has been added a hypothetical raised head. In contrast to the active chase, this deer is still, but interpreted as alert, as though having suddenly heard the danger of the dog a short way behind. There are no surviving fragments of a dog’s snout or a deer’s tail, but all other parts of the bodies are represented. Given the complete lack of antlers among the surviving fragments, the deer are reconstructed without, though the galloping deer, with characteristic pubic tuft, must be male. The action is set against a yellow ground, with traces of what was originally landscape. Beneath and behind the galloping deer and dog (179) are traces of blue and ocher, suggesting water and vegetation. In front of the standing deer (186) are traces of red and black. The ground beneath the trotting deer (183) has no trace of landscape. The presence of the additional deer is implied by the dog above and in front of the trotting deer, but the positions in the composition of the standing and the galloping deer are conjectural. Given the lack of urgency in the standing posture (interpreted as alert but still), this deer has been placed on the other side of the river. In this way, the galloping deer chased by hounds are in a higher pictorial plane than the deer not yet running from the danger.

Sea with Inlets This part of the composition demonstrates the transition from the sea at the base of the frieze to the land above, the height of which is estimated on the basis of a large piece (525) with an edge flattened by the horizontal wooden beam beneath the frieze. All the pieces of sea are painted directly onto the white plaster. Small irregular blobs of applied white painted over the blue indicate the spume (foam or bubbles) of the sea as it approaches the shore. The majority of these bubbles lie at 2.5 cm above the base line; a few are lower, some are higher. The irregularity of shape and height provides a sense of movement; the rows simulate approaching waves, and the isolated bubbles at the edge of the coast create an impression of sea spray. The coast is indented, resulting in pockets of inlets at the edge of the sea. Here the blue is painted onto

250

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

0

5

10 cm

Figure 7.17A. Visualization of Deer and Dogs. Scale 1:3. Watercolor L. Morgan.

the yellow ground, the blue sea having been planned first, the transition from sea to land afterward. Within the inlets, there are ocher plants. Patches of ocher indicative of vegetation overlap both sea and land, as do the white bubbles of sea spray. Forty-one of the pieces used for this part of the painting came from the west side of N.20, while just three came from the east. Clearly, there must have been overlap in the middle of the room, as there can be little doubt that 477 and 478, which almost join, belong together. Twelve fragments were found in N.18, mostly central (i.e., toward the west). The scene is attributable to the west wall of N.20.

Figure 7.18: Sea and Rocks with Men, or Sky and Descending Rocks The central piece around which this composition is constructed is 326, a large fragment of blue with white impasto blobs and, beyond, red peaks of rock on yellow ground. The blue on this and all the pieces in this composition is painted directly onto plaster, in contrast to the yellow ground on which the red is painted. This implies that the blue is sea or sky rather than rocks, and hence toward the bottom or the top of the frieze. The peaks should presumably be vertical, but orientation is otherwise ambiguous.

VISUALIZING THE PAST: THE COMPOSITION OF THE MINIATURE FRIEZE

C28

X150

594.1

X147

595.1

J6

X149

596

H20

H27

595.2

F5

X 131

190

189

X 11 191

C24

594.2

F10

571

573

572

X10

251

594.3 570

X9 D4

178

182

X3 + W

C20

180 Y12 Y14

I1

576

179

181 183

577

C15

C U25

U24

480 B4

186

C12 C14 474

475

C13 476

C17

477

C45

478

H21 479

I4

H10 528 527 H24 530 529 H8

0

482

D15

H19

484 H22

526

592

490

489

531

I6 + H23

L2

E21

492

525 5

583

488

Q 4

G14 H9

H25

483

584

481 Q42

582 J4

C7

491

579

578

J5

C16

P20

E9

F3

524

G5

581

580

188

21

593 C31

I5

10 cm

Figure 7.17B. Outlines of fragments from Deer and Dogs. Scale 1:3. Image L. Morgan.

Fragment 326 has an angular area of white with black lines at its broken edge that is hard to interpret. If a garment, it would establish the orientation with the blue as sea; however, the pointed red forms are not characteristic of ascending rocks. On the other hand, several fragments incorporated into other compositions clearly indicate the existence of descending rocks, albeit narrower in form, and all edge pieces are blue, so it is conceivable that these fragments demonstrate the transition from the sky. Because of this ambiguity, two alternative orientations are offered, permitting the readers to test assumptions against their own judgment. In one

version, incorporating 21 fragments, the landscape is interpreted as sea with ascending rocks, with men on the land above. In the other (using 20 fragments, omitting the men in 47) the landscape is interpreted as sky with descending rocks. A discussion of the landscape elements that appear in both versions is presented first, with elements and issues particular to the different versions discussed afterward. Fragment 326 has been combined with seven other fragments in which red on yellow ground appears with blue with white blobs. Fragment 333 in particular has white blobs beyond the blue contour as, presumably, does 325, a fragment of rocks, which

252

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

R3 47 A12

331.2

H4 D22

324

325

331.4 507 C29

C27

C42

C40 326

E16

509

C41

A4

331.1 508 C32

503 505

512

331.3 E30 D19

E23 504

H7

N15

330

332

F6 333

E7 506

510 E24

511 D20

a

b 0

5

10 cm

Figure 7.18. Visualization of alternative orientations of scene with rocks: (a) Sea and Rocks with Men; and outlines (center); (b) Sky and Descending Rocks. Scale 1:3. Watercolor and outlines L. Morgan.

VISUALIZING THE PAST: THE COMPOSITION OF THE MINIATURE FRIEZE

includes muted blue streaks on the yellow alongside the red. All but one of these fragments came from the west or southwest of N.20, one being from the east of N.20, while two are from a mixed N.20 context. In the composition they have been combined with 10 fragments of sea or sky, comprising blue with white blobs, found in the same contexts. Eight of these have a flattened lower edge, indicating that they abutted the wooden beam framing the frieze. This is, therefore, a section of the bottom or top of the frieze from the southwest of the room, perhaps the west end of the south wall. The fragment of men (47), which has been tentatively placed in Figure 7.18:a, came from the east side of the room.

Figure 7.18:a: Sea and Rocks with Men In this version, the small oblique area of white outlined in black at the preserved yellow edge of 326 is seen as a possible hem of a divided kilt or shorts, and is, therefore, reconstructed as a striding man. There are no legs in the fragment as preserved, yet there is nothing other than this garment that matches the feature. The comparison for the garment lies in 47, which has the foreleg of a striding man wearing a kilt or shorts, with the feet of a second man to the left. Beneath are red horizontal lines, which are likely to be part of a marsh. That fragment is discussed separately in terms of the more circumspect, partial reconstruction of Figure 7.15:b, and is included here with further reconstruction, above the rocks, as the action on the ground. One other garment has a black line for a hem (31) but since that figure is smaller than the others, it has not been included here. Oriented this way, the red peaks are interpreted as rocks ascending from the coast. However, the reconstruction is not without problems. Firstly, there are no parallels at Kea (or elsewhere) for narrow peaks of ascending rocks. Secondly, the stride of the man reconstructed from 326 is implausibly wide (cf. the preserved stride on 47). There is little doubt that these fragments define rock with either sea or sky, but given the uncertainty of the identification of the white with black line at the edge of 326, the orientation remains ambiguous.

Figure 7.18:b: Sky and Descending Rocks Descending rocks are well documented in the pieces used in the Rocky Landscape (Fig. 7.25), and they also appear with the Thistles and Descending

253

Rocks (Fig. 7.4), Men by Rocks (Fig. 7.14), and the Marsh (Fig. 7.19). In these cases, however, the descending rocks are longer and in all but the Thistles composition include pink and blue with the red. Only one fragment here (325) includes streaks of blue alongside the red. That such descending rocks were linked with the sky can be deduced from the fact that all surviving edge pieces of the frieze are blue. This illustration offers a glimpse of how such a transition may have occurred. The main problem with this version lies in interpretation of the white with black line at the preserved edge of 326, which, if oriented in this direction, remains unsolved. The only possibility that comes to mind would be an architectural feature for which there is currently no parallel, but it is unlikely that buildings would appear beneath descending rocks. A further issue is the closeness of the white blobs to the contour of the blue, even overlapping the red, which seems more appropriate for sea and rocks.

Figures 7.19–7.24: Marsh Landscape with River and Sea Originally reconstructed in a color sketch as an exceptionally long and narrow composition, the marsh was then divided into three manageable sections (A–C) and combined with river and sea. The three resulting compositions were painted separately (Figs. 7.19–7.21), with the intention of joining them digitally to provide a sense of continuity running through the frieze (Fig. 7.22). In addition, two other sections (D, E) have been reconstructed separately (Figs. 7.23, 7.24). Some observations are made here on the specific elements—river, marsh, sea—prior to consideration of the individual illustrations. The height of the main area of red streams with vegetation is, as reconstructed, around 12 cm. Below, as we know from three fragments in particular, was the sea, both immediately below the streams with ocher vegetation (Fig. 7.21:394, 470) and below streams without ocher vegetation (Fig. 7.24:494). Therefore the height from the bottom of the frieze to the top of the marsh was in the region of 20–28 cm. In adding the river, the total height is 32–34.5 cm. One composition has descending rock above the river, clearly demonstrating that the composition filled the height of the frieze. It is reconstructed to 44 cm in total, but there must have been at least a narrow area of sky above, given that all edge fragments are

254

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

0

5

10 cm

Figure 7.19A. Visualization of Marsh A: descending rock, river, marsh, and sea with inlets. Scale 1:3. Watercolor L. Morgan.

blue, which would suggest an overall height of ca. 46 cm. The layout of ceiling beams of the West House at Akrotiri, as reconstructed by Palyvou,10 allows for a wider frieze on the north and south walls than on the east and west. The same is likely to have been the case here (see below p. 267). The majority of fragments in these compositions were found in either N.20 East or N.18, fallen from N.20. Only a few were found in N.20 West. Since the marsh appears to have been continuous, and in order to attain coherence in making the reconstructions, preference was given to using the visual links among the fragments rather than adhering strictly to the positions in which they fell. 10 Palyvou 2005a, pl. 3.

Besides the rivers in Figures 7.1 (securely related to the buildings and woman), 7.12 (connected with men), and 7.17 (associated with deer), three other passages of river were reconstructed to show the characteristics of the meandering river and its associated plants. These fragments were then incorporated into the three marsh compositions according to type and not necessarily in terms of specific context. However, the majority came from N.20 East or N.18 East and Center, like the marsh, and only one piece is from N.20 West. A few pieces demonstrate the link between river and marsh. As many as 95 fragments recognizable as a marsh with multiple meandering streams have survived, 76 of which have been included in the reconstructions A–E (340–416), along with further pieces that

VISUALIZING THE PAST: THE COMPOSITION OF THE MINIATURE FRIEZE

Y35

255

X27

429

R27

U82

M27

432

430

433

X23

431

434

X17

O23

345

Q40

X18

340

A14

S 53

V33 S46

344

342

341

610

W41

348 Q33

343

350

349

351 U100

346

X24

R57

Q34

S16

347

Q6

Q39

352 U93

357

355

U90 360

X134

W21

458

456

U89 361

Y6

459.1

X 144

455

Y49

460 Y61

Y68

532

Y31

462 0

U 130

U137

533 461

U91 362

597

Y56

359

358

Y83

459.2 V26

V4

V1

356 U99

354

457

M 42 353

5

539

U138

598 534

10 cm

Figure 7.19B. Outlines of Marsh A: descending rock, river, marsh, and sea with inlets. Scale 1:3. Image L. Morgan.

connect marsh with river or sea. Given that only a fraction of the original painting has survived, it is clear that the marsh was extremely long. For economy of space, the majority of these pieces have been brought together in the three compositions A–C, which together measure just over 1.5 meters long. In addition, the other two sections, D and E, each measure 35 cm in length. It is likely, therefore, that the marsh ran at least along the greater part of the shorter east wall. The number of surviving pieces of marsh exceeds that of the river but is less than that of the sea in the frieze overall. By far the largest proportion of fragments in relation to the total number found in a particular context came from N.20 East. They account for approximately one-fifth of the total fragments from

the contexts in the east half of the room, covering a range of stratigraphic depth from the middle to the lowest. The only context in N.20 East that had relatively few fragments (in proportion to the total found) is M, which came from a higher stratigraphic level than the majority of fragments in these compositions. While at least as many fragments were found in N.18 as in N.20, they account for a smaller proportion of the total number of miniature fragments found in that room. Very few fragments were found in N.20 West, and these constitute a tiny proportion of the total number of fragments from the west half of the room. Three fragments—one of river, one of ground, one of sea—belonged to the left edge of the frieze, in the corner of the room, where one wall joined another

256

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

(see Fig. 7.19). This makes it highly likely that the Marsh Landscape ran along the east wall of N.20. A large number of pieces demonstrate the transition between sea and land or, possibly, sky and land. As the latter cannot be securely identified, only the former is represented in the compositions. The three passages show the variety of solutions to the transition, which are artistically inventive and expressively representative of coastal conditions.

Figure 7.19: Marsh A This composition, making use of 45 fragments, includes elements of descending rock, river, marsh, and sea with inlets. It represents the beginning of the Marsh Landscape on the left side. It uses the only three surviving pieces of the Miniature Frieze that have the characteristic sloping profile of a fragment from the corner of a room. They are fragments of river and land with plants (433), yellow ground (610), and sea (461). The orientation of the plant indicates unequivocally that this piece belonged to the far left side of a wall. The plant appears to be a reed, like those of Figure 7.1, Town by a River, and it has been combined with four similar fragments. These reeds, unlike those in the town composition, clearly belong toward the top of the frieze as all have red descending rocks. A fifth fragment added on the far right (434) is anomalous. While the reeds designate it as river, the blue appears to have been painted directly onto the plaster (as was the practice for sea and sky). It is possible that it represented the transition from sea to land but, if so, it is unlike other transitions within the frieze. A river seemed the more plausible option. It is likely that plants also lay on the near (lower) side of the river (cf. Figs. 7.1, 7.20, 7.21), but no remaining pieces, unused in other compositions, were available. Blue-gray markings inside the river on the central fragment (431) relate it to the central river fragment (422) of the town composition, Figure 7.1, which is of comparable width, narrower than that of the river with grasses placed above another section of the Marsh Landscape (Fig. 7.21). There is, therefore, an echo between the two compositions, one urban, the other restricted to the natural coastal landscape. A large fragment of marsh placed far left (340) has three red streams surrounded by ocher vegetation and traversed by blue-black grasses, one of which lies lower than the others, indicating another stream below. This has been combined with twenty two other fragments of marsh, many with blue-black grasses and several also indicating two rows of streams, one above the other. The lower stream is composed of a

single meandering red line, the upper ones of two or three narrower ones. Ocher vegetation surrounds the streams, sometimes overlapping. On some fragments, placed beneath, the otherwise amorphous ocher ends in distinct curved blobs of paint (360– 362). In 362, further indications of vegetation below imply yet another stream, partially reconstructed. The sea incorporated into this composition has a curved coastline with a large pool divided from the main body of sea by a narrow meandering inlet. Both the extreme width of the blue in the main fragment (455) and the fact that the pieces are painted directly onto plaster demonstrate that the inlet is interspersed with sea, not a river. Two fragments show the connection between the pool and the land, 455 and 456, the latter providing the width of the pool. White and ocher blobs mark the transition, perhaps intended as pebbles rather than spume, as they are larger than those in the sea toward the lower edge of the frieze. It is surmised that the right side of the pool joined the sea. Other fragments of sea and land with the same feature were added. Fragment 457 has been included here as the blue was painted directly on to plaster and has two large white blobs. The water is bordered by gray-blue lines that are, however, more usually associated with a river. Flecks of ocher dot the surface of the sea on the large fragment (455) linking it with the fragment of sea belonging to the corner of the wall (461). Nine fragments of sea have been added below the inlet, four of which have the flattened edge of the bottom of the frieze. Of the three corner pieces, one (sea) came from N.18 Center, while the other two (river and ground) came from N.20 East. In all, 31 fragments were found in N.18, while 14 were found in N.20 East. None from N.20 West are included in this composition. This concentration in N.18 is indicative of the direction of the shock that destroyed the building. The partition wall between the two rooms fell northward, and the fragments slid to the basement following their collapse to the floor. The corner fragments indicate that this part of the frieze belonged to the beginning of a wall, the most realistic candidate being the east wall. The distance from the bottom of the frieze to the top of the fragments is 40 cm, and above the descending rocks must have been sky. Given the descending rocks at the top and the sea at the bottom, this part of the frieze was evidently composed entirely of the Marsh Landscape.

Figure 7.20: Marsh B In this composition of river, marsh, and sea with spray, which also incorporates 45 fragments, the

VISUALIZING THE PAST: THE COMPOSITION OF THE MINIATURE FRIEZE

0

445.2

445.1

438

R35

Y 78

U101 364

365 U94 368

O22

U102

366

367

P33

U 92

370

P12 371

Q32 Q28 463

372

464 R68 R72 600 535

X163 373 P 34

T13 377

376 X132

U139

T12

R31

369

599

S29 R38

443

441

C43

440

436

363

U 120 439

R37

437

P41

X 162

10 cm

U85

X 173

U86

5

257

378

466

379

382 Y43

Y47

467

536

469

468 U133

537

E4

U 148

Y23

U74

W24+X124

O 15

375

U39 380 X164 381

Y62 465

442

U95

374

M37 444

538

C22 601

Figure 7.20. Visualization (top) and outlines (bottom) of Marsh B: river, marsh, and sea with spray. Scale 1:3. Watercolor and outlines L. Morgan.

258

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

river is partially marked by blue-gray lines on both its upper and lower border, some following the contour, some at an angle. The width of the river varies, as may be seen by comparing 445.1 with 438. Beneath the river lie ocher and blue-gray spiky plants and blotches of ocher vegetation. The ocher on 436 (left) suggests the border of a marsh, while beneath the ocher on 442 (placed on the right) a thin red line indicates the proximity of the streams. (That this fragment is river, not sea, is determined by the fact that the blue is painted over yellow ground.) This part of the river therefore lay immediately above the marsh. Blobs of applied white on 441 and 444 imply proximity to the sea as well. In this part of the frieze, as reconstructed, the marsh stream consisted of a single winding red band, approximately 1 cm wide. Much of this stream is bordered by, though rarely overlapped by ocher vegetation, with blue-gray blades of grass (and one red, 364, on the left), while some parts are simply red stream. On the basis of 364 (far left), in which another blue-black grass appears at the top edge, a parallel row of streams is assumed for above. In 379 (placed far right), orientation of the red stream changes in relation to the vegetation, sweeping vertically down as an expression of the meandering watercourse. The ocher vegetation bordering the stream frequently ends in distinct blobs of paint. Beneath the stream lie ocher blades of grass that are relatively wide (368, 369), as are some of the blue-black grasses, which contrast with the usual narrow leaves. In the fragments chosen for the lower section of this part of the frieze, sea sprays up into the air as it hits the coast. An irregular contour of blue with white blobs painted over it evokes the splash of water as it scatters on impact. The blue of these fragments was painted over yellow ground, except in 468 (lower right) in which the top part of the fragment is over yellow, the bottom part directly over plaster. This piece represents the transition of sea lapping over land. Ocher vegetation irregularly covers part of the yellow ground and, in places, overlaps the blue sea. Six fragments of sea from the lower edge of the composition (four with flat edges), and one central piece of sea, all with white dots, have been added. This expressive use of paint to capture the movement of rough sea hitting the shore is, in life, appropriate for a rocky coast. However, in the painting, there is no evidence that the splashing sea was associated with the rocks. Twenty-four of the fragments used in this composition were found in N.18, 18 in N.20 East, and three in N.20 West, again implying that this part of the frieze lay in the northeastern part of N.20 and fell northward with the collapse of the dividing wall.

Figure 7.21: Marsh C In this composition of river, marsh, and sea, in which 43 fragments are included, the river is wider, as evidenced by 448, and instead of reeds, grasses grow on both banks. Fragment 447 is anomalous in technique or preservation, as the blue has flaked away to reveal the plaster, rather than yellow ground, yet the plants indicate without doubt that this is river, not sea or sky. Combined into this section of the marsh are several diagnostic pieces. Fragment 389 shows a relatively broad red stream (0.6 cm), which divides into two diverging streams to the left. On top is painted ocher vegetation, largely obscuring the lower left stream as well as the point of divergence. Blue-black blades of grass traverse the vegetation and streams, indicating orientation. Above, further ocher vegetation with traces of red provide evidence for a parallel stream, observed on several other fragments including 397, which also preserves the two rows of streams and is, therefore, placed adjacent to 389. Positioned on the left of the composition, 394 crucially links marsh with sea, the sea here splashing up to the land, with faint traces of black lines at the transition between the two. At this point, the stream has divided into three narrow lines, which are linked to 393, apparently the end of the stream, with a blade of grass unusually positioned obliquely. Seven other fragments showing the transition between sea and land have been added to the composition, each with individual character in terms of how the sea hits the shore. Two of these (470, 473) have red marsh with ocher vegetation very close to the blue of the sea. Two others (471, 472) have sea splashing up toward a horizontal row of ocher vegetation with, on each, a thin red line traversing this vegetation at right angles. Orientation is ambiguous here: it could be that the sea should be angled sideways to run in line horizontally with the red stream, but both sea and vegetation would then be vertical rather than horizontal, hence the current choice. It may be that in these cases, as with 404 on the far right of the composition, the red is actually a variation on the color of grass, as in two fragments not included in the compositions (264, 265). On the right side of the composition, 391 shows how one stream ends beneath the continuation of another, while 400 and 401 link sea spray with marsh in the form of applied white dots, unusually over the yellow ground. Ten pieces of sea have been added to the composition, five of which have the flat edges characteristic of the bottom of the frieze, where the plaster abutted the horizontal wooden beam. Of the fragments chosen for this composition, 21 were found in N.18, 18 were found in N.20 East, and

VISUALIZING THE PAST: THE COMPOSITION OF THE MINIATURE FRIEZE

0

X 33 453

449

454.2

S43

448

454.3

S31

R59

454.1 450 X G12 O18 161 396 399 392 S41 S8 390 R46 S39 388 401 400 402 U121 W42 M18 P16 391 403 404 398 Y41 Y45 X155 A10

395

Y33

V2

N21 397

V6

394

E17

451

U27

U149

604.1

R58

X28

W7

393

10 cm

U26 447

Q9 452

5

259

Q29

R65

471

472

389 P36

585

602 P40

U79 U135

543

541

604.2 E18

Y59

603

544

586

470

Y64

473

542 Y42

Y58

540

C30

604.3

Figure 7.21. Visualization (top) and outlines (bottom) of Marsh C: river, marsh, and sea. Scale 1:3. Watercolor and outlines L. Morgan.

260

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

four in N.20 West. The total height of the composition as reconstructed is just over 30 cm; the total length is 52 cm. The upper part of the composition, assumed on the basis of the height of Figure 7.19 to be a further 16 cm, remains unknown.

Figure 7.22: Marshes A, B, and C Joined Three illustrations (Figs. 7.19–7.21) have here been joined to give an impression of the flow of the marsh composition as it ran along the wall. As joined, the composition measures 1.51 m long. The original would have been considerably longer and most probably filled the length of the east wall.

Figure 7.23: Marsh D Two small sections of marsh represented by 15 fragments have here been combined, for economy of presentation. The top section comprises a single wider red stream, formed by five fragments. One has a leafy ocher plant beneath (387), one has the beginnings of a plant above (384), and two have a single blob of marshy ocher vegetation bordering part of the stream. Fragment 387 is significant in that blue is just visible on the right edge of the fragment, running almost at right angles to the stream and plant. At the same time, the stream bends down to follow the blue line and disappear behind it. I have interpreted this blue as the bend of a river. On the left in the lower section is a large fragment with ocher vegetation and four narrow red streams at the beginning (or end) of their flow toward the right. Three other fragments of narrow streams with surrounding vegetation have been added, along with one with a trace of a stream at the top and multiple

blue-black blades of grass (411). To these have been added five fragments of blue and blue-black grasses. Five fragments were found in N.18, nine were found in N.20 East, and one in N.20 West. This section therefore probably belonged to the east wall of N.20. Traces of red at the lower edge of 384 have been interpreted as part of one of the narrow streams. However, the upper and lower sections of this composition were not necessarily one above the other as presented here.

Figure 7.24: Marsh E This small composition of marsh and sea, making use of 14 fragments altogether, is built around three fragments that show the marsh immediately abutting the sea (494, 495.1, 495.2). Unlike the three main compositions of the Marsh landscape, there is no evident space between the sea and the streams. The sea in these fragments is calm as it reaches the shore, but in what appear to be related fragments (415, 416) blue brush strokes may be intended as sea spray rising above the streams, though these could also indicate vegetation. Only one stream is preserved in the large fragment (494), but in the others up to four narrow streams run parallel to one another, some stopping or starting while others continue. Six fragments of sea have been added to the composition, two of which have the flat edge of the bottom of the frieze (607.2, 609). The sea line rises and falls, as evidenced by the orientation of the red streams in 495.1–495.3. Three of the fragments were found in N.18, two in N.20 East, eight in N.20 West, and one in a mixed N.20 context. It is likely that the main components on which the composition is based—the fragments with streams abutting sea—belonged to the west wall.

Figure 7.22. Marsh landscape (Figs. 7.19–7.21 joined). Scale 1:8. Image L. Morgan.

VISUALIZING THE PAST: THE COMPOSITION OF THE MINIATURE FRIEZE

0

5

X19

383

P13

H14 387

386

R19 384

10 cm

X20

385

V8

405.1

R86

N20

S10 412

V5 Q30

P15

405.2 408

X29

406 R85

S47

407

413

411

410

409

261

Figure 7.23. Visualization (top) and outlines (bottom) of Marsh D: marsh and grasses. Scale 1:3. Watercolor and outlines L. Morgan.

0

414 U 103

495.3 S50

5

10 cm

U105 E5

V34 C6

416

415

J7

C35 605 494

606

L5

A17 495.2

G8

S34

495.4

495.1

607.1 G7 607.2

608 B6 609

Figure 7.24. Visualization (top) and outlines (bottom) of Marsh E: marsh and sea. Scale 1:3. Watercolor and outlines L. Morgan.

262

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

Figure 7.25: Rocky Landscape It was in the preparation of this composition that I made the decision to move from colored drawings to watercolors. The choice of medium was based on the extraordinarily painterly quality of the original pieces, which could not have been adequately expressed through a colored drawing. For the reconstruction, I began while working directly with the pieces in the museum by making a painted sketch to visualize how the rocks might have looked when complete. Later, I placed the study drawings of each fragment in their relationships to make a template. Using these and the photographs and catalog entries of the individual pieces to gain an understanding of the quality and order of paints, I then painted the scene in watercolor, first a draft and then the final painting, filling in the areas between the fragments. The composition uses 30 pieces, and another 38 (some in Figs. 7.14 and 7.18) were consulted. Useful comparisons are afforded by the Thera paintings: the Miniature Frieze from the West House, the Spring Fresco from Delta 2, and the Adorants and Crocus Gatherers from Xeste 3.11 The Miniature Frieze is particularly useful in showing possibilities for the lower endings to the rocks, since the others are large scale and therefore end with a dado. While there are similarities, none of the rockwork in the Thera paintings compares directly with that of Kea, while the less well-preserved rockwork from Knossos (as in the Saffron Gatherer and the House of the Frescoes) is significantly different. Analysis of the rockwork in relation to other Aegean paintings (including Tell el-Dabca) is discussed in Chapter 6. Here, ascending rock is consistently blue at the top, with some blue-gray outlining and applied white blobs near the contour. Red and yellow ocher rises up into the blue, with some blue-gray vertical markings within. At the tops of the rocks grow some ocher plants, which in some cases overlap the descending rocks. However, not all the rocks have plants. On the whole, the white blobs are on the blue, only very occasionally on red or yellow. Ocher is also used around the white blobs near the top of the rocks in some, not all, cases. Several pieces demonstrate the crucial link between ascending and descending rocks. The largest piece (270) is a microcosm of the composition, providing information on the contour of the rock, the 11 Doumas 1992, pls. 26–29, 35–38, 44, 66–71, 100, 116–118, 120, 129.

internal colors and markings, the descending rocks above in red, pink, blue, and blue-gray, and the existence of a plant growing from the rock to the left. Fragment 272 continues this plant and demonstrates that the contour of the rockwork sometimes dips into crevices, presumably at a lower level since here there are no descending rocks. Fragment 269 provides the peak of a rocky hill and, like 270, demonstrates that the descending rockwork virtually meets the ascending. A plant grows from this peak and has been placed next to a larger fragment with the same plant and descending rocks above and to the right, showing that even on the crest of the hill vegetation grows. Fragments 274, 275, and 290 further demonstrate the relationship between rockwork and vegetation but are harder to reconstruct. In places where the plants are a significant part of the composition (270 to the left and 237 at the hilltop) the descending rockwork is subtle, to the side or not visible, allowing the delicacy of the painting of the leaves to stand out against the yellow background. In other places, where there are no plants (such as 293 and 294 on the right), the descending and ascending rocks actually meet. A remarkable fragment of descending rocks (283), placed center right, demonstrates the use of thin light red paint to create pink, over which thicker, hence darker, red streaks give an impression of depth. This also shows that the streaks are wider nearer the top, descending into points that sometimes overlap the broader ones. This use of descending rocks is peculiarly Aegean but is unique in miniature painting (see this vol., Ch. 6). While reconstruction of the rocks and plants is relatively secure, the top and bottom of the composition is open to alternative possibilities. There is not a single surviving piece of descending or ascending rock with a flat edge indicating that it abutted the beam at the top or bottom of the frieze. All surviving edge pieces are, without exception, blue. This means that the rocky landscape composition, like the rest of the frieze, is likely to have had blue sky above and blue sea below. While a transition to sea can be imagined through comparison with the Thera Miniature Frieze, a transition from sky to rock would be unique and is difficult to visualize convincingly. For that reason, the reconstruction stops short of the top of the frieze. We may imagine the blue sky ending in an irregular line, from which would hang the descending rocks painted over the yellow ground (in this case air). A possible model for such a transition is provided by fragments 324, 326, and others

VISUALIZING THE PAST: THE COMPOSITION OF THE MINIATURE FRIEZE

0

5

P11

263

10 cm

237 R43

R55

U119

O5

267

282

273

M28

293 287

283

R60 R30

274

295 R51 276

Q27

Q22

R52

270 R79

P19 290

275

Q25 279

272

D10

R42

285 Q20

Q26

296

R47

284

269

268 S9 R 49

W15

281

R53

R81

292 R54

R41 271

Q23

280

O6

299

R62

297 277

298 278

Figure 7.25. Visualization (top) and outlines (bottom) of Rocky Landscape. Scale 1:3. Watercolor and outlines L. Morgan.

294

264

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

included in Figure 7.18:b (from the west side of the room). On these, white blobs are applied at the juncture of the blue and red. The ambiguity of 326, however, makes it uncertain whether they belong to the bottom or the top of the composition, hence the two versions of Figure 7.18. At the bottom, we cannot know for certain whether the rockwork joined directly with the sea or whether there was ground with a river or marsh beneath. Both possibilities are viable on the basis of the surviving fragments and comparison with the Thera miniatures.12 One fragment (not included in Fig. 7.25) suggests that the former may have been the case: fragment 291 (Pl. 24) has blue with applied white blobs followed by streaks of red traversed by gray-blue lines as continuations from the contour of the blue. Along this contour there are some black projections akin to those along the lower edges of the rocks of the Thera Ship Procession. There, the black projections are sometimes more pronounced and project downward into the sea like maritime rocky outcrops (as in the Arrival Town peninsula), but elsewhere they are more discrete and occasionally project the other way (as in the Departure Town peninsula). On the basis of this comparison, the piece suggests the meeting of sea with rocky landscape, but as it is the only such piece, it may be that rock transitioned directly to sea only in places, while elsewhere the rock transitioned first to land and then to sea. Fragment 291 shares the same context as the Rocky Landscape fragments, but identification of a rock to sea transition was considered insufficiently secure to include it in the composition. However, a clue to the lower part of the painting might be afforded by the cauldron fragment (67), which shares its context with the majority of the pieces in this composition. This connection between the Rocky Landscape and the Cauldrons and Ships scene is presented in Figure 7.26. Almost all the pieces used here are from N.20 East. One fragment has been added from N.20 West (293) and two from N.18 (267, 294). Figure 7.14 suggests a second rocky landscape with men, using pieces only from the west of N.20, with the same delicate multicolored descending rocks but with only the blue upper contours of the rocks. Fragment 293 might have belonged there but was included here because of the applied white blobs. The rocky landscape in this composition would most likely have been painted toward the east of the south wall of N.20.

12 Doumas 1992, pls. 35–38.

Figure 7.26: Cauldrons and Ships Scene with Rocky Landscape This takes us to another level of visualization by joining two compositions: Figures 7.8, the Cauldrons and Ships Scene, and 7.25, the Rocky Landscape. The aim is to give an impression of what a part of the frieze might have looked like as a whole. It is painted without distinguishing the fragments, which are documented in the respective compositions. The rationale starts with the observation that on the right of the cauldrons fragment, 67, there are fugitive traces of blue and pink, which are likely to have been rocks (visible in the photograph in Pl. 7 and the study drawing in the catalog, and included in Fig. 7.8). The fugitive blue patches begin at the level of the man’s bent elbow and, with the pink, rise to the top right of the fragment. The rocks therefore begin 19 cm from the assumed lower edge of the frieze, as based on the reconstruction of the ship in the sea below. In the reconstruction of the Rocky Landscape, the blue and red rocks would end at approximately the same level, assuming a consistent height for the frieze. This would mean that there is space below the Rocky Landscape for sea and a ship. One could, therefore, envisage the Rocky Landscape immediately to the right of the Cauldrons and Ships scene, with another ship below, as suggested in Figure 7.26. The transition from rocks to land is based on 291, discussed (but not included) in relation to Figure 7.25. The reconstruction of the third ship uses a fragment of hull (75) not included in Figure 7.8. It consists of a double row of dots on white, one in yellow ocher, the other red ocher. As the white was painted over blue, this is clearly part of a ship. The context is the same as the cauldrons and ships fragment, 67. All the ships are drawn without oars or paddles, since no evidence for propulsion was forthcoming. However, an alternative reading was provided in the drawing in Figure. 3.1:b, in which oars have been added (cf. pp. 96–98). The buildings are anomalous in having no visible openings, while the one in 67 demonstrates that they were of unusual size. In Chapter 4, it was proposed that these represented shipsheds (pp. 135–137). Given the uncertainty of their configuration, only minimal reconstruction has been attempted. In putting the two compositions together, a sense of relative scale is achieved. The hills of the Rocky Landscape, which looked monumental on their own,

VISUALIZING THE PAST: THE COMPOSITION OF THE MINIATURE FRIEZE

0

10

265

20 cm

Figure 7.26. Visualization of the Cauldrons and Ships scene with Rocky Landscape. Scale 1:8. Watercolor L. Morgan.

appear smaller when placed in juxtaposition with the human figures and the ships. This relative scale is comparable to that of the hills, people, and ships in the Thera Miniature Frieze, the figures in the Kea painting being just a little larger. While all other compositions were executed at 1:1, for practical reasons this watercolor was painted at 1:2 scale. The height of the frieze as painted is 27 cm, making the total height of the original ca. 54 cm, which matches the composition in Figure 7.1. The length of the composition as painted at 1:2 scale is 82 cm, representing a portion of the frieze measuring, at 1:1 scale, 1.64 m. The composition as a whole is composed of fragments from the same context, the eastern part of N.20, the majority from a similar depth. Since no more than a couple of fragments attributable to the composition had fallen into N.18, it is clear that this scene belonged to the southern part of the room, most likely the eastern half of the southern wall. This proposed position is indicated in the visualization of the room in Figure 7.27.

Figures 7.27 and 7.28: A View of the Room with the Miniature Frieze A proposal for how Room N.20 might have looked is offered in Figure 7.27, showing the shorter east wall (left) and the longer south wall (right). The same combination of walls is offered for the visualization

of N.18 in Figure 8.9, in which one can see the Miniature Frieze in the adjoining room through the doorway. The archaeological and architectural rationale for the upper story configuration of walls, windows, and doors for the two rooms was presented in Chapter 1 (pp. 28–36). Here a summary of the findings is provided along with further comments by way of clarification. It should be stressed that these views are hypothetical. Several clues from the Kea material have been built into my interpretation, but much is dependent on our understanding of the West House at Akrotiri, where the upper stories have actually survived.13 Structural relationships between the layout of the wall paintings in Rooms 4 and 5 of the West House and Rooms N.18 and N.20 of the Northeast Bastion are discussed in Chapter 11.

Visualizing Room N.20 The dimensions of N.20 are well preserved at the ground floor level, and at the time of excavation the walls partially survived into the upper story. The view in Figure 7.27 is based upon the plan in Figure 1.7:b, with the hypothetical wall separating the western area with the drain from the main part of Room 13 Palyvou 2005a, esp. 128 (heights of upper floor rooms), 143 (doors), 149 (windows), fig. 241 (elevation of room 5 in the West House), pl. 3 (reconstructions of rooms 5 and 4 of the West House).

266

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

Figure 7.27. Visualization of the way Room N.20 might have looked, viewed toward the southeast. Design and watercolor paintings L. Morgan; computer realization N. Math.

N.20. The plan is reproduced with north reversed in Figure 7.28 to show the angle of viewing. The rationale for this dividing wall, which makes the main part of N.20 square rather than rectangular and of a size and shape comparable to Room 5 of the West House, rests partly on the existence of the drain in the southwest corner and partly on the evidence for two doorways into the room from N.18, which would make sense only if N.20 were divided. The north wall dividing N.20 from N.18, which is not shown in the view in Figure 7.27, survived at its western end into the upper story. At the far west was evidence for a door connecting the two rooms and, a little farther to the east, traces of a second door discernible in the configuration of fallen stones (this vol., Ch. 1, pp. 31, 35, nn. 86, 114), as reconstructed in the plan in Figure 7.28 (cf. Fig. 8.9, which presents a view through the two doorways). There can be little doubt that windows lined the external east and south walls of N.20. Beyond the need for light for the activities that took place in the room and, of course, for viewing the paintings, the strategic position of this part of the bastion— overlooking the main route from the harbor to the

N.20

N.18

Figure 7.28. Rooms N.18 and N.20, showing the angle of viewing for Figure 7.27. Image L. Morgan and S. Laidlaw, adapted from the site plan by R.L. Holzen.

town gate—means that windows would have afforded privileged and no doubt tactical views. Multiple windows would surely have been a necessary part of the function of the building. In support of this configuration is the fact that little wall plaster was found in the eastern half of the room, whereas red painted plaster was found mainly in the north-western part of the

VISUALIZING THE PAST: THE COMPOSITION OF THE MINIATURE FRIEZE

room, where there were no external walls to accommodate windows. In Room 5 of the West House, the Miniature Frieze lay above pier-and-window partitions on two walls, with four windows to a wall and doorways and cupboards on the other two walls. For Room N.20, a similar configuration is envisaged. Numerous fragments with a flattened edge bear witness to the horizontal beams between which the plaster was laid, pressed down onto the wooden frame as it was applied to the wall. The dimensions of the windows and their height from the ground, along with the corresponding height of the dado, are based on the findings from Akrotiri. These dimensions fit the format of the almost square room formed by the addition of the dividing wall, as in the plan of Figures 1.7:b and 7.28, allowing for, as at Akrotiri, four windows per wall. The main difference between each of the rooms with a miniature frieze in the two towns is that, while the West House had two large-scale panels of fishermen, there were no panel paintings in Room N.20. Several pieces of unpainted ceiling plaster, distinguished by its molded shape with reed impressions on the back, were found in both rooms, indicating that the ceiling was plastered. No surviving molded pieces (among those not discarded following the excavation) indicate the covering of the supporting ceiling beams that would have run from one side of the room to the other below the main ceiling beams running in the other direction. Presumably, it was the latter that were covered with mud and reeds then plastered, while the former were left as wood, as shown in Figure 7.27. At Akrotiri, the lower supporting beams ran from east to west, making the painted zone on those two walls narrower than on the north and south walls.14 Judging by the estimated height of the Town by a River (Fig. 7.1), which is likely to have come from the north wall, and the Marsh (Figs. 7.19–7.22), which surely came from the east wall, the same configuration would have applied to the Northeast Bastion. Here, however, the differential between the heights of the frieze is less striking than in the West House. In the latter they are 44 cm for the north and south walls, 28 cm for the east and west walls, while my estimates for Room N.20 are 54–55 cm for the north and south walls, and 46 cm for the east and west walls (the difference being equivalent to half a 14 See the room reconstructions in Palyvou 2005a, pl. 3:A, B.

267

beam width). (See the discussions in Ch. 7 of Figs. 7.1, Town by a River, and 7.19–7.21, Marsh, respectively.) In the view of the room, only two parts of the frieze—the Marsh on the east wall and the Cauldrons and Ships scene with Rocky Landscape on the south wall—have been included, owing to the uncertainty of the distribution of the other scenes (see below). A significant amount of red ocher wall plaster was found in N.20. It is likely that some belonged to the north and west walls (not shown here), which, being interior walls, could not have had windows, though the north wall at least may have had cupboards. Some of the red painted plaster no doubt belonged to the dado in the room, as suggested by fragments from Room N.18 in which parts of the Plant Panel rise from a zone of red (617–622; cf. Ch. 8, pp. 276, 281, 301). It is more than likely that the dado in the two rooms would have matched. At Akrotiri, almost all rooms with wall paintings had a painted dado. Those in the West House are imitation stone, divided in Room 5 at intervals by vertical strips of imitation wood, which correspond to the actual wooden window frames above, and in Room 4 by simple narrow strips of yellow ocher. These elaborate architectural imitations and the plain dadoes in other rooms were divided horizontally from the central painted zone of the wall by one (in the West House) or more painted bands. The other dadoes were plain yellow ocher (House of the Ladies) or blue-black (Beta 1, Xeste 3).15 In the Northeast Bastion, red ocher can be unequivocally attributed to the dado of N.18, and the dado of N.20 was almost certainly the same color. It is conceivable that vertical painted yellow ocher divisions continued the vertical lines of the wooden beams that divided the windows, as they did in the West House. However, such divisions are appropriate 15 West House, imitation stone and wood dado: Doumas 1992, pls. 16–19, 24, 49–56, 63–64. House of the Ladies, yellow ocher dado: Doumas 1992, pl. 6. Beta 1, Boxers and Antelopes, blue-black dado: Doumas 1992, pls. 78, 79, 82, 83. Xeste 3, blue-black dado with red bands above: Doumas 1992, pl. 122 (Presentation). Xeste 3, blue-black dado: Doumas 1992, pls. 116, 129 (Saffron Gatherers); Vlachopoulos 2008b, fig. 41.10 (Shrine). Delta 2 is an exception in having no dado; instead the painted rocks reach to the ground (Doumas 1992, pls. 66–68). The stylized rocks beneath the monkeys in Beta 6 appear to merge into a blue-gray dado (Doumas 1992, pl. 86).

268

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

for stone slabs, which the West House dado imitates, not for plain painted dadoes, which at Akrotiri have no vertical divisions. Despite lying beneath pier-and-window partitions, therefore, I have left the dado plain. Numerous pieces of unpainted molded plaster were found in this room in particular (many of which were discarded after the excavation, though some were kept). Their molded form indicates that they covered a curved structure. It is possible that there were plastered benches for seating along the walls with windows (this vol., Ch. 1, p. 33–35). Such benches would have obscured the view of the dado on these walls. However, as hypothetical benches would constitute furniture, they have not been included in the views. Large numbers of schist slabs were found fallen from the floor of N.20, while there was a significant amount of red-painted floor plaster as well. The floor of N.20 was apparently of the same construction as that of Room 5 in the West House: schist slabs with red painted plaster in the interstices and around the edges of the room.

Distribution of the Scenes Figure 7.27 demonstrates how the Miniature Frieze would have run above the windows and doors of N.20 and aims to visualize the room. Exactly how the various parts of the composition were arranged on each wall, however, remains open to question. As discussed at the beginning of the book (this vol., Prologue, pp. 12–13; Ch. 1, pp. 36–38), both the deposition of the fragments of the Miniature Frieze and the method of recording their excavation contexts make the task of assigning scenes to specific positions in the room tentative at best. The dividing wall between the two rooms fell northward, and the upper floor of N.20 evidently slid toward the basement of N.18, resulting in many of the fragments of the Miniature Frieze having been found there. In addition, those fragments that were found in the basement of N.20 were recorded with broad locations rather than being identified with specific contextual details. Finally, one should not lose sight of the fragmentary nature of the material. Given the length of the walls and the estimated height of the frieze, the surviving fragments (those drawn and photographed) when packed together indicate that between 12% and 15% of the frieze survives (not counting those fragments that are so poorly preserved as to be unreadable).

Strikingly, every surviving fragment with a flattened edge (where the plaster pressed against the horizontal wooden beams inserted into the walls to provide a frame for the frieze) is blue, painted directly on to the plaster. There is not a single fragment of yellow ground or multi-colored rock with a flattened edge.16 One thing we can be sure of is that both the top and the bottom of the frieze was blue—the sky and the sea. Side pieces are less distinctive, recognizable only when they preserve convexity of the surface and a slightly sloping edge. Only three fragments that can be securely identified as side pieces survive (Fig. 7.19). As we have seen in the discussion of Figure 7.1, four fragments have a distinctive ridge projecting at the back of the plaster, providing a unique opportunity to assemble a vertical segment of the painting. The ridge is flat on one side, indicating that the structure was smooth, timber rather than stone. It should correspond to the frame of either a window or a cupboard beneath the frieze, which extended up to the ceiling and was then covered with plaster in readiness for the painting (this vol., Ch. 9, p. 330). The context of the four fragments is the east part of N.18, so they must have fallen into the adjacent room as the dividing wall collapsed. This section of the frieze either stood above the northernmost window of the east wall, or (more likely) the eastern section of the north wall, above a cupboard. It provides a lynchpin for the composition of the frieze. Other parts of the town(s), as represented by Figures 7.2 and 7.3, presumably also belonged to the north wall, since again most of the fragments were found in N.18, with a few from N.20. The Herder with Goat in Figure 7.7 (along, no doubt, with other herders and animals) may well have come from the vicinity of the town(s), as in the pastoral scene on the north wall of the Thera Miniature Frieze. The fragments, however, came from diverse locations, as did the other white animal pieces, so a firm location cannot be established. Also found in Room N.18 (more in the center), hence probably also from the dividing wall, came three related compositions, all on a slightly larger scale: Figures 7.4 (Thistles and Descending Rocks), 7.5 (Building and Plants), and 7.6 (Horse and Building). Despite the slightly larger scale, it is more likely that this group of scenes belonged to the side of the 16 Among the poorly preserved (unrecorded) fragments from N.18, there is one small edge piece of red. This almost certainly belonged to a dado.

VISUALIZING THE PAST: THE COMPOSITION OF THE MINIATURE FRIEZE

wall that faced N.20, rather than that which faced N.18, since the Miniature Frieze is highly unlikely to have continued across two rooms. To the left of the thistles scene lies the beginning of a building. To the left of the building and plants lie thistles, and to the right lies an ocher plant. Beneath the horse lie similar ocher plants, and to the right is a building. These most likely all belong together, running from left to right (divided by vertical string lines, here shown as commas): white building, thistles on yellow ground with descending red rocks, white building with plants (subdivided by a string line), horse and plants on yellow ground, ocher and white building. The large building in Figure 7.5 has string lines defining both sides. As reconstructed with the plants, the building measures 49.5 cm wide, which therefore represents its minimum width. The three compositions as they stand measure 1.35 m together. If we assume the two buildings at the left and right sides were approximately the same width as the central one, the total would come to ca. 2.34 m. If all the compositions in Figures 7.1–7.7 were painted on the north wall, as they stand they would reach a total length of ca. 2.77 m (Figs. 7.4–7.6 at 1.35 m; Figs. 7.1–7.3 at 1.42 m). Allowing for continuations of all the buildings and the herding scene, an approximation would be ca. 4 m. The total wall was just over 6 m long; if the room were divided (as in Figs. 1.7:b, 7.28), this northern wall would have been approximately 4.20 m long. If they all belonged on the same wall, the west to center part of the wall would have been occupied by the three associated compositions in Figures 7.4–7.6, comprising, from left to right: building and thistles, building and plants, horse and building. On the east half of the wall would have been the compositions in Figures 7.1–7.3, comprising, perhaps in this order: buildings with dome-like projections against yellow ground, women and buildings, town with a woman by a river with sky above. A herding scene, as in Figure 7.7, might have lain nearby. The transition between yellow background for the buildings and blue, cloudy sky, is no doubt explained by the fact that the former lay lower down in the pictorial plane (this vol., Ch. 4, p. 118). The problem with this scenario is how to bridge the gap between the slightly larger scale buildings in Figures 7.4–7.6 and the smaller scale town(s) of Figures 7.1–7.3. Either we have irretrievably lost the link, which is highly likely, or Figures 7.4–7.6 belonged in a different scene, perhaps on a different wall. If the latter, the options would be either the other side of

269

the dividing wall, in N.18 (which is unlikely), or the west wall of N.20. In the earthquake destruction, at least some of the upper part of the west wall may have collapsed eastward (this vol., Ch. 1, p. 36), and no doubt much of its contents also slipped northward with the collapse of the floor. One fragment of a white animal, included in Figure 7.7, Herder with Goat, is made of two joining pieces, one found in N.18 East, the other found in N.20 West. Similarly, the distinctive fallow deer pieces, which surely all belonged together, were found in both N.18 and the west side of N.20. Figure 7.17, Deer and Dogs, is composed of fragments found almost exclusively in these two locations, N.18 and the west side of N.20. This scene is, therefore, attributed to the west wall of N.20. The deer and dogs, like the buildings and plants in Figures 7.4–7.6, are on a slightly larger scale than the rest of the scenes. It could be, therefore, that both scenes came from the west wall, with the scenes of buildings, plants, and horse being on the northern half of the wall (given that almost every piece was found in N.18), and the hunt of deer and dogs on the central or southern part of the wall (many of the pieces having been found in N.20 west). If this were the case, the total reconstructed part of the wall would be in the region of 1.95 m (1.35 m for Figs. 7.4–7.6, 0.60 m for Fig. 7.17). With the estimated continuation of the buildings this length would reach almost 3.0 m, a relatively large expanse of the total wall surface of ca. 3.85 m. Yet a link between the large buildings and plants of Figures 7.4–7.6 and the hunt scene with deer and dogs in a coastal landscape is hard to conceive, and the north wall, also occupied by towns, albeit on a smaller scale, is a more comprehensible location for the large buildings and plants. The Marsh, Figures 7.19–7.21, runs at 1.51 m when the compositions are joined (Fig. 7.22). The pieces were found in both N.18 and N.20 East. Figure 7.19 has pieces that came from the corner of a room, starting a wall on the left side. Almost certainly, the frieze ran along the east wall of N.20, which measured 3.85 m (Fig. 7.27). Given the incomplete preservation of the frieze, it is quite likely that it covered the length of the entire wall. Since the height of the left hand part of the composition (Fig. 7.19) is almost entirely preserved, it appears that nothing lay above or below the scene at least along the northern part of the wall, though that might have changed toward the southern end of the wall. Another short stretch of marsh (Fig. 7.24) appears to have come from the west wall, perhaps in the vicinity of the hunt (Fig. 7.17), in which dogs chase deer in a coastal

270

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

land, perhaps associated with the Sea/Sky and Rocks (Fig. 7.18). There was, therefore, a pictorial echo between the two shorter walls, focusing on the natural (coastal) world, and the two longer walls, in which human action was concentrated. On the north wall were most of the women (four fragments fallen northward into N.18). They were associated with the urban setting of buildings. A solitary fragment with two women was found in N.20 East (2). Only the yellow ground with ocher vegetation surrounds them and they were probably set apart from the town(s). Their context is shared by two of the architectural fragments in the Cauldrons and Ships scene (Fig. 7.8), as well as a piece in the Men by River composition (Fig. 7.12), and a large upper edge of cloudy sky incorporated into the Town by a River (Fig. 7.1). The two women move toward the left in the direction of the women in town(s), no doubt away from the Cauldron and Ships scene and the men. As there are no pieces with which it can be associated, this beautiful fragment has not been reconstructed. It is all that survives of a sub-scene that would no doubt have illuminated the narrative. In all the scenes containing male figures, the majority of the fragments were found in N.20, with only a handful found in N.18 and one that shot right across to the doorway of N.16–N.17. It is, therefore, almost certain that the male figures were concentrated in the southern part of N.20. From the east side of the room came: the Cauldrons and Ships (Fig. 7.8), along with the Paddlers (Fig. 7.9), the Procession of Men (Fig. 7.11), and the Chariot (Fig. 7.10). Mainly from the east, with some pieces from the west were: Men by River (Fig. 7.12), and Men by Rocks or Sea (Fig. 7.13). From the west side of the room came: Men by Rocks (Fig. 7.14), Man with Upraised Arms (Fig. 7.15:a), and Hunter with Prey (Fig. 7.16). For the remaining landscape, the pieces in the Rocky Landscape (Fig. 7.25) came almost exclusively from the east side of the room, while the pieces in Sea and Rocks with Men/Sky and Descending Rocks of Figure 7.18 came almost exclusively from the west side of the room, some specifically from the southwest. Most likely, the Cauldrons and Ships Scene (Fig. 7.8) came from the east end of the south wall. As reconstructed, it runs at just over a meter long, but given that there was at least one other ship, it would have been a minimum of 1.5 m in length, probably longer. When combined with the Rocky Landscape (Fig. 7.25), which, as discussed above, probably lay to the right of the cauldrons scene, it measures ca. 1.60 m (Fig. 7.26). The wall was ca. 6.0 m if the room

had no division (Fig. 1.7:a), ca. 4.10 if, as seems more likely, it was indeed divided (Figs. 1.7:b, 7.28, and as visualized in Fig. 7.27). The Procession of Men (Fig. 7.11) came from nearby, though whether to the left (either on the south end of the east wall, or the east end of the south wall) or to the right (in the center of the south wall) is unknown. The Men by River (Fig. 7.12), of mixed east–west context, was probably close to the Procession, as the same type of garments are worn by the men in both, implying either a spatial link or a temporal progression. North, east, and west walls all had a river, and if this scene were on the south wall, then it too would have had one, but its position remains unclear. The Men by Rocks (Fig. 7.14) and the Man with Upraised Arms (Fig. 7.15:a) may have come from toward the western end of the south wall. This was surely the position of the Hunter with Prey (Fig. 7.16), which fits both with the fragment’s context (south-west) and the iconography of the other scenes, as the figure would then be walking away from the deer hunt and toward the cauldrons.

Conclusions: Structure and Meanings From the analysis of the compositions as reconstructed and the archaeological contexts of the fragments, the following is a tentative proposal for the distribution of scenes on the walls. It is—it should be stressed—no more than tentative. In particular, it should be noted that some of those scenes that are attributed to the eastern or western part of the south wall could (in terms of context) also have belonged to the southern part of the east or west wall, respectively. But since it is hard to see how any of them would fit with the larger-scale marsh and hunt scenes of those two walls, they are all attributed to the south wall, where the male action appears to have been concentrated. Relationships between the scenes attributed to the south wall are left open-ended. (For example, how did the river end in Men by River; and did the chariot face the ships or the hunter?) For the north wall, however, the scenes are clearly distinguishable as groups owing to the differential in size. The positions of the scenes on the north wall are envisaged as follows: at the east end lay the Town by a River (Fig. 7.1), Buildings (Fig. 7.2), and Women and Buildings (Fig. 7.3); in the center was the Herder with Goat (Fig. 7.7), along with other animals; and at the west end were the Thistles and Descending

VISUALIZING THE PAST: THE COMPOSITION OF THE MINIATURE FRIEZE

Rocks (Fig. 7.4), Building and Plants (Fig. 7.5), and the Horse and Building (Fig. 7.6). The east wall was the location of the Marsh Landscape reconstructed in Figures 7.19–7.23, while the west wall featured Deer and Dogs (Fig. 7.17) and Marsh and Sea (Fig. 7.24). The south wall was painted on the eastern half with: Cauldrons and Ships (Fig. 7.8), Rocky Landscape (Figs. 7.25, 7.26), Paddlers (Fig. 7.9), Chariot (Fig. 7.10), Procession of Men (Fig. 7.11), and Men by River (Fig. 7.12). Somewhere on the south wall the scene of Men by Rocks or Sea (Fig. 7.13) was also positioned. On the west half of the south wall were placed the scenes of Men by Rocks (Fig. 7.14), Man with Upraised Arms (Fig. 7.15), Hunter with Prey (Fig. 7.16), and perhaps Sea/Sky and Rocks (Fig. 7.18). A few of these tentative attributions are illustrated in Figure 7.27, which attempts to reconstruct how the room might have looked with the paintings in place. As in all mural paintings, each wall has an orientation, both internally, in relation to the adjacent and opposite walls, and externally, in terms of what was outside, seen from the windows or known from experience.17 If we relate the walls to the known world, the ships on the eastern end of the south wall would point toward the sea and probable main harbor. It was from this direction that ships from Crete, Thera, and other locations would have arrived. The town lay north of this maritime scene, just as Ayia Irini lies north of the entrance to the bay linking the open sea with the harbors. The marsh on the east wall points toward what is today a marshy bay. The hunt scene with the deer and dogs on the west wall, in its relatively larger scale and particular position in the room, accords with the relative scale and position of the hunt scene of the Miniature Frieze at Akrotiri (cf. this vol., Ch. 11). Inevitably, given the fragmentary state of the frieze, there are many gaps in the visual thread of ideas. The overall structure remains elusive. Were the paintings read in a linear fashion from a defined point on the left or right of one of the walls, a narrative winding its way systematically around the frieze? Or was there a paratactic structure, in which various related scenes 17 Cf. Morgan 2007b.

271

combined in their diversity to engage the eyes? Was each wall independent, or did they relate to one another in their adjacent or opposite positions? These are difficult questions, but not, I think, entirely unanswerable. By noting the positions in which the majority of pieces from each of these scenes had fallen, it has been possible to estimate how they related to one another and where on the walls they originally lay. It appears that human action was positioned mainly on the north and south walls, while much, if not all, of the east wall was occupied by the marsh landscape, and on the west wall was the hunt scene on a notably larger scale. Each wall appears to have had its own range of scenes and settings, and while there is a narrative thread to be detected in the scenes held together by the sea running along the bottom of the entire frieze, the human and animal action, the landscape, and the urban settlements each appear to have had their place. It therefore appears that the structure was more paratactic than linear, more related by opposite than adjacent walls. Not every part of the puzzle has been solved, by any means. But the general picture has been sketched and some details highlighted. The settings are finely delineated as coastal and marshy, with meandering river and trickling streams, or as hilly and rocky— typical coastal and inland environments of Aegean islands. Parts of the visual narrative are clear: women in towns; hunt, hunter with prey, and cooking in cauldrons, together implying preparation for a feast; and robed men bringing produce and greeting one another, a procession of men, decorated ships, and a chariot, all pointing to a ceremonial gathering for male elites. The primary theme is the gathering of a community in what appear to be preparations for a public festival. The wider implications of this identification will be examined in the context of intercultural connections (this vol., Ch. 11) and the broader social context (this vol., Ch. 12, Epilogue) in Part IV of the book. Those final conclusions rest on the long process of analysis that led to the compositions presented here.

Part IIB Plant Panels

8

Plant Panels

Adjacent to the room with the Miniature Frieze, Room N.18 was adorned with life-size paintings of plants. Two compositions can be discerned among the fragments. The larger comprises two intertwined plants, one with smooth red stems and smooth lanceolate yellow ocher leaves growing alternately up the stem, the other with thorny red stems and trifoliate leaves with serrate (toothed) edges painted in blue and yellow ocher. The latter plant is recognizable as a bramble, with a few berries that define it as blackberry; the former is identifiable as the evergreen shrub myrtle. The smaller composition was largely composed of blue and yellow ocher leaves, some long and narrow, representing reeds and grasses, others long but lanceolate in shape, some of which appear to be free-floating while others have stems in muted ocher. The dominant theme of this composition is of aquatic plants, and one fragment indicates that there was a red stream beneath at least part of the composition. The two plant compositions represent, on the one hand, hedgerow or dry ground vegetation, and on the other, coastal or marsh vegetation.

The Plant Panels in Their Architectural Setting Whereas with miniature paintings one begins with an understanding of the basic format—a narrow frieze running continuously above windows and doors—large-scale paintings have a wider range of possibilities in terms of architectural structure. To visualize the scope of a large-scale painting from fragments, it is necessary first to have a sense of the boundaries of the painted surface. For this reason, prior to discussion of the individual plants and presentation of the visualizations, this chapter begins with the evidence for the large plants as panels (as opposed to compositions painted continuously around the room), discussing the diagnostic pieces that led to decisions on how the paintings related to architectural space. This examination of particular fragments in relation to architectural structure serves as a prelude to the reconstructions and ultimately to the visualization of the room, as presented in Figure 8.9, below.

276

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

Determining how the panels were placed on the walls has been challenging, owing to a lack of information regarding the architecture of the upper story. This issue was addressed in Chapter 1 (pp. 28–36), and a proposal for the architectural layout was put forward (Fig. 1.7:b; see also Fig. 8:10, below). While the internal dimensions of the walls are known, it is unknown whether the bulbous exterior wall on the east (Wall R; Fig. 1.7:c) narrowed and straightened at the upper story, allowing for a regularly shaped windowsill. I have assumed that it did, and I postulate a single rectangular window in the center of the wall. In the reconstructions of the walls, I have estimated the measurements—height of ceiling, width and height of doors and windows, width of beams, height of dado—on the basis of the detailed study by Palyvou of the well-preserved architecture of Akrotiri.1 As with any jigsaw, but most particularly one in which the context is architectural, one looks for edges as clues to placement. Not a single fragment of the large-scale plants has a flat edge indicative of a wooden beam or stone floor. There is, therefore, no indication that they reached to the ground or that they abutted either horizontal wall beams or the vertical jambs of a window or door. However, there is one fragment of bramble (657) in which the plaster curves in the manner of the juncture between two walls. Orientation of the plants tells us that the juncture is on the right. The likelihood is, therefore, that the Bramble and Myrtle composition ran continuously over two walls. Significantly, there are two fragments of bramble and myrtle in which the yellow background gives way to plain white along a straight division (628, 629). This division indicates a terminal border to the composition. Orientation of the plants here is somewhat ambiguous, and the fragment could belong either to the top of the composition or to the right side. The latter is, however, the more likely, not only in terms of the orientation of the plants, but also in the use of white (uncharacteristic for top or bottom borders) and the lack of a demarcating string impression. The top and bottom of the Bramble and Myrtle composition appear to have been bordered by ocher. Two pieces (611, 613) have bramble adjacent to a distinct border of yellow ocher with string impression, and four other pieces belong to the same border (612, 614, 754, 755). The orientation of the plants indicates that this border is the top. String impressions

are markers, made while the plaster was damp, before the paint was applied, to determine the edge of the composition (Ch. 9). The paint overlaps the string line, with a rough edge that, at two points, almost appears to transform into a blackberry leaf, as though it were emerging from behind the border (611, 613). The border as it survives is 1.4 cm wide. Although there are other border bands with string lines found within the same room (Pl. 66), they do not match up with the color of this ocher. A wide ocher border has bramble and myrtle plants rising at an angle from it, with some overlapping red, and in one case blue, over the ocher, as though the plants were emerging from the border (617–622). A black or a red line defines the border on some pieces, but there is no string line. Two other pieces (625, 626) have red berries adjacent to an ocher border, which has no line. In addition, there are numerous fragments of ocher that match the color of these border pieces and probably belong with them. It is hard to determine how these fitted into the scheme, since they are quite varied and the angle of the plants in relation to the border is relatively extreme. Three pieces with emerging plants (617–619) have a wide area of ocher border preserved (3.2– 4.7 cm); one piece of border with traces of overlapping plants (622) is even wider (6.3 cm). However, one piece (623) has a clearly defined ocher band of 1.7 cm, with a myrtle plant at an angle above or to the left and white unpainted plaster below or to the right of the ocher band. Such diversity cannot easily be accommodated, since horizontal borders are invariably regular across the width of the walls. Perhaps we are seeing two borders: one from the bottom of the composition, sitting above or at the top of the dado; the other being vertical. The only place where vertical borders might have been used (since we already have the white border on the right side of the composition) is in framing the window. Five pieces (623–627) may have belonged to borders of the panels on the east wall. In each case, the orientation of the plants makes more sense as a vertical border. A parallel for such a format comes from the paintings of lilies in pots on the window jambs of Room 4 of the West House at Akrotiri. While they have the usual Theran background of white plaster, the paintings are bordered by vertical strips of yellow ocher.2 Similarly, in Xeste 3, the

1 Palyvou 2005a.

2 Doumas 1992, pls. 63, 64.

PLANT PANELS

mature seated man with jug and the youth carrying a wide bowl have matching borders of yellow ocher on the side that separates them.3 There are no surviving fragments of the Grasses and Leaves composition that indicate edges or horizontal borders, and only one (733) implies a vertical border. The fragments of the Plant Panels were found concentrated in the east and south of the room. While this may reflect disturbance of the northern part of N.18 from the cutting of the modern road prior to excavation, the existence of (mostly white) plaster from Corridor N.16 and the Northeast Tower immediately to the north of the room indicates that the lack is likely to be diagnostic. It is, therefore, assumed here that the east and south wall (Walls R and O) were painted with the Plant Panels. What was on the north and west (Walls AJ and Q) remains unknown, though the fragments in Plate 65 suggest that there was at least one other composition. The Plant Panels on the east and south walls would give them a prominence consistent with the placement of the doorway from the corridor, at the northwest corner of the room, as well as the placement of the interconnecting doorway between Rooms N.18 and N.20 (Figs. 1.7, 8.9, 8.10). In other words, people walking into N.18 would immediately see the east and south walls as they entered and crossed the room to walk into N.20. The north and west walls would be more visible on walking out of N.20 to exit. The pieces were found mixed, not only with one another but also with many pieces of the Miniature Frieze, fallen from the other side of wall O. However, while the miniature pieces found in N.18 clearly connect iconographically with fragments found in N.20, it is not the case with the life-size plants. With only one stray exception, all of those fragments came from N.18. The vast majority came from the center of the room (on the southern side), while a number came specifically from the east and southeast. Quantifying the contexts has led me to the conclusion that the Bramble and Myrtle lay east of the Blue and Yellow Grasses. From these slim clues, I have deduced that the Bramble and Myrtle composition flanked the single window on the short eastern wall, perhaps separated from the window by a narrow ocher border next to 3 Doumas 1992, pls. 110, 111. For their placement in the room, see Palyvou 2005a, fig. 245; Vlachopoulos 2008b, fig. 41.51.

277

unpainted white, but continuing round the corner of the room onto part of the long south wall. There was a space of painted white probably separating individual panels of the Bramble and Myrtle and certainly separating the latter from the Blue and Yellow Grasses, which lay toward the western side of the southern wall, ending at or before the doorway if there was one, or probably between the doorways if there were two. On the assumption that the lower border of the panels lay above a dado and the upper border was aligned with the top of the doorway (while remembering that the format is based on limited information and is hence conjectural), the dimensions can be estimated. On the east wall, two panels of Bramble and Myrtle most likely flanked the window, each measuring just under 1.0 m wide, with a height of ca. 1.30 m, plus the upper border. On the south wall there would have been a continuation of the Bramble and Myrtle, either as two panels of just under 1.0 m wide each or, less likely, a continuous panel of ca. 2.0 m wide, with a white area of indeterminable width separating the Bramble and Myrtle from one or more likely two panels of Grasses and Reeds. A continuous border band of ocher would have united the compositions above, as would the dado at the bottom, which, from surviving fragments, appears to have been an orangey red color. These estimates are incorporated into the visualization of the room in Figure 8.9, discussed toward the end of the chapter.

Bramble and Myrtle Two plants with life-size leaves grow intertwined against a plain pale yellow background. There is no evidence of a ground line or of any other additional features. It seems that both the lower and upper sections of the panels were framed by borders of ocher, while white bordered the composition on the right hand side. As explained above, it has been calculated that there were two panels on the east wall, flanking a window and perhaps separated from it vertically by white then ocher, each panel being ca. 0.75–1.0 m wide. On the south wall, probably continuous with the right-hand panel on the east wall, there were either two panels of the same width or a single panel of double width. All are estimated to have had a height of approximately 1.30 m, plus the upper border.

278

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

The three compositions as reconstructed are vignettes from these panels. Figure 8.1 (Bramble and Myrtle A) includes the fragment from the juncture of two walls, and it is therefore envisaged as belonging to the south side of the east wall. Figures 8.2 and 8.3 (Bramble and Myrtle B and C) are likely to have been on the south wall, with Figure 8.3 including the two fragments of the right-hand border of the composition where the wall becomes white. In addition, a small section of a border is reconstructed in Figure 8.4. Descriptions of the compositions and their rationale follow discussions of the individual plants within their living and iconographic contexts.

Blackberry (Bramble) Brambles, of which the blackberry (Rubus fruticosus) is the most common, are rambling plants that grow in thick bushes of long drooping stems, known as canes, with sharp thorns. In Europe, Asia, and the Americas, one can see blackberry bushes in abundance on roadsides, intertwining with other plants in hedgerows and along walls or fences. They thrive in rocky scrubland, though they are also found in marshy areas, including on Crete.4 Growing to a height of over 3.5 m, their canes characteristically cross one another, frequently intertwining with other plants, rising from the ground in thick smooth canes which then subdivide into ever narrower thorny stems, bending under their weight into arches. Leaves are usually trifoliate with serrate (toothed) edges, the surface slightly prickly to the touch. White-pink flowers appear between April and June, while the berries appear in late summer and autumn, from the end of July through early November. Flowers can occasionally be seen on the stems at the same time as the fruits. These fruits— composite berries of numerous seed sacks growing around a pithy core—turn from green to red to purple-black when they are ripe. The plant is a deciduous perennial, the leaves turning russet then dying back in winter, the biannual canes overlapping, each producing fruit in turn. The berries are highly nutritious. Sweet when eaten raw, they can also be cooked for preserves. In modern times, blackberry wine is a popular homemade alcoholic beverage. There is no surviving evidence for such usage in ancient times, 4 Papatsaroucha 2014, 204.

but surely the wild berries were harvested and eaten. Dioscorides refers to a drink of blackberry (perhaps of boiled leaves) for intestinal and menstrual health.5 In modern herbal medicine the plant is used against anemia, diarrhea, and diabetes.6 The berries have a blackish dye, and the roots can be used to produce an orange dye. In the paintings (Figs. 8.1–8.3), numerous red canes bear short stalks with trifoliate leaves in yellow ocher or blue. Presumably near the bottom of the panel, the canes are thick and smooth (666, 667), bifurcating into narrower canes with distinct thorns. One fragment, however, has a thick smooth cane that is crossed low down by a thinner thorny stem as well as by two myrtle plants (690). The thick smooth canes are 1.5 cm wide, while the narrower thorny ones vary between 1.0–0.3 cm, with an average of 0.5, even at the tip. Thicker and thinner stems may run side by side (669). The thorns are closer together than in life and more directly opposite one another, but the red paint captures the characteristic hue of the canes at maturity (the young shoots being green, the old woody brown). One fragment preserves the tip of a cane (659). Some canes are relatively straight, rising vertically, others curve and bend, with at least one fragment (690) indicating that occasionally they ran obliquely across the picture plane. The trifoliate leaves are painted ocher and blue for variety, the leaf stalk from which the three leaves grow always being the same color as the leaves. Sometimes they are placed alternately, ocher then blue up one side of the cane, with blue then ocher the other side (669), but the artists were not bound by regularity, and two or even three blues also appear one after the other (643, 649, 690). Most overlap another leaf or stem, whether of blackberry or myrtle. Both colors overlap the red stems, while blue invariably overlaps ocher, indicating that it was painted last. The shape of the leaves, bulbously oval with serrate edges, perfectly captures the leaf of the blackberry plant. There is no veining, the paint being smooth both on these plants and on the myrtle. The berries are painted red or blue-gray (625, 626, 647–650, 653), the composite structure captured with individual dabs of paint, sometimes more diffusely distributed than the tight clusters in nature (649). Where it is possible to ascertain the context 5 Niebuhr 1970, 33. 6 Sfikas 1985, 38.

PLANT PANELS

of the berries, they appear only with the blackberry plant, not on brambles intertwined with the myrtle. Short stalks supporting the berries are red or, in one case (647), ocher. There are no flowers. Here, then, is the season: late summer/early autumn. This plant, with its delicate berries identifying it as blackberry, has, to date, no known parallels in Aegean art. There are two instances of fragments of Cretan wall paintings with plants with serrate edge leaves, one from Galatas (blue leaves), and one from the House of the Frescoes at Knossos (blue and yellow leaves),7 but in both cases, the leaves rise individually from the stems, which is not indicative of bramble, rather than in the clumps of three seen in the Kea painting. Perhaps the closest is a large fragment from Tell el-Dabc a with life-size blue serrate leaves that appear to be clumped, though the stems are not preserved and there are no berries.8 In none of these is the serrateleafed plant intertwined with another plant. The Kea bramble, naturalistically mingling with another plant as if growing wild in a hedgerow, appears to be unique.

Myrtle Myrtle (Myrtus communis) is an evergreen, aromatic shrub, common in the circum-Mediterranean, growing to a height of up to 2.7 m in thickets and woods, lower in scrubland and on bare hillsides.9 Like the blackberry, myrtle also grows in marshy areas, including on Crete.10 Its dark green, shiny lanceolate 7 Rethemiotakis 2002, 57, pl. XV1:b (Galatas). Hood 2005, pl. 7:c (House of the Frescoes, Knossos). Cameron (1968b, 11, fig. 5:b, pl. 6.1) compares the House of the Frescoes plant with mallow, citing the colors as alternating white and yellow or blue and yellow (as in the color facsimile reproduced by Hood). Cf. Möbius 1933, fig. 20:B (Knossos), compared with stinging nettle and grape vine, and fig. 12:A (Hagia Triada). None of these identifications is entirely satisfactory. Another plant from the House of the Frescoes has green trefoil leaves on red stems ending in an inflorescence, but both leaves and stems are smooth, with no serrated edges and no thorns (Cameron 1968b, col. pl. A:3 (no. 4), identified on p. 4 as a “rose-bush”). 8 Tell el-Dabca F.510. The large-scale plants are being studied by Johannes Jungfleisch (Bietak et al. 2012–2013). A trifoliate blue plant appears in the smaller-scale Hunt Frieze (Morgan 2010b, figs. 2, 8), but the leaves are not serrate. 9 On myrtle: Niebuhr 1970, 49; Polunin and Huxley 1972, 133–134; Huxley and Taylor 1977, 108–109. 10 Papatsaroucha 2014, 204–205.

279

leaves grow almost opposite one another along the smooth stem, rising from short stalks (petioles), bulging in the middle and tapering to a point at the ends. Those at the base of the stem are usually larger than those at the top. White flowers blossom from May to July, followed by berries that are blue-black when ripe. The plant has numerous uses. Aromatic oil is extracted from the bark, flowers, and crushed leaves for use in perfume, and an alcoholic drink can be made from the fermented berries. As mentioned by Dioscorides, the plant has medicinal properties against urinary and bowel disease, and it is an antidote to the bites of spiders and scorpions, and a dye was extracted from the plant for blackening the hair.11 In Egypt, too, myrtle was used for urinary and stomach disorders among other ailments and as a hair dye. It was also one of the ingredients in a herbal mixture used in fumigation.12 Myrtle had a powerful symbolic role to play in ancient Greece, one associated with love and peace, and it was frequently planted next to temples and sanctuaries.13 Wreathes of myrtle leaves apparently imparted prestige and honor, being worn by magistrates and by winners of Olympic games (see n. 9). The plant was associated with Aphrodite (and Astarte in the Near East) and was worn at weddings and by initiates in the Eleusinian Mysteries.14 Most interesting is the use of myrtle in the ancient world at times of feasting. In Greek and Roman times, myrtle berries were added to meat dishes,15 while wine was sometimes mixed with aromatic herbs such as myrtle,16 and wreaths of myrtle were held or worn on the heads of diners for their fragrance.17 The implications of this association with feasting and drinking are discussed more fully in Chapter 12. In the paintings, the narrow smooth stems are red, in keeping with the reddish tone of the mature plant. The leaves, which have no veining, are consistently yellow ocher, in place of green, positioned almost opposite one another, with short stalks that only sometimes touch the stem. Otherwise floating in the air, this design adds a sense of movement to the image. The leaves progressively diminish in size as they rise 11 D’Andrea 1982, 60–62; Bauman 1986, 52, 54. 12 Manniche 1989, 124–125. 13 Bauman 1986, 51. 14 American School of Classical Studies at Athens 1963, (no page number) beneath fig. 43. 15 Briers 1990, 13. 16 Bauman 1986, 150. 17 Bauman 1986, 51–55; Briers 1990, 43.

280

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

up the stem, ending in a single leaf at the top (675, cf. 682; Fig. 8.3). Some are overlapped by the bramble, the myrtle having been painted first. The stems are relatively straight in places and bend slightly to left or right in others. In two fragments (683, 690) large leaves are painted a darker, brighter tone of ocher than the others. There are no flowers or berries, which means the identification is unverifiable, but the characteristics of the plant when not in bloom are evident, and there is no other likely contender.18 This fact is significant, since it would suggest that the artist has specifically chosen not to show the berries, in contrast to the depiction of berries on the blackberry. Blackberries ripen in late summer and autumn. At this time of year the berries of myrtle are past while the evergreen leaves remain. It would appear that an identifiable season has been depicted in these two plants. Unlike the blackberry, which appears to be unique in Aegean art, other examples of myrtle have been identified among the paintings of the town houses at Knossos and Akrotiri. From the Knossos House of the Frescoes, Room Q (fallen from Room E on the upper story), came a composition of green (not blue) myrtle leaves on red stems against a buff background, rising from an ocher dado outlined with a wide black-brown line.19 It is dated to MM IIIB– LM IA. The stems rise obliquely from the dado, which resembles the bright ocher border or dado of the Kea painting, but the scale is much smaller, the dimensions of the leaves being no more than 2 cm, in contrast to the life-size plants of Kea. From the Royal Road North came a composition reconstructed by Mark Cameron, comprising several small fragments of green leaves on red stems against a white background, the plants rising from gray-blue and red banded rocks, the white picture frame bordered on three sides by red, which is overlapped by some

of the leaves.20 It is dated by Cameron to MM III. In both these examples from Knossos, the leaves are green, not yellow like the Kea leaves, while the stems are red. Myrtle shoots also appear with the hoopoes of the later (LM IB) Caravanserai Frieze, again green rather than blue,21 and they are also present among the large-scale plants at Tell el-Dabca, where they are blue.22 A generic plant, with individual short stems, akin to myrtle but not closely identifiable, is scattered on the ground around the (assumed) goddess in the painting from Room 14 at Hagia Triada.23 Closest to the myrtle of Kea is the plant from Building Gamma at Akrotiri.24 Albeit on a white background, rather than pale yellow, the plant itself has the same model of yellow ocher leaves on red stems, the leaves diminishing in size as they rise up the stem. The plant has a relatively naturalistic look to it (despite the color of the leaves), less regimented in the placement of stems and leaves than the examples from Knossos. This painting, of course, is contemporary with that of Kea, LC I, and the scale is also life-size. As in the Kea painting, in none of these—from Knossos, Akrotiri, or Tell el-Dabca—does the myrtle have flowers or berries, suggesting that the significance of the plant in the iconography lay in its leaves. The myrtle from Kea is remarkable for its lifelike size and representation, and for the fact that, uniquely, it appears entwined with another plant, the bramble, naturalistically evoking the wild growth of hedgerow plants.

18 Olive leaves are similarly shaped, but more pointed, and the branches fan out rather than rising individually from the ground (Knossos wall painting fragment: Evans1967, fig. 3, pl. VIII), while the silvery gray of the under side of the leaf may be distinguished from the green of the upper side (wall painting from the Royal Road at Knossos: Warren 2005, 146–147, fig. 8.25, pl. 19:a, b). See also Möbius 1933, 12–14, 21, fig. 6:g (myrtle), fig. 7 (olive). On the difficulty of distinguishing between the two (here in relation to the Knossos garlands), see Warren 1985, 196. 19 Evely 1999, 213, no. 45, Cameron’s reconstruction in color; Cameron 1967a, 63–65, fig. 6; 1968b; 1975, 184, slide 35. Evans 1921–1935, II.2, 457–458, fig. 270, reconstruction by Gilliéron fils.

20 Reconstruction by Mark Cameron: Cameron 1975, slide 34; Morgan, ed., 2005, pl. 3. Earlier reconstruction: Cameron 1968a. The fragments came from Sinclair Hood’s excavations; full publication is pending. 21 Evans 1921–1935, II, frontispiece; Immerwahr 1990a, Kn no. 20; Shaw 2005, 96–98, 103, foldout A, pls. 31:a, 32:7, 33:13–17, 20. 22 Bietak 1996, pl. VII:A (F.1, upside down). Cf. n. 8. 23 Militello 1998, pls. 3:a, 4, D, E (color reconstruction); Militello and La Rosa 2000, fig. 3. 24 Marinatos 1968–1976, II, pl. 6 (black-and-white with scale); Doumas 1992, 19.

Bramble and Myrtle Visualizations Three main compositions have been created, along with a brief section of a border, all of which appear here as watercolor paintings. Figure 8.1 constitutes the upper and right section of a panel. It includes

PLANT PANELS

fragments of the upper border as well as a crucial fragment that belongs to the corner of a room. It is, therefore, envisaged as having belonged to the right of the window on the east wall. Figures 8.2 and 8.3 appear as separate compositions, but were painted in such a way that allowed for the possibility that they overlapped in a broader painting on the eastern part of the southern wall. In the suggested reconstruction of the room in Figure 8.9, the decision was made to keep them separate. Figure 8.3 includes a crucial fragment (628) in which the composition ends on the right side, to be followed by the plain white plaster of the wall. It is envisaged that this panel lay on the south wall, toward the center, divided by the white plaster from the composition of Grasses, Reeds, and Blue Leaves (Figs. 8.5–8.8), as suggested in Figure 8.9. The nature of the lower parts of these compositions is uncertain. The total height of the panels, as discussed above, is likely to have been ca. 1.30 m, plus the upper border. I began the reconstructions at the top, and insufficient well-preserved fragments remained to allow for the lowest parts to be filled. A few pieces, however, suggest that the stems rose at an angle from an ocher border or dado (617– 622), though whether it was indeed the bottom of the frieze or a side is unclear. Given this uncertainty, the lower border has not been reconstructed in any of the three main compositions, but it appears that beneath the plants lay a reddish ocher dado (Pl. 52), which is included in the visualization of the room (Fig. 8.9). A small section of a border is reconstructed in Figure 8.4, which in the visualization of the room is placed vertically, to the left of the window. In most cases, the ocher myrtle leaves are relatively regular, diminishing in size as they ascend, whereas the blue and ocher bramble leaves remain the same size throughout. This arrangement is true to life, and the leaves on both plants are life-size. The trifoliate blue and ocher bramble leaves are, however, more varied in execution than the myrtle. Some are neatly serrate, others simply curved in form, and occasionally both types exist in the same bunch of three (as in 649), though more usually consistent within the trifoliate group. There is also a discernible difference in approach to the stalks of these leaves. Blue stalks usually end in a point, sometimes overlapping the stem (as in 649) and occasionally divided

281

(658). Ocher stalks more often rise from the red stem with a slight bulge. The difference can be seen in 643 and 649. It is conceivable that it is evidence for different artists at work. The numerous fragments of bramble and myrtle tell of a dense composition with considerable overlap in the plants. The visualizations aim to express this complexity of composition. Fragments used provide information on the distance between stems and their divisions and changes in directions, as well as proximity of leaves, color variation, and overlapping. The most diagnostic fragments appear in the plates at 1:1 scale, while the smaller or less informative fragments are documented only in the catalog, where the photographs are at 1:2 scale. Figure 8.1: Bramble and Myrtle A This composition uses 62 fragments (Pls. 52, 54, 55) to reconstruct the top, center, and side of a panel. As presented, Figure 8.1 is 56.5 cm wide and 73 cm high. The total width is likely to have been ca. 1.0 m, while the total height of the panel is likely to have been 1.30 m. One should, therefore, imagine that the original was approximately 43.5 cm wider and 57 cm longer from the top to the bottom of the composition, which is not preserved. Several pieces provide evidence for the top border of the composition, which is bright yellow ocher, divided from the much lighter yellow ground of the plants by a string line (611–614, 754, 755). In two of these fragments (611 and 613), the presence of blue leaves on the yellow ground clinches the connection between plants and border, while providing an idea of the distance of one from the other. The ocher border intrudes beyond the string line on 612 and 613, which, unless it was an intentional intimation of plants emerging from behind the border, demonstrates a surprising lack of precision in comparison to the extremely careful planning of the plant compositions themselves. Perhaps the border was painted by a less experienced artist. The total height of the border is unknown, as is what lay above this ocher band. The few border bands found in the room (960– 963; Pl. 66; see this vol., App. A) have no matching ocher coloration and therefore provide no clues as to whether they were related to the composition.

282

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

0

5

10 cm

Figure 8.1A. Visualization of Bramble and Myrtle A. Scale 1:3. Watercolor L. Morgan.

PLANT PANELS

283

79w

81w

755

754 26y

613

478

457x

83w

614

612

611 x

84w

82w

80w

25x

647

779

650

638 23x

59 v 759

339 u

648

639

50x

341 u 760

18y 642

649

10 y 637

22 y

11x 746

401w 771

12y

46u 747

652

753 543 y

20 y

21y

651

780

752

24y

9y

653 13x

14y 64y

15x

644

749

19x 751

748

645

61y 657

17 y

643

420

w 775 367 v

750

43x

51 w

16 y 640

360 764 v

55x

+ 8u

654 658

641 44x

765

655 45v

344u

646 405w 772

168 x 756 774 409w

318 757 u

761

393 w 768

395w 770

423

w 776

394 w

357 v 763

62x

769

406 773 w

546 781 y 372v

656

767

458 x 777

348u 762

331u 758

368 766 v

0

5

10 cm

Figure 8.1B. Outlines of fragments from Bramble and Myrtle A. Scale 1:3. Image L. Morgan.

459 x 778

284

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

Of particular importance is 657, placed on the extreme right of the composition.25 The right edge of the fragment is curved, a characteristic that identifies it as having come from the juncture between two walls. This piece, then, lay at the right end of a wall, and given that the western end of the south wall had a doorway, probably two (this vol., Ch. 1, pp. 31, 35), it must have come from the southern end of the east wall. It has blue and ocher bramble leaves, red stalks that no doubt bore berries (the berries in 653 have been placed above), and a myrtle leaf at far left, which on the basis of its angle has been reconstructed as the top of the plant. The central large fragment on the left, 643, lies at the core of the composition. With no less than five stems, it provides crucial evidence for the varying directions in which the plants lay, as well as for the branching of stems. The central thorny stem divides into two toward the top, one continuing straight, the other veering to the left. Two parallel smooth but wide stems suggest centrality, while the thorny stem veers slightly to the right. On the far left is a stem that diverges at a considerable angle and must, therefore, have run almost horizontally toward its furthest end on the left. It is linked with 644, in which a bramble stem crosses a straight stem of myrtle. The three thorny stems in 643 are seen as deriving from the same base stem, reconstructed running diagonally down toward the lower right of the composition, while the two parallel smooth stems, which converge toward the bottom of the fragment, are envisaged as divided from a single very wide stem. Fragment 766, positioned at the lowest point in the center of the composition, demonstrates something of the potential width, as do, more clearly, 667, incorporated in Figure 8.2, and 690, incorporated in Figure 8.3. Another crucial fragment is 642, placed above 643. Two stems appear at lower left, converging toward one another as they rise. These have been connected to the two parallel stems in 643, here thinner, since they are higher up in the composition. A third stem rises on the right of the fragment, and it has been linked to the right-hand stem with thorns in 643. On the left, a myrtle leaf overlaps the two parallel stems and 25 The upper and lower pieces of 657 were separate when I was working at the museum. However, later I recognized the two pieces joined together in Abramovitz 1980 (72, no. F54, pl. 8), in a black and white photograph without scale and oriented at a different angle.

uncharacteristically points downward. It has been interpreted as the end leaf of a myrtle stem, bending toward the right as it reached the top. The disposition of three sets of blue leaves at center, top, and bottom indicates that three bramble stems are involved: the central one that we see, one to the right, and one to the left. The left one is taken to be one of the parallel stems. It is notable that thorns are not consistently applied to bramble stems. The stem on the right has distinct thorns in the upper part but lacks them near the juncture with the leaf stalks, while one of the two otherwise smooth parallel stems has a single thorn. This fragment is particularly interesting from a technical point of view, as the blue leaves have incisions (see this vol., Ch. 10). The third significantly diagnostic piece is 649, placed toward the upper right in the composition. A relatively narrow thorny stem, evidently from high up on the plant, is flanked by blue leaves, which on the right overlap thin red stalks with small red berries. This cluster of berries must have come from an adjacent plant and has been linked to an offshoot of the main stem in the fragment, as demonstrated by the small but informative piece 652, placed immediately beneath 649. Four other pieces with berries have been included in the composition, 647, 648, 650, and 653. They demonstrate that the berries were both red and blue-gray, securing the identification of the plant as blackberry and of the season as late summer to early autumn, when the unripe red berries turn to ripe black. Red berries also emerge from a bright ocher border in 625 and 626, but since it is unclear where the border fit, it was not possible to incorporate these fragments into any of the compositions. Besides the brambles, a large number of myrtle fragments have been included in the composition. Most of the smooth narrow stems rise more or less vertically, judging by the directions of the leaves, with the exception of the leaf that overlaps the stems in 642. Where there is overlapping between the two types of plant, myrtle is overlapped by bramble, as exemplified by 769 (positioned lower right) and 760 (upper left). Myrtle stems are narrower than the thorny bramble stems. Both, however, taper toward the tops. The much wider smooth stems are characteristic of the lower canes of brambles. Of the 62 fragments used in this composition, 48 came from the center of Room N.18, 13 from the east/southeast of the room, and one piece has joined

PLANT PANELS

fragments from both. However, given that this composition includes a fragment from the right end of the wall, which could only have come from the southern end of the east wall of N.18, it can be deduced that the paintings from the east wall of this room fell into fragments toward the center of the room, mixing with those from the south wall. Figure 8.2: Bramble and Myrtle B This composition uses 59 fragments (Pls. 56, 57) to reconstruct the central part of a panel toward the top, but without the border. The right side permits overlapping with Figure 8.3. As presented, Figure 8.2 is 55.5 cm wide and 76.5 cm high; the total height of the original watercolor is 83 cm. In the full version, which appears in the visualization of the room in Figure 8.9, an upper border has been added and the width and height extended to fit the likely dimensions of the panel. The core of the composition is 669, an exceptionally large fragment composed of many joined pieces. Running up the center of this fragment is a curving thorny stem to which are attached trifoliate, serrate, bramble leaves in ocher and blue. A much thicker thorny stem appears at lower right, veering toward the right. These two stems are reconstructed with 667, placed lower down, which shows a very wide stem that divides into two, with a third branching on the left. This left stem evidently ran obliquely up the composition field, and it has been reconstructed to connect with 661 farther up and to the left. There, two bramble stems cross, the one that derives from the oblique stem turning suddenly to change direction upward as it crosses. As in 667, in 666, placed lower left, a wide stem divides into three, two running upward parallel to one another, the other veering toward the left. The two parallel stems have been connected with three fragments that show narrower thorny stems gradually parting as they rise: 662, 665, and 664, center left. In all three, bramble leaves overlap the stems, some deriving from these stems, others from the left in a continuation of the left branching stem in 666, or from the right in a continuation of the left branching stem in 667. This complex interweaving of bramble stems follows the bending proclivities of actual bramble plants, as does the transition from thick smooth canes at the bottom to narrower thorny ones farther up. Placed lower right, 792 has a branching bramble stem on the right and a relatively broad smooth stem

285

on the left. The latter is probably myrtle, as a number of fragments have thicker-than-usual smooth stems with the characteristic lanceolate ocher leaves of the myrtle. These have been reconstructed to connect with the left stem in 792. In the placement of these fragments (783, 807, 674, 804) one can perceive a progressively thinner stem with progressively smaller leaves. Most of the myrtle stems in these compositions are narrower throughout, and that which runs up 673, in the center of the composition, is exceptionally narrow. In this fragment, ocher serrate leaves of a bramble overlap an ocher lanceolate leaf of the myrtle. It has been reconstructed as deriving from the thorny stem curving its way up the large fragment 669, while the continuation of the narrow myrtle stem in 673 finds its end curving over to the right on the left side of 669, partially overlapped by ocher bramble leaves. Fragment 669 therefore includes two uncharacteristically curving stems, one for each plant, and, given the inclusion of the tip of the myrtle, it evidently belonged to relatively high in the composition. Placed at top left in the composition is 659, which has the rounded tip of a thorny bramble stem, overlapped by an ocher bramble leaf from a parallel stem to the left. Unfortunately, the right part of this fragment has lost much of its painted surface, but it is the only surviving instance of the top of a bramble stem. That the several myrtle stems were both parallel to and intertwined with bramble is apparent from a number of fragments in which leaves of the former are overlapped by leaves of the latter, the relative positions sometimes implying that their stems crossed. Larger myrtle leaves have been placed lower down in the composition, while smaller ones are placed higher up. A comparison between 674 (two-thirds down the stem on the right of the composition) and 671 (placed at the top of the same stem) demonstrates that, as they reach toward the top, the parallel leaves are not only smaller but also closer together. Of the 59 fragments used in this composition, 36 came from the center of Room N.18, 23 from the east-southeast of the room. There are no border fragments included, either from the top or the sides. It is envisaged that this part of the painting came from the eastern end of the south wall of N.18. It may have been a separate panel of similar width to Bramble and Myrtle Panel A (Fig. 8.1), which is estimated to have been ca. 1.0 m wide, standing as a panel

286

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

Figure 8.2A. Visualization of Bramble and Myrtle B. Scale 1:3. Watercolor L. Morgan.

0

5

10 cm

PLANT PANELS

287

47y

38x

53y

5y

678

672

670

121w 671

659 412w

801

359 791 v

391w

399w 800

555

799

y

451 x 810

7y

441 x

822

325 u

785

52x 54y

537y 818

872

669

660

413 w 802

661

49u

536 y 817

425x 804

673

664

663

415w 803

377 v

556y

547y 819

426 x 794 805

321u

823

784

665 63u

374v 793

60v 380v

662

328u 674

667

553y

383 v 797

821

796

820

790 489 x 815

319u 378v

795

330u 787

431 x 807

668

806

782

814

66x 429x

315u

456 x

783

816

326u 786

386

v

471 x 812

811

506x

557y 824

808

813

484x

550y

351u

788

65y

433x

474

x

347 u

666

500 x

39x

48u

139 u

809

798 792 361v

349u 789

Figure 8.2B. Outlines of fragments from Bramble and Myrtle B. Scale 1:3. Image L. Morgan.

0

5

10 cm

288

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

between the (reconstructed) window in the center of the wall and the corner of the room. As such, on the south wall there would have been a division between this panel and that reconstructed as Bramble and Myrtle Panel C (Fig. 8.3), with a white, unpainted area between, as on the right side of Figure 8.3, which apparently separated the Bramble and Myrtle composition from the Grasses and Reeds, as shown in the visualization of Figure 8.9. Figure 8.3: Bramble and Myrtle C This composition uses 82 fragments (Pls. 53, 58, 59) to reconstruct the right and top section of a panel and permits overlapping on the left with Figure 8.2. As presented, Figure 8.3 is 55 cm wide and 75 cm high, excluding the top border, but the total height of the panel is likely to have been 1.30 m plus the border, which presumably matched the width of the lintel of the door. This composition grew from an earlier, small reconstruction, centering on pieces 682 and 675.26 They provide crucial information on the manner in which the two plants were combined. The large fragment 682 shows a myrtle plant of upright smooth red stem with lanceolate ocher leaves alternately placed, suddenly diminishing in size at the top of the fragment. This myrtle is overlapped on both sides by two bramble plants, with their characteristic serrate trifoliate leaves, growing, on the right, from a thicker, thorny stem. Fragment 675 provides the tops of such plants, the uppermost myrtle leaf placed upright over the terminal part of the stem, with the thorny stem of bramble bent over to cross the myrtle. Blue serrate leaves on the right side of the myrtle leaves clearly belong to the thorny stem that curves across the myrtle, evidently a continuation of the stem on the right in 682. On both fragments serrate leaves on the left (ocher in 675, blue in 682) from another bramble stem (not preserved in the fragments) overlap the myrtle leaves. The composition grew outward from these two pieces. It is possible that they were farther apart than in the reconstruction, but the sudden change from large to small leaves in 682 intimates that they were quite close. Two other crucially diagnostic fragments, both substantial, have been added to the composition: 683 and 690. They have been placed close to one another because they are the only two fragments in which a darker, more orange ocher has been used for select leaves. These darker leaves are large, that in 683 26 Morgan 1998, 208, fig. 3.

being uniquely elongated, and are juxtaposed with and overlap the usual ocher leaves of the myrtle plants to which they presumably belong. The right stem in 683 has been reconstructed as belonging to the same myrtle plant as that in 682, though it could have belonged elsewhere. The myrtle leaves are so varied in size that their position in the composition is open to alternative interpretations. Blue bramble leaves overlap the myrtle from below and to the right, and as there is no bramble stem within the fragment, this fact led to the reconstruction of a diagonal bramble stem rising from left to right, crossing the two myrtle stems just beneath the fragment. These two stems, taken to their logical positions lower down, would cross. How the artist solved the problem of dense crossing of myrtle leaves is unclear, but the left stem in the fragment shows that it was not deemed desirable to clutter the space with every logically placed leaf. I have followed this path. Fragment 690 has a total of four stems. The central stem is thick, overlapped by leaves from the other stems, but apparently without any of its own. Given the predilection for stems to divide, I have taken this thick stem some way upward, then divided it into two parallel smooth stems, crossed by leaves, but again without any of their own (839 provides the parallel stems). To left and right of the central stem are two smooth myrtle stems with appropriately shaped leaves, rising slightly diagonally away from the center. The leaves, which are mostly of the orangey ocher, meet, as they would, in the center, overlapping the thick central stem. It may be the origin of the darker ocher here, as yellow ocher over the red stem, when not applied thickly, would create orange, and the surrounding leaves may then have been matched. (It would not, however, explain the appearance of the single huge orangey ocher leaf in 683.) Both myrtle stems have been continued upward, the left to stand upright at the center of the top, parallel to the plant in 682 and 675, the right to bend to the right edge of the composition. The fourth stem, on the left, rises at a more oblique angle, and given that it is thorny, with bramble leaves attached and continuing to the right, it has been reconstructed as crossing the central stem rather than emanating from it. To tie the composition together, the bramble stem of 690 has been continued up to join that in fragments 682 and 675 and down to join the left branch of the dividing bramble stems of 692 (lower right). The right, upright, branch of the stem in 692 has, in

PLANT PANELS

turn, been continued upward until it, too, divides. Fragments 691 and 855 provide the distance between the resulting parallel stems, which gently part as they rise. The right-hand divided stem has been linked to a significantly diagnostic fragment, 628, which shows the terminal leaves of a myrtle branch bending over to cross a bramble stem. The myrtle has been linked to the right stem in 690. The bramble stem also ends here, but not with a terminal point. Instead it is next to an area of white (unpainted plaster) that runs as a straight division, ending the yellow background composition of myrtle and bramble. The terminal myrtle leaf abuts the division, the bramble stem is cut off by it, and the right-hand blue bramble leaf is truncated by it but slightly overlaps it. This area, then, is a border of the painting. As we already have both the top (Fig. 8.1) and the bottom (Pl. 52), and in the programming of Aegean painting border bands are always continuous within a repeated or closely related series of images, we must assume that it is the right side of the composition. There is no string impression. From this evidence, we know that an area of white, unpainted plaster lay to the right of the Bramble and Myrtle panel(s). Of the 80 fragments used in this composition (plus four that overlap with Fig. 8.2), 69 came from the center of Room N.18, 13 from the east or southeast of the room. A single fragment (the only one from the Plant Panels) strayed into N.20 when the painting fell. The composition is envisaged as having come from the center of the south wall of N.18. Figure 8.4: Bramble and Myrtle Border This small section of Bramble and Myrtle with border, reconstructed from five fragments (Pl. 53), could be oriented either horizontally, as the base of a panel, or vertically, as the side. Given the ambiguity, it has not been joined to any of the three main compositions, but it is included as a vignette to draw attention to the existence of such a border. It is not certain that these pieces were close to one another, but they have been combined in order to illustrate the principle of plants at a border. In two fragments (625–626) there is a red berry, one clearly emerging from the border, the other hovering close to it, with a myrtle leaf above. Two fragments have bramble leaves close to the border, one with a gray form that is anomalous, hence not reconstructed (631). The other fragment (623) has a myrtle stem with two leaves. In each case, the plants rise from a yellow ocher border, which in three of

289

the fragments (623, 624, 631) is marked off from the pale yellow ground by a gray line. There is no string line. The largest piece, 623, demonstrates the width of the ocher border to be just under 2 cm, beyond which the pale yellow ground color returns. This size excludes the possibility that it belonged to the lower border of a panel, as other fragments clearly show plants rising from a broad reddish ocher border that should be the dado (617–622). The angle of the plants also precludes an upper border. Placed vertically, the border would be to the right of the plants, which rise at a gentle angle. As there is already a right side to Figure 8.1 on the east wall and to Figure 8.3 on the south wall, the only options for its placement are either Figure 8.2 on the south wall or to the left of the window on the east wall. It is unlikely that there would be two different borders to the panels on the south wall. Most likely, therefore, it bordered the right side of a panel placed to the left of the window, the border acting as a frame that echoed the wooden window frame but was separated from it. This is how it is reconstructed in the visualization of the room in Figure 8.9.

Grasses, Reeds, and Leaves Large scale grasses and reeds (Pls. 60–63) apparently formed one or more separate panels, incorporated with broader leaves with a tapering tip indicating a lanceolate form. Though the latter resemble the myrtle leaves in shape, the stems here are muted ocher, not red, and the leaves are both blue and ocher, distinguishing them from the Bramble and Myrtle Panels, in which variation of color within a single plant is restricted to the bramble. Reeds are a common feature of Minoan pottery and are incorporated into a number of wall paintings. They occur on local Cycladic pottery at Akrotiri in both a narrow and a broader leafed form.27 A few Minoan reed pots were imported to Ayia Irini,28 but 27 E.g., Vlachopoulos 2000, figs. 14–16 (local LC I), cf. fig. 13 (LM IA). 28 Cummer and Schofield 1984, 80, no. 681, pl. 60 (cup fragments); 117, no. 1413, pl. 81 (part of a ewer; Caskey 1962, pl. 96:d). LM IB cups with stream and water sign beneath the reeds: Caskey 1972, 395–396, pl. 95:H8; Schofield 2011, 44, no. 419, pl. 46; 182, pl. 80 (nos. 2314 [Caskey 1962, pl. 96:e], 2315, 2316).

290

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

Figure 8.3A. Visualization of Bramble and Myrtle C. Scale 1:3. Watercolor L. Morgan.

0

5

10 cm

PLANT PANELS

291

373 840 v

675

480 x 866

419w

678

358v 4w

848

396 w

440x 854

492x

559 y

825 6y

370v 839

530y

34w

532y

77x

875

629 538 y

58y

32x

826

477x 379v

439 x 853

835 345u

691 841

342u

876

494

x

421w

869

849

533 y

444 x

878

687

834

475 865 x

688

548.1 y 880

496 x

31x

857

486x

690

870

36x

427 850 x 827

390 w

860 403w 346u 836 417

w

563y

881

450x

551y 883

410w 680

447 x

858

862 873

842

859 886

548.2 y

851

509x

686

432x

844

x

138w

460x

35x

867

467

828

846

464 x 861

389w

683

784

442x 855

531y

33x 37v

879

689

681

679

525y 874

628

877

40y

808

76x

829 684

838 682

433x

843

868

42u

363 498 v

321u

685

78x

830

871 x

41x

885

137a 500 x

316u 831

473 x

884 1x

863

864

837

558y

676

872

470x

852 436x

677

38x

833

856 408 w 845

443 x

2y 3y

335 u

549y 882 418 w

57y

847

322u

692

832 0

Figure 8.3B. Outlines of fragments from Bramble and Myrtle C. Scale 1:3. Image L. Morgan.

5

10 cm

292

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

28w 625 27w 626 69x 624

67u 631

70w 623 0

5

10 cm

Figure 8.4. Visualization (left) and outlines (right) of Bramble and Myrtle border. Scale 1:3. Watercolor and outlines L. Morgan.

they are mostly LM IB, though one may have come from Thera.29 Reeds occur as part of a landscape in a number of wall paintings but are best represented at Akrotiri, in the painting from Room 3b on the upper floor of Xeste 3 (Fig. 6.1).30 Expertly rendered grayblue and yellow reeds overlap in a thicket, their generous inflorescence clearly identifying them as reeds. At the lower edge of the reed bed is a curved red stream with forked protrusions, the Theran idiom for 29 Cummer and Schofield 1984, 116, no. 1393, pl. 80 (tall cup, “Cycladic?”). Cf. the less naturalistic plant in Schofield 2011, 182, no. 2309, pl. 80 (conical bowl, “probably Cycladic”: Caskey 1962, pl. 96:c). 30 Vlachopoulos 2000; 2008a; 2008b. On reeds in Aegean painting and on pottery, see Vlachopoulos 2000, 644–653; see also Möbius 1933, 28–30; Morgan 1988, 20–21 (and 179 n. 35 for references to Cretan wall paintings of landscapes that include reeds—House of the Frescoes, Katsambas, Amnisos, Caravanserai). For MM III–LM I Phaistos, see Militello 2001, figs. 35, 36, pls. X.3 (F 79.1, 2), D.2 (color). See also the reeds in the Tell el-Dabca Hunt Frieze (Marinatos 2010a, figs. 1, 5, 6) and in fragments from Miletus (Niemeier 2005, col. pl. 18).

water that was to be taken over by painters of reeds on LM IB pottery.31 This image of reeds rising from a red stream is paralleled in the Kea fragment 703, where, however, there are no idiomatic protrusions on the stream and no overlapping with blue reeds. In the Thera painting, the white background of the reed bed with its ducks and dragonflies changes to yellow beneath the red stream, a ground on which smaller reeds appear.32 In the Thera painting, the reed bed is the setting for the action of the ducks and dragonflies, which are thematically linked to the scene of the Goddess (who wears pendants of these creatures as a necklace) on the adjacent wall, and, as I have argued elsewhere, to the boys in Room 3b on the floor below (through the theme of transformation in the process of maturation).33 It is not the case in the Kea painting, where the plants are the subject in themselves. The same is true of a painting from the Royal Road North at Knossos, reconstructed by Mark Cameron as blue and yellow overlapping reeds with an oblique stream of dabs of red paint with green, in a waterfall effect.34 The background is white, as at Akrotiri. On the left side of the red stream the reeds are yellow and blue, just as in the Xeste 3 painting; on the right side the plants are red ocher, like the stream. As at Akrotiri, the painting is bordered at the top by bands of color. The Knossos painting came from a MM IIIA context. The Thera painting takes the central element of the earlier Knossos one—the grayblue and yellow overlapping reeds—and transforms it into a naturalistic setting for animal action, complete with seasonal inflorescence, converting the red droplets into the local idiomatic sign for a watercourse. The Kea painting takes a small part of the central element—the reed with red watercourse— and incorporates it into a composition of a variety of types of aquatic grasses and reeds. Interestingly, the fragments of large-scale myrtle found in Building Gamma at Akrotiri were accompanied by a large-scale fragment of grasses and reeds.35 The leaves are of varying width and overlap one another. This painting, then, offers an analogous juxtaposition of myrtle (a hedgerow plant) with aquatic grasses, but without the bramble. 31 Morgan 1984, 172–173, fig. 4; 1988, 14, 34–38. Cf this vol. p. 177 n. 30. 32 Vlachopoulos 2000, figs. 3–6. 33 Morgan 2016 (cf. 2018c, written 2012). 34 Cameron 1975, slide 31; Evely 1999, 206–207; Morgan, ed., 2005, pl.3:1. 35 Marinatos 1968–1976, II, pl. 5:2.

PLANT PANELS

Grasses, Reeds, and Leaves Visualizations The theme of reeds and grasses echoes the marsh in the Miniature Frieze and, given the fact that some of the miniature pieces fell back into N.18 and were mixed with the Plant Panels, in a few cases it was not easy to determine whether a fragment belonged to the large- or the small-scale composition. On the whole, though, the scale was a clear indicator. The composition proved difficult to reconstruct, since, although there are good parallels for blue and yellow grasses in wall paintings, several features are peculiar to this painting, leaving the relationship of one part to another open to ambiguity. For that reason, the reconstructions have been kept minimal and partial. The fragments have the same light yellow background as the Bramble and Myrtle panels, but as there are no pieces that include grasses with bramble and myrtle, it is assumed that the compositions were separate. There is only one instance of a border: 733 has a bright ocher border with a string impression to the right of a stem with leaves (Fig. 8.8:e). As there is diversity in the plants, they are discussed here in groups. However, several pieces indicate that the different types of leaves, narrow and broad, were integrated into one composition. Figure 8.5: Blue and Yellow Reeds by a Red Stream This composition, incorporating 11 fragments (Pl. 60), began with three clearly related pieces (701– 703), which have been combined to form a yellow ocher reed with alternate leaves running up the stem. A fourth piece with the tip of what looks like a reed (704) was originally positioned at the top, but the wide ocher and blue leaves diagonal to the tip of the leaf did not fit the composition as it developed. At the bottom (703) lies a curved red band indicating a stream, with traces of more red below. In the other two pieces (701, 702), narrow yellow blades of grass of varying tones, less bright than the reed, rise on the right at a slightly diagonal angle from left down to right. Traces of blue on the left (702) indicate other leaves. The grasses on the right, which are overlapped by the reed and so were painted first, relate to the grasses in Figure 8.7. The tips of the blue leaves on the left, which overlap the reed and therefore were painted last, are most likely the ends of blue reeds. Eight fragments of such leaves have been added to the composition to the left (693–700). On five of these fragments, the blue leaves overlap yellow

293

ocher ones, to which were added three fragments of the tips of the leaves (694, 695, 697). The blue is subtly outlined in gray, and occasionally a brownishblack partial outline is seen on the yellow leaves (693, 696). The overlapping of yellow ocher and blue-gray reeds, the blue-gray painted last, is reminiscent of the plants in the reed bed painting from Room 3b on the upper story of Xeste 3, as discussed above. The red stream appears in association with large plants only on the one fragment (703). Of the many fragments of red streams (Pls. 30–34), the majority have vegetation that places them within the marsh of the Miniature Frieze (Figs. 7.19–7.24). Presumably, though, there was more of the stream in the Plant Panel. In this fragment it is wider than the streams of the Miniature Frieze but clearly related in concept. A few pieces (381–383) have a wide curved red band without vegetation, which could belong either with the Plant Panel or in the Miniature Frieze. That the marsh in Figures 7.19–7.24 belonged in the Miniature Frieze is evident both from the mixed N.18 and N.20 contexts of the pieces and from the scale of the vegetation. But evidently the idea of the red stream was repeated in a section of the larger-scale painting in N.18. Figure 8.6: Blue Reeds with Grasses In this composition, which also uses 11 fragments (Pl. 61), the main piece (713) is composed of a long stem that divides into two toward the top, with two branching leaves further down and two narrowing leaves in the middle originating from neighboring plants. The leaves are outlined in gray-black, which in places also runs through the middle. The background is somewhat darker than usual in the main fragment, and there are clear traces of straight narrow leaves, like the grasses of Figure 8.7. Related fragments show that the leaves divide again (711) and provide evidence for the neighboring plants (715 on the right and the poorly preserved 712 on the left). Small fragments have been added on the right, along with two on the left. These fragments are not included in the plates, as being repetitive in terms of information, but they are listed in the catalog with 1:2 scale photographs. A fragment of the outlined tip of one of the leaves (714) has been added at the top. Two fragments that probably belong with this part of the composition are 709 and 710, which both have the outlining of a relatively straight leaf divided from another. They were not included in the reconstruction, as the blue leaves are traversed by ocher, which takes the composition into another area of plants.

294

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

0

5

10 cm

96x

694

120w 105x 693

696

192x

Y91

701

695

119x 698 Y90 702 103w 285y

697

130x

699

700

Y2 703

Figure 8.5. Visualization (top) and outlines (bottom) of Blue and Yellow Reeds with Red Stream. Scale 1:3. Watercolor and outlines L. Morgan.

PLANT PANELS

0

5

295

10 cm

135 w

714 889

887 98y

199 x

133 y

711

101x 715

99x 712

X7

136 x 888

297 y

713

891 296 y

310 y

890 892

Figure 8.6. Visualization (top) and outlines (bottom) of Blue Reeds with Grasses. Scale 1:3. Watercolor and outlines L. Morgan.

296

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

Figure 8.7: Yellow Grasses and Blue Leaves This composition uses 18 fragments (Pl. 62). Narrow yellow ocher grasses of varying tone and intensity are arranged vertically parallel to one another, overlapped in places by broader, lanceolate blue leaves and occasionally by red-black dots (721, 725–728). The pivotal fragments are 728 and 721, to which several related pieces have been added. The tips of the grasses appear with broad blue leaves above (718, 721), and blue leaves also appear in the midst of the grasses (720, 721, 728). Blue may overlap the ocher grasses (716, 720) or, in one case, be overlapped by them (721). In the latter fragment, the blue leaves at the top overlie the ocher grasses, while the one beneath underlies it, indicating that the composition was developed in stages with a degree of spontaneity. The same fragment provides evidence for a yellow ocher leaf running across the grasses, parallel to one of the blue leaves. These blue leaves are at various angles to the grasses and do not appear to be attached to any stalks or stems. They are, therefore, free floating. As such, it is not possible to identify them, though they clearly relate to those in Figure 8.8. Similarly, the red blobs scattered among the grasses, several with black painted over parts of the red, bear little resemblance to known plants. In our present state of knowledge of Aegean painting, this rendering appears to be a unique vision of landscape, particular to the painter of this panel. Figure 8.8: Fragments of Leaves from the Panel(s) of Grasses and Reeds A number of diagnostic pieces are presented in Figure 8.8 as extracts (Pls. 61, 63). These belong with the grasses and reeds but cannot be definitively included in Figures 8.5–8.7 owing to a lack of compositional links. In Figure 8.8:a, two related fragments (706, 707) illustrate blue and ocher reeds with wide grasses. They have relatively wide parallel strips of dull ocher, presumably grasses, crossed by a narrow, bright ocher leaf and two (one on each fragment) blue leaves, the one on 706 outlined in gray. The bright ocher grass appears to have been painted after the blue. Almost certainly these pieces are part of the composition of Blue and Yellow Reeds (Fig. 8.5), though here the grasses, if that is what they are, are exceptionally wide. Figure 8.8:b is based on a single fragment (708) showing yellow ocher leaves overlapping grasses or stems. Although it is informative, it cannot be unequivocally linked to any of the other parts of the

composition. The duller ocher is ambiguous, since the vertical strip divides to become two branches, like a stem, but there are no examples of this division within the panels. More likely, the dull ocher strips represent grasses like those in Figures 8.5–8.7. The three overlapping lanceolate leaves are exceptionally bright and relatively large. There is no surviving information on whether they were attached to a stem or free floating. Figure 8.8:c incorporates two fragments (729, 730) representing ocher and blue leaves with an ocher stem. In 730, two ocher lanceolate leaves rise from, though do not touch, an ocher stem, while beneath are two blue leaves of the same shape but larger. The ocher leaves resemble the myrtle of the Bramble and Myrtle compositions, but the stem here is yellow ocher, not red, and the inclusion of blue lanceolate (as opposed to serrate) leaves excludes the fragment from that composition. A related piece of ocher stem with parts of two ocher leaves (729) is included above. There are numerous other fragments with blue lanceolate leaves, or blue with ocher leaves. A selection is presented in Figure 8.8:d–m. While in Figure 8.7, such blue leaves are free floating and associated with grasses, in Figure 8.8:c–g they are attached to an ocher stem. Figure 8.8:d uses five fragments (731, 732, 899– 901) of blue leaves with an ocher stem. The diagnostic piece is 732, which shows two blue lanceolate leaves rising from an ocher stem, with part of another on the opposite side. The stem is slightly wider than that in Figure 8.8:c, implying that it belonged lower down the plant. The blue leaves lie parallel to one another, as they do in fragment 731 placed above it. To the composition are added three fragments of blue leaves, not illustrated in the plates but included in the catalog. Figure 8.8:e uses four fragments (733–735, 902) of blue and ocher leaves with an ocher stem adjacent to a border. Here, variation is achieved in the disposition of the leaves, with blue and yellow either opposite one another, or alternating up the sides of the stem, integrating the two colors rather than separating them, as in Figure 8.8:c, d. This variation allies the plant to the olive, the leaves of which look two toned on the branches, the inner face of each leaf being lighter grayish green than the darker green outer face—such variation being translated into yellow and blue. Fragment 733 is the key to the position of this part of the composition. On the right side is a bright ocher border marked out with a string impression. Given the orientation of the leaves, this

PLANT PANELS

0

5

191 x 716

297

10 cm

X40 + Y32

W9

298y

W8 717

894

131w 718

719

721

W4 X4

W6 726

W 30

727

725 720

X42 896 + 132w

728

724

723 265y 893

Y7 + W5

102y

Y27

X 43

897

Y26 898 X41 895

Figure 8.7. Visualization (top) and outlines (bottom) of Yellow Grasses and Blue Leaves. Scale 1:3. Watercolor and outlines L. Morgan.

298

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

a

c

b

f

e

d

g

j

h

l

k 0

5

i

m

10 cm

Figure 8.8. Fragments of leaves from the panels of Grasses and Reeds: (a) 706, 707; (b) 708; (c) 729, 730; (d) 899, 900, 731, 901, 732; (e) 733, 902, 734, 735; (f) 736, 903; (g) 737; (h) 739, 738; (i) 740; (j) 741; (k) 742, 743; (l) 744, 904; (m) 745. Scale 1:3. Watercolor L. Morgan.

section had to be the right side of the panel. Unfortunately there are no other pieces to match. To this informative piece are added three related fragments of blue and ocher leaves with ocher stem. In Figure 8.8:f, two fragments of blue leaves and ocher grasses are combined (736, 903). The main fragment (736) is difficult to relate to other parts of the composition. It is unclear which way up it should lie. In the orientation presented here, the two parallel

blue grasses would belong to a stem to the right (unless they were free floating). The other way up, they would be rising from the dull ocher curved stem in the fragment. This stem, however, widens at one end, which only makes sense in the orientation presented here. On the other side of the stem is another blue leaf, which overlaps dull ocher that may be indicative of grasses. To the main fragment is added another with two parallel blue leaves.

PLANT PANELS

In Figure 8.8:g a single fragment (737) demonstrates a shift from regularly spaced ocher leaves along the right side of an ocher stem to a more free arrangement of ocher and blue leaves on the left side. The stem is a slightly less red tone of ocher than the leaves, but the distinction is not as great as in Figure 8.8:c–e. At the lower left edge of the fragment is another area of ocher matching that of the stem, which could either represent another leaf or another stem. Since it is less likely that two stems would run at right angles to each other, I have interpreted this shape in the watercolor as a leaf. Figures 8.8:h–m (738–745, 904) present nine fragments of blue leaves that run parallel to one another (h, i, k, l), or parallel to ocher leaves (m), or are overlapped by an ocher leaf (j, l). There is no indication with any of these pieces as to whether the leaves were attached to stems or whether they were free floating, as drawn.

Visualizing Room N.18 Corresponding with the proposed view of N.20 in Figure 7.27, a proposal for how Room N.18 might have looked is offered in Figure 8.9, again showing the shorter east wall and the longer south wall. The plan in Figure 8.10 (cf. Fig. 1.7:b, but here with north reversed) shows the angle of viewing. The rationale for the upper story configuration of walls, windows, and doors was presented in Ch. 1 (pp. 28– 36) and the evidence for the paintings as panels was discussed at the beginning of this chapter (pp. 275– 277). Here a summary of those findings is provided along with further comments by way of clarification. Once again, it should be stressed that this view of the room is hypothetical. As with the reconstruction of N.20, several small clues from the material have been built into my interpretation, but much is dependent on our understanding of the paintings at Akrotiri, where the upper stories have actually survived (this vol., Ch. 7, p. 265 n. 13). On the east wall, a window has been surmised, as light would have been essential for activities that took place in the room as well as for viewing the paintings. In the comparable Room 4 of the West House at Akrotiri, the single window of the equivalent exterior wall is off-center. Here a central window is more likely, given the configuration of the paintings. The dimensions of the window and its

299

height from the ground, along with the corresponding height of the dado, are based on the findings from Akrotiri. These dimensions fit with the estimated size of the Plant Panels, creating a symmetrical layout of one on either side of the central window. The bulge in the wall on the ground floor (Fig. 1.7:c) is unlikely to be representative of the upper floor. Nonetheless, the walls were thick, and the sill would have been deep. This construction is matched by the wide sill of Room 4a, judging by the width of the lilies in pots that were painted on the inner surfaces of the jambs.36 The small composition in Figure 8.4 shows a vertical strip of ocher separating yellow ground to the right and part of a Bramble and Myrtle composition on the left, which obviously continued. It is likely that it lay to the left of the window, the painted border visually complementing the frame. Such vertical framing in yellow ocher occurs at Akrotiri, notably as a frame for the lilies in pots on the window jambs of Room 4 of the West House.37 The composition of Bramble and Myrtle A (Fig. 8.1) includes six pieces of the upper border, unequivocally connected with the painting of the plants (as in 611 and 613). This upper border is bright yellow ocher. Its preserved height does not permit clarity as to whether it was simply a band or if it constituted the beginning of the top zone of the wall, continuing up to the ceiling beam. This composition is placed to the right of the window, since it has a crucial fragment (657) with the characteristic curvature of a juncture between two walls. Orientation of the plants makes it clear that the juncture is on the right. This alignment implies that the Bramble and Myrtle compositions continued onto the south wall. The south wall divided N.18 from N.20. The western end of this wall survived into the upper story, with evidence for the door connecting the two rooms on the far right (west) and traces of a second door discernible in the configuration of fallen stones (this vol., Ch. 1, p. 31 n. 86; p. 35 n. 114; Figs. 1.7:b, 8.10). Height and width of the doors are based on those of the upper stories at Akrotiri, while the distance between them is estimated pending the final report on the architecture. 36 Doumas 1992, pls. 63, 64. The preserved width of one of the paintings is 45 cm, the other 39 cm. 37 Doumas 1992, pls. 63, 64. Cf. the wide yellow vertical zone behind a woman in the House of the Ladies (Doumas 1992, pl. 6), and a similar yellow zone in front of the seated man and the boy with a bowl in Xeste 3, where the yellow corresponds to the architectural placement of the two walls.

300

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

Figure 8.9. Visualization of the way Room N.18 might have looked, viewed toward the southeast. Design and watercolor paintings L. Morgan; computer realization N. Math.

The compositions of Bramble and Myrtle B and C (Figs. 8.2, 8.3) were done in such a way that they could have been joined to form a single 2 m wide painting if such a width were deemed likely, but in planning out the room it became clear that such a configuration is less likely than separation between two panels, each ca. 1 m wide, as shown in the reconstructed view. In this case they approximately match the width of the panels on either side of the window on the east wall. Fragments 628 and 629 in Figure 8.3 played a crucial part in this decision. To the right of each of these fragments is a vertical area of unpainted plaster, separated from the plant composition on its yellow ground by a gray line. Clearly, this was a panel, rather than a continuous painting, separated from the next (probably the Grasses and Reeds) by the white plaster. Once the room had been drawn, one separation between panels rather than three on this wall seemed unlikely. As such, for the span of wall between the east corner and the first of the two doorways I have suggested three Plant

0

1

2

10 m

Figure 8.10. Rooms N.18 and N.20, showing the angle of viewing for Figure 8.9. Image L. Morgan and S. Laidlaw, adapted from the site plan by R.L. Holzen.

Panels, two of Bramble and Myrtle and one of Grasses and Reeds, each ca. 1 m in width. There are fewer pieces of the Grasses and Reeds composition than of Bramble and Myrtle. Therefore,

PLANT PANELS

I estimated two panels for this composition. Distribution of the fragments suggests that this composition lay more to the west on the south wall. As such, I have placed one to the right of the Bramble and Myrtle panels and one on the wall between the two doors. This arrangement means both panels would have abutted doorframes. No fragments were found with the flattened edge characteristic of plaster abutting a wooden frame (unlike the many edge fragments of the Miniature Frieze). This absence raises the issue of whether, as for the panels flanking the window, a vertical strip of ocher divided painting from jamb. A fragment of leaves with a vertical ocher border on the right (733) suggests that it was the case for at least one of the panels. There is no evidence to suggest that the jambs themselves were plastered, since no fragments, painted or unpainted, were found with unequivocal wood impressions on the backs. However, there were large quantities of coarse unpainted plaster in both rooms. Although much of it was discarded after the excavation, the remaining pieces include many that are molded, indicating that they covered a curved structure, perhaps benches (this vol., Ch. 1, p. 33–35) or possibly the beams. The visualization leaves the wood unpainted. A significant amount of red ocher and bright yellow ocher (almost orange) wall plaster was found in N.18, especially in the eastern half. That some belonged to the dado in the room is clear from fragments in which plants rise from the red or overlap it (617–622). These fragments make it clear that there was no wooden beam between the Plant Panels and the dado, a fact corroborated by the complete lack of plant fragments with flattened edges. At Akrotiri, almost all rooms with wall paintings had a painted dado (as discussed in this vol., Ch. 7, p. 267 n. 15), those in the West House being of imitation stone blocks with vertical divisions of imitation wood, others being plain yellow ocher or blue-black, usually with a horizontal band of contrasting color toward the top. As in the visualization of N.20 (Fig. 7.27), for the dado in N.18, to which only red ocher can be unequivocally attributed, I have not inserted any vertical or horizontal divisions of color. At Akrotiri, all painted walls continue the paint up to the ceiling beams. In the majority of cases, upper border bands separate the painting from the top, followed by a wide upper zone of yellow ocher or

301

red ocher. In one case only, the Priestess in the West House, the upper painted zone is not separated from the painting by a narrow band or bands, and this is most likely because it was painted on the inside of the door jamb connecting Rooms 4 and 5.38 Above the plants in N.18 was, as we have seen, a yellow ocher band. Whether it continued unaltered into the upper zone or changed tone is unclear, but almost certainly this upper zone was a shade of yellow ocher, since the dado was red. At Akrotiri, at least, the upper zone of large-scale paintings was invariably a different color from the dado.39 In the visualization of N.18, I have suggested a tone that matches the yellow ocher of the paintings. The fact that plain yellow ocher was found predominantly in N.18, but plain red ocher was found in both rooms, may reflect the fact that both rooms had red dadoes, while the upper zone in N.20 was filled with the Miniature Frieze but that in N.18 was painted yellow. As in N.20, unpainted plaster, distinguishable by its molded shape with reed impressions on the back, indicates that the ceiling was plastered but left white (cf. this vol., Ch. 1, p. 33; Ch. 7, p. 267). Large quantities of red painted floor plaster indicate the appearance of the floor of N.18. Unlike N.20, no schist floor slabs were found fallen beneath N.18 (this vol., Ch. 1, p. 33), so the entire floor (like that of Room 4 in the West House) is likely to have been painted red ocher. Small stones and a few shells mixed into the coarse floor plaster would have been visible in places through the painted surface. 38 West House Priestess: Doumas 1992, pl. 24. For examples of border bands followed by an upper zone of yellow or red ocher, see the Cabins in room 4 of the West House: Doumas 1992, pls. 51, 52, 55; also Xeste 3: Doumas 1992, 100–101, 116, 122; Vlachopoulos 2008b, figs. 41.24, 41.25, 41.33– 41.36; Beta 6 Monkeys and Spirals: Doumas 1992, pl. 90; Delta 17, Osiers: Doumas 1992, pl. 151. Perhaps an exception to the norm of yellow ocher or red ocher in the upper zone would be the House of the Ladies room with the large plants, which appears to have a zone above the bands similar to the neutral tone of the main painting, though with a yellowish tinge: Doumas 1992, pls. 2–4. 39 Interestingly, in the case of Room 4 in the West House, the upper zone above the cabins on one wall was red ocher while that above the adjacent wall appears to have been yellow ocher: Doumas 1992, pl. 51 (yellow ocher, the wall with the window) and pl. 52 (red ocher).

302

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

Summary and Conclusions Large-scale panels of plants were painted on at least the east and south walls of N.18. A large number of the fragments belong to paintings of intertwined bramble and myrtle. Red and black berries identify the bramble as wild blackberry; the other plant has no berries, but its shape identifies it as myrtle. The two plants are intertwined in complex and strikingly naturalistic compositions. The Bramble and Myrtle paintings would have framed a window on the east wall and continued on the south wall, either as one continuous image or, more likely, as two further panels. They were framed at the top by yellow ocher and at the bottom by red ocher, the latter no doubt constituting a dado that continued to the ground. Three compositions, each representing a part of a panel, are presented. On one (Fig. 8.1), a right edge is included, indicating the juncture between the east and south walls, while the other two (Figs. 8.2, 8.3) have been reconstructed so that they might overlap, though the decision was taken to present them separately in Figure 8.9. On the far right side (Fig. 8.3), the composition ends with an area of white. This area presumably separated these plants from a panel consisting of aquatic grasses and reeds. A short section of a border (Fig. 8.4) has been visualized as framing the left side of the window (Fig. 8.9). The aquatic plants are varied in form, and they overlap in what must have been a lively composition. Given the diversity within the composition, it is likely that they formed two separate panels. A red stream lies beneath ocher and blue reeds (Fig. 8.5). Tall grasses, painted with diluted paint in muted tones of ocher, as though seen in the near distance from behind the other plants, appear in association with the reeds and stream and with larger scale blue reeds (Fig. 8.6), which bend as though swaying in the wind. Such grasses become the subject itself in a startlingly original part of the composition in which they provide the framework for apparently freefloating blue leaves dynamically arranged at different angles across the field (Fig. 8.7). Similar blue leaves alternate with yellow ocher ones along a stem of muted ocher (Fig. 8.8:c–e), the combination of light and dark reminiscent of depictions of olive. How the different parts of the panel were related remains unclear, but that they were related is evident from the repetition of muted grasses and the chromatic theme

of blue and yellow. Unlike the striking stems of the Bramble and Myrtle Panels, with the exception of the red stream, there is no red in the compositions of grasses, reeds, and leaves. There is no surviving evidence for the top or bottom of those compositions, though there was apparently an ocher border on the right side (Fig. 8.8:e). Other fragments of ocher borders belonging to the Bramble and Myrtle compositions (Pl. 53 and Fig. 8.4) suggest that vertical strips may have either separated panels like frames or, more likely, surrounded the wooden frameworks of windows and doors. Just as the Bramble and Myrtle Panels are likely to have flanked a window, the Grasses and Reeds probably abutted or flanked a doorway (as suggested in Fig. 8.9). The overlapping reeds have close parallels in largescale paintings from Akrotiri and Knossos, though depictions of grasses on a large scale are rare. Myrtle is also known in large-scale wall paintings from Akrotiri and Knossos, but the depiction of blackberries appears to be unique, as is the intertwining of the plants. As with other representations, there are no flowers or berries on the myrtle; this absence correlates with the season of the blackberries, which fruit in late summer and early autumn, when the evergreen myrtle only has leaves. There is no inflorescence on the reeds, which in reality would also appear in late summer. (Only in the painting from Xeste 3 does this feature appear.) The Kea painting, like the earlier reed painting from the Royal Road at Knossos, presents aquatic plants as the subject itself, rather than as a setting for animal life as seen in the reed bed painting from Xeste 3. They appear as a vision of nature parallel to that of the Bramble and Myrtle. The two types of Plant Panel represent wild hedgerows on the one hand and marshy land on the other. Aquatic grasses and reeds would no doubt have been seen from the window of the room, which would have overlooked the coast (where they grow in abundance today). This, therefore, is a painting that provides a visual memory of a physical, well-known setting. Moreover, both brambles and myrtle, which could have grown wild near the settlement slightly inland, are plants with properties known to be applicable to drinking and eating, and, as discussed further in Chapter 12, they may well have been symbolically associated with feasting.

PLANT PANELS

Catalog of Plant Panels Photos accompanying catalog entries are presented at 1:2 scale. Catalog numbers 611–745 appear at 1:1 scale in Pls. 52–63. These represent the most significant and diagnostic fragments, most of which are included in the visualizations. Catalog numbers 746–904, which constitute less significant fragments, do not appear in the plates, though all are included in the visualizations. Numbers 905–929 are not in the visualizations but contain diagnostic information. Dimensions are given for height and width of the surviving surface area according to the orientation in the reconstruction. Thickness is given for the fragments illustrated in the plates; the others range between 0.5 and 1.1 cm, the majority measuring 0.6–0.8 cm. Relative positional descriptions (left, right, above, below, top, bottom, and so forth) refer to the orientations of the fragments as shown in the catalog, which have been determined according to the author’s best judgement. 611 (79w). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.1 (Bramble and Myrtle A); Pl. 52. Bramble border. H. 3.4 x w. 3.5 x th. 0.8 cm. Two pieces joined. String impression dividing bright ocher border from yellow ground. Part of a blue serrate leaf at lower left.

612 (80w). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.1 (Bramble and Myrtle A); Pl. 52. Border. H. 3.7 x w. 2.2 x th. 0.8 cm. Ocher border and yellow ground. The ocher paint in this and related fragments (611–614) is brighter and slightly redder than that of the leaves in other fragments. The paint has obscured the string line (cf. 613) and encroaches onto the yellow ground. 613 (81w). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.1 (Bramble and Myrtle A); Pl. 52. Border. H. 6.5 x w. 7.1 x th. 0.9 cm. Seven pieces joined. String impression dividing bright ocher border from yellow ground, visible on the right side only, the ocher paint having overlapped the line and encroached onto the yellow ground at center and left of the fragment (cf. 612). Parts of two blue serrate leaves at lower left.

303

614 (82w). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.1 (Bramble and Myrtle A); Pl. 52. Border. H. 2.6 x w. 2.5 x th. 0.9 cm. Ocher border and yellow ground, the string impression dividing the two largely obscured by paint. Cf. 611–613. 615 (U108). N.18 East. Pl. 52. H. 3.5 x w. 4.3 x th. 0.8– 1.2 cm. Tips of two parallel ocher leaves (myrtle) with blue and black blobs between the two, perhaps the berries of a nearby blackberry shoot. The edge of the fragment is broken along a string line, suggesting that this part was the top of the panel. 616 (W14). N.18 Central. Pl. 52. H. 2.5 x w. 1.5 x th. 0.6–0.8 cm. Ocher serrate leaf with blackberry and part of another leaf below. At the edge of the fragment (oriented on the left) is red, belonging to a stem. 617 (73w). N.18 Central. Pl. 52. H. 3.8 x w. 3.8 x th. 0.7– 0.9 cm. Bright ocher border divided from buff ground, outlined in red and with reddish ocher superimposed, probably being a plant encroaching into the border. Oriented here at the base, in comparison with 619. 618 (71u). N.18 East. Pl. 52. Bramble and border. H. 4.5 x w. 3.5 x th. 0.5 cm. Border of ocher with red painted over. The ground beyond the border is buff. Related to 617, 619–622, oriented at the bottom in comparison with the bramble stem in 619.

619 (72u). N.18 East. Pl. 52. Bramble and border. H. 4.8 x w. 3.7 x th. 0.7 cm. Border of ocher divided from buff ground, on which is a red bramble stem with thorns rising at an oblique angle from the border. Cf. 617, 618, 620, 621.

620 (74u). N.18 East. Pl. 52. H. 4.3 x w. 2.9 x th. 1.0 cm. Two pieces joined. Border of ocher divided from buff ground. Cf. 617–619, 621.

304

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

621 (334u). N.18 East. Pl. 52. H. 3.0 x w. 4.6 x th. 0.6 cm. Border of ocher divided from buff ground. Traces of blue, red and ocher on the buff. Cf. 617–620.

622 (552u). N.18 East. Pl. 52. H. 6.4 x w. 11.6 x th. 0.7– 1.0 cm. Four pieces joined. Poorly preserved. Ocher with traces of red and blue. Probably a border of ocher with plants overlapping it.

623 (70w). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.4 (Bramble and Myrtle border); Pl. 53. Myrtle and border. H. 4.7 x w. 4.0 x th. 0.8 cm (with vertical alignment). Myrtle red stem and ocher leaves rising obliquely from a bright ocher border, outlined in black. The angle of the plant implies a righthand border to the panel. Beyond the border, on the far right, is buff ground, the ocher border measuring just under 2 cm wide. Cf. 624. 624 (69x). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.4 (Bramble and Myrtle border); Pl. 53. Bramble and border. H. 2.6 x w. 1.3 x th. 0.6 cm. Bramble ocher leaf next to an ocher border outlined in black. Cf. 623.

625 (28w). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.4 (Bramble and Myrtle border); Pl. 53. Blackberry, leaf, and border. H. 1.6 x w. 3.2 x th. 0.5 cm (with vertical alignment). Red blackberry composed of dots, next to an area of yellow ocher arranged along a straight line, like a border. Part of a yellow ocher leaf at the other edge. Cf. 626. 626 (27w). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.4 (Bramble and Myrtle border); Pl. 53. Blackberry and Border. H. 3.2 x w. 2.4 x th. 0.7–0.9 cm (with vertical alignment). Two pieces joined. Red blackberry rendered by six dots attached to a short red stem. A second stem above. To the right is an area of yellow ocher marked off from the composition along a line. The ocher paint bulges outside the line toward the top, suggesting part of a leaf. The line indicates that this area is a border of the composition. Cf. 625.

627 (X108). N.18 Central. Pl. 53. H. 6.0 x w. 5.5 x th. 0.6 cm. A string line divides an area with fugitive red from an area of bright ocher with traces of red painted beneath the ocher.

628 (76x). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.3 (Bramble and Myrtle C); Pl. 53. Bramble and myrtle with white border. H. 7.8 x w. 6.4 x th. 0.8 cm. Three pieces joined. Myrtle and bramble plants running obliquely toward a side border of white. The red bramble stem with thorns was painted first, then the ocher myrtle leaves, and finally the blue bramble stalk and leaves. The right blue leaf is truncated as it abuts the border, the outline of which it slightly overlaps. The white is applied, the border marked by a gray line. 629 (77x). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.3 (Bramble and Myrtle C); Pl. 53. Bramble with white border. H. 2.1 x w. 2.4 x th. 0.7 cm. Ocher bramble leaf next to white border, the white being applied. Cf. 628.

630 (513x). N.18 Central. Pl. 53. H. 3.4 x w. 3.5 x th. 0.8 cm. Two pieces joined. Bright ocher border with part of an ocher leaf to the side. The border is here oriented on the right, but it could have been the other way around (cf. 631, 632). 631 (67u). N.18. East. Fig. 8.4 (Bramble and Myrtle border); Pl. 53. Bramble and border. H. 2.7 x w. 2.8 x th. 0.6 cm. Bright ocher border outlined in black, with an ocher leaf to the side and a blue-black area of uncertain form. Cf. 630, 632.

632 (68u). N.18 East. Pl. 53. Bramble and border. H. 2.5 x w. 2.3 x th. 1.0 cm. Bright ocher border with traces of black outlining. A red stem and part of an ocher bramble leaf to the side. Cf. 630, 631.

PLANT PANELS

633 (140u). N.18 East. Pl. 53. Leaves. H. 3.0 x w. 5.0 (edge 3.5) x th. 0.8 cm. A narrow blue-black leaf and a broader yellow ocher leaf. The fragment has a flattish edge (oriented at the top in the plate). Traces of applied white over the yellow ground toward the edge. 634 (141u). N.18 East. Pl. 53. Leaves. H. 3.5 x w. 4.7 x th. 1.1–1.3 cm. Bright reddish yellow ocher and blue-black leaves.

635 (142u). N.18 East. Pl. 53. H. 3.3 x w. 5.1 x th. 1.1 cm. Bright reddish yellow ocher and blue-black leaves.

636 (143u). N.18 East. Pl. 53. H. 3.1 x w. 5.4 x th. 1.0 cm. Yellow ocher, bright reddish yellow ocher, and blue-black leaves. Yellow overlaps the reddish ocher. The blue-black is dark but faded. 637 (10y). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.1 (Bramble and Myrtle A); Pl. 54. H. 3.2 x w. 3.0 x th. 0.9 cm. Three blue bramble leaves with stalk.

305

641 (51w). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.1 (Bramble and Myrtle A); Pl. 54. Bramble. H. 2.8 x w. 2.5 x th. 0.5–0.9 cm. Red bramble stem with thorns, with, to the right, an ocher leaf overlapped by a blue leaf.

642 (56x joined to 50x). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.1 (Bramble and Myrtle A); Pl. 54. Bramble and myrtle. H. 1.8 x w. 5.0 x th. 0.8–1.2 cm. Eight pieces joined. Three parallel red stems; two with thorns to which bramble leaves are attached by stalks in blue (left) and ocher (right); one smooth, associated with ocher myrtle leaves. Parts of other bramble leaves at the edges of the fragment. Strikingly, the blue leaves in the center of the fragment have incised lines in their interiors and as projections around the edges of the lower leaf and the one on the far right. The incisions appear to have been made before the application of the blue paint, which partially covers them, but cut into the ocher leaf on the right and the red thorny stem, indicating that they were incised when the plaster was dry and painting had begun. 643 (9y). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.1 (Bramble and Myrtle A); Pl. 54. Bramble and myrtle. H. 15.8 x w. 11.2 x th. 0.8 cm. Twenty-two pieces joined. Large fragment of several

638 (457x). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.1 (Bramble and Myrtle A); Pl. 54. H. 3.0 x w. 4.4 x th. 0.6–1.0 cm. Ocher bramble leaf with carefully defined serrate side. The ocher is well preserved and somewhat brighter than many of the other leaves (e.g., 643). 639 (59v). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.1 (Bramble and Myrtle A); Pl. 54. Bramble. H. 4.0 x w. 2.3 x th. 0.7–0.9 cm. Narrow red bramble stem with distinct thorns. Parts of a blue leaf to the left and an ocher leaf to the right.

640 (16y). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.1 (Bramble and Myrtle A); Pl. 54. Bramble. H. 3.6 x w. 2.5 x th. 0.7 cm. Ocher bramble leaves with stalk.

pieces, with surface conservation along some of the joins. A red stem with thorns divides into two toward the top of the fragment. To this stem are attached the stalks of ocher (left) and blue (left and right) bramble leaves arranged in groups of three. To the left is another thorny stem with bramble leaves veering at an angle to the left. To the right

306

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

are three parallel red stems, two of them smooth and overlapped by the blue bramble leaves, the other with thorns. The order of painting is red, ocher, blue. This piece demonstrates the complexity of the composition and is central to the visualization in Figure 8.1. 644 (64y). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.1 (Bramble and Myrtle A); Pl. 54. H. 4.3 x w. 4.4 x th. 0.6 cm. A thorny red stem of myrtle is crossed almost at right angles by a thorny red stem of bramble. Two overlapping ocher myrtle leaves cover part of the stems. At the top, a poorly preserved blue leaf partially overlaps the stems. There are faint traces of red to the left of the ocher leaves, which may indicate a third stem. It is not included in the reconstruction, in which this fragment is placed at the far left of the composition with the assumption that it continued further. 645 (14y). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.1 (Bramble and Myrtle A); Pl. 54. Bramble. H. 2.8 x w. 2.5 x th. 0.8 cm. One smooth and one thorny red stem parallel to one another.

646 (45v). N.18 East. Fig. 8.1 (Bramble and Myrtle A); Pl. 54. Myrtle. H. 4.1 x w. 4.2 x th. 0.8 cm. Three pieces joined. Relatively broad smooth red stem (0.7 cm) with parts of three yellow ocher lanceolate leaves of myrtle. Two of the leaves belong to the stem. The third probably belongs to another stem on the right. 647 (26y). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.1 (Bramble and Myrtle A); Pl. 55. Blackberries. H. 2.5 x w. 2.6 x th. 0.8 cm. Parts of two berries, one red, one gray-blue, attached to yellow ocher stems. Another stem to the side branches into two. The ocher stems were painted first. 648 (23x). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.1 (Bramble and Myrtle A); Pl. 55. Blackberry leaf and berries. H. 5.0x w. 4.0 x th. 0.9 cm. Five pieces joined. Three berries, two blue and one red ocher, rendered by clusters of dots or (on the left) by dabs of paint. Two of the groups of berries are on the ends of long red stalks, the third overlaps a stalk. Blue serrate leaf at the edge of the fragment, and part of a yellow ocher leaf opposite the berries. Traces of yellow ocher near one of the stalks (probably paint splash). The blue of the berries is grayer than that of the leaf. Bluegray painted last.

649 (18y). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.1 (Bramble and Myrtle A); Pl. 55. Bramble. H. 10.4 x w. 8.0 x th. 0.6–0.8 cm. Nine pieces joined. Red thorny stem with blue bramble leaves rising from it on either side. Blue stem of the group of three leaves on right overlaps red stem in a deft stroke ending in a point. At the top and bottom of the fragment are ocher stalks belonging to other leaves. On the right are three smooth stalks, one mostly covered by a blue leaf, the other two supporting red blackberries rendered by clusters of red dots. 650 (25x). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.1 (Bramble and Myrtle A); Pl. 55. Blackberry stalks and berry. H. 3.2 x w. 2.6 x th. 0.7 cm. Three red ocher stems, the central one being a stalk which is overlapped by a blue-gray berry comprised of dots.

651 (46u). N.18 East. Fig. 8.1 (Bramble and Myrtle A); Pl. 55. Myrtle. H. 3.5 x w. 3.4 x th. 0.8–1.0 cm. Smooth narrow red stem with parts of three yellow ocher lanceolate leaves of myrtle.

652 (20y). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.1 (Bramble and Myrtle A); Pl. 55. Bramble stems. H. 2.0 x w. 1.5 x th. 0.6 cm. Two pieces joined. Small fragment showing a red stem with thorns dividing into two.

653 (24y). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.1 (Bramble and Myrtle A); Pl. 55. Blackberries. H. 3.3 x w. 4.2 x th. 0.5 cm. Two pieces joined. Tops of two berries, one gray-blue, the other red, rendered by clusters of dots.

654 (43x). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.1 (Bramble and Myrtle A); Pl. 55. Myrtle. H. 6.3 x w. 3.4 x th. 0.6 cm. Two pieces joined. One complete and parts of three other yellow ocher lanceolate leaves of myrtle, with part of a red smooth stem on the right. The position of the leaf on the left indicates that it belongs to a second stem. At 3.5 cm long, the preserved leaf indicates a central position on the stem, toward but not at the top. The partially preserved leaf below was clearly slightly larger.

PLANT PANELS

655 (44x). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.1 (Bramble and Myrtle A); Pl. 55. Myrtle. H. 4.5 x w. 4.3 x th. 0.7 cm. Three pieces joined. Two smooth red stems with parts of four yellow ocher lanceolate leaves of myrtle. The leaves belong to the stem on the left. Both this stem and the other, on the right, are thicker than the majority of myrtle stems.

656 (62x). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.1 (Bramble and Myrtle A); Pl. 55. Bramble. H. 6.6 (9.4) x w. 6.0 x th. 0.9–1.1 cm. Five pieces joined. Two parallel red stems with thorns, one wider than the other, and a third at the right edge of the fragment. A blue stalk overlaps the central stem, bearing bramble leaves, which overlap the stem on the left. Parts of another blue leaf at the bottom and an ocher one at the top left of the fragment.

657 (61y+8u). N.18 East+Central. Fig. 8.1 (Bramble and Myrtle A); Pl. 55. Bramble. 61y: H. 4.0 x w. 5.0 x th. 0.8 cm. Four pieces joined. 8u (three pieces joined): H. 3.5 x w. 3.6 x th. 0.9 cm. Overall height of 61y+8u joined, as oriented: 6.5 cm. The upper and lower pieces were separate when I began work at the museum and I gave them individual numbers according to the context in which they were stored. However, as I was checking the draft of the completed manuscript, I recognized the two pieces joined together in a black-and-white photograph, without scale, published by Abramovitz at a different angle (see above, n. 25). The two pieces have been joined digitally on Plate 55, but as I did not have an opportunity to revisit the museum prior to publication I have not been able to verify the actual join. There is, however, little doubt that the two belong together. In the fragment from context 61y there is a narrow red stalk, dividing at the top, which presumably bore berries. Either side are bramble leaves, blue at left, ocher at right. The blue leaf is partially outlined in very faint blue-gray. At the upper left edge is part of the smooth-sided ocher leaf of myrtle. The fragment from 8u has two ocher bramble leaves and their stalk. The right edge of the fragment from 61y is curved, characteristic of the corner of a room where two walls meet. This piece should, therefore, belong to the right side of a composition in a corner of the room, which, given the context, would be the south corner of the east wall.

307

658 (55x). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.1 (Bramble and Myrtle A); Pls. 55, 71:h. Bramble and myrtle. H. 5.0 x w. 5.0 x th. 0.6 cm. Eleven pieces joined. Red thorny stem, wider than usual, with a blue stem rising from it on the right. The lower part of the stem is divided and partially overlaps the red. At upper left are parts of two ocher myrtle leaves. The lower end of the blue overlies the red stem. 659 (47y). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.2 (Bramble and Myrtle B); Pl. 56. Bramble and myrtle. H. 10.8 x w. 10.1 x th. 0.6– 0.8 cm. Four pieces joined. Trifoliate cluster of serrate yellow ocher bramble leaves rising from a stalk of the same color. The leaves overlap two thorny red ocher stems. Its stalk would have been attached to the stem on the left. The stem on the right is the top, with a rounded end. At the top of the fragment are parts of the blue stalk and leaf of a bramble, attached to the same stem as the trifoliate cluster. To the left is another yellow ocher bramble leaf, which must have belonged to another stem to the left. Far right of the surface is eroded, with only traces of a red stem and perhaps some yellow ocher (the latter not reconstructed). The fragment demonstrates that at least three stems of the bramble plant lay in close proximity, one ending while the others continued up. Ocher leaves painted over red stems. 660 (52y). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.2 (Bramble and Myrtle B); Pl. 56. Bramble. H. 3.0 x w. 3.5 x th. 0.7–0.9 cm. Two pieces joined. Cluster of three serrate blue bramble leaves with stalk, one leaf overlapping a red stem. Faint thin gray-blue line marks part of the edge of the left leaf.

661 (54y). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.2 (Bramble and Myrtle B); Pl. 56. Bramble and myrtle. H. 5.0 x w. 6.4 x th. 0.8 cm. Three pieces joined. Trifoliate cluster of serrate bright ocher bramble leaves, with another leaf in a more muted tone of ocher to the left. On the right, two red thorny stems cross, one of them giving rise to the stalk of the bright ocher leaves, the other to a blue stalk. A groove is incised into the lower part of this blue stalk.

308

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

662 (60v). N.18 East. Fig. 8.2 (Bramble and Myrtle B); Pl. 56. Bramble and Myrtle. H. 4.5 x w. 5.0 x th. 0.8 cm. Three pieces joined. Two slightly diverging parallel red stems with thorns, with ocher bramble leaves below and blue stem with poorly preserved blue leaf upper left.

663 (139u). N.18 East. Fig. 8.2 (Bramble and Myrtle B); Pl. 56. H. 1.8 x w. 3.5 x th. 0.7 cm. Two of the cluster of three ocher bramble leaves with stalk.

668 (66x). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.2 (Bramble and Myrtle B); Pl. 56. Bramble. H. 3.4 x w. 4.4 x th. 0.6 cm. Three pieces joined. From a wide red stem on the left rises a narrower stem veering to the right. At the right edge of the fragment is part of a blue bramble leaf.

669 (7y). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.2 (Bramble and Myrtle B); Pl. 57. Bramble and myrtle. H. 25.0 x w. 11.8 x th. 0.7 cm. Twenty pieces joined. Two red thorny bramble stems

664 (48u). N.18 East. Fig. 8.2 (Bramble and Myrtle B); Pl. 56. Bramble. H. 6.0 x w. 4.6 x th. 0.8 cm. Two pieces joined. Very poorly preserved. Red thorny stem with traces of blue and ocher bramble leaves. Faint traces of a second red stem to the left.

665 (49u). N.18 East. Fig. 8.2 (Bramble and Myrtle B); Pl. 56. H. 7.4 (8.0) x w. 5.6 x th. 0.7–1.0 cm. Three pieces joined. Poorly preserved. Two red stems, one clearly with thorns, and traces of blue and ocher bramble leaves.

666 (65y). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.2 (Bramble and Myrtle B); Pl. 56. Bramble. H. 5.5 x w. 3.5 x th. 0.7 cm. Four pieces joined. Red stem dividing into two at the top, the division obscured by an overlapping blue bramble leaf. A third red stem with thorn on the left. The close proximity of the three stems and their angle to one another suggests that they divide from the same root stem.

667 (63u). N.18 East. Fig. 8.2 (Bramble and Myrtle B); Pl. 56. Bramble. H. 4.7 x w. 5.3 x th. 0.7 cm. A broad red stem with thorn divides into two at the top, another branch running almost parallel to the left. Overlapping the main stem is one of two blue bramble leaves. The leaves are partially and faintly outlined in gray-blue.

with clusters of leaves. Lower right, the stem is thick, while the curving stem in the center is narrower. Clusters of three blue leaves lie opposite clusters of three ocher leaves, while other bramble leaves lie at the top and bottom edges of the fragment. The serrate edges of the leaves were created with separate brush strokes for each point, on one (only) faintly touched with gray-blue. At the left edge in the center, is a small lanceolate ocher leaf with part of a narrow red stem that extends beyond the leaf and is overlapped by an ocher bramble leaf. This part represents the curved upper part of a myrtle plant. Another myrtle leaf lies at bottom left, from the same plant. Order of painting: red, ocher, blue.

PLANT PANELS

309

670 (53y). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.2 (Bramble and Myrtle B); Pl. 57. Bramble. H. 7.5 x w. 5.2 x th. 0.7 cm. Four pieces joined. Red thorny stem of bramble, with ocher bramble leaves to either side and part of a blue leaf overlapping the red at the top. The angle of the leaf at top left indicates an origin from a neighboring stem.

right and two ocher bramble leaves at the left of the fragment. The ocher bramble overlaps an ocher myrtle leaf, without an attempt to distinguish one from the other. The blue stalk overlaps a red thorn.

671 (121w). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.2 (Bramble and Myrtle B); Pl. 57. H. 2.6 x w. 4.0 x th. 0.5 cm. Two pieces joined. Three parallel ocher lanceolate leaves. Their relatively small size and close proximity indicates that they belonged to the upper part of a myrtle plant.

677 (3y). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.3 (Bramble and Myrtle C); Pl. 58. Bramble. H. 4.4 x w. 2.3 x th. 0.7 cm. Two pieces joined. Ocher stalk and bramble leaf, with the red thorn of the stem on the left edge of the fragment.

672 (5y). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.2 (Bramble and Myrtle B); Pl. 57. Bramble. H. 3.0 x w. 2.7 x th. 0.8 cm. A cluster of three blue bramble leaves.

678 (38x). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.2, 8.3 (Bramble and Myrtle C [left] and B [right] overlapping); Pl. 58. Bramble and myrtle. H. 2.8 x w. 1.8 x th. 0.5 cm. Two pieces joined. Red stem and blue stalk with part of a leaf.

673 (39x). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.2 (Bramble and Myrtle B); Pl. 57. Myrtle and bramble. H. 5.6 x w. 5.3 x th. 0.5– 0.7 cm. Five pieces joined. A straight red stem, smooth and narrow, is bordered on either side by ocher lanceolate leaves of myrtle. One leaf overlaps the stem. To the right are two overlapping serrate ocher leaves of bramble. The myrtle leaves are relatively small, just over 3 cm long, therefore belonging toward the top of the plant. 674 (328u). N.18 East. Fig. 8.2 (Bramble and Myrtle B); Pl. 57. Myrtle. H. 4.5 x w. 4.0 cm. Red stem with parts of three ocher lanceolate leaves, two on the left, one on the right.

675 (2y+w). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.3 (Bramble and Myrtle C); Pl. 58. Myrtle and bramble. H. 8.7 x w. 6.4 x th. 0.7–1.0 cm. Three pieces joined. An informative piece that shows the top of a myrtle plant, with its narrow smooth red stem, alternate ocher lanceolate leaves, and the uppermost leaf. Crossing it lower down is the curved thorny red stem of a bramble plant, with blue leaf and stem at the

676 (4w). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.3 (Bramble and Myrtle C); Pl. 58. Bramble. H. 3.8 x w. 2.7 x th. 0.7 cm. Red stem with thorns and a blue bramble leaf to the right.

679 (40y). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.3 (Bramble and Myrtle C); Pl. 58. Myrtle and bramble leaves. H. 4.7 x w. 4.8 x th. 0.5–0.6 cm. Parts of two large yellow ocher lanceolate leaves of myrtle. The size indicates that they came from toward the lower part of the plant. Part of a blue serrate bramble leaf to the right.

680 (410w). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.3 (Bramble and Myrtle C); Pl. 58. H. 3.4 x w. 3.5 x th. 0.8 cm. Parts of three ocher leaves, which, given their angles, must have belonged to two separate myrtle stems.

681 (58y). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.3 (Bramble and Myrtle C); Pl. 58. Bramble. H. 4.9 x w. 4.6 x th. 0.9 cm. Three pieces joined. Red thorny stem which divides into two. An ocher stalk rises from the division, while parts of three blue bramble leaves are on the left.

310

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

682 (1x). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.3 (Bramble and Myrtle C); Pl. 58. Myrtle and bramble. H. 18.2 x w. 8.5 x th. 0.9 cm. Twenty-five pieces joined. Large fragment with a long, narrow red stem with ocher lanceolate leaves rising alternately up the stem, diminishing in size as they do. At top right is a red thorny stem curving left, from which rises a cluster of three blue leaves attached to a stalk. The blue stalk partially overlaps stem, and one blue leaf overlaps a myrtle leaf. At top left there is another blue leaf indicating a neighboring stem. Fragment is well preserved and a slight outlining of the myrtle leaves can be discerned. This outline was most probably the result of painting the outline of the leaf first, then filling it in. The blue leaf on the left is faintly outlined with a broad stroke of gray, painted last. 683 (37v). N.18 East. Fig. 8.3 (Bramble and Myrtle C); Pl. 59. H. 9.8 x w. 10.4 x th. 0.8 cm. Eleven pieces joined.

They overlap the myrtle leaves. Traversing the entire fragment, crossing all three stems and several leaves, is an exceptionally large bright ocher lanceolate leaf, quite unlike the others in size and hue. The narrowing of the leaf at both ends indicates that it is almost the entire length (it must have been at least 12 cm), and given its isolation it appears that it was free floating rather than attached to a stem. Order of painting: red, ocher, blue, bright ocher. 684 (42u). N.18 East. Fig. 8.3 (Bramble and Myrtle C); Pl. 59. Myrtle. H. 5.4 x w. 5.6 x th. 1.0 cm. Three pieces joined. Parts of four yellow ocher lanceolate leaves of myrtle with a central narrow red smooth stem. The size of the leaves, just under 4 cm, indicates that they belong to the middle of the plant, toward but not at the top. The preserved bases of the leaves are rounded, while the preserved tip is pointed, ending with an upward flick of the brush. 685 (41x). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.3 (Bramble and Myrtle C); Pl. 59. Myrtle and bramble. H. 3.2 x w. 1.9 x th. 0.5 cm. Two pieces joined. Parts of three yellow ocher lanceolate leaves of myrtle with a narrow smooth red stem. Two overlapping blue serrate bramble leaves. One of the myrtle leaves is attached to the end of the stem, rather than the side, indicating that it is the top of the plant. The ocher to the left of the stem is brighter than that of the other two leaves. Blue overlaps ocher. 686 (138w). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.3 (Bramble and Myrtle C); Pl. 59. H. 2.5 x w. 1.7 x th. 0.4 cm. A red thorny stem traverses a smooth red stem, almost at right angles. Parts of ocher leaves overlap the stems. 687 (33x). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.3 (Bramble and Myrtle C); Pl. 59. Myrtle and stem. H. 2.8 x w. 3.2 x th. 0.5 cm. Four pieces joined. A wide smooth red stem and the tip of an ocher myrtle leaf, the angle of which suggests that it belongs to a neighboring stem rather than to this one.

A complex fragment with three smooth red stems of myrtle, each with ocher lanceolate leaves. The one at top left has small leaves, indicating that it is the top of the plant; the one on the right has medium-sized leaves, suggesting the middle of the plant; and the one in the middle has a large leaf, indicating the lower part of the plant. The relative width of each stem matches the relative size of the associated leaves. Two clusters of blue bramble leaves lie at the edges of the fragment, at the bottom and to the right.

688 (389w). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.3 (Bramble and Myrtle C); Pl. 59. H. 4.6 x w. 5.6 x th. 0.6–0.8 cm. Poorly preserved. Two smooth red stems with ocher myrtle leaves, partially overlapped by blue bramble leaves.

PLANT PANELS

689 (34w). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.3 (Bramble and Myrtle C); Pl. 59. Myrtle and bramble. H. 5.0 (6.8) x w. 3.7 x th. 0.6 cm. Three pieces joined. Smooth red stem with ocher lanceolate myrtle leaves either side. Part of a blue bramble leaf at top left partially overlapping the myrtle, and part of another top right. There are four bases of the myrtle leaves preserved, and each is painted slightly differently. Order of painting: red, ocher, blue. 690 (31x). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.3 (Bramble and Myrtle C); Pl. 59. Myrtle and bramble. H. 10.7 x w. 10.0 x th. 0.4– 2.0 (ridge on the back) cm. Four pieces joined. Surface restoration at two of the joins. An exceptionally wide smooth red stem is largely overlapped by bright ocher leaves. To the right is a narrow smooth stem with ocher lanceolate leaves; another is seen at the top, emerging from behind other leaves. A red thorny stem crosses obliquely at lower left, from which rises a cluster of three blue serrate leaves on a blue stalk. Part of another blue serrate leaf is visible lower right. The best preserved of the blue leaves in the center was subtly outlined in blue-gray along the rounded contour and up into the pointed projections, as was the leaf at lower right. 691 (477x). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.3 (Bramble and Myrtle C); Pl. 59. H. 1.7 x w. 3.9 x th. 0.7 cm. Four pieces joined. Two parallel red thorny stems.

692 (57y). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.3 (Bramble and Myrtle C); Pl. 59. Bramble. H. 5.9 x w. 3.5 x th. 0.7 cm. Three pieces joined. Red thorny stem that divides into two. A blue stalk rises from the left stem, and a blue leaf overlaps the right one, clearly from the same cluster of leaves.

693 (120w). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.5 (Reeds by a Stream); Pl. 60. H. 5.1 x w. 3.3 x th. 0.8 cm. Ocher leaf overlapped by a blue leaf with traces of blue-gray outline. At the top is an ocher leaf outlined in a darker tone.

311

694 (96x). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.5 (Reeds by a Stream); Pl. 60. H. 3.2 x w. 4.3 x th. 0.6 cm. Two pieces joined. Top of a blue leaf with faint outlining in blue-gray.

695 (192x). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.5 (Reeds by a Stream); Pl. 60. H. 2.4 x w. 2.0 x th. 0.6 cm. Blue leaf narrowing toward the tip.

696 (105x). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.5 (Reeds by a Stream); Pl. 60. H. 4.2 x w. 2.5 x th. 0.7 cm. Three pieces joined. Blue and yellow leaves of reeds. The blue leaves divide, the left being outlined faintly in blue-gray and overlapping the yellow leaf, which is outlined in brownish black. A second narrow area of yellow ocher running parallel to the right-hand blue leaf is reconstructed as belonging to a grass. 697 (285y). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.5 (Reeds by a Stream); Pl. 60. H. 1.3 x w. 2.1 x th. 0.5 cm. Curved tip of a blue leaf. 698 (119x). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.5 (Reeds by a Stream); Pl. 60. H. 3.5 x w. 4.6 x th. 0.7 cm. Three pieces joined. Blue leaves outlined in blue-gray overlapping ocher leaves, with a dark bluegray leaf on the right. The angles and number of leaves indicates the overlapping of four stems of reeds, from left to right: ocher, blue, ocher, blue-gray. Order of painting: ocher, blue-gray, blue. 699 (130x). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.5 (Reeds by a Stream); Pl. 60. H. 3.0 x w. 2.0 x th. 0.5 cm. Blue leaf overlapping three ocher leaves, the blue partially outlined in blue-gray.

700 (103w). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.5 (Reeds by a Stream); Pl. 60. H. 4.0 x w. 3.8 x th. 0.8 cm. Blue leaves outlined in faint blue-gray overlapping ocher leaves, visible at the edges of the fragment.

312

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

701 (Y91). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.5 (Reeds by a Stream); Pl. 60. H. 4.7 x w. 4.8 x th. 0.6–0.8 cm. Three pieces joined. Yellow ocher leaves of a reed on yellow ground overlapping ocher grasses rising obliquely on the right side, paler and duller than the reed. Cf. 702 and 703.

702 (Y90). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.5 (Reeds by a Stream); Pl. 60. H. 7.7 x w. 6.7 x th. 0.8 cm. Six pieces joined. Yellow ocher leaves of a reed on yellow ground. Two ocher grasses rising obliquely on the right side, both paler and one of them duller than the reed. On the left, overlapping the reed, are traces of the tips of two blue leaves. Cf. 701 and 703. 703 (Y2). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.5 (Reeds by a Stream); Pl. 60. H. 9.5 x w. 6.9 x th. 0.8 cm. Eleven pieces joined, surface restored in the cracks. Horizontal red stream at the bottom, from which rises a clump of five yellow ocher leaves, the base of a reed. The red is faded; looks as though the upper (betterpreserved) part was painted over the yellow ground, while beneath, red and small patches of ocher (all poorly preserved) may have been painted directly over the plaster. For the reed, cf. 701, 702. 704 (Y92). N.18 Central. Pl. 61. H. 3.5 x w. 2.8 x th. 0.8 cm. The tip of a narrow ocher leaf, with two blue and one ocher broad leaves above and to the left. Probably relates to the reeds in Fig. 8.5.

705 (248y). N.18 Central. Pl. 61. H. 1.8 x w. 3.7 x th. 0.6 cm. Two blue leaves traversed by an ocher leaf. Probably relates to the reeds and grasses in the composition in Figure 8.5. 706 (107x). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.8:a (Fragments of Grasses and Leaves); Pl. 61. H. 3.0 x w. 2.5 x th. 0.8 cm. Two parallel strips of dull ocher overlapped by a blue leaf outlined in gray above. The tip of an ocher leaf below left. Cf. 707.

707 (117x). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.8:a (Fragments of Grasses and Leaves); Pl. 61. H. 3.7 x w. 5.1 x th. 0.6–0.9 cm. Two parallel strips of dull ocher overlapped by a narrow blue leaf rising from right to left and a bright ocher leaf rising from left to right. Cf. 706, to which the piece belongs. These two were probably part of the reeds and grasses by a stream (Fig. 8.5) area of the composition, the dull ocher strips being faint upright grasses, wider than usual. 708 (108w). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.8:b (Fragments of Grasses and Leaves); Pl. 61. H. 9.0 x w. 5.8 x th. 0.8 cm. Five pieces joined. Three overlapping bright ocher lanceolate leaves. To the right are two slightly diverging parallel strips of duller ocher, which could be either grasses or stems. The colors, and in particular the background, are brighter in the uppermost fragment than the others, demonstrating the variability of preservation.

709 (100y). N.18 Central. Pl. 61. H. 2.6 x w. 4.2 x th. 0.4 cm. A blue leaf outlined in gray bifurcates (at the edge of the fragment) and is partially overlapped by a bright ocher leaf. Part of another blue leaf on the far left. The outlining of the relatively straight and bifurcated blue implies a connection with the large outlined blue reeds (Fig. 8.6), while the overlapping ocher leaf, too wide for the reeds, suggests a link between this part of the composition and the lanceolate ocher and blue leaves shown in Figure 8.8. 710 (88y). N.18 Central. Pl. 61. H. 2.6 x w. 4.5 x th. 0.8 cm. Bifurcated blue leaves with traces of gray outlining. To the side is a relatively wide strip of dull ocher, with brighter ocher to the left and part of an ocher lanceolate leaf above. The bifurcated blue leaves imply a connection with the large outlined blue reeds (Fig. 8.6), the ocher leaves suggesting ways in which this part of the composition may have transitioned into another part. 711 (98y). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.6 (Blue Reeds); Pl. 61. H. 5.6 x w. 4.0 x th. 0.4–0.6 cm. Two pieces joined. Blue leaf outlined in gray, which bifurcates on the right of the fragment to form a second narrower leaf rising from it.

PLANT PANELS

313

712 (99x). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.6 (Blue Reeds); Pl. 61. H. 3.8 x w. 4.1 x th. 0.8 cm. Three pieces joined. Very poorly preserved, the yellow paint of the background eroded in parts. Two blue leaves outlined in gray-black. The lower one also has a gray-black line within the blue, parallel to the outline.

718 (131w). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.7 (Grasses and Leaves); Pl. 62. H. 3.9 x w. 3.5 x th. 0.6 cm. Two blue leaves at slanting angles above the tips of three ocher grasses.

713 (X7). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.6 (Blue Reeds); Pl. 61. H. 12.8 x w. 8.0 x th. 0.8 cm. Eight pieces joined, surface partially reconstructed in the lower section. Blue leaves outlined in gray-black. The central one separates into two at the top, others run at an oblique angle. In places, grayblack lines also run down part of the center of the leaf. Parallel to the central blue are ocher grasses, distinct on the left, indistinct on the right. Ocher painted first, overlapped by the blue, gray-black outlines last.

719 (W8). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.7 (Grasses and Leaves); Pl. 62. H. 3.1 x w. 2.5 (3.0) x th. 0.8 cm. The tops of two ocher grasses, with a blue leaf at top left. Traces of murky ocher at top right and the lack of clarity in the shape of the blue leaf on the left make it an ambiguous piece, but it has been included in the composition of Grasses and Leaves (Fig. 8.7).

714 (135w). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.6 (Blue Reeds); Pl. 61. H. 1.6 x w. 1.4 x th. 0.6 cm. Narrow top of a blue leaf outlined in gray-black.

715 (101x). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.6 (Blue Reeds); Pl. 61. H. 2.7 x w. 3.7 x th. 0.6 cm. Two blue leaves outlined in gray-black, one with trace of a further line within the leaf.

716 (191x). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.7 (Grasses and Leaves); Pl. 62. H. 2.8 x w. 2.2 x th. 1.0 cm. The tip of a narrow ocher leaf traversed by the tip of a blue leaf. The fragment is reconstructed as a grass with the tip of a blue lanceolate leaf (Fig. 8.7). It could also have belonged with the overlapping reeds and grasses in Figure 8.5. 717 (W9). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.7 (Grasses and Leaves); Pl. 62. H. 3.8 x w. 3.5 x th. 0.5–0.7 cm. Poorly preserved. The tips of ocher grasses can just be discerned. To the left of them are traces of a blue leaf.

720 (X4). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.7 (Grasses and Leaves); Pl. 62. H. 7.9 x w. 7.0 x th. 0.9 cm. Five pieces joined. Blue leaves overlapping narrow ocher leaves (grasses) at an oblique angle. Three tones of ocher of varying density, from a thin grayish wash (painted first) to a full-tone yellow ocher, giving a sense of depth. Traces of blue leaf lower down on the left may have been a third leaf or flecks of paint. Blue painted over the ocher. One of the blue leaves is partially outlined in gray. 721 (X40+Y32). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.7 (Grasses and Leaves); Pl. 62. H. 6.0 (7.5) x w. 4.6 x th. 0.5–1.4 (X40) and th. 0.6–0.9 (Y32) cm. Two pieces joined (X40, the smaller, placed below in Pl. 62). Blue leaves at oblique angles to parallel ocher grasses, with two spots of red painted over in black. The ocher leaves were painted over the blue. Order of painting: yellow ground, blue, ocher, red, black.

722 (W38). N.18 Central. Pl. 62. H. 2.8 x w. 4.0 x th. 0.6–0.8 cm. Blue leaves on yellow ground with patches of dull ocher that may suggest grasses. A red blob at the edge of the fragment, painted last. Most likely this belongs with the Grasses and Leaves part of the composition (Fig. 8.7), but given the lack of clarity in the shape of the leaves, it has not been included.

314

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

723 (Y27). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.7 (Grasses and Leaves); Pl. 62. H. 3.2 x w. 4.2 x th. 0.5–0.7 cm. Ocher grasses parallel to one another in differing intensities of hue.

724 (102y). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.7 (Grasses and Leaves); Pl. 62. H. 5.3 x w. 3.3 x th. 0.8 cm. Ocher grasses of varying hue, with part of a blue leaf at the top of the fragment. Blue painted over the ocher.

725 (W4). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.7 (Grasses and Leaves); Pl. 62. H. 2.8 x w. 3.4 (as oriented, otherwise 5.0 x 2.5) x th. 0.7 cm. Ocher grasses of differing intensities of hue, with two red blobs painted over, one with black partially covering the red. Related to 728.

726 (W6). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.7 (Grasses and Leaves); Pl. 62. H. 2.5 x w. 2.3 x th. 0.6 cm. Small fragment of grasses with a red blob painted over. Related to 728. 727 (W30). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.7 (Grasses and Leaves); Pl. 62. H. 2.2 x w. 1.6 x th. 0.7 cm. Ocher (indistinct) leaf on yellow ground, with a large irregular spot of red painted over. Traces of black over the red. Related to 728. 728 (Y7+W5). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.7 (Grasses and Leaves); Pl. 62. H. 10.6 x w. 12.6 x th. 0.6–0.8 cm. Nine

pieces joined (Y7 = three pieces + W5 = six pieces). Parallel ocher grasses, with brighter ocher over duller in

places. Blue leaf at lower left, overlapped by the ocher grasses. Speck of blue with gray over at lower right, painted over the ocher grasses. Two red blobs, both with patch of black over, at upper left. 729 (169x). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.8:c (Fragments of Grasses and Leaves); Pl. 63. H. 1.7 x w. 3.0 x th. 0.5 cm. Ocher stem with two ocher leaves rising from it on the right and the beginning of another on the left. 730 (115w). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.8:c (Fragments of Grasses and Leaves); Pl. 63. H. 4.5 x w. 5.3 x th. 0.8 cm. Ocher stem with two bright ocher lanceolate leaves and beneath them parts of two blue leaves. The width of one of the blue leaves indicates it was larger than the ocher ones.

731 (95x). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.8:d (Fragments of Grasses and Leaves); Pl. 63. H. 3.4 x w. 3.0 x th. 0.7 cm. Blue lanceolate leaf, with part of a second leaf at the edge of the fragment, running parallel to one another.

732 (89y). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.8:d (Fragments of Grasses and Leaves); Pl. 63. H. 4.4 x w. 3.4 x th. 0.7 cm. Two pieces joined. Ocher stem from which rise two blue leaves on the left and one on the right (preserved only at the edge of the fragment).

733 (87y). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.8:e (Fragments of Grasses and Leaves); Pl. 63. H. 3.8 x w. 4.0 x th. 0.9 cm. Two pieces joined. Ocher stem with parts of three blue and two bright ocher lanceolate leaves rising from it. On the left, they run alternately blue, yellow ocher; on the right, two blues are followed by a yellow ocher. On the right is a border of an exceptionally bright reddish yellow ocher, marked by a vertical string line. The border does not adhere strictly to the string line, which lies within it. This border as preserved is 4 cm wide. It must have marked the right side of the composition. 734 (239x). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.8:e (Fragments of Grasses and Leaves); Pl. 63. H. 3.2 x w. 3.4 x th. 0.9 cm. Two blue lanceolate leaves rise from an ocher stem. Part of a bright ocher leaf is preserved at the edge of the fragment lower right. The stem is poorly preserved around the bases of the leaves, but it looks as though it was painted after the blue.

PLANT PANELS

315

735 (124w). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.8:e (Fragments of Grasses and Leaves); Pl. 63. H. 2.6 x w. 3.3 x th. 0.2–0.7 cm. Ocher stem with a blue leaf rising from it on the right, beneath which is part of a bright ocher leaf.

742 (126x). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.8:k (Fragments of Grasses and Leaves); Pl. 63. H. 2.4 x w. 3.2 x th. 0.7 cm. Two parallel blue leaves.

736 (X8). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.8:f (Fragments of Grasses and Leaves); Pl. 63. H. 3.6 x w. 4.3 x th. 0.6 cm. Two pieces joined. Ocher stem with blue leaves and two tones of dullish ocher leaves to one side. As the preserved ends of the blue are shaped more like tips than bases of leaves, the fragment appears on the plate and in the watercolor with the two parallel blue leaves on the right and two tones of ocher on the left. It could, however, be the other way up, with the blue leaves rising from the stem on the left. Blue was painted last. The yellow ground is slightly darker than in other fragments, no doubt owing to preservation factors.

743 (125x). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.8:k (Fragments of Grasses and Leaves); Pl. 63. H. 4.1 x w. 3.4 x th. 0.6 cm. Two parallel blue leaves, one being the center of the leaf, the other the tip. Traces of an ocher leaf to the right of the blue tip.

737 (Y4). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.8:g (Fragments of Grasses and Leaves); Pl. 63. H. 4.5 x w. 6.4 x th. 0.8 cm. Ocher stem with brighter ocher leaves, one of which slightly overlaps a blue leaf. On the right two ocher leaves rise from the stem; but on the left, the clumping of leaves at this angle to the stem is unusual.

744 (111x). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.8:l (Fragments of Grasses and Leaves); Pl. 63. H. 5.1 x w. 4.1 x th. 0.5 cm. Six pieces joined. Two parallel blue lanceolate leaves with part of an ocher leaf including the tip at a slight angle to the blues. Faint trace of gray outline on the upper side of the best preserved blue leaf. Ocher painted last.

745 (262y). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.8:m (Fragments of Grasses and Leaves); Pl. 63. H. 2.7 x w. 4.6 x th. 0.3–0.7 cm. One blue and two ocher (one at the edge of the fragment) lanceolate leaves, parallel to one another.

738 (201x). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.8:h (Fragments of Grasses and Leaves); Pl. 63. H. 2.0 x w. 2.7 x th. 0.5 cm. Two parallel blue leaves with relatively straight sides, one central, the other at the edge of the fragment. 739 (242y). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.8:h (Fragments of Grasses and Leaves); Pl. 63. H. 3.2 x W2.6 x th. 0.7–0.9 cm. Two parallel blue leaves, one being the center of the leaf, the other the tip. To the right is part of an ocher leaf.

740 (97y). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.8:i (Fragments of Grasses and Leaves); Pl. 63. H. 4.0 x w. 5.2 x th. 0.8 cm. Three blue leaves, the central one with pale gray outlining along one side.

741 (161w). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.8:j (Fragments of Grasses and Leaves); Pl. 63. H. 3.1 x w. 3.0 x th. 0.6 cm. Blue leaf traversed by the tip of an ocher leaf. Blue painted first.

Additional Fragments of Plant Panels Not Included in the Plates 746 (11x). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.1 (Bramble and Myrtle A). H. 2.1 x w. 1.3 cm. Part of a red stem.

747 (12y). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.1 (Bramble and Myrtle A). Bramble. H. 2.3 x w. 2.7 cm. Red stem with thorn and ocher serrate leaf to right.

748 (13x). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.1 (Bramble and Myrtle A). Bramble. H. 1.9 x w. 3.0 cm. Top part of an ocher serrate leaf.

316

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

749 (15x). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.1 (Bramble and Myrtle A). Bramble. H. 2.5 x w. 2.8 cm. Red stem with thorns and part of a blue serrate leaf to left. In the reconstruction, the fragment is oriented sideways, blue leaf below.

758 (331u). N.18 East. Fig. 8.1 (Bramble and Myrtle A). Myrtle. H. 3.4 x w. 3.2 cm. Narrow red stem with parts of three ocher leaves, one on the right with the base of another above, and one on the left.

750 (17y). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.1 (Bramble and Myrtle A). H. 1.8 x w. 1.4 cm. Parts of two parallel stems, the left smooth, the right with thorn.

759 (339u). N.18 East. Fig. 8.1 (Bramble and Myrtle A). Bramble. H. 3.2 x w. 2.2 cm. Part of a blue serrate leaf.

751 (19x). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.1 (Bramble and Myrtle A). Bramble. H. 2.3 x w. 2.2 x th. 0.9–1.0 cm. Part of a red stem with thorns.

752 (21y). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.1 (Bramble and Myrtle A). Bramble. H. 1.9 x w. 2.0 x th. 0.7 cm. Part of an ocher serrate leaf.

760 (341u). N.18 East. Fig. 8.1 (Bramble and Myrtle A). H. 2.2 x w. 3.1 cm. Narrow red stem with blue leaf to the side. The narrow smooth stem is appropriate for myrtle, while the blue leaf is bramble. Leaf and stem do not, therefore, belong together and the myrtle stem is reconstructed crossing a bramble plant.

753 (22y). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.1 (Bramble and Myrtle A). Bramble. H. 1.4 x w. 1.7 x th. 0.5 cm. Narrow red stem with thorns.

761 (344u). N.18 East. Fig. 8.1 (Bramble and Myrtle A). Bramble. H. 3.0 x w. 4.7 cm. Red stem with thorns and part of an ocher leaf below. At the edge of the fragment on the right is a speck of red (not included in the reconstruction).

754 (83w). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.1 (Bramble and Myrtle A). Border. H. 2.7 x w. 4.7 x th. 0.9 cm. Fragment broken along the string line dividing yellow ground from border. Cf. 614, 755.

762 (348u). N.18 East. Fig. 8.1 (Bramble and Myrtle A). Myrtle. H. 2.8 x w. 3.8 cm. Smooth red stem with the base of an ocher leaf to the left.

755 (84w). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.1 (Bramble and Myrtle A). Border. H. 2.3 (2.7) x w. 2.9 x th. 0.8–1.1 cm. Ocher border and yellow ground, divided by a string impression. Cf. 614, 754).

756 (168x). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.1 (Bramble and Myrtle A). Myrtle. H. 2.3 x w. 2.6 x th. 0.6 cm. Two pieces joined. Side and tip of two ocher leaves.

757 (318u). N.18 East. Fig. 8.1 (Bramble and Myrtle A). Myrtle. H. 3.8 x w. 2.6 cm. Base and side of two parallel ocher leaves.

763 (357v). N.18 East. Fig. 8.1 (Bramble and Myrtle A). Bramble. H. 3.5 x w. 3.0 cm. Part of a blue serrate leaf.

764 (360v). N.18 East. Fig. 8.1 (Bramble and Myrtle A). Bramble. H. 3.6 x w. 3.5 cm. Narrow red stem with thorns and blue serrate leaf to left. The upward direction of the thorns indicates that the leaf hangs downward.

PLANT PANELS

765 (367v). N.18 East. Fig. 8.1 (Bramble and Myrtle A). Bramble. H. 3.2 x w. 2.2 cm. Narrow red stem with thorns on one side and parts of two blue leaves, the lower left one serrate, the upper right one undulating. The positions of the two leaves in relation to the stem indicate that they belong to two separate stalks. 766 (368v). N.18 East. Fig. 8.1 (Bramble and Myrtle A). Bramble. H. 2.5 x w. 2.0 cm. Two red stems, one with thorns crossing a wider smooth one.

767 (372v). N.18 East. Fig. 8.1 (Bramble and Myrtle A). Myrtle. H. 3.0 x w. 3.0 cm. Smooth red stem with parts of three ocher leaves, two parallel on the right and the base of another on the left. Left and right leaf base lie opposite one another.

317

772 (405w). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.1 (Bramble and Myrtle A). Myrtle. H. 3.2 x w. 3.0 cm. Smooth red stem with ocher lanceolate leaf on the left.

773 (406w). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.1 (Bramble and Myrtle A). Mrytle. H. 3.2 x w. 2.3 cm. Smooth red stem with the lower part of an ocher lanceolate leaf on the left. The leaf does not touch the stem.

774 (409w). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.1 (Bramble and Myrtle A). Myrtle. H. 3.2 x w. 4.2 cm. Red stem with two ocher lanceolate leaves opposite one another.

768 (393w). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.1 (Bramble and Myrtle A). H. 2.7 x w. 2.4 cm. Smooth red stem and two blue bramble leaves, one of which overlaps an ocher myrtle leaf. The stem belongs to the myrtle.

775 (420w). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.1 (Bramble and Myrtle A). Myrtle. H. 1.8 x w. 2.0 cm. Parts of two ocher lanceolate leaves parallel to one another.

769 (394w). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.1 (Bramble and Myrtle A). H. 2.8 x w. 1.9 cm. Blue serrate leaf overlapping ocher lanceolate leaf.

776 (423w). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.1 (Bramble and Myrtle A). Bramble. H. 1.8 x w. 1.7 cm. Wide red stem with part of an ocher leaf overlapping it (oriented on the left).

770 (395w). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.1 (Bramble and Myrtle A). Bramble. H. 3.3 x w. 3.7 cm. Red stem with thorns and parts of an ocher serrate leaf above a blue serrate leaf.

771 (401w). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.1 (Bramble and Myrtle A). H. 1.6 x w. 3.6 cm. Part of an ocher lanceolate leaf to the left of a narrow red stem. Some ocher over the stem (not included in the reconstruction). A speck of blue at the lower left edge indicates that a blue serrate leaf overlapped part of the ocher leaf, bramble overlapping myrtle.

777 (458x). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.1 (Bramble and Myrtle A). Bramble. H. 1.8 x w. 2.0 cm. Ocher serrate leaf.

778 (459x). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.1 (Bramble and Myrtle A). Bramble. H. 3.0 x w. 2.4 cm. Ocher serrate leaf. Trace of blue leaf at the top edge.

779 (478x). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.1 (Bramble and Myrtle A). Bramble. H. 1.2 x w. 1.2 cm. Red stem with thorns.

318

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

780 (543y). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.1 (Bramble and Myrtle A). Bramble. H. 1.3 x w. 1.0 cm. Part of a red stem with thorn. 781 (546y). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.1 (Bramble and Myrtle A). Myrtle. H. 4.3 x w. 2.0 cm. Two parallel ocher lanceolate leaves.

789 (349u). N.18 East. Fig. 8.2 (Bramble and Myrtle B). Myrtle. H. 3.2 x w. 2.4 cm. Smooth red stem.

790 (351u). N.18 East. Fig. 8.2 (Bramble and Myrtle B). Bramble. H. 1.3 x w. 1.8 cm. Part of a wide red stem.

782 (315u). N.18 East. Fig. 8.2 (Bramble and Myrtle B). Myrtle. H. 3.2 x w. 5.3 cm. Top and side of two parallel ocher leaves.

791 (359v). N.18 East. Fig. 8.2 (Bramble and Myrtle B). Myrtle and bramble. H. 3.0 x w. 2.2 cm. Tip of an ocher lanceolate leaf to the left of an ocher serrate leaf.

783 (319u). N.18 East. Fig. 8.2 (Bramble and Myrtle B). Myrtle. H. 3.4 x w. 2.4 cm. Red stem with the base and side of two parallel ocher leaves to the right.

792 (361v). N.18 East. Fig. 8.2 (Bramble and Myrtle B). H. 3.8 x w. 2.8 cm. Three red stems: a wide smooth one on the left and two on the right, one with thorns emerging at an angle from the left side of the other.

784 (321u). N.18 East. Figs. 8.2, 8.3 (Bramble and Myrtle B [right[ and C [left] overlapping). Myrtle. H. 3.0 x w. 3.0 cm. Two parallel ocher lanceolate leaves.

793 (374v). N.18 East. Fig. 8.2 (Bramble and Myrtle B). Myrtle. H. 1.9 x w. 2.4 cm. Red stem with parts of two ocher lanceolate leaves parallel to one another on the right side. 794 (377v). N.18 East. Fig. 8.2 (Bramble and Myrtle B). Mrytle. H. 2.0 x w. 1.8 cm. Part of a red stem and ocher leaf.

785 (325u). N.18 East. Fig. 8.2 (Bramble and Myrtle B). Myrtle. H. 2.3 x w. 1.5 cm. Tip of an ocher lanceolate leaf, with part of another above.

786 (326u). N.18 East. Fig. 8.2 (Bramble and Myrtle B). Myrtle. H. 3.3 x w. 3.0 cm. Tip of an ocher lanceolate leaf. The tip (or, less likely, base) is unusually narrow compared to the width of the leaf.

787 (330u). N.18 East. Fig. 8.2 (Bramble and Myrtle B). Myrtle. H. 3.5 x w. 3.0 cm. Red stem with ocher lanceolate leaf.

795 (378v). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.2 (Bramble and Myrtle B). Myrtle. H. 1.5 x w. 2.5 cm. Part of an ocher leaf. 796 (380v). N.18 East. Fig. 8.2 (Bramble and Myrtle B). H. 3.2 x w. 2.6 cm. Red stem.

797 (383v). N.18 East. Fig. 8.2 (Bramble and Myrtle B). Myrtle. H. 2.1 x w. 2.0 cm. Part of an ocher leaf.

798 (386v). N.18 East. Fig. 8.2 (Bramble and Myrtle B). Myrtle. H. 1.3 x w. 1.3 cm. Part of a red stem and ocher leaf. 788 (347u). N.18 East. Fig. 8.2 (Bramble and Myrtle B). Myrtle. H. 2.4 x w. 2.5 cm. Red stem with part of an ocher lanceolate leaf, poorly preserved.

PLANT PANELS

319

799 (391w). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.2 (Bramble and Myrtle B). H. 3.1 x w. 5.8 cm. Ocher serrate leaf overlapping a red stem, and faint trace of a blue leaf at the edge of the fragment.

808 (433x). N.18 Central. Figs. 8.2, 8.3 (Bramble and Myrtle B [right] and C [left] overlapping). Myrtle. H. 2.0 x w. 1.9 cm. Part of an ocher lanceolate leaf, with trace of a red stem at the edge of the fragment.

800 (399w). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.2 (Bramble and Myrtle B). Myrtle and bramble. H. 2.0 x w. 2.5 cm. Red stem with base of ocher lanceolate leaf and blue leaf to the left. The blue is painted over part of another ocher leaf.

809 (441x). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.2 (Bramble and Myrtle B). Myrtle. H. 1.5 x w. 1.6 cm. Parts of two ocher leaves.

801 (412w). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.2 (Bramble and Myrtle B). Myrtle. H. 2.8 x w. 2.9 cm. Tip and side of two parallel ocher leaves.

802 (413w). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.2 (Bramble and Myrtle B). Myrtle. H. 2.0 x w. 1.8 cm. Parts of two ocher leaves.

803 (415w). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.2 (Bramble and Myrtle B). Myrtle. H. 3.0 x w. 3.5 cm. Tip and side of two parallel ocher leaves.

804 (425x). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.2 (Bramble and Myrtle B). Myrtle. H. 2.8 x w. 3.3 cm. Red stem with parts of two parallel ocher leaves.

805 (426x). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.2 (Bramble and Myrtle B). Bramble. H. 2.6 x w. 2.2 cm. Parts of two ocher leaves with undulating contour.

806 (429x). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.2 (Bramble and Myrtle B). Myrtle. H. 2.5 x w. 2.0 cm. Part of an ocher lanceolate leaf.

807 (431x). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.2 (Bramble and Myrtle B). Myrtle and bramble. H. 3.7 x w. 1.6 cm. Two pieces joined. Red stem with base of ocher lanceolate leaf and the beginning of another top right, with traces of blue leaf lower left.

810 (451x). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.2 (Bramble and Myrtle B). Bramble. H. 1.4 x w. 1.8 cm. Parts of two ocher serrate leaves. 811 (456x). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.2 (Bramble and Myrtle B). Myrtle. H. 2.3 x w. 1.7 cm. Part of an ocher leaf.

812 (471x). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.2 (Bramble and Myrtle B). Bramble. H. 1.9 x w. 1.8 cm. Wide red stem with part of a blue leaf.

813 (474x). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.2 (Bramble and Myrtle B). Bramble. H. 1.5 x w. 1.2 cm. Red stem with part of a blue leaf and traces of a second leaf at the edge.

814 (484x). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.2 (Bramble and Myrtle B). Bramble and myrtle. H. 3.4 x w. 3.0 cm. Blue leaf overlapping an ocher leaf.

815 (489x). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.2 (Bramble and Myrtle B). Bramble and myrtle. H. 1.9 x w. 1.5 cm. Blue and ocher leaves.

816 (506x). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.2 (Bramble and Myrtle B). Bramble. H. 1.3 x w. 2.0 cm. Red stem with blue leaf.

817 (536y). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.2 (Bramble and Myrtle B). Bramble. H. 2.2 x w. 2.3 cm. Blue leaf with trace of a second leaf at the edge of the fragment.

818 (537y). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.2 (Bramble and Myrtle B). Bramble. H. 1.6 x w. 3.1 cm. Parts of two blue leaves, the left very faintly outlined in blue-gray.

320

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

819 (547y). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.2 (Bramble and Myrtle B). Myrtle. H. 2.2 x w. 2.7 cm. Parts of two parallel ocher lanceolate leaves.

820 (550y). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.2 (Bramble and Myrtle B). Myrtle. H. 3.5 x w. 2.5 cm. Two pieces joined. Ocher lanceolate leaf.

821 (553y). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.2 (Bramble and Myrtle B). Myrtle. H. 2.8 x 3.5 cm. Ocher lanceolate leaf.

822 (555y). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.2 (Bramble and Myrtle B). Myrtle. H. 1.0 x w. 1.3 (as oriented, longest point 2.6) cm. Parts of two ocher lanceolate leaves.

828 (36x). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.3 (Bramble and Myrtle C). Bramble. H. 1.6 x w. 1.8 x th. 0.5 cm. Blue serrate leaf.

829 (78x). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.3 (Bramble and Myrtle C). Myrtle. H. 2.1 x w. 3.1 x th. 0.8 cm. Two pieces joined. Red stem with two ocher lanceolate leaves opposite one another.

830 (137a). N.20 (mixed context). Fig. 8.3 (Bramble and Myrtle C). Bramble. H. 3.6 x w. 2.4 cm. Two blue leaves overlapping a wide red stem with thorn.

831 (316u). N.18 East. Fig. 8.3 (Bramble and Myrtle C). Myrtle. H. 1.5 x w. 2.6 cm. Tip of an ocher lanceolate leaf, with part of a second leaf parallel.

832 (322u). N.18 East. Fig. 8.3 (Bramble and Myrtle C). Myrtle. H. 2.6 x w. 2.1 cm. Top of an ocher lanceolate leaf. 823 (556y). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.2 (Bramble and Myrtle B). Myrtle. H. 1.8 x w. 2.4 cm. Red stem with part of an ocher leaf on the left.

824 (557y). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.2 (Bramble and Myrtle B). Myrtle. H. 2.4 x w. 2.4 cm. Red stem with parts of two ocher lanceolate leaves.

825 (6y). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.3 (Bramble and Myrtle C). Bramble. H. 2.6 x w. 1.5 x th. 0.5 cm. Red stem with thorns.

826 (32x). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.3 (Bramble and Myrtle C). Myrtle. H. 3.3 x w. 2.1 x th. 0.8–1.0 cm. Red stem with the lower parts of two parallel ocher lanceolate leaves on the left.

827 (35x). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.3 (Bramble and Myrtle C). Myrtle. H. 3.5 x w. 2.0 (2.8) x th. 0.9 cm. Red stem with ocher lanceolate leaf on the right.

833 (335u). N.18 East. Fig. 8.3 (Bramble and Myrtle C). Bramble. H. 1.2 x w. 1.3 cm. Part of a narrow red stem with thorn and part of an ocher leaf to left. 834 (342u). N.18 East. Fig. 8.3 (Bramble and Myrtle C). Bramble and myrtle. H. 1.4 x w. 2.0 cm. Blue leaf with the tip of an ocher lanceolate leaf below right.

835 (345u). N.18 East. Fig. 8.3 (Bramble and Myrtle C). Myrtle (leaf). H. 2.6 x w. 2.8 cm. Wide red stem with part of an ocher lanceolate leaf to the left. The angle of the leaf indicates that it belongs to a stem farther left, rather than to the one in the fragment. 836 (346u). N.18 East. Fig. 8.3 (Bramble and Myrtle C). Myrtle. H. 2.6 x w. 2.2 cm. Parts of two ocher lanceolate leaves.

PLANT PANELS

837 (358v). N.18 East. Fig. 8.3 (Bramble and Myrtle C). H. 2.1 x w. 3.3 cm. Ocher serrate leaf with part of another above at the edge of the fragment and the tip of an ocher lanceolate leaf on the right. The bramble leaf is oriented downward in Figure 8.3. 838 (363v). N.18 East. Fig. 8.3 (Bramble and Myrtle C). Bramble. H. 1.6 x w. 1.3 cm. Blue serrate leaf, with part of another at the edge of the fragment.

839 (370v). N.18 East. Fig. 8.3 (Bramble and Myrtle C). Bramble. H. 1.6 x w. 2.8 cm. Two red stems with part of a blue serrate leaf to the right. The leaf would belong to another stem farther right. 840 (373v). N.18 East. Fig. 8.3 (Bramble and Myrtle C). Myrtle. H. 2.5 x w. 1.5 cm. Tip of an ocher lanceolate leaf.

321

847 (418w). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.3 (Bramble and Myrtle C). Myrtle. H. 2.0 x w. 1.8 cm. Red stem and part of an ocher leaf.

848 (419w). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.3 (Bramble and Myrtle C). Myrtle. H. 2.0 x w. 2.5 cm. Red stem with an ocher lanceolate leaf on either side.

849 (421w). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.3 (Bramble and Myrtle C). Myrtle. H. 1.5 x w. 2.2 cm. Parts of two parallel ocher leaves. 850 (427x). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.3 (Bramble and Myrtle C). Myrtle. H. 2.9 x w. 2.5 cm. Two parallel ocher lanceolate leaves.

841 (379v). N.18 East. Fig. 8.3 (Bramble and Myrtle C). Myrtle. H. 1.4 x w. 2.6 cm. Ocher lanceolate leaf.

851 (432x). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.3 (Bramble and Myrtle C). Myrtle. H. 2.5 x w. 3.1 cm. Ocher lanceolate leaf tapering to the tip. A speck of ocher to the right is probably accidental, so not included in the reconstruction.

842 (390w). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.3 (Bramble and Myrtle C). H. 2.9 x w. 2.5 cm. Blue serrate leaf overlapping a red stem and an ocher leaf to the right. Neither of the leaves belongs to the stem. Reconstructed in a part of the composition in which bramble and myrtle plants are overlapping.

852 (436x). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.3 (Bramble and Myrtle C). Myrtle. H. 1.5 x w. 2.0 cm. Tip of an ocher lanceolate leaf with part of another to the right.

843 (396w). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.3 (Bramble and Myrtle C). Myrtle and bramble. H. 2.0 x w. 1.7 cm. Ocher and blue leaf adjacent to one another.

853 (439x). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.3 (Bramble and Myrtle C). Myrtle. H. 2.2 x w. 1.7 cm. Parts of three ocher lanceolate leaves, two veering to the right, one overlapping them from the other direction, hence belonging to two separate stems.

844 (403w). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.3 (Bramble and Myrtle C). Myrtle. H. 2.0 x w. 3.4 cm. Two parallel stems with part of an ocher lanceolate leaf to the left.

854 (440x). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.3 (Bramble and Myrtle C). Myrtle. H. 1.8 x w. 2.4 cm. Two parallel ocher lanceolate leaves, one the tip, the other toward the base of the leaf.

845 (408w). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.3 (Bramble and Myrtle C). Myrtle. H. 2.1 x w. 1.8 cm. Tip and middle of two parallel ocher lanceolate leaves.

846 (417w). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.3 (Bramble and Myrtle C). Myrtle. H. 1.8 x w. 1.1 cm. Red stem and part of an ocher leaf.

855 (442x). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.3 (Bramble and Myrtle C). Bramble. H. 1.5 x w. 2.7 cm. Two parallel red stems, one with a thorn.

856 (443x). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.3 (Bramble and Myrtle C). Myrtle. H. 1.5 x w. 1.8 cm. Part of an ocher leaf.

322

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

857 (444x). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.3 (Bramble and Myrtle C). Myrtle. H. 1.1 x w. 1.2 cm. Narrow red stem, the width of which is preserved.

867 (486x). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.3 (Bramble and Myrtle C). Bramble. H. 1.8 x w. 2.2 cm. Part of a blue leaf.

858 (447x). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.3 (Bramble and Myrtle C). Myrtle. H. 1.5 x w. 1.3 cm. Red stem with part of an ocher leaf.

868 (492x). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.3 (Bramble and Myrtle C). Myrtle and bramble. H. 1.5 x w. 2.5 cm. Blue leaf overlapping an ocher lanceolate leaf, which in turn must have overlapped the red stem to the left.

859 (450x). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.3 (Bramble and Myrtle C). H. 2.5 x w. 2.7 cm. Wide red stem, with part of an ocher leaf on the right.

869 (494x). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.3 (Bramble and Myrtle C). Myrtle and bramble. H. 1.6 x w. 2.0 cm. Tip of an ocher lanceolate leaf next to a serrate blue leaf, evidently pointing downward.

860 (460x). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.3 (Bramble and Myrtle C). Bramble. H. 3.5 x w. 2.7 cm. Two blue leaves.

870 (496x). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.3 (Bramble and Myrtle C). Bramble and myrtle. H. 1.7 x w. 1.1 cm. Parts of a blue and an ocher leaf.

871 (498x). N.18 Central. Figs. 8.2, 8.3 (Bramble and Myrtle C). Bramble. H. 1.1 x w. 1.3 cm. Part of a blue leaf. 861 (464x). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.3 (Bramble and Myrtle C). Bramble. H. 2.2 x w. 2.8 cm. Parts of two blue leaves.

862 (467x). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.3 (Bramble and Myrtle C). Bramble. H. 1.8 x w. 2.1 cm. Blue leaf overlapping an ocher leaf.

863 (470x). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.3 (Bramble and Myrtle C). Bramble. H. 1.2 x w. 2.0 cm. Narrow red stem with thorn with part of a blue leaf on the left and a blue stalk on the right. 864 (473x). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.3 (Bramble and Myrtle C). Bramble. H. 1.7 x w. 1.5 cm. Red stem with blue leaf to the left.

865 (475x). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.3 (Bramble and Myrtle C). Bramble. H. 2.7 x w. 2.1 cm. Blue leaf overlapping a red stem.

872 (500x). N.18 Central. Figs. 8.2, 8.3 (Bramble and Myrtle C [left] and B [right] overlapping). Bramble. H. 1.2 x w. 1.0 cm. Part of a blue leaf and blue stalk. 873 (509x). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.3 (Bramble and Myrtle C). Bramble. H. 2.8 x w. 2.5 cm. Red stem with a thorn, partially overlapped by an ocher leaf on the left and a blue stalk on the right.

874 (525y). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.3 (Bramble and Myrtle C). Myrtle and bramble. H. 2.8 x w. 2.5 cm. Parts of two parallel ocher lanceolate leaves, one of which is the tip, overlapped at the edges of the fragment by two blue leaves. 875 (530y). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.3 (Bramble and Myrtle C). Bramble. H. 1.5 x w. 3.0 cm. Ocher serrate leaf with part of a blue leaf at the edge of the fragment. 876 (531y). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.3 (Bramble and Myrtle C). Bramble. H. 1.7 x w. 3.2 cm. Trefoil arrangement of three blue leaves.

866 (480x). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.3 (Bramble and Myrtle C). Bramble. H. 2.0 x w. 2.0 cm. Red stem with thorn.

PLANT PANELS

323

877 (532y). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.3 (Bramble and Myrtle C). Bramble. H. 2.0 x w. 2.5 cm. Blue leaf.

888 (136y). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.6 (Blue Reeds). Reed. H. 2.1 x w. 1.7 cm. Part of a blue leaf outlined in blue-gray.

878 (533y). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.3 (Bramble and Myrtle C). Bramble and myrtle. H. 1.7 x w. 1.6 cm. Blue serrate leaf overlapping the base of an ocher lanceolate leaf.

889 (199x). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.6 (Blue Reeds). Reed. H. 1.5 x w. 1.8 cm. Blue leaf, the width of which is preserved. The leaf is partially outlined in blue-gray.

879 (538y). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.3 (Bramble and Myrtle C). Bramble. H. 2.0 x w. 1.6 cm. Ocher serrate leaf.

890 (296y). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.6 (Blue Reeds). Reed. H. 1.9 x w. 1.8 cm. Part of a wide blue leaf outlined in blue-gray.

880 (548.1y). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.3 (Bramble and Myrtle C). Myrtle. H. 3.5 x w. 2.4 cm. Two parallel ocher lanceolate leaves, one a side, the other a tip.

891 (297y). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.6 (Blue Reeds). Reed. H. 2.3 x w. 1.4 cm. Part of a blue leaf outlined in blue-gray.

881 (548.2y). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.3 (Bramble and Myrtle C). Myrtle. H. 2.5 x w. 2.0 cm. Ocher lanceolate leaf.

882 (549y). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.3 (Bramble and Myrtle C). Myrtle. H. 2.0 x w. 2.2 cm. Two parallel ocher lanceolate leaves.

883 (551y). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.3 (Bramble and Myrtle C). Myrtle. H. 3.3 x w. 2.9 cm. Ocher lanceolate leaf.

884 (558y). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.3 (Bramble and Myrtle C). Myrtle. H. 1.4 x 2.3 cm. Two parallel ocher lanceolate leaves. 885 (559y). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.3 (Bramble and Myrtle C). Myrtle. H. 1.4 x w. 1.8 cm. Ocher lanceolate leaf.

886 (563y). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.3 (Bramble and Myrtle C). H. 1.1 x 1.4 cm. Red stem, the width of which is preserved. 887 (133y). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.6 (Blue Reeds). Reed. H. 1.8 x w. 2.0 cm. Part of a blue leaf outlined in blue-gray.

892 (310y). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.6 (Blue Reeds). Reed. H. 2.3 x w. 1.4 cm. Part of a blue leaf outlined in gray.

893 (265y). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.7 (Grasses and Leaves). Grasses. H. 2.6 x w. 2.4 cm. Parallel ocher strips of differing width and density. Cf. 723, 728.

894 (298y). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.7 (Grasses and Leaves). Leaf. H. 1.9 x w. 1.6 cm. Part of a blue leaf, the width of which is preserved.

895 (X41). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.7 (Grasses and Leaves). Grasses. H. 2.8 x w. 1.9 cm. Two parallel ocher strips. Cf. 723, 728.

896 (X42+132w). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.7 (Grasses and Leaves). Grasses. H. 4.4 x w. 3.5 cm. Two pieces joined. Parallel ocher strips of differing width and density. Cf. 723, 728.

897 (X43). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.7 (Grasses and Leaves). Grasses. H. 2.0 x w. 2.5 cm. Parallel ocher strips of differing density. Cf. 723, 728.

324

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

898 (Y26). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.7 (Grasses and Leaves). Grasses. H. 3.0 x w. 2.5 cm. Parallel ocher strips of differing width and density. Cf. 723, 728.

907 (327u). N.18 East. Myrtle. H. 4.5 x w. 4.1 cm. Narrow red stem with ocher lanceolate leaves either side.

899 (309y). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.8:d (Fragments of Grasses and Leaves). H. 3.4 x w. 2.5 cm. Part of a blue leaf.

900 (196x). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.8:d (Fragments of Grasses and Leaves). H. 2.5 x w. 3.4 cm. Part of a blue lanceolate leaf.

908 (329u). N.18 East. Myrtle. H. 3.4 x w. 4.0 cm. Curved red stem with ocher lanceolate leaf to the right and part of another leaf on the left. The stem here bends toward the right of the composition.

901 (291y). N.18 Central. Fig. 8.8:d (Fragments of Grasses and Leaves). H. 2.0 x w. 2.0 cm. Part of a blue lanceolate leaf.

909 (336u). N.18 East. H. 3.3 x w. 3.0 cm. Narrow red stem with thorns, with part of a blue serrate leaf to the right and an ocher lanceolate leaf beneath it with a narrow red stem below. The stems of the bramble and myrtle must have crossed to lower left of the fragment.

902 (271y). N.18. Central. Fig. 8.8:e (Fragments of Grasses and Leaves). H. 1.6 x w. 1.6 cm. Narrow ocher stem, with the lower end of a lanceolate leaf on either side, blue on the left, ocher on the right. The ocher base is slightly higher.

910 (407w). N.18 Central. H. 3.0 x w. 3.0 cm. Red stem overlapped by an ocher lanceolate leaf, which would have belonged to another stem to the left. Either two myrtle plants or more likely myrtle and bramble, although there are no thorns on this part of the stem.

903 (205x). N.18. Central. Fig. 8.8:f (Fragments of Grasses and Leaves). H. 2.6 x w. 2.2 cm. Parts of two parallel blue lanceolate leaves.

911 (411w). N.18 Central. H. 2.2 x w. 2.1 cm. Part of a red stem with thorn and two ocher lanceolate leaves to the left, one being the tip. Bramble stem and myrtle leaves, the stem for which would have been to the left.

904 (197x). N.18. Central. Fig. 8.8:l (Fragments of Grasses and Leaves). H. 2.0 x w. 1.6 cm. Parts of two blue lanceolate leaves.

912 (428x). N.18 Central. H. 3.8 x w. 3.3 cm. Three ocher lanceolate leaves, two parallel to one another, the other overlapping, indicating that they are from two separate myrtle stems, one to the left and one to the right. Cf. 853.

Addditional Fragments Not in Visualizations

913 (483x). N.18 Central. H. 5.0 x w. 2.8 cm. Bramble and myrtle. Parts of two blue leaves overlapping two ocher lanceolate leaves. The stem for the bramble lay to the left, that for the myrtle to the right.

905 (371v). N.18 East. Pl. 69:f. H. 2.0 x w. 3.1 cm. Red stem with thorns and part of an ocher bramble leaf to the left. The painted slip layer (intonaco) has broken across the fragment, revealing the plaster layer beneath. 906 (122w). N.18 Central. Myrtle. H. 2.6 x w. 2.7 cm. Three parallel ocher lanceolate leaves. The closeness of the leaves and their relatively small size indicate that they belonged toward the top of the plant. Cf. 671.

PLANT PANELS

914 (523y). N.18 Central. Bramble and myrtle. H. 3.6 x w. 3.2 cm. A red stem with thorns, or perhaps two narrow stems with thorns running parallel to one another. Overlapping the stem(s) is an ocher lanceolate leaf, which derives from a stem that lay to the right. Above this leaf and overlapping it is part of a blue leaf, which would have belonged to the visible stem. At the lower edge of the fragment are traces of ocher, perhaps from another myrtle plant. 915 (92w). N.18 Central. Leaves. H. 6.0 x w. 4.5 x th. 0.7–0.9 cm. Two pieces joined. Two parallel blue lanceolate leaves. To the left the surface is eroded but there are traces of a dull ocher stem or grass overlaid by a bright ocher leaf.

916 (93y). N.18 Central. Grasses and Leaves. H. 2.9 x w. 2.9 x th. 0.4–0.6 cm. Parallel narrow ocher grasses in varying intensities of hue, with part of a blue leaf to the side. This would have belonged in the Grasses and Leaves part of the composition (Fig. 8.7). 917 (94x). N.18 Central. Leaves. H. 5.6 x w. 3.8 x th. 0.7–1.1 cm. Two pieces joined. Two blue leaves at angles to one another.

325

920 (112x). N.18 Central. Leaves. H. 5.5 x w. 2.5 x th. 0.6 cm. Two pieces joined. Blue leaf overlapping ocher, the blue partially outlined in gray.

921 (118x). N.18 Central. Leaves. H. 4.0 x w. 6.2 x th. 0.7 cm. Dull ocher stem with blue leaves on the left and bright ocher leaves on the right. A further bright ocher leaf runs across the stem at the top of the fragment.

922 (123y). N.18 Central. Leaves. H. 2.7 x w. 2.3 x th. 0.7 cm. The tip of a bright ocher lanceolate leaf, with a second rounded leaf overlapping a blue one. The rounded end to the leaf (assuming that is what it is) is unique in these paintings. The ocher is well preserved and particularly intense. 923 (153v). N.18 East. Leaves. H. 3.1 x w. 3.2 x th. 0.6 cm. Blue and ocher leaves parallel to one another.

924 (173x). N.18 Central. Pl. 68. H. 2.5 x 4.3 x 0.7–0.9 cm. A large curved area of bright ocher and a narrow strip of the same color, either two leaves or a leaf and a stem.

918 (106y). N.18 Central. Leaves. H. 2.4 x w. 3.0 x th. 0.7 cm. Two ocher stems, one duller than the other, with parts of two blue leaves. Given the angles of the blue, the orientation of the fragment is unclear.

925 (251y). N.18 Central. Leaves. H. 2.6 x w. 2.5 x th. 0.7 cm. Blue lanceolate leaf with two tones of ocher to the left, either grasses or a stem and a leaf.

919 (109w). N.18 Central. Leaves. H. 5.6 x w. 3.8 x th. 0.5–0.8 cm. The tips of two blue leaves overlapping ocher of two tones.

926 (259y). N.18 Central. Leaves. H. 3.1 x w. 3.6 x th. 0.9 cm. Dull ocher stem (poorly preserved) with two bright ocher leaves rising from it on the left and a blue one on the right.

326

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

927 (261y). N.18 Central. Leaves. H. 3.3 x w. 3.3 x th. 1.0–1.2 cm. Poorly preserved. Two bright ocher leaves, one of which is overlapped by a blue leaf. Microorganisms on the surface.

928 (263y). N.18 Central. Leaves. Pl. 68. H. 2.5 x w. 3.9 x th. 0.7 cm. Two parallel dull ocher stems or grasses, with part of a blue leaf.

929 (264y). N.18 Central. Leaves. H. 2.2 x w. 1.8 x th. 0.6 cm. Dull ocher stem with bright ocher leaf rising from it.

Part III Technique and Color

9

Materials, Techniques, and Pigments

This and the subsequent chapter are about the materials of the paintings and how the use of technical and artistic devices formed the images. In this chapter, first the plaster surface of the wall is discussed, then the issue of fresco versus secco is addressed in relation to technical observations and conditions of preservation, and next the pigments are discussed.1 Analyses of the samples of painted plaster were undertaken by Lawrence Majewski and Marjorie Reich and subsequently by Vassilis Perdikatsis, whose results are presented in Appendix B and Table B.1.2 In 1 Sincere thanks to Effie Photos-Jones and Richard Jones for generously giving their time to read and advise on drafts of this chapter. 2 I am most grateful to Vassilis Perdikatsis for his contribution and patient answers to my questions. Some results of his analyses were incorporated in Perdikatsis 1998, while a detailed account is presented here and in Appendix B with Table B.1. The samples he analyzed were chosen by the late Ellen Davis in the 1980s, at a time when it was planned that she would be publishing a study of the techniques of all the Ayia Irini paintings. I subsequently inherited the task at a relatively advanced stage of the preparation of this book. As a result, some questions have arisen in my study that would require further analyses to answer. It is hoped that these can be addressed in the future.

the final section some raw coloring materials found on the site are considered, with preliminary discussion of their possible source. A summary is provided at the end. The following chapter will look at the process of painting, from planning stages to the final picture.

Plaster and the Surface of the Wall As with all Aegean wall paintings, the plaster is primarily composed of lime (calcium carbonate).3 Color, hardness, and density vary between sites according to the constituents of clay and mineral impurities 3 On lime plaster in the Aegean, see Cameron, Jones, and Philippakis 1977, 129–139, 147–157; Dandrau 2000; Evely 2000, 471–478; R.E. Jones 2005, 202–209, including table 13.1 with results of analyses; Brysbaert 2008, esp. 111–129, 149–151, 163–165, 170–171, 177; Shaw 2009, 141–156. Experimentations in replicating Minoan painted plasters were undertaken by Cameron (Cameron 1976a; Cameron, Jones, and Philippakis 1977, 166; R.E. Jones, 2005, 220–222); see also Chryssikopoulou et al. 2000; Brysbaert 2008, 68–76, 140–146, with references to earlier publications.

330

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

representative of local sources.4 The plaster from Knossos and Akrotiri, for example, is whiter and softer than that from either Ayia Irini or Phylakopi.5 At Ayia Irini, Majewski and Reich reported 2–13% siliceous material within the otherwise pure calcium carbonate, some of which may have been due to accretions during deposition, while some may have been part of the original composition of the plaster.6 In profile the plaster from the Northeast Bastion has a yellowish tone and is relatively coarse, with tiny stones embedded. The core appears to have been built up of two layers, the upper layer (often the only part to have survived) being, on average, 0.5–0.7 cm thick.7 On top, a thin slip of finer plaster was applied as preparation for the paint (905; Pl. 69:f). Such a slip, or intonaco, has been noted at several other sites, including Akrotiri, Phylakopi, Knossos, Tell el-Dabca, and the mainland, but not at all sites.8 The slip was smoothed prior to painting, except for those areas destined to receive blue paint of the sea or sky, which, for technical reasons, were left in a rough state (see below). Several fragments have mud on the back indicating a layer of mud backing plaster applied to the wall prior to the lime plaster. Impressions on the backs of some fragments (both on mud and on the lime plaster) indicate that straw was mixed with the mud backing.9 Small pieces of schist, or a thin layer of micaceous material that is an impression from schist, 4 Jones 1999, 147. 5 The Akrotiri plaster is exceptionally light in weight, no doubt owing to the high concentration of pumice (Perdikatsis 1998, 104; Perdikatsis et al. 2000, 105). 6 Majewski and Reich 1973, 298. 7 The core layers appear homogeneous in composition but are distinguishable by a perceptible line in the section of some fragments. Majewski and Reich (1973) report one layer of plaster (rather than two) with a slip on top, and a variation between “almost pure white to pale yellow” in color. It should be noted, however, that only one of the 21 samples (no. 4) came from the Northeast Bastion, the others being from House A (eight samples), Building M (nine samples), House B (two samples), and the Northern Sector (one sample). Photos-Jones, Jones, and Hall (2003, 316) comment that compaction of a single plaster layer can create the impression of two separate layers. Conversely, survival of a clear single layer is no guarantee that a second layer did not exist, as layers tend to split in deposition (cf. Brysbaert 2008, 121). Multiple layers have been reported at Knossos (Cameron, Jones, and Philippakis 1977, 153–154) and Akrotiri (Asimenos 1978, 573). 8 Brysbaert 2008, 151, table 7.2. Akrotiri: Perdikatsis et al. 2000, 105; Knossos: Cameron, Jones, and Philippakis 1977, 153–154; Tell el-Dabca: Brysbaert 2007b, pls. 3, 4. 9 A minute piece of straw is also visible in the microphotograph of the painted surface of fragment 12 (S1): Pl. 70:f.

are embedded in the backs of a few fragments. One fragment (554) has a large piece of schist embedded, the plaster having seeped through cracks between the stones of the wall. A number of fragments have striation marks or, on occasion, narrow shallow ridges on the backs, probably from keying the plaster layer to the backing plaster; a few have a slight ridge, perhaps formed when the plaster filled a crevice in the stones;10 alternatively, these marks may belong to an internal mudbrick wall onto which the lime plaster was applied directly.11 Other fragments have smooth backs, presumably from application to the lower layer, whether lime or mud, in an area of the wall without keying marks. The sequence therefore appears to be as follows: schist wall, mud backing plaster mixed with straw, two layers of lime plaster—some keyed to allow better adhesion either to the mud layer or to another lime layer—and finally, in some areas, a thin slip of lime plaster that was smoothed in preparation for the yellow ocher pigment of the ground, while other areas were left rough to receive blue pigment. As some of the backs have tiny pieces of schist embedded in the back without evidence of mud, it appears that the mud layer was irregularly applied to only parts of the walls. Probably it was used to fill the irregularities in the stone wall and the gaps between slabs to create a flatter surface for the application of the lime plaster. The striation marks on the backs of some pieces invariably follow a vertical orientation in those cases where the iconographic orientation is clear (as in architectural details, including fragments with string lines or heads of men and animals) and have therefore been used in the compositions to orient less unambiguous pieces, such as landscape. Four fragments have a distinctive ridge on the back, indicating that they abutted a vertical beam, perhaps corresponding to a window frame or more likely, since the scene almost certainly came from the north wall, a cupboard beneath the frieze.12 This feature created an unprecedented opportunity to reconstruct a vertical section of the frieze, combining the four fragments—representing a woman (1), two buildings (87, 88), and a river (422)—into a coherent scene (Fig. 7.1). A large number of the blue sea and sky fragments have a relatively thick flattened edge, indicating that they abutted the lower or upper frame of the painting. 10 Cf. Seeber 2000, 96–97, figs. 7–11, but with clay bricks, though with stone walls one would expect a mud plaster layer to have this function (Evely 1999, 256, diagram). 11 Cf. Asimenos 1978, 573. 12 I am grateful to Clairy Palyvou for this suggestion.

MATERIALS, TECHNIQUES, AND PIGMENTS

As the plaster was pressed down or up to fill the space abutting the frame, it bulged, producing (in some cases) a slight concavity, then (in most cases) convexity of the surface, followed by a relatively thick, smooth flat edge. The frame would have been of wood, running horizontally above and below the painted plaster area, which, being a frieze, was relatively narrow (estimated at 50–55 cm in height, reconstructed in Fig. 7.1 at 54 cm). Some of these fragments actually sit flat, while others are irregular but almost flat, suggesting that the edge of the wood was not entirely smooth. Very few fragments from the corners of rooms are clearly identifiable, as distinguished by a gently curved profile and (from elsewhere on the site) by an extension of the painted layer onto the beginning of a surface. The ceiling fragments, irregular and in thick chunks, have no smooth surface. At least one has reed impressions on the back and another has a distinct rope impression from the string that bound the reeds together, like the ceiling impressions found at Akrotiri.13 Several triangular pieces are likely to have come from between the ceiling beams. All those surviving (many were discarded) are unpainted. The floor fragments are thicker and coarser than the wall (average 2.2–2.6 cm) and are filled with small stones and seashells in the hard compact plaster.14 Underneath, no shells are visible. The plaster was presumably laid onto a surface of packed earth. On top the smooth surface tends to be slightly concave (as though from the outer edges of the rooms, where floor approached wall), and in some cases shells are visible, suggesting that they were intended to show on the surface (tarrazzo). In N.18 and N.20 the plastered floor was painted red, a different hue in each room. The plaster surrounded flagstones in N. 20 but was on its own in N.18. Elsewhere in the Northeast Bastion plaster floors were unpainted, though some red was also recovered.

Paint to Plaster: Fresco versus Secco The term fresco has become synonymous with Aegean wall paintings, but it is a misnomer. “Fresco” refers to a specialized technique; it defines a process 13 Palyvou 2005a, 127. 14 Sea pebbles were used in floors of House A, Rooms 34 and 39 (Cummer and Scofield 1984, 16, 36, 40). Cf. Shaw 2009, 149–150 (tarazza).

331

rather than a product.15 Aegean paintings were on walls, and they are most accurately referred to as wall paintings or murals. How the pigments were bonded with the lime plaster surface of the wall is a matter for discussion. True fresco, known variously as buon fresco, affresco, a fresco, or al fresco, all based on the Italian word for “fresh,” involves no binding material, but rather the application of the pigment mixed with water to the fine top layer of lime plaster (the intonaco) while it is still damp. As the plaster dries, the slaked lime (calcium hydroxide) rises to the surface, bonding with the pigment through carbonization so that the two become inseparable.16 It is a highly technical procedure, used in later Greek and Roman painting (alongside dry techniques) and best documented from the Italian Renaissance.17 In Europe it was subsequently largely abandoned as a technique partly because it was extremely slow and partly because the painters were unable to see the exact tones of their colors until after the plaster had fully dried, by which time it was too late to make changes.18 In contrast to buon fresco, the mezzo fresco (calcitta) technique involves dampening the surface or mixing the pigment with dilute lime water after the initial plaster has dried, so that a more superficial bonding occurs. This process may also be combined with an organic binder.19 Final touches of details are frequently done in secco even when the majority of the painting is in fresco.20 Secco, or tempera, is a dry technique, which necessitates mixing the pigment with an organic binder, such as vegetable or animal gum, milk (casein), egg (albumen), oil, or honey in order to stick the paint to the completely dry surface. With dry techniques, unlike the bonding of paint to plaster that occurs with buon fresco, the multiple paint layers have a tendency to flake off the plaster in ensuing years. Much evidence has been cited by scholars to support the assertion that Aegean wall paintings were 15 Cf. Asimenos 1978, 573; Brysbaert 2008, 17. 16 Seymour (2007, 437–454) provides practical information, while technical discussion within a historical framework is provided by Mora, Mora, and Philippot (1984, 69–161). 17 See esp. Mora, Mora, and Philippot 1984, 69–161; also for Greek and Roman painting: Kakoulli 2009b, 7–8, 27–36; Laurie 1910, 68–111; Ling 1991, 198–211. 18 Soprintendenza alle gallerie per le provincie di Firenze e Pistoia 1969, 22. 19 Ling 1991, 202. 20 Kakoulli 2009b, 28.

332

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

executed in fresco, making them, perhaps along with those from Alalakh,21 the earliest in the world by over a thousand years. However, there are also clear indications of secco, and most scholars recognize that a mixed technique was used. 22 What is not clearly defined is the degree of fresco. Two questions arise: whether in the initial stages the artists painted on fresh, damp plaster (buon fresco) or dampened the dry plaster in order to facilitate the binding of pigment to surface (mezzo fresco); and when in the painting process they painted onto dried plaster or onto a dried layer of paint (secco). Clear identification of fresco over secco in painted plaster fragments is problematic, which is why the topic has been so hotly debated in relation to Aegean painting.23 One of the main criteria cited for identification of buon fresco, the measurement of the penetration of pigment into the upper plaster layer, is now seen to be also dependent on the properties of 21 Woolley (1955, 228–234), with a report by Mr. Barker of the British Museum, claimed that the paintings at Alalakh were executed in true fresco, but cf. Moorey (1999, 324, 329). 22 See esp. Dandrau 2001. For a summary of the debate, see R.E. Jones 2005, 217–220. Identification of Aegean paintings as fresco dates back to Heaton (1910, 1911), and it was first challenged by Duell and Gettens (1942). The case for buon fresco was forcefully argued by Cameron for Knossos (1975, 293–301; Cameron, Jones, and Philippakis 1977, esp. 167– 169) and more widely by Brysbaert (2008, esp. 111–128) with recognition of secco additions. Lang (1969, 10–25, 229–230) identified a mixed technique for the Pylos paintings, proposing mezzo fresco followed by layers of secco (cf. Brecoulaki et al. 2008, on layering of paints in secco technique). For identification of a mixed technique, see also Perdikatsis et al. 2000; Photos-Jones 2005; Dandrau and Dubernet 2006, 247. For recognition of secco layering in the Akrotiri paintings, see Asimenos 1978; Televantou 1994a, 350–355 (contra Noll, Bor, and Holm 1975, 93). R.E. Jones comments that a distinct thin layer of pigment indicative of secco or tempera technique is much more common in sampled plaster than pigment penetration of plaster suggestive of fresco (2005, 219). Regional differences may account for some scholarly distinctions, while the narrow sampling range would account for discrepancies in results from single sites when the technique was mixed. 23 See Perdikatsis 1998, 106–107: “There are no objective criteria for the characterization of the painted technique and therefore observations are interpreted in a subjective manner.” Cf. Kakoulli 2009b, 27: “The fragmentary nature and poor condition of most archaeological wall painting fragments constrain the identification of the technique.” Brecoulaki et al. 2017 (which appeared after this book was written) comment that the only way to identify painting technique is to perform “a series of destructive analyses such as GC-MS Pyrolisis” (2017, 155, cf. 158).

the pigment and the porosity of the plaster. Moreover, such penetration can also occur to some extent with secco technique under postdepositional osmotic pressure.24 The degree of penetration is not now considered to be a criterion for recognizing buon fresco, a more dependable criterion being an even diffusion of calcium throughout the thickness of the plaster.25 Of the numerous features described by Mark Cameron and Ann Brysbaert as indicative criteria of technique,26 two that imply fresco can be recognized macroscopically in the Northeast Bastion paintings. Both are suggestive of the plaster having been damp in the planning stages of the painting: string impressions and disturbance of the plaster surface in the painting of guide lines. The string lines could only be impressed into damp, rather than wet plaster;27 while the disturbance of the plaster is only visible in pink guide lines (159; Pl. 69:a), other discernible brush strokes clearly lie on top of the surface (e.g., 658; Pl. 71:h). (These features, along with incisions on two Plant Panel fragments [642, 661; Pl. 69:c–e], which appear to have been cut when the plaster was dry, will be discussed in relation to the process of painting in the next chapter.) There are several counter indications for extensive use of buon fresco. Perdikatsis’ results indicate secondary calcite in the pigment layer of most of the samples (Table B.1), which implies that the surface had dried.28 This secondary calcite could have been formed by lime water used to dilute the pigment and facilitate binding or by the mixing of lime with the pigment to lighten hue. Furthermore, in a complex composition, buon fresco requires fresh plaster for each painting session, and in both Roman and Italian Renaissance painting day lines (giornate), irregular divisions shaped around parts of the composition from where the plaster from one day ends and that 24 Perdikatsis et al. 2000, 115–116; R.E Jones 2005, 219. 25 Dandrau and Dubernet 2006, 246. 26 Cameron, Jones, and Philippakis 1977, 167–169; Brysbaert 2008, 112–118. 27 Asimenos 1978, 575. 28 Perdikatsis (1998, 104) comments that Aegean plasters are composed of primary calcite (grains up to 100 μm) and very fine slaked lime (grain size less than 10 μm), transformed into secondary calcite during drying (cf. Perdikatsis et al. 2000, 115). Lime mixed with pigment as a binding medium is classified as secondary calcite. It is possible to distinguish primary from secondary calcite by its angular crystals, visible though optical microscopy and Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) analysis (Sotiropoulou et al. 2012).

MATERIALS, TECHNIQUES, AND PIGMENTS

from the next begins, can be detected.29 No such day lines have been identified in Aegean painting, even on the well-preserved wall paintings of Akrotiri, which suggests that fresco technique on wet plaster was used only for the preliminary stages of the painting, such that it could be executed within a single day,30 with the subsequent painting being done on dry or, more likely, dampened plaster.31 Renaissance painters drew their sketches (sinope) beneath the intonaco. Although claims have been made for use of this technique in Aegean painting, including recently in Xeste 3 at Akrotiri,32 no such evidence exists for Kea. All guide lines were painted over the intonaco, not beneath it. It should also be noted that, on the small partial surfaces of fragments, guide lines beneath intonaco would in any case be hard to distinguish from earlier layers of plaster and paint, either from a previous painting or from retouching. A single example of such an overpainted layer is seen in Plate 69:g (169). Critical to the discussion is the question of bonding. Until recently, no bonding material had been identified in Aegean painting, not surprisingly, since organic substances are unlikely to have survived, while long contact with the soil leads to contamination of the painted surfaces. It is also the case that analyses of painted plaster have traditionally focused on mineralogical components rather than organic traces.33 Recent analyses of fragments at Pylos, however, have revealed the use of egg as a binder, in some samples mixed with animal glue, in others with plant gum and sometimes glucose (perhaps honey), which would provide elasticity to the paint layers; organic binders have also been identified in 29 Mora, Mora, and Pilippot 1984, 97–99, 140. 30 Cf. Televantou (1992, 148; 1994a, 355; 2000, 833), who comments that true fresco was rare at Akrotiri and probably unintentional. Recent analysis of the Xeste 3 paintings, however, suggests that some (not all) large-scale paintings may have included aspects of fresco techniques (see below n. 32; Angelidis et al. 2018), though day lines have still not been reported. 31 An initial damp layer of plaster can be painted on for some time as it dries, as long as it is dampened, either with a cloth or by sprinkling with water (Laurie 1910, 84). 32 Cameron 1975, 286–287 (House of the Frescoes); 1976b, 39 n. 50; Angelidis et al. 2018 (Xeste 3 at Akrotiri). Cf. Brysbaert 2008, 116, table 6.1, no. 10, on sinopie beneath the paint layer. 33 E. Photos-Jones, pers. comm. 2013. Cf. Brecoulaki et al. 2008, 384; Brecoulaki, Karydas, and Colombini, forthcoming. I am grateful to Hariclia Brecoulaki for sending this paper to me prior to publication.

333

the paintings of the West House at Mycenae.34 Traces of protein were also reported from Phaistos,35 and at Tell el-Dabca, in separate samples, egg and casein/ glue were both identified.36 No binding materials have been identified in the samples of painted plaster from Ayia Irini.37 However, another crucial criterion for identifying secco painting can be observed by eye: the layering of colors. A significant problem in microscopic and mineralogical analyses lies in the necessarily circumspect sampling procedure. Samples are taken of tiny pieces that are unlikely to be usable in iconographic reconstruction.38 By default, they are unlikely to contain detailed iconographic elements built up of layers of different colors. In addition, samples usually relate to tiny sections of paintings drawn from different buildings, rather than from within a single painting.39 These factors demonstrate the need to combine macroscopic with microscopic studies,40 in which a wider sampling from individual paintings takes place. Examination of the surface of relatively large polychrome fragments with a magnifying glass under strong, oblique light (ideally natural sunlight) reveals the layering of pigments and the degree to which the upper layers have flaked away. Such layering and subsequent flaking provides clear evidence for the application of paints onto dry plaster, as the pigments detach over time with the decomposition of organic 34 Pylos: Brecoulaki et al. 2008, 384; Brecoulaki, Karydas, and Colombini, forthcoming; Brecoulaki et al. 2012. Significantly, the samples were of single colors, not layered. Mycenae: Brecoulaki et al. 2017, 147, 155–158. Brecoulaki, Karydas, and Colombini (forthcoming) point out that egg has stronger bonding capacities than gums, the latter probably being used as a protective coating on top of the paint or as an isolation layer between plaster and paint or between paint layers. 35 R.E. Jones 2005, 219. 36 Seeber 2000, 99, table 2. The gum was probably gum arabic (Seeber 2000, 95), derived from the acacia tree, which is among the several plant and animal binders identified in ancient Egyptian paintings (Lucas and Harris 1962, 5–6; Newman and Serpico 2009, 476), and has been identified in a Hellenistic painting (Kakoulli 2009b, 35, 72–73). It is still used today in watercolors (Seymour 2007, 339–341). 37 Majewski and Reich (1973, 299) comment that all but three of the samples tested were insoluble, indicating a lack of a water soluble medium such as a gum. 38 Brysbaert 2008, 63, 126; Brysbaert and Perdikatsis 2008, 423. 39 Cf. Chryssikopoulou et al. 2000, 129. 40 Cf. Brysbaert 2004, 10; 2008.

334

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

binders.41 Had the plaster been damp, the pigments would have bonded more or less permanently; had the lower layer of paint been wet, the colors would have mixed to create combination hues. When a separate layer of paint is seen to be flaking, revealing a different color beneath, it is conclusive evidence of separate applications, the top one of which must have been applied to a dry surface. Such overpainting and flaking is a common feature of the Kea paintings, as it is at sites throughout the Aegean, a fact commented on by a number of scholars (see n. 22). Overpainting and the process of flaking are clearly visible in the magnification of the fragments in Plates 70 and 71. It is apparent from the results of numerous analyses that in Aegean painting some degree of fresco was employed. Whether it was buon fresco, painted onto fresh plaster, or mezzo fresco, painted onto dampened plaster or mixed with lime water, cannot yet be determined, but given the difficulty of reading the colors as one paints in the former, the latter seems more likely. But, as we have seen, this was a mixed technique, and secco played an important role. From my observations of the painted plasters of the Northeast Bastion, it is my opinion that working on damp or dampened plaster was limited to the application of guide lines, string impressions, and the preliminary painting of parts of the surface with the basic ground color of light yellow ocher. Colors applied on top of the yellow ground were applied in secco. This observation agrees with the microscopic examination of two of the samples analyzed by Perdikatsis, in which Egyptian Blue was applied secco over the top of yellow that had been applied in fresco (KEA 4 and 5; Table B.1; Pl. 68:c). Patterns of preservation and separation, while sometimes affected by the quality of materials or technique, are largely determined by environmental conditions following deposition, especially by the presence of moisture.42 Fragment 340, in Plate 30, provides a good example of how two or more pieces with completely different states of preservation can be found to join. But such patterns may also be determined by the behavior of particular pigments in relation to the plaster. The finer the grain, the better the ground pigment will bind with the damp plaster.43 Yellow ocher in particular, with its small grain size, is well suited to application on damp plaster, 41 Cf. Asimenos 1978, 577. 42 Mora, Mora, and Philippot 1984, 165–214. 43 Chryssikopoulou et al. 2000, 126–127.

and therefore it is effective technically as a ground color. Blues behave quite differently. The difference between the cohesion in the photographs of blue surfaces in Plate 71:f (487) and 71:g (494) demonstrate the variability of preservation and hence, probably, of technique. Neither Egyptian Blue nor amphiboles adhere well to smooth, damp plaster, owing to their relatively large grain size. They therefore require a roughened surface, and, like other blue pigments, adhere better with added lime water or an organic binder.44 Grinding the blue finer to aid adhesion has the effect of lightening the hue and hence dulling intensity.45 All the areas of the painting in which blue has flaked (and there are many, only the best preserved being illustrated here) reveal that the artists of the Kea Miniature Frieze knew this, since the plaster is rough. In some parts, the blue pigment appears as a thin skin of color, suggestive of secco technique.46 That it is a pigment layer rather than a slip that was then painted is indicated by the fact that some faint blue color remains on parts of the plaster where the pigment has flaked away. Quite different reactions between pigment and plaster are seen for the yellow and the blue wash. When patches of yellow ground are missing, it is due to abrasion or the effects of dampness rather than flaking (e.g., 340), though in a couple of instances the underlying yellow has flaked along with the upper layer of paint (35, 67, and 447 [blue]; Pl. 71:d [red]). When areas of blue are missing, it is due to flaking, presumably following degeneration of a binding material. It seems likely that the surface was dry by the time the blue was applied, though there may have been areas still not entirely dry, following the dampness or dampening of the surface in readiness for the application of the yellow ground.

44 Lucas and Harris 1962, 351, regarding blue frits (Egyptian Blue), as well as azurite and malachite. Cf. Soprintendenza alle gallerie per le provincie di Firenze e Pistoia 1969, 15: earth colors are necessary for fresco, and blues (ultramarine and azurite in this case) had to be secco, bound with glue (not egg yolk, which would discolor the blue), applied to a rough surface for better adhesion of medium and pigment. Cf. Mora, Mora, and Philippot 1984, 142–143. On riebeckite and Egyptian Blue at Akrotiri, see n. 63 below. For identification of roughened surfaces for blue pigment in Aegean plasters, see Brysbaert 2008, 113. 45 Perdikatsis 1998, 105; Chryssikopoulou et al. 2000, 123; Tite, Shortland, and Hatton 2008, 154. 46 Cf. Majewski and Reich 1973, 299.

MATERIALS, TECHNIQUES, AND PIGMENTS

Interestingly, the application of impasto white (a relatively thick paste of calcium carbonate) over the blue seems to have an effect on preservation. It is as though the binding property of the lime has seeped through the blue to help bind the pigment to the plaster surface beneath. This is clearly demonstrated in 494 (Pls. 43, 71:g), where all around the blobs of white the blue has disappeared, but where the white blobs remain so does the blue. Black is the most fugitive of the pigments, as can be seen by the minimal traces of black pupils on the whites of the eyes (Pl. 70). Black was always applied secco.47 Interestingly, blue-gray was more frequently used than black (e.g., Pl. 71:e, j), even for the depiction of hair (Pl. 70). Perhaps lime was added to encourage adhesion, with blue added to enrich the hue (cf. KEA 15 and 16; Table B.1). In conclusion, the evidence suggests that the plaster was damp (not wet) at the planning stages of the painting and for the application of the light yellow background, and dry for the application of the succeeding colors. The blue of the sea may have been applied just as the plaster was almost dry, since it has adhered permanently in some places but flaked in others. It is unclear whether the yellow ground was applied to fresh (damp, not wet) plaster immediately after the guide lines (buon fresco), or whether the plaster had dried by then and was dampened to receive the paint (mezzo fresco). What is clear is that this was a mixed technique in which secco application of layers of paint was the norm after the initial stages. These conclusions combine the results of macroscopic with microscopic analyses.

Pigments Used in the Paintings The suitability of a particular material for use as a pigment depends not simply on the composition of the pigment, with its ratio to other minerals and clay compounds, grain size, and shape (all referred to below), but also to other factors, including the qualities of the surface to which the paint is to be applied and the material that is combined with the pigment in readiness for application. 47 Cf. Majewski and Reich 1973, 299 and Perdikatsis’ results in Table B.1.

335

When pigment is mixed with a vehicle—the binder that adheres or a medium that dilutes—the resultant combination affects the qualities of the paint and its suitability for certain painterly effects. Different binders work better with different colors.48 Refractive index—how close or far apart the values are of pigment and binder/medium in terms of the scattering of light—affects whether the paint will be translucent or opaque, according to how much is added. Gum, for example, adds transparency with brilliance; water translucency; lime or egg opacity, with varying degrees of lightness/darkness, dullness/brilliance, and control over flow. The artists were skilled in their visual effects and would surely have been aware of the potentials of different combinations (cf. Ch. 10). Pigments from painted plaster samples from Ayia Irini were analyzed in the late 1960s by Majewski and Reich, and in the late 1980s by Perdikatsis.49 The materials are consistent with those known to have been used by artists throughout the Aegean Bronze Age: lime for white, carbon for black, naturally occurring iron oxides (ochers) for yellow and red (goethite and hematite), and the silicate Egyptian Blue.50 In the following section, ocher is considered last, for reasons that will become apparent. It should be noted that a murky ocher-toned deposit lies in patches over the paint on a number of fragments. This is not pigment, but a postdepositional discoloration from the earth and debris that covered them for three-and-a-half millennia.

White The white pigment used at Ayia Irini was calcium carbonate, which matched the lime plaster in composition.51 Diluted with water, it produced a slip, as 48 Mora, Mora, and Philippot 1984, 120. 49 Majewski and Reich 1973; Peredikatsis 1998 (some of the results incorporated). It should be noted that, over time, scientists have used different methodologies and instrumentations in their analyses of pigments, each method involving its own limitations that in turn affect interpretations. 50 See esp. Dandrau 1999; R.E. Jones 2005, 210–214, table 13.2. Crete: Profi, Weier, and Filippakis 1976; Cameron, Jones, and Philippakis 1977; Perdikatsis 1998; Photos-Jones, Jones, and Hall 2003. Thera: Noll, Born, and Holm 1975; Profi, Weier, and Filippakis 1977; Filippakis 1978; Perdikatsis 1998; Perdikatsis et al. 2000. Melos: R.E. Jones 2007. 51 Majewski and Reich 1973, 297, 299.

336

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

in the intonaco left unpainted for areas of buildings; applied thickly as impasto on top of other painted elements (see Ch. 10), it was entirely opaque. This use of impasto is characteristic of Cretan painting but is rarely used at Akrotiri.52

Black and Gray Two samples of black paint on plaster were identified by Majewski and Reich as carbon “of very fine particle size,” being lampblack from soot.53 Among the samples analyzed by Perdikatsis, charcoal was identified in two (KEA 8 and 15), while four samples (two in Table B.1 [KEA 9 and 16] plus two others reported previously) were identified primarily as pyrolusite, a manganese mineral.54 One of these samples contained goethite (KEA 9) and another contained amphiboles. Another sample (KEA 13) appeared gray to the eye but contained all the constituents of yellow ocher with no apparent black pigment (goethite, calcite, illite, kaolinite). None of these black or gray samples came from the Northeast Bastion. Pyrolusite is an unusual pigment for the Aegean, where the use of charcoal for black is typical. It has been identified in Egyptian paintings of the Middle and New Kingdom, although there, too, carbon from soot was the norm.55 Closer to home, a sample of black from Phylakopi had a high manganese content,56 as did two samples from Akrotiri.57 Though in neither case was it specifically identified as pyrolusite, it is the most common form. Manganese has not been identified at Knossos, a fact that led Richard Jones to conclude that local sources were being exploited in the Cyclades. It is unclear where the source for the pyrolusite in the Kea sample was, but it is interesting to note that Lavrion, just across 52 Davis 1990, 220. 53 Majewski and Reich 1973, 298. 54 Perdikatsis 1998, table 2. Perdikatsis comments (1998, 105) that pyrolusite (MnO2) was not found in any of the other samples analyzed from Knossos, Hagia Triada, Akrotiri, or Mycenae. 55 Lucas and Harris 1962, 340; El Goresy 2000, 55. 56 R.E. Jones 2007, 399; Brysbaert 2008, 131 (who refers specifically to pyrolusite at Phylakopi and Orchomenos). Pyrolusite has now also been identified at Pylos: Brecoulaki, Karydas, and Colombini, forthcoming. 57 Filippakis 1978.

the water, is a known source,58 while manganese has also been identified in ocher on Kea itself.59

Blue All seven samples of blue analyzed by Majewski and Reich were identified as the calcium-copper silicate known as Egyptian Blue. None of those samples were from the Northeast Bastion. Egyptian Blue was identified in a further eight samples analyzed by Perdikatsis, with subsidiary constituents of calcite (all samples) and quartz (all but one sample). Only five of these were visible to the eye as blue; two were seen as gray and one as black. Four of the eight were from the Northeast Bastion (KEA 1, 3–5), one of which also included illite. Three of the Northeast Bastion samples included goethite, two layered with the blue (KEA 4, 5), the other mixed (KEA 1). In addition, the earlier report by Perdikatsis revealed amphiboles mixed with Egyptian Blue and goethite in one of the blue samples from Ayia Irini.60 At Akrotiri and Knossos, amphiboles, naturally occurring iron-rich minerals with dull blue to gray coloration, have been identified, either used alone or mixed with Egyptian Blue.61 A piece of blue slate identified as magnesio-riebeckite has been found at Akrotiri, consistent with some of the blue pigment identified in the wall paintings there.62 Recent infrared photoluminescence imaging of the blues in the Akrotiri paintings has resulted in the interesting observation that the artists’ choice of Egyptian Blue versus riebeckite or a combination was occasioned 58 Eastaugh et al. 2004a, 313. 59 Photos-Jones and Hall 2011, 77. Richard Jones comments that while pyrolusite itself is not common, it is more so within a dark earth consisting of iron oxide with significant Mn present, as in analyzed samples from Kea, Phylakopi, the Menelaion, and Nichoria (pers. comm. April 2013). 60 Perdikatsis 1998, table 3, blue 110. 61 Initially identified as glaucophane (Filippakis, Perdikatsis, and Paradellis 1976; Profi, Weier and Filippakis 1976), subsequent analyses show that the most common amphibole used was riebeckite (Cameron, Jones, and Philippakis 1977, 140; Perdikatsis 1998, 105–106; Perdikatsis et al. 2000, 113–114), with some diversity noted in samples from Chania (Photos-Jones, Jones, and Hall 2003; R.E. Jones 2005, 215). Amphiboles also occur in combination with Egyptian Blue at Hagia Triada (Militello 1998, 381), while at Kommos it was used instead of Egyptian Blue (Dandrau and Dubernet 2006, 242–244, table 2.28). 62 Sotiropoulou et al. 2012.

MATERIALS, TECHNIQUES, AND PIGMENTS

by iconographic criteria, for example riebeckite being used in the Miniature Frieze for neutral sea, Egyptian Blue for brighter contrast in river, rocks, towns, and so forth.63 While the principle of varying hue and luminosity also pertains to the Kea miniatures, the criteria were different, sea being bright, rocks being dulled with the addition of black (see this vol., Ch. 10). Egyptian Blue (CaCuSi4O10, equivalent to the rare, natural mineral cuprorivaite) is composed of a copper compound (which gives it its color) combined with quartz sand, calcium carbonate (lime), and a small amount of alkali. It is produced by heating these components at 900o–1,000oC for several hours.64 Produced in Egypt and the Near East since the third millennium, it is first known in the Aegean (as faience) during the Middle Minoan period and became the primary source of blue pigment in Aegean wall paintings.65 The intensity of hue in Egyptian Blue varies according to the ratio of copper, particle size, and firing procedure. The finer it is ground the lighter is the resultant color,66 while the ratio of quartz can also affect hue.67 Hatton and Tite have analyzed Egyptian Blue frit from Middle Minoan and Late Helladic contexts, the results of which indicate from the type of alkali used that it was manufactured in the Aegean, rather than being imported from Egypt or the Near East.68 In the Kea Miniature Frieze, the presence of tiny dark blue specs (frit), visible with only minimal magnification, indicates that the pigment is Egyptian Blue. The blue of the sea is light, in some cases clear blue, in others an aqua color with a slightly greenish tinge. On the other hand, in some fragments the blue has a grayish tone, without visible frit (e.g., 63, 65). Inevitably, few samples were taken and how particular blues were used within the composition is currently only retrievable from visual observation, rather than from analyses of pigments. It would be 63 Vlachopoulos and Sotiropoulou 2013, esp. 252–253, 259. Riebeckite, which adheres somewhat better to the plaster, was also used on occasion under Egyptian Blue. 64 Tite, Bimson, and Cowell 1987; Riederer 1997; Tite, Shortland, and Hatton 2008. 65 Jones 1999, 145; Tite, Shortland, and Hatton 2008, 148–149; see also Kakoulli 2009a. 66 R.E. Jones 2005, 215; Tite, Bimson, and Cowell 1987, 42, 45; Tite, Shortland, and Hatton 2008, 154. 67 Less quartz, lighter hue: Profi, Weier, and Filippakis 1976, 38. 68 Tite, Shortland, and Hatton 2008, 172–176; cf. R.E. Jones 2005, 215.

337

interesting to see what emerged from infrared photoluminescence imaging, such as that recently undertaken for Akrotiri (see n. 63).

Blue-Gray Majewski and Reich comment that all seven of their blue samples “appear somewhat gray in tonality,” which by examining cross sections they identified as being a layer of gray paint over the plaster (carbon black with calcium carbonate), and a layer of blue over that.69 All these samples, however, came from other parts of the site (House A and Building M), and they are datable to Period VII rather than to Period VI. It is my observation that in the Miniature Frieze from N.20, gray-black was frequently painted over blue, rather than the other way around. This combination—black over blue—has been observed at Akrotiri (Porter’s Lodge),70 as well as at Miletus and Tell el-Dabca, but it is apparently less common than the other way around.71 Layering of blues, with a light hue beneath and a darker grayblue or blue-black on top, which would have had the same effect, was observed at Chania, while riebeckite (gray-blue) beneath Egyptian Blue has been reported at Akrotiri.72

Blue and Yellow Ocher Together The Kea painters used the two different pigments Egyptian Blue and yellow ocher to create specific effects. This practice is notable in the painting of some of the leaves in the Plant Panels, in which the two colors combine to give the visual effect of blue with a slightly green tinge. Mixing or layering of the two colors is apparent in the fragment of myrtle in Plate 71:i (683) and in a few others from the same composition (651, 679). The technique is more apparent in the fragments from the Blue and Yellow Grasses. It is not 69 Majewski and Reich 1973, 298. The same order—black first, blue second—was observed in mainland samples from Mycenae, Tiryns, and Thebes (Brysbaert 2008, 126; Brysbaert and Perdikatsis 2008, 425). 70 Vlachopoulos and Sotiropoulou 2013, 254. 71 Brysbaert 2008, 116. 72 Chania: Photos-Jones, Jones, and Hall 2003, 311–315, 317; Akrotiri: Vlachopoulos and Sotiropoulou 2013, 259.

338

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

always clear macroscopically whether the two were mixed before application, or whether they are separate layers of paint. On a few fragments two separate layers are discernible, several appear to be blue over ocher, a few ocher over blue, while many others simply look mixed to the eye. In Perdikatsis’ samples KEA 4 and 5, which came from N.18 and so may well belong to the Plant Panels, layering is apparent, with an initial layer of yellow ocher (goethite) and a top layer of Egyptian Blue (Pl. 68:c). Another sample from Ayia Irini (KEA 1), from N.20 and therefore from the Miniature Frieze, revealed goethite and Egyptian Blue mixed, which macroscopically produced a gray hue (Pl. 68:e). Blue appears to have been painted on top of yellow ocher to produce a greenish hue at Akrotiri and, later, at Pylos and Mycenae.73 The opposite order— blue first, ocher on top, producing brown—has been identified at Akrotiri, Knossos, and Mycenae.74 The Ayia Irini samples with layered and mixed pigments therefore use techniques of blending hues paralleled within the Aegean, especially at Akrotiri, where Egyptian Blue and goethite were layered.

Red and Yellow Ocher As an iron oxide, ocher is a permanent color that does not fade under stable conditions; it is therefore ideal for use as a pigment.75 The Kea painters used a wide range of ocher hues, from pale yellow to bright ocher and from pale pink to deep red. The constituents of the Kea samples of painted layers on plaster, as analyzed by Perdikatsis (Table B.1: KEA 2, 6, 7, 12, 13) are goethite or hematite, with subsidiary constituents of calcite, quartz, illite, and 73 Akrotiri: Perdikatsis et al. 2000, 115. Pylos: Brecoulaki, Karydas, and Colombini (forthcoming) report both physical blending and layering of yellow ocher and blue, which is also the case for the West House at Mycenae (Brecoulaki et al. 2017, 151–153, table A.1, MWH 2, 4). 74 Knossos: Egyptian Blue with hematite over (Profi, Weier, and Filippakis 1976, 38, table 1, sample 11); riebeckite with hematite over (Cameron, Jones, and Philippakis 1977, 144, 159, table 6, sample 39); and riebeckite and hematite mixed to produce orange (presumably with a purple-brown tinge; Cameron, Jones, and Philippakis 1977, 144, table 6, sample 30). Akrotiri: blue with goethite over (Profi, Weier, and Filippakis 1977, 111, table 1, TH 51). Mycenae: blue with hematite over; blue with goethite over (Profi, Weier, and Filippakis 1974, 109, samples 6, 21). 75 Eastaugh et al. 2004a, 171, 183, 279; Helwig 2007, 55; cf. Green 2001, 45

kaolinite.76 Majewski and Reich (who mention only the main constituent of iron oxide) comment that “The color variations appear to be due to the varying quantity of calcium carbonate present.”77 The ratio of hematite to other constituents results in variation in hue, as does the relative grain size and the thickness of the paint layer.78 Goethite (a-FeOOH), an iron oxide hydroxide mineral, is the main constituent of yellow ocher, the hues of which range through yellow, orange, and brownred, depending on the particle size (the larger the darker).79 Hematite (a-Fe2O3), associated geologically with oxidizing areas of iron ore deposits in a variety of rocks, is the most common form of red ocher.80 Ocher minerals, constituting the decomposition of ore deposits in soil or host rock, are invariably impure, typically including other minerals such as calcite and quartz, as well as clay minerals such as kaolinite and illite. The proportion of ocher varies widely, from as high as 97% and as low as 30% for hematite and as high as 70% and as low as 13% for goethite.81 Ocher materials from Akrotiri recently analyzed range up to 52% for the hematite and up to 12.1% for the goethite.82 Such ratios are, of course, major determinants of hue, saturation, and value. When analyzing pigments on plaster, as opposed to raw ocher pieces or processed pigment in a pot, one cannot determine whether the subsidiary constituents came exclusively with the ocher when it was mined or whether they are also partially the result of additives. Nor can one tell whether the variety of hue was the result of the natural constituents of the ocher or was obtained by mixing. 83 Mixing and layering of 76 In Table B.1 ratios for the constituents are not included in the results of the analysis. The list is, therefore, alphabetical. 77 Majewski and Reich 1973, 298. 78 Perdikatsis et al. 2000, 112. 79 Eastaugh et al. 2004a, 171. 80 On ochers, see esp. Thomas 1980; Eastaugh et al. 2004a, 146 (earth pigments), 170–171 (goethite), 183 (hematite), 279– 280 (ocher), 320–321 (red ocher), 401–402 (yellow ocher); Eastaugh et al. 2004b, 143, 147, 277, 363, 365; Helwig 2007. 81 Helwig 2007, 60–61. 82 Sotiropoulou et al. 2012. 83 Different ratios of impurities are likely to have an effect not only on hue but also on the degree of hardness or softness, both factors that would be of importance in the selection of ochers for use as pigments. Raw ocher can be purified through levigation to minimize quantities of calcite and quartz, which would improve texture and be likely to alter hue (R.E. Jones 2005, 209, 215), but it is unknown whether this was practiced in the Aegean Bronze Age. Thomas comments that levigation is not necessary in order to obtain a

MATERIALS, TECHNIQUES, AND PIGMENTS

pigments, observable in the Kea paintings, has also been noted at Akrotiri, Knossos, and Tell el-Dabca.84 It was common practice in Egypt during the Eighteenth Dynasty, when yellow and red were blended together, layered one after the other, or mixed with white,85 while red and white were mixed for pink.86 Such mixing is likely to have occurred in the Aegean, though it is also possible that pink was produced from ocher with relatively small quantities of hematite. Analyses of pink pigments from Thera revealed the same range of constituents as the red ochers,87 presumably with a larger proportion of calcite or clay to hematite. Actual coloring materials found at Ayia Irini and at Akrotiri (discussed below) exhibit an extraordinary range of color, demonstrating that painters working at either town could have achieved most of the variations they sought by using a palette of ochers, with little need for mixing. Calcite and quartz are among the most common impurities of naturally occurring ochers.88 But calcite also implies the addition of lime, either as a lime water or mixed into the pigment to lighten hue; alternatively, as with the presence of quartz, it could indicate that part of the plaster layer was included in the analysis.89 Lime water aids the binding of pigment with plaster and adds opacity, as well as enhancing the luster of ocher pigment.90 But was it added or native to the ocher? Perdikatsis and colleagues noted that red ocher pigment found in a pot in Room 4a of the West House at Akrotiri was almost exclusively hematite, with very little calcite, yet in all the samples of ocher pigment on plaster from the site secondary calcite was detected, meaning that good quality earth pigment, which can be achieved simply by washing (Thomas 1980, 29), while Moorey suggests only grinding and sieving are necessary to convert natural oxides into pigments (1999, 328). 84 Akrotiri: Asimenos 1978, 574; Iliakis 1978, 626; Knossos: Cameron, Jones, and Philippakis 1977, 159; Tell el-Dabca: Brysbaert 2007b, 155, 157. 85 El Goresy 2000, 53–55; McCarthy 2001; Lee and Quirke 2009, 111, 113–116. From the later Eighteenth Dynasty, ochers were also mixed with orpiment or realgar. 86 Lucas and Harris 1962, 346. 87 Profi, Weier, and Filippakis 1977, table 1; Perdikatsis 1998, table 1. Cf. “salmon” samples from Knossos, identified as ocher with hematite and goethite (Cameron, Jones, and Philippakis 1977, 143, table 6). 88 Eastaugh et al. 2004a, 279, 320, 401; 2004b, 147. 89 Brysbaert 2008, 129; cf. Profi, Weier, and Filippakis 1977, 108. 90 Mora, Mora, and Philippot 1984, 119.

339

lime must have been added to the pigment “in variable proportions, according to the intensity of the required color.”91 However, it should also be noted that both calcite and quartz are present in samples taken from what have been identified as ancient ocher mines on Kea.92 The presence of calcite in naturally occurring ocher could contribute to its suitability as a pigment, as it can affect the staining power of the coloring agent, hematite or goethite.93 The same issue pertains to kaolinite (kaolin) and its relative illite. These white clays are known historically to have been added to pigments, having the effects of lightening hue, strengthening the adhesive properties of pigment to surface,94 slowing down the drying process for damp intonaco,95 extending the pigment, making it more workable,96 and ensuring opacity or hiding power.97 Occasionally, a separate layer of kaolinite has been identified on Aegean painted plasters.98 But kaolin was also identified in some of the ocher samples from the Kea mines.99 Given that kaolin and illite occur naturally in ochers, their presence could be a positive factor in the suitability of the ocher as a pigment. The question of whether particular minerals or clays were part of the make-up of the raw material or whether they were added to the pigment before applying to the plaster is, at present, impossible to answer. Yet it is crucial to our understanding of the sourcing of pigment materials, since the presence of particular constituents reflects not only degree of processing but also specific sources.100 In our present understanding, the majority of samples from both the Cyclades and Crete are compatible with those from Kea. Calcite, quartz, and kaolinite are commonly associated with the coloring 91 Perdikatsis et al. 2000, 115. Similarly, Dandrau suggested mixing as an explanation for the presence of dolomite in a few of the samples from Knossos (1999, 28 n. 114); and Noll, Born, and Holm suggested that talc present in a few samples from Akrotiri had been added as a whitener (1975, 89). 92 Photos-Jones et al. 1997. 93 Photos-Jones and Hall 2011, 77. 94 Eastaugh et al. 2004a, 191, 209. 95 Mora, Mora, and Philippot 1984, 94. 96 Thomas 1980, 28, 44. 97 Helwig 2007, 54. 98 R.E. Jones 2005, 216. 99 Photos-Jones et al. 1997, table 1, nos. K2, K4–K6, SEMEDAX analysis. 100 Eastaugh et al. 2004a, 279, 401; Helwig 2007, 39, 60–61.

340

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

agents of goethite and hematite, as, less frequently, is illite.101 Just a few samples from Akrotiri indicate a local source,102 as do a few from Knossos103 and Phylakopi,104 but most match both the samples of painted plaster from Ayia Irini and the samples from the Kea mines (see below). If the results of future analyses, using consistent methodology, were to reveal significant ratios of trace constituents, perhaps more precise provenance might eventually be possible (cf. n. 2), as was the case in the attribution of red in samples from Palaikastro to local Roussolakkos,105 and as has been done in analyses of Macedonian paintings,106 as well as in the research into earths relating to the use of industrial minerals in the Classical period on Kea, Melos, Lemnos, and Samos by Effie Photos-Jones and colleagues.107 Such studies would be of enormous interest for Kea. Here, uniquely, all stages of the pigment process 101 Illite occurs in the three samples from Phylakopi analyzed by R.E. Jones (2007, nos. 1a, 2, 63) and half of those from Akrotiri analyzed by Perdikatsis (1998, table 1; Perdikatsis et al. 2000, table 2). Clay minerals, including some specified as illite or kaolinite, are also recorded in most, though not all, of the Knossos samples (Cameron, Jones, and Philippakis 1977, table 6). 102 Amphibole, albite, and talc were found in a few samples, and in one case chlorite; in addition, jarosite was identified combined with hematite in a lump of red ocher (Noll, Born, and Holm 1975, 93; R.E. Jones 2005, 216, table 13.2). Perdikatsis comments that the presence of hornblende (amphiboles) indicates local provenance (1998, 105) and that talc and chlorite are accessory minerals to amphiboles (Perdikatsis et al. 2000, 113). Jarosite is commonly associated with volcanic rock (Eastaugh et al. 2004a, 205– 206), and an orangey red pigment found in a clay vase at Akrotiri owes the unusual intensity of its color to a mixture of hematite (23%) with natro-jarosite (68%), a mineral identified on the island at Athenios (Sotiropoulou et al. 2012). 103 The main constituents are hematite and goethite, some with illite or other clay materials (Cameron, Jones, and Philippakis 1977, table 6; cf. R.E. Jones 2005, table 2). A few are reported as limonite (a crypto-crystalline goethite; Eastaugh et al. 2004a, 240), while one contained dolomite (a component of limestone; Eastaugh et al. 2004a, 141– 142), as did two from Hagia Triada (Militello 1998, 380; Perdikatsis 1998, table 1). 104 Three samples from Phylakopi match those of Ayia Irini (R.E. Jones 2007), but other minerals (chlorite, diopside, and microcline) were also reported (Brysbaert 2008, 129– 130, table 6.7a). 105 Cameron and Jones 1976. 106 Perdikatsis and Brecoulaki 2008. 107 Photos-Jones et al. 1997; Photos-Jones and Hall 2011 (with further references).

are available for analysis, potentially enabling one to trace back from the final product to their possible source: paint on plaster, pigment ground into a cup ready for use, raw pigments either discarded or awaiting processing, and the ocher mines on the island.

Pigments Found on the Site Numerous pieces of what appear to be raw ocher were excavated at Ayia Irini (Pl. 73). They were found mainly in the Eastern Sector, the largest concentration being from Building G, which sits within the fortification wall just inside the main Gateway into the town on the east, directly opposite the Temple (Fig. 1.4). Here pieces of red and yellow ocher were found in five of the ten rooms, and at least two conical cups containing ground red pigment accompanied an exceptionally large lump of stone with red in Room 4 (Pl. 74:a, b). Scattered pieces were also found in the area immediately west of the Gateway (Z), in the Plateia, and in Room 3 of the Temple itself. Precise contextual dating of all these pieces awaits stratigraphic study of the respective areas, but the initial impression from the data available is that they are associated with Periods VI–VII.108 Building G was extensively rebuilt at the beginning of Period VI, along with the Gateway and southeastern section of the town wall,109 contemporary with the building of the Northeast Bastion. It is likely that the concentration of pigments there relates to this activity and the subsequent period. Areas G and L have not yet been studied, but Caskey reported that the eastern rooms of L included bowls and basins with residues of white plaster, as well as pigments, and suggested that the rooms were used as workshops by the town’s painters.110 Specialized workshops are not to be expected, since at Ayia Irini, as elsewhere, industrial activities were integrated into domestic living spaces.111 However, the linear layout of Building G is unusual in that it has the appearance of a row of workshops. Here, too, it appears 108 I am grateful to Carol Hershenson for tracking down the available data for unpublished areas. 109 J. Davis 1986, 14. 110 Caskey 1964, 322. 111 Cf. this vol., Ch. 1, p. 28. Moorey (1999, 16) makes the same point for Mesopotamia.

MATERIALS, TECHNIQUES, AND PIGMENTS

that production for or by the town’s painters was in process. The fact that the pigments were found in so many rooms implies either storage or that these are waste pieces following extraction of the best ocher for processing as pigments. Significantly, Area G lies directly adjacent to the Temple, separated only by Temple Lane, while Area L (also the locus of metalworking in the western rooms) lies immediately to the southwest of the Northeast Bastion. No pigment pieces were found in the painted rooms of the Northeast Bastion itself nor in the ceremonial eastern side of House A. In other words, the painters’ workshops and storage of pigments lay outside but close to the important (and painted) buildings. Within the Temple, the few pieces of red pigment found alongside a conical cup containing yellow ocher were no doubt intended for retouching of the statues, which, though now monochrome, retain traces of their original paint.112 The relationship between the Temple and Building G is also suggested by the presence in G.3, flanked by the rooms with pigments, of votive terracotta feet alongside some 90 conical cups and several LM IA pots.113 There are numerous instances from Crete in which red pigment, usually in a cup or bowl, was found in a sanctuary associated with cult objects (see nn. 125, 126), no doubt intended for ritual animation.114 At Ayia Irini, the larger concentration in Building G is especially notable. The source of this ocher is likely to have been local. Ochers typically occur in the iron-rich deposits that lie in the junctures between schist and marble, the two dominant stones of Kea.115 Bright ocher hues are visible among rocks that have been quarried for buildings in the hills around Ayia Irini, demonstrating the presence of iron oxides. Significantly, in classical times, Kea was famous for its miltós (μίλτος), a highly valued deep-hued ocher, and several likely miltós cave mines have been identified on the island.116 Samples from five locations on Kea have 112 M. Caskey 1986, 27, 59, 61–64. Skin was painted white, garments yellow ocher, while a trace of red was detected on one of the (otherwise white) garlands. 113 M. Caskey 1986, 106. 114 The role of paint, esp. red, in animating cult images is a phenomenon known in many cultures, and is well documented in ancient Egypt: see, e.g., Pinch 2001; Morgan 2011; on Greek statues, see Hannah 2004, 104. 115 Photos-Jones et al. 1997, 362–363. 116 Cherry et al. 1991, 127, 299–303; Photos-Jones et al. 1997. Theophr. De lapidibus 52: “The best red ocher seems to be that of Ceos; for there are several kinds. One of them

341

been analyzed for their mineralogical components. The coloring constituents are goethite and hematite combined with calcite and in some cases quartz.117 The range of colors “from yellow through red to brown”118 is wide, and the fine crystalline texture proved excellent as a potential source of pigment. Such variety was much valued in antiquity, allowing direct usage of individual hues without the need for mixing or calcining.119 The range of hues in the raw pigments found at Ayia Irini is extraordinary. Plate 72 reproduces the colors produced by drawing with the edges of the pieces.120 The colors are arranged in groups, with white to yellow hues at the top, yellows to reds in the center, and warm pinks to reds at the bottom.121 We have no idea how the ancient artists might have categorized the comes from mines, since iron mines also contain red ocher” (Caley and Richards 1956, 56). 117 Photos-Jones et al. 1997, tables 1, 2. 118 Photos-Jones et al. 1997, 363. 119 Theophr. De lapidibus 53: “. . . there are three varieties of it, one very red, one light-colored, and a third whose color is midway between the others. We call this a selfsufficient kind because it does not have to be mixed, whereas the others do.” As the translation immediately before is incomplete (“It is dug up by itself in. . . .”), it is unclear whether this section refers to the Cappadocian red ocher, to the Lemnian, or to the “several kinds” of Kea, referred to in the same passage (see n. 116). Theophrastus continues by commenting that the burning (i.e., calcining) of yellow ocher to produce red is “an inferior kind” (Caley and Richards 1956, 56). 120 I prepared these streaks of color in the 1980s on white file cards and paper; they were compiled into a chart by Rosemary Robertson at my request in 2010. In a visit to the museum the same year I photographed the actual pigments, which were compiled into Pls. 73 and 74:a, b by Stuart Laidlaw. 121 In color theory, hue is one of three properties used to determine a particular color, the others being saturation and value. Hue is the color we perceive according to the particular reflected wavelength of light. Saturation defines a range from pure color (fully saturated) to gray (no saturation) under constant light conditions, affecting the vividness or dullness of how we perceive a color. Value refers to the relative lightness or darkness of the color. Inevitably our perception of hue is affected by saturation and value, as well as by ambient light. The term hue is used in this book in its broader sense, not only in terms of what is referred to as pure or primary color (yellow, red, blue) but also for what are considered to be intermediary or secondary colors (redyellow, orange-red, pink-red). Language divides the continuous color spectrum into discrete units, but nature does not. Cf. this vol., Ch. 10, pp. 345–346 on the cultural relativity of color terminologies.

342

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

different colors. The order here follows the progression of Munsell color charts, commonly used in archaeology, in which each color is arranged according to hue, value, and saturation. Such matching is, however, no more than approximate, given that the Munsell color system is infinitely less diverse than the perceptual distinctions of eye and brain.122 Those pieces found in greater concentrations on the eastern side of the site (the area of elite and cult buildings) exhibit a wider range of hue than those found scattered in the Western Sector (more specifically domestic).123 Plate 73 shows some of the actual pieces. They vary not only in size and hue, but also in density and degree of hardness. All the marks recorded in the chart were made directly from the pieces, as though they were crayons. On the whole, the warmer pink and red colors proved to be softer as well as lighter, while the yellows and brownishred tones are harder. The former are as soft as modern pastels and could have been used directly, but, as the painters clearly used brushes, all would have been destined to have been finely ground and mixed into a paste with water or a medium (whether lime water or an organic substance).124 Whether these lumps of raw material were destined for use or had been rejected following extraction of the best quality ocher from the host rock, their discovery is significant. Pigments, when recognized in excavations, have in the past usually received scant mention. But then they are typically found as single pieces or in very small quantities (or in mortuary contexts, in which cosmetic use is assumed). At several sites on Crete one or more pieces of red pigment were found, almost all of which were inside conical cups or 122 For critical discussions of the Munsell color system, see, e.g., Saunders and van Brakel 1988; Sivik 1997. 123 From the Eastern and Northern Sectors (Building G, Temple Area, Area L, Building M) hues range between pink, yellow, yellow-brown, ocher-red, and deep red. In the Western Sector, only those few pieces from House F (white and pink) and House C (white-pink, probably clay) were found in buildings; the other, scattered pieces were found in areas that were open spaces (E.J.6, W.43, W.53). A few pieces from the later, western side of House A (A.7 and A.2) exhibit a wider range. 124 For preparations of earth pigments, see Thomas 1980, 28–66; Seymour 2007, 214–219 (tempera), 343–346 (watercolor), 358–360 (gouache), and 437–456 (lime fresco). Helwig comments on the seasonality of ocher preparation: “Ocher was usually mined in the autumn . . . washed during the rainy season. . . . and dried and powdered during the summer” (2007, 68).

bowls.125 Several instances demonstrably came from sanctuaries, notably at Phaistos, where red pigment had been used for coloring cult objects.126 Only two sites on Crete have been recorded as having a wide range of coloring materials: Tylissos and Archanes.127 It is notable that at both sites the coloring materials were found in a single room, and miniature or small-scale paintings were found in the same building (see this vol., Ch. 11). They appear to consist of a palette (whether for paint or dye), with a piece of blue alongside the yellow and red ocher pieces at both sites, plus a piece of black and some white powder at Tylissos (all apparently in clay containers). At Ayia Irini, however, ocher pigments were found in numerous rooms of one building as well as scattered throughout the town.128 In addition, the range of hue is extraordinary. Recent publication of large quantities of coloring materials found at Akrotiri, from different periods and in different contexts, has added significantly to our understanding of the storage and use of ocher pigments.129 Some were found in their natural state, some were in powder form inside vessels that were probably used as palettes, and some were residue on stone objects used for grinding. Most interesting were those that had been formed into discoid 125 Peters 2002, 38–40, 70, table 12; 2008, 200. Of those found in Neopalatial contexts, almost all—Tylissos, Knossos Royal Road South, Temple Tomb, Unexplored Mansion, Zafer Papoura, Myrtos, Zakros—were found in a bowl or cup, perhaps ready for use, while the coloring materials found at Archanes were in association with conical cups and loom weights and have been interpreted as for textile dyeing (Sakellarakis and Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1991, 57, 59; 1997, 319). Pigments from other palatial contexts were found at Knossos, in craft workshops of the East Wing, though Evans gave only scant information (e.g., Evans 1900–1901, 92); they were also found at Malia (Jones 1999, 161) and Phaistos (below, n. 126). 126 Gesell 1985, 16, 23, 35, 64–65, 120, 124, 128–129, nos. 102, 108. 127 Tylissos: Hazzidakis 1934, 99–100. Archanes: Sakellarakis and Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1991, 45, 57, 59; 1997, 111, 319 (palatial building, Area 19); also 225 (Phourni cemetery, Building 4, Rooms 1, 4). Coloring materials were also found in Room 7 of the villa at Nirou Chani, which Xanthoudides (1922, 11) suggested may have been a craftsmen’s workshop or a sanctuary. 128 A tiny sample of bright blue was found on stone in the Western Sector (field no. J-8.169), and a large lump of blue coloring material was found in Building M (see this vol., App. B, pp. 423–425). Otherwise, all pigments found on the sites were ocher hues. 129 Sotiropoulou et al. 2012.

MATERIALS, TECHNIQUES, AND PIGMENTS

shapes of somewhat standard form, suggesting either storage or trade. The constituents of the ochers— hematite, goethite, or limonite, along with calcite, quartz, and kaolinite/illite—agree with earlier studies on the pigments in the Akrotiri paintings, and minerals in the red pigments common in volcanic rocks indicate a local provenance. The range of hue and intensity is wide, with yellow, orange, red, and brown, suggesting to the analysts that such variety could be achieved in the paintings from the processing of natural pigments rather than by mixing, a conclusion that I also came to for the Kea paintings on the basis of the coloring materials found there. It is hoped that in the future, analyses of the pieces from Ayia Irini can be undertaken to determine their constituents. This analysis would firstly clarify whether they are raw pigments that were stored for processing or whether they are refuse remaining after extraction and processing of the best ochers. Analysis of the pigment within the pot would enable comparison between the processed pigment and raw materials, and in turn these could be compared with the results of analyses of miltós and other red ocher samples from the Kea ocher mines on the one hand, and from the painted plasters on the other. Finally, for the future, if analyses of pigments from other sites were to be undertaken with provenance in mind, using consistent methodology and with the same goals, it might eventually be possible to determine the sources of ochers used at the different sites. The question that I would like to ask of future analyses would be whether the raw materials found at Ayia Irini are significant in the larger context of Aegean trade. Some preliminary thoughts on this matter are offered in Chapter 11, in relation to intercultural connections.

Summary The lime plaster (calcium carbonate) is composed of a relatively coarse core with a fine slip (intonaco) on top, smoothed to receive the yellow ground paint. On large areas to be painted blue the plaster was left rough to facilitate adhesion of the largergrained pigment. Traces of mud, straw, schist, and striation marks on the backs of the plaster indicate the sequence in the preparation of the wall surface: onto the schist wall mud backing plaster was applied to smooth the wall, then coarse lime plaster was

343

applied, some keyed for better adhesion, and finally a thin slip of lime plaster was added. Two horizontal wooden beams set into the wall would have provided a framework for the Miniature Frieze, as indicated by many fragments with flattened edges, all of which are painted blue. Ceiling fragments are unpainted, with occasional reed or rope impressions, indicating reeds bound together. Floor fragments are thick and coarse, filled with small stones and seashells, which are likely to have been visible (terrazzo). The floor in N.18 was painted red, while that in N.20 had flagstones with red plaster filling the interstices. In the early stages of the painting, when guide lines and impressions were made, the plaster was damp (fresco). It is not possible to know whether the plaster had been freshly applied (buon fresco) or whether the surface had been dampened with lime water (mezzo fresco). Yellow ground appears to have been applied onto damp plaster. The blue (sea and sky) may have been applied when the plaster was almost (in some parts completely) dry. All subsequent colors were applied secco, as is abundantly clear from the layering of colors and resultant flaking. The pigments used at Ayia Irini are lime (calcium carbonate) for white, carbon from soot or manganese (pyrolusite) for black, ochers (iron oxides) for yellow and red (goethite and hematite), while blue was mostly the silicate Egyptian Blue, though amphiboles were identified mixed with it in one sample. All but Egyptian Blue are natural materials. All but one of the pigments are those commonly used elsewhere in the Aegean at this time. Pyrolusite is rather more unusual; it has been identified at both Akrotiri and Phylakopi but not on Crete. For white, some parts (buildings) were left as unpainted plaster, while white added for details (e.g., on sea, clothing, etc.) was applied thickly (impasto). Yellow ocher (goethite) and Egyptian Blue were sometimes layered or mixed. In the Miniature Frieze, gray-black was frequently painted over blue to darken the tone. The presence of calcite (lime) and the white clays kaolinite and illite may indicate additives to lighten the pigments, but these minerals occur naturally in the raw ocher of the island. Numerous pieces of what appear to be raw ocher were found at Ayia Irini, along with some red pigment in conical cups, mainly in and around Building G, adjacent to the Temple and the fortification wall and gate. This discovery is further discussed in Chapter 11.

10

Color and Artistic Performance: The Process of Painting

This chapter examines how the artists built up the scenes. Planning of the scenes and the applying of paints in particular sequence are actions allied to the technology of plaster and paint, but they are also formative in the production of the image. Choosing which colors to use for which elements of the composition are artistic decisions that are crucial in building the symbiotic relationship between aesthetic impact and iconographic meaning. A brief preliminary section on the broader cultural and linguistic aspects of color serves as a prelude to the subsequent discussion of the uses of color in the Kea paintings, from planning stages through final touches. Drawing from the previous chapter on technology, the next section examines how the artists first planned the scenes and applied the background colors. This section is followed by examination of the physical application of the layers of paint. Finally, the last section looks at the choices the artists made in using their colors to create the composition. As in the previous chapter, a summary is provided at the end. Consideration of who the artists might have been and how they may have been organized follows in Chapter 11.

Color Color, long neglected in the archaeological literature of the era of black-and-white photography, has been the focus of considerable discussion in recent years.1 Color is a complex notion, incorporating visual perception (how we see and interpret light), linguistics, and symbolic meaning.2 In any discussion on color, it is important to remember the culturally specific use of chromatic terminology.3 While the eye and brain distinguish, it is said, thousands, even millions of hues, language limits these to a minimal selection in which hues are 1 See, in particular, articles in: Davies, ed., 2001; Jones and MacGregor, eds., 2002; Cleland and Stears, eds., 2004; and specifically on the Aegean: Peters 2002, 2008; Blakolmer 2004; Gillis 2004. 2 Cf. Peters 2008. 3 Issues concerning the links between visual perception, linguistics, and anthropology are discussed in the papers of Hardin and Maffi, eds., 1997; see also Sahlins 1976; and, in particular, Lyons 1995.

346

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

grouped into wider color terms.4 Linguistic terms in the Linear B tablets are indicative of what in English are known as reds (including purple) and whites5—in other words dark/colorful and light/bright, incorporating value with hue in what appears to be a binary opposition. The terms are always used in relation to the color or coloring of objects (chariots, textiles, animals, spices) rather than as pigments for painting. There does not appear to be a word for blue, green, or black, only “lapis-colored” for inlays.6 As John Baines demonstrated for ancient Egypt, linguistic terms can be considerably less rich than the variety of hues used in paintings.7 The four basic color terms in ancient Egyptian, equated with black, white, red, and green, encompassed qualities of symbolic resonance beyond simple hue (darkness and fertility, luminosity and purity, life and danger, and regeneration, respectively).8 We cannot know how the people of Ayia Irini categorized their colors, but given the rich variety of hue in their ochers, which, depending 4 Cf. Lyons 1995; Gage 1999. The classic study of color terms by Berlin and Kay (1969), which sought to find systematic linguistic structures for the naming of colors across cultures, has been the subject of considerable debate: e.g., Chapman 2002; for discussion with further references, see Peters 2008, 187–192. 5 Moonwomon 1994, 44–48; cf. Blakolmer 2000b (also for the concept of “shining”); 2004, 63–64, table 1; Nosch 2004 (on textiles and plant dyes); for individual tablets, Ventris and Chadwick 1973. The following are the color words with their Linear B usage: re-u-ko (leukos) = white—cloth (KN Ld571, Ld573, Ld587, L471, L598), ox-hides (PY Cn23, Cn418), safflower (seeds) (MY Ge603); e-ru-ta-ra (eruthros) = red—cloth (KN L785), ox-hides (PY Ub1315), safflower (petals) (MY Ge602); po-ni-ki-jo (phoinikeos) = crimson— painted chariots (KN Sd401, Sd402, Sd409, Sd413, Sf428), spice (KN Ga418, Og424); mi-to-we-sa-e (miltowessa) = red/ ocher—paint for chariots (KN Sd404, Sd407); po-pu-re-ja/o (porphureos) or po-pu-ro = purple (murex dye)—dyed cloth (L474). 6 ku-wn-ni-jo/ku-wa-no (kyanos) = “lapis-colored glass” for furniture inlays (PY Ta714, Ta642). The word “kyanos” was used by Theophrastus both for a natural stone (no doubt lapis lazuli) and for the silicate now known as Egyptian Blue, which, he accurately comments, produces different colors, from pale to dark, depending on how finely or coarsely it is ground (De lapidibus 55; Caley and Richards 1956). In addition, po-ri-wa, in relation to cloth, was translated by Ventris and Chadwick (1973, 319, with reference to no. 217: KN L587) as “grey,” while mi-ja-ro, in relation to edges of cloth, was translated by them as “dirty” but by Palmer as “bloodred” [stained?] (KN L1568; Ventris and Chadwick 1973, 317, 561; Palmer 1963, 296). 7 Baines (1985) 2007a; cf. Quirke 2001; Warburton 2004. 8 Wilkinson 1994, 104–125; Robins 2001a; Morgan 2011.

on their mineral composition, subtly shift, it is possible that red and yellow were viewed as a continuum. This might be an explanation for the lack of an identifiable word for yellow in the later Linear B tablets.9 What is clear, however, is that certain hues were used for certain parts of the paintings: pink for guide lines and in rocks; light yellow for ground; midyellow ocher for vegetation; red for men, cauldrons, and rocks; orangey and brownish reds for buildings. The artists of the Kea paintings used a wide variety of ocher hues within the range that we term pink, yellow, orange-brown, and red. (Purple from murex, as identified on Thera,10 has not been identified on Kea.) This predominance of ocher was balanced by considerable use of blue, a color that dramatically increased in use at Knossos at this time11 and was also much used on Thera. Green was not used in the paintings as a pigment, in keeping with the Aegean norm at this time, nor does it occur as a distinct perceptual color created by the mixing of blue and yellow pigments, as it occasionally appears in Cretan paintings of nature.12 However, layering or mixing of blue with yellow did take place within the Plant Panels to produce a greenish blue (Pl. 71:i). The white of the plaster was used as a color for architectural features. Added white was used for clothing (Pls. 2–7, 71:c, d) and details such as spots of deer (Pl. 16), eyes of men (Pl. 70), and hulls of ships (Pl. 8, esp. 72). It was also applied thickly, as impasto, for details of rock, sea, and sky (Pls. 22, 23, 25, 26, 43–51, 71:e–g). Black, however, was used solely for delineation (Pl. 71:b), as occasionally was gray (e.g., 709). More often a blue-black was utilized, as in the hair of the men (Pl. 70). Largely because of the wide varieties of ocher hues (as seen in the chart of Pl. 72), a seemingly restricted palette (no green or purple) nonetheless yielded a richly varied coloristic range. 9 Moonwomon (1994, 46) points to the Greek cognates for miltós covering “a range of black, blue, purple, red, and yellow.” 10 Chryssikopoulou and Sotiropoulou 2003; Chryssikopoulou 2005. On the Pylos paintings, see also Brecoulaki, Karydas, and Colombini, forthcoming. 11 Peters 2008, 195, figs. 9:2, 9:3. 12 Cameron, Jones, and Philippakis 1977, 159; Peters 2008, 196–197. Green earth (celadonite), used in Greco-Roman painting, when Cyprus was a main source (Kakoulli 2009b, 46–48), is available on Crete (R.E. Jones 2005, 216), but it was either not known or, more likely, not considered desirable in the Bronze Age. As a pigment it is transparent, with poor tinting strength (Seymour 2007, 114).

COLOR AND ARTISTIC PERFORMANCE: THE PROCESS OF PAINTING

Planning the Scenes The artists had clear visions of the layout of their paintings right from the start. This forethought is especially apparent in the Miniature Frieze (Figs. 10.1, 10.2). Such careful planning was also noted for the Knossos paintings,13 and it is visible in the Akrotiri paintings. It would have been a prerequisite for composing a coherent program of images on walls.

Guide Lines, Impressions, and Incisions The Plant Panels have a light yellow ocher (buff) ground on a fine intonaco coat of plaster (Pl. 69:f). There are no visible sketch lines, perhaps because the individual leaves and stems were sketched in their eventual colors (yellow ocher, blue, red). From the same room came a few fragments of border bands (Pls. 66, 67, 69:b), but whether they related to the Plant Panels is unclear. For these borders, horizontal guide lines to divide the colors were impressed by holding a piece of string taut against the damp plaster, a well-known device in Aegean painting (discussed below). Curiously, in at least one small area of the Bramble and Myrtle composition, incised lines were used to mark out the interior and exterior form of the leaves (642, 661; Pl. 69:c–e). However, the incisions cut into the ocher leaf and overlap a red stem, so they must have been made after the plaster had dried and during the process of painting. They would have been covered by the blue paint, and it is unclear what function they had. Incised delineation of leaves— and just a few among many—is hard to explain, especially since the interiors are randomly marked, rather than following a leaf pattern. Perhaps the artist had seen the technique and was experimenting. Maria Shaw has extensively discussed the use of drafting devices in Minoan painting.14 On Crete, some lines were incised with a pointed tool, while others were impressed by holding a piece of string taut against the damp plaster. The latter technique, best known for border bands (as in the border fragments from Room N.18; Pls. 66, 69:b), was also used as a form of grid to delineate continuous patterns on 13 Cameron 1975, 280–286. 14 Shaw 2003; and see now Shaw and Chapin 2016 (adapted by A. Chapin from articles by M. Shaw).

347

textiles of large-scale figures in Cretan paintings,15 as well as at Tell el-Dabca in the maze pattern of the Bull Frieze.16 Incised lines are less frequently observed in Cretan painting. Shaw notes examples in the contours (hair?) of the so-called Priest-King at Knossos, rectilinear elements at Aminsos, and a beaded composition from the Royal Road.17 Cameron, in mentioning a couple of other fragments from Knossos, notes that they were incised before the paint was applied.18 An incised surface on a fragment from Chania was cut when the plaster was dry.19 Traces of incisions were noted in the painted fragments from Alalakh,20 and the technique was widely used in later paintings of the ancient Mediterranean world.21 Incised lines were fairly frequently used by the artists of Akrotiri, both for patterns and for figures. K. Asimenos noted that the incisions, which served as guide lines, had been cut into dry plaster, which he cited as evidence for secco painting.22 In each case, the logic is evident: providing a guide for a continuous pattern (House of the Ladies, Xeste 3), partially marking the lines of a figure or object (Priestess, Cabin, sword), or delineating curls in hair (Crocus Gatherers, Goddess). 23 The partial incisions for the Priestess and Cabin are curious, prompting Shaw to 15 Shaw 2000a; 2003. 16 Bietak, Marinatos, and Palivou 2007, 47–50, 69. 17 Shaw 2003, 182–184. 18 Cameron 1975, 281. 19 Dandrau 2001, fig. 8. 20 Woolley 1955, 229. 21 Incised guide lines, approximating the contours of the subsequent painting, were applied in both fresco and secco technique in Greek, Etruscan, Roman, and Byzantine wall paintings (Kakoulli 2009b, 8; Mora, Mora, and Philippot 1984, 86, 88, 114, 120, pls. 1, 48). 22 Asimenos 1978, 575; cf. Televantou 1994a, 352. 23 Doumas 1992, House of the Ladies star pattern: pl. 8; West House Cabin: pl. 57; flower pot (sills and jambs): pl. 63; Priestess: pl. 25; Xeste 3 spirals: pl. 94; relief rosettes: pl. 137; monkey with sword: pl. 95; Crocus Gatherers’ hair curls: pl. 119; Goddess hair locks: pl. 126; Xeste 4 staircase: pl. 141. The faces of two overlapping hunters from the porch of Xeste 3 are separated by an incised line, and another line marks the stomach muscle (Vlachopoulos 2008b, fig. 41:6). (I am most grateful to Andreas Vlachopoulos for welcoming me to Akrotiri to see the new restorations of the paintings in August 2010.) In Xeste 4, on the background of the Procession is a small incised (unpainted) figure of an acrobat (Televantou 1994–1995; 2000, 834, fig. 1), as well as other incisions, including a depiction of a ship (Televantou 1987, fig. 2; fig. 1. is less clearly decipherable). These, however, appear to be graffiti, rather than planning for painting.

348

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

suggest trial outlines executed by an inexperienced artist.24 The artists of the Kea Plant Panels were skilled at interweaving the two-toned leaves into an intricate and lively composition. The experimentation with incisions may have been the result of one of the artists having seen the technique at Akrotiri and simply trying it out. On the Miniature Frieze, guide lines were painted with dilute pink pigment onto a smooth, damp intonaco (Pl. 69:a).25 Several appear among the fragments incorporated into the composition titled Buildings with Plants (Fig. 7.5), where they not only accompany the string lines but also appear as two horizontal lines near the tops of the grasses, which overlie them. The depictions of buildings were planned at the earliest stage, parts being left unpainted when the yellow ground was applied, so that the white plaster would serve as the white walls of parts of the buildings. Tiny guide lines were impressed by pulling a short piece of string taut against the damp plaster to plan out the vertical divisions of the buildings. There is only one surviving instance of such an impressed line being horizontal, where it occurs in conjunction with a vertical line (114). All others are vertical. The longest surviving is a mere 10 cm (67). In no case can the shortest length be measured, as all are fragmentary, but it is abundantly clear that these are tiny impressions, made with a short piece of string. Some 45 fragments have this feature—a significant proportion of the architectural fragments. Most frequently, they separate areas scheduled to receive differing colors, or the outer edges of the building, or both in the case of tiered structures (e.g., 100). Sometimes they subdivide areas of unpainted white, as in 93, where, however, the impression is aligned with the end of a horizontal beam, thereby marking a structural division. In this fragment, the impressed line disappears then is visible again, implying that the string was not pressed firmly into the damp plaster. A pink sketch line is sometimes visible just to the side of the string impression but does not necessarily correspond exactly in length, and occasionally a black outline added last follows the vertical division marked by these guidelines. The painter(s) approximately, rather than rigidly, followed the impressed division with their application of paint and, in one case, the string impression carried on up into the sky (561). Three fragments for which a vertical division can be aligned because 24 Shaw 2003, 183. 25 At Knossos sketch lines were painted in red, orange, and light yellow (Cameron 1975, 283–284).

of a matching ridge on the backs of the plaster clearly demonstrate that a string impression did not always determine exactly how the painting would proceed. The three fragments (87, 88, and 1) are reconstructed together in Figure 7.1. At the top, the division is marked by a black line; in the center, the division is marked with an impressed string line, at the top of which, where the color of the building changes from white to the bright ocher of the upper fragment, the black line runs parallel to the string line. At the bottom of the building(s), shown in fragment 1, the division is again marked by a black line, without string impression but with a gouge cut into the plaster. I originally thought this gouge was postdepositional, but given that it aligns exactly with the other fragments, it could have been intentional. In a representation of part of a town that cannot have amounted vertically to more than 21 cm there are, therefore, three different methods used for marking a division. Only one (the impressed string line) was actually used as a guide, the others (black line and gouge) added definition at the end of the process. This unusual use of string impressions constitutes a truly miniature application of a technique familiar from larger-scale Aegean paintings. It does not appear at all in the Thera Miniature Frieze. It is, however, a feature of the (slightly later) Knossos miniature paintings, in which string impressed lines were used to mark structural divisions (vertical and horizontal) in the buildings of the Grandstand and pathways in the Sacred Grove (where there are also incised lines),26 as well as in an architectural fragment of larger scale, dated by Cameron to MM IIIB.27 Incised lines also appear on a couple of the Tylissos fragments, though not on buildings.28 The Ayia Irini solution to planning space constitutes an original adaptation of Minoan techniques to a specific task.

Painting the Background When the initial painting began with the yellow wash of the ground, the areas intended for sky 26 Evans 1921–1935, III, fig. 36 (Grandstand), col. pl. XVIII (Sacred Grove, where the lines are parallel to but not marking a horizontal pathway); Cameron 1975, 53, 280–281; Shaw 2003, 181–182. Dating: Immerwahr 1990a, 173, Kn nos. 15 and 16; Hood 2005, 64. 27 Cameron 1975, 54 (list of plates), 280, pl. 49. 28 Shaw 1972, 172, 183, no. 3; 178, no. 11. Incised lines were also used for the curves of the larger-scale fan or plant (Shaw 1972, 178–179, 183, no. 13).

COLOR AND ARTISTIC PERFORMANCE: THE PROCESS OF PAINTING

and sea were, like the areas for the buildings, left as blank plaster (Fig. 10.1:b). In other words, these areas were planned at the outset and left unpainted when the yellow ground was applied. This process of “reserved” painting in the initial stages was observed and reconstructed by Cameron for Knossos.29 In the Kea frieze, blue was applied directly to the plaster from the edges, only overlapping yellow at the transitions between sky to ground and sea to ground. As noted above, this planning involved plasterers and painters, since a distinction was made on technical grounds between the smoothed intonaco destined for yellow wash and white buildings and the roughened plaster destined for blue. The artists were skilled at transitioning between the blocks of color in the early stages of the painting. A number of fragments (Pls. 40–44) show the transition between yellow land and blue sea. This transition was not always horizontal or regular. In some parts of the frieze, the artist had a sense of the sea spraying upward onto land, even at the planning stage. When examined under magnification, it can be seen that some transitional pieces have a light yellow wash on the plaster, over which pale blue (probably mixed with lime) is painted. This light wash is distinguishable from the yellow ground, which sometimes appears on the same fragment, without blue on top. My interpretation of this technical observation is that when the artists were mapping out the ground of the picture, rather than give a distinct line between yellow ground and plaster (which was to become blue), they used a thinner wash of yellow to fade out the transition. When painting the blue over the plaster, which rose and descended from the lower and upper borders of the picture, the blue then slightly overlapped the wash of light yellow, creating a fluid transition.

Applying the Paints The analysis of applications of layers of separate colors, as summarized below, is based on observation 29 Cameron 1975, 281–283, 285. Cameron painted a demonstration of four stages in the process as applied to his reconstruction of the Knossos Charioteer: (a) blue wash; (b) main elements in red (chariot, horse, man’s skin) and gray (rocks); (c) subsidiary details in yellow; (d) final touches, mostly black, some white (Cameron 1975, col. slide 60). Figs. 10.1 and 10.2 in this chapter use the same idea, following the process in the Kea Miniature Frieze through six stages.

349

of over 1,600 fragments with a 12x magnifying glass and examination and photography of some 300 of those fragments using a digital microscope (Pls. 69:a, b, g, 70, 71). These results are intended as complementary to the microscopic analysis, by examining the fragments with relatively low magnification (such that the eye still recognizes the constituents of the composition) but using a wider sample. Studies on Aegean wall paintings have not usually included observations on the sequence of applying paint, making comparisons untenable at present. However, Cameron observed two different sequences of application for the fragments from the Unexplored Mansion at Knossos, which differ from the observations recorded here for Kea, as do those noted by Peter Warren for the North Building at Knossos.30

Order of Paints Some paints are applied directly over another color (usually blue-black, black, or white). For instance, white garments were painted over red bodies in the case of loincloths, red limbs over white garments in the case of robes, and black details consistently last. In other cases, one color lies adjacent to another, but overlaps slightly, enabling one to discern which was painted first and which second. (The terms “over” or “on top of” and “after” or “last” distinguish the two procedures.) Figure 10.1 provides a diagram of the process of painting in part of the Cauldrons and Ships scene: (a) sketch line (assumed) and string lines (visible) on damp plaster; (b) yellow ground; (c) blue sea; (d) red ocher and brown for the men, cauldrons, and architecture; (e) white for the loincloths and ship’s awning; and (f) black for the hair and marks on the cauldrons, and ocher for the wooden post. Figure 10.2 demonstrates the process of painting a man wearing a robe: (a) yellow ground then red sketch line; (b) white garment; (c) red ocher head and limbs; and (d) white for the eye and black for pupil, hair, and marks on the robe. The man is taken from fragment 13, with information gleaned from 18 for the sketch line, 6, 12, and 63 for the eye and hair, and 33 for the legs, while 12 fragments show the black lines on and outlining the garments. Occasionally, limbs may have been painted before the garment, as is perhaps 30 Cameron 1984, 133: sequences reported as buff surface, blue, white impasto, red, gray and buff, red, blue, sepia. Warren 2005, 134: sequence noted as yellow ground, red, blue and white, black.

350

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

a

b

c

d

e

f

Figure 10.1. Diagram of the proposed process of painting using a detail of the Cauldrons and Ships scene (67): (a) impressed string lines and drawn guide line on plaster; (b) yellow ground; (c) blue (sea and rocks); (d) brown then red ocher (buildings, figures, and cauldrons); (e) white (eyes, garments, awning); (f) ocher and black details. Scale 1:2. Image L. Morgan.

COLOR AND ARTISTIC PERFORMANCE: THE PROCESS OF PAINTING

a

b

c

d

351

Figure 10.2. Diagram of the proposed process of painting using detail of men in robes (6, 13, 32): (a) yellow ground, red sketch line; (b) white garment; (c) red ocher head and limbs; (d) white eye, black pupil, hair, and marks on robe. Scale 1:2. Image L. Morgan.

the case in 40. The red sketch lines in 18 are clearly visible in parts where they were not covered with later application of paint. In a few other cases, what appear to be sketch lines are partially discernible (22, 33, both red, and perhaps 11, black). In Figure 10.2 (a and b) I have drawn a distinct red sketch line around the entire figure for visibility, although the extent of the sketch lines is unknown, since they are in most cases covered by subsequent application of paint. It should be emphasized, therefore, that the sketch line was probably not in all cases as distinct or as complete. More likely it was partial, sometimes red (as in 18, 22, 33) sometimes perhaps fainter, more pink, as used for some of the buildings (notable in 141, 142), or occasionally black for the garments (11). For the landscape of the Miniature Frieze there is a distinct, though not inviolable, pattern of the order in applying the colors: yellow ground, blue, red, ocher or, when not all the colors are used, blue, red or blue, ocher. Where pink is included, as in ascending and descending rocks, it is always after the blue and before the red. Blue is always the first and ocher

is almost always the last of the saturated colors. Thus ocher plants on the mountaintops were painted after all the colors (including black and white) of the ascending and descending rockwork. Black or blueblack was added on top of blue to provide a darker hue, especially at the contours of rocks. Black lines, as in descending rocks or blue bushes, were painted last, on top of red and blue, respectively. White was added as impasto highlights (with a loaded brush or narrow spatula): on top of blue for sea, indicative of spume, the bubbles that form as the water waves toward the coast; on top of blue-black over blue for rocks and for sky; and, exceptionally, as a thin wash over part of the blue in the thistle composition (261). In the case of the multicolored rocks and the sky, dabs of ocher were the last color applied, even after the white (e.g., 270 and 87, 553). Exceptions to the usual pattern of the order in which colors are applied are occasional cases in which red is applied over ocher: red berries on an ocher bush (236; cf. 238), descending red rock overlapping plants (250), and internal rockwork (276).

352

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

Other exceptions are rare: one instance of a white impasto blob is applied over red rock (299), and one of a row of blue dots over an ocher plant (266). In the Plant Panels, as in the Miniature Frieze, there are clear patterns of artistic behavior, though, again, there are no firm rules. In the Bramble and Myrtle fragments, red stems precede ocher leaves and blue leaves were painted last. In the Blue and Yellow Grasses fragments, ocher usually, though not always, precedes blue. A brighter ocher, however, was painted last. Different tones of ocher were used to create an impression of depth, and these had a pattern that accentuated that sensation, the more intensely saturated colors appearing to be closer than the less intense: dull ocher, ocher, blue, bright ocher. In the miniatures, there is somewhat more variability in the order in which colors were applied for human figures than there is for the landscape. In fragment 1, for example, the woman’s white foot is painted over the translucent blue onto which she steps, but the opaque blue of her skirt is painted after the white leg. Landscape therefore preceded the figure, the figure’s limbs preceded her clothes. At the edges of the blue skirt worn by the woman in 2, white is visible (Pl. 71:b), indicating that when the limbs were painted a white sketch outlined the position of the skirt. The fragment of a woman against an architectural feature interpreted as a doorway (3) is particularly interesting. Flaking reveals that first a blue layer was painted to mark the doorway (Pl. 71:a). Over this layer was painted a black or blue-black layer to darken the doorway, but the area intended for the woman was reserved, so that the white of her skin, applied thickly in slight relief, is painted directly over the lighter blue (Pl. 70:a). Whether she was painted before the blueblack darkening surrounding her or after is hard to tell. The red of her garment and eye was painted over the white of her skin. Her hair is black, painted last, while the black hair of the related woman at a window (4) has white highlights applied over it (Pl. 70:b).

Varying the Hue In the landscape, hue, tone, and intensity are in places controlled through the use of dilution with water (and perhaps gum). Descending rocks, in particular, exhibit this feature, with pink visually and physically underlying red (269, 270, 274, 282–288, 293, 294). The same combination of red over dilute pink occurs in the internal areas of the ascending rocks (270, 276–280, 298). This pink is probably

made from a different piece of hematite from the reds (cf. the hues of the pigment chart; Pl. 72), though it could have had lime or kaolin mixed to lighten it. Either way, it is applied in a dilute form, which has the effect of lightening the tone. Dilute pink also appears on its own among rocks (305) and at the transition from what is presumably sky and land (572, 573). Where red overlies the pink, as in 283, a sense of depth is achieved. That this sense was intentional is implied by the use of varying dilutions of ocher in some of the grasses along the river, which give the same effect of depth (447; cf. 448, 449) and the subtle use of pale gray-blue paint to contrast with the blue-black blades of grass in the marsh (358, 364). The technique of diluting paint (yellow or blue) was used extensively by the Akrotiri artists to achieve effects of translucency in the case of clothing and depth in the case of plants, notably in the paintings of Xeste 3.31 Blue, unlike pink, is, in the Kea miniatures, usually lightened with other means than dilution with water (the addition of lime or perhaps kaolin, or through differential grinding of the silicate pigment). Tonality and hue are largely managed through the addition of gray-black added over the blue (see above, p. 337). One unusual instance of dilution occurs beneath the foot of the woman (1) incorporated into Figure 7.1. Here blue landscape is applied with thinner paint, allowing the yellow to show through, giving a greenish hue. This technique is related to that noted in the Plant Panels, in which mixing or layering of blue and yellow was observed (pp. 337–338). Paint was otherwise applied with relatively even thickness, with the notable exception of white, which when added (as opposed to reserved plaster) was invariably applied thickly with a spatula or loaded brush, in impasto technique. Some thickening of paint is also visible in the marsh fragments, where blobs of ocher provide emphasis (e.g., 360–362, 368, 389, 402). This thickening is individual to this painting, whereas the use of impasto white is common to Cretan (not Theran) painting (see p. 336).

Outlines and Black Details In the Blue and Yellow Grasses Plant Panels, several blue leaves are distinctly outlined in gray or (less 31 Doumas 1992, pls. 101–108, 122–126, 129–130 (women’s garments), 135 (plants); Vlachopoulos 2008b, figs. 41.22, 41.23, 41.26.

COLOR AND ARTISTIC PERFORMANCE: THE PROCESS OF PAINTING

frequently) black (notably in some of the fragments in Pl. 61). In the Miniature Frieze, the red skin of male figures is never outlined in black. Of the two fragments with female figures painted against light yellow ground (as opposed to blue-gray architectural features), the legs of the two women in one fragment (2) are at least partially outlined in black, including definition of the ankle bone, whereas the leg of the woman in the other fragment (1) has no outlines. Architectural features are sometimes outlined, as in the case of window frames, and black lines are sometimes applied over or slightly to the side of the string line marking a transition between areas. In fragment 4, a pink sketch line and then a string impression were executed first (on damp plaster), the composition details were then painted, and finally a black line was added. Black lines were also used over the reserved white plaster of architectural walls, either as horizontal lines with short vertical divisions, like bricks, or in somewhat curved lines suggestive of rubble masonry.

Choosing and Using the Colors Neutral ground is blocked out in light yellow ocher, a hue compatible with the lighter ochers in the range of pigment samples from the site. This color— quite different from the white background of the Akrotiri paintings—appropriately stands for the earthy ground that one encounters throughout the island. It is the land on which one walks. Onto this neutral ground, patches of slightly darker, warmer ocher suggest the scrub vegetation of the land (e.g., 36, 45, 46). Neutral yellow ocher ground continues behind some of the buildings (e.g., Fig. 7.2; Pl. 11:93, 98, 100), evidently defining these houses as seen low down on the rising ground of a slope. This strikingly contrasts with other buildings, evidently conceived as higher up or seen from below, which stand out against blue sky (Fig. 7.1; Pl. 10:87, 89–92). This unique depiction of sky utilizes a ground of blue, painted directly over the plaster, with blue-gray (black with blue) darkening areas, discrete patches of ocher, and applied impasto white, which, as combined, give an extraordinary indication of a cloudy sky (87; Pls. 50, 51:553–569). The sea is blue, again painted directly onto plaster, with blobs of impasto white applied on top. It is not always clear whether an amorphous dot has simply lost some of the impasto, or if it was originally that shape (cf. Pl. 71:f, g),

353

but evidently there was considerable variation. Some are in neat rows of small dots (506, 527, 550–552), others spread expansively obliquely across the surface (513–515). Together they superbly capture the reflected light that sparkles on the foamy bubbles of the sea as the water moves with wind and waves. Equally exceptional is the transition from sea to land. Here the blue on plaster overlaps the yellow of ground, sometimes along a relatively straight line (e.g., 487), in other places interweaving with the ground to form inlets of land in coastal sea (e.g., 477), or, with oblique brush strokes of blue over yellow, capturing the motion of sea spraying onto land. Here we feel the hand movements of the artist as the brush swept across the wall. A few transitional fragments between blue and yellow have touches of pink, derived from pigments like those in the lower group in the color chart in Plate 72, painted over the yellow. In some cases, the blend of colors is perfectly evocative of an evening sky (570–573), and it may well have been the intention. In others, a subtle blend of pink with yellow creates a discourse of colors in the inlets of land with sea (475, 484). Into this arena of land, sea, and sky come the landscape elements of plants, river, marsh, and rocks. Reeds and other plants with smaller leaves are all painted in yellow ocher (Pls. 20:233–239, 36, 37:417– 424, 430–433), as are riverine grasses (Pl. 39:447– 451), short ground-hugging plants (440, 478–480), and leafy plants on the tops of mountains (Pls. 22, 23:269, 270, 272–275). Some of the small plants have red stems (233–235), but not the larger, and three fragments have red ocher grasses (264, 265),32 in one case set off against ocher. Thistles are blue with ocher spikes (Fig. 7.4; Pl. 21:247–262), a combination that perfectly captures the green and yellow tones of wild thistles. The large-scale Plant Panels follow the same color usage as the Miniature Frieze, with, however, more concentration, consonant with the emphasis on the subject (Figs. 8.1–8.8; Pls. 52–63). Their leaves are painted in combinations of yellow ocher and blue. In scientific terms, blue and orange yellow (like yellow ocher) are “complementary” within the spectrum of light wavelengths. In aesthetic terms, one sets off, or complements, the other. In terms of physical pigments (as opposed to light), mixing the two 32 The third is a fragment found in the Northeast Tower, apparently thrown from Room N.20.

354

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

produces green. In visual terms, therefore, the mind peripherally connects the two. Instinctively, the artists knew what to do to capture the fleeting hues of vegetation, changing with the wind, the light, and the time of day. Yellow ocher and blue grasses and reeds overlap and bend with their weight or the wind (Pls. 60– 63), and while the leaves of the myrtle plants are all yellow ocher in hue, aptly contrasting with the red ocher of the stems, the leaves of the bramble create a variety of patterns in their alternating blue and yellow (Pls. 52–59). Nor is this alternation static or predictable, for while the colors may change alternately up the stem, it is not an invariable rule. The color alternation of blue and yellow was also used by the Akrotiri artists in the dilute blue-gray blades overlapping ocher grasses in the marsh scene with ducks from Xeste 3 (Fig. 6.1).33 An alternative, ingenious solution to the perceptual call of green comes in the olive branches hanging from the altar or shrine in Xeste 3,34 in which the yellow ocher leaves are painted over a flat area of blue, simultaneously hinting at green and evoking the glimmering of blue sky through leaves as one looks up at trees. Color alternation alone was not the only method of creating a feel for the green hues of nature. In the blades of the grasses, blue is detectable in some of the ocher, as discussed in Chapter 9 (pp. 337–338). This use of blue with yellow combined provided ample opportunity for variation in density as well as in hue. Green plants in nature are phenomenally diverse in hue. By varying the quantity and intensity of blue with ocher and above all by controlling the density of the paint on the brush, a subtle variety of tones was achieved, giving the impression not merely of different hues but also of depth. The marsh is remarkable in a number of ways, including coloration (Figs. 7.19–7.24; Pls. 30–35). Narrow winding streams of water, two and three rivulets following parallel courses, are painted in red—not a color usually associated with water, but also boldly used as a single water course by the Akrotiri artists in the large-scale marsh scene with ducks from Xeste 3 (Fig. 6.1:left).35 Bordering the red streams in the Kea Miniature Frieze, overlapping them in places, is yellow ocher applied with expansive wrist movements 33 Doumas 1992, pl. 135 (top right); Vlachopoulos 2008b, figs. 41.22, 41.23, 41.26. 34 Vlachopoulos 2008b, figs. 41.10, 41.11. 35 Vlachopoulos 2008b, figs. 41.22–41.24.

in multiple connected dabs of paint, some ending in defined blobs applied with thicker paint (360–362), the whole providing a generic impression of marshy vegetation surrounding the trickling water courses. The color red evokes the muddy quality of marshy streams in contrast to the blue waters of rivers and sea. Crossing the red streams and ocher vegetation are single and paired blades of grass painted in bluegray and black. Here the choice of color is predicated on the colors already laid down. Ocher grasses would not have shown up against ocher vegetation, while blue-black clearly does. Like the Blue and Yellow Grasses of the Plant Panels, these blades vary in intensity and hue, some pale and almost translucent, others dark and opaque (358). The river is predictably blue, here painted over the yellow ground, but internal markings in black on two of the fragments (422, 431) define the watery substance in a local variation of the Aegean water sign characteristic of the Akrotiri Miniature Frieze (Figs. 4.4, 5.2:a, 11.1:b, c).36 A single example of the precise form of the water sign used at Akrotiri is seen in one of the fragments of river with man (35; Fig. 7.12). This feature enabled the identification of river as opposed to rock in relation to the fragments with men, which were otherwise ambiguous owing to the trait of outlining the outer edge of both in black over the blue. A further distinction between some of the pieces is that occasionally the river is firmly outlined (the black placed outside the river on the yellow ground; 35, 36) as opposed to delineated with darker emphasis (black over blue). Nonetheless, with a number of pieces in which men appear, ambiguity between river and rock remains, as discussed in Chapter 6 (pp. 171–172). There is no ambiguity with the Rocky Landscape (Fig. 7.25; Pls. 22–25). In these stunningly colored fragments ascending and descending rocks coexist. One piece with this format has been incorporated into a scene with men (300; Fig. 7.14). The blue-gray rock matches that of a few other fragments, three with limbs of men, all of which lack the application of white so characteristic of the Rocky Landscape. In this fragment and several of those incorporated in the Rocky Landscape, descending rocks, hanging over the mountains like stalactites, are painted in varying hues of pink, red, ocher, blue, and blueblack. Pink is dilute, giving a translucent feel, as though appearing from behind the stronger tones of red and blue. Ocher is used sparingly; reds and blue 36 Morgan 1984; 1988, 34–38. Cf. this vol., p. 177 n. 30.

COLOR AND ARTISTIC PERFORMANCE: THE PROCESS OF PAINTING

dominate. Ascending rock, painted in a series of contoured curves from below to the summit, is blue-gray on the outer parts of the rock, where it meets the yellow ground and the descending multicolored rocks. This coloration is achieved by first painting blue (over yellow ground), then darkening the surface with a blue-black mix, not all over the blue but defining the contours, the transitions to the multicolored interiors of the rocks, and sporadically on the areas between the two, providing a seamless transition while retaining the variety of hue. Onto this blue-gray—and always over areas of blue-black mix—are large blobs of white applied in thick impasto (Pl. 71:e). They, like the blue-black, add depth to the rockwork, while also suggesting the scintillating effect of sunlight glinting on rocks. This subtle merging of blue, gray, black, and white provides a perfect rendition of the hues of the local schist (Fig. 4.14). The interiors of the rocks, rising into parallel pinnacles that jut into the blue-gray outer parts, are composed of red, pink, yellow ocher, and blue, the blue being continuations of the outer sections of the rock, descending downward, the pinks and reds rising out of yellow ocher. Like the descending rocks, the pinks are applied first, in a dilute form, while the reds dominate. The yellow ocher, which is confined to the lower parts of the rocky structures, matches the color of the ground. On both the outer blue-gray and interior pink and red there are touches of ocher (in the mid hue of plants and the wood of architecture), providing a further sense of depth to the surfaces of the rock. It is a tour de force. Within this brilliant symphony of color that forms the landscape, compiled with few basic pigments yet with such rich variety of hue and density, is the action and the urban setting. With the human figures, the animals, the ships, chariot, and buildings, color is more predictable, yet still distinctive. Men and women follow the usual Aegean convention: red ocher and white, respectively (this vol., Ch. 2, pp. 44, 46). The white of the women is not the reserved color of the plaster (as it is in parts of the architecture) but applied as a pigment (Pls. 1, 70:a, b). When applied over dark architectural features, this white pigment is thick impasto, so that the face and limbs almost appear to be in low relief (3, 4). Hair is always black or, in the case of the men, blue-black (Pl. 70). Eyes are picked out in solid applied white for the men, with one instance of a well-preserved black pupil (6, Pl. 70:c) and in others fugitive black visible under magnification (Pl. 70:f, g), while the white

355

skin of the women necessitated a contrasting color and the eye is shaped by an oval line, red in one instance (3), black in the other (4; Pl. 70:a, b). All but one garment of the men is white, most of the long garments being defined by black lines. The exception, in which the garment is blue, is different also in scale (54). One extraordinary male figure (12) has the body shape of a man dressed in the long robe, complete with cloth extending behind his shoulder, and yet is entirely the red color of skin, onto which black lines define the shapes of a garment. Again, the few women are more varied, two wear blue (1, 2), one white (2), and the two women associated with buildings wear bodices of red (3) and yellow ocher (4; see this vol., Ch. 2, pp. 54–57). As might be expected, there is little variation in the colors of the animals. All instances of white are applied over the yellow ground. Ocher is used for the bodies of the deer, with applied white dots and dashes for the spotted coat and a strip of white for the underbelly (178, 179, 183), precisely defining with color contrast what in reality is a gentle color shift. Plain white was used for the dogs and for several fragmentary hoofed animals, presumably goats and sheep (Pls. 16–19). Some of the preserved white legs are outlined in gray, a softer tone than black, thereby avoiding too harsh a contrast. One of the animals is actually painted in gray (226), while the horses are both white and black (217–223). A variety of ocher hues, matched by examples in the central group in the color chart of the Kea pigments in Plate 72, define the different sections of the buildings, from timber window frames to parts of facades. Only the brown of the large building(s) in the Cauldron and Ships scene (67) has a hue unmatched by the pigment samples. Such a hue may have existed in raw ocher pigment, with no sample surviving, or it could have been produced through mixing. The composition of the paint is smooth. Cornices are usually white (87), once blue (94). Blue-gray is also used to define parts of the building facades in the section of the frieze illustrated in Figure 7.2 (100–103). Windows are framed by ocher, signifying wood, with the insides defined in black (87, 88, 93, 105, 106), gray (141), or, when forming the ground for the white figure of the women, blue-black (4). Color, then, was used by the artists with subtlety and discernment, combining intelligent observation with imaginative adaptation according to the needs of the scene and the availability of pigments.

356

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

Summary The artists had a clear understanding of the layout of their paintings. For the Miniature Frieze, guide lines were painted with dilute pink paint, and tiny string impressions were used to mark out divisions in the depictions of buildings. No guide lines were seen in the Plant Panels, though some fragments of border bands with string-impressed lines were found in the same room. Incisions were made (during the painting process) on a few leaves, probably experimentally. In the Miniature Freize, a yellow wash blocked out the ground, while areas for blue sea were left reserved until after the yellow. At the transitions between sea and land, blue overlaps yellow, skillfully evoking sea spray. Some paints were applied over other colors (blueblack, black, white), and others were adjacent, but slightly overlapping, enabling the sequence to be observed. There is a distinct, though not inviolable pattern in the sequence of painting the miniature landscape: yellow ground, blue, red, ocher, or simply blue, red or blue, ocher. Black details were always painted at the end, while impasto white was last. Landscape preceded the figures, as did the buildings. In the Plant Panels, the usual sequence is red, ocher, blue (Bramble and Myrtle) and ocher, blue (Grasses). Tone was manipulated with dilution of paint, notably in the pinks. Outlines are infrequently applied, never to the red skins of men, partially for the white skins of women and the hides of animals. Buildings are sometimes outlined and black lines used to delineate masonry. A range of ocher hues was used for the buildings. The landscape is varied and richly colored. Uniquely, sky was depicted blue, with blue-gray/black darkened areas and touches of ocher and impasto white

giving an impression of a cloudy sky. Sea is blue with dabs of impasto white applied to indicate spume. The transition from sea to land, with inlets and sea spray, is also unique, as is the transition from sky to land with touches of pink, as though an evening sky were represented. A subtle variety of tones was achieved by controlling the density of paint and varying the intensity of the blue. Narrow marsh rivulets are painted red, with bordering vegetation of yellow ocher, crossed by blue-gray blades of grass, varying in intensity and saturation. There is no green pigment, and leaves are painted yellow ocher or blue, with some layering of the two colors in the Plant Panels. The blue river is occasionally outlined in black and in one area has internal water sign markings. Descending rocks are painted in pink, red, ocher, blue, and blue-black, in varying dilutions and intensities. Ascending rocks are blue on top, with red, pink, and yellow rising from beneath. Blue-black paint outlines and covers part of the blue, and large blobs of impasto white were applied over the top, creating an impression of sunlight glinting on schist. Men and women are, predictably, red and white, respectively. Hair is black or, more often for the men, blue-black. All but two of the men wear white clothing, while the few women are more varied, wearing blue, white, yellow, or red, always single toned. Animals are ocher, white, gray (one), or black, some outlined in gray, and white on ocher for the deer. In short, the action and urban setting are painted in colors that elicit recognition, while the landscape is built up of an extraordinary range of hues, diluted or opaque, to create a symphony of colors evoking the natural world. Color was used with discernment and considerable skill.

Part IV Paintings as Cultural Signifiers

11

Intercultural Connections: The Aegean World

In Chapter 1, the relationship of Kea to the network of trade and cultural exchange at the beginning of the LBA was discussed in terms of the process and mechanisms of Minoanization. It was noted that shifts in material culture, such as the sudden appearance of representational wall paintings, involve a process of input, reception, and output. This final section of the book addresses this process, with the aim of determining the cultural significance of the paintings within their context. The terminology we use to describe the phenomena outlined in this chapter shapes our perception of the process. “Influence” has connotations of authoritative inducement, “inspiration” suggests stimulation, “exchange” defines reciprocity, “innovation” distinguishes advancement, “invention” implies discovery, and “originality” identifies unique creativity.1 For this 1 Morgan, 2018b. See Renfrew 1978 on the distinction between invention and innovation, as discovery vs. adoption of a new process or form, and Phillips 2005 on forms of transmission and assimilation.

reason, I have chosen what I deem to be a relatively neutral term, “intercultural connections,” without political, directional, or chronological overtones, to encompass the range of associations and affinities. In this chapter I first inquire into the nature of Aegean miniature paintings in relation to architectural space and the possible functions of rooms. Next I review the craft of painting and iconography through the lens of intercultural connections and then consider the crucial issue of how interrelationships throw light on the social role of miniature paintings. These topics are followed by thoughts on the artists of the Ayia Irini paintings, along with the elusive subject of commission, which leads to the question of why these paintings at this particular time and place were of importance, both to Kea and to the wider Aegean community. Chapter 12 and the Epilogue build on this investigation to focus on the social significance of the paintings in their setting, analyzing the iconographic program within its context as a catalyst and chronicler of elite cohesion and as a receptacle and stimulus of social memory.

360

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

Miniature Paintings and Architectural Space Miniature paintings situated as a frieze around the walls above windows and doors are quintessentially Aegean. They were made during a short span of time, for a few generations at most, coinciding with the early Neopalatial Period on Crete and the beginning of the Late Bronze Age in the Cyclades. They are known from relatively few sites and yet were present at all three of the islands in the so-called Western String—Thera, Melos, and Kea. Outside the Cyclades, true miniature (as opposed to small-scale) paintings are known from Knossos and Tylissos on Crete and, further afield, from Tel Kabri in the Levant.

Akrotiri, Thera Clearly, the West House at Akrotiri provides the most striking parallel for the Northeast Bastion paintings (Fig. 11.1:a–d). While this parallel no doubt reflects the extraordinary state of preservation of Akrotiri, it also speaks of a Cycladic voice. Most notable at first glance is the relationship between specific elements within the frieze: towns, women and buildings, a meeting of men in robes, ships, rocky landscape, river, fallow deer, and an animal hunt. Other elements, however, are absent from the Thera Frieze: cauldrons, chariot, horses, hunter, dogs, buildings with “domes”/ crenellations, the landscape elements of marsh, sea, and sky, as well as the large-scale bramble and myrtle composition. Meanwhile, some aspects of the Thera paintings, notably griffin, “leopard,” and the large-scale cabins and lilies, do not occur in the Kea paintings. More profound is the relationship between the layouts of the paintings within their architectural space. In both cases, there was considerable wall space for the Miniature Frieze. Room 5 of the West House was approximately 4 m square, providing ca. 16 m of wall space for the Frieze. Room N.20 of the Northeast Bastion was either rectangular (ca. 3.85 x 6.0 m) or close to 4 m square (ca. 3.85 x 4.10/4.20), depending on whether or not there was a partition (see this vol., Ch. 1, p. 35; Figs. 1.7:a, b, 11.2:a), making it either slightly larger or approximately the same size as the West House room. At Ayia Irini, the placement of two sizable painted rooms adjacent to one another is unique to the Northeast Bastion. In

House A, the pattern (in both Period VI and VII) is that of a painted room connecting with an internal courtyard, whereas in the Northeast Bastion, there are two interconnecting painted rooms overlooking an exterior space. However, two adjacent rooms, one painted with a miniature frieze, the other with panels, is exactly the pattern that we find in the West House at Akrotiri, which, being a freestanding building, was also surrounded by open, public spaces (Fig. 11.2:b).2 There, owing to exceptional preservation of the upper story, it is clear that in Room 5 there was a series of four windows on each of the north and west walls and apparently a series of cupboards on the south and east walls.3 The entrance door was on the east wall, and a door connecting Room 5 with Room 4 (the room of the Panels) stood at the east corner of the south wall. In this case, the Miniature Frieze room lay to the north, the Panels room to the south. At Ayia Irini, the Miniature Frieze room lay to the south, the Panels room to the north. Turn the plan of one upside down in terms of compass orientation and the walls, interconnecting doors, and the pattern of paintings—miniatures and panels—is almost the same (Fig. 11.3). In addition, the frieze with ships relates to the local topography, each being oriented toward the harbor and the open sea (to the south at Ayia Irini, to the southeast at Akrotiri).4 The only significant difference in the arrangement lies in the position of the entrance into the complex of rooms: through the room of the Panels at Ayia Irini; through the room of the Miniature Frieze at Akrotiri. This difference relates to the type of building—bastion versus freestanding house—and consequent arrangement of the layout of surrounding rooms and staircases, which has a quite different pattern at the two sites (Fig. 11.2:a, b). Yet both would have had dual access—at Akrotiri, via a staircase on the opposite side of the building through Room 3 or via a service staircase adjacent to the painted rooms (7), at Ayia Irini, probably from an upper story corridor (N.16) and via a service staircase adjacent to the 2 At the front of the building lay the triangular piazza, which opened up from the main thoroughfare through the town. Room 3, next to the painted rooms, directly overlooked it. The west side of the building lay close to another, but it appears that the north side would also have overlooked open space, though this area has not yet been fully excavated (Palyvou 2005a, 46). 3 Palyvou 2005a, 50–51, fig. 46. 4 Cf. Morgan 2007b, 117–121.

INTERCULTURAL CONNECTIONS: THE AEGEAN WORLD

361

a

b

c

d

Figure 11.1. Miniature Frieze of Akrotiri Thera: (a) north wall; (b) east wall; (c) left half of south wall; (d) right half of south wall. Scale ca. 1:10. Doumas 1992, pls. 26, 30, 35; for 1:4 scale, see Morgan 1988, pullout.

362

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

painted rooms (N.17/N.19). It is striking that, despite the differences in the local architecture and the fundamental difference in the type of building, there should be such a close correspondence between the specific architectural arrangements of the two rooms in relation to the layout of the paintings. In both, the pottery implies storage, preparation, and consumption of food and drink. In addition, a drain installation was associated with both, in the corner of one of the rooms (see this vol., pp. 33–35). The position of the West House drain in relation to the layout of the paintings differs from that of the drain in N.20, but it relates to the drainage system beneath the roads outside the building. In both cases the drain area was plastered and painted in yellow to brown ocher,5 defining it as a separate space, and pottery was associated with the drain. As in the Northeast Bastion, there is a strong likelihood that Room 5, with its Miniature Frieze, was used for dining.6 The room was provisioned with cupboards on two of the walls; pithoi and masses of pottery including hundreds of conical cups were stored in Room 6 on the upper floor, separated from the painted rooms only by the service staircase to the basement, where Rooms 5 and 6 especially were “packed with pottery.”7 Back on the upper story, the pottery in Room 5 included many imported cups and jugs (in contrast to the mostly local pottery stored in Room 6),8 while in Room 4a, a bronze cauldron was found in the vicinity of the drain.9 While we lack the upper story evidence for cupboards in the Northeast Bastion, the pattern of service staircase with storage and probable kitchen below, pithoi on the upper story as well as the lower, large quantities of pottery including cups and jugs, and a (multifunctional) drain are distinctly paralleled in the two buildings. These overall relationships between architectural layout and the positions of paintings, drain, staircases, storage, and pottery are striking. The implications of this relationship between images and their setting lie beyond those of iconographic parallels. 5 Marinatos (1983, 14) considered the yellow ocher painted plaster of the drain area in the West House to be “special treatment.” No doubt, as in N.20, the color made the area easier to keep clean than had it been white. 6 Michailidou 1990b, 305; 2001, 468. 7 Palyvou 2005a, 49. On storage and food preparation in Room 6, see Sarpaki 1992, 228. 8 Marinatos 1968–1976, VI, 33; Marthari 1990, 61–65; Michailidou 1990b, 302. 9 Marinatos 1968–1976, VI, pl. 63:a.

Phylakopi, Melos Only a single fragment survives from Phylakopi (Fig. 2.3), found in a dump adjacent to the town wall, apparently thrown out by later Mycenaean settlers.10 There is no doubt, however, that the fragment, which shows the booted leg of a man against a white background and the hair of a second figure below, belonged to a miniature frieze like those of Akrotiri and Ayia Irini. The scale and style of drawing the knee and calf are strikingly similar to the human figures in the Ayia Irini frieze, though the white background and the boot are not. This lone survivor is testimony to relationships between the paintings of the Cycladic islands, as well as a salutary reminder of how much may be lost from other sites.

Tel Kabri in the Levant The Tel Kabri miniature painting, like the largerscale and somewhat later friezes from Tell el-Dabca, exhibits clear Aegean techniques, idiom, and iconography, though it was painted in a building of local architectural form. It is of true miniature scale, but it is extremely fragmentary. The fragments tell of coursed masonry, small boats, a coast, and rocks, all features seen at Kea, as well as architectural beam ends and (on a tiny scale) birds, which are not.11 The reconstruction by Barbara and Wolf-Dietrich Niemeier draws much from the Thera miniatures, and kinship with the Cycladic miniatures is clear, but neither the context (found as filling material beneath a floor) nor the pieces themselves provide sufficient information for close comparison with Kea. The presence of this frieze in a Levantine setting is, however, striking, and raises many questions on broader intercultural relations. Significantly, as in Crete and the Cyclades, the miniature frieze appears at a time marked by established urbanism, consolidation of 10 Morgan 2007a, 391 (SF 131), frontispiece, fig. 9.11. 11 Niemeier and Niemeier 2000, 2002 (with references to earlier publications); Cline and Yasur-Landau 2007. On the possible position of the miniature painting in relation to the building and its orientation: Morgan 2007b, 121–122. More fragments of painted plasters, a second floor, and perhaps a second wall painting have been found in recent excavations: Cline, Yasur-Landau, and Goshen 2011; Cline and YasurLandau 2013. The paintings are dated to Levantine Middle Bronze IIC (for the debate on their relative chronology with Aegean wall paintings, see Bietak 2007).

INTERCULTURAL CONNECTIONS: THE AEGEAN WORLD

363

NE Tower N.16 7 N.18

6

5

N.17 4

N.20

N.19

3 1, 2

a

b 0

1

2

10 m

Figure 11.2. Plans showing relative scale: (a) proposed first floor of the Northeast Bastion, Ayia Irini as seen in Figure. 1.7:b; (b) existing first floor of the West House, Akrotiri (after Palyvou 2005a, fig. 62).

4

N.18

N.20 5

b

a 0

1

2

10 m

Figure 11.3. Comparative distribution of paintings in: (a) the Northeast Bastion at Ayia Irini; (b) the West House at Akrotiri. Adapted by the author from: (a) Figures 1.7b, 7.17, 7.26, 8.9; (b) Palyvou 2005a, fig. 62; Doumas 1992, pls. 30, 36, 50 (details).

364

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

power, and increased contacts, pointing to a sociocultural significance for the impetus to paint,12 and in particular for the choice of the format of a miniature frieze, in which the small scale is utilized to maximize expressions of social action.

Crete The miniatures from Knossos on Crete are significantly different from those of the Cyclades, in that their iconography is palatial and women are privileged over men. Yet they share with all the miniatures their reference to public gatherings or festivals. Provincial Tylissos has more specifics in common with Kea, as discussed below. Other fragments of painted plaster said to belong to miniature paintings come from Prasa and Katsambas,13 but in neither case are they sufficiently well preserved to know if they were part of a miniature frieze, particularly since there are no preserved human figures. At the recently excavated palace at Galatas, a fragment of plants, said to be part of a landscape “rendered at a scale approaching that of the miniaturistic wall-paintings” was found in a closed MM IIIA deposit.14 But the evidence is too slight to consider it as a precursor of the miniature frieze. Interestingly, however, it was found beneath a layer of ash belonging to a hearth in a large hall (17) which, in the succeeding MM IIIB period, is interpreted as a banquet hall adjacent to a “Cooking Place.”15 At Archanes, a miniature painting is said to have existed in the hall above Area 19 of the palatial building at Tourkoyeitonia.16 Extremely fragmentary, the few pieces (published without scale) include a bird, a dolphin, plants, and rocks, with white and blue backgrounds, but no human figures. Fragments of 12 Cf. Feldman 2007. 13 The single fragment from Prasa, dated to LM IA, shows cypress trees (Cameron 1976b, 7–8, pl. 3:c; Immerwahr 1990a, 67, 183–184, Pr No. 1). A fragment from Savakis’ Bothros to the northwest of the palace at Knossos has a crocus clump with rocks (Cameron 1976b, pl. 3:a). The single fragment from Katsambas (MM IIIB–LM IA) has flying birds (M. Shaw 1978; Immerwahr 1990a, 67, 182, Ka No. 1), which Shaw plausibly suggests belongs not to a miniature frieze but to the embroidered belt of a life-size female figure. 14 Rethemiotakis 2002, 57, pl. XV1:a, without scale. 15 Rethemiotakis 2002, 58–61, 63, plan pl. XII, XVII:b. 16 Sakellarakis and Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1997, 498–500, figs. 484–489.

larger-scale plants were found in the same area, including what is probably myrtle.17 With the exception of this myrtle (which is, however, pale bluish green on white ground, rather than ocher on light yellow) and the miniature dolphin (on blue, so probably sea rather than ship), there is little to compare with the Kea Miniature Frieze, or indeed with that of Thera. However, the context is interesting. Hundreds of cups were found on the upper stories of Area 19, prompting the excavators to suggest that some of the large rooms there were used for banquets “associated with ceremonies in which large numbers took part.”18 As in the West House Room 3, many loomweights were found in the area, along with pigments, prompting the excavators to identify a “craft-industry installation” in which it was suggested the pigments were for dyeing cloth (cf. this vol., p. 342 n. 127). Most likely the area was multifunctional, with craft production downstairs and a grand painted dining hall upstairs, the conical cups used for both.

Tylissos Tylissos, with its three large LM I houses, lies some 12 km equidistant from Knossos and Mt. Ida, close to a river that leads some 6 km to the sea.19 The Miniature Frieze is assumed to have come from the upper story of Room 17 in House A (Fig. 11.4).20 Maria Shaw’s reconstruction, using 13 fragments, provides an indication of the content of the frieze (Fig. 11.5).21 The background is described as “red-brown” with areas of white, akin to the red and white of Knossos, and unlike the plain white plaster ground of Akrotiri 17 Sakellarakis and Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1997, 496–497, figs. 474, 480–482. 18 Sakellarakis and Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1997, 319. Tour­ koyeitonia lies in the midst of modern houses and so is only partially excavated. It is, therefore, unknown what lay north of Room 19 and whether or not it overlooked an open space (see Sakellarakis and Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1997, 74–78, 110– 111, drawing 6). 19 Hazzidakis 1921, 1934. 20 Hazzidakis 1934, 23; Shaw 1972, 179. Fragments of paintings were also found in the two other houses. No details were published, other than that the House C paintings were of plants, crocus and lily: Hazzidakis 1934, 30–31 (House B, Room 12), 37 (House C, Room 7). 21 Hazzidakis 1921, 62–63, pls. VII–X; 1934, 99; Evans 1921– 1935, III, 36, fig. 19 (vase), 88, fig. 49 (building); Shaw 1972. The fragments are reproduced at 1:1 scale (as cited in Shaw 1972, n. 2) in Hazzidakis 1912, 224–225, pls. 18–20.

INTERCULTURAL CONNECTIONS: THE AEGEAN WORLD

or Phylakopi. This ocher, however, has been rendered in Shaw’s reconstruction as yellow, like that of Ayia Irini, though darker.22 Some of the techniques and colors agree with those of Kea, while others do not: green and purple, for instance, have been reported.23 Male spectators look to the right.24 At least five men and six women walk toward the left. The figures are slightly smaller than at Kea, the men estimated by Shaw to be ca. 6.2 cm, comparable to the standing males in the Knossos Sacred Grove and Dance and to the smaller, though not the larger, of the men in the Thera miniatures. The men wear loincloths and, like the man in the Phylakopi fragment, one (at least) has a white boot. The women are dressed in long, patterned skirts, some flounced. Their bodices and arms are not preserved, but they are reconstructed with raised arms, on the basis of the Knossos Miniature. Shaw suggested that some may have carried cloth.25 One small fragment (no. 10) suggested landscape to Shaw but is interpreted by Fritz Blakolmer as seated women, implying, according to his interpretation, a massed scene comparable to the Knossos miniatures.26 Foliage, probably of a tree, lies in front of one of the men, who appears to hold a staff. Placed on the left in the reconstruction, as though the goal of the procession of figures, are two fragments of a building with coursed masonry and a window. Most striking is the fact that the majority of the men are bringing produce. One appears to hold a pole horizontally,27 while two other fragments each show a large pot (amphora) transported on such a horizontal pole, one clearly carried by a man, and both with other, so far unidentified, objects in red and white that are apparently brought alongside the pot. Tylissos is interesting on several levels in comparison with the Northeast Bastion and its paintings. In terms of iconography, slight though the remains 22 The larger scale fragment of a fan (Hazzidakis 1934, pl. IX) or plant (Shaw 1972, 179–181) is described by Shaw as burned, so fire may have caused discoloration throughout. 23 Shaw 1972, 182–183. As at Kea, only the background color appears to have been applied to a damp plaster surface. 24 Shaw 1972, 172, no. 1. The fragment is apparently lost; it is known only from a black-and-white drawing and a description citing three or four men’s heads in red facing right. The color of the background is not stated. 25 Shaw 1972, 177, no. 7. 26 Blakolmer 1989. 27 Evans interpreted the fragment as a boxer on the basis of the similarity of his arm position to that of men on the Hagia Triada Sports Rhyton (1921–1935, III, 35, fig. 17), but it seems unlikely, given the presence of pots on poles.

365

are, they provide the only known parallel in miniature paintings for men carrying produce. While the presence of a woman on the same fragment as a man (no. 6) allies the painting more closely with Knossos than Kea, the theme of carrying objects, including on a pole, is strikingly resonant of Kea. Significantly, in Room 4 of House A at Tylissos, four giant bronze cauldrons were found.28 Though without the tripod legs of the cauldrons represented in the Kea painting (which were no doubt separate), their gigantic size parallels the image. As in the painting, cooking must have taken place in an outdoor space nearby. Other notable objects found in the same or adjacent room included a bronze ingot (signaling trade), a bronze figurine with a gesture of “‘adoration,” clay tablets, one of which has a chariot sign, and, as in the painted building at Archanes, a wide range of coloring materials in clay containers, thought to be a palette for paint or dye.29 Most striking is the underlying layout of House A and the probable function of what lay above Room 17, where the painted fragments were found (Fig. 11.4). At ground floor level, Rooms 17 and 16 are two large interconnecting rectangular rooms, the largest in the building. Several pithoi were stored on the ground floor. While there could conceivably have been a single large hall, supported by pillars, on the upper story,30 on the evidence of the West House and the Northeast Bastion, the pattern of two interconnecting rooms might well have continued above. Fragments of a somewhat larger-scale painting apparently depicting a fan or plant (n. 22, above), were found in the same area and might have belonged to the adjoining room. Two staircases approach the painted room(s), one from the west, leading from the western storage area, hence functioning as a service staircase,31 and the other from the south, leading from the entrance to the building, hence no doubt the elite approach. J. Walter Graham, on the basis of the layout and the finds of the area, suggested that above Rooms 16 and 17 was a banquet hall (n. 30, above). Windows on the north wall above Room 17 would have looked out over an open public area as well as to the western 28 Hazzidakis 1921, 54–55, fig. 29. 29 Hazzidakis 1921, 41, fig. 20 (chariot tablet); 54–55, fig. 29 (cauldrons); 56–57 (ingot); 58, pl. VI (figurine); Hazzidakis 1934, 99–100 (coloring materials). 30 Graham (1962) 1969, 61. 31 Hazzidakis (1934, 24) dates this staircase to LM III, but beneath were strata with mixed pottery of MM, LM I, and LM III, so the LM III stairway may have replaced an earlier one.

366

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

17

16

15

8 11

1

3

2

6

10

4

14

5

7

8

9

13 11 0

1

2

10 m

Figure 11.4. Plan of House A at Tylissos (to the same scale as Fig. 11.2). After Cadogan 1976, fig. 15.

0

5

10 cm

Figure 11.5. Miniature Frieze of Tylissos. Reconstruction by M. Shaw in Shaw 1972, fig. 13.

INTERCULTURAL CONNECTIONS: THE AEGEAN WORLD

entrance of House C.32 The layout echoes the arrangement of the Northeast Bastion and the West House, with their two interconnecting rooms, views outward onto public space, double approaches (service and elite), and proximity to kitchen storage. Even the square stone-built structure housing the drain in the southwest corner of Room N.20 is matched by a similar stone structure in the southeast corner of Room 16 at Tylissos, at the edge of an outside wall (Fig. 11.4). Hazzidakis rejected interpretations of a buttress or a chimney and pondered, but also rejected, the possibility that it might have been a conduit for water.33 Though hollow, it does not have obvious indications of having been a drain since it does not appear to communicate with the outside, but its presence in the corner, singularly akin to the drain structure in the Northeast Bastion, is worthy of thought. Perhaps the most interesting, if subtle, relationship between Ayia Irini and Tylissos lies in the arrangement of Rooms 16 and 17 in relation to the rest of the building. House A at Tylissos is a curious structure; exceptionally large, it is virtually two buildings joined in the middle. 34 At the northeast edge lie the two rectangular rooms with paintings, the largest in the building. To the south lie the reception and cultic area, with Minoan Hall, Lightwell, Pillar Crypt, and Lustral Basin, as well as the finds of cauldrons and the pigments. The entranceway between the two areas simultaneously unites and divides. On a larger scale, it brings to mind the arrangement of the east side of Ayia Irini, with, at the northeast edge, the Bastion with its two rectangular rooms with paintings, the largest in the town, and the southeast part of the town with the reception and administrative building House A, the Temple, and the storage of pigments—the two areas, north and south, divided and united by the Gateway and wall. 32 See plan in Hazzidakis 1934, pl. XXXIII. 33 Hazzidakis 1934, 21–23. 34 McEnroe (1982, 19, table 2) lists the total size of House A as being 610 m2, but with a residential part of 265 m2, the latter matching the total size of the Royal Villa (260 m2) and being larger than the total size of other Knossos houses, such as the South House and Southeast House. Cf. Hitchcock 1994, 22–25. It is the southern part that is considered residential, while the northern part is seen as service or storage, though evidently, given the two large rooms and the wall paintings, it was more than that. The two parts of the building have been compared to the service and residential wings of House A at Kea and Xeste 3 at Akrotiri (Hitchcock 2010, 195), in both of which, however, the division is west/east rather than north/south.

367

Tylissos and Ayia Irini apparently had some underlying structures in common, as did, more specifically, the West House at Akrotiri and the Northeast Bastion. The implications of these underlying structural similarities in terms of interconnections and social context are discussed below (pp. 376–380, 384).

Knossos and the Early Keep The Knossos miniatures from the area of the Early Keep on the northwest side of the Central Court are most likely datable to LM I, probably slightly later than those of Thera and Kea.35 They were found with fragments of a painted relief of interlocking spirals with rosettes, whether from a ceiling, as interpreted by Evans, or a wall, as Bernd Kaiser thought.36 Uniquely for a miniature frieze, the two reconstructed sections (the so-called Grandstand and Sacred Grove and Dance) have upper border bands, different in each, which is surprising if we are to understand them as belonging to a unified frieze and may imply a subdivision of space. Other scattered fragments of architectural miniatures were found in the North-West Fresco Heap (women at windows, possibly LM I) and (probably MM IIIB) from below the West Facade of the Central Court, with bulls from the Ivory Deposit on the east side, and, on a slightly larger scale, with spectators and a much larger bull from West Magazine XIII.37 In all these, the architecture is not of towns but of specific features such as columns, checkerboard bands, half-rosettes or 35 For full references, see Immerwahr 1990a, 63–66, 173–174 (Kn Nos. 15–18); Hood 2005, 63–64. Further discussion: Davis 1987; Marinatos 1987a. Evans assigned them to MM IIIB (1921–1935, III, 31–35), Cameron to MM IIIB/LM I (1975, 690, 692–693), Immerwahr to LM I, perhaps slightly later than the Thera Miniature Frieze, but with possible earlier antecedents (1990a, 64, 173), and Hood to LM IA or LM IB (2005, 64). 36 Evans 1921–1935, III, 30–31, pl. XV; Kaiser 1976, 270. Cf. now the relief wavy bands with painted rosettes from the walls of Room 9 in Xeste 3 at Akrotiri (Doumas 1992, 131, pls. 136, 137). 37 Hood 2005, 58–59 (North-West Fresco Heap); 65 (West Magazine XIII); 66 (West Facade); 70–71 (Ivory Deposit); all with full references; also col. pls. 8–11. The largest deposit is the North-West Fresco Heap, which included larger scale scenes (e.g., cat and bird), and miniature images (griffin, sphinx, flutes, ox-head, lilies) that most likely belonged to large-scale textiles, as well as true miniature scenes, as in the case of the women at windows and boys perhaps playing a game (Evans 1921–1935, III, col. pl. XXV, opposite p. 370, at 1:1 scale).

368

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

rosettes, “horns of consecration,” and double axes, all semiotic indicators of palatial shrines. In the miniature Grandstand and Sacred Grove and Dance from the Early Keep (termed by Ellen Davis the Indoor and Outdoor scenes, respectively) the women are delineated against white, while the men are portrayed through the shorthand device of adding black hair and white eyes and necklaces to an otherwise continuous wash of red paint, standing for their skin. Nothing could be further from the individual portrayals of figures in the Cycladic miniatures of either Thera or Kea. Spatial conceptions are also radically different. In the Grandstand painting, the focus is not the action being watched but those that are watching. The crowd of spectators is the subject in itself, and we the viewers take the place of the action being viewed. In the Sacred Grove and Dance, both spectators and performance are shown, again with massed crowds, both men and women, only those in the front rows shown in full, with loincloths (no robes) and dresses.38 Separated from the crowd by trees and paved walkways is a performance by women in flounced skirts with raised arms, also on a bluegray background. At the left side of the composition as reconstructed by Nanno Marinatos is part of a building, identified as belonging to the scene by Cameron and interpreted as a shrine, to which the crowd looks and the women process with dance-like movements.39 Davis and Cameron both identified the Grandstand as the Central Court of Knossos, while Maria Shaw suggested the Theatral Area.40 Davis interpret38 A procession of men wearing loincloths holding stick-like implements before an authoritative male with a staff may belong to this or a related scene. As at the top of the frieze, they are against a blue-gray background, but they are on a slightly larger scale than the other figures and face right rather than the usual left. Evans thought they were holding javelins and belonged to a separate siege scene (1921–1935, III, 81–87, figs. 45, 46); Evans 1967, 28–29, pl. IV:1, 2; Hood 2005, col. pl. 10. Cameron attributed them to the Sacred Grove and Dance scene (1967a, 65–67, 74, nos. 16, 17, fig. 7:b, c, pl. IV:d. Marinatos identified a processional aspect to the group. Though she included them in her revised reconstruction, she saw them (no doubt rightly) as the protagonists of another section of the frieze (1987a, 141–142, fig. 7). 39 Cameron 1967a, 65–66, 74, no. 15, figs. 7:a, 8, pl. IV:c; Davis 1987, 158; Marinatos 1987a, 141–142, fig. 7. 40 Cameron 1987, 325; Davis 1987; Shaw 1996a, 185–187. The reconstruction of a tripartite shrine on the west side of the Central Court at Knossos went hand-in-hand with the reconstruction of the architectural structure in the painting (cf. J. Shaw 1978b, 431).

ed the crowd of the indoor (Grandstand) scene as a special gathering of youths witnessing an event in the Central Court, while pointing out the specific nature of the double causeways of the outdoor (Sacred Grove) scene, identifying them with the area around the Theatral Area and Royal Road. Marinatos, considering both the steps and the causeways, identified the location of the two scenes as the Theatral Area and West Court, respectively, and interpreted the occasion as a harvest festival coinciding with the renewal of authority of the ruler.41 Identification of either the Central Court or the West Court has social implications, since the one involves privileged access within the core of the palace, while the other lies at the “interface between palace and city”42 and is therefore likely to have incorporated a wider range of participants. By identifying the action represented in the Knossos miniatures as taking place at the palace, an assumption is made that image and setting are allied. What then of the room in which the miniature frieze appeared? Evans attributed the paintings to a small room on the upper story, measuring 4.70 x 2.70 m, above the basement Room with the Spiral Cornice, in which the majority of fragments were found (Fig. 11.6, the right section only within the red rectangle).43 Cameron then made a reconstruction drawing suggesting a small room with a series of friezes related to the Grandstand, separated by a door from the Sacred Grove and Dance, with its different upper border.44 However, some of the fragments were more widely scattered throughout the area,45 suggesting that the room could have been larger. Owing to later disturbance, the whole northwest section bordering the Central Court was, in Evans’ words, “. . . more complicated and difficult to decipher than that of any other quarter of the palace”46 in terms of stratigraphy and consequently in the relationships of walls at a given period.47 41 Marinatos 1987a. Cf. Hägg 1987 on the significance of the West Facade at Knossos, with a suggested reconstruction (p. 131, fig. 2), here related to the Grandstand and architectural miniature fragments from Magazine XIII. 42 Palyvou 2009a, 83. 43 Evans, 1921–1935, III, 42–45, figs. 1:B, 9. 44 Hood 2005, 63, fig. 2.12. 45 Evans 1921–1935, III, 32, fig. 9; Hood 2005, 64. Fragments were found as far as the threshold to The Room of the Knobbed Pithos. 46 Evans 1921–1935, III, 17, cf. 15. 47 See Evans, 1921–1935, I, 136–142, 203, 393; III, 6–7, 15–28; Raison 1988, 35–109; Niemeier 1994, 79–81.

INTERCULTURAL CONNECTIONS: THE AEGEAN WORLD

369

CENTRAL COURT 0

1

2

10 m

Figure 11.6. Plan of part of the northwest section of the palace of Knossos showing the Early Keep, with the area in which the miniature paintings were found outlined in red. Adapted from Evans 1921–1935, III, figs. 1:B, 9 inset.

370

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

The thick outer walls of the area on the plan of the ground floor (approximately corresponding to the Early Keep) reveal a large rectangular structure, which, with its staircase to the north and its location on the north side of the Central Court, closely resembles the scale, layout and location of the structures identified by Graham as banqueting halls at the palaces of Malia and Phaistos.48 At Knossos, Graham thought the banqueting hall was above the much larger North Pillar Hall, directly opposite the northern entrance. Had it been in the area of the Early Keep, however, the upper room would have had a direct view over the Central Court. On the basis of the basement plan it is difficult to know how the walls of the upper story were organized in LM I, and certainly the entire area, grand as it would be as a hall, would be too large to envisage housing a miniature frieze. Yet in all other known cases, miniature friezes ran along the walls of a large room, not a small shrine. At Knossos, too, the room may have been relatively large. The area in which the miniature fragments were found (the Room with the Spiral Ceiling and the Room of the Lotus Lamp) measures ca. 4.70 x 8.50 m (Fig. 11.6). This area is larger than either Room 17 at Tylissos or N.20 at Ayia Irini individually but comparable in area to Rooms 16–17 and N.18– N.20, respectively (Figs. 11.4, 11.2:a). It is a good size in which to accommodate elite gatherings and banquets, here overlooking the open space of the court. It is interesting to reflect that, though the fortification of the Early Keep had long been out of use by the time of the miniatures, the northwest area also appears to have had defensive elements later, including what are termed Guard Rooms and, lining the Northern Entrance Passage, bastions, constructed in the MM III/ LM IA transition.49 Whatever the size and functions of the room, the view over a significant open space in which performative action would have taken place is noteworthy. Comparisons between the Cycladic miniatures and those of Knossos must take into consideration the radical difference in function between the structures of palace and town.50 The only clear iconographic association between the Knossos miniatures and those of Kea (or indeed Thera) is the association between 48 Graham (1962) 1961; 1969, 125–128; 1975. 49 The latest pottery from below the bastions is dated to the MM III/LM IA transition (Raison 1988, 176–178; Niemeier 1994, 80–81, 85), making the construction of the bastions later than the early MM III assumed by Evans (Evans 1921– 1935, I, 141, 393–394, fig. 286; III, 158–161). 50 Immerwahr 2000.

women and buildings (this vol., pp. 70, 127–129). However, the focus on female rather than male action is peculiar to Knossos, as are the upper borders to the friezes. Nonetheless, what they have in common with the Cycladic miniatures is the large number of figures and the apparent theme of a festival. While the Knossos scenes relate to festive activities within the palace precincts (and the Tylissos scene no doubt to country villas), those of the Cyclades are related to towns and the sea. Each, therefore, uses the format of the miniature frieze as an expression of local festive action.

Craft and Visual Planning The materials and techniques used at Kea are those common to Aegean painting, with some local peculiarities (see this vol., Chs. 9, 10). All but one of the pigments were common throughout Aegean painting of this time. However, manganese (pyrolusite), used for some of the black, has only been identified in the Cyclades, at both Akrotiri and Phylakopi, and not on Crete. At the planning stage, the artists had a clear vision of their intended picture. This is true of all wall painting in the ancient world, whatever the medium, and is not just a prerequisite of fresco, as is sometimes stated.51 It is clear that the artists were fully conversant with the technical process of mural painting. In the Miniature Frieze, guide lines were painted with diluted pink paint, as is frequently observed in Aegean painting. More experimentally, incisions were made during (not before) the painting process on a few of the leaves in the Plant Panels, a feature that is hard to explain technically. It may have resulted from the artist having seen incisions used in the paintings at Akrotiri, without emulating the fact that they were used at the planning stages, though no doubt having noticed that they were cut when the plaster was dry. For both the Miniature Frieze and the Plant Panels, the basic ground color was light yellow ocher (buff). In contrast, as in the fragment from Phylakopi, all the paintings of Akrotiri have a neutral white background, the color of the plaster (with the notable exception of the lower part of the Reed-bed from 51 Egyptian paintings, applied entirely in secco, were carefully planned with guide lines, preliminary sketches, and a distinct order in the application of color.

INTERCULTURAL CONNECTIONS: THE AEGEAN WORLD

Xeste 3, which is yellow). It could be argued that the difference between this white and the yellow ground of the Kea paintings reflects the technical differences between the plasters, the yellowish hue of the Kea plaster being more easily covered with a yellow ocher for the ground. Nonetheless, a white slip was applied prior to the application of yellow, and left in reserve for parts of the buildings. Yellow was evidently a choice. On Crete, red and white were the common background colors in LM IA (e.g., the Royal Road, Amnisos, and [date uncertain] the Knossos miniatures), sometimes with the inclusion of yellow, that is, buff (as in the House of the Frescoes, the Unexplored Mansion, and the North Building fragments at Knossos) or occasionally blue-gray (Knossos Sacred Grove and Dance).52 The backgrounds of the LC II/LM IB paintings of Bluebirds from House A and Dolphins from House J at Ayia Irini are plain yellow ocher and white plaster, respectively. However, in the Tell el-Dabca Bulls Frieze and Hunt Frieze (perhaps contemporary with the later Kea paintings, yet, with its rocky landscape, closer in spirit to the Miniature Frieze), yellow alternates with red as a base for human and animal action, while blue rocks beneath introduce a third block of color.53 Yellow with blue were the more usual colors in LM IB–II on Crete (Taureadors, Procession Fresco, Throne Room Griffins, and Camp Stool Fresco at Knossos; also the LM IIIA paintings of Hagia Triada). Perhaps the LM IB–II predilection for areas of yellow contrasting with blue constitutes an abstraction of the yellow ground with blue sea and rock seen in the Kea Miniature Frieze. A purely yellow ground, used for the Plant Panels at Ayia Irini as well as for the middle ground of the Miniature Frieze, is relatively unusual in Aegean painting. It was chosen for some (not all) of the paintings of the North Building at Knossos54 and for the lilies from House X 52 The pale tone contrasting with red in the paintings of Room 14 at Hagia Triada has a yellowish tinge, but these paintings were burned. The Unexplored Mansion background, though also burned, apparently shifted between buff and gray (Cameron 1984; Chapin 1997, 3 n. 11). Most of the fragments from the North Building (destroyed in LM IB) on the Royal Road at Knossos have a light yellow ground: garlands (Warren 1985; 2005, 142) and fragments of skirts, landscape, and built structures (Warren 2005); the olive spray from the same location has a white ground with red. 53 Bietak, Marinatos, and Palivou 2007; Marinatos 2010a; Morgan 2010a, 2010b. 54 Warren 2005, pls. 16–19.

371

at Kommos, with red rocks above and below,55 while in the Miniature Frieze of Tylissos a reddish yellow ocher is the dominant (though not sole) ground color. For miniatures, then, at Knossos the background is traditional LM IA red and white; at Tylissos it is reddish yellow and white; while at Thera and Phylakopi it is white, as it appears to be in the few fragments published from Kabri. In the Knossos Sacred Grove and Dance miniature, blue-gray defines what would be the sky area above the men, as well as the ground for the performers. At Thera, alongside the use of white, the sea in the Ship Frieze is painted blue. Interestingly, this blue is only used for the Ship Frieze on the south wall (where it fades into the white of the sky), not for the sea of the north wall, which, like the boats fragments from the Tel Kabri miniatures, is white with subtle gray markings (Fig. 11.1:a, c). The yellow ground of the Kea paintings is therefore closest to parts of the Tylissos frieze, while blue sea is echoed at Thera. There, however, the color is uniform, perhaps fading into white at appropriate places of land. There is no white spume on the water and no blue sky with clouds. Those features are utterly unique to Kea. Several other painterly approaches in the Miniature Frieze do recur in the Akrotiri paintings, especially in the marsh scene of Xeste 3: the layering of blue over yellow to produce a greenish hue, dilution of ocher paint to give a sense of variable depth to grasses, the overlapping of blue and yellow grasses, also a feature of the Royal Road paintings at Knossos,56 the use of red for a narrow water course (Xeste 3), and the use of black lines to define a blue river (West House). The long marsh of the Kea Frieze, with its winding, overlapping red streams, is, nevertheless, unique. Some technical approaches in the Kea paintings are not paralleled at Akrotiri and vice versa. There is no use of murex for purple at Kea, as there is at Thera. White impasto highlights, a recurrent feature of the Kea miniatures in depictions of sea, sky and rocks, are rarely used at Akrotiri, though they are characteristic of Cretan painting, if not for the same features. Tiny string impressions used for the townscape of the Miniature Frieze to mark the positions of vertical divisions between walls of town buildings are peculiar to Kea, though impressed and incised lines occur in the Knossos miniatures to mark structural divisions in the Grandstand and the pathways 55 Shaw and Chapin 2012, col. pl. 1:B. 56 Morgan, ed., 2005, pl. 3:1, 3.

372

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

of the Sacred Grove; they are also found on a couple of the Tylissos fragments, though not for the building (this vol., Ch. 10, p. 348 nn. 26–28). No such lines occur in the towns of the Thera Miniature Frieze. In short, some features of the Kea paintings are paralleled in Cretan painting, at Tylissos and Knossos, while several are paralleled at Thera. But in no way can it be said that the painters of the Kea murals drew their technical skills and painterly approach from any one contemporary site. They absorbed the skills, noticed the approaches, then adapted and invented according to their inclination and the task in hand.

Iconography The same observations apply to the iconography. Miniature paintings are particularly illuminating as visual texts, since they accommodate large numbers of figures, action, and setting, affording the opportunity to compare numerous iconographic elements with the wider range of Aegean art. It is, however, important to remember that no two wall paintings are ever the same. The effort and time involved in preparing and painting the walls, combined with the specific nature of the commission, and the particular relationships between geographic setting, architectural space, orientation, layout, and functions, inevitably call for individual approaches, regardless of whether the same or different artists are asked to execute the task. This fundamental fact always needs to be kept in mind when discussing similarities and differences between the paintings of different sites.

Meeting and Providing the Produce: Male Identity and Action Fundamental to the Kea frieze is the dominant participation of male figures. In this respect, it closely matches the West House miniatures, contrasting with the emphasis on female action in the palatial miniatures of Knossos on the one hand, and the balance between men and women walking together at Tylissos. The Procession of Kea is surely related to the Meeting on the Hill of Thera in artistic terms and perhaps also in social terms. At both Ayia Irini and Akrotiri, a hilltop shrine and watchtower were identified close to the site (this vol., Ch. 1, p. 23)—a fact that the betterpreserved Thera painting, in which the hilltop setting is evident, surely reflects. The gestures of the men are

ritualized in both paintings, but distinctly different— individually precise. Central to the theme of the Kea painting is the bringing of produce—in pots, baskets, and what looks like a leather container, and using poles to carry vessels and venison (Fig. 7.12). Many of the men meet by a river. In a vignette from the Departure Town of the Thera Ship Frieze, two men meet across a river (Figs. 2.1:c, 11.1:c). But there are no containers in the Thera Frieze. In the Tylissos miniatures there is no river, but men carry pots on poles (Figs. 2.4, 11.5). The Tylissos men wear loincloths as they carry their vessels, implying that their role is active. Yet in the Kea painting that garment is reserved for those cooking in cauldrons and walking along the shore by the ship, while the men carrying pots and poles, even the hunter, with his unique headgear, wear the white robe or short-sleeved tunic, implying elite status. Both the Thera and the Kea miniatures formulate a contrast between men in loincloths and men in robes. Yet in the Thera painting, there is more variety in the robe or cloak: white and colored, smooth and hairy, of different lengths, with varied bands and methods of fastening. On one, a piece of cloth is tossed over the shoulder and hangs behind. On Kea, this style is the norm for the white robes. However, neither the short-sleeved white tunic, worn by several of the Kea men, nor the divided kilt, also known at Mycenae at this time and worn by at least one of the Kea men, appears in the Thera painting. Most notable is the fact that men in loincloths take part in the procession of the Meeting on the Hill alongside men in robes (Fig. 2.1:a, 11.1:a). In the Kea painting (as preserved) the two types of differently attired men—revealing or concealing the body—do not appear to meet. These similarities and differences suggest that the signifying role of differentiation of garments, while having generic overtones (e.g., elite/active, mature/young), can be more specific in terms of role and status in individual paintings.

Hunting In both the West House and the Northeast Bastion, a hunt scene with animals on a larger scale than the rest of the frieze appeared on one of the walls (Figs. 7.17, 11.1:b), probably in both cases the wall on the left when facing the interconnecting doorway between the room with Miniature Frieze and the room with the Panels (Fig. 11.3). A river appears to have been associated with both, fallow deer are the prey,

INTERCULTURAL CONNECTIONS: THE AEGEAN WORLD

and there are no men in either scene. There, however, the similarities end. While in the Thera frieze the predators are felines and fantastic (the griffin) and the setting is exotic with its palms, in the Kea frieze the predators are dogs and the setting was most likely the coast, as in the paintings on the surrounding walls. Notably, a hunter transports his catch strung up on a pole (though not in the same scene or on the same scale). This example is the earliest known Aegean painting in which dogs appear, and also the first in small scale to depict a hunter, though the two were shown consecutively rather than together. The remarkable wall paintings in the Vestibule of Xeste 3 at Akrotiri show the capturing of a wild goat and of a bull by hunters.57 These, contemporary with the Kea frieze, are large scale rather than miniature and focus on the struggle rather than the returning hunter. There are no dogs in the Thera paintings; however, dogs hunting prey are known from a few Cretan seals both earlier and contemporary (this vol., Ch. 5, p. 157 nn. 43, 44), and the remarkable sealing in Figure 5.3:d, found at Akrotiri, shows a man hunting with his dog. Fallow deer are depicted on LM I sealstones, sometimes wounded with an arrow (this vol., Ch. 5, p. 152 n. 9), are chased by lions in the Thera Miniature Frieze and appear in the art of the Mycenae Shaft Graves, including in the gold ring in Figure 3.6:a, which shows them being hunted by two men from a horse-drawn chariot. Hunting with dogs was, of course, to become a leitmotif of Mycenaean palatial wall painting, where the prey is either deer or boar. In the elite but nonpalatial buildings of the House of the Oil Merchant (LH IIIA:2) and the West House at Mycenae (LH IIIB:1), hunters and hunting dogs are associated with chariots and horses in small (though not true miniature) scale.58 In later paintings, too, dogs and men appear 57 The Vestibule paintings are currently being studied by Irini Papageorgiou. Preliminary publications: Vlachopoulos 2008b, 451, pls. 41.3–41.6, 41.51; Papageorgiou 2018, 306– 309, figs. 6–9; forthcoming. Also remarkable is a painted clay “bathtub” from Akrotiri with a hunting scene, from a LC I context at Akrotiri but datable to MC (Papagiannopoulou 2008, 433–436, figs. 40.1–40.4; 2018). A naked man, interpreted as a hunter, appears behind galloping wild goats, but without dogs. This example, along with an earlier pot sherd from Akrotiri that appears to show a man with a weapon chasing an animal in rocky terrain (Papagiannopoulou 2008, 436), demonstrates that hunt scenes on MC pottery at Akrotiri precede those in wall paintings. 58 See this vol., Ch. 5, p. 157 n. 46. The hunters appear to be ca. 18–20 cm.

373

together (Pylos, Tiryns, Orchomenos). Closer in date to the Kea painting is the Hunt Frieze at Tell elDabca.59 Though a frieze, it is on a larger scale than the miniatures, yet it has several comparable features with elements of the Kea Frieze—yellow ground, fallow deer attacked from beneath by dogs, and multicolored though predominantly blue rocks. However, the felines and human hunters in action are conspicuously missing at Kea, and the towns and ships are missing at Tell el-Dabca.

The Cauldron Scene The cauldron scene is unique in painting. To my knowledge, there is only one iconographic comparison from the Aegean, on a sealing from Knossos (see Fig. 12.2:a, below). There, the two figures are dressed in different garments—one a loincloth, the other a robe—no doubt an abbreviation of the larger mental view of the activity evoked through the image. Projecting from the cauldron is the leg of a clovenhooved animal, while the tree above indicates that the activity is outdoors. In the painting, too, the cooking takes place in open air, while the implication of the meat to be cooked comes from both the hunting scene of deer and dogs and the sole hunter to be preserved. As one would expect, the tiny scale of the seal compresses sequential action into a single scene, while the painting expands time and space across walls. Yet both evoke a wider narrative thread. An echo of the theme of the Kea Miniature Frieze appears in the LH IIIB paintings from the palace of Pylos, including the bringing of produce in vessels (Vestibule 5) and men carrying tripod cauldrons in association with a hunt scene with men, dogs, and deer (Room 27/Hall 46)—evidently the preparations for a feast following the hunt (this vol., Ch. 12, p. 395 nn. 31, 32). No extant painting other than the Kea Miniature Frieze, however, shows cauldrons in use.

Ships The visualization of the ships obviously owes much to the Thera Miniature Frieze. But while there is evidence for both awning and stern cabin, there 59 Morgan 2004, 2006, 2010a, 2010b; Marinatos and Morgan 2005; Marinatos 2010a.

374

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

is no surviving evidence for any form of propulsion—no sail, no oars. However, a single small fragment shows three paddlers in a boat, not unlike the paddled and rowed small boats in the harbors of the Thera Frieze. It seems that in both friezes there was a distinction between large ceremonial boats and small practical boats. On one of the ships are dolphins, leaping up and down as they do in the sea. Sailors would have observed this behavior, as did the artists of the Thera Miniature Frieze. The Theran Flagship also has dolphins along the hull—though static, not leaping, and as an adjunct to lion motifs. Ships are depicted on Minoan sealstones, but the only other known instances of ships in wall paintings are Mycenaean, from Hall 64 at Pylos (LH IIIB), where they are associated with a battle scene, in a fragment from Iklaina (LH IIB–IIIA:1), and another from Orchomenos (this vol., Ch. 3, p. 92 nn. 2–4). At the time of the Kea paintings and in the format of a miniature frieze, only the two Cycladic islands of Thera and Kea provide evidence for ship iconography in a mural program. Unlike those in the Thera frieze, the ships in the Kea painting do not appear to have constituted the main theme of the frieze, a point emphasized by the subject of the panels in the adjacent rooms of the two: ships’ cabins at Thera, plants at Kea. The hull decoration on both groups of ships, however, draws attention to the ceremonial and processional nature of the vessels. To whom the ships belonged remains an unanswered question, but it seems likely that these decorated ships are indicative of inter-island collaboration manifested in a gathering in which processions took place on sea and land.

Chariot and Horses Chariots and horses are themes that we are more familiar with from Mycenaean wall paintings, and prior to the discovery of the Kea paintings, the earliest known example in wall paintings came from LH II/ IIIA Knossos. There are no chariots and no horses in any of the other known miniature paintings. Late Minoan IA/LC I, however, is precisely the time when chariots first appear in the Aegean—notably in the Mycenae Shaft Grave art—only a little after they made their way from the Levant to Egypt. In the gold ring from Mycenae shown in Figure 3.6:a, two men hunt deer from a chariot. In the Kea painting, the chariot is

likely to have been ceremonial, but hunting also took place, as we know both from the scene of deer and dogs and from the single fragment of a hunter returning with his prey slung on a pole. The hunter is an elite member of society, wearing not the loincloth of men in active pursuits, as the hunter does on a later sealing from Knossos,60 but a long white robe, and his head is crowned by what may be plumes. The question is: did Kea actually have chariots on the island? The terrain is not exactly suitable. But then, horses were apparently transported by ship—as the sealing from Knossos in Figure 3.4 implies. Chariots were, of course, represented on gold rings, and a sealing found at Akrotiri (Fig. 3.6:b), almost identical to impressions found at Hagia Triada and Sklavokambos on Crete (this vol., Ch. 3, p. 99 nn. 59, 60) offers a scenario for how the idea might have reached the islands. Whether or not a real chariot was brought to Kea for processional events, the inclusion of a chariot and horses in the iconographic program is significant, being undeniably symbolic of elite display. Chariots and horses were new to the Aegean at this time and the ultimate prestige possession. In the ancient world, they were often, though not exclusively, associated with kingship (this vol., Ch. 3, p. 108 n. 124). Are we to assume the presence of a ruler, whether by proxy (through the painting) or in reality? Nothing else in the painting implies it, but then ruler iconography is notoriously inconspicuous in Aegean art. Whether drawing from experience locally or abroad, in incorporating chariot and horses into the scenes, the painter is making a clear statement about prestige.

Urban Setting All the miniatures known to us (beyond the single fragment of Phylakopi)—Thera, Kea, Knossos, Tylissos, Tel Kabri—include an urban setting. Thera provides the closest parallel, with its several towns and closely packed houses depicted with varying surfaces and color; while the association of women with buildings, especially windows, is common to the towns of the Thera and Kea paintings and the palatial buildings of the Knossos and the later Mycenae Ramp House paintings. Identification of specific towns can be no more than hypothetical, and while most would recognize the Arrival Town in the Thera frieze as Akrotiri 60 CMS II.8, no. 238, LM IIIA:1 (cf. this vol., Ch. 2, p. 71 n. 169).

INTERCULTURAL CONNECTIONS: THE AEGEAN WORLD

itself, the question of where the Departure Town and the other buildings were located—on Thera or the neighboring small islands, on one of the other Cycladic islands such as Kea, or, as some have mooted, on Crete—remains unresolved, though Thera itself is highly likely.61 However, what is apparent is that each painting appropriately reflects the local architectural context. In the Knossos miniatures, the architectural features are palatial, in striking contrast to those of the towns in the Thera and Kea miniatures, which fit the characteristics of their urban contexts. What is peculiar to the Kea Miniature Frieze is the dome-like structures on the rooftops. What they are is more difficult to say than what they are not. It was argued in Chapter 4 that crenellations are the most likely interpretation, and the close iconographic parallel with the Chania Master Impression (Fig. 4.10) and tangential connection with the towers on a sealing from Zakros (Fig. 4.11) suggest that the idea of a fortification may have been the inspiration for the image, a point that is reinforced by the fact that the painting itself lay within the bastion of an actual fortification wall.

Landscape Setting In these paintings, landscape is to human action what weft is to warp. Each is indispensible to the other in structuring meaning. The Kea Miniature Frieze is striking in its emphasis on certain types of landscape, which may even, as in the marsh, appear as dedicated scenes. Landscape painting was clearly a significant part of MM III–LM I wall painting 61 The Arrival Town as Akrotiri was suggested by Doumas (1983, 55) among others; cf. Morgan 1988, 92. The large wall, suggestive of fortification, is not counterindicative, given that the outer borders of the settlement have not been excavated, and contemporary Ayia Irini and Phylakopi both had circuit walls. A location for the Departure Town as “another small coastal settlement either on Thera or on a nearby island with close cultural connections” was suggested by me (Morgan 1988, 92); more specifically, the inner edge of the caldera has recently been argued by both Strasser (2010) and Friedrich and Sørensen (2010); cf. Strasser and Chapin 2014. Recently, Friedrich, Sørensen, and Katsipsis (2014) have suggested that both harbor towns represented were located on the inner side of the pre-eruption caldera wall, drawing attention to the sites of Balos and Raos. Boulotis briefly but plausibly suggested that Ayia Irini should be among the towns represented (2009, 96). For a Cretan identity of the towns, see Warren 1979 and Gesell 1981.

375

on Crete,62 notably evident in the town of Knossos outside the Palatial precinct (House of the Frescoes, Royal Road, Unexplored Mansion and, slightly later, the Caravanserai) and at Hagia Triada Room 14, as well as at Akrotiri and, further afield, Trianda on Rhodes. Each is individual, and while multicolored rocks are a common feature, and rivers appear at Akrotiri and Knossos town, other settings and their plants may not be repeated. There are no lilies or crocuses in the Kea paintings, both plants that held symbolic significance and are characteristic of the paintings of Crete, Thera, and Rhodes, while lilies recur on Melos and in the art of the Shaft Graves. Interestingly, as at Kea, neither plant appears in the paintings of Tell el-Dabca. Blue and yellow overlapping reeds on a large scale are common to the paintings of Kea, Thera, and Crete, as well as Tell el-Dabca. Myrtle occurs in the paintings of all those places as well, though brambles do not, and the life-size interweaving of two different plants is only found at Kea. The concept of descending rocks is peculiar to Aegean depictions of landscape, an idiosyncratic organization of space that may draw on the experience of overhanging cliffs. Descending rocks, in differing forms, are a recurrent feature of Cretan painting (Knossos Saffron Gatherers, House of the Frescoes, Caravanserai, Kommos), occasionally occur at Akrotiri (adyton of Xeste 3, north wall of the West House Miniature Frieze), are extended to seascapes (Phylakopi Flying Fish, Akrotiri marine table of offerings, Knossos and Hagia Triada Dolphin Floors), and even continued in Mycenaean painting (Mycenae Groom Fresco, and Pylos Bluebirds and Olive Tree and Rocks). Yet the Kea paintings differ subtly, for rather than echoing the ascending rocks, those that descend fall sharply, like stalactites, almost touching the tops of the rounded hills. The idea is the same, but the execution is quite different from the solutions of the artists working elsewhere in the Aegean. The Thera painters of large-scale scenes captured the colors of their local volcanic rocks to startling effect. But while local observation provides a visual rationale, the multiple colors are artistic idiom. The Spring Fresco from Delta 2, with its wrap-around rocky landscape, turns exterior environment into interior space. The blue-gray, red, and yellow are mainly divided vertically. But the Crocus Gatherers from Xeste 3 have divisions similar to those of the Kea painting—with blue-gray uniformly at the top. 62 See esp. Chapin 1995, 2004.

376

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

The execution of rocks in the Thera Miniature Frieze is quite different, with bold cut stone banding, versus the subtle manipulation of color of the rocky landscape of Kea. The painters’ control of brushwork in the depiction of multicolored rocks at Kea belongs more in the tradition of the large-scale painters of Xeste 3 than to the miniaturists of the West House. Yet even then, there are significant differences in painterly approach. At Thera, the interiors of the rocks are areas of solid color demarcated by black hatched lines for shadows. At Kea, the colors of the interiors subtly shift between tones, and the gray-black shadows are painted with sweeps of the brush, exemplifying the same idea, but with different solutions. The painters of the Kea miniatures were masters of landscape and paid great attention to the variety of habitat. The emphasis on rivers echoes that of the Thera miniatures, and the characteristic water sign of Thera, known also in the Knossos House of the Frescoes and later on LM IB pottery, appears at one point (Fig. 7.12), while other forms of internal markings are used in the river beneath the woman in Figure 7.1. But while multicolored rocks are characteristic of both Cretan and Theran paintings, the marsh, with its winding, overlapping red streams, appears to be particular to the Kea Frieze. As with the rocks, a uniquely painterly approach is applied to the transitions from sea to land, with their inlets and sea spray, as well as the transition from sky to land, with touches of pink. Sea is occasionally portrayed in other Aegean paintings, but not as naturalistically as at Kea. In the Phylakopi Flying Fish Frieze, sea is distinguished by blue spume surrounding the fish like bubbles resulting from their movement, but the background itself is white. In other paintings the sea is blue (Thera, Hagia Triada, Argos, Pylos), with faint or distinct lines (Thera, Knossos), or, in one case, purple (Pylos). These are varied solutions to defining an element, and, while the Phylakopi painting is closest in spirit, none matches the portrayal of the Kea painting. In no other extant painting from the Aegean Bronze Age is the sky separately defined as blue, let alone with touches of gray and ocher and impasto white for the depiction of clouds. Indeed the portrayal of a cloudy sky is unprecedented in the surviving corpus of ancient art. The Northeast Bastion paintings display a unique approach to landscape painting—with extensive marsh, articulated sea and sky, and a more focused concentration on the natural setting than in any other surviving miniature frieze. This distinctive

portrayal no doubt reflects the intentions of the artists in expressing local phenomena.

Structures of Space Given the relatively small amount that has survived from the Kea Miniature Frieze, our understanding of the organization of the scenes within the overall layout of the frieze is limited. Yet a few observations can be made (cf. this vol., Ch. 7). Traces of blue and pink paint above the men and cauldrons (67) were most likely rocks. Judging from the shared context, it seems probable that a ship sailed beneath the Rocky Landscape as a continuation of the Cauldrons and Ships scene, as visualized in Figure 7.26. Such a relationship between ships and rocky land, indicative of a harbor, is precisely what we see in the Arrival Town at Thera, as well as in the fragmentary miniature painting of Tel Kabri. The two ends of the Thera frieze, where the towns lie, are both marked by a rocky promontory. Interestingly, the way in which the rocks are portrayed differ between the two—with marshy land descending to the coast on the left, and jagged multicolored rocks reaching to the sea on the right. Judging by the way they fell in the rooms of the Northeast Bastion, it is probable that the Marsh Landscape lay to the left of the Rocky Landscape on the east and south wall respectively (Fig. 7.27). This arrangement means that the landscapes of the different ends of the south wall of the Thera frieze are somewhat comparable in their geographic relationship to one another as the landscapes of the adjacent walls in the Kea frieze. Most striking is the analogous way in which the structure of the frieze changes on the wall to the left of the doorway leading through into the room with the Panels. On that wall, at Thera, as at Kea, human action gives way to an animal hunt, the animals being on a larger scale than the scenes of the other three walls (Fig. 11.3). That important analogy aside, there are as many differences as there are similarities, most notably the fact that the town(s) in the Kea Miniature Frieze lay on the opposite side of the room from the ships.

Cultural Interrelationships It is evident that the painters of the West House at Thera and the Northeast Bastion were aware of one

INTERCULTURAL CONNECTIONS: THE AEGEAN WORLD

another’s work. Whether the paintings were made at the same time is unclear, but surely they were executed within the same generation. One cannot necessarily assume that the West House paintings preceded those of the Northeast Bastion. Both buildings were constructed at the beginning of LC I, though under the LC I walls of the West House are indications of an earlier building with a similar orientation.63 Notably, beneath the wall paintings of Room 4 were remains of an earlier painting of splashes of thick red and white paint on a light blue ground.64 The fragments known as the Sponge Fresco from Knossos (ocher on dark blue) provide the earliest known instance of a version of this type of painting (MM II– MM IIIA).65 So-called splash patterns, apparently a development of this motif and evocative of the veining of rocks, are also known from Crete at Kommos (dark gray-blue on white) from beneath the Neopalatial Building T,66 the Knossos Royal Road and Petras, from MM III–LM I contexts, as well as from Trianda on Rhodes.67 These examples relate to the LC I Splash Pattern of Hall 37/39 in House A at Ayia Irini (ocher and white on dark blue).68 A similar pattern (white on dark blue) was apparently painted in Room V of the Temple at Kea.69 The implication of both the earlier layer of painting in Room 4 and the associated pottery in the rooms is that the Miniature Frieze and Panels of the West House were painted somewhat later, after the minor seismic destruction in early LC I.70 Given the intimate relationship between the construction of the Northeast Bastion and its wall paintings, it seems improbable that building and murals were not conceived in unison. Either the Northeast Bastion was built after the early LC I seismic destruction at Thera, or the Kea miniatures preceded the program of the West House. Given the shorter distance of Thera from Crete, one might expect the Kea Miniature Frieze to have been painted after the 63 Palyvou 1986, 191; 2005a, 35; Televantou 1994a, 358. 64 Televantou 1994a, 32, 129–130, 408, col. pl. 2, pls. 2, 3. 65 Evans 1921–1935, III, 361–364, fig. 238; Immerwahr 1990a, 22–23, 179, no. 2, fig. 6:e; Hood 2005, 56, col. pl. 8:1. Evans dated it to MM IIA, Hood to MM IIIA or earlier. 66 M. Shaw 2006, 182 (cat. 96), 224–225, pl. 2.38:a, b. 67 Davis 2007, 147. 68 Abramovitz 1980, 81–82, pl. 11:a; Davis 2007, 145–147, col. pl. 17.1:A–D. 69 See p. 39, n. 126. 70 Marthari 1990, esp. 67–68; 2000, 885; Televantou 1992, 145– 146, pl. XXXVIII; 1994a, 129–130, 357–362, 412; 2000, 833.

377

Thera one, or at least at the same time, but we cannot exclude the possibility that the sequence was the other way around. What is interesting is that the two earliest paintings executed at Ayia Irini in LC I—the splash pattern and the Miniature Frieze—both correspond to paintings of the West House at Akrotiri, the earlier and the later. There was clearly a close relationship between the West House and the Northeast Bastion. We have seen how the layout of the rooms in relation to the paintings, some of the techniques, most of the materials, and a great deal of the iconography is comparable. But what is missing is also significant. Interestingly, just as there are features of the Thera miniatures that are echoed in the art of the Mycenae Shaft Graves (some of which also have echoes in Crete)71 but do not appear in the Kea painting— notably lions hunting deer (Lion Hunt Dagger, Shaft Grave IV), large cat hunting birds by a river (inlaid dagger blade, Shaft Grave V), warriors by the coast (Siege Rhyton, Shaft Grave IV)—so the chariot and horses of the Kea Miniature Frieze appear at Mycenae (gold ring, Shaft Grave IV; stelae, Shaft Grave V) but not at Thera, except in an impression of a ring, evidently made on Crete. Some features of the Kea miniatures are to recur in the later wall paintings of the mainland, though on a larger scale: hunting dogs, chariots and horses, tunics, processions with produce, and cauldrons (albeit carried not used). What is unknown is whether there were any mainland wall paintings contemporary with the Shaft Graves that might have included any of these or other features of the miniatures of Kea and Thera. One 71 On aspects of the Thera Miniature Frieze reflected in Mycenaean art see Immerwahr 1977, Cameron 1978, Negbi 1978, Iakovides 1979, Davis 1981, Morgan 1988, 168–169, Niemeier 1990 (who draws attention to the need for caution in distinguishing Minoan and Mycenaean features at the beginning of the Late Bronze Age), and most recently, Vlachopoulos 2015 (who comments that perceptions of “identity” reflect individual researchers and interpretative trends). For the view that the Mycenae Shaft Grave art was executed by itinerant artists from Minoan Crete, see, e.g., Bloedow 1997. In a recent study, Thomas (2012) draws attention to formal similarities between the Thera paintings and Mycenae inlaid daggers, suggesting that artisans moved between media. See, however, the situation in Egypt and the Near East, in which artisans were defined primarily by the medium in which they worked (n. 88, below), and the relative lack of cross-craft movement between artisans in Greece and Rome (Burford 1972, 99).

378

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

would have thought that the elite occupants of the Shaft Graves, buried with such a rich array of images, had wall paintings in their grandest, albeit nonpalatial buildings, as we know was the case in the succeeding Early Palatial period of LH II–IIIA.72 Toward the end of LH IIIA, the House of the Oil Merchant had a small-scale narrative that included a hunt with dogs and hunters, horse and chariot, and buildings— all elements of the earlier, smaller scale Kea frieze. But grand buildings were not the hallmark of the mainlanders at the beginning of the Late Bronze Age, and at Mycenae the buildings of the living in LH I have simply not survived. Argos has also yielded some remarkable fragments of paintings from the earlier Mycenaean period that include male figures on a yellow background, a pole with a small container suspended from it, a charioteer, and animals (deer?), all echoes of elements of the Kea paintings. But these works, like the contemporary Mycenae paintings, are on a larger scale (the men are ca. 20–25 cm in height), and they include other elements such as birds (and, from a different composition, large-scale women on a blue background) not found at Kea.73 The Iklaina ship fragment belongs to the earliest known stage of Mycenaean painting (LH IIB–IIIA:1). From Ayios Vasilios (LH IIIA:2) came a fragment of a woman in a window that shares not only iconographic but also technical details with Kea, in the specific use of a string line on the right edge of the window frame (this vol., Ch. 4, p. 128 n. 83). Such coincidences of approach speak of missing links. At present, we are left with a significant void in terms of wall paintings for the periods contemporary with and immediately following the Cycladic paintings. Similarly, one must remember that our knowledge of Cretan wall paintings is limited. In the palace of Knossos, the earlier of the surviving paintings can 72 The earliest known at Mycenae is the LH IIA deposit below the East Lobby on the Acropolis, with plants and patterns (French and Shelton 2005). Wall paintings at Mycenae datable to LH IIIA were found beneath the Ramp House (Shaw 1996a, later than the date proposed by Lamb 1919–1921); Petsas House (Shelton 2015); the House of the Oil Merchant (Tournavitou 2012, 2015; see also Cameron and Meyer 1995, 282), and the House at Plakes (French and Shelton 2005, 176–177; Tournavitou 2012, 727; Iakovides 2013, 234–242, 308–315, pls. 64, 65). Cf. Chapin 2014, 40–41. 73 Tournavitou and Brecoulaki 2015. Study of the numerous fragments is at an early stage, but they are clearly of considerable importance for our understanding of the earlier phase of Mycenaean wall paintings. The associated pottery is LH IIIA:2.

rarely be dated precisely,74 while many belong to the later period, and it is quite possible that some LM IA paintings were replaced with new themes. Sealstones and particularly ring impressions offer parallels for many of the elements in the Kea miniatures otherwise missing from surviving Cretan wall paintings—dogs hunting deer, chariots and horses, robes, buildings with dome-like structures. Nonetheless, some patterns of similarities and differences can be detected through the surviving evidence, especially in relation to the specific format of the miniature frieze. On Crete, the closest parallel for the Kea miniatures is from Tylissos, both in the iconography, with men carrying produce, and in the layout, approaches, and outlook of the room that housed the Miniature Frieze. The presence of the large tripod cauldrons in the same building is striking. However, Tylissos is inland, so it has no iconography of the sea or ships. The only features of the Knossos miniatures that compare with Kea, other than the overall theme of large festive gatherings, is the trope of “women at windows,” otherwise pertaining to palatial rather than town environments. Many recurrent elements of Minoan painting on Crete, Thera, and (to a lesser extent) Phylakopi and Rhodes, are missing from Kea, not only in terms of the miniatures, which have their own range of components, but also in the Period VII paintings. There are no representations of bulls or bull-leapers; no monkeys, birds, or insects; no crocus, lily, papyrus, or palms; no large-scale female figures, flounced skirts, naked boys, long male hair, offering gesture, or contact sports; no beam ends, columns, checker patterns, rosettes or half-rosettes, double axes, shrines or altars, or “horns of consecration”; and no imitation stone dadoes, spirals, or background color changes. Some of these elements, notably architectural features and bull leaping, made it to mainland 74 Hood comments that only the House of the Frescoes and the South House can be assigned to LM IA with some degree of certainty (1990, addendum; 2005, 53, 67–68, no. 3, South House). Fragments from the North-West Fresco Heap may largely belong to LM IA (Hood 2005, 58–60, no. 3), while the miniature paintings from the Early Keep are probably slightly later than the Thera miniatures, LM IA–IB (Hood 2005, 63–64, no. 6), as are, according to Hood, the Priest King (Hood 2005, 68–69, no. 18), the Dolphin Fresco (Hood 2005, 71–72, no. 21), and the Dancing Lady (Hood 2005, 72, no. 22).

INTERCULTURAL CONNECTIONS: THE AEGEAN WORLD

painting, as seen in the relatively early Ramp House and later; others, such as monkeys, made it to Thera and Melos but not, it seems, to Kea or the mainland. Ships and the sea, common to the miniatures of Thera and Kea, recur much later in the recently discovered mainland paintings of Pylos, Iklaina, and Orchomenos, but despite the theme on numerous Minoan sealstones, have not yet appeared in the known corpus of paintings from Crete. What emerges from these patterns of similarities and differences is not unexpected: Kea, Thera, and probably Melos, have close connections to one another. Thera, the central hub in the network of interconnections, has more in common with Minoan Crete than does Kea, on the edge of the island web. Tylissos, urban rather than palatial, has more in common with the town paintings of Kea than have the palatial Knossos paintings, but as much in common with nearby Knossos as it does with distant Kea. The Knossos paintings are recalled in the slightly later Ramp House paintings at Mycenae, themselves suggestive of a palatial context. Distance is not the only factor. Geographic setting and architectural typology and function are crucial in relaying intercultural connections, while local factors distinctly influence reception. The same is true of the buildings themselves. Minoan architectural idiom filtered through the islands, notably at Akrotiri, but also to a lesser extent at other sites with wall paintings—Trianda, Phylakopi, and Ayia Irini (Period VII House A).75 But at none of these sites, even Akrotiri, is the architecture purely Minoan. As with wall paintings, no two Aegean buildings are identical, either in ground plan or in the components. Local traditions as well as local resources led to flexible approaches to construction,76 not only across sites but also within sites, as attested by the striking differences between the three houses at Tylissos.77 It is in the relationships between certain components as well as in the underlying organization and circulatory patterns that similarities become apparent.78 In these 75 See J. Shaw 1978a, 2009, 169–171; Hood 1990; Palyvou 1999; Hitchcock 2010, 196. 76 McEnroe 1982, 13–15; 1990. 77 Cadogan (1976, 145) raises the possibility that the three houses may have formed part of a larger town. Preziosi (1983, 42, 67) considers that House B may have been a storage annex to House A. Driessen (2005, 88), however, suggests that House B may have been a “banquet building” for House A. 78 Preziosi 1983, 7; Palyvou 1987.

379

terms, the structural and organizational patterns of the Northeast Bastion of Kea, the West House at Thera, and House A at Tylissos are all the more striking. The architectural complexes that housed miniature paintings must have had a defined social context. Such architectural patterns point to the circulation of conceptual ideas concerning architectural space and elite social action. As has been argued for the common architectural patterns of medieval halls, it is not so much a matter of social emulation but “an expression of common principles of power and authority,” providing familiar visual cues for modes of social behavior through spatial organization.79 Without doubt, Crete, as the source of many shared features, played a prime instrumental role in the process of intercultural connections, while Thera was the central link between island and Mediterranean coastal cultures, and Kea bridged the divide between the islands and the mainland. But in each cultural profile, there are too many individualistic elements to see the process as one-way. The grafting of cultural notions and idioms inevitably produces new hybrids,80 but the real affinities belong to the wider picture of people moving between centers with shared environmental and operative patterns, in this case coastal/ island urban settlements reliant on the sea for their economic well-being and wider worldview, creating social networks through the organization of their urban and rural space and the instigation and maintenance of community and inter-community activities. Patterns of relations are distinguishable, and the main points of contact discernible. Ultimately, though, we are looking at a web of interrelations, with each strand depending on those to which it was connected.

The Social Role of Miniature Wall Paintings Miniature wall paintings of the Aegean communities share some features but not others, the missing links being relevant to the environment in which they were created and to their potential reception. That ships are not portrayed in the Knossos 79 Johnson 2002, 169–170. 80 See Palyvou 2007, 2009b, where she proposes the term “Transcultural Integrated Elements.”

380

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

miniatures is not as surprising as it might seem, since despite the relative proximity of Knossos to the sea and its harbors, miniature wall paintings appear to focus on their immediate surroundings. Akrotiri and Ayia Irini lie directly on the coast, no doubt in view of their harbors, hence their emphasis on sea and ships. Knossos takes the palace, inside and out, as its setting, while for Tylissos outdoor space and building(s) are integrated. Kabri, slightly inland but with an iconography of boats and seascape, is something of an exception, though the site lies on a river within a short distance from the harbor. This fundamental choice of locale is explicable in terms of the underlying theme of all the miniatures, a theme that is particularized through iconographic choices appropriate to the social context. Each painting is set within a recognizable type of locale, and though specificity is less apparent than suitability in terms of how the towns are depicted, each range of settings— buildings, landscape, ships, and sea—is appropriate to the locality and/or emphasis of its representation. What unites the miniature paintings, despite local differences, is the fact that they all show public gatherings related to specific types of locale. Such localized choices combined with shared elements are comprehensible in terms of what I hold to be the underlying theme of all the miniatures—that of public festivals.81 The Miniature Frieze of Akrotiri has been seen by some to have resonance in the much later Homeric epics.82 Such analogies, cogent though they are, rest on similarities in tropes, thereby obscuring more fundamental differences in structure and content. As discussed in the Prologue (pp. 5–6), oral epic poetry (and not just Homer) utilizes a similar device to that of wall paintings in incorporating formulaic ideas and idioms to link and drive narrative elements and act as cues to memory and social reference. Yet despite this similarity of process and the undeniable echoes of a relatively small number of formulaic passages and motifs, the overall structure produces a quite different message. While there can be little doubt that storytelling would have been a part of Bronze Age life in the Aegean, and there are bound to have been links between images and oral 81 Previously: Morgan 1988 (on Thera), 1990, 1995b, 1998 (on Kea). Cf. Shaw 1997, 493, 495; more generally, in terms of wall paintings as “representations of social drama,” see German 2005. 82 Morris 1989, 2000; Hiller 1990; Watrous 2007; cf. Vlachopoulos 2007b (on Xeste 3); 2015, 53–55.

performance through formulaic scenes or tropes,83 there is no evidence to indicate that at the time of painting the images in miniature paintings referenced storytelling. Of particular importance in this regard is the fact that the miniature wall paintings of Thera and Kea, despite many similarities, do not replicate a recognizable narrative structure. Something other than a storytelling narrative unites them, something that also allies them with the miniature paintings of Tylissos and Knossos, each particularized in its own way. The overriding link is the emphasis on gatherings of people in locally defined spaces, with an emphasis on ceremonial action. These are not stories in the sense of adventures, but aspects of narrative structured through visual themes with a social context. The theme of festivals is not mutually exclusive from other aspects, such as daily life, commerce, ritual, or performance, all of which can be, and usually are, integral to public gatherings. Nor should there be an exclusive equation between “public festivals,” “ritual,” and “religion,” 84 a misunderstanding of three different terms that has broad implications. While most festivals in the ancient world were occasioned by calendrical or potent events underpinned by religion, organized by elites, and inevitably involving some ritualized or ceremonial behavior, for the people who took part in them, the gatherings themselves would have been primarily social. Nor is there any contradiction between the recognition in miniature wall paintings of spectators, processions, or other socially cohesive activities and the identification of a thematic emphasis on public festivals.85 Quite the contrary, since most festivals include performances and spectators. Interpretation of the overarching theme of miniature paintings as public festivals does not constitute an opposition to the recognition of narrative threads pertaining to a range of social 83 Cf. Bennet 2004, 2007. See also Cain 1997, 188–189, 209, on the use of parataxis in epic poetry and the oral tradition in comparison with the “patchwork” diversity of scenes on the north wall of the West House; Thomas 1992, on shared approaches to oral traditions and visual art. 84 As Sarah Morris (2000, 324) discusses in her critique of my use of the word “festival” in the context of miniature paintings (Morgan 1990). 85 As claimed by Morris (2000, 326) with reference to Tylissos: “While some scholars would inevitably see this as a ‘festival’ and a scene of ritual significance, Maria Shaw suggested some form of game or competition, including dance, witnessed by spectators and culminating in the awarding of vessels as prizes” (Shaw 1972).

INTERCULTURAL CONNECTIONS: THE AEGEAN WORLD

context. It merely puts the focus where it belongs. The implications of this important conclusion are explored in the next chapter and the Epilogue.

Artists and Patrons Questions about the artists and their patrons inevitably arise. Were the artists local or from Crete, Thera, or Melos? Did they train abroad? Who commissioned the paintings? Who was the audience? Some musings on these questions, fundamentally unverifiable in the passage of time, are offered here, while the question of reception is addressed in the following chapter. The process of creating a wall painting is long and complex. To what extent this process involved people other than the painters themselves—builders, plasterers, and those responsible for acquiring and preparing pigments—is unknown, but it is likely that the painters were involved at every stage. Organization of space and the structure of the wall surface determine the format of the painting. Panels require an uninterrupted vertical stretch of wall from dado to the equivalent height of the horizontal tops of doors and windows in the same room. A miniature frieze requires a framework of horizontal wooden beams above the windows and doors. The height of the frieze is determined by the spacing of those beams, which need to stand slightly proud of the wall in order to contain the plaster. For a miniature frieze in particular, construction of the room presupposes knowledge of the format of the ensuing painting. Wall painting is a team effort. The technical knowledge and experience required for successful painting on lime plaster, whether fresco or secco, is considerable, and it is intimately connected with an understanding of the properties of pigments. Since paint and plaster are inextricably linked (no matter what the binding medium), one might surmise that one group of artisans was responsible for the entire process, with who did what no doubt dependent on experience. In medieval Europe, painters operating within workshops were responsible for the plastering as well as the preparation of pigments and the application of paint.86 In Roman painting the plasterer was often a trainee painter, while each workshop had at least three specialists (figures, landscape, ornaments), along with 86 Binski 1991, 48, 53.

381

one or two assistants, and the overall content was overseen by the patron.87 In ancient Egypt and the Near East, where the artist or craftsman was defined more by the material in which he worked than by the status of the project, there was no linguistic distinction between artist and craftsman.88 This situation is echoed in Mycenaean Greek, which, in the surviving documents, has no word translatable as “artist” or “painter” (see n. 121, below). For the large projects of temples and tombs in Egypt, there was considerable specialization in the division of labor, but all worked together as a team. In the case of painted wall reliefs, separate craftsmen were responsible for plastering, guidelines and grids, preliminary drawings, carving, and application of paint.89 An “overseer of craftsmen of painters and sculptors” held responsibility for the project as a whole.90 One can imagine a smaller-scale group of craftsmen working together on the (now largely lost) domestic and palatial wall paintings. Textual studies of the organization of the Deir el-Medina artists working in royal tombs show that groups were assigned particular sides of the rooms, though the master worked on both. However, Cathleen Keller’s study of the nonroyal tomb TT 359 shows a different approach, in which walls were divided into units for which each draftsman and his team was responsible for both text and pictures.91 Interestingly, these units, though adjacent, were not divided along a vertical line on the wall but ranged in length across the different registers.92 Studies of unfinished Theban tombs are especially instructive. Betsy Bryan, analyzing the Eighteenth 87 Ling 1991, 215–217. 88 Egypt: Drenkhahn 1976, 1–2, 158–161; 1995, 338; cf. Baines (1994) 2007b, 300. Near East: Mathews 1995, 455, 463. In Egypt, artists and carpenters are depicted as of similar status, though sculptors are sometimes identified by name (Baines [1994] 2007b, 307). The word interpreted as “craft” (hmt) was also used to refer to doctors and lector priests (Baines [1994] 2007b, 300), much as we might refer to “the art of medicine” or “the art of magic.” In the Mari archives, the Akkadian term translated as ‘“artisan” (mā ummênim) covered not just craftsmen, such as carpenters, masons, and blacksmiths, but also scribes, physicians, cooks, gardeners, and others with specialized or technical skills attached to the palace bureaucracy (Gunter 1990, 12; Sasson 1990, 23). Other Mesopotamian archives (from Ur and Isin) list groups of specialist craftsmen (Moorey 1999, 15), none of whom could be interpreted as painters. 89 Drenkhahn 1995, 336–337. 90 Drenkhahn 1995, 339. 91 Keller 2001. 92 Keller 2001, figs. 8–10, 12.

382

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

Dynasty Tomb of Suemniwet (TT 92), showed how, in terms of bodily proportions of figures, the tomb chapel was broken up into “draftsman zones,” several of which may be definable on a single wall, not necessarily breaking according to the type of scene.93 It seems that the process of painting moved from left to right up the wall, certain colors being applied before others, thereby enabling the use of fresh batches of pigment mixed with gum before they congealed. Sequential zones were begun before the completion of the previous one. “Painting in several areas of the wall more or less simultaneously is strongly suggested,” comments Bryan.94 This idea implies accommodation to the logistics of physical space for the workers, and it would also have enabled the overseer to observe the overall progress. In a tomb chapel with three rooms, Bryan estimates an astonishing 25 draftsmen, with 12 to 13 (of the more skilled artists) in the Front Room alone, which, with the addition of assistants for wall preparation and pigment preparations, brings the total number of people employed over time in the three rooms to close to 80, somewhat higher than estimates for Deir el-Medina, with a common range of 40 to 60.95 It is highly implausible that so many people were involved in the execution of Aegean wall paintings, which cover much less space, though the Egyptian example provides a salutary lesson in the logistics of workshop methods. One observation that may have direct bearing on the Kea paintings is Bryan’s conclusion that gridded areas were mainly worked on by a team of artists and apprentices, while freehand painting, without the aid of a grid, was the domain of the master (as was the case in Byzantine painting). In that respect, the unusual use of short string lines for the architecture of the Kea Miniature Frieze speaks of relative inexperience compared to the bold freehand execution of the landscape. For the Aegean, the task of identifying “hands”— individual artists—has been undertaken by several scholars, notably Cameron, who identified workshops at Knossos, and by Mary Hollinshead, Ellen Davis, and Christina Televantou for Akrotiri, which, given the level of preservation, offers the most opportunities for attribution.96 Several scholars have stressed

the primacy of Knossos in the dissemination of wall paintings to Thera.97 Yet, recognizing that the original impetus came from Minoan Crete, Ellen Davis and I independently identified specifically Cycladic aspects of the paintings of Thera, Melos, and Kea,98 while Televantou identifies “an original and prolific local workshop” at Akrotiri.99 She sees a “Miniaturist” artist responsible for the organization of the West House program, working with “a group of assistants and pupils.”100 Similarly, Kiki Birtacha and Manolis Zacharioudakis’ identification of modular contours in the execution of large-scale figures at Akrotiri implies the existence of a local school of painters.101 That the Theran artists learned the technical skills of mural painting through, and were inspired by, Cretan artists is surely without doubt. Equally, allowing for the differences in preservation between Theran and Cretan paintings and the wider range of dates for the latter, it is surely apparent that a local school did indeed thrive at Akrotiri. Given what we know of mural painting, ancient and modern, fresco or secco, the work was surely undertaken within a group. But attribution to individual artists is a hazardous task, since not knowing the organization of the artists’ groups puts one at a disadvantage in distinguishing individuals within the group. Rosemary Robertson relates recently meeting a family group of four Serbian scene painters who had been commissioned to paint trompe l’oeil murals in France.102 Although one was the more skilled at figures and therefore took precedence over the figurative, each member of the family painted some part of each aspect of the painting—figures, landscape, buildings, and so forth—in an attempt to create a unified style. We cannot assume that the Kea painters divided their work strictly according to subject. The clear patterns in the application of paints suggest that different stages might have been worked on by different artists simultaneously in different parts of the frieze, as is implied by Bryan’s observations on the Tomb of Suemniwet. Bryan also cites the ambiguities of attribution to individual hands, pointing out that trainee artists may have adopted similar outline patterns to the master, who may himself have outlined other’s

93 Bryan 2001. 94 Bryan 2001, 66. 95 Bryan 2001, 70. 96 Cameron 1975; Hollinshead 1989; Televantou 1992; 1994a, 375–383; 2000; Davis 2000. For attribution studies as relating to Aegean Bronze age art in general, see, in particular, Cherry 1992 (with extensive references to other authors) and Morris 1993.

97 Cameron 1978, 590; Marinatos 1984, 117–178; cf. 1990; Immerwahr 1990a, 39–40, 160–161; Boulotis 2000. 98 Davis 1990; Morgan 1990. 99 Televantou 2000, 831; cf. Doumas 1983, 123–124. 100 Televantou 2000, 839; on painters and the Theran workshop, cf. Televantou 1994a, 375–383, 410–412. 101 Birtacha and Zacharioudakis 2000. 102 R. Robertson, pers. comm. 2010.

INTERCULTURAL CONNECTIONS: THE AEGEAN WORLD

figures. It is only possible, she comments, to “identify traits of a work group, including color choices, layering techniques, and outline attributes.”103 If I were to make one subjective observation on this subject, it would be to say that the painters responsible for the landscape were skilled and experienced, as well as highly innovative, while the male figures, delightfully quirky though they are, reveal a relatively hasty execution. That said, the men in the Kea frieze are considerably more individual than those from the miniatures of either Thera or Crete. The concept of itinerant painters, working on commission under the auspices of authoritative patronage, has been much discussed in recent years, especially with the discovery of wall paintings using Aegean techniques, iconography, and idioms at the distant sites of Tell el-Dabca and Tel Kabri. Traveling craftsmen, including painters, are known to have circulated between the palaces of the Near East,104 providing a model for the concept of traveling painters in the Aegean.105 On Crete, the central authority at Knossos may well have overseen the establishment and organization of certain workshops, with the training of apprenticeships106 and control over provision of pigments.107 Yet we have seen that pigments were stored at Ayia Irini in buildings that were not themselves painted, implying local control of materials. Davis cites the spread of the splash pattern technique, which originated on Crete, to Kea and Rhodes as an identifiable case for itinerant painters.108 Christos Boulotis comments that the density of wall paintings at Akrotiri contrasts strikingly with the relatively few buildings painted at Ayia Irini or Phylakopi, and he suggests that specialists from Akrotiri’s own resident workshops would have traveled to towns in which paintings were needed in a limited number of buildings, making Thera responsible for the spread of wall paintings in the Cyclades.109 All 103 104 105 106

Bryan 2001, 68–69. Zaccagnini 1983. Boulotis 2000. But cf. Muhly 2005. Cameron 1975, 358–364; Shaw 1997, 484; Boulotis 2000; Gates 2004. 107 Boulotis 2000, 851. 108 Davis 2007, 145–147. Davis (2007, 148) further cites floral fragments recently discovered at Galatas from a closed MM IIIA context (Rethemiotakis 2002, 57) as being influential for what she considers on stylistic grounds to be the earliest paintings at Ayia Irini, attributed by her to Period V, those found in a dump in Building M. Building M, however, was built in Period VII and used through Period VIII, so the dating of the dump is hypothetical. 109 Boulotis 2000, 853–854.

383

these are cogent arguments for the physical movements of painters between the islands. There can be little doubt that artists traveled, but who painted what and where remains unknown. Having looked closely at the fragments, I am aware of how accomplished the artists were at applying their paints. The compositions are complex, and the colors were applied with considerable skill. At the same time, the Miniature Frieze is both idiosyncratic (witness the profiles of the men) and innovative (the sky, marsh, and sea). These were not, I would say, artists that we can identify as being from Crete, Thera, or Melos, but neither were they novices imitating the artists from those islands. In my opinion, these were painters who had trained with experienced mural painters but who then experimented with their own approaches within the traditions of contemporary culture. Most likely the work was overseen by an itinerant “master,” and certainly they had an expert in the painting of landscape, but the innovations they created were used only on Kea and were not carried over into the art of Thera or Crete. Some of the iconography was, in terms of wall paintings of the time, at the forefront: chariot, deer hunt, dogs. But these appear contemporaneously in other media. Other experimental (and to modern eyes highly successful) features—cloudy or pink and blue sky, transitions of splashing waves onto land, spume on the sea—were apparently not repeated by other painters elsewhere, either contemporaneously or later. We can, of course, only argue on the basis of what has survived, and new discoveries could overturn such musings in the future. But enough has survived for us to know that the tendency in succeeding periods was toward less rather than more atmospheric landscape. At Kea, the slightly later paintings of Period VII do away with landscape elements and place their doves or dolphins against a plain background. That such painterly approaches as those created by the artists of the Miniature Frieze were not carried through into the next generations is astonishing. It takes many years to learn the craft of wall painting, particularly when working with lime plaster. How did they learn and from whom? In the Near East, as later in Greek and Roman societies, crafts were usually taught in families rather than through formal apprenticeships, a situation that no doubt pertained throughout the ancient world.110 But these 110 Burford 1972, 82–84; Mathews 1995, 463. Cf. Cameron 1975, 269.

384

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

paintings at Ayia Irini appear suddenly, with no apparent tradition of either polychrome wall paintings or figurative pottery. This development contrasts sharply with the situation at Akrotiri, which had a thriving MC tradition of pictorial pottery.111 Many of the plants and animals on the Theran pots were among those later represented in the paintings of Akrotiri: crocus, swallows, griffin, lion, dolphin. Birds, griffins, dolphins, and plants were also a notable feature of MC pictorial pottery of Phylakopi.112 Most significantly, male (though not female) human figures occur on the MC pottery of both sites, notably in the Libation Jug from Akrotiri and the Fishermen vase from Phylakopi.113 Furthermore, the combinations of elements have structural meanings referencing environment and ritual action, a cognitive approach to images that is most suited to mural art.114 Kea had no such tradition. A griffin vase found in House A is said by Marisa Marthari to have been imported from Thera,115 otherwise there is a dearth of imagery. The relative lack of imported pottery from Thera at Ayia Irini in Period VI116 is somewhat surprising, given the relationships between the miniature wall paintings in particular. Without a local tradition of pictorial imagery, the introduction of representational art at the same time as the technical understanding of mural painting heralds a major shift of awareness. How was the knowledge of this intricate and difficult craft transmitted and from whom? This question is intimately tied to the issue of intercultural connections. The extent of intercultural connections in this period is now well documented (this vol., Ch. 1, pp. 17– 22). What is less understood and less retrievable are the mechanisms for the complex interactions and extraordinary changes that occurred. What we are witnessing at Ayia Irini is more complex than the compilation of singular influences brought about through trade. The input is both more subtle and more complex than simple copying or grafting of 111 Marthari 2000, 2018; Papagiannopoulou 2008, 2018; Nikolakopoulou 2010; cf. Immerwahr 1990b. 112 Edgar 1904, 118–143, pls. XVI, XXI–XXIV. 113 Libation Jug: Papagiannopoulou 2008, 441–444, figs. 40.14–40.20; and cf. this vol., Ch. 12, n. 20; Fishermen vase: Atkinson et al. 1904, 123–125, 263–264, fig. 95, pl. XXII. Commentary: Marthari 2000, 884. 114 The issue of the relationship between pottery and wall paintings in terms of the origins of narrative content has been much discussed. See recently Marthari 2000 (with references to early publications on p. 874); Papagiannopoulou 2008, 446; 2018; regarding Kea: Morgan 2018b. 115 Marthari 1998. 116 Berg 2006, 139; cf. Cummer and Schofield 1984, 145.

motifs into new compositions. Firstly, there is the adoption of a new technology, mural painting, involving specialized knowledge of materials and techniques; secondly, there is the adoption of figurative representation; and thirdly, there is the application of this knowledge and experience to specific themes within defined architectural and spatial layouts. Together, these constitute the input that precipitated the making of the paintings. In terms of the adoption of a new technology, wall painting, already with a history on Crete, appears to be relatively new to Ayia Irini with the building of the Northeast Bastion and the early stages of House A.117 When figurative art in general and miniature painting in particular became a feature of Cretan painting, it appeared almost simultaneously on Thera and Kea and no doubt Melos. But unlike Akrotiri and Phylakopi, Ayia Irini did not have a MC tradition of figurative art in pottery. It was, therefore, a double innovation. Reception of these innovations was dynamic. The artists, who presumably trained with Cretan or Theran painters, learned their new craft with skill and applied it with confidence. Yet they were painting in a different locale, away from the sources of initial knowledge. As a result, their output was strikingly individual, combining tried-and-tested techniques and themes with new ideas and innovative approaches. Most subtle and most significant in this process of cultural interconnections is the relationship between architectural space and the layout of the paintings. We have seen that Tylissos to some extent and the West House in particular share with the Northeast Bastion important aspects of access, orientation, relationship of interior to exterior space, layout of the paintings, and probable function of the rooms. This relationship speaks of underlying links on an organizational level, reflecting the circulation of ideas on appropriate spatial principles for particular social contexts. In the absence of contemporary texts, the question of who commissioned the painters to work in the Northeast Bastion remains unanswerable. Only hypotheses within a range of plausible options informed by documents from contemporary cultures can be offered. In Egypt, craftsmen were responsible to domestic, palace, and temple officials.118 In the Near East, too, craftsmen were organized in workshops administrated by the palace or temple, but they were also 117 But see this vol., Ch. 1, p. 40 n. 143, on a few small fragments from Period V. 118 Drenkhahn 1995, 332–334.

INTERCULTURAL CONNECTIONS: THE AEGEAN WORLD

“redistributed” to other locations, and a degree of independence may have been operative.119 Raw materials and even tools were provided by the patrons.120 Nothing is known of patronage in the Aegean, outside what can be gleaned from references in the Linear B tablets to craftsmen. Painters and wall paintings are not mentioned at all, whereas workers of portable crafts whose production is controlled through the palace are.121 Evidence exists for the system of apprenticeship at Knossos, at least in reference to weaving,122 and a few personal names related to craft activities have royal epithets.123 Craftsmen attached to the palaces who were responsible for buildings are named as masons (to-ko-do-mo) and carpenters (teko-to), but no workers are identifiable as plasterers or painters. Interestingly, five carpenters are associated with 45 fief-holders on a Knossos tablet124 and some carpenters on a Pylos tablet are mentioned as missing,125 while on another tablet from Pylos masons are to build in four separate towns.126 These tablets are surely evidence of traveling craftsmen, taking their architectural skills to commissions outside their areas of residence.127 Linear B tablets, of course, pertain to a period later than the Kea wall paintings and are, by default, palatial. Yet the system of apprenticeship and the apparent itinerant movements of craftsmen responsible for architectural construction are instructive and no doubt had antecedents. Equally, the silence about mural painters is noteworthy. Were plasterers included in the category of masons? Were mural painters less dependent on the palaces for their commissions? Or, since paintings were made infrequently, is it that painters are simply not mentioned in the tablets that have survived? At the beginning of the LBA, the phenomenon of traveling painters within the wider circulation of technologies and ideas of the time is surely in 119 Mathews 1995, 456–459, 465. 120 Moorey 1999, 13–14. 121 I.e., potters, bow-makers, leather-workers, shipbuilders, metal-workers (bronze and gold): Ventris and Chadwick 1973, esp. 123; see 606–614 for specific tablets. Cf. Brysbaert 2008, 157, on the lack of painters in the tablets; and Gregersen 1997, on craftsmen in Linear B. 122 Ak series, di-da-ka-re “under instruction” and di-di-kuja “having served their training”: Ventris and Chadwick 1973, 162–164; cf. Boulotis 2000, 851. 123 Gregersen 1997, 44–46. 124 Ventris and Chadwick 1973, 179–80, no. 47 = Am826 125 Ventris and Chadwick 1973, 182, no. 51 = An20. 126 Ventris and Chadwick 1973, 174, no. 41 = An14, to build in Pylos, Me-te-to, Sa-ma-ra, Leuktron. 127 Cf. Boulotis 2000, 845.

385

evidence. The question of whether such painters were dependent on a central authority or working to commission from local authorities (“borrowed” from their resident workshops) is unanswerable, but the principle of traveling painters combined with the fact that mural painting is a group activity alerts us to the inscrutable nature of the question of origins for the painters of a particular commission. For Ayia Irini, a combined workforce of local craftsmen alongside experienced painters from Crete and/or Thera (and perhaps Melos) is a likely scenario.128 They would be working as a team, bringing a diversity of experience and awareness of techniques, idioms, and iconographic trends to a project with a specific architectural and cultural context, whose reception would have been foreseen in the commission. Ultimately, what is significant (and retrievable) is not so much the physical movements of craftsmen, but the knowledge and use of materials, techniques, and especially ideas in the development of social networks and cultural interaction.129 Most importantly, these are intimately tied to the functions of the wall paintings within their architectural settings130 and to the social role of their reception.131 The building of the fortification wall extension with its Northeast Bastion was a massive undertaking that would have required considerable organization, resources, and labor. There had to be very good reason for such effort and outlay. There is nothing to suggest that such an undertaking was controlled from abroad. On the contrary, there is every indication that it was a local response to increased contacts with Minoan Crete in particular, but also mainland Greece and the other Cycladic islands, with, no doubt, Thera and Melos top of the list. From the outside looking in, it was a visible expression of power and protection for the town, and from the inside looking out, it provided a crucially strategic view over the approach to the town and a secure, prestigious meeting 128 Much later, at Persepolis, many craftsmen from abroad, including Egyptians and Ioanians, are listed as working together on the stonework, but this diversity of origin is not visible in the finished product, which adheres to Achaemenid idiom, itself drawing from Assyrian, Egyptian, and Greek elements (Mathews 1995, 456–457, 464). 129 Cf. Winter 2000; Brysbaert 2008, 186–195. 130 See for example Marinatos 1984, 1985; Hägg 1985; Blakolmer 1995; 2000a; 2010. 131 In relation to the wider question of “Minoan” paintings in Egypt and the Near East, see Sherratt 1994, 237–238; Knapp 1998, 198–202; Feldman 2007, 2008, 282–284; Morgan 2010b, 265.

386

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

place and banqueting hall for elites. Whoever authorized the building of the Northeast Bastion was surely also responsible for commissioning its wall paintings. The orders must have come from within, albeit from an administrative elite well versed in current trends, technological advances, and artistic idioms and iconography radiating from Crete into the Cycladic islands and beyond, and also well aware of the impact that their commission would have in terms of reception at home and among visiting elites from abroad.

The Power of Paint: Community and Trade In this study, we have witnessed the extraordinary phenomenon of a small yet dynamic island culture spectacularly articulating its newly expanded role in the network of intercultural connections through the symbiotic relationship of architecture and wall paintings. Before turning to the social and cultural significance of this phenomenon in the next chapter, some questions may be posed as to the wider role of Ayia Irini at this particular time. The beginning of Period VI was a time of significant rearrangement on the eastern side of the town, in which the building of the completely new Northeast Bastion with its wall paintings was a crucial component. By this time, Tower e to the south had gone out of use.132 Further south, major repairs were undertaken to the Gateway area, including the rebuilding of the fortification wall and its inner rooms to the northwest in Area Z and the southeast in Area G.133 The Temple, having apparently lain damaged during Period V, was repaired.134 Large parts of House A were built at this time, among the first to be constructed being the ceremonial painted hall A.37/39 with its large adjacent courtyard (A.36).135 What the Northeast Bastion replaced was twofold: Tower e, which lies further south and is much less significant in scale and position, and the fortified 132 133 134 135

J. Davis 1986, 12. J. Davis 1986, 14, cf. 68, 70. J. Caskey 1986. Cummer and Schofield 1984, 30–31, cf. pl. 4. Schofield and Davis point out that the relative lack of Period V deposits beneath House A may in part be the result of the fact that excavation stopped in many rooms when the LBA floor was reached (J. Davis 1986, 73). On present evidence, however, it is clear that construction on House A as we know it largely began in Period VI and finished in Period VII.

position of the northeast block of rooms of the Northern Section, N.11–N.15 (Figs. 1.4, 1.6). New walls around this block effectively enclosed the rooms into the town, removing them from the position of border rooms on the interface between interior and exterior space. Analysis of this area in Period VI awaits the publication of the Northern Sector by Evi Gorogianni and Rodney Fitzsimons. For the moment, one can say that during Period V Room N.15 had a hearth built against the fortification wall with traces of burning, and a large destruction deposit of pottery was found in the room, including numerous cups along with bowls, jugs, and other vessels,136 while N.11–N.12 combined has the characteristic form of a switchback staircase. It is possible that above this suite of rooms was a dining hall. The area was damaged in Period V. With the rebuilding phase of early Period VI, the Northeast Bastion provided a much grander, more prominent replacement. It combines the function of a protective tower with what was surely a banqueting and meeting hall on a massive scale, positioned much more strategically than its predecessor, jutting out beyond the old line of the wall, so that windows on the upper story would directly face the main Gateway to the south (Figs. 1.4, 1.6:c). Simultaneously (at most within a generation) the Northeast Bastion and the first part of House A were built; the main Gateway and fortification wall lying between them were rebuilt, enclosing a series of workshops directly adjacent to the Temple; and the Temple itself was repaired. It is in this area that the majority of the pigment samples were found, mostly in Building G (this vol., Ch. 9, pp. 340–342; Pls. 72–74), a long building, lining the inside of the massively repaired town wall adjacent to the new Gateway, parallel to the Temple, separated from it only by a lane.137 Taken together, these major changes to the eastern side of the town surely herald a response to the rapidly expanding relationships between Kea and its Aegean neighbors in the trading network of the time. 136 J. Davis 1986, 52–60. 137 Though (like Areas Z and L, in which pigments were also found) Area G has not yet been studied, preliminary investigations indicate that the deposits with pigments are datable to Periods VI–VII. Given the major rebuilding of the area in Period VI, it is likely that most are contemporary with the Northeast Bastion. It is also possible that this area housed ocher in Period V, as a couple of pieces alongside a cup filled with plaster were found in the destruction level beneath the LBA floor of G.6 (J. Davis 1986, 72). However, none of the other field numbers for the pigments are listed as Period V in J. Davis’s concordance (1986, 116).

INTERCULTURAL CONNECTIONS: THE AEGEAN WORLD

The fact that the pigments were housed between the main Gateway and the Temple, in the vicinity of the administrative House A and within the wall overlooked by the Northeast Bastion, is surely significant. These were the very first rooms encountered on entering the town. How, then, does all this information reflect on the importance of Kea in the network of intercultural communications? Each island community that developed into a major settlement must have had a specific commodity that made it useful beyond its role as a stepping stone to the next destination. Melos had its obsidian; Thera perhaps exported saffron and textiles.138 Kea, which also has some of its own sources of metals, was no doubt important for its proximity to the mines of Lavrion. But there is another scenario, tentative, but worth posing. The numerous pieces of what appear to be ocher, with an extraordinarily wide range of hues, that were found on the site of Ayia Irini give pause for thought. It is hoped that future analyses of these pieces, viewed in relation to the samples from the Kea ocher mines and the pigments on painted plasters, may reveal their source and destination. In the meantime, some preliminary thoughts are offered regarding the possible significance of this discovery in relation to the Aegean world. First, there is the matter of the strategic location in which many of these pieces were found: inside the fortification wall, adjacent to the main Gateway and directly opposite the Temple. A pattern of cult buildings located in proximity to fortification walls, sometimes close to the main gateway, and near workshops is characteristic of Mycenaean citadels,139 spatially linking economics and religion in what was most likely a symbiotic relationship. At Mycenae, in particular, the Cult Centre and workshops were located relatively near the main gateway of the fortification wall, their significance in the trading network highlighted by their proximity to the interface between interior and exterior space of the community. Area G might have been just such an industrial workshop area. Where did these pigments come from, and where were they destined for? Is it possible that they were only for local use, or were they intended for a wider 138 Tzachili 1990. Doumas (2005) proposes that Akrotiri traded both its own products and those of others. 139 Whittaker 1997, 12, 23–24 154–155. The placement of workshop(s) near cult buildings in proximity to citadel walls is evident at Mycenae and has also been identified at Midea and Phylakopi. Cf. Kition on Cyprus, where the workshops communicated with the area of the temples (Karageorghis 1976, 59–94).

387

market? Of the several miltós mines identified on the island,140 one lies within easy reach of Ayia Irini. The cave mine of Trypospilies in the hills of Kalamos lies just over 1 km from the northern coast to the east of Otzias (Fig. 1.2). Inside the cave, the bright yellow and red iron oxides dazzle as they reveal themselves in the rock face (Pl. 74:c, d). Boats could easily have transported the material to Ayia Irini, while for small quantities, the site lies only four or five kilometers overland from the cave. Might this ocher, sought after in Classical times for its exceptional quality, also have been valued during the Bronze Age? What obsidian was for Melos, emery was to Naxos, and marble was to Samos, perhaps ocher was to Kea—an important trade item widely distributed throughout the Aegean. Iron ore deposits occur throughout the world, but there are “relatively few . . . that are both sufficiently pure and possess an acceptable color and brightness to merit processing to pigment form.”141 There are, therefore, precedents for the widespread trade of excellent ochers both in antiquity and throughout history elsewhere in the world. In antiquity, besides the most valued red ocher, miltós of Kea, red ocher from Lemnos and Cappadocia were highly prized,142 while the best yellow ocher was mined (near Kea) at Lavrion in Attica,143 and a white earth used as a pigment was exported from its source in Melos.144 As in Antiquity, sinope, mined in Cappadocia, was exported to Italy from the Black Sea during the Italian Renaissance, where it gave its name to the preliminary drawings of frescoes. Length of journey was not a deterrent. Strikingly, Australian aborigines, despite plentiful local sources, traveled hundreds of miles on dangerous journeys to obtain the best red ocher (for use as a pigment, medicine, and in ritual), thereby creating a network of ocher trading across the continent.145 In recent times, major sources mined for commercial use and widely exported include sites in southern France (notably Roussillon), Italy (raw sienna), Spain, Cyprus (umber), and the Persian Gulf (hematite).146 140 Cherry, Davis, and Mantzourani 1991, 127, 299–303; Photos Jones et al. 1997. 141 Love 1973, 323. 142 Theophr. De lapidibus 52–53 (Caley and Richards 1956, 56); Plin. HN 35.13.31–14.33. 143 Kakoulli 2009b, 51, citing Theophr. De lapidibus 51; Vitr. De arch. 7.7.1; Plin. HN 33.158; Dioscorides 5.108; cf. Eastaugh et al. 2004a, 401. 144 Photos-Jones and Hall 2011, 78–83. 145 Sagona 1994, 8–9; cf. Sagona and Webb 1994, 137–138; Finlay 2002, 33–36. 146 See for example Love 1973, 323–324, table 1; Thomas 1980, 13–14; Eastaugh et al. 2004a, 279–280, 320; Helwig 2007, 60–67.

388

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

In Aegean wall painting, ochers form the basis of all compositions. Good quality material offering a wide range of hues would have been much sought after. In addition, ochers had other uses in antiquity besides as a pigment for wall paintings: notably for the hulls of ships,147 as well as for medicine148 and cosmetics.149 While not as visible or easy to find as the striking red quarries of Roussillon, the ocher of Kea, famous in later antiquity and offering a stunning variety of hues, might well have been of particular significance in the ancient trading network of the Bronze Age.

Summary Given the complex patterns of interrelations, the issues of artistic identification and source of commission, and the significance of Ayia Irini in the wider Aegean world, an intricate web has been spun here rather than a neat line of conclusions. This brief summary highlights the main issues and opens the arena for future discussion. Miniature friezes, I maintain, were concerned with local festivals. It is therefore to be expected that the closest parallel of those that have survived should be with comparable locales: the Ayia Irini frieze is comparable first with Akrotiri, itself a Cycladic harbor town, then somewhat more distantly with a house at Tylissos, and only tangentially with palatial Knossos. Wall painting was new to Kea at this time, and there is no local tradition of figurative pottery. Yet the artists were skilled and innovative. Many features of iconography and modes of painting are unparalleled: cooking in cauldrons, individualization of faces, extensive marsh, cloudy sky, sea-land and sky-land 147 Cherry, Davis, and Mantzourani 1991, 300; Photos-Jones and Hall 2011, 73. One of the Homeric epithets for ships is miltopareos (Nosch 2004, 35), while the equivalent in Linear B, mi-to-we-sa-e, is associated with chariots (KN Sd404, KN Sd407, Ventris and Chadwick 1973, 367, 562). In Galleries 2 and 3 of the LM III shipsheds identified at Kommos (Building P; see this vol., Ch. 5, p. 136) hematite (red ocher) was found associated with burning on the floors, implying industrial use, most likely for the caulking of ships (Shaw and Shaw, eds., 2006, 76, 78). 148 For the medicinal use of earths see the index in PhotosJones and Hall 2011; Hannah 2004, 102. In the Egyptian Ebers Papyrus, dated to the reign of Amenhotep I, ocher (sty) is prescribed, mixed with other ingredients, for numerous ailments (Nunn [1996] 2002, 72, 146, 160, 182, 198–199, 201). 149 On the possible use of miltós as a (male, Attic) cosmetic, see Hannah 2004.

transitions, spume and splashing sea, bramble, and entwined plants. Several other features appear for the first time in wall paintings: tunic, chariot, horses, and dogs. The combination of the hunt, returning hunter with prey, men bringing produce in containers, and cooking in cauldrons provides a remarkable narrative of preparations for feasting. Most importantly, the strategic location of the paintings within the Northeast Bastion is unprecedented. Given that each Aegean painting is individual and much in the Northeast Bastion is unique, despite the preeminence of Knossos as the source of cultural innovation and the extraordinarily rich artistic expression of Akrotiri, it is not possible to attribute the work at Ayia Irini to itinerant painters from a specific locale. What is clear is that artists were traveling, absorbing, and producing local variations on a format of mural painting that belonged to this particular era and no doubt had a specific range of functions. More profound than iconographic parallels is the relationship between Akrotiri, Tylissos, and Ayia Irini that is implied by structural similarities in the arrangement of rooms and images. Architecture and murals are inextricably linked, and whoever commissioned the Northeast Bastion is likely to have commissioned the wall paintings. This is not to suggest that those commissioning came from either Thera or Crete, but rather that there were at the time certain conceptual ideas linked to the functionality of certain buildings, ideas that were circulating and were clearly absorbed by the elites of the broader region. Ayia Irini was an integral part of this elite system of shared technologies and ideas. Kea held a crucial place in the trading networks, linking Crete, the Cyclades, and mainland Greece. Ayia Irini was no doubt the main port in the distribution and trade of metals from Lavrion, and perhaps it also maintained a flourishing trade in its own commodity—ocher. As to what the functions of buildings with miniature paintings might have been, it is surely no coincidence that evidence of dining is discernible in the layout and finds of the painted rooms of both the West House at Akrotiri and House A at Tylissos. This evidence provides a tangible link with the rooms of the Northeast Bastion, where such evidence is also present. The construction and painting of these rooms heralded significant changes at Ayia Irini. It is time, finally, to consider what these changes meant and how the wall paintings in their strategic setting functioned in the lives of people living in and visiting Kea.

12

Feasts, Festivals, and Social Context

The wall paintings reflect the theme of feasting in a number of important ways, and a significant amount of evidence demonstrates that the Northeast Bastion at Ayia Irini functioned as a banqueting hall. In this chapter, perspectives on festivals and the iconography of feasting provide a framework for the main discussion, which brings together the cumulative evidence of wall paintings, architecture, artifacts, and cultural geography at Ayia Irini for the socially cohesive role of feasts, festivals, and gift exchange at a time of increasing importance for the settlement within the wider network of Aegean Bronze Age relations.

Feasting and Social Dynamics in the Ancient World Over the past few decades there has been a flood of literature on the significance of feasting as a form of public ritualized activity, instrumental in forming social and political relations within and between

communities.1 Feasting and associated gift exchange are seen to have a broadly integrative function, creating and maintaining relationships between individuals, groups, communities, and networks; at the same time, feasts both create and maintain power relations.2 Hospitality is the acceptable face of status manipulation. 1 See esp. Goody 1982; Milano, ed., 1994; Wood 1995; Hayden 1996, 2001, 2014; Wiessner and Schieffenhövel, eds., 1996; Counihan and Kaplan, eds., 1998; Flandrin and Montanari, eds., 1999; Garnsey 1999; Dietler 2001, 2003, 2011; Dietler and Hayden, eds., 2001; Nielsen and Nielsen, eds., 2001; Bray, ed., 2003; Alcock 2006; Carroll, Hadley, and Willmott, eds., 2005; M. Jones 2007; O’Connor 2015. On the Aegean, see n. 8, below. The influential works of Dietler and Hayden have focused on agency and process. Their theoretical stance builds on that of Goody (1982) on the active role of ritualized food consumption in the construction of identity and status, while drawing from the notion of habitus (Bourdieu 1977; Mauss [1935] 2005) as a set of social and cultural categories structured through action. 2 See Dietler on patterns of feasting aimed at acquisition of power and legitimization of inequalities (esp. 1996, 92–99; 2001, 75–88; 2003, 271) and the notion of feasts as “commensal politics” (1996, 88, 90; 2001, 73; 2011, 183).

390

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

Feasting played a crucial part in societal cohesion in the ancient world and was fundamental to public festivals. Indeed, ancient Egyptian had no word for “feast” or “banquet,” the closest being ḥby, translated as “to make a festival.”3 Religious and secular interests (as we understand them) were interwoven in ritualized action and celebration. In Egypt, there were literally hundreds of different festivals, with varying levels of participation, some widespread, others local.4 Specific events were sometimes planned to coincide with calendrical cultic festivals, as in the case of ambassadorial visits on the occasion of the New Year Festival in Egypt (n. 26, below). Many festivals in Mesopotamia, as in Egypt, celebrated royal power in relation to specific events: investiture of the king, inauguration of a palace or temple, a visit by a foreign delegation, alliances, military victories, and hunts.5 Political diplomacy between local functionaries and foreign ambassadors was codified through the protocol of the banquet.6 One of the most striking functions of banqueting in Mesopotamia was the airing of debates, settling of disputes, and determining of the fates in feasts involving an assembly. Texts known as the “Debate Poems” tell of public festivals and banquets at which performances of disputations constituted the serious side to dinner entertainment.7 Such texts point to the brainstorming element of elite banqueting in the ancient world: those who drink together think together.

3 4

5 6 7

Functional distinctions between types of feasts have consequences for the material culture and hence for the archaeological data (Hayden 1996, 128–129; 2001, 35–42). Both Dietler and Hayden, however, point out that pure forms are rare, and feasts may exhibit a combination of characteristics (cf. Hamilakis 2008, 16–17). Ikram 2001, 162. Temple records from Karnak at the time of Thutmose III indicate that 54 days out of the 365 day year were dedicated to festivals, some of which lasted for several days (Teeter 2011, 56). On Egyptian festivals, see Bleeker 1967; Altenmüller 1975; Sadek 1987, 167–198; El-Sabban 2000; Ikram 2001; Spalinger 2001; Teeter 2011, 56–75; and on the notion of community ceremonies (including festivals) as performance, see Gillam 2005. Joannes 1999, 36; Schmandt-Besserat 2001, 397. Cf. Collon 1992, 28. Ziegler 2003. Vanstiphout 1992; cf. Charpin 2013. In the same way, the banquet was the venue for divine discussions on cosmic dangers and martial solutions (Vanstiphout 1992, 10–12; Bottéro [1992] 2001, 74–75).

In recent years there have been a number of studies on the widespread evidence for both small- and large-scale feasting in the Aegean.8 Evidence on Crete (from the Early Minoan to Neopalatial periods) points to a diversity of locations and a range of contexts, implying variation in the social dynamics— from relatively egalitarian celebrations focusing on integration of social identity to elite occasions predicated on power and control.9 On the Greek mainland, elitism appears to have been the primary impetus for the rise of feasting practices.10 Later, one of the main concerns of Mycenaean palace authorities, according to the Linear B texts, was the organization of major feasts.11 Lists of offerings relating to both calendrical religious festivals and specific occasions such as an “inauguration” are readable as contributions of provisions for banquets by the participants or guests, mostly elite members of society but also some people of lower status, such as officials and perhaps prominent craftsmen.12 These provisions can be seen as a form of gift exchange, with implications of different levels of participation, parallel to the spatial levels of 8 See in particular the papers in Halstead and Barrett, eds., 2004; Wright, ed., 2004; Hitchcock, Laffineur, and Crowley, eds., 2008. A survey of the evidence for Minoan feasting is provided by Borgna 2004; see also Girella 2007, 2008. A survey of the evidence for Mycenaean feasting is provided by Wright 2004b; see also Fox 2012. On reciprocity through feasting, see also Pullen 2017. On organic residues in pottery, see Tzedakis and Martlew, eds., 1999. On evidence for performance and preparations for feasting, especially in relation to wall paintings, see Constantinidis 2008; Ferrence 2008; Nordquist 2008; Shank 2008 (contra Pini 2008). 9 Borgna 2004, 136–141; cf. Blake 2005; Hamilakis 2008, 7. 10 Borgna 2004. Cf. Fox (2012, 4–35) on the evidence for sociopolitical feasting in the early Mycenaean period. 11 See Bendall 2007, 25–65, with further references. On the multifaceted evidence from Pylos, see esp. Stocker and Davis 2004; Bendall 2008. Textual evidence for Mycenaean state-organized banquets was identified on clay sealing nodules from Thebes by Piteros, Olivier, and Melena (1990), and by Killen in tablets from Knossos (1994), Pylos, and Thebes (1998, 2001). See also Sacconi 2001 on two types of public banquet referenced in the texts: a small-scale sacred meal and a grand celebratory banquet. The model of communal supply of provisions for banquets, as an alternative to hosted, is echoed in the Homeric epics (Sherratt 2004, 184; Shelmerdine 2008, 403). 12 Bendall 2004; 2007, 25–65; 2008, 80; Palaima 2004; Weilhartner 2008, 412. These offerings are usually seen in terms of “‘redistribution” feasts (e.g., M. Jones 2007, 190), but see Fox and Harrell 2008 for the alternative suggestion of “work-feasts” connected with the mobilization of troops.

FEASTS, FESTIVALS, AND SOCIAL CONTEXT

hierarchy in feasting areas that have been recognized in the archaeological record at Pylos in courts and halls outside and inside the palace.13 While each of the cultural contexts of public commensal gatherings in the ancient world is specific, the deeper structures of large-scale feasting resonate among them. Distinctions between self and other— host/guest, community/network, inside/outside— underlie major feasts, and the principles of inclusion/ exclusion and of gift exchange in the formation of a cohesive community or network are common to all levels of sponsorship and participation.

Iconography of Feasts, Festivals, and Gift Exchange Wall paintings, like written texts, concentrate on those aspects of society deemed significant enough to be recorded, and therefore reflect specific levels of experience. Feasts and festivals lie embedded in the iconography of the ancient world, in processions of men bringing produce or other gifts, seated figures holding cups, and musicians providing entertainment. In Aegean iconography, depictions of feasting or of holding vessels from which to drink are relatively rare, while cooking in cauldrons is known only in the Kea painting (Figs. 7.8, 12.1) and on a sealstone (Fig. 12.2:a). Feasting is implied; not one example explicitly shows people eating or even raising the cup to their lips to drink. This absence is worth investigation. In particular, with all the circumstantial evidence in the Kea paintings, why is drinking or eating not actually shown?14 Throughout the ancient world, feasting is alluded to through visual metonymy. A part stands for the whole. There were symbolic reasons for condensing the scene by focusing on the resonant image of holding the cup or a cluster of significant ritualized acts— the bringing of produce, processional display, and drinking ceremonies—which together stood for the wider implications of the festival and its culminating 13 Bendall 2004, 2008. 14 Cf. Morgan 2015

391

feast.15 Feasting in Aegean iconography focuses on key moments of social integration, but never eating. It is more than simply an emphasis on the drinking stages of commensal gatherings; it has to do with encapsulating symbolic conviviality in a compelling image resonant of social relations. Eating in public is not an image commensurate with the dignity of elites. In that sense, feasting is not for the observer. This principle of inconspicuous consumption applies to the art and literature of many cultures. In pre-Islamic Arab literature, for example, in which banquets are frequently if briefly mentioned as key social events, hunting, public cooking of meat, and drinking are the leitmotifs. “Numerous passages depict the cooking pot on the fire; but the banquet itself is never described in detail.”16 As in the iconography of the ancient world in general and the Kea paintings in particular, symbolically potent moments resonant of cohesive social relations encapsulate the process of feasting. As eating is not depicted, there have to be other ways of visually conveying the significance of feasts in the context of their festivals. This is done through the bringing together of elements that tell a story of preparations and ceremonial actions in which feasting is implied as the culminating event. In the Aegean, the earliest hints at an iconography of feasting come from the Protopalatial period on Crete, MM II, in the form of three-sided sealstones, mostly from northeast Crete. Not all are from palatial contexts, but their appearance at the time of the rise of the first palaces is significant, since it was a period in which rising elites would be seeking expressions of their new found status and role as instigators of social cohesion. Large-scale feasting, at its most intensive in the Neopalatial era, was on the rise.17 Typically, the images on the three sides of the seals build a picture of events centering on animals (hunting and meat), vessels (the bringing of produce), 15 For banquets in Egyptian tomb paintings, see Vandier 1964, 232–256; for scenes of feasting in Mesopotamian and Levantine art, see Collon 1992; Pinnock 1994. 16 Van Gelder 1992, 86. 17 Day and Wilson argue that ceremonial drinking and/or feasting took place at Knossos as early as EM I, and that such a tradition of feasting ceremonies “was a fertile ground for the political authority responsible for the construction of the First Palace” (2002, 160). This assertion shifts the emphasis onto the active role of feasting in establishing elite communities.

392

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

b

a

Figure 12.1. The cauldron scene fragment 67: (a) original and (b) reconstructed, detail from Figure 7.8. Scale 1:3.

a

b

Figure 12.2. Seal impressions from Knossos: (a) original seal area ca. 1.2 cm, CMS II.8.1, no. 275; (b) original seal area 1.6 cm, CMS II.8.1, no. 242.

and one or more human figures in association with pots or a table (the banquet).18 Together the images combine to form a simple yet effective iconography of feasting that works through abbreviation. Commensal gatherings are unsuited to the small surface of a sealstone, but a remarkable (undated) sealing from Knossos (Fig. 12.2:b) has two rows of seated figures with the raised arm and open-hand gesture, with a shape beneath each suggesting the stool on which 18 E.g., CMS II.2, no. 245; V, Suppl. 1A, no. 43; VI.1, nos. 36, 44, 45; VIII, no. 100; X, no. 315; XI, no. 122; cf. Morgan 2015, fig. 4. The containers are sometimes suspended from a pole (cf. Crowley 2013, 229, 354–355), with or without a man, sometimes free floating; sometimes the animal is missing from the triad (e.g., CMS II.2, nos. 2, 241).

they sit, reminiscent of the ocher shape beneath the man on the far right of the cauldron fragment (67). Though no vessels are depicted, the large number of figures, seated posture, and raised hand support a commensal interpretation. Two parts of the iconography of feasting apparent in the Kea paintings rarely appear in glyptic art: the return from the hunt and the cooking of the meat in cauldrons. The theme of returning from the hunt appears, to my knowledge, on only one Middle Minoan seal. It is on one of the sides of a four-sided seal, the hunter being juxtaposed with a horned and trussed animal, a fish or dolphin, and a standing man.19 The 19 CMS VI.1, no. 25.

FEASTS, FESTIVALS, AND SOCIAL CONTEXT

theme occurs much later on a LM IIIA:1 sealstone from Knossos (this vol., Ch. 2, p. 71 n. 169). In both cases, two animals hang from a pole held (implausibly) by a single man. In the later seal the return from the hunt is isolated; in the earlier it is part of a narrative. Only one sealstone demonstrably shows the cooking of the meat (Fig. 12.2:a) and like the later hunter, it is an isolated image, though it reflects vividly on the sequence of images in the Kea painting. The tiny scale of the seal compresses sequential information into a single scene, while the painting expands time and space across walls. This sealstone is an example of how a single image can evoke a wider narrative thread, in contrast to three-sided seals that evoke a larger story through juxtapositions of images. As in the case of objects or registers with multiple sides, each picture tells a part of a story. By rotating the object or directing the gaze, the viewer cumulatively builds a mental image of the implied action, resonant of symbolic significance. Wall paintings are more clearly defined in their contextual links, as the architectural structures to which the images are tied facilitate simultaneity in the process of viewing. With one possible exception, a clay model from Kamilari discussed below, the only other surviving Aegean images identifiable as concerned with feasting each relate to drinking rather than eating and show the moment before, rather than the actual partaking, on the metonymic principle of the socially resonant part standing for the whole. On the Libation Jug from Akrotiri, two men meet in the open air, indicated by the plant between them. They face one another, one holding out a jug for pouring, the other holding a cup ready to receive.20 Drinking vessels are held by robed figures in the later Camp Stool wall painting from Knossos (LM II/IIIA), one a chalice, the other a goblet, vessels usually associated with Minoan and Mycenaean drinking vessels, respectively.21 The implication of two types of cup is that of 20 Papagiannopoulou 2008, 441–444, figs. 40.14–20; 2018, 178–180, fig. 14:a–c. On the other side, a huge bird has its talons clasped around its prey. The scene of men with jug and cup has been interpreted as a libation scene (Papagiannopoulou 2008, 441–443; 2018, 179–180) or, less plausibly, as myth (Vlachopoulos 2007b, 116). The positioning of the scenes on the actual jug affects who sees what in terms of pouring and receiving (Morgan 2018b, 278–279). 21 Evans 1921–1935, IV.2, 379–396, figs. 318, 319, 323–325, col. pl. XXXI; 1967, pl. C, fig. 5, pl. F, fig. 1, pl. V, figs. 3–5, pl. VI, figs. 1–7, pl. VII, fig. 3; Platon 1959 (reconstruction: pl. H); Cameron 1964, 1987 (reconstruction: fig. 2); Immerwahr 1990a, 95, 176 (Kn No. 26); Wright 1995, 292–293 (on the cups).

393

social dynamics between different groups. The best preserved figure has a prominent fringed piece of fabric trailing behind the shoulder, akin to that worn by the men in long robes in the Kea painting (this vol., Ch. 2, p. 69 n. 162). The only other surviving instance of commensal drinking in wall paintings is the small scene in Hall 6, the Megaron/Throne Room, at Pylos, in which two pairs of men in long white robes are seated on stools at small tables. Nothing lies on the one surviving table, and the men's arms must have been raised; as such, it has been reconstructed with the men raising their cups to one another in a drinking ritual.22 Pylos affords a rare opportunity to study the iconography of feasting in the context of a number of informative sources: the wall paintings themselves and their architecture, along with the faunal remains, pottery, and texts found nearby in the palace. The processional figures bringing gifts of produce in the Vestibule lead toward the Megaron, with its hearth, painted jug above hollows in the floor for libations, and wall paintings of large felines, Lyre Player, banqueting scene, and deer (from nearby).23 The complex was resonant of symbolic import pertaining to the ruler, divine protection, libations, feasting, and elite male ceremonial drinking, a cumulative message that simultaneously celebrates power and promotes social cohesion.24 All of this is reflected in the archaeological remains from the Archives Complex at the western entrance to 22 Lang 1969, nos. 44a H 6, 44b H 6, pls. 28, 126, A (fragments), pl. 125 (reconstruction); McCallum 1987, pl. X. Recent reexamination of one of the fragments (44a H 6) has revealed a small human head beneath the scene, suggesting a larger grouping of paired banqueters (H. Brecoulaki, pers. comm. 2/2018). 23 Säflund viewed the hearth in the Megaron as “the goal of sacrificial processions,” implying inclusion of the Megaron as one of the banqueting spaces (1980, 241). Shelmerdine (2008, 405) suggests ventilation would have been an issue for feasting, but that is not, of course, applicable to drinking or to the eating of foods prepared outside the room. Identification of a large bull near the banqueting scene in the reconstructions (Lang 1969, no. 19 C 6, pls. 53, 125; McCallum 1987, 94–96, 132–133, pl. X) is now in doubt (Stocker and Davis 2004, 70 n. 47; H. Brecoulaki, pers. comm. 2/2018). The deer came from the west of the Megaron, but they may have been associated (Lang 1969, 198–199, no. 36 C 17, pls. 136, G [large-scale rump]; cf. no. 4 C 19, pls. 45, E [head with well-preserved antlers, on a much smaller scale]). McCallum (1987, 104–105) thought it came from a room above. For the jug and the hollows, see Lang 1969, no. 2 M 6, pls. 108, 141 (jug); Blegen and Rawson 1966, 88. 24 On the “benign” aspects of palatial rule expressed through the association of the wanax with feasting, see Davis and Bennet 1999, 114–118, and Bennet 2004, 99.

394

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

the Megaron complex—which housed burned animal bones, miniature kylikes, and Linear B tablets listing provisions for sacrifice and feasts—as discussed by Sharon Stocker and Jack Davis.25 The Megaron paintings include a ritualized drinking ceremony as the salient moment of social interaction able to stand for the entire feasting event, which is contextualized through the surrounding elements of the mural scheme.

Processions and Gifts Feasting and drinking constitute the culmination of a wide cluster of social participation in a festive series of events. A number of important indicators of such participation in festivals are: dressing in fine robes that mark the special nature of the occasion and distinguish cultural identity, processing in socially defined groups bearing gifts, standing proud in horse-drawn chariots, sailing by in decorated ships, and, for the populace, lining the streets or leaning out of windows to greet the passing pageant. All of the former elements are identifiable in the Kea miniature painting, and the woman gesturing at the window may be relevant to the latter. Display provides theatricality and draws the participants in. At festivals in the ancient world, processions and the bearing of gifts were paramount to the ritualization of the occasion; they were an essential part of small or grand scale, local or state festivals. The most spectacular in its display and potent in its meaning was the festival of the New Year, during which, in both Egypt and Mesopotamia, offerings were brought to the king or his representatives, an occasion that is documented in a number of Eighteenth Dynasty tomb paintings.26 Banqueting in the Near 25 Stocker and Davis 2004. On the tablets, see Killen 1998; Palaima 2000, 237. 26 In several early Eighteenth Dynasty Theban tombs of the highest ranking noblemen responsible to king or temple, the New Year is associated with gift giving: see (in chronological order; positions in plans noted in parentheses): Porter and Moss 1960, Tomb of Amenhotep, TT 345 (1, 5); Tomb of Amenhotep, TT 73 (2, 3) (SäveSöderbergh 1957, 2–8, pls. i–vi, ix:A); Tomb of Sennufer, TT 99 (A); Tomb of Mentiywy, TT 172. In the tomb of Menkheperracsonb, TT 86 (8), a scene of foreigners that includes men from Keftiu bringing so-called tribute (inw), i.e., gifts (cf. Cline 1995, 146–147), is contextualized through an accompanying inscription stating that the occasion was the New Year festival (Davies and Davies 1933, 2–9, esp. 3–4, pls. i [frontispiece], iii–vii, xx). In the Tomb of Amenemhet, TT 82 (5) offerings are brought alongside the scene of a banquet, with an accompanying text specifying the occasion

East, as represented in texts and art, was as concerned with the bringing of gifts as it was with feasting and drinking. Cuneiform texts detail types of animals, food and drink, and who brought them (priests, officials, administrators, members of professional guilds, farmers, herders, and servants).27 All of this constituted a public show of social, political, and religious importance. Along with the offering-bearers came boats and chariots, as represented in Early Dynastic art in registers associated with banquet scenes.28 Processions, gift-bearers, boats, and chariots are all notable features of the Kea frieze, and while the banquet itself is not portrayed, the scene of cooking in cauldrons leads the mind of the viewer forward to the culminating event. As noted in Chapter 2 (pp. 73–74), small-scale scenes of processions and the bringing of produce are rare, and their combination with cooking is unique in Aegean iconography. The men in the Thera miniature painting wear ceremonial robes in procession but do not carry containers; the men in the Tylissos miniature painting carry pots on poles but wear loincloths rather than ceremonial robes. It is in large-scale painted procession scenes that the carrying of objects is most often seen (this vol., Ch. 2, p. 73 nn. 179–181). While most are later in date and palatial in context, among those scenes from contemporary Akrotiri it is notable that the Fishermen in the West House occur as panels in association with the Miniature Frieze. There is every reason to believe that the bringing of gifts as offerings coincided with major festivals in the Aegean, just as it did elsewhere in the ancient world.29 Men carry vessels in the paintings of Xeste 3 and Xeste 4, as well as in the Knossos Procession Fresco. Notably, men appear in smaller of the New Year festival (Davies and Gardiner 1915, 37–41 [esp. 41], pls. IV–VI:A), as they are in the Tomb of Puimre, TT 39 (12, 14), which also has a tribute scene including men from Keftiu (Davies 1922–1923, I, 79–92, frontispiece, pls. xxxi–xxxiv [tribute]; II, 39–40, pls. lxiii–lxiv [New Year gifts]). Aldred (1970) considered that the most lavish of these gift-giving ceremonies would have coincided with accession to power of the king (inauguration or jubilee), and sometimes also the tomb owner in his appointment to royal office. On the Babylonian New Year Festival, see Kuhrt 1987, 31–40; cf. Joannes 1999, 35. 27 Schmandt-Besserat 2001, 398–399. 28 Pinnock 1994, 19. 29 Cf. Warren 2006b, 260. The connection of gifts with festivals is implied in the Linear B tablet PY Tn 316 (Sacconi 1999, 361–362; Palaima 1999, 451–454). Younger (2007) postulates an Aegean “Bronze Age calendar” of festivals, though predicated on Classical parallels.

FEASTS, FESTIVALS, AND SOCIAL CONTEXT

than life-size processions in the later paintings from Hagia Triada and the Vestibule leading to the Megaron at Pylos (this vol., Ch. 2, p. 74, nn. 187–188), in which the produce carried is presumably in preparation for a feast.30 Unlike the large-scale figures in Aegean procession paintings, the Pylos Vestibule figures are of different sizes and relative positions to one another. Most (not all) are men and wear long robes, while a small group of men (positioned at the rear of the procession in the reconstruction) wear loincloths. What is significant in relation to the Kea painting is that the figures carry containers—boxes and large shallow bowls31—produce brought, one assumes, as gifts that constitute symbolic and practical contributions to the implied feast. Also from Pylos, near Hall 46, came a procession of men who, judging by their greaves, are returning from the hunt, some leading hunting dogs, others carrying tripod cauldrons.32 As in the case of the Megaron, the Hall that probably accommodated this painting had a central hearth. Dating to LH IIIB, over 200 years later than the Northeast Bastion, this example is the only other known depiction of cauldrons in Aegean paintings. Although smaller and carried, not cooked in, they, too, are associated with the hunt through the dogs and human hunters, drawing attention to the symbolic social significance of the hunt and the ritualized consumption of meat.

Feasting and Social Context at Ayia Irini: The Iconographic Program The known examples of miniature paintings in the Aegean—Ayia Irini, Akrotiri, Tylissos, and perhaps Knossos—were in large halls that were likely to have been used for banqueting (this vol., Ch. 11). In the three nonpalatial buildings (where the context of the paintings is more retrievable), each was connected by a staircase to a service area below, and each had a drain, large storage containers, and many drinking and pouring vessels, while at Tylissos the building also stored giant cauldrons. Significantly, in the context of spatial distribution of feasting 30 Cf. Blakolmer 2008, 259. 31 Peterson (1981, 118) suggests the shallow dishes (or baskets) would be suitable for grain or fruit. 32 Lang 1969, no. 21 H 48, pls. 15, 116, 122.

395

activities, each building overlooked an open public space. Access to the room with the miniature paintings was indirect, through the building, hence controlled by corridors, doors, and stairs, but the actual room overlooked, and therefore engaged with, the public space outside. In the case of Ayia Irini, the iconography of the wall paintings, the architecture, the finds, and the location of the Northeast Bastion all point to a close association between the images, the function of the rooms, and the wider social context of the site and its overseas connections. Central to the significance of the frieze as a whole is the cauldron scene (Figs. 7.8, 7.26, 12.1). As with all the scenes, this one is a view from the sea. Below (i.e., in front of) the figures is preserved part of the blue sea and a ship, a juxtaposition that creates both a perceptual and a symbolic link between the preparation of food in cauldrons and the arrival of ships. Above (i.e., behind) is a large building, most likely a shipshed. The action apparently takes place adjacent to the harbor. This scene is conceptually linked to the deer hunt. While the actual hunt includes no men, the dogs imply masters. Neither the human hunting of animals nor the human consumption of meat is depicted. Instead, the paintings focus on transitional moments, on the transformative process of animal into meat, through the return from the hunt and the cooking in cauldrons. In the same conceptualization of process, men are depicted bringing the produce, not consuming it, an action that speaks of gift exchange. Among these scenes of preparations for feasting are the signs of ceremony and pageantry associated with prestige and power: special robes, ritualized gestures, chariot and horses, and decorated ships. Together with the mnemonics of place—urban settlements, land, sea, sky—these elements of the frieze are potent indicators of a celebration centering on a feast in the offing. Characteristically, the occasions are evoked through preparations rather than culminations. It is the moment leading up to an event, rather than the event itself, that is portrayed: the chase in hunting, not the kill; processions as precursors of social or ritual contact; the bringing of produce and, uniquely in this painting, cooking the food but not eating. Visual metonymy simultaneously stimulates anticipation and evokes memory. From a broader perspective, the actions and the indicators of elite status are referents to the social dynamics of the time, and they draw attention to the role of Ayia Irini in the wider network of communication.

396

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

Much of the focus is on ritualized action and the bringing of produce, interpretable as gifts. Men wearing ceremonial robes walk toward one another in what was no doubt a procession, their hands held in ritualized gestures of greeting; other men wearing the same robes bring containers. On land there was at least one chariot and several horses, prestige items of ceremonial significance that provide an impressive display; on the sea there were at least three ships with decorated hulls. All these—processions, the bringing of produce, and the pageantry of vehicles of display—are recognizable elements of festivals. There is no portrayal of dance or music, unlike in the banquet scenes depicted in Egyptian tombs that focus on entertainment. But it is not unexpected, as here it is the preparations that are shown, anticipation of rather than participation in the final consumption. Yet the men in procession and bringing containers are key players in the meaning of the frieze. Their long robes and carefully constructed gestures signal the ceremonial nature of their actions. Some men carry poles for the transport of their produce. On one is a pliable sack, no doubt of leather, suitable for the transport of wine or perhaps grain. The gesture of the man walking behind—hand curved toward his face—signals the ceremonial context. Another man carries a jar; the contents, presumably liquid such as wine or water, must be heavy since the jar is carried on a pole. One man carries an unusual container, the black color of which probably denotes either stone (serpentine) or metal, while others balance baskets on their shoulders. In their ceremonial robes, these men are bringing produce, no doubt as gifts that secure their entry into the elite group of banqueters. Gift exchange, a conspicuous form of bonding within the social arena, invariably takes place in association with feasting, while feasting itself is a dedicated form of gift exchange.33 In the relationship between host and guest, through social distinctions, cooperative alliances, and redistributive tactics, reciprocity is central to the social, political, and economic interests of the feast. This notion of the centrality of reciprocity is at the core of studies on diplomacy, ceremonial exchange, and intercultural relations in the ancient world.34 33 Cf. Dietler 1996, 88, 90; 2001, 73; 2011, 183. The notion of “the gift” owes its inception to the influential essay by Marcel Mauss ([1950] 2002). Cf., subsequently, Sahlins 1972; Godelier 1999; Komter 2005. 34 Zaccagnini 1987; Liverani 1990, 2001.

Three scenes signal the importance of meat: the hunting of deer by dogs, the hunter returning with his prey on a pole, and the men cooking outdoors in large cauldrons. Together they imply both temporal and spatial shifts in the contents of the frieze, constituting narrative threads that signal events of significance leading up to the implied feast. The scenes tell a story in the most economical way possible, each stage—hunting, returning from the hunt, cooking— intimating the ultimate goal of consumption, which, characteristically, is not itself shown. Whether or not deer were actually hunted on Kea is an open question. They would certainly not have been a normal part of the diet. The point in terms of the paintings, however, is the symbolic potency of the image of deer hunting, not whether this scene is a picture of reality on the island. The symbolic value of meat is greater than its nutritional worth.35 While meat itself is a crucial element of feasting, hunted flesh symbolically embodies social ideals of prestige and manhood. Even the slaughter and consumption of domestic animals would have been occasional in the Bronze Age Aegean, as it continued to be in rural areas of Greece until recently. Meat in the form of live animals is listed in the Linear B tablets alongside wine in the context of offerings, trade goods, and inventories.36 It was clearly marked for special—not staple—consumption. The sharing of meat from wild animals has even greater symbolic value. Meat acquired through the trials of hunting has potent significance for both hunter and community, and hunting, a potentially dangerous as well as time-consuming activity, is quintessentially emblematic of male power. Killing a wild animal is the ultimate expression of power over other animals; cutting and cooking the flesh of the animal are transformative acts of control, while consumption of the cooked flesh incorporates the community of eaters into the 35 Fiddes 1991, esp. 65. 36 Palmer 1995, 279; Palaima 2004. Cf. contra Tzedakis and Martlew (eds., 1999, 18), who argue on the basis of organic residue in pottery that Minoan and Mycenaean diets were rich in animal protein, and meat was not reserved for special occasions. Traces of animal protein, however, do not necessarily imply meat but could indicate milk products. On the basis of human bone analysis in the LM IIIA–IIIB chamber tombs at Armenoi, there appear to have been gender differences in the consumption of animal products, men eating more meat or milk than women (Tzedakis and Martlew, eds., 1999, 247).

FEASTS, FESTIVALS, AND SOCIAL CONTEXT

power mechanism of the hunt. In addition, cooking meat in public view, especially when the animal has been hunted or sacrificed, is a special community experience of memorable theatricality, heightened by the smoke of the fire and the smells of the anticipated meal. More than simply a luxury, meat that is hunted is “manly.” Michael Herzfeld, in an ethnographic study of a Cretan mountain village and the raiding of livestock (a variation on hunting), comments that the villagers regard “the consumption of meat as an essential component of male self-definition: meat and wine are seen as essential to the procreation of brave sons.”37 While women also eat the meat, the cutting, cooking, and public consumption of large quantities of meat are male activities. In such contexts “private hospitality is a matter for public performance.”38 In the Miniature Frieze it is the preparations for the consumption of meat that are displayed: the hunt, return from the hunt, and cooking in cauldrons, expressive of male power and transformative control. Deer are hunted by dogs, which, as natural hunters domesticated and trained by man, constitute an intermediary between wild and cultural spheres. The hunter is a man on display, with his crowning headgear, his spear, and the pole bearing the heavy body of his prey. The cooking is done in tripod cauldrons in the open air as part of a display of communality controlled by and aimed at men, within the wider context of ceremonial actions involving gift exchange, processions, a chariot, and ships. The hunting of deer as an activity is itself symbolic of elite consumption and the politics of power. As Catherine Perlès writes of the end of the Neolithic in Europe, “The prey was symbolically significant—the deer—and the renewed interest in hunting coincides with the first evidence of social inequalities and the emergence of elites.”39 It is said that deer are relatively easy to domesticate, yet wild deer have at different times and places been transported from their natural habitat to environments in which they are accessible for hunting, as in their transport to islands, precisely because of the ideological importance attached to their status as wild animals.40 This was the case in Bronze Age Crete, when fallow deer were apparently introduced to the island (this vol., Ch. 5, p. 154 n. 18). 37 38 39 40

Herzfeld 1985, 53. Cf. Vardaki 2004. Herzfeld 1985, 51–52. Perlès 1999, 29. Perlès 1999, 29, 31 n. 15.

397

The relative rarity of faunal remains of deer at Neopalatial Knossos, at a time when the animal is included in glyptic art and the hunt scenes of the miniature paintings of Thera and Kea, implies restricted access to the meat on the basis of status.41 Not only hunting but also the eating of deer can have significance in terms of elite identity. Deer hunting and consumption of the venison among the aristocracy was a notable feature of medieval England.42 Bronze Age Pylos, with its representations of fallow deer and remains of red deer, was no doubt similar, yet the animal is not mentioned in the texts that relate to feasting supplies, probably because they were not requisitioned but were hunted and donated by the elite.43 Given the widespread association of deer hunting and consumption with male prestige, it is surely no coincidence that deer hunting is prominently represented in the art of the Mycenae Shaft Graves, reflecting the ideals of a recently emerged elite of unprecedented wealth and power on the Greek mainland. The Kea frieze highlights the association between elite male status and such hunting practices. Uniquely, the painting shows both the method and the moment of preparing the food for the feast. The implication of the narrative structure is that the hunted deer is destined for the cauldrons. Other interpretations are possible but unlikely. The scene of men bending over cauldrons by the coast is central to the significance of the frieze and, I believe, to the complex of the Northeast Bastion. Each of the cauldrons has black marks toward the base of the vessel indicative of burning from a fire that, while not itself depicted, should be understood as lit on the ground beneath the vessels on their tripod supports. These cauldrons are enormous relative to the size of the men bending over them and the containers carried by the other men. They match not the smaller terracotta tripod cauldrons from Crete and the 41 Isaakidou 2007, 16, 19. 42 Stamper 1988, 140; Aberth 2013, 176–200. Cf. Halstead and Isaakidou 2004, 141. Such distinctions are not restricted to Europe. For example, among the Tapirapé of the Amazon, it is only the senior adult males who are privileged to eat deer meat (Harris 1987, 73). 43 Fox 2008, 136–137. The distinctions between animals in faunal deposits at the palace reveal differences in meat consumption that suggest that the eating of venison was restricted to smaller groups of the most privileged people (Halstead and Isaakidou 2004, 146; Fox 2008, 136, 138). Representations: Lang 1969, 40–43, 68, 205–207, no. 6 H 43, pls. 12, 121, B; no. 5 C 63, pl. C.

398

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

islands, but the four massive bronze cauldrons found in House A at Tylissos (this vol., Ch. 2, pp. 71–72 n. 173). Such dimensions are suitable for cooking large quantities of food for crowds of people. Significantly, the huge bronze cauldrons from Tylissos (which would have been mounted on tripods) were found in the building of the miniature painting, while in the West House at Akrotiri a small bronze tripod cauldron was found in Room 4a adjacent to the room with the miniature paintings.44 At Ayia Irini, Akrotiri, and Tylissos there is, therefore, circumstantial evidence for cooking in cauldrons associated with the presence of a miniature frieze. In the painting it is the transformation of ingredients into food through cooking that is shown, not the preparation of the ingredients and not the serving of the food. There is no scene of butchering the animal (as in some Egyptian paintings) and no animal sacrifice (as in some Aegean glyptic scenes).45 Nor are there any scenes of agricultural preparation. The focus is on the process of transformation within the two massive cauldrons. The cooking is undertaken by men, not by women. In most societies, domestic cooking is predominantly done by women, but that does not apply to food prepared outside the home or in a ritual context. Men are the hunters and slaughterers of animals, often the cooks for ceremonial occasions, and usually the carvers of meat.46 Men were also frequently responsible for court cuisine,47 in other words, for elite large-scale consumption. This custom was the case in Mesopotamia48 and also in Egypt, where rich families retained male cooks, who are depicted in a number of culinary activities including boiling or roasting meat and stirring cauldrons.49 Generally this cooking took place out of doors, often in courtyards, to keep the smells away from the living areas. Two of the men in the painting actively lean over the cauldrons, as though stirring. They wear loincovering garments, not elite robes, and they are close 44 Marinatos 1968–1976, VI, 29, pl. 63:a. 45 Ikram 1995, esp. 41–54. On the relationship between sacrifice and ceremonial feasting in the Aegean: Marinatos 1986, 37–39; Warren 1988, 28; Ferrence 2008. 46 Goody 1982, 70–71. 47 Goody 1982, 101. 48 Bottéro 1985, 46. 49 Vandier 1964, 256–271, figs. 116–121; Darby, Ghalioungui, and Grivetti 1977, 150–157, figs. 3.40–3.42, 3.44–3.46. Cf. Curtis 2001, 171; Alcock 2006, 118. The cauldrons have a base but not tripod legs.

Figure 12.3. Cooking in cauldrons at the harvest festival in Plougoulm, Brittany, 2009. Photo R. Robertson.

to the coast with its ships and probable shipsheds, therefore in the vicinity of the harbor. Presumably the resulting food would be distributed to the populace outdoors and brought in smaller containers to the elite dining indoors in the Northeast Bastion. The relatively few facilities for cooking and food preparation recognized in houses of Aegean settlements of this period, such as those at Akrotiri, are small-scale and multifunctional. Birtacha comments that boiling in deep cooking vessels such as tripod cooking pots could not have taken place indoors and that cooking was probably undertaken outdoors.50 This is what we witness in the painting. Large cauldrons placed outdoors imply mass catering. In the photograph in Figure 12.3, taken in Plougoulm, Brittany in September 2009, men cook in massive metal cauldrons that stand on tripod supports over burning fires. A wooden board with the ingredients showed the vast quantities of meat that went into the cauldrons.51 The occasion was a Celtic harvest festival, the culmination of which was the dinner. Being a modern public feast, the diners bought tickets for their stew rather than bringing gifts or goods for exchange. 50 Birtacha 2008, 356. 51 One hundred and eighty-five kilos of beef, 42 kilos of pork, and 15 kilos of lard. Along with this carnivorous concoction went 300 kilos of potatoes, 80 kilos each of carrots and onions, 30 kilos of shallots, garlic, flour, and seasonings including thyme and bay leaves, all mixed into 300 liters of water, along with “tout le savoir faire du chef.” I am grateful to Rosemary Robertson for her perspicacity in photographing both the men with cauldrons and the wooden board.

FEASTS, FESTIVALS, AND SOCIAL CONTEXT

Tripod cauldrons, while they might also be used for wine or beer, are the perfect containers in which to cook meat stew. In the painting, the massive scale of the cauldrons and the visibility of the coastal location lend a theatrical air to the scene. Cooking in a cauldron is an efficient method of catering for large quantities of people. It retains the juices of the meat (the blood), and other ingredients can be mixed in. Venison (unless from a very young animal) is notoriously tough if cooked immediately after it is killed and placed directly over a fire.52 Marinating the flesh in wine and aromatic herbs are common methods of tenderizing it, while adding fruit with its natural acids also aids digestion.53 This quality makes it an appropriate candidate for cooking in a cauldron. Both myrtle leaves (which provide flavor similar to the bay leaves more commonly used today) and blackberries are common components of meat stews. As discussed in Chapter 8, I have little doubt that the depiction of these two plants in the large-scale paintings is a reference to their association with wine and food, and that the tripod cauldrons and the plants have related connotations of consumption. Analyses of the contents of tripod cooking pots found at Apodoulou, Rethymnon (MM II) and Chania (LM IB) were found to be consistent with stew in which meat was boiled with vegetables in olive oil, with the addition of fruit.54 Stew, was, in fact, commonly prepared and consumed at festivals and banquets in the ancient world.55 The ceramic cooking pot was probably used for fast boiling, while the bronze cauldron would be for simmering while slowly reducing the liquid.56 The latter would be an effective way of cooking venison to make it tender. 52 Traditionally, the deer is hung, to allow the lactic acid secreted into the muscles at the moment of stress just before the kill to evaporate (Toussaint-Samat 2009, 79). 53 Toussaint-Samat 2009, 80; cf. Riera-Melis 1999, 259 in the context of the Middle Ages. 54 Tzedakis and Martlew 1999, 107, no. 77 (Chania); 85 (Apodoulou); 18, 189, no. 181 (Mycenae). Cf. Tzedakis and Martlew 1999, 110, no. 90 (Armenoi, Rethymnon, LM IIIB cemetery, tripod cooking pot with meat and olive oil in “a complex mixture”); 189, no. 196 (Room with the Fresco (near the altar) in the Cult Center at Mycenae, tripod cooking pot with meat, olive oil, and perhaps lentils, and nearby a stirrup jar and amphora that had contained wine). 55 Bottéro cites a hundred different soups and stews in Mesopotamian cuisine, distinguished by the number and types of spices, and some 25 recipes for meat cooked in water (stock) and fat like a stew, some with vegetables, mostly cooked in a “cooking-pot,” less often in a cauldron: Bottéro 1985, 39–44 (recipes); 2001, 53. 56 Bottéro 2001, 47.

399

Although in the later Pylos paintings from above Hall 46 men are shown in procession carrying cauldrons, there are no other known wall paintings in which the act of cooking is depicted. This inclusion had to have been of unique significance for the meaning of the frieze. The only known parallel for a scene of cooking comes from the sealing from Knossos in Figure 12.2:a. As in the Kea painting, the tripod cauldron is enormous, while the cursory tree above denotes that the scene takes place outdoors. In the inevitable abbreviation of glyptic art, two people attend to one cauldron, in contrast to the painting, in which each man attends to his own cauldron. The man on the left (in the impression) presumably wears a loincloth, while the more ambiguous figure on the right wears a long garment. The thick waist implies that it is a loose robe and this figure, too, is probably a man. Into the cauldron goes the leg of a hoofed animal. The story is told with characteristic economy. Unravel it and one has some of the components of the Kea painting: hunting, cooking, loincloths, and robes. As is usual in Aegean art (at least from the point of view of the modern observer), there are few indications in the Kea frieze of any specificity of the occasion. Paintings may incorporate elements of flora and fauna that reveal season, though different cues, such as flowering seasons, may be combined within the same painting. For the Thera Ship Procession, I argued on the basis of such elements for a spring festival tied to the resumption of the navigation season.57 For the Kea scenes, it seems more likely that the season is late summer to early autumn. The deer have their summer coats, but the berries on the large-scale brambles combined with the lack of flowers on the myrtle imply late rather than early or mid summer, and the cloudy sky in the miniature frieze supports those seasonal cues.

Inside and Outside the Northeast Bastion The scene of cooking in large cauldrons in the open air next to the sea with ships and a structure identifiable as shipsheds (this vol., Ch. 4, pp. 135–137) associates the preparations for the feast with seafaring. Whether the ships are present as part of the festival display, or as a sign that the occasion included 57 Morgan 1988, esp. 144–145, 165.

400

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

or was geared toward visitors from overseas, this association is significant. While unique in Bronze Age iconography, the association between feasting with seafaring implied in the Kea painting may illustrate something that is hinted at in the archaeological record. Minoan shipsheds have now been recognized on the north coast of Crete at Katsambas, Gournia, and Nirou Khani, and on the south coast at Kommos (this vol., Ch. 4, p. 136 nn. 136–140). Wall paintings mark the importance of at least one LM I building at all but one of these sites.58 Kommos, a natural harbor site within an hour’s walk of Phaistos, had a LM I palatial (i.e., with central court) building (T) close to the coast, with storerooms on its eastern side, suggesting commerce and redistribution connected to sea trade59 and perhaps industrial-scale bronze working.60 Cooking facilities have been identified in and around the central court, in the form of hearths, tripod cooking vessels, and vessels associated with drinking (cups and jugs) and the transportation of large quantities of liquid (amphoras and stirrup jars), suggesting large-scale drinking and feasting.61 The close proximity of LM I Building T to the shipsheds (Building P) of LM IIIA makes one wonder whether there might have been an earlier structure serving the same purpose. The shipsheds identified at Katsambas are of LM II–IIIA date, but earlier Neopalatial walls imply a predecessor (this vol., Ch. 4, p. 136). Significantly, in terms of the juxtaposition of the Kea building with the cauldrons, distinct signs of food preparation were found in Gallery 3 of the Kommos shipsheds, with multiple layers of burning, a hearth, large domed ovens, and extensive pottery, including cooking pots, jugs and cups.62 Also in Gallery 3 was a quantity of hematite, which may have been used for caulking the hulls of ships, though their association with the other raw materials (stones) raises the question of whether they might have been items of trade. At Kea, we have seen the 58 Katsambas: M. Shaw 1978; Immerwahr 1990a, 182 (Ka no. 1). Nirou Chani: Immerwahr 1990a, 182 (N.C. no. 1). Kommos: Shaw and Chapin 2012. 59 M. Shaw 1985, 19–22; J. Shaw 1986, 240–255; 2002; 2006, 159–160; Shaw and Shaw, eds., 2006, 847–850. 60 Blitzer 1995, 527–528. 61 Rutter 2004, 72. 62 Shaw and Shaw 1993, 171–174; 1999, 370; Shaw and Shaw, eds., 2006, 78–82. Burning and pottery were also found in Galleries 1 and 2, and a hearth or oven was found in P2 (Shaw and Shaw, eds., 2006, 75–77, 81). Gallery 3 is the most extensively investigated.

apparent importance of pigments, particularly the ones located in Area G, just inside the fortification wall, between the Gateway into the town and the sea. If shipsheds existed in the Bronze Age at Ayia Irini (as they appear to have done later) they are likely to have lain to the east of the Northeast Bastion (this vol., Ch. 4, p. 137 n. 141). The Cauldrons and Ships scene is attributable to the eastern part of the southern wall, which would have directly overlooked the Gateway, the fortification wall of Area G, and depending on the ancient coastline, probably the sea. Immediately beneath the Northeast Bastion, between the circuit wall and the sea, lay a large open space, constituting the main approach to the town. It is quite feasible for public feasting to have taken place in this open space by the coast, within reach and no doubt in view of the harbor, while the more private banqueting hall of the Northeast Bastion, with its more far-reaching views, was reserved for gatherings of the elite.63 In the Kea painting, as in other Aegean miniatures, the action takes place outdoors. Yet, iconographic action outdoors does not preclude related action indoors in the painted room itself. There is every indication that at Ayia Irini both indoor and outdoor spaces were involved: indoors in relation to the architecture of the bastion itself; outdoors in relation to the position of the bastion to exterior space and to the scenes of cooking and bringing produce. Inside the Northeast Bastion would have been elite gatherings. There would no doubt have been interior kitchen facilities to supplement and modify the cooking prepared outside that was to be presented as cuisine to the elite participants. These need not have been permanent installations (there is no sign of a hearth), as preparations inside would have been on a smaller scale than those that took place outside, and cooking equipment is likely to have been portable. The basement rooms, dedicated to the storage and no doubt preparation of food, were linked via a service staircase to the painted reception rooms above, enabling food to be transported efficiently 63 An analogous situation occurs in the oft-cited passage in the Odyssey that speaks of the people of Pylos gathered on the seashore to sacrifice bulls as the ship of Telemachus and his crew arrives. People are gathered at the shore to participate in the eating of the meat, while Nestor sits with his sons as meat and wine are prepared for the elite (Hom. Od. 3.1–78). A multiplicity of feasting locations, albeit not on the coast, has been demonstrated for Bronze Age Pylos, in courts and halls outside and inside the palace (Bendall 2004, 2008, with further references).

FEASTS, FESTIVALS, AND SOCIAL CONTEXT

between the two levels of activity. A drain was situated on the upper story, where large quantities of pottery and even some storage pithoi were also found (this vol., Ch. 1, p. 33–35). The drain was an integral part of N.20, perhaps partitioned off for service, as in the suggested reconstruction of Figures 1.7:b and 11.2:a (cf. Fig. 8.9), and therefore it functioned within the context of the activities within the room. It is unlikely that any room in a Bronze Age building functioned solely as a designated dining room in which only eating took place.64 Large halls, such as the rooms of N.18 and N.20, are likely to have been meeting places in which eating and drinking took place as crucial adjuncts to social relations, along the lines of Anglo-Saxon feast halls, which played a vital role in the display of aristocratic status and the forging of social bonds among the elite.65 It is striking, however, that in the Northeast Bastion, the evidence for a dividing wall on the upper story, corresponding to that in the basement, means that there were two large rooms, not one. One is reminded of the temporal sequence of Greek symposia, which had an eating phase and a drinking phase, the latter privileged in importance, though there was overlap between the two activities.66 It has been argued that special winedrinking gatherings similar to the symposium can be traced back to the Bronze Age.67 Perhaps the two spatial settings of the rooms corresponded to a temporal sequence in consumption or other activities, 64 In the West, the designation of a room dedicated to dining, with table and chairs permanently in readiness for the meal, is a recent phenomenon beginning in the 19th century among those wealthy enough to have a room separate from both the kitchen and the main living area (Romagnoli 1999, 332–333; M. Jones 2007, 283–284). 65 Carroll, Hadley, and Willmott, eds., 2005, 15–16. Evidence for such feast halls is literary, while archaeological evidence for their existence is scarce, a salutary reminder of our dependence on the process of deduction in looking at the Bronze Age. In medieval castles, the hall had various functions besides that of dining and feasting: judiciary, ceremonial, and the “mobilization of feudal power” (Johnson 2002, 78–80), benches and tables being moved in and out of the hall before and after mealtimes (Johnson 2002, 84). 66 Murray 1994, 6; Schmitt-Pentel 1999, 92; Wilkins and Hill 2006, 77–78. In Homer, several episodes relate how guests are given wine and small quantities of food on arrival, followed by the feast with meat, and finally a drinking session with toasts: Od. 3, 4; Il. 9, cited by Wilkins and Hill 2006, 77. 67 Wright 1995, 295 (with reference to the Camp Stool Fresco); McGovern 2003, 258. Cf. Schuitema (2008, 134) on the concept of a “feasting koine” in the Aegean and Near East, in which social drinking in the Near East from the third millennium on was “a direct ancestor of the symposium.”

401

such as discourse or entertainment. As discussed below and in Chapter 8, the large-scale plant paintings of myrtle and bramble in N.18 could well connote drinking practices, while N.20, with its drain and privileged views, could imply eating. The drain is likely to have been multifunctional within the context of both kitchen and bodily needs and hygiene, a shared usage predicated on the use of water.68 Hand washing before and after eating is usual at commensal gatherings, and in some cultures feet are washed before entering a dining area.69 Although the rooms are strikingly large in comparison to others in the town, they are not so large that they would have held vast numbers of people— they could accommodate tens, not hundreds. If there were a dividing wall separating the area with the drain from the main hall, as postulated above, the dimensions of N.20 would have been ca. 4.10 (south)/4.20 (north) x 3.85 m (just under 16 m2). If there were no dividing wall (as in Fig. 1.7:a), the space would have been larger, but with little difference to the seating, since a “corridor” space would have been needed for access to the drain. Banqueters probably sat on stools, as implied by the iconographic evidence of the Camp Stool Fresco, the Pylos Megaron banqueting scene, and a few glyptic scenes,70 although the survival of stone benches in Aegean architecture suggests that benches of wood might also have been used.71 Chairs with backs would have been reserved for the highest elite, and they are rarely represented.72 In the only known instance of mass seating, on the sealing from Knossos shown in Figure 12.2:b, the figures each have a small crescent 68 In some Roman houses, for example, the kitchen area was shared with the toilet (Corbier 1999, 135). Examples could be cited from the modern era. For instance in the early 1980s, on a visit to Sheikh Abd el-Qurna at Thebes, I was invited into a small dwelling near the ancient tombs in which the tiny toilet, though enclosed by three walls, was open to the kitchen on the fourth side. 69 As in Classical Greece, for example, where guests to the symposium removed their shoes and washed their feet before entering (Alcock 2006, 192). 70 CMS VI.1, no. 44a (Sykis, Siteia, MM II); CMS I, no. 101 (Mycenae, LB I–II gold ring); CMS II.8.1, nos. 243 (Knossos sealing), 262 (LM I–II); CMS V Suppl. 1A, nos. 175 (Chania, LM I, ring impression), 179 (Chania, LM I, ring impression). 71 See, e.g., this vol., Ch. 1, pp. 27, 28, 34 for stone benches at Ayia Irini, and, for Akrotiri, see Palyvou 2005a. 72 As, e.g., on the Tiryns procession ring (CMS I, no. 179). Both high-backed chairs and stools are known from EC marble representations of seated figures, so they had a long history. On Aegean representations of seating, see Rehak 1995; Krzyszkowska 1996.

402

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

beneath the buttocks, suggestive of a stool; while a clay model from the tholos tomb at Kamilari shows four figures seated on stools before small tables being served by two standing figures.73 Their backs rest against the wall of the model, which, being punctuated by rectangles implying windows, stands for interior space. Physical evidence for wooden stools and small tables exists at Akrotiri in the form of fragmentary impressions in the volcanic ash, and it is also present in remains from the Shaft Graves.74 Later, in the Vestibule painting at Pylos, a man in procession carries a stool or small table over his shoulder along with what appears to be a cushion.75 In Room N.20, some 20–25 persons could be comfortably seated on stools before small tables around the walls, leaving the center of the room free for circulation and perhaps entertainment.76 This estimate, 73 Sealing: CMS II.8.1, no. 242. Model: Levi 1961–1962, 122– 127, figs. 170:a–f; Hood 1978, 105, fig. 88; color: Sakellarakis 1981, 54 below (HM No. 15074). Proposed dating of the model has ranged from MM III–LM IIIA, with LM I as the median (see Ferrence 2008, 273). 74 Thera: stool impressions from Delta 2 (Marinatos 1968– 1976, IV, 41–42, pls. 102, 103; Doumas 1983, 116); impressions from Delta 1 and Delta 18a interpreted as small tables, plain or with elaborately carved legs (Doumas 1983, 116, fig. 18, pl. 84 [plaster cast]; 1993, 89–90, figs. 87, 88). Shaft Graves: “tables,” which by their size could also be stools (Muhly 1996, 197, citing Karo). 75 Lang 1969, no. 5 H 5, pls. 3, 119, N. 76 When seated on a stool, a minimum amount of space for reasonable comfort is 0.50 m2 for each person with 0.75 m depth when seated at a small table. Cf. Bendall 2008. In the Kamilari banquet model each seated figure has a small table to themselves, yet they are grouped as though in two sets of two. A model of dancers found with it suggests the entertainment: Levi 1961–1962, 139–140, fig. 174:a, b; color: Sakellarakis 1981, 54, above (HM No. 15073). Another alternative—as suggested by the iconography of the Camp Stool Fresco and the Pylos Megaron—would be small groups of two persons to a table, facing one another. This arrangement would allow for more diners; however, an arrangement in which people faced one another is more appropriate to outdoor space than to indoors, as it positions the people in small nuclear groups rather than as a unified gathering. If there were a prestigious host (such as a local ruler or governor) or two or more significant participants (as in the case of a diplomatic meeting between ambassadors), additional space would have to be allowed for the important participants, bringing the total numbers down. Within a later palatial context, the Pylos Ta tablets list 22 seats for a banquet apparently marking the appointment of a new office, including 16 stools, 6 “thrones” (high-backed chairs), and 11 tables (Palaima 2004, 115). Within the Megaron, this setup would allow considerable space for each person, providing flexibility of placement and room for circulation (cf. Fox 2008, 134).

of course, assumes that N.18 and N.20 were used successively rather than simultaneously, which is surely more likely, as the elite group inside the building is hardly likely to have been divided by a wall. Spatially, there are significant differences between N.18 and N.20 (Figs. 1.4, 1.7, 11.2:a). Firstly, N.18 is an access room, whereas N.20 was an end goal, with no other access beyond. Participants and servants alike entered the arrangement of two rooms from the northwest corner of N.18: the servants from the basement rooms where food was stored and no doubt prepared, up staircase N.17–N.19; the elite participants no doubt from the upper story of the wide corridor N.16. Once inside N.18, circulation went two ways: into N.18, or into N.20 through doors in the dividing wall that provided access to the drain area on the right and the room itself on the left. Secondly, N.18 was somewhat narrower than Room N.20. Thirdly, N.18 had only one outside wall, which, in comparison to the arrangement at the West House at Akrotiri, probably only had one window. There was therefore only one view, to the east, which less people could see at once, and which was partially blocked by the extending south wall of the Northeast Tower. Room N.20, in contrast, was slightly wider and had two external walls, which could have accommodated several windows, affording unparalleled views both to the east—the main approach to the town—and, crucially, to the south toward the main, very grand Gateway into the town. People looking through the windows would have had a panoramic view of arrivals to the town and of any community activity that may have taken place in the large area between the Northeast Bastion and the Gateway. The bastion is the only major space in the town (other than the small towers) from which people inside the fortification wall could look outside at the fortification wall and the liminal zone of entrance between the two. Preparations for feasting, as we see in the painting, took place outside the town walls. As at the Palace of Pylos, with its various banqueting areas allying hierarchy and spatial setting (n. 13), it is quite likely that, during the festival itself, while the elite banqueters were seated inside, the populace was outside in the area beyond the eastern fortification wall down to the coast. Sailors from foreign ships that were docked in the harbor could have joined the crowd outside, whereas, one assumes, elite passengers from the ships would have been hosted inside. Such a hypothetical arrangement would have meant that the elite participants gathered in Room N.20 of the Northeast Bastion would have had a view

FEASTS, FESTIVALS, AND SOCIAL CONTEXT

down to the populace outside, while the populace would have been aware of the presence of the elites above and inside the walls. This close proximity with spatial distinctions between the two groups would have simultaneously consolidated a sense of community and reinforced social difference.77

Drink, Food, and Vessels The finds from the Northeast Bastion firmly support the proposition that these rooms were used for relatively large social gatherings with a commensal focus. We have seen that a drain ran down from the southwest corner of N.20 on the upper floor, drawing liquids down and out of the building. Numerous pithoi of local coarse ware were stored in N.18 on the ground floor and some also on the upper story (this vol., Ch. 1, p. 30 n. 80). Unfortunately, they were scrubbed after excavation, so no organic residues are available for analysis. Most importantly, in striking contrast to other buildings at Ayia Irini, there are no signs of residential industrial use of the rooms (weaving, metallurgy, pottery production), but there is considerable ceramic evidence for drinking, eating, and food production (this vol., Ch. 1, p. 35 n. 118). A significant concentration of the pottery was found in the west part of N.20, especially in the southwest corner of the room in the vicinity of the drain, some of it above the drain and therefore firmly attributable to the upper story (this vol., Ch. 1, p. 34 n. 108). Evi Gorogianni’s preliminary findings indicate that the whole range of shapes needed for eating and drinking is represented, though the vast majority of ceramic ware was related to drinking, mostly cups and jugs.78 This fact does not, of course, imply that eating was of less importance, since the cup might 77 There is, of course, no reason to suppose that those who gathered to eat and drink inside did not also take part in festivities outside. In Classical Greece, for example, the participants of a symposium, which might take place in a private hall opening onto a street or courtyard, in a public building, or in tents in a field, would sometimes move into the streets to join the festivities (Vetta 1999, 100–101). However, access to the interior banqueting hall would surely have been a privilege of those of high rank (on the hall in medieval castles, cf. Johnson 2002, 89). 78 Gorogianni 2016; Gorogianni and Fitzsimons 2017, 146.

403

have been a multifunctional container.79 It does, however, point to the significance of drinking. Conical cups, the ubiquitous vessel of Minoan and Minoanized sites, were found throughout Ayia Irini, their quantities significantly greater in LC I–II than before and staggeringly huge in House A.80 Notably, the largest concentrations were adjacent to or associated with rooms that had wall paintings.81 The Northeast Bastion most likely held enough tableware for drinking and eating inside the immediate rooms, while it is possible that House A was the repository for vessels needed for mass drinking and eating at public festivals as well as interior banquets within the building itself. What is significant in the bastion is not so much the quantity (since these rooms were not facilities for mass storage) as is the variety of shapes associated with storage, serving, and consumption of food and drink: diverse types of cups or bowls, large open vessels (such as kraters, suitable for mixing wine), and pouring vessels, as well as some forms associated with food preparation (cooking pots, baking trays, strainers, etc.).82 The shapes and fabrics are of varied origin—deriving from 79 Cf. Wiener (1984, 20) and Schofield (1999, 758, 760) on conical cups; also Halstead and Isaakidou (2004, 147–148) on the same discrepancy at Pylos between abundant drinking vessels as opposed to eating or serving vessels “which may reflect modern misconceptions of vessel function rather than absence of feasting.” Food could also have been eaten from communal boards or simply off a piece of bread (Cf. Romagnoli 1999, in the context of the late Middle Ages). 80 Over 8,000 handleless cups were found in House A, covering the periods of LC I–IIIA (Schofield 1999, 758; Cummer and Schofield 1984). That number has not been succinctly broken down into the earlier and later periods, but 4,500 of these came from LC II deposits in Rooms A.14–39, implying a very large quantity also for LC I. On conical cups in the Aegean, see Wiener 1984, 2011; Davis and Lewis 1985 (esp. Kea); Gillis 1990a, 1990b; Knappett 1999; Schofield 1999; Berg 2004; Hilditch 2014; Knappett and Hilditch 2015. Berg compares conical cups on Kea and Melos, finding more uniformity at the former. 81 Most of those cups from LC I came from A.19 (almost 650 cups), the walls of which were painted toward the end of Period VI, and from A.25–26 (960), fallen from above and adjacent to the staircase servicing the painted Hall 37/39 (Schofield 1999, 758). In LC II (Period VII), some 2,640 handleless cups were found in and around the area of the room with representational wall paintings, A.31 (Schofield 1999, 760). 82 Gorogianni 2016. I am most grateful to Evi Gorogianni for sharing her preliminary findings with me (pers. comm. 2012, 2014) prior to the publication of the Northern Sector (in prep. by E. Gorogianni and R. Fitzsimons).

404

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

the Cyclades, Crete, Aegina, the mainland, and even Miletus—with a large proportion manufactured in the local fabric and undecorated.83 More vessels were locally manufactured imitations of foreign types than were actually imported. The variety raises a number of questions. Such differentiation is usually discussed in terms of commercial trading and taste. Close study of the locations of different types of pottery may, however, suggest more socially constructed reasons for the variety, involving temporal, spatial, or community factors. In Classical Greece, for instance, it was usual to progress from smaller to larger cups as the symposium progressed.84 Alternatively, differentiation of cups might be linked to identities in relation to the social significance of drinking. Finally, two other items are of note, one example of each having been found in each of the two rooms. The first is a “flower pot” (with hole in the base), bringing to mind the lilies in pots painted on the window jambs of Room 4 in the West House at Akrotiri. The second is a lamp, implying that illumination was necessary at some stage in the proceedings, supporting a time frame of late afternoon to dusk for the gatherings. Feasting was equated with consumption of alcohol in the ancient world.85 Wine was an elite drink in the second millennium, provision of the beverage being an indicator of male wealth, power, and ostentatious hospitality.86 There is good evidence for the widespread use of wine as a luxury item in the Aegean Bronze Age, where, it has been argued, communal drinking was a tool in sociopolitical relations among emerging elites.87 At Ayia Irini, a local sherd 83 So far, Aegina has been identified as the source of some of the cooking pots, kraters, and water jugs, while Minoan shapes and motifs are notably prominent among the pouring vessels, and mainland Minyan shapes for open vessels (Gorogianni, pers. comm. 2012; and see Gorogianni, Cutler, and Fitzsimons 2015, 909, on the pottery of the Northern Sector at the beginning of the LBA). 84 Davidson 1999, 63. 85 The Sumerian logogram for “feast,” for example, literally means “beer-pouring” (Dalley 2000, 46), while in the Old Testament the word translated as “festival” or “banquet” means “drinking” from the verb “to drink” (Burkert 1991, 13). 86 Sherratt 2007, 18–19. 87 Wright 1995; Hamilakis 1996b, 1999; Borgna 2004, 136. See also Renfrew 1995, on archaeobotanical evidence for grapes; McGovern 2003, 247–259, on evidence for wine production on Crete; Tzedakis and Martlew, eds., 1999, on organic

from a large jar found in House A was incised with a Linear A ideogram for wine.88 At Akrotiri, bunches of grapes were painted on jugs,89 no doubt in an uncharacteristically literal show of the contents ready for pouring. Wine would have been a luxury item, not a daily commodity, and it was no doubt a vital part of festivals.90 It is significant that on the Akrotiri Libation Vase, the Knossos Camp Stool Fresco, and probably the commensal scene in the Megaron at Pylos, it is the process of pouring (at Akrotiri) or raising the cup as in toasting (Knossos) that is depicted, those aspects of drinking that demonstrate the ritualized sharing of alcohol. That the drinking of wine was a significant part of the commensal gatherings of the Northeast Bastion is implied by a number of factors, both archaeological and iconographic. Firstly, the concentration of cups and jugs in the rooms provide clear evidence for drinking and pouring, the kraters suggest mixing appropriate for wine, and the strainers could have been used to filter away sediment. Secondly, in the Miniature Frieze, two of the containers carried by the men in robes are suitable for the transport of liquid: the jar and the amorphous container suggesting leather or a skin.91 Thirdly, as we saw in Chapter 8, myrtle, painted in life-size scale with blackberry brambles on the walls of N.18, can be associated with wine. Representations of myrtle are rare in Aegean iconography, and the depiction of blackberry brambles is unique. To paint them intertwined at life-size on more than one wall signals special importance. Both have well-known associations with food, and the berries of both can be made into or used to flavor wine. Throughout the ancient world, myrtle was used as an aromatic herb,92 and in Greece and Rome, residues; Palmer 1994, 1995, on Linear A and B texts. In the Linear B tablets, wine is frequently mentioned in the context of sacrificial banquets (Weilhartner 2008, 417). 88 Bikaki 1984, 22, 32, pl. 25 (VII-1). This particular version of the sign is otherwise known at Zakros. The sherd was found in Room 21 in an LM I deposit (cf. Cummer and Schofield 1984, 20–21). 89 Marinatos 1968–1976, III, pl. 56:1; VI, pl. 79:a, left; reproduced in Wright 1995, 289, fig. 18.1. 90 Cf. Palmer 1995, 280, 284. 91 Skins were used to carry water in Egypt, while in Classical Greece wine was transported to banquets in skins then decanted into a krater (Leonard 1995, 252). 92 Bauman 1986, 150; Faas 2003, 117, 150; Alcock 2006, 59. Both fresh and dried leaves were used as well as the berries. In Egypt myrtle was used for fumigation as well as medicine

FEASTS, FESTIVALS, AND SOCIAL CONTEXT

wreaths of myrtle leaves were held or worn on the heads of diners, offering fragrance thought to dispel the fumes of wine and to control drunkenness.93 The plant had clear, widespread associations with feasting and the sharing of wine. Bramble shoots can be eaten,94 while the blackberries might be added to stews or wine. The reason for prominence of these plants on the walls surely relates to banqueting and probably to the prominence of cups and jugs found in the rooms and the significance of the sharing of wine. Cups are holders of more than wine or water. Their shape, size, and material are all potential signifiers of status and identity. Vessels made of precious metals or stone convey very different messages from the plain ceramic conical cups so common in Minoan and Minoanizing contexts. One speaks of exclusion and the elite, the other of inclusion and egalitarianism.95 It is no coincidence that two (fragmentary) and for flavoring, as it was in Assyria (Manniche 1989, 124– 125). In Greece and Rome, the dried berries were scattered on food as a condiment, and fresh berries were chewed to sweeten the breath (Dalby 2003, 227; Faas 2003, 159; Alcock 2006, 59). In Mesopotamia, at the beginning and end of a banquet guests were given water with which to wash their hands, followed by oil perfumed with myrtle and other substances with which to anoint themselves (Joannes 1999, 36). 93 Briers 1990, 43; Bauman 1986, 51–55. The effect must have been similar to that of the perfumed cones worn by Egyptians in funerary banquets (Manniche 1989, 48–58; Wilkinson 1998, 57–58). In addition, at Greek symposia, a myrtle wreath was passed from one man to another, the man left holding it when the host said “stop” being called upon to recite or sing (Dalby 2003, 227; Alcock 2006, 194). 94 As mentioned by Pliny (Alcock 2006, 40); cf. Dalby 2003, 54–56. 95 Koehl (1986a), on the basis of the iconography of the Chieftain Cup, suggests that the Minoan chalice was a token of coming of age rituals for young men; cf. Wright 1995 for the suggestion that ritual drinking in Minoan and Mycenaean Greece may have been associated with initiation ceremonies. On stone and metal vessels in LB I, see Warren 1969, 36–37; Wright 1995, 289–292; 2004a, 17–25. On elite versus egalitarian cups, cf. Hamilakis 2002, 196–197; Borgna 2004. As Hamilakis comments (2008, 12), the conical cup when held in the hand disappears from view, a striking contrast to a goblet, chalice, or kylix, while the plain, undecorated nature of this unassuming drinking vessel signals communality rather than hierarchy. That prestige vessels reflect socialpractices is well documented in the Near East, where the drinking cup was a potent symbol of political ideology at royal summit meetings connected with banquets (Sørensen 2012). Sørensen suggests that Minoans might on occasion have been a part of such royal summits (2012, 715). On the ideological significance of the prestige cup in Mesopotamia, see Winter 1986; Michalowski 1994.

405

stone chalices were found in Room 31 of House A at Ayia Irini,96 the Period VII Frescoed Parlor, a room associated with kitchen and storage facilities below and masses of conical cups near a drain in the adjoining compartment (see above, n. 81). Here was a painted banqueting and receiving hall with unequivocal social distinctions. It is worth noting that in the ancient world cups travelled along with their owners for personal use.97 Drinking cups demarcate personal identity abroad and are, therefore, the most common form of imports, not only in the case of colonialism but in terms of noncolonial intercultural relations.98 Their presence often signifies elite consumption of wine in the context of intercultural relations. It is also important to note that the majority of conical cups at Kea were locally made, with few imported examples, and no conical cups locally made on Kea have been found on Crete.99 The common cup was a local cup. In the case of Minoan Crete, the vast numbers of plain conical cups in the Neopalatial era, including those from nonpalatial sites, have been seen as a significant indicator of sociopolitical dynamics at the time.100 The enormous rise in the distribution and use of conical cups in the Aegean in general and at Ayia Irini in particular during LM I coincides with the crucial period of the expansion of intercultural contacts between Crete, the Cycladic islands, and 96 Cummer and Schofield 1984, 122, pl. 42 (nos. 1499, 1500). 97 In the Iliad, e.g., Nestor, king of Pylos, traveled with his own personal drinking vessel (Hom. Il. 11.633–637). On another social level, sets of drinking cups and jugs were the most common Minoan imports to Cyprus and the Near East, and it has been suggested that they might have been used at feasts as a means of establishing social identities (Sørensen 2012, 706, 713). 98 In the sixth century, for example, Greek and Etruscan wine-drinking cups appeared in Hallstatt regions, even though wine was not a significant part of the local culture (Dietler 1996, 108). 99 Berg 2007b, 98. 100 This situation applies equally to palatial and nonpalatial sites. At Petras, for example, small conical cups were mass produced, vast numbers of sherds having been found throughout the site, both in the palatial building and in houses outside (Rupp and Tsipopoulou 1999). They mostly came from important parts of the buildings or near entrances, highlighting the distinction between interior/ exterior consumption, and Rupp and Tsipopoulou interpret their presence as evidence for a ritualized reception ceremony as hospitality for visitors. Cf. Rethemiotakis 2002, on Galatas.

406

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

the mainland, as well as farther afield with Rhodes and Miletus in particular. Significantly, it also coincides with the rise of representational wall painting and the limited period of time during which miniature paintings were executed at select sites. Similar evidence for the importance of cups for communal drinking in both palatial and domestic contexts at a crucial time in the rise of palaces and of regional polities is evidenced in the Middle Bronze Levant, with the so-called Kabri Goblet,101 which, significantly, appears at the same time as the Aegean-style miniature frieze at Tel Kabri. When all the cups used at a gathering are the same or similar, as in the case of conical cups, it is as revealing as differentiation. It speaks of unification. Indeed, the Egyptian hieroglyphic sign for cup, a handleless vessel akin to the conical cup in shape, is the determinative for “in the company of” and the phonetic determinative for “unite.”102 Cups are the material embodiment of social relations through drinking practices. All of this information is relevant to the Northeast Bastion in terms of the types of cups found in the two rooms. While most were locally made, the use of foreign types (which were, however, less in evidence than at Akrotiri103) may have signified more than a fashionable imitation of the “other.” Such cups would have been used at commensal gatherings, and these events are likely to have included neighboring peoples involved in the communication and trading network to which Kea and Thera were so central. Is it possible that cups of foreign type were used as identity markers, brought by or offered to visitors from abroad? Perhaps N.18, with its paintings of myrtle and bramble referencing drinking, was a reception hall in which participants from different regions of the Aegean gathered to drink together, before entering N.20 to eat and drink communally. The few goblets imply use by higher status individuals, including but not necessarily restricted to the hosts, contrasting with the larger number of Minoanized but locally made conical cups that speak of community participation. 101 Yasur-Landau, Cline, and Samet 2011. 102 Gardiner 1979, 528, sign W10. 103 At Akrotiri, large numbers of Minoan type but locally made conical cups were found, as at Ayia Irini, but also a significant number of fine LM IA Cretan wares and LH I, mostly Peloponnesian, cups imitating LM IA wares (Marthari 1993, 254).

Participants: Hosts and Guests “You are with whom you eat.”104 Commensal or collective eating reinforces social bonding. On the one hand, eating together can be a sign of shared cultural identity. On the other hand, eating with the “other” can establish and perpetuate bonds between disparate parties seeking social relations for purposes of trade, treaties, territorial claims, marriage bonds, and the like. Preparation for a feast requires time, planning, and considerable expense in outlay. By default, a feast presupposes a host or hosts. Not all feasts in the Aegean would have been sponsored by ruler, state, or aristocracy,105 but the scale of feasting implied by the large cauldrons indicates large-scale organization, while the nature of the Northeast Bastion implies that the host(s) would have been authority figure(s). If we assume that feasting took place inside the Northeast Bastion, the host(s) would surely have been locally based. However, the bastion is not the only place at Ayia Irini where commensal eating among elites might have taken place. Hall 37/39 in House A, built and painted at the same time as the Northeast Bastion, has all the signs of having been used for banqueting: a large interior painted hall overlooking an open courtyard, next to a staircase linking basement storage rooms to the hall above, a drain inside the hall leading to the exterior, in this case covered by a bench, and numerous conical cups associated with the drain (this vol., Ch. 1, p. 34 n. 112). In recent years in Aegean studies, the notion of competing factions has been discussed as a determining factor in commensal feasting, including in relation to Ayia Irini.106 In my view, it is extremely unlikely that the Northeast Bastion and House A represent competing factions or families. Firstly, they are not comparable as structures, and the bastion as preserved is not identifiable as a private residence. Secondly, if the two halls belonged to competing factions, one would expect comparability in the iconography. This is not the case. Hall 37/39 in House A was painted 104 Garnsey 1999, 128–138. 105 Hamilakis 2008, 7; Shelmerdine 2008, 401, 403, 405. 106 Gorogianni and Fitzsimons 2017. For the notion of competition in the context of legitimization of elite groups, see this vol., Ch. 1, p. 20 n. 18.

FEASTS, FESTIVALS, AND SOCIAL CONTEXT

with the Splash Pattern, evoking stone but otherwise nonrepresentational. The Northeast Bastion paintings, in contrast, are highly complex in their referential value. Indeed, it is not usual for there to be more than one miniature frieze at a site; the format is special. Thirdly, while Hall 37/39 looks out onto a courtyard, it was not a public courtyard; rather it was the interior face of the entrance to the building, presupposing exclusion, reinforced by the proximity of the building to the Temple. In contrast, Room N.20 of the bastion is an interior space looking out at an area beyond the walls where the populace might gather and where visitors would approach the town, which is appropriate to the iconographic focus in miniature paintings on public festivals. The difference is one of function, not of factions. One marks the religious and administrative hub of the interior of the town, the other marks the security of the walls and the periphery of the town at the intersection with the outside world. Who, then, were the guests? The first assumption is that they were male. The painting clearly separates men and women, and hunter, cooks, gift-bearers, and those meeting with ritualized gestures are all male. Segregation of men from women while eating and drinking was widespread, though not universal, in the ancient world.107 If one were to assume that persons represented in the painting are among those who would take part in the feasting, the repetition of the robe as elite clothing among those bringing gifts and meeting with ritualized gestures implies a level of egalitarianism among the elite. No individuals are singled out as significantly distinct.108 At the same time, the 107 In scenes of commensal feasting in Egyptian tomb paintings, for example, men and women both participate, but they are spatially separated. Segregation was most blatant in the private houses of Classical Greece, where food was served in the andron, literally the “room for men,” while the symposium was a meeting of men of a shared social milieu, simultaneously elite and egalitarian (Murray 1983; Schmitt-Pentel 1999, 92; Vetta 1999, 97). Spartans regularly ate in male only groups, usually 15 of them seated according to age and social status (Alcock 2006, 195). The Greek segregation of women from men while dining is often contrasted with the Etruscan and Roman situation, in which high status women dined alongside men, though in lesser numbers (Dunbabin 2003, 28; Wilkins and Hill 2006, 73–77). 108 Cf. Blakolmer 2008, 267, who comments that what is generally missing in Aegean iconography is “a concrete

407

differentiation between robes and tunics raises questions of identity. As was the case throughout the ancient world, feasts that occurred as part of public festivals (particularly annual religious festivals) included not only elites but also the populace.109 But the painting does not focus on the populace. A token number of women are included—separate from the men—and men wearing loincloths are concentrated around the ships and cauldron. The painting focuses on the elite and their ceremonial meetings. Those who gathered inside the Northeast Bastion rooms would have had shared social expectations, but they need not, indeed probably were not, all from the same local community. The presence of the ships in the vicinity of the cauldrons (whether part of a ceremonial procession, as in the Akrotiri frieze, or indicative of other harbor activity) highlights communications overseas. Guests must be hosted, and if they arrive (intentionally or otherwise) at the time of a public festival, they will be both feted and included.110 Commensal banqueting is the most effective agent in establishing good relations between local and foreign parties. With this note, we come to an end to the discussion on feasts, festivals, and gifts as iconographic themes and their relationship to the architecture of banquet halls, private and public spaces at Kea, and to related reflections on banquets and festivals in the ancient world. What has been established beyond doubt is the socially cohesive role of feasts, festivals, and gifts, and what has been proposed is the importance of these events for the Northeast Bastion in particular definition of individual figures, of particular humans attributable to different regions, palace centres, kin groups or further particularities.” See also Younger 2007, 287. Chapin (2007b), referring to this phenomenon in the Thera Miniature Frieze, proposes a structuring of island society in terms of male coalitions. 109 Cf. Pollock 2003, 25–26 (Mesopotamia); Teeter 2011, 56 (Egypt). 110 One is again reminded of the passage in the Odyssey (3.1–84, esp. 75–84) in which Telemachus and his crew arrive (anonymously) in their ships. The populace is gathered outside, preparing and eating sacrificial meat; Nestor awaits dinner with his sons. The “strangers” are given drink-offerings and portions of meat in the presence of Nestor, and only then—once feasted—does the host ask his guests who they are.

408

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

and Ayia Irini in general. What remains to be considered is the wider significance of the role of wall paintings. Bringing us full circle from the discussion in the Prologue on how images work, the Epilogue reflects on the broader relationship between wall paintings and memory, leading us through to the concluding thoughts on the significance of these particular paintings within their social context.

Summary The Northeast Bastion and its wall paintings, built at the height of importance for Ayia Irini in the network of Aegean interrelations, provides striking evidence for the socially cohesive role of feasts, festivals and gift exchange. The architecture and finds of the Bastion—with staircase linking kitchen storage to the halls upstairs, drain, pithoi, and pottery for pouring, drinking, and eating—provide evidence for drinking, eating, and food production. Uniquely at Ayia Irini, there were no signs of residential industrial use of the rooms. All this evidence points to the use of the rooms as meeting places for elites in which banqueting took place. Strategically placed, with views of the approach to the town from the harbor and a large open space before the town gates, banqueters inside the room might have overlooked feasting activities of the populace, as implied by the scene of cooking outdoors in giant cauldrons. Large-scale organization is implied, no doubt by locally based authority figure(s) as host(s). Throughout the ancient world, feasting is alluded to through visual metonymy, in which resonant images stand for the wider context of festivals, focusing

on key moments of social integration. In the Miniature Frieze, scenes of cooking in cauldrons, a deer hunt, returning hunter, men bringing produce, a procession, and the pageantry of chariot and decorated ships imply preparations for a feast at a festival, expressive of male elite power. In the Plant Panels, myrtle and blackberry allude to consumption as potential ingredients of meat stew and wine, linking the two rooms in theme. Miniature paintings at Ayia Irini, Akrotiri, Tylissos (and perhaps Knossos) were all in large halls overlooking an open public space, and they all imply dining in their association with a service area below, storage, vessels, and drain. In the Northeast Bastion, with its proximity to the harbor and its images of ships and probable shipsheds, a close association is discernible between images, function, location, and seafaring, situating the theme of preparations for feasting within the wider social context of Ayia Irini and its overseas connections. It is likely that commensal eating among elites also took place in Hall 37/39 of House A. However, this does not, to my mind, reflect competing families. The Northeast Bastion and House A are not comparable in environment (House A is an interior structure adjacent to the Temple), as buildings (the bastion had no residential industries), or in terms of their iconography (the Miniature Frieze is uniquely referential). The difference between the two as dining halls is not one of factions but of functions. The Northeast Bastion looks outward, to the community and to the world beyond, through the socially cohesive role of feasts, festivals, and gift exchange in the establishment and maintenance of elite male relations within the network of seafaring interconnections.

EPILOGUE

Wall Paintings and Memory

The notion of paintings as cultural signifiers leads us to contemplate some larger issues pertaining to the role of wall paintings in society. The focus here is the relationship between images and memory, as conceptualized in the Prologue (pp. 4–6), here contextualized in relation to the wall paintings. Such is the broad cultural relevance of this topic that it could well have developed into a separate book. As an ending rather than a beginning, the discussion is intentionally kept brief. At the same time, while the focus remains on the Miniature Frieze at Kea, the conclusions have applicability for the study of wall paintings on a more global scale.

Festivals and Ritualized Action Festivals, commensal feasting, ceremonial giftexchange, and processions, as commemorative events that establish and perpetuate communal allegiance, all structure collective time through calendars of festivals, separate routine from heightened social

experience, and ensure continuity and transmission of cultural knowledge through repetition. They do so through evocation, sensory perception, and the performative action characterized by a specificity of bodily movements with distinctive appearance that through repetition become part of the social code. In paintings such as the Miniature Frieze, a repertoire of movements, gestures, and clothing creates a definable choreography of human action and response. Their power to elicit recognition derives from the effectiveness of the limited range. Only one moment in a sequence of movements, one specific gesture can be portrayed in a single figure. The moment chosen has to encapsulate the entire range in a single image, the most clearly defined, most characteristic, the least ambiguous in its message. Gesture, stasis, or movement of the body has to be appropriate to the individual and the group portrayed, the relationships between the characters, and the messages of their interactions. In the same way, clothing as represented must distinguish between occupations and activities, male and female, local and foreign, and the neutrality of equality versus the authority of the

410

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

elite. All this is achieved through a semantic range of elements that relies for its effectiveness on sociocultural memory. In preparations for the feast (hunting, cooking, the bringing of produce), as in the experience of the pageantry of the festival (processions of men on foot and in prestige vehicles) and in the culminating feast itself, the senses of the participants are stimulated in ways that ensure the sedimentation of memories and the resultant communal cohesion. In the representation of such events in wall paintings, set within an environment such as the Northeast Bastion that both internalizes memory through the events of meeting, eating, and drinking that went on within the rooms and externalizes it through the view onto the public space beyond, images and events are synchronized in a choreographed environment of social dynamics.

Pageantry and Paintings The procession of decorated ships in the Thera miniature painting, stretching between two towns along the entire length of a wall, is awe inspiring in its ability to evoke and structure memories of maritime pageantry. In the Kea painting, it seems from what is preserved that although ships played an important role they were less central to the iconographic program as a whole, which focused as much on the provisioning of a potential feast as on pageantry, an impression strengthened by the theme of (edible and drinkable) plants in the large-scale paintings in the adjoining room, in contrast to the ships’ cabins at Thera. Yet decorated ships there were, as well as processions on land, both on foot, as at Thera, and, uniquely in miniature paintings, with horses and a chariot. These are undeniable elements of pageantry, recognizable from festive occasions in many cultures of the world, ancient and modern. Such occasions bring communities together under the auspices of the controlling powers: religion, rulership, and the state. A contemporary comparison, while far removed in social context, is illuminating in terms of the relationship between pageantry, visual images, and sociocultural memory. At the recent Diamond Jubilee celebration in London of the Queen’s 60th year of reign, all the elements of ancient festivals were present on the grandest of scale. The celebrations started

with a feast, the Big Jubilee Lunch, in which, while the royals and elites eat together, people throughout the country were encouraged to share food with their neighbors in street parties. Then came the regatta, in which almost a thousand vessels from around the country and the world made their way up the Thames, among them the royal barge and public and private boats of every kind and with every form of propulsion. The banks of the river thronged with spectators. Display on land followed: choreographed horse riding, dancing, and sword fighting. The final day was marked by city-wide celebrations, a special religious service (at Westminster Cathedral), an elite feast (at Westminster Hall) and a procession of carriages to the palace, culminating with a royal wave from the balcony. Foreign dignitaries were present at the ceremonies, and during the year several members of the royal family visited cities throughout the land, nearby islands, and overseas territories, dependencies, and Commonwealth countries further afield, in each of which local celebrations, feasts, and governmental ceremonies and meetings were held. Regattas on such a scale are spectacular to watch and relatively rarely encountered. They are, therefore, worthy of expression. In 2012 the procession of boats was televised live to the world by the British Broadcasting Corporation, and today short videos of it can be seen on YouTube, uploaded by individuals and media institutions.1 The event itself is said to have been inspired by a painting by Canaletto of a regatta on the Thames on the occasion of Lord Mayor’s Day ca. 1750.2 That occasion was part of a tradition of royal, ceremonial and civic pageantry on the river that highlighted its importance as the gateway to the sea and international trade.3 Such river pageantry also drew symbolically on cultural alliances between London and Venice. In ca. 1740 Canaletto recorded the annual carnival regatta in Venice in a painting. It was one of a pair, the other painting recording the annual “Wedding of the Sea,” in which the Doge (chief of the assembly of nobles) threw a 1 E.g., the television program, “Diamond Jubilee River Pageant: The Best Bits,” produced by the British news and content provider, ITN, June 2012, accessed March 2017/November 2019 at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zHF7viVJnJg. 2 Lobkowicz Collections, Prague (LR5516). The painting was on show in an exhibition entitled “Royal River: Power, Pageantry and the Thames” at the National Maritime Museum in Greenwich in 2012 (Starkey 2012, 92–94, cat. no. 52). 3 Starkey 2012, esp. 33 (J. Sanders), 80–81, 86–89, (I.W. Archer), 121 (T. Jenks).

WALL PAINTINGS AND MEMORY

gold ring into the sea from his barge to symbolize the marriage of Venice to the sea.4 This event, clearly symbolic of the power of Venetian shipping and maritime commerce, occurred on Ascension Day, one of the most important ecumenical feast days of the Christian church, aimed at encouraging interdenominational unity. Secular and sacred interests imperceptibly merged in the goal of social cohesion. The two paintings were commissioned by the British Consul to be shown to prestigious visitors to Venice so that they could witness through art the impressive public ceremonies of the city-state.5 Like the jubilees of ancient Egypt, the one in London was predicated on the longevity of royal rule as symbolic of community cohesion. The Venetian regattas, also symbolic of authority and solidarity, proclaimed the power of local governance. All were held within the framework of religious ritual. Each event was accompanied by elite as well as public feasting. But interestingly, in the light of our discussion on the oblique nature of the iconography of feasting, it is not the feasts that are memorialized in images—it is the display. As in the Kea Miniature Frieze, what is shared through images is the visuality of pageantry and the collectivity of human action for a festival in the service of elites, in a setting encompassing land, river, and urban space that evokes time, place, and the significance of the event for the local community and its visitors from abroad, reaching out through local celebrations to the intercultural network beyond.

Landscape and Memory All memories, all social encounters are situated in time and place. Landscape encapsulates moments in time and defines relationships between people and places. Each complex of elements (rocks, water, plants) is experienced subjectively through all the senses, contextualized through engagement with animals and the social world of persons, and mapped by routes and built environments. As such, 4 These two Venetian ceremonial scenes are now housed in the National Gallery in London (Baker and Henry 2001, 87–88): “Venice: A Regatta on the Grand Canal” (NG938); “Venice: The Basin of San Marco on Ascension Day” (NG4453). 5 The Consul, Joseph Smith, was a patron of the arts, notably of Caneletto (Links 1977, esp. 38–39).

411

landscape is a prime instigator of social memory. Landscape, (as opposed to land) as an entity separate from the place that we inhabit is a construct that does not, to my knowledge, exist in ancient languages. Yet uniquely, Aegean painters chose to depict aspects of the natural world as subjects in themselves. Such landscapes, however, are resonant of wider themes, as is clear from the programs of Room 14 at Hagia Triada and Xeste 3 at Akrotiri, in which images of plants and animals are separated from yet juxtaposed with those of human and divine action, or the hunt scenes of Akrotiri, Ayia Irini, and Tell elDabca, in which the animal protagonists reflect on male action in the juxtaposed scenes. The large-scale depictions of myrtle and bramble, separate from the Miniature Frieze, are resonant of the larger theme of feasting and ceremonial drinking that no doubt took place within the Northeast Bastion, linking through mnemonic reference the topography of the outside world with the ritualized action of the interior world of social interaction. Their counterparts, the large-scale depictions of grasses and reeds, refer the viewer to a wider world outside and link the two painted rooms through the topography of a marsh. The landscape so vividly and variously represented in the Kea Miniature Frieze provides the physical environment for the human and animal action. Yet it does far more than that. Topography defines the physical boundaries and temporal reiteration of the social world of humans. It is perceived and experienced at different times of year under different weather conditions and in different circumstances, contextualized through action and events, and built up in the mind as a series of associations that shapes our engagement with the world. As such, landscape within a series of wall paintings such as the Miniature Frieze has a vital mnemonic role in the construction of memory. It is for this reason, I believe, that so much attention has been lavished on the portrayal of sea, marsh, river, and rocky hills in the frieze. Elements such as the multicolored rocks touch on cultural memory through their engagement with other paintings such as those from Akrotiri, while simultaneously drawing attention to the rocky interior of Kea and the surrounds of Ayia Irini, evoking the further reaches of known topography. The extensive marsh, unique in the known corpus of Aegean art, clearly had significance beyond that of event since, unlike the rocks and

412

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

river (in other scenes), no human figures and no animals appear to have been directly associated with the scene. Ayia Irini today is surrounded on three sides by sea, bordered on the landward side by rocky hills, and perched on a peninsula edged by a marshy coast from which a dried-up river bed winds its way northward (Figs. 1.3, 6.2). Of course we do not know how this topography has changed since ancient times, but surely the coincidence is too great to ignore. Yet the extraordinary emphasis on the river and marsh and sea, occupying perhaps the entire east wall, signals an importance that may go beyond that of mere reference to local topography. At Akrotiri, the relationship in the Xeste 3 program between the Reed-Bed landscape and the Goddess, as well as the presence of the griffin in the riverine landscape of the Miniature Frieze of the West House, speaks of a mythic association for marshy, riverine landscapes. There is no evidence for such associations in the Kea paintings, but the possibility of some sort of symbolic undercurrent to the landscape scenes should be kept in mind. Symbolic nuances could encompass social factors as well as ideological, factors that might have had meaning pertaining to the economy and trade of the town. Is it, for instance, possible that the emphasis on a river encodes a reference to the route taken from the town of Ayia Irini to a significant place such as the ocher mine of Trypospilies to the northeast (this vol., Ch. 11, p. 387) along what is now the dried-up riverbed? A proposal for such precise topographical reference is, of course, highly speculative and unverifiable, yet incontrovertibly something was important about rivers for the painters or patrons. Of the unique aspects of the topography in the frieze, the most extraordinary are the detailed depictions of sea and sky. Sea surrounds the ships and defines the coastal settlements in the Akrotiri Miniature Frieze, but an individualistic approach to the painterly conception of the sea occurs only in the Ayia Irini frieze. The sea was the cohesive element of the frieze, running all along the bottom around the walls. Its constant presence draws attention to the vital fact that Ayia Irini owed the growth of its cultural development to the maritime trading network. Life as it was depended on the sea. In a remarkable effort to particularize, the painting also delineates the sky, gray and cloudy in places, shot with pink in others. In this unique reference to the relationship between time, place, and weather, the painting draws the viewer into concrete memories of fleeting but recurrent moments.

Concluding Thoughts All considerations of the meanings and functions of wall paintings must be predicated on context: spatial, temporal, social, and cultural. As such, the Miniature Frieze and Plant Panels of Ayia Irini are first and foremost an integral part of the Northeast Bastion. The paintings are sometimes referred to as belonging to a private house. Familiar though we are to thinking in such terms, the fact remains that we do not know what lay to the west of the structure, while the bastion itself was an integral part of the fortifications and showed no signs of domestic industries common to houses in the rest of the settlement. As in some medieval castles, in which the banqueting hall was situated within the keep,6 the Northeast Bastion was a significant location in which to house wall paintings and host dining. Given that the rooms must have had windows in order to provide light for the images and the action, the fortification at this point is likely to have had more of a symbolic than a functional purpose, signaling elite presence and power, but this possibility in itself is of profound significance. The painted rooms were separated from the fortified Northeast Tower by no more than a corridor, tangentially linked to the rest of the town, yet with the most privileged views, overlooking the approach from the sea with its harbor to the east, and to the south (over ancestral graves) the main Gateway leading to the Temple and House A, beyond which lay the interior of the settlement. Paintings, buildings, and environs formed an integral whole. Like the painted bastion, the freestanding Temple is unique at this time. What relationships between the Northeast Bastion, the Temple and House A lay behind the festival and feasting implied in the Miniature Frieze in its architectural and social context? Several factors point to a closer relationship than might have been thought. Models of boats and a dolphin found in the Temple (this vol., Ch. 3, pp. 93, 95) may well have been conceptually related to the ship with dolphins painted in Room N.20 overlooking the approaches to the Temple and the sea. The presence of the chariot, a rare and novel ceremonial vehicle at this time, is of crucial significance for the social 6 According to Johnson 2002 (83, 101–103, 141), the location of the hall was always prominent, and could on occasion be above the gatehouse or within the keep (donjon). Since the hall was raised up, it had good views of the surrounding land, including the deer parks.

WALL PAINTINGS AND MEMORY

status of the participants in the festival and reflects on the elite nature of the patronage of the paintings. The long ceremonial robes of some of the men may well be signifiers of links with Temple administration. Above all, the location of the Northeast Bastion and the iconographic emphasis on the sea imply that the festival, gift bringing, and cooking are framed within the context of overseas relations. Such propositions draw attention to important aspects of the social context of the paintings. The Northeast Bastion was added to the fortification wall at precisely the time of the most intense interrelations between Kea and the Aegean world. It provided a place to watch over the approach to the town from the sea. In building two grand rooms that appear to have been used as a meeting and banqueting place, special importance was given to location. Paintings, architecture, location, and orientation were symbiotically and inextricably connected. Into this extraordinary setting, a series of paintings was commissioned that drew on the mnemonic powers of visual images to structure and consolidate sociocultural memory. Through these images, the present and developing social order of elite members of the community was articulated and reinforced. Each element of the paintings plays on the commemoration of time, place, and action of significance for community cohesion. Yet their importance lies not so much in the commemoration of singular

413

events, though these may have been in mind. Rather, the images draw on significant aspects of community knowledge through the unifying and recurrent occurrence of festival gatherings and preparations for commensal feasting to crystallize the wider issues of authority, community, and foreign relations. Each element is a part of a wider whole: the hunt is a metonym for male prowess, processional meetings for social relations, the bringing of produce for gift exchange and trade, cooking in cauldrons for community feasting, chariots and horses for prestige and pageantry, and ships for the all important role of seafaring. Beyond the actions of the men lie the urban settlements inhabited by women, crucial for grounding the frieze in community life. All these elements are set within and beyond strikingly delineated land, sea, and sky that evoke significant aspects of place and time. In use for a relatively short period, the painted rooms of the Northeast Bastion played a vital role in the expression and consolidation of elite relations at this crucial time in Aegean prehistory. Situated at the strategic interface between the town of Ayia Irini and the land and sea beyond, the wall paintings reflect the social dynamics of the immediate environs, while providing a window into the wider social context of intercultural relations between Kea and the Aegean world.

Appendices and Concordances

APPENDIX A

Miscellaneous Fragments and Border Bands

This appendix could well have been called “ambiguous and enigmatic.” That, at least, is what the fragments presented here are to the author. Though relatively well preserved, those cataloged as miscellaneous have evaded my interpretative mind-set, even after years of familiarity. In time, hopefully the fresh eye of a perspicacious student, perhaps aided by new comparanda, may identify them. With that hope they have been included in this book. Those fragments that I believe belong to the Miniature Frieze are included in Plates 64 and 65 (930–950). They constitute a motley group. Those fragments that I believe to have come from a wall in N.18 are presented in Plate 65 (951–959). They constitute a meaningful group, though their meaning escapes me. Fragments 951–956 have circular forms, perhaps being part of a large-scale landscape. Those fragments cataloged as border bands, illustrated in

Plates 66 and 67 (960–964) are less ambiguous, but to what did they belong? Virtually all came from N.18. One would expect those arranged horizontally in Plate 66 (960–963) to have bordered the tops of large scale paintings, but curiously there are too few pieces and, most importantly, too many variants to justify adding them to the compositions of the Plant Panels. Border bands usually ran continuously around a room, uniting the imagery that lay below. The probable vertical arrangement of 964, given the curve and lack of string lines, is unusual. The varied borders, as seen on the pieces in Plate 66, are a salutary reminder that the western and northern parts of this room were largely destroyed by the early 20thcentury road that ran through this part of the site. The photographs and study drawings in the following catalogs are presented at 1:2 scale.

418

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

Catalog of Miscellaneous Fragments 930 (U31). N.18 East. Pl. 64. H. 1.7 x w. 2.2 x th. 0.9 cm. Curved red form, partially outlined in black, on yellow ground.

931 (P30). N.20 East. Pl. 64. H. 3.2 x w. 3.2 x th. 0.8 cm. On white ground, angular red forms intersected by a faint ocher line. Three plantlike ocher forms at the edge. 932 (Q14). N.20 East. Pl. 64. H. 2.8 x w. 3.7 x th. 0.8 cm. White form over yellow ground, with red and yellow ocher curved forms over the white. A tripartite red form extends from white to yellow ground. Orientation unknown. 933 (W32). N.18 Central. Pl. 64. H. 4.0 x w. 4.3 x th. 0.7 cm. Two pieces joined. White over yellow ground. Yellow ocher strip over white and ground and red limb-like forms over the white. Faint blue on the yellow ground at the end of the strip of ocher. Orientation unknown. 934 (O4). N.20 East. Pl. 64. H. 2.5 x w. 1.6 x th. 0.5 cm. White applied over bluish gray (just visible at the lower edge) with short curved lines and dashes in black and red painted over. Yellow ocher is smeared over parts of the surface, probably extraneous. Perhaps the fabric of a woman’s dress, the woman being framed by a window (cf. 4 and 5). There are, however, no known parallels for such a fabric.

like a tripod with over long legs. Rotate the fragment to the left, placing the blue in an approximately straight line, and it looks like a man bending over with arms outstretched (back leg and head worn away). In neither case does comparative iconography back up the impression: tripods do not have such long legs, and there is no comparison for such a posture in Aegean art. The fragment, however oriented, remains an enigma. This area of the frieze may have been overpainted. Yellow ground is seen beneath the blue, but in places the blue lies beneath the yellow ground, as though it were an earlier layer of paint. 937 (U61). N.18 East. Pl. 64. H. 2.1 x w. 1.8 x th. 1.1 cm. Yellow ground with a vertical string impression at the right edge of the fragment, and a narrow gray-black horizontal strip. Speck of ocher to the right of the string impression. Specks of red and gray over the surface. Probably part of a building. 938 (E14). N.20 Southwest. Pl. 64. H. 2.2 x w. 3.6 x th. 0.6 cm. On white plaster, curved areas of dark and light blue-gray on one side, with red on the other.

939 (C4). N.20 West. Pl. 64. H. 2.1 x w. 2.2 x th. 0.7 cm. Smooth white plaster, with red on one side along an almost straight line and blue on the other side, curved. 940 (C5). N.20 West. Pl. 64. H. 2.1 x w. 2.9 x th. 0.5 cm. On white plaster, yellow ocher and red ocher, red painted last.

941 (U124). N.18 East. Pl. 64. H. 3.7 x w. 4.7 x th. 1.1– 1.7 cm. Poorly preserved, dull colors. Poorly preserved string line down the center of the fragment. Blue over yellow ground, ocher over blue.

935 (E11). N.18 Southwest. Pl. 64. H. 2.2 x w. 2.0 x th. 0.6 cm. Ocher with black lines over. Fur of an animal? 936 (G2). N.20 Northwest. Pl. 64. H. 5.0 x w. 2.7 x th. 0.6 cm. A red form composed of three almost parallel extensions painted on a yellow ground. Beneath (as oriented here) is blue painted over the yellow, which continues higher up the fragment on the left. In interpretation, orientation is everything. Place the red forms upright and it looks

942 (Y39). N.18 Central. Pl. 64. H. 4.7 x w. 3.3 x th. 0.5 cm. Three pieces joined. Buff ground with a reddish ocher strip over it. Very worn blue around the buff area, apparently over plaster. Part of the fragment crumbled between drawing and photography. The drawing shows continuation of the buff color below and the fragment broken on the left along a string line. The buff is smooth, polished. Originally, I associated this with 502, but if that piece suggests a transition from sea to land, this surely does not.

MISCELLANEOUS FRAGMENTS AND BORDER BANDS

943 (U123). N.18 East. Pl. 64. H. 4.6 x w. 7.6 x th. 0.6– 0.8 cm. Two pieces joined. Yellow ground with area of

white, over which is a curved strip of blue. Ocher over white and over yellow. String line in the area of white (left as oriented). 944 (T8). N.20 East. Pl. 64. H. 3.2 x w. 5.0 x th. 0.7 cm. Gray-blue curved strips over yellow ground. Microorganisms on the surface.

945 (V7). N.18 East. Pl. 64. H. 7.1 x 3.1 x 0.7–2.2 (a protrusion) cm. Two pieces joined. Eroded surface with (in order of application) ocher, red, blue.

419

somewhat rounded, suggesting that the fragment approaches an edge. The string line might have been horizontal or vertical. If the latter, the border may have abutted a door frame. 947 (T6). N.20 East. Pl. 64. H. 1.7 x w. 2.0 x th. 0.9 cm. White with a horizontal ocher strip. Traces of short black lines over the white and at the right edge. Probably part of a building. 948 (U14). N.18 East. Pl. 64. H. 1.9 x w. 3.0 x th. 0.9 cm. Narrow alternating strips of white and ocher. Smooth, well-preserved surface. The wider ocher strip is redder than the other. Black outline on one side of the narrow white strip. Perhaps related to 136–138 on Figure 7.6 (Horse and Building), Plate 14. Cf. U43 (not illustrated). 949 (D13). N.20 West. Pl. 64. H. 3.5 x w. 3.4 x th. 0.6 cm. Ocher strip on white plaster.

950 (Y19). N.18 Central. Pl. 64. H. 5.0 x w. 3.4 x th. 0.6 cm. On white plaster, a curved ocher strip, with a pink wash visible in part beneath. Paint is worn. The surface of the fragment is slightly concave. 946 (Y18). N.18 Central. Pl. 64. H. 6.5 x w. 4.5 x th. 0.7– 1.2 cm. Two pieces joined. Two parallel string lines divide

pale yellow ground from ocher painted over blue. The ocher stops at the first of the two string lines, which are very closely spaced. Cf. V25 (not illustrated), a scrap of the same. The back of the fragment on the ocher/blue side is

951 (W18). N.18 Central. Pl. 65. H. 5.2 x w. 4.6 (5.4) x th. 1.0 cm. Thin wash of white over pale ocher ground (?),

divided by a curved red line from an area of ocher. Faint curved red line on the white, parallel to the division. Patches of red over the ocher, adjacent to the division, may be partially flaked.

420

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

952 (X104). N.18 Central. Pl. 65. H. 4.2 x w. 6.0 x th. 0.6–0.9 cm. Surface pitted. Bright ocher divided along a

curved line from areas of white and yellow ocher. Fugitive red over the bright ocher, black line over the red, marking the division of colors. Black also delineates the white/ yellow division. Red plant (?) on the yellow. Shallow depressions on the back (accidental?). 953 (X106). N.18 Central. Pl. 65. H. 2.4 x w. 3.0 x th. 0.8 cm. Black over red, both over ocher.

954 (X105). N.18 Central. Pl. 65. H. 5.2 x w. 3.5 x th. 1.0 cm. Surface pitted. White ground with strong ocher. Black line outlines the ocher, and a faint black line on the white would have outlined the red. Layer of ocher beneath the red. 955 (Y30). N.18 Central. Pl. 65. H. 4.7 x w. 5.0 x th. 1.0 cm. Applied white over red. Gray-black overlaps red and the white ground. Pinkish (red wash) beneath black, probably a guide line that marked out the area (?).

956 (W16). N.18 Central. Pl. 65. H. 4.0 x w. 2.6 x th. 0.8 cm. Reddish streaks over bright ocher. Black lines, painted last, delineate the area.

957 (Z1). N.18 West. Pl. 65. H. 6.6 x w. 7.0 x th. 0.7 cm. Three pieces joined. Two string impressions dividing an area of blue on white plaster from areas of red, and a third

string impression bisecting the blue. The red is straight at the sides, curved at the bottom (as oriented), and two of the string impressions extend into this curved red area. As illustrated, the string lines are placed vertically, but they could as well have been horizontal. The viewer should feel free to rotate the fragment. Some applied white, painted last. Ocher patches. Colors poorly preserved, with much overlaying of paints, which have flaked off. Probably more areas were filled in than are apparent. Two thin layers of plaster, the back very smooth as though it had lain against another smooth layer of plaster. Specks of microorganisms on the surface. Cf. 958, 959. The fragments came from the center of N.18. The composition to which they belonged may have been painted on the west or north wall of the room, as it was clearly distinct from the Plant Panels, assumed to have come from the east and south walls. 958 (Z2). N.18 West. Pl. 65. H. 3.7 (4.0) x w. 4.6 x th. 0.8 cm. Order of colors: red, blue, ocher, black. Very worn.

959 (Z3). N.18 West. Pl. 65. H. 3.5 x w. 4.0 x th. 0.7–1.0 cm. Light ocher over red, black lines over ocher. The distinction between red and ocher is less apparent than in the drawing.

MISCELLANEOUS FRAGMENTS AND BORDER BANDS

Catalog of Border Bands

421

962 (L3/J3/U47/U48/U49/Y20). N.20 West/N.18 East/N.18 Central. Pl. 66. Border bands. L3: H. 3.3 x w. 2.2 x th. 0.5 cm. J3: H. 3.3 x w. 4.1 x th. 0.7 cm.

960 (X97/X98). N.18 Central. Pl. 66. Border bands. X97: H. 2.9 x w. 5.2 x th. 0.6–1.2 cm. Three pieces joined.

X97

X98

X98: H. 2.8 x w. 2.4 x th. 0.7 cm. Smooth white plaster and blue, divided by a string impression. The blue was painted after the string impression. Over the top is an outline in a dull tone of pinkish gray. 961 (X86/X87/X88/Y17). N.18 Central. Pl. 66. Border bands. X86: H. 3.5 x w. 3.4 x th. 0.4–0.8 cm. Two pieces joined. X87: H. 2.5 x w. 2.6 x th. 0.5 cm. X88: H. 2.5 x w. 3.2 x th. 0.4–0.6 cm. Two pieces joined. Y17: H. 3.2 x w. 2.9 x th. 0.5 cm. A narrow band of red separates pale yel-

L3

J3

U47

U48

U49

Y20

U47: H. 2.3 x w. 1.4 x th. 0.7 cm. U48: H. 2.7 x w. 1.7 x th. 0.7 cm. U49: H. 4.0 x w. 3.6 x th. 0.7 cm. Y20: H. 4.1 x w. 2.3 x th. 0.8 cm. Fragments J3 and U47–U49 have a partial coarse line marking the division, either impressed with rough string or gouged with a tool. The line ends half way along U49, and there is none on Y20. The gouge (higher up) on L3 may be postdepositional or a line that was not adhered to (there is a speck of red in the gouge). 963 (U58/X92/U30/V19/V16). N.18 East. Pl. 66. Border bands. U58: H. 3.4 x w. 2.2 x th. 0.8 cm. X92: H. 3.1 x

X86

X87

X88

Y17

low ocher from white plaster, demarcated by a string impression between red and white. Faint trace of what looks like a partial second string impression toward the upper part of the red strip on Y17. At the lower edge of X86 the fragment is broken on another string line, with trace of a pink guide line. This indicates a width of 2.0 cm for the white (unpainted) band.

U58

X92

U30

V19

V16

w. 3.2 x th. 0.5–1.0 cm. U30: H. 4 x w. 5.3 x th. 1.2 (blue)– 0.8 (red) cm. Two pieces joined. V19: H. 3.5 x w. 2.9 x th. 0.6–1.1 cm. V16: H. 3.0 x w. 3.6 x th. 0.8 cm. The bluegray is darker in U58. On V16 the surface is worn, and the blue barely visible. The string impression is coarse. Straw impression on the back in the area of blue-white on U30. A fragment found in the Northeast Tower probably belongs with these bands.

422

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

964 (X63/X65/X71 + six related fragments). N.18 Central. Pl. 67. Vertical bands. X63: H. 3.6 x w. 4.4 x th. 0.5 cm. Two pieces joined. X65: H. 6.1 x w. 3.4 x th. 0.6 cm. Two pieces joined. W47: H. 4.0 x w. 5.2 x th. 0.7 cm. X66: H. 1.5 x w. 1.6 x th. 0.6 cm. X67: H. 2.3 x w. 3.2 x th. 0.7 cm. X186: H. 2.0 x w. 2.7 x th. 0.5 cm. X70: H. 2.0 x w. 1.7 x th. 0.6 cm. X74: H. 2.3 x w. 3.2 x th. 0.5 cm. X71: H. 6.8 x w. 10.6 x th. 0.6–0.8 cm. Eleven pieces joined. Bands of pale yellow, black, bright ocher, white (plaster). These fragments have been placed in association

vertically in Pl. 67, on account of the curve toward the top of X63 and the lack of string impression associated with horizontal border bands. Black overlaps yellow ground (visible on X71), but otherwise is painted on plaster, as is the ocher on the right (as oriented). Fragment X65 has a gray-black outline to the right side of the ocher band, not visible on X71 or X74. The ocher strip on X71 has flecks of red. Here X63, X65, and X71 are illustrated; all fragments appear in Pl. 67.

X65

X63 X71

APPENDIX B

Scientific Analysis of Painted Plasters from Ayia Irini

Background to the Sampling by Lyvia Morgan and Ellen Davis† The samples analyzed were chosen by Ellen Davis in the 1980s with the permission of the Greek Archaeological Service. At the time, it was planned that she would publish a study of the materials and techniques of all the Ayia Irini paintings. Sadly, illness subsequently prevented this. The samples had been chosen as a further study to that made by Majewski and Reich, published in 1973. In the earlier report, more yellow and red samples were analyzed than blue, though the emphasis was on the issue of fresco versus secco. In Davis’s selection, focus was on the blue pigments and the black over blue, with one sample of especially bright ocher (no. 6) included for analysis. The following comments are based on and quoted from the notes in her list of “Fragments from Kea Wall Paintings Designated for Analysis” (now located in the archive of the Department of Classics at the University of Cincinnati), with additional information for the Northeast Bastion on dating and attribution. Samples 1–6 were drawn from the Northeast Bastion and are datable to Period VI, LC I/LM IA. Numbers 1–3 are from N.20, therefore the Miniature Frieze;

numbers 4–6, from N. 18, are most likely from the Plant Panels. Samples 7–13 and 16 were drawn from House A. Numbers 7 and 16 belong to the Splash Pattern (imitation stone) of Hall 37/39, also datable to Period VI.1 Onto a light blue ground (7) or a blue-black ground (16), yellow, red, and white paint were “flicked” with a brush. The surface has a glossy appearance and the pigments have a thick “grainy substance.” Samples 8–12 came from Room 31, and no. 13 from the adjacent Room 34, therefore from Period VII, LC II/LM IB. The paintings in Room 31 include a frieze of bluebirds2 and what appear to be a griffin and shrine.3 Samples 8–12 “have a finer crumbly texture that appears to differ from the rest of the plaster found at Kea.” Samples 14–15 were drawn from a dump in and around Building M,4 a small structure outside the fortification wall built in Period VII. “The evidence suggests that plaster was being mixed in this area,” 1 2 3 4

Davis 2007, 144–147. Coleman 1973, 286–293. Davis 2007, 148–149. Davis 2007, 147–148.

424

WALL PAINTINGS AND SOCIAL CONTEXT. THE NORTHEAST BASTION AT AYIA IRINI

and blue coloring material as well as yellow and red ocher was found.

Analytical Data and Results by Vassilis Perdikatsis The aim of this study was to establish the composition of the various layers of the painted plaster from the samples taken from the Northeast Bastion, House A, and Building M at Ayia Irini, Kea. The analytical program involved examination of polished sections of painted plasters by polarizing microscope (optical microscopy; Pl. 68) and scanning electron microscopy-energy dispersive X-ray analysis (SEMEDX), along with the use of X-ray diffraction on the surface of the painted plasters.

Methodology In the optical microscopy analysis, polished crosssections of the wall painting samples, containing all the microstratigraphy from the pigment to plaster substrate, were prepared and studied with a polarizing microscope in reflected light for the following: color, particle size, the thickness of paint layer, admixtures of pigments, and paint layer stratigraphy. The same samples studied by optical microscopy were also analyzed on a JEOL JSM 5400 scanning electron microscope equipped with an energy dispersive X-ray (EDX) spectrometer by Oxford Instruments (INCA energy 300 EDS). Microanalyses of single pigment grains down to 1 μ and of the matrix and the total average of the paint layer were performed. Furthermore, X-ray mapping was used to study the element distribution in the pigment layer. The above technique permitted a full microstratigraphic analysis and interpretation of all decorative and background paint layers and the chemical composition of the mineral pigments. In the X-ray diffraction study, the crystalline phase analysis of the pigments was carried out on a D500 Siemens Diffractometer using Ni-filtered Cu Ka radiation (40 kV, 30 mA). Data were collected for 2 theta values in the range of 3° to 70° with a step size of 0.02° and a count time of 5 seconds per step. The diffractograms were taken nondestructively directly on the surface of the fragment or by dispersing with alcohol a few milligrams of pigment material (