Version classiqueVersion mobile

RA-PI-NE-U

 | 
Jan Driessen

4. The ‘Minoanisation’ of the Arts in LC I Akrotiri and LH I Mycenae: Similarities and Differences

Fritz Blakolmer

Texte intégral

I am very grateful to Jan Driessen for his kind invitation to participate to this Festschrift and to Sarah Cormack for revising the language of this paper.

1One of the favourite topics in the oeuvre of Robert Laffineur constitutes the complex themes related to Schliemann’s Shaft Grave Circle A at Mycenae, the objects of prestige from these tombs as well as their relation to Theran mural paintings in iconography and meaning. The last point in particular is connected with a multitude of challenging questions concerning the relationship between the arts of Neopalatial Crete to those of the ‘Minoanised’ Cyclades in LC I and those on the Mycenaean mainland during the Shaft grave period respectively. This is all the more the case as Akrotiri and Mycenae both have delivered a plethora of iconographical material which enables us to analyse its artistic character more closely. In order to avoid any misinterpretation it must be stressed that I am not talking of ‘artistic quality’ and related non-scientific verdicts coined by subjectivity and connoisseurship. Instead, the main question of this study is our assessment of Cycladic and Helladic artists in their treatment of Minoan art. In this contribution I will present only a few observations and thoughts on this comprehensive topic.

Akrotiri

2Already since the excavations by S. Marinatos we know that the local pottery of the late MC and LC I periods in Akrotiri on Thera was rich in pictorial motifs (see esp. Höckmann 1978; Demakopoulou & Crouwel 1995; Marthari 2000; Papagiannopoulou 2008a; 2008b; Nikolakopoulou 2010; Vlachopoulos 2013). Irrespective of the larger discussion in scholarship of the character of the ‘Minoanised’ Southern Aegean during LBAI between “Minoan imperialists” and “Cycladic nationalists” (Davis 1992: 707), the artistic character of these vessels as well as of the mural paintings of the LC I period – both produced by local craftsmen/craftswomen – deserves closer consideration.

3The polychrome decoration of a spouted jug of the late MC period from Akrotiri (Papagiannopoulou 2008b: 440-444, figs 40.14-20) (Fig. 4.1) appears highly unique. Uniqueness, though, does not necessarily mean that the imagery lacks any elements characteristic of Minoan iconography. While the rosettes and other filling ornaments clearly belong to the Cycladic pictorial tradition, the iconography of both figural motifs probably does not. The predatory bird with outstretched wings and oddly standing upright on its tail-feathers is not unfamiliar with the ‘Bird-Lady’ on an LM I cylinder seal from Palaikastro (CMS II 3, no. 279; Pini 1980: 81 (C 5), 101, fig. 17; Davaras & Soles 1995: 57, no. 56; for the compositional scheme, cf. CMS X, no. 268) (Fig. 4.2) and could well have been stimulated by Minoan motifs such as that one. Although the pouring scene on the opposite side of this vessel until now hardly possesses any close parallel in Minoan iconography, it also clearly shows Minoan pictorial elements. The proportions and curved contours of the legs and of the upper body as well as the wasp-like waist of both male figures definitely correspond to Minoan art, whereas the depiction of the arms obviously does not. Although both men are wearing the Minoan breechcloth, the Cycladic painter apparently has misunderstood the front part of this dress in several aspects: most remarkable is the depiction of very tiny genitals (Papagiannopoulou 2008b: 443), thus demonstrating that the painter was only superficially familiar with Minoan iconographical conventions. Whatever the exact meaning is of the foliated plant between the figures, similar plants occur in a comparable context in front of the Minoan Genii holding a jug on the signet-ring from the Tiryns Treasure (CMS I, no 179) (Fig. 4.3) which is probably of Neopalatial Minoan origin.

Fig. 4.1. Spouted jug no. 8960 from Akrotiri, Thera (after Papagiannopoulou 2008b: 442, fig. 40.20)

Fig. 4.2. Cylinder seal from Palaikastro (CMS II 3, no. 279; courtesy of the CMS Heidelberg)

Fig. 4.3. Signet-ring from Tiryns (after CMS I, no. 179; courtesy of the CMS Heidelberg)

4As for other pictorial vessels from Akrotiri, their ‘Minoanising’ character and the Minoan origin of the motifs are even more obvious, such as in the case of a pithos (Fig. 4.4) showing two griffins in a sort of ‘flying gallop’ (cf. esp. CMS II 5, no. 270), palm-trees, the characteristic ‘rockwork’ motifs and the upper frame consisting of running spirals or polychrome stripes (Papagiannopoulou 2008b: 436-438, figs 40.5-8; Vlachopoulos 2015: 42-43, figs 2a- b), all those clearly recognisable Minoan wall-painting features. A late MC bathtub from Akrotiri presents on one of its long-sides a series of figure-of-eight shields in front of a horizontally banded background (Papagiannopoulou 2008b: 434-436, figs 40.2-4; Vlachopoulos 2015: 55, fig. 13b) (Fig. 4.5) and probably reflects a mural decoration. Oddly enough, crocus motifs were dispersed over the background as if the painter misinterpreted the shield form and the horizontal bands as natural elements of the great outdoors. In this case, a sketch of a Minoan mural painting could have formed the prototype for the highly creative pictorial program of this Theran vessel. On further Theran vases, figure-of-eight shields, felines in ‘flying gallop’, dolphins as well as lily and crocus motifs in the conventional Minoan manner and ornaments such as running spirals have excellent parallels in contemporary and later Cretan pottery and mural paintings, and were combined with Theran or Cycladic filling motifs (Papagiannopoulou 2008a; 2008b; Nikolakopoulou 2010).

5We should not be blind to the fact that the images on these and additional vessels appear quite different from Minoan ones; they were painted by Theran painters trained in a traditional artistic context on the Cyclades. The iconographical motifs themselves, though, seem to be based on the repertory of MM III-LM IA Crete (cf. Höckmann 1978; Marthari 2000: esp. 884-887). We gain the impression that, despite their local Theran style and craftsmanship, none of these pictorial vessels present a narrative scene which is completely devoid of Minoan elements or stimuli, and it therefore appears problematic to postulate the existence of an independent ‘Cycladic iconography’ in late MC and LC I pottery rivalling that of Minoan Crete. The Minoan pictorial motifs, most probably, were transmitted via imports from Crete such as the MM IIIA pithos showing the relief scene of a lion attacking a bull found at Akrotiri (Knappett & Nikolakopoulou 2008: 27-29, fig. 17). The figurative scenes and motifs on the vessels of late MC Akrotiri remain unique and did not enter the iconographical spectrum of mural paintings in the subsequent LC I period (contra: Papagiannopoulou 2008a: esp. 255-256; 2008b: 446; Vlachopoulos 2013: 68-69; 2015: 42-43, 46).

6As Ch. Televantou has demonstrated, a multitude of different local fresco painting workshops flourished at Akrotiri in post-seismic LC I and produced highly specialised and sophisticated mural paintings with a clearly Minoan or at least ‘Minoanising’ iconography (Televantou 1992; 2000; Boulotis 2000). They provide a sharp contrast to the MC III/LC I pottery painters in that they imitated the traditional pictorial motifs and concepts of genuinely Knossian iconography without any greater mistakes or misunderstandings. Furthermore, they combined them with a certain degree of creativity, individuality and regional predilections in the stylistic rendering (see esp. Davis 1990; Morgan 1990). These stylistic predilections could well derive from traditional Cycladic vase painting styles. The iconographical motifs themselves, though, widely conform to the postulated Minoan prototypes. We should not be misled by the state of preservation of the mural paintings on Thera which differs substantially from that of the paintings retrieved in Minoan Crete; as mentioned above, a hitherto unique occurrence at Akrotiri does not automatically mean local originality and independence of its iconography. It is therefore all the more exciting to attempt to search for possible non-Minoan aspects in the iconography of well-preserved Theran mural paintings.

7Although we cannot exclude the existence of caprids similar to the Cretan agrimi on islands such as Antimelos and Yioura already in the Bronze Age, it appears very likely that the animals in the so-called ‘Antelope Fresco’ from Beta 1 (Doumas 1992: 116-119, figs 82-84) (Fig. 4.6) reflect Minoan pictorial prototypes. As has already been observed (Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1981: 498; Younger 1995: 341-342 with fig. 5), clear parallels of this motif of a pair of upright quadrupeds and their distinct poses are known, e.g. on Minoan seal impressions from Haghia Triada (CMS II 6, no. 71; see also CMS IV, no. 256) (Fig. 4.7) as well as on one of the Minoan gold relief cups found at Vaphio (Blakolmer 2007a: 32, 45, figs 1, 5; cf. also CMS I, no. 238). A sealing from Kato Zakros (CMS II 7, no. 62) (Fig. 4.8) could well reflect the same motif of competing agrimia with landscape adopted from a frieze into the impractical lentoid seal form. The discourse amongst archaeologists and zoologists of defining any hybrid exotic species of caprid in the ‘Antelope Fresco’ becomes obsolete, when we interpret these composite creatures as reproductions of Cretan agrimia, misunderstood and combined with different horns and a longer tail by the Theran painter who was unfamiliar with Cretan wild animals. The fact that the wild goat in a mural painting from Xeste 3 was depicted with similar undulating horns (Papageorgiou, in press) well demonstrates that, in this aspect, the connection to local pictorial formulae was stronger than the indebtedness to Cretan nature.

Fig. 4.4. Pithos no. 8885 from Akrotiri, Thera (after Papagiannopoulou 2008b: 437, fig. 40.8)

Fig. 4.5. Bathtub no. 8886 from Akrotiri, Thera (after Vlachopoulos 2015: 55, fig. 13b)

Fig. 4.6. ˊAntelope Frescoˊ from Beta 1, Akrotiri, Thera (after Doumas 1992: 117, fig. 83)

Fig. 4.7. Seal image from Haghia Triada (CMS II 6, no. 71; courtesy of the CMS Heidelberg)

Fig. 4.8. Seal image from Kato Zakros (CMS II 7, no. 62; courtesy of the CMS Heidelberg)

8When compared to the landscape painting with monkeys in the ‘House of the Frescoes’ at Knossos (Cameron 1968) (Fig. 4.9) or the murals in Cubicolo 14 at Haghia Triada (Jones 2014: pls CLIII-CLV), the ‘Monkey fresco’ from Beta 6 at Akrotiri (Doumas 1992: 120-125, figs 85-91) (Fig. 4.10) appears incomplete, given that the ‘rockwork’ motifs in this Theran painting lack any veined interior design and the landscape is completely void of plants. For a Minoan artist and beholder, this Theran mural painting could well have appeared unfinished, simplified and somewhat ‘provincial’ (cf. Betancourt 2000: 360-361). As has been observed already by R. Laffineur (1990: 247), the so-called ‘Spring Fresco’ looks strangely incomplete as well, in that the large upper zone of the murals remained unpainted (Doumas 1992: 100-107, figs 66-76). A Minoan artist, probably, would have filled the empty upper part with ‘hanging rockwork’ according to the Minoan painting tradition. On Crete, such polymorph and polychrome forms constitute an iconographical formula indicating natural terrain of variable qualities; in the Akrotiri paintings, though, at least occasionally, its variegated colours could have been perceived as reflecting volcanic stone material (cf., e.g. Strasser 2010; Strasser & Chapin 2010), which is definitely not the case in Minoan representations of the non-volcanic landscape of Crete.

9When compared with the figurative arts of Neopalatial Crete, several human figures in Theran paintings appear oddly disproportioned with their long arms (Fig. 4.11), leaving aside the mural panel of the young girl from the ‘West House’ with her small head, her enormously tall body and thick legs (Doumas 1992: 56-57, figs 24- 25; p. 146-151, figs 109-115). A closer comparison of the so-called ‘Antelope Fresco’ (Fig. 4.6) with goats in Minoan seal images (Figs 4.7-4.8) leads to the observation not only of their enigmatic horns and tails but also their distorted bodies and legs. While mostly youths are represented in boxing scenes on Crete, it is remarkable that the ‘Boxer Fresco’ from Beta 1 at Akrotiri (Doumas 1992: 112-115, figs 78-81) presents children in comparable poses (cf. Chapin 2009: esp. 180), possibly reflecting a divergent adaptation of Minoan models according to an interpretation à la théréenne.

10Non-Minoan peculiarities such as these clearly reflect the individual approach of Theran painters and painters’ workshops to the iconography of Minoan Crete. The mural painters of Akrotiri were well-trained in technique, painting organisation and iconography when compared with Creto-Minoan standards. Nevertheless, these observations strongly suggest that they were working in the ‘artistic province’, somewhat removed from Crete which delivered the iconographical models. It appears questionable whether we can understand all features mentioned above as belonging to a consistent Theran style or a distinct artistic style of the wider Cycladic region. Instead, they mostly seem to constitute individual deviations and simplifications that contrasted with the Minoan iconographical prototypes. Obviously, they satisfied the expectations and needs of the Theran sponsors, whereas several of these mural paintings, possibly, would have appeared somewhat strange if they occurred in a truly Minoan context on Crete.

Fig. 4.9. Mural painting from the ˊHouse of the Frescoesˊ, Knossos. Detail drawing by M.A.S. Cameron (after Evely 1999: 235, fig. 76)

Fig. 4.10. ˊMonkey Frescoˊ from Beta 6, Akrotiri, Thera (after Doumas 1992: 120, fig. 85)

Fig. 4.11. Mural painting from Xesté 3, Akrotiri, Thera (after Doumas 1992: 149, fig. 113)

11In summarising these observations, it becomes clear that the vase-painters of late MC Akrotiri in particular were highly creative in the iconographical decoration of their vessels. However, were they also inventive in the sense that a new, non-Minoan and thus indigenous ‘Cycladic iconography’ arose from images such as those on the MC vessels mentioned above? We find a continuation of such hybrid motifs neither in the subsequent mural paintings of LC I Akrotiri nor in the iconographical repertoire of other Cycladic islands, nor even exported to Minoan Crete. In contrast to that situation, it is obvious that the mural painters of LC I Akrotiri used iconographical models from contemporary Minoan Crete and were – almost! – perfectly trained by their Cretan colleagues, so that only seldom did any non-Minoan features become apparent. Recently, the present author expressed his view that the mural paintings from LC I Akrotiri constitute an exceptionally well-preserved ‘provincial Minoan art’ (Blakolmer, in press), or in the wording of G. Kopcke (1999: 453): “moving on the palatial level on Crete was not the same as living in Theran houses”.

Mycenae

12Irrespective of the question of whether there existed a real ‘art’ on the Middle Helladic mainland preceding the Shaft grave period (Blakolmer 2007b; 2010), many objects of autochthonous craftsmanship from Mycenae allow us to define the character of the pictorial decoration during MH III-LH I more closely. The gold plates of the hexagonal pyxis from shaft grave V at Mycenae (Karo 1930: 143-144, nos 808-811, pls CXLIII-CXLIV; Blakolmer 2007b: 66-69, fig. 2; 2015: 90-91) (Fig. 4.12) possibly constitute the examples where the ‘Minoanising’ character becomes the most obvious. By using Minoan iconographical motifs showing a lion in ‘flying gallop’ attacking a horned animal beneath palm-trees (cf. esp. CMS II 7 nos 62, 71; II 8, no. 298) (Figs 4.8 and 4.13) the Helladic metal worker created unique relief images brimming with hybridity and inconsistencies in their compositional arrangement, in the unbalanced scale of the pictorial elements and by the addition of an isolated bull’s head in an unparalleled form.

Fig. 4.12. Gold plates of a wooden pyxis from shaft grave V, Mycenae (after Marinatos & Hirmer 1973: pl. 220 above)

Fig. 4.13. Seal image from Kato Zakros (CMS II 7, no. 71; courtesy of the CMS Heidelberg)

13For the iconography of the stone relief stele from shaft grave Gamma (Marinatos 1968: 175-177, fig. 3; Younger 1997: 238, no. 14, pl. LXXXIXd; Blakolmer 2007b: 69-70, fig. 7) (Fig. 4.14) the Helladic sculptor clearly was copying a Minoan scene of a pair of lions attacking a bull, possibly by using as a model a seal image similar to that from LMI Myrtos-Pyrgos (CMS II 6, no. 233; cf. also Pini 1985: 156, 161; see furthermore, e.g. CMS II 6, no. 274; XIII, no. 20) and by turning it 90° to the left (Fig. 4.15), which could explain the unusual upright position of all three animals. It is difficult to interpret the addition of two human hunters (or warriors?) in the upper corners of this panel other than as an extension of this common Minoan motif of animal struggle by elements of a warrior or hunting scene, which hardly fits the central motif. An inconsistent iconography such as this results from a superficial and distant appropriation of the foreign Minoan imagery, revealing quite plainly that no Minoan artist explained the original (Minoan) meaning of the central motif to the Helladic sculptor. One of the stelai from shaft grave V at Mycenae of slightly later date (Fig. 4.16) presents a warrior in a chariot confronted with a soldier on foot (Marinatos & Hirmer 1973: pl. 19; Younger 1997: 236, no. 5, pl. 91a; Blakolmer 2007b: 66-70, fig. 9). In spite of the very existence of chariot scenes in the iconography of Neopalatial Crete, we can hardly detect any Minoan prototype of this distinctly Helladic motif Nonetheless, it is the spiral decoration inside this image as well as in the upper zone of the stele which demonstrates the ‘Minoanising’, imitative and remarkably awkward approach of the Helladic sculptor. This becomes most obvious in the irregularities to the right side of the spiral rapport ornament, and, needless to say, neither this iconography nor erratic spiral forms such as these possess any successors in later Mycenaean arts.

Fig. 4.14. Stone relief stele from shaft grave Gamma, Mycenae (after Blakolmer 2007b: 69, fig. 7)

Fig. 4.15. Seal image from Myrtos-Pyrgos; turned 90° to the left (CMS II 6, no. 233; courtesy of the CMS Heidelberg)

14These and further Helladic images from the Shaft grave period reflect a hybrid, ‘Minoanising’ iconography consisting of a clumsy combination of Minoan motifs produced in an autochthonous style. What counted for the Helladic artists and beholders, obviously, was an appearance which looked ‘somewhat Minoan’ (cf. Kopcke 1981; Blakolmer 2015: 88-91, 97-98). Even more interesting, then, is the Helladic creativity in depicting a chariot motif of non-Minoan character (Fig. 4.16). As a consequence, it is not enough to assess these Helladic images as simplified imitations of Minoan iconography. Instead, they constitute highly creative, experimental and individual images which, however, did not possess any successors in these or other artistic genera. These observations also make it unlikely that, in the sector of iconography, any fruitful stimuli were exerted by an ‘early Mycenaean art’ upon pottery or mural painters on Cycladic islands such as Thera. When looking in the opposite direction, though, Cycladic artists of LC I may well have been able to function as transmitters of Minoan iconography to the emerging elites at the centres on the Mycenaean mainland (Cameron 1978: 590-591).

Fig. 4.16. Stone relief stele from shaft grave V, Mycenae (after Marinatos & Hirmer 1973: pl. 169)

Similarities and differences

15These and further examples show that the arts at Akrotiri and Mycenae shared some basic characteristics in their imitation and treatment of Minoan iconography during LBA I. At both sites the local originality of the pictorial themes, the iconography and the artistic formulae must be doubted. In all these examples, the ‘speakers’ of the Minoan ‘artistic language’, i.e. the painters, metal workers and sculptors themselves, reveal their non-Minoan character by simplifications, discrepancies, inconsistencies or misunderstandings in style and content when we confront them with Creto-Minoan comparanda. Among the rulers at Mycenae the import of original ‘Minoica’ and the production of objects of prestige looking ‘somewhat Minoan’ were of major significance for demonstrating their affiliation to the life-style of palatial Crete, while in LC I Akrotiri we remark, for example, an exuberance of figural mural paintings of ‘Minoanising’ style in private houses and occurring also in humble house types where we do not expect to find them in Neopalatial Crete (Blakolmer 2000: 402-403; in press; cf. further Boulotis 1992: 89; 2000: 854). Thus, in both regions, despite their unequal character, the aspiration for and appropriation of the cosmopolitan iconography of palatial Crete reflects the attitude of “nouveaux riches” (cf. Boulotis 1992: 89; Blakolmer 2015: 97-99). There can hardly be any reason why any iconographical concepts contrasting that of Neopalatial Crete should have been developed, leaving apart speculations such as that of ‘maritime republics’ on the Cyclades. Thus, the result of the encounter with Minoan images in both regions during MBA III/LBAI is not the creation of a consistent new regional (Cycladic and Mycenaean respectively) iconography, but, instead, merely an individual treatment of the Minoan prototypes.

16However, beyond the aspiration of adopting stimulations from palatial Crete, we can also observe several fundamental differences in the approach to the Minoan iconographical models by the artists at Akrotiri and Mycenae. While Theran vase painters as well as Helladic artists in general endeavoured to create individual images based on Minoan prototypes, the Cycladic mural painters, who were working in a more or less professional Minoan artistic environment, at least as can be judged by the result of their work, constitute a remarkable exception in this process. Nevertheless, as demonstrated above, when we look more critical at this situation, we can also occasionally detect several discrepancies with regard to Minoan iconographical rules. While the Theran mural painters, obviously, were working in close contact with their Cretan colleagues and instructors in LC I/LM IA, this was certainly not the case for the MC III vase-painters, and the distance is even more striking when considering the Helladic examples from Mycenae. In the first case, Theran mural painters worked in an artistic and cultural milieu similar to that in LM I Crete, whereas in the latter case Theran MC Ill ceramic painters and Helladic artists were led to misunderstandings, semantic contradictions and unparalleled results, since no Cretan artist was available, or even desired by them, in order to explain his pictorial formulas and artistic rules (cf. Nikolakopoulou et alii 2008: 322-323). On the contemporary Helladic mainland, Mycenaean artists allow us to recognise an even more substantial distance from the foreign iconographical models from Crete; the result of their work constitutes a hybrid amalgamation quite comparable to the work of earlier vase-painters in Akrotiri. Thus, it seems that the vase-painters at late MC Akrotiri, as well as the artists working in different artistic media in LH I Mycenae, were orienting themselves exclusively towards images on precious objects imported from Crete; they can hardly have been in direct contact with their Cretan colleagues – a phenomenon named “an object-led acculturation” by C. Knappett and I. Nikolakopoulou (2008: 38). In contrast to these circumstances, wall-painters in LC I Thera adopted the Cretan models and their iconological content in a fundamentally more fruitful and integrative way.

17Although it is out of the question that Theran mural painters developed several particular stylistic features (see esp. Televantou 1992), there exists no single fresco composition at Akrotiri whose iconography looks as unusual as the Helladic images on the contemporary Greek mainland when compared to Minoan art. Even more interesting, therefore, is the fact that several shaft grave stelai at Mycenae display the motif of a warrior in a chariot fighting an enemy (Fig. 4.16), constituting an idiosyncratic invention that, obviously, possesses no Minoan parallel and seems to have been developed out of Helladic socio-political necessities.

Conclusions

18In concluding, it has to be noted that, despite the high creativity of the artists at Akrotiri and Mycenae during the period under consideration, the images they created do scarcely belong to an independent iconography of autochthonous originality and longevity. The most significant difference in the ‘Minoanisation’ of the arts in both regions seems to be the fact that the iconography of the mural paintings in post-seismic LC I Akrotiri allows us to recognise only minor non-Minoan features, especially in the pictorial style, whereas the artists at contemporary Mycenae continuously exhibit a remarkable distance to Minoan iconography – an artistic behaviour which is comparable only to that of the late MC vessel painters in Thera. Moreover, the distinct foreignness of Minoan iconography to the Helladic artists is demonstrated best by their invention of the autochthonous motif of the warrior in the chariot. Thus, the ‘Minoanisation’ of mural painting (and possibly further arts?) in LC I Akrotiri was much more pervasive than in any artistic medium of LH I Mycenae. As a consequence, we can conclude that by this period Minoan iconographical concepts basically conformed to the society of Akrotiri, whereas they were only partially consistent with the socio-political necessities of the elites buried in the shaft graves at Mycenae. It is obvious that the artists on the LH I mainland not only possessed a considerable distance to Minoan arts, but they also had to satisfy different needs by their iconological messages, including first of all, possibly, a superficial character of ‘Minoanness’.

19I have to confess that, according to the categorisation by J. Davis mentioned above, this contribution was certainly written by a ‘Minoan imperialist’. Nevertheless, this point of view is not surprising if we realise that in the period under consideration Crete constituted the only region of the Aegean which exhibited and disseminated palatial standards in many aspects. Thus, beyond Neopalatial Crete, there scarcely existed a further well-funded iconographical tradition in the Aegean which was able to coincide with the Minoan one in complexity as well as in artistic demands. Moreover, given the fact that Minoan Crete delivered the models also for other issues of the elites in the neighbouring regions, its highly influential and unrivalled position in the artistic sector makes sense, and is furthermore underlined by the subsequent development of the history of art in the Aegean. This does not mean that Minoan arts in Neopalatial Crete always constituted a strictly uniform and homogeneous entity. However, when we attempt to define ‘provincial’ regional trends in the artistic production or creation of Minoan iconography during this period, we hardly detect them on Crete itself. Therefore, we can learn even more about the emanation of Minoan arts by investigating the iconographical material in other regions of the Aegean.

Bibliographie

References

▪ Betancourt 2000 = P.P. Betancourt, The concept of space in Theran compositional systemics, in Proceedings of the First International Symposium ‘The Wall Paintings of Thera ’, 30 August – 4 September 1997, I, edited by S. Sherratt, Athens (2000), 359-363.

▪ Blakolmer 2000 = F. Blakolmer, The functions of wall painting and other forms of architectural decoration in the Aegean Bronze Age, in Proceedings of the First International Symposium ‘The Wall Paintings of Thera’, 30 August – 4 September 1997, I, edited by S. Sherratt, Athens (2000), 393-412.

▪ Blakolmer 2007a = F. Blakolmer, Vom Wandrelief in die Kleinkunst: Transformationen des Stierbildes in der minoisch-mykenischen Reliefkunst, in ΣΤΕΦΑΝΟΣ ΑΡIΣΤΕIΟΣ. Archäologische Forschungen zwischen Nil und Istros. Festschrift für Stefan Hiller zum 65. Geburtstag, edited by F. Lang, C. Reinholdt & J. Weilhartner, Vienna (2007), 31-47.

▪ Blakolmer 2007b = F. Blakolmer, Der autochthone Stil der Schachtgräberperiode im bronzezeitlichen Griechenland als Zeugnis fur eine mittelhelladische Bildkunst, ÖJh 76 (2007), 65-88.

▪ Blakolmer 2010 = F. Blakolmer, The iconography of the Shaft Grave period as evidence for a Middle Helladic tradition of figurative arts?, in MESOHELLADIKA. La Grèce continentale au Bronze Moyen. Actes du colloque international organise par l’École française d’Athènes, en collaboration avec l’American School of Classical Studies at Athens et le Netherlands Institute in Athens, Athènes, 8-12 mars 2006, edited by A. Philippa-Touchais, G. Touchais, S. Voutsaki & J. Wright (BCH Suppl. 52), Athens (2010), 509-519.

▪ Blakolmer 2015 = F. Blakolmer, Was there a “Mycenaean art”? Or: Tradition without innovation? Some examples of relief art, in Tradition and Innovation in the Mycenaean Palatial Polities, Proceedings of an International Symposium held at the Austrian Academy of Sciences, Vienna, 1-2 March, 2013, edited by F. Ruppenstein & J. Weilhartner (Mykenische Studien 34), Vienna (2015), 87-112.

▪ Blakolmer, in press = F. Blakolmer, “Sculpted with the paint-brush”? On the interrelation of relief art and painting in Minoan Crete and Thera, in ΧΡΩΣΤΗΡΕΣ /Paintbrushes. Wall-painting and Vase-painting of the 2nd Millennium BC in Dialogue, International conference, Akrotiri, Thera, 24-26 May 2013, edited by Ch. Boulotis, Ch. Doumas, N. Marinatos & A. Vlachopoulos (in press).

▪ Boulotis 1992 = Ch. Boulotis, Προβλήματα της Αιγαιακής ζωγραφικής και οι τοιχογραφίες του Ακρωτηριού, in Ακρωτήρι Θήρας. Είκοσι χρόνια έρευνες (1967-1987). Ημερίδα Αθήναι, 19 Δεκεμβρίου 1989, edited by Ch. Doumas, Athens (1992), 81-93.

▪ Boulotis 2000 = Ch. Boulotis, Travelling fresco painters in the Aegean Late Bronze Age: the diffusion patterns of a prestigious art, in Proceedings of the First International Symposium ‘The Wall Paintings of Thera’, 30 August – 4 September 1997, II, edited by S. Sherratt, Athens (2000), 844-858.

▪ Cameron 1968 = M.A.S. Cameron, Unpublished paintings from the “House of the Frescoes “at Knossos, BSA 63 (1968), 1-31.

▪ Cameron 1978 = M. Cameron, Theoretical interrelations among Theran, Cretan and Mainland frescoes, in Thera and the Aegean World, Papers Presented at the Second International Scientific Congress, Santorini, Greece, I, edited by Ch. Doumas, London (1978), 579-592.

▪ Chapin 2009 = A. Chapin, Constructions of male youth and gender in Aegean art: the evidence from Late Bronze Age Crete and Thera, in FYLO. Engendering Prehistoric ‘Stratigraphies’ in the Aegean and the Mediterranean, Proceedings of an International Conference, University of Crete, Rethymno, 2-5 June 2005, edited by K. Kopaka (Aegaeum 30), Liège & Austin (2009), 175-182.

CMS = Corpus der minoischen und mykenischen Siegel (CMS), edited by F. Matz & I. Pini, Berlin (1965-2009).

▪ Davaras & Soles 1995 = C. Davaras & J. Soles, A new Oriental cylinder seal from Mochlos. Appendix: catalogue of the cylinder seals found in the Aegean, ArchEph 134 (1995), 29-66.

▪ Davis 1990 = E. N. Davis, The Cycladic style of the Thera frescoes, in Thera and the Aegean World III. Proceedings of the Third International Congress I, edited by D.A. Hardy, C.G. Doumas, J.A. Sakellarakis & P.M. Warren, London (1990), 214-228.

▪ Davis 1992 = J.L. Davis, Review of Aegean Prehistory I: The Islands of the Aegean, AJA 96 (1992), 699-756.

▪ Demakopoulou & Crouwel 1995 = K. Demakopoulou & J.H. Crouwel, More cats or lions from Thera, ArchEph 132, 1993 (1995), 1-11.

▪ Doumas 1992 = Ch. Doumas, The Wall-paintings of Thera, Athens (1992).

▪ Evely 1999 = D. Evely, Fresco: A Passport into the Past. Minoan Crete through the Eyes of Mark Cameron, Athens (1999).

▪ Höckmann 1978 = O. Höckmann, Theran floral style in relation to that of Crete, in Thera and the Aegean World, Papers Presented at the Second International Scientific Congress, Santorini, Greece, I, edited by Ch. Doumas, London (1978), 605-616.

▪ Jones 2014 = B. R. Jones, Revisiting the figures and landscapes on the frescoes at Haghia Triada, in PHYSIS. L’environnement naturel et la relation homme-milieu dans le monde égéen protohistoricpie, Actes de la 14e Rencontre égéenne internationale, Paris, Institut National d’Histoire de l’Art (INHA), 11-14 decembre 2012, edited by G. Touchais, R. Laffineur & F. Rougemont (Aegaeum 37), Leuven & Liège (2014), 493-497.

▪ Karo 1930 = G. Karo, Die Schachtgräber von Mykenai, Munich (1930).

▪ Knappett & Nikolakopoulou 2008 = C. Knappett & I. Nikolakopoulou, Colonialism without colonies? A Bronze Age case study from Akrotiri, Thera, Hesperia 77 (2008), 1-42.

▪ Kopcke 1981 = G. Kopcke, Treasure and aesthetic sensibility – the question of the Shaft Grave stelai, in Temple University Aegean Symposium 6, edited by P.P. Betancourt, Philadelphia (1981), 39-45.

▪ Kopcke 1999 = G. Kopcke, Akrotiri: West House. Some reflections, in Meletemata. Studies in Aegean Archaeology Presented to Malcolm H. Wiener as he enters his 65,th Year, edited by P.P. Betancourt et alii, II (Aegaeum 20), Liège & Austin (1999), 445-455.

▪ Laffineur 1990 = R. Laffineur, Composition and perspective in Theran wall-paintings, in Thera and the Aegean World III. Proceedings of the Third International Congress I, edited by D.A. Hardy, C.G. Doumas, J.A. Sakellarakis & P.M. Warren, London (1990), 246-251.

▪ Marinates 1968 = S. Marinatos, The stelai of Circle B at Mycenae, AAA 1 (1968), 175-177.

▪ Marinatos & Hirmer 1973 = S. Marinatos & M. Hirmer, Kreta, Thera und das mykenische Hellas, 2nd ed., Munich (1973).

▪ Marthari 2000 = M. Marthari, The attraction of the pictorial: observations on the relationship of Theran pottery and Theran fresco iconography, in Proceedings of the First International Symposium ‘The Wall Paintings of Thera’, 30August – 4 September 1997, II, edited by S. Sherratt, Athens (2000), 873-889.

▪ Morgan 1990 = L. Morgan, Island iconography: Thera, Kea, Milos, in Thera and the Aegean World III. Proceedings of the Third International Congress I, edited by D.A. Hardy, C.G. Doumas, J.A. Sakellarakis & P.M. Warren, London (1990), 252-266.

▪ Nikolakopoulou 2010 = I. Nikolakopoulou, Middle Cycladic iconography: a social context for ‘A new chapter in Aegean Art’, in Cretan Offerings. Studies in Honour of Peter Warren, edited by O. Krzyszkowska (BSA Studies 18), London (2010), 213-222.

▪ Nikolakopoulou et alii 2008 = I. Nikolakopoulou, F. Georma, A. Moschou & P. Sofianou, Trapped in the middle: new stratigraphic and ceramic evidence from Middle Cycladic Akrotiri, Thera, in Horizon. A Colloquium on the Prehistory of the Cyclades, edited by N. Brodie, J. Doole, G. Gavalas & C. Renfrew, Cambridge (2008), 311-324.

▪ Papageorgiou, in press = I. Papageorgiou, The iconographic subject of the hunt in the 2nd millennium BC Aegean. Sounds and echoes in the art of wall-painting and vase-painting, in ΧΡΩΣΤΗΡΕΣ / Paintbrushes. Wall-painting and Vase-painting of the 2nd Millennium BC in Dialogue, International conference, Akrotiri, Thera, 24-26 May 2013, edited by Ch. Boulotis, Ch. Doumas, N. Marinatos & A. Vlachopoulos (in press).

▪ Papagiannopoulou 2008a = A. Papagiannopoulou, Μεσοκυκλαδική εικονιστική παράδοση ως πρόδρομος των τοιχογραφιών, in Ακρωτήρι Θήρας. Τριάντα χρόνια έρευνες, 1967-1997, Επιστημονική συνάντηση, 19-20 Δεκεμβρίου 199 7 edited by Ch. G. Doumas, Athens (2008), 239-259.

▪ Papagiannopoulou 2008b = A. Papagiannopoulou, From pots to pictures: Middle Cycladic figurative art from Akrotiri, Thera, in Horizon. A Colloquium on the Prehistory of the Cyclades, edited by N. Brodie, J. Doole, G. Gavalas & C. Renfrew, Cambridge (2008), 433-449.

▪ Pini 1980 = I. Pini, Kypro-ägäische Rollsiegel, Jdl 95 (1980), 77-108.

▪ Pini 1985 = I. Pini, Das Motiv des Löwenüberfalls in der spätminoischen und mykenischen Glyptik, in L’iconographie minoenne. Actes de la table ronde d’Athènes (21-22 avril 1983), edited by P. Darcque & J.-C. Poursat (BCH Suppl. 11), Paris (1985), 153-166.

▪ Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1981 = E. Sapouna-Sakellaraki, Οι τοιχογραφίες της Θήρας σε σχέση με την Μινωϊκήν Κρήτη, in Πεπραγμένα του Δ ΄ Διεθνούς Κρητολογικού Συνεδρίου I, 2, Athens (1981), 479-509.

▪ Strasser 2010 = T. F. Strasser, Location and perspective in the Theran Flotilla Fresco, JMA 23: 1 (2010), 3-26.

▪ Strasser & Chapin 2010 = T. F. Strasser & A.P. Chapin, Geological formations in the Flotilla Fresco from Akrotiri. in PHYSIS. L’environnement naturel et la relation homme-milieu dans le monde égéen protohistorique, Actes de la 14e Rencontre égéenne internationale, Paris, Institut National d’Histoire de l’Art (INHA), 11-14 décembre 2012, edited by G. Touchais, R. Laffineur & F. Rougemont (Aegaeum 37), Leuven & Liège (2014), 57-64.

▪ Televantou 1992 = Ch. A. Televantou, Theran wall-painting: Artistic tendencies and painters, in EIKΩN. Aegean Bronze Age Iconography: Shaping a Methodology. Proceedings of the 4th International Aegean Conference, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Australia, 6-9 April 1992, edited by R. Laffineur & J.L. Crowley (Aegaeum 8), Liège (1992), 145-159.

▪ Televantou 2000 = Ch. Televantou, Aegean Bronze Age wall painting: the Theran workshop, in Proceedings of the First International Symposium ‘The Wall Paintings of Thera’, 30 August – 4 September 1997, II, edited by S. Sherratt, Athens (2000), 831-843.

▪ Vlachopoulos 2013 = A. Vlachopoulos, From vase painting to wall painting: The Lilies Jug from Akrotiri, Thera, in AMILLA. The Quest for Excellence. Studies Presented to Guenter Kopcke in Celebration of His 75th Birthday, edited by R. B. Koehl (Prehistory Monographs 43), Philadelphia (2013), 55-75.

▪ Vlachopoulos 2015 = A. Vlachopoulos, Detecting “Mycenaean” elements in the “Minoan” wall-paintings of a “Cycladic” settlement. The wall-paintings of Thera and their iconographic koine, in Mycenaean Wall Painting in Context: New Discoveries, Old Finds Reconsidered, edited by H. Brecoulaki, J.L. Davis & S.R. Stocker (Meletemata 72), Athens (2015), 37-65.

▪ Younger 1995 = J.G. Younger, Interactions between Aegean seals and other Minoan-Mycenaean art forms, in Sceaux minoens et mycéniens. IVe symposium international, 10-12 septembre 1992, Clermont-Ferrand, edited by I. Pini & J.-C. Poursat (CMS Beih. 5), Berlin (1995), 331-348.

▪ Younger 1997 = J.G. Younger, The Stelai of Mycenae Grave Circles A and B, in TEXNH. Craftsmen, Craftswomen and Craftsmanship in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 6th International Aegean Conference, Philadelphia, Temple University, 18-21 April 1996, I, edited by R. Laffineur & Ph. P. Betancourt (Aegaeum 16), Liège & Austin (1997), 229-239.

Table des illustrations

Légende Fig. 4.1. Spouted jug no. 8960 from Akrotiri, Thera (after Papagiannopoulou 2008b: 442, fig. 40.20)
URL http://books.openedition.org/pucl/docannexe/image/6577/img-1.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 54k
Légende Fig. 4.2. Cylinder seal from Palaikastro (CMS II 3, no. 279; courtesy of the CMS Heidelberg)
URL http://books.openedition.org/pucl/docannexe/image/6577/img-2.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 25k
Légende Fig. 4.3. Signet-ring from Tiryns (after CMS I, no. 179; courtesy of the CMS Heidelberg)
URL http://books.openedition.org/pucl/docannexe/image/6577/img-3.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 29k
Légende Fig. 4.4. Pithos no. 8885 from Akrotiri, Thera (after Papagiannopoulou 2008b: 437, fig. 40.8)
URL http://books.openedition.org/pucl/docannexe/image/6577/img-4.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 73k
Légende Fig. 4.5. Bathtub no. 8886 from Akrotiri, Thera (after Vlachopoulos 2015: 55, fig. 13b)
URL http://books.openedition.org/pucl/docannexe/image/6577/img-5.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 61k
Légende Fig. 4.6. ˊAntelope Frescoˊ from Beta 1, Akrotiri, Thera (after Doumas 1992: 117, fig. 83)
URL http://books.openedition.org/pucl/docannexe/image/6577/img-6.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 116k
Légende Fig. 4.7. Seal image from Haghia Triada (CMS II 6, no. 71; courtesy of the CMS Heidelberg)
URL http://books.openedition.org/pucl/docannexe/image/6577/img-7.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 32k
Légende Fig. 4.8. Seal image from Kato Zakros (CMS II 7, no. 62; courtesy of the CMS Heidelberg)
URL http://books.openedition.org/pucl/docannexe/image/6577/img-8.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 33k
Légende Fig. 4.9. Mural painting from the ˊHouse of the Frescoesˊ, Knossos. Detail drawing by M.A.S. Cameron (after Evely 1999: 235, fig. 76)
URL http://books.openedition.org/pucl/docannexe/image/6577/img-9.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 51k
Légende Fig. 4.10. ˊMonkey Frescoˊ from Beta 6, Akrotiri, Thera (after Doumas 1992: 120, fig. 85)
URL http://books.openedition.org/pucl/docannexe/image/6577/img-10.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 42k
Légende Fig. 4.11. Mural painting from Xesté 3, Akrotiri, Thera (after Doumas 1992: 149, fig. 113)
URL http://books.openedition.org/pucl/docannexe/image/6577/img-11.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 50k
Légende Fig. 4.12. Gold plates of a wooden pyxis from shaft grave V, Mycenae (after Marinatos & Hirmer 1973: pl. 220 above)
URL http://books.openedition.org/pucl/docannexe/image/6577/img-12.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 56k
Légende Fig. 4.13. Seal image from Kato Zakros (CMS II 7, no. 71; courtesy of the CMS Heidelberg)
URL http://books.openedition.org/pucl/docannexe/image/6577/img-13.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 23k
Légende Fig. 4.14. Stone relief stele from shaft grave Gamma, Mycenae (after Blakolmer 2007b: 69, fig. 7)
URL http://books.openedition.org/pucl/docannexe/image/6577/img-14.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 43k
Légende Fig. 4.15. Seal image from Myrtos-Pyrgos; turned 90° to the left (CMS II 6, no. 233; courtesy of the CMS Heidelberg)
URL http://books.openedition.org/pucl/docannexe/image/6577/img-15.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 10k
Légende Fig. 4.16. Stone relief stele from shaft grave V, Mycenae (after Marinatos & Hirmer 1973: pl. 169)
URL http://books.openedition.org/pucl/docannexe/image/6577/img-16.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 48k

© Presses universitaires de Louvain, 2016

Conditions d’utilisation : http://www.openedition.org/6540

Cette publication numérique est issue d’un traitement automatique par reconnaissance optique de caractères.
Rechercher dans OpenEdition Search

Vous allez être redirigé vers OpenEdition Search