Other LH III
area of Schliemanns excavation-south of Grave Circle A, as well
as in Waces trench beside the Lion Gate, there appeared vast quantities
of ornamental LH III B-C pottery fragments. One system of decorating the
LH III C pottery from that area (in fact, throughout the Mycenaean empire)
is the Close Style, a term which art historians use to describe
compact designs arranged in friezes of water fowl, rosettes, triangles,
loops, semi-circles and other motifs, which fill all the exposed surface
area of the pots. Lacy recently found it interesting to notice that
the same phenomenon occurred again four hundred years later in the profusion
of ornaments that covered the so-called Dipylon
pottery of the eighth century.1
It is even more interesting that the individual motifs on the Close Style
vases, as in the case of the Warrior Vase, find their most striking parallels
to designs on the seventh-century Orientalizing pottery of
Greece, Crete, Rhodes, Cyprus, Sicily, Italy and the Eastern Aegean. That
interest heightens when we recall that at a number of excavations throughout
that same area (including Waces trench by the Lion Gate) eighth-seventh
century pottery immediately overlay, was mixed with, or even lay beneath
LH III B-C ware.2
In the late nineteenth
and early twentieth century, a number of Aegean specialists believed that
Mycenaean civilization immediately preceded the seventh century B.C.,
but because of the discovery of Late Helladic (soon followed by Minoan)
remains was so fresh, they had little other than the better-known works
of the first millennium with which to compare them. Egyptologists noted
that the earliest Mycenaean artifacts in Grave Circle A corresponded to
the early Eighteenth Dynasty; Flinders Petrie found a large quantity of
LH III A - early LH III B pottery in Pharaoh Akhnatens short-lived
capital of Akhetaten in Egypt; and excavators outside Egypt began finding
Eighteenth and Nineteenth Dynasty objects beside Mycenaean ware throughout
the Levant and the Aegean. At Mycenae itself archaeologists discovered
a number of Eighteenth Dynasty Egyptian objects, including some which
bear the cartouches of Pharaoh Amenhotep II, Amenhotep III and his wife.
confronted with Egyptian evidence, had to reassess their dates for Mycenaean
culture. Vehement disputes erupted between those accepting
Egyptian reckoning, and those challenging it as 500-700 years too early,4
some of which early controversies Velikovsky has chronicled above for
Enkomi and Mycenae.
Those who rejected the Egyptian scheme usually branded the New Kingdom
exports to the Aegean as centuries-old heirlooms.5
That explanation was weak for a number of reasons it assumed that the
Mycenaeans only collected 500-700-year-old Egyptian artifacts to the complete
exclusion of Egyptian items produced in their own day; it did not explain
depictions of Mycenaean objects in Eighteenth-Dynasty murals; and it completely
failed to explain the presence of LH pottery in bona fide Eighteenth
Dynasty contexts in Egypt itself. None of those championing the heirloom
theory even dared to consider that the very basis for dating the New Kingdom
of Egypt might be incorrect. Cecil Torr was one Aegean specialist who
did question the Egyptian chronological scheme,6
but Egyptologists countered with strong and at times unfair retorts,7
and Torr gained no appreciable following.
Most other Aegean
prehistorians, realizing that the Late Helladic Period had to be as early
as the Eighteenth-Nineteenth Dynasties of Egypt, and accepting the absolute
dates furnished by the Egyptologists, pushed the beginning of the Mycenaean
Age into the mid-second millennium B.C. Many, who felt that the inception
of the period had to be that old, still wanted the end of the era to last
long into the first millennium, and thereby connect directly with the
similar products of the eighth-sixth centuries B.C. Beloch, and even Petrie
who, through his discoveries and his writings was largely responsible
for pushing back LH I-LH III A/ early LH III B to the sixteenth-fourteenth
centuries, still had the remainder of the Mycenaean Age last into the
The LH III BC
figural pottery, more than any other Mycenaean product, seemed to flow
directly into the seventh-century ware of the Greek world. Since archaeologists
agreed that Protogeometric and Geometric pottery also preceded the seventh
century, many envisioned an overlap of LH III and Geometric styles, just
as Böhlau, Wide and their followers had proposed a 500-year-earlier
overlap of MH and LH styles. Furtwängler, one of the great pioneers
in the study of pottery decoration was among that schools foremost
proponents.9 When further
excavation revealed still more New Kingdom Egyptian material alongside
the youngest Mycenaean vases, and showed that there was hardly enough
LH III BC pottery to last from ca. 1350-700 B.C., art historians had to
abandon the notion that LH III co-existed with geometric ware as late
as the eighth-seventh century in Greece itself.
Since the latest
Mycenaean vases still resembled so closely 8th-7th century ones, and with
Greece no longer a possible area of continuity, they postulated that somewhere
in the far-flung Mycenaean empire, outside of the mainland, LH III pottery
continued that late. They looked to islands like Sicily, Aegina, Melos,
Crete, Rhodes, Cyprus and the east coast of Turkey as places where the
tradition could have survived no matter what occurred in Greece proper.10
Little by little, exploration of those areas revealed the same pattern
as in Greece itself, with LH III C dying out by the late eleventh century,
if not earlier still.11
Greek tradition, most of those places, like the Greek mainland itself,
fell prey to Dorian invaders, whom early archaeologists - as well as some
modern ones - have blamed for the obliteration of Mycenaean culture. Of
all the places on the fringe of the Mycenaean world to which scholars
looked for centuries-long retention of Mycenaean life and art, Cyprus
afforded a unique setting for the continuation of Mycenaean figural art,
as both early and modern excavators have hypothesized.12
It never fell victim to the Dorians;13
it imported tremendous quantities of LH III pottery, and during the LH
III C period it received numerous Mycenaean colonists, including skilled
artisans steeped in the art of their homeland;14
it was far enough away from the Aegean centers to escape the turmoil which
they encountered, and near enough Phoenicia to share in its presumed prosperity;
its people were extremely conservative, reflecting many features of Mycenaean
culture well into the eighth-seventh centuries;15
its late eighth-seventh century pottery shows some close similarities
to LH III C shapes and especially decoration;16
and throughout the period between the end of LH III in Greece and the
eighth century, Cyprus
enjoyed a special relationship with the Aegean world, importing
and exporting finished products (including pottery), and influencing the
pottery shapes and decoration of Greece.17
Despite all those
positive factors, Cyprus, for some reason not fully understood, followed
the same pattern as the rest of the Mycenaean world at the transition
from the Late Bronze Age to the Early Iron Age. It, too, suffered its
own long period of destructions, abandonments, cultural desolation, archaeological
obscurity, and historical darkness.18
P. Dikaios once claimed that its Iron Age ware, which scholars originally
felt would continue the LH III tradition for centuries, in fact, made
its appearance suddenly on the island, showing little connection with,
and no evolution from the Late Bronze Age ware, which it supposedly superceded
immediately. Even those who reject his opinion do not view it as a continuation
of figural LH III.19
Dikaios and others (including his critics) noted some instances where
Cypriote Iron Age ware, like its counterpart in Greece, seems to have
bypassed Late Bronze Age ceramics, resembling instead 500-year-older Middle
Bronze Age pottery.20
authorities have long noted, and still note, that the late eighth-seventh
century pottery of Greece, Sicily, Aegina, Melos, Crete, Rhodes, Cyprus
and eastern Anatolia seems a direct continuation of LH III BC shapes and
they have not found artistic continuity in any of those areas; and since
they see too many close resemblances for the similarities to be merely
they view the phenomenon as a renaissance.23
Even so, with ca. 400 years separating the last LH III C figural ware
from the earliest return to that bygone style, they need a mechanism to
explain the revival. Since no corner of the Greek world kept the style
alive during those centuries, some have conjectured that the Mycenaean
ceramic and decorative traditions passed beyond the Greek world to Phoenicia,
which provided the required continuity, and finally sent the Greek products,
along with some Levantine accretions, in a backwash to their
place of origin hundreds of years later. That theory is extremely popular24
and explains why art historians refer to seventh-century Aegean ware with
its Levantine and renascent Mycenaean elements as Orientalizing.
The Levant did
receive quite a bit of LH III pottery, and made its own imitation of LH
III C shapes and decoration (the so-called Philistine ware);25
it did send Oriental products (including the alphabet) to Greece in the
ninth-seventh centuries; and it did inspire, some of the decoration found
on seventh-century Greek pottery. Between the Mycenaean Age and the ninth
century, when Greece was undergoing a Dark Age, literary sources give
a much brighter picture for Phoenicia. A Twenty-first Dynasty document
from Egypt, which the accepted scheme places in the eleventh century,26
indicates a very strong position for contemporary Lebanon; the Bible portrays
tenth-century Phoenicia as an independent land, from which Kings David
and Solomon purchased lumber and hired seafarers, stone masons, carpenters
and a master craftsman. 27
Phoenicia therefore seemed an ideal place to foster LH III pottery until
the seventh century.
The facts are
that the Levant did not export painted pottery to seventh-century Greece;
LH III shapes and decoration made only a very small impact on the Levantine
ceramic industry as a whole} and even in Philistia, LH III C-type pottery
did not last as long as it did in Greece itselfnone of which helps
the survival theory for the Levant any more than at all the other places
suggested over the last century. Bothered by those facts some scholars,
who still favor the theory, propose that Near Eastern metalwork, ivory
carvings and decorated fabrics kept the designs (if not the pot shapes)
alive over those centuries.28
For continuity of decorative ivories and metalware the situation in the
Levant presents as big an obstacle as in Greece (and as big a source of
consternation), since there is no evidence of either product from ca.
1200 to 900 B.C.29
The only Levantine medium for continuity that is left is patterned fabric,
which several people now see as the most likely source for LH III motifs
survival. While there certainly was ornamental cloth, and it could have
preserved some LH III decoration, it lends itself more readily
to geometrical patterns than to the curvilinear, naturalistic ornaments
and figures of LH III C and seventh-century ware. Still, if one must limit
oneself to only one medium for 400 years of continuous patterning, and
disregards its nonappearance in other media, Greece is as probable a candidate
as Phoenicia;30 in any
instance, the case is completely unproveable, since all the cloth has
vanished, and one can only speculate about its possible ornamentation.
Yet another problem with Phoenicia, as the source of, retaining, then
returning LH III decoration, is that some Mycenaean elements
begin to appear in eighth-century Greece, before there are any signs of
Oriental influence on Greek art; additionally many of the curvilinear
motifs and naturalistic figures (especially human) found on seventh-century
Orientalizing ware, and most reminiscent of the LH III C style,
did not come from the Levant, but followed the same course as did the
500-year-earlier decorations, evolving directly from the stiffer forms
of native Greek ornament which immediately preceded them.31
Despite the popularity of the notion of a Phoenician link to explain the
close similarities of two sets of Aegean vases now dated half a millennium
apart, there is still no evidence that the Levant fared any better than
did Cyprus or Greece in continuing the LH III artistic tradition until
the seventh century.
As an alternative
to the still-popular hypothesis of survival, other scholars have postulated
a native revival, whereby the Greeks of the late eighth-seventh centuries
found 500-year-old vases, liked what they saw, and imitated some of the
shapes and much of the ornamentation. 32
Such rediscoveries certainly fit the numerous cases where the later Greeks
seem to have returned to cities, houses, wells, palaces, tombs and cult
places supposedly abandoned for nearly half a millennium.33
Still, one had to explain why only then, and at no time during the previous
500 years did the Greeks decide to return to those palaces and copy the
bygone art. There is a popular notion, to which we shall return that the
later Greeks, hearing Homers epics, gained a new pride in their
heritage, and consciously sought out the relics of the Trojan War heroes.34
Taking that antiquarian devotion one step further, some observers have
proposed that the later Greeks recognized the LH III BC ware in those
places as belonging to the Age of Heroes, and copied it to
strengthen their ties of identity with their forebears.35
K. de Vries has challenged that view on the reasonable that the eighth-seventh-century
Greeks would not have been knowledgeable enough to identify the particular
type of pottery used
in the Heroic Age after so long a gap.36
C.G. Starr recently
called the similarities of late eighth-seventh-cerntury wares to LH III
BC pottery particularly puzzling and intriguing.37
There have been several attempts to explain that phenomenon in terms of
a fifth-century revival or survival, but none stands up to careful scrutiny.
Some 75 years ago C.C. Edgar, who recognized that seventh-century ware
resembled LH III C, just as eleventh-century Protogeometric resembled
sixteenth-century Middle Bronze ware, felt that somehow the two revivals,
after obscure 500-year gaps, followed the same pattern, arid
probably had the same explanation, whatever it happened to be.38
Wide, Böhlau, Dörpfeld, Furtwängler and others, who favored
survivals rather than revivals, sought to explain the similarities by
synchronizing the Geometrical and Mycenaean styles, but they also ran
afoul of 500 years.39
While I would not equate Middle Helladic with Protogeometric or
LH III C with Orientalizing ware, since each group does have very distinctive
shapes and designs which the other lacks, I would point out that, under
a dating system which has eliminated 500 years, the early idea of co-existing
styles would explain close similarities, which, under the current chronological
framework, merely puzzle and intrigue.
(1967), p. 223.
above The Entrance to the Citadel, ns. 8-13.
Pendlebury, Aegyptiaca (Cambridge, 1930), pp. 53-57. More recently,
see Hankey-Warren, (1974).
(1964), p. 8.
A.S. Murray, Excavations in Cyprus (London, 1900), pp. 21-24;
D.G. Hogarth. Excavations at Ephesus (London, 1908). p. 242.
Torr, Memphis and Mycenae (Cambridge, 1896).
H. Hall, (1901), pp. 56-59 (to which see Torrs response
in his review of Halls book in The Classical Review 16
(1902), pp. 182-187 (esp. p. 187).
in Tsountas-Manatt, (1897), p. 321, n. 1.
Furtwängler, Die Bronzefunde aus Olympia and deren Kunstgeschichtliche
Bedeutung, Berlin Abhandlungen 4 (1879), pp. 45-47 (reprinted
in Kleine Schriften I (Munich, 1911), pp. 373-375; F.Dümmler, Zu
den Vasen aus Kameiros, JdI, 6 (1891), pp. 270-271; Murray, (1900),
p. 23; Hall, (1901), p. 36, n. 1; cf. Demargne (1964,
p. 271) and Cook (1972, pp. 310, 312-313) for modern comments.
loc. cit.; Hall, (1901), pp. 36, 45, 62-63, III, 132,
137, 221-222, 229, 246, 255 n. 1, 259-260, 264-265, 274, 279, 283; A.
Evans, A Mycenaean Treasure from Aegina, JHS,13 (1892-3)
pp. 224, 226.
(1971), pp. 134-135.
Walters, On Some Antiquities of the Mycenaean Age Recently Acquired
By the British Museum, JHS, 17 (1897), pp. 63-64, 77; Hall, (1901),
pp. 36, 63, III, 132, 137, 221, 229, 264-265; More recently, cf. P.
Amandry, Plaques dor de Delphes, Ath. Mitt, 77
(1962), p. 54, and C. Berard, Eretria III (Bern, 1970), pp. 42-43;
cf. ns. 15-16 below.
(1901), p. 221; V. Karageorghis, Cyprus (London,
1970), p. 67.
ibid., pp. 61-64; H. Catling, Cyprus in the Late
Bronze Age, CAH3 II. 2 (Cambridge, 1975), pp. 198-201, 207-213;
Snodgrass, (1971), pp. 29, 314, 365.
Karageorghis, ibid., p. 67; idem, Notes on Some Mycenaean
Survivals in Cyprus During the First Millennium B.C., Kadmos,
I (1962), pp. 72-77; idem, (1967a), pp. 167-170 and (1969), p.
14; A.R. Burn, Minoans, Philistines and Greeks, etc (London,
1968), p. 230.
(1948), pp. 298-299; P. Dikaios, Fifteen Iron Age Vases,
Report of the Department of Antiquities. Cyprus [henceforth RDAC],
1937-9 (pubd, 1951), pp. 134, 137-138; idem,
A Guide to the Cyprus Museum (Nicosia, 1961), p. 63; Karageorghis,
(1962), p. 76; idem, Treasures in the Cyprus Museum (Nicosia,
1962), pp. 4, 16-17; idem, Some Cypriote Painters of Bulls in
the Archaic Period, JdI, 80 (1965), pp. I, 10-12, 14.
(1971), pp. 94 (source of the quote), 444 (list of
references); Desborough, (1972), pp. 49-57, 145.
ibid., pp. 49-57 (pace the disclaimer on p. 57); Catling, (1968),
pp. 53, 221, 301; idem, (1975), pp. 193-196, 209-213;
Karageorghis, (1969), p. 23; idem, (1970), pp. 66, 151.
An Iron Age Painted Amphora in the Cyprus Museum, BSA,
37 (1936-7), p. 58 n. 3. Others (e.g. Gjerstad, (1948), pp. 282-287)
disagree with that assessment. Again, as with Submycenaean (see above
Shaft Grave Art: Modern Problems, n. 54), some Late Cypriote
(LC) III pottery and other artifacts obviously follow LC II, and some
obviously precede the Cypro-Geometric period, but I would question the
continuity within, and the homogeneity of LC III (cf. J. Du Plat Taylor,
Late Cypriot III in the Light of Recent Excavations, etc.,
Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly [henceforth PEFQ], 88 ,
The Iron Age Cypriots
did paint representations on some of their pottery, but those were not
as common as, and did not directly continue the LH III C figures. There
were gapssome hugeduring which many familiar forms disappeared
entirely, or else bore little or no similarity to the earlier style;
the closest resemblances to LH III B-C motifs belong not to the earliest
post-Mycenaean ware of Cyprus but to the eighth-seventh
centuries, as if a renascence only then took place (Snodgrass, (1971),
p. 94; Desborough, (1972), p. 51; Karageorghis-des Gagniers,
(1966), pp. 4-6, 15, 47, 62, 94-95, 101, 107-112; cf.
n. 16 above).
Dikaios, Principal Acquisitions of the Cyprus Museum, 1937-1939,
RDAC, 1937-39 (pubd, 1951), p. 200, idem, (1961), pp. 203-204;
Gjerstad, (1948), pp. 216, 283 (for which,
cf. SCE vol. II [Stockholm, 1935], p. 276), 293-294; J.F. Daniel, Two
Late Cypriote III Tombs from Kourion, AJA, 41 (1937) pp. 71, 73-74
(to which see Catlings objection, (1964), pp. 52-53).
addition to the citations of ns. 9, 16 above, see inter alia
Cook, (1972), pp. 41, 44; Edgar, (1904), p. 106;
Starr, (1961), p. 244; Broneer, (1939), p. 361; Berard,
(1970), pp. 42-43; Friis Johansen, (1966),
pp. 5, 9, 19, 34, 48-50, 55-56, 63-64, 131; J. P. Droop, Dipylon
Vases from the Kynosarges Site, BSA, 12 (1905-6), pp. 84-85, 90-91;
D. Burr, A Geometric House and a Proto-Attic Votive Deposit,
Hesperia, 2 (1933), p. 632; J. Pendlebury, The Archaeology
of Crete (London, 1939) p. 335; R. Young, Late Geometric Graves
and a Seventh Century Well in the Agora (Athens, 1939), pp. 49.
177, 186-187. 217;W. Taylour, Mycenaean Pottery Italy and
Adjacent Areas (Cambridge, 1958), pp. 113, 116, 120, 136, 142, 157;
E. Vermeule The Fall of the Mycenaean Empire, Archaeology
13 (1960), p. 74; J. Boardman, The Cretan Collection in Oxford (Oxford,
1961) pp. 57-58, 144 (confusion and debates over dating), 151; E. Brann,
The Athenian Agora VIII; Late Geometric and Protoattic Pottery
(Princeton, 1962), pp. 15, 19, 43, 48, 51; E. Langlotz, Ancient Greek
Sculpture of South Italy and Sicily (tr. A. Hicks) (New York, 1965),
p. 15; G.K. Galinsky Aeneas, Sicily and Rome (Princeton, 1969),
pp. 82-84, 89; J.L. Benson, Horse, Bird &Man (Amherst, 1970),
(Amherst, 1970), pp. 5-6 and passim J. N. Coldstream, The Cesnola
Painter: A Change of Address, BICS, 13 (1971), p. II; etc. etc.
(1960), p. 74.
(1964), p. 271.
Droop, The Pottery from Arcadia, Crete, Liverpool Annals
and Anthropology, 12 (1925), p. 11 (whence the term backwash
); M. Hartley, Early Greek Vases from Crete, BSA, 29 (1930-1),
pp. 62, 64, 86-37; D. Levi, Early Hellenic Pottery of Crete,
Hesperia 14 (1945), pp. 1, 9-10; Cook, (1972), p. 41;
R. Higgins, Minoan and Mycenaean Art (New York, 1967),
(1971), pp. 107-109; F. Stubbings, Mycenaean Pottery
from the Levant (Cambridge, 1951); V. Hankey, Mycenaean Pottery
in the Middle East, BSA, 62 (1967), pp. 104-147; idem, Mycenaean
Trade with the South-Eastern Mediterranean, Melanges de LUniversite
Saint Joseph, 46.2 (1970), pp. 11-30.
(1977, pp. 129-138 and 1978, pp. 80-81) has redated that
document and the entire dynasty to the Persian Period.
Sam. 5:11; I Kings 5:15-32, 7:13-46; II Chron. 2:1-15.
(1970), p. 5; Cook, (1972), p. 41; Robertson,
(1975), pp. 23-24.
see below Ivory Carvings, ns. 6-7; For metalware,
many authorities have long noted that ninth-seventh-century Phoenician
decorated bowls continue the tradition of similar bowls
from Ugarit of Eighteenth Dynasty date (e.g., H. Frankfort, The Art
and Architecture of the Ancient Orient [Baltimore, 1963], pp. 150,
195; Strong, (1966), p. 53; S. Moscati, The World of
the Phoenicians [tr. A. Hamilton] [London, 1968], pp. 67-68), and
closely resemble Nineteenth-Dynasty metalware from Tell Basta in Egypt
(e.g., W.K. Simpson, The Vessels with engraved designs and the
Repoussé Bowl from the Tell Basta Treasure, Journal
of Near Eastern Studies [henceforth JNES], 24 , p. 28).
As in the case of Greek figural art (cf. Shaft Grave Art: Modern
Problems, ns. 57-66 and ns. 1-28 above). Orientalists treating
decorated metalware have split into two camps. Those who have championed
survival attribute extraordinary conservatism to Phoenician artisans
who, without leaving a trace, somehow continued to produce metalware
in the ninth-sixth centuries, which differed little, if at all, from
Eighteenth-Nineteenth Dynasty antecedents (e.g., Murray, (1900),
pp. 27-29; Hall, (1901), pp. 137, 251-252; C. Schaeffer, Ugaritica
II [Paris, 1949], p. 47). Those advocating revival proposed a conscious
copying of 500-year-old forms (e.g., J.L. Myres, Handbook of the
Cesnola Collection of Antiquities from Cyprus [New York, 1914],
p. 275; cf. Hall, Oriental Art of the Saite Period in CAH1
- III [Cambridge, 1925] [ed. J.B. Bury et al.], p. 327; Dikaios, (1951),
p. 137; Strong, (1966), p. 53; for a fuller discussion,
cf. Isaacson, (1974), p. 15).
Some of the metal
bowls from uncertain contexts have provoked heated debates between those
who, seeing Minoan Mycenaean and Egyptian New Kingdom analogies, have
assigned them to the Late Bronze Age (e.g., Myres, Ibid, pp.
457-460; Fr. von Bissing, Eine Bronzeschale mykenischer Zeit,
JdI, 13 , p. 37; idem, Ägyptisch oder Phoinikisch?, JdI,
25 , pp. 193-199; idem, Untersuchungen fiber die phoinikischen
Metal schen, JdI, 38-39 [1923-1924], p. 190), and those who, acknowledging
the 500-year-older elements, still insisted on ninth-sixth-century dates
for those same items (e.g. Murray, ibid., pp. 27-29; Hall, ibid.,
, pp. 137, 251-252, , p. 327; F. Studniczka, Der Rennwagen
in Syrisch-phoinikischen Gebiet, JdI, 22 (1907), p. 75; H. Schäfer,
Ägyptische Goldschmiedearbeiten [Berlin, 1910], p. 66; E. Gjerstad,
Decorated Metal Bowls from Cyprus, Op. Arch., 4 (1946),
pp. 2-17). For similar problems with Aegean bronzes, cf. below A
Terracotta Figurine and a Terracotta Head, n. 16.
decorated Phoenician textiles as the chief medium of continuous transmission,
cf, inter al., H. Payne, Necrocorinthia (Oxford, 1931), p. 54;
Benson, (1970), pp. 55, 111-113, 122-123; Cook, (1972),
p. 41. From the extremely rare specimens of later Greek cloth
that have survived, one sees that, at least by the classical period,
the Greeks could and did transfer curvilinear and naturalistic designs
to cloth from paintings on smooth surfaces, where such motifs are far
quicker and easier to create (cf. G. Richter, A Handbook of Greek
Art [New York, 1969], pp. 380-383).
It is somewhat hazardous to reconstruct the actual designs of textiles
from their depictions in paintings, since the latter may show a style
less rigid than, and possibly completely different from those on the
cloth itself. (H. Kantor, The Aegean and the Orient in the Second
Millennium B.C.? AJA, 51 (1947), pp. 43-44); nevertheless, to
judge by Mycenaean Age frescoes, Aegean textile workers had already
begun to adorn cloth with representational designs including floral
motifs, monsters and animals, which seem to have vanished from Dark
Age pottery, only to return in the seventh century (cf.
E. Evans, (1935), vol. II , fig. 456, pls. 25-27,
and vol. III , figs. 25-26if correctly restored and interpreted;
Vermeule, (1971), p. 193 and pi. 28A-B; S. Marinatos,
Excavations at Thera VII [Athens, 1976], p. 36 and pi. 65).
While it is true that
Homer mentioned colorful Phoenician cloth (II. VI; 289-295),
he does not describe its design, which might merely have been woven
stripes; he does, however, describe the representational adornments
of battle scenes and flowers which Helen and Andromache created on cloth
(II. III;125-128; XXII:441). If the taboo on figural pottery
did not extend to textiles, Greek artisans could have kept the styles
alive as easily as the Phoenicians allegedly did.
(1970), passim; Snodgrass, (1971), pp. 54,
417-418; Cook, (1972), pp. 41-43. But cf. J. Carter, The
Beginning of Narrative Art in the Geometric Period, BSA, 67 (1972)
pp. 25-58, who seeks to push back the earliest Oriental influence.
ibid., passim; Brann, (1962), p. 19.
above The Entrance to the Citadel, n. 13 and Later
Use of the Grave Circles, n. 14; below The Palace,
ns. 6-8 and The Design of the Palace, n. 31.
(1970) passim; Karageorghis, (1962), pp. 72, 76-77.
de Vries, review of Bensons Horse. Bird &
Man, AJA,76 (1972), pp. 99-100.
(1961, p. 244.)
(1904, p. 106.)
Shaft Grave Art: Modern Problems, n. 60 and n. 9 above.