middle helladic to the late helladic i shaft graves 2 страница

The woman holding grain wears a headdress similar to one of the women on the Hagia Triada sarcophagus (see Figure 3.2, page 52), but her dress hangs from one shoulder, leaving her arms bare. There are traces of a griffin below her, and the pose with both arms held outward recalls images of

The monumental scale, expensive materials, colorful frescoes, and subject matter of palatial art and architecture set themselves apart from the ordinary and express the power and privilege of elite Mycenaeans. Curiously, there are no images or portraits of kings in the surviving art. The megaron and its throne create a platform for the kings and the Linear B tablets document their wealth and activities as hosts and leaders, but images of rulers that are a common feature of some Near Eastern and Egyptian royal art do not seem to occur in Greece.

late helladic pottery and terracottas

Mycenaean decorated pottery has been systematically studied and categorized, and its abundant production during the Late Helladic period provides a good picture of the stages of its development in terms of both the favored shapes and their decoration. The relative chronology of the pottery has been worked out through excavations and comparisons across sites, but the broad artistic phases do
not always line up neatly with the traditional period nomenclature. Four major phases have been identified (Rutter 2010):

♦ Phase 1: LH I-LH IIA. This corresponds to the period of the Shaft Graves and shows the influence of Late Minoan techniques and decoration on Mycenaean pottery.

♦ Phase 2: LH IIB-LHIIIA1. This is the period when the Mycenaeans expand their control to Crete (Final Palatial Knossos) and we see the development of the palace complexes on mainland Greece. The pottery in this period becomes more independent of Minoan style and shapes, with increasing abstraction in the natural motifs. This period corresponds to the Palace Style on Crete (see Figure 3.1, page 51).

♦ Phase 3: LH IIIA2-LH IIIB. This is the high point of Mycenaean pottery production and distribution, with greater abstraction in the decorative motifs.

♦ Phase 4: LH IIIC. This follows the destruction of the palaces and the decline of Mycenaean power and influence. Curiously, it sees some rise in the quality of painted decoration on pottery, even while major art media such as fresco and stone sculpture virtually disappear.

To explore these last three phases in this chapter and to broaden our scope beyond the palaces, we will begin with a chamber tomb from the Agora in Athens. There was a Mycenaean citadel on top of the Acropolis in the Late Helladic period, but few traces of Mycenaean building remain due to the later building programs there. A number of Mycenaean graves have been found below the Acropolis in the Agora and provide a glimpse of the use of tombs and the disposition of grave goods. Tomb III was one of the richer burials in terms of its grave goods, but the chamber tomb is small in size compared to the tholos tombs of Mycenae. While it did contain some metal, its grave goods are very modest when compared to those of the Shaft Graves and other LH I tombs. There appears to be a scaling back in the luxury of grave goods in elite tombs during LH II and III, even while their architecture is becoming more monumental in form.

Tomb III contained three bodies set on the floor of the tomb (Figure 3.10). As can be seen in the excavation plan, there was a dromos leading to the stomion, which had been blocked with a stone wall after the last burial in the chamber. The bodies (A, B, C) were placed at the sides and back of the chamber and grave goods were placed before them. The bones of A were interred first and were later disturbed; the next burial was of a woman (B), and the last was of a man (C). The heads of B and C were turned toward the center of the tomb when placed in the chamber and their arms positioned across their abdomens. The burials probably took place in a relatively short period of time, and the stone wall was then built in the stomion to seal the tomb.

The grave goods included a bronze sword, dagger, razor, and bowl for the man (C), set on a wooden table, possibly with ivory inlays (Immerwahr 1971, 170-177). Gold rosettes and steatite buttons were also found in the tomb and associated with bodies A and B. There were sixteen pottery vessels in the tomb, most of them undecorated (Figure 3.11). Some of the undecorated cups were unusual in being covered with tin foil, probably as a cheaper alternative to metal vessels. There were three painted vessels in the tomb, a small pithoid jar in fragments, a large pithoid jar in the middle of the tholos (seen in the drawing), and a pilgrim’s flask (a variation on the shape of the Minoan octopus pilgrim’s flask seen in Figure 2.17, page 39). The decorated jar contained the ashes and remains of a sacrificial offering to one of the deceased, probably C, that was enclosed in the tomb before it was sealed.

Both of the larger jars feature a high profile and narrow foot and have three handles on the shoulders, showing the standardization of vessel types and shapes of Mycenaean pottery. The dark-on-light painted floral motifs on the large jar, an ivy leaf and papyrus blossom set on tripled curvilinear stems in each panel, can be placed stylistically into period LH IIIA1, during the second phase of Late Helladic pottery. In comparison, the decoration of the pilgrim’s flask in Figure 3.11 is more abstract and its concentric circles emphasize quite strikingly the shape of the body. These features place it in

As the Mycenaean sherds from Amarna indicate, Mycenaean pottery was widely distributed from Italy to the Near East and Black Sea areas during Phase 3 (LH IIIA2-LH IIIB) and is strong evidence of the trading and cultural connections of the Mycenaeans. A cup found on the island of Kalymnos near Rhodes, for example, is representative of a popular shape of the goblet (Figure 3.12). The cup type was used in domestic contexts for drinking and included in burials as grave goods, as we saw in the Agora tomb above. This example shows the more elongated and curvilinear shape of Late Helladic cups when compared to their Middle Helladic, Minyan-ware predecessors (see Figure 2.8, page 31). The very high stem and sharp flaring of the bowl in a double curve create a sinuous and energetic

with earlier LH pottery, it seems to have higher production values and a visual appeal that would correspond to its wide distribution.

Most decorated Mycenaean pottery from Phase 3 (LH IIIA2-LH IIIB) has abstracted motifs like this, but there is also a pictorial style of pottery that developed and seems to have been very popular in Cyprus, where a number of Mycenaean Greeks settled, especially at Enkomi (Figure 3.13). This krater has two handles and a wide shoulder zone, providing a particularly suitable surface for a figural scene. Like abstractly decorated pottery, horizontal bands divide the vase into distinct sections of neck, shoulder, belly, and foot. The figural decoration, consisting of a chariot carrying three men and followed by a fourth walking man, is applied over and above the triple band in the center of the vase, leaving the feet of the horses suspended below and the chariot wheel resting well above on the lowest band. The chariot riders are wrapped in their cloaks, creating lozenge-shaped silhouettes that recall the deceased figure in the Hagia Triada sarcophagus (see Figure 3.2, page 52). These

figures, like the flower on the goblet, are strongly abstracted and show little trace of body structure. The chariot is pulled by two horses, as can be seen from the doubled muzzles, tails, and legs, though at first glance they seem to share a single body. Various linear patterns fill up the surfaces between the figures, and a large blossom sprouts from the top band at the right of the picture to close the scene. The kraters appear to have been popular for tombs, whether as grave goods or perhaps as burial urns, but the chariot procession would be an appropriate theme for a funerary offering in either case.

It is during the LH IIIB period that we also see the emergence of a new class of small terracotta female figures (Figure 3.14). Like the chariot figures, these are highly abstracted in form, with a sharp ridge for the nose, dots or holes for eyes, rudimentary arms, and paint applied to indicate clothing and details of hair and headdress. Based on the arm configuration, these have been named by types based on Greek letters: psi (у) with upward-lifted arms, phi (ф) for arms held over the abdomen, and tau (t) for arms akimbo. The figures have a rounded base for feet and a long cylinder for legs, giving them a verticality and top-heaviness similar to the pottery vessels. What the figures represent is less certain. They are frequently found in shrines and might be a goddess, but the figures are also found in domestic contexts and graves as well. The psi-type with the upward-lifted arms would more likely suggest a praying figure like a priestess, rather than a divinity receiving prayer, and some of the phi-figures hold infants, suggesting a mother or nurse. They were sufficiently generalized in their form that they could be adapted for use in different contexts. The figures are widely found throughout the Mycenaean world, so we have to assume that their meaning was under­stood by their makers and users, if not by us. While the figurines conform to a few limited types, they, like the goblet, have enough hand-applied elements in each case to make each work slightly different from another.

As we noted in the discussion of the palace at Pylos, many of the Mycenaean palaces show evidence of destruction at the end of LH IIIB, roughly the first quarter of the twelfth century все. Some of the sites have small-scale towns rebuilt on or near the ruins, but the palaces are essentially abandoned, and with them, monumental architecture and art. There is a scaling back and simplification in the quality of metalwork, whose production had been concentrated in the palaces.

Curiously, pottery during Phase 4 (LH IIIC) shows signs of more careful production than in Phase 3. A stirrup jar in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, for example, belongs to this last period of Mycenaean art (Figure 3.15). Looking at it, one could readily argue that it shows greater skill and precision than the ear­lier chariot krater. Once more we have an octopus for the design, a motif that allows the painter to fill the surface of the vase very fluidly. The octopus is more symmetrical than the flower on the goblet from Kalymnos, but it is painted with greater detail and pattern and so more costly in terms of the labor. The colored areas of black paint are even and consistent in tone, also evidence for the care in its making. The profile is squatter than earlier vessels, but the parts of the vase are still precisely articulated. When compar­ing this to other octopus vases, one can see that it is far more abstract than the Marine style Minoan flask (see Figure 2.17, page 39), but that it has a more lively and carefully articulated design than the Palace Style amphora (see Figure 3.1, page 51). One might not guess that the palatial infrastructure behind the production of art in earlier periods had deteriorated. There are still pictorial vases made during this period, including the well-known Warrior Vase found at Mycenae and today in the National Archaeological Museum in Athens (Figure 3.16). Here we see six warriors marching out to war, while behind them a woman raises a hand to the top of her hair. This is a gesture that we will associate in later Greek art with the tearing of hair while mourning the deceased (see Figure 4.8, page 79 and Figure 5.26, page 125), and certainly it would appear to be a gesture of distress as she watches the warriors marching away. While at first glance the representational style seems simplified and cartoon-like, it is done with greater attention to figural anatomy and

details of armor and weapons than the earlier chariot kraters and the fresco from the cult center at Mycenae. The figures use the top of the triple band of lines marking the base of the handle and defining the picture zone as a ground line for walking, and they march evenly spaced as a troop of soldiers should. The figures show some similarity to some earlier fresco fragments from the palaces, and it has been suggested that fresco painters turned their skill to pottery in the absence of frescoes to paint in the post-palace world. Given the circumstances of the palace destructions, this would have been a much less secure age, which is also demonstrated in the fact that Mycenaean pottery no longer shows up in quantity outside of Greece as it had previously.

There was another wave of destructions at the end of LH IIIC, at which point many of the Late Helladic sites are abandoned or are reduced to agricultural villages. This period of the so-called Dark Ages is one that we will consider in the next chapter. Who destroyed the palaces and caused the collapse of Mycenaean culture is not clear. The period coincides with a larger series of devastations and invasions in the eastern Mediterranean, bringing an end to the Bronze Age generally. Greek leg­ends spoke of the invasion of Dorian Greeks at about this time, but the Linear B tablets show that Greeks had already arrived by the Late Bronze Age. Many of the palaces were burned within a small span of time, and the construction of huge and expensive fortification

3.16 Warrior Vase from Mycenae, LH IIIC. 1678 in (41 cm). Athens, National Archaeological Museum 1426. Photo: National Archaeological Museum, Athens (Athanassios Miliarakis) © Hellenic Ministry of Education and Religious Affairs, Culture and Sports/Archaeological Receipts Fund.

walls in LH IIIB shows that security was both uncertain and a concern of the rulers. Still, some palaces were not fortified and some were not burned, so the idea of a climactic invasion does not offer a full explanation (Dickinson 2010). It is possible that some of the destruction was the result of local war­fare, but why then did the victors not rebuild their newly conquered citadel?

Other theories have been proposed, including widespread earthquakes, drought, or environmental degradation. There is evidence in the Levant of problems with drought, which might well explain why sites would be abandoned if there were no crops, but this would not account for their destruction by fire. The bureaucracy described in the Linear B tablets may also have become oppressive, ineffective, or rigid, resulting in a systems collapse when triggered by an event like one of these.

It would seem most likely that the reason for the collapse of Bronze Age Greek culture is multidimensional and complex. Prolonged drought and environmental stress may have forced migrations or raids on more prosperous neighbors; the palace administrative system may have been unable to respond effectively or creatively to new challenges. Cascading problems over the course of a decade or two might have reached a tipping point where the palace culture collapsed. Access to distant materials would have been limited and the skills needed for manufacturing may have vanished. In the end, Greece was a less populous and more decentralized place at the end of the Bronze Age (see generally Cline 2014).

Still, the ruins of the great citadels were visible in the landscape and memories of a heroic and expansive age were preserved through epic poetry such as the Iliad. The world that the eighth-century Iliupersis poem describes was considered to be the long distant past. The memories and artifacts of the Bronze

_{term for the fall of Troy or} Age became the ancestry and genealogy of Greek art in the succeeding millennium. In place of the

Blackwell, N. G. 2014. “Making the Lion Gate Relief at Mycenae: Tool Marks and Foreign Influence.” American Journal of Archaeology 118, 451-488.

Chadwick, J. 1990. The Decipherment of Linear B, 2nd edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Cline, E. 2014. 1177B.C.: The Year Civilization Collapsed. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Dickinson, O. 2010. “The Collapse at the End of the Bronze Age” In Cline 2010, 483-490.

Guterbock, H. G. 1983. “The Hittites and the Aegean World: Part 1. The Ahhiyawa Problem Reconsidered.” American Journal of Archaeology 87, 133-138.

Hruby, J. 2013. “The Palace of Nestor, Craft Production, and Mechanisms for the Transfer of Goods.” American Journal of Archaeology 117, 423-427.

Immerwahr, S. A. 1971. The Neolithic and Bronze Ages. The Athenian Agora, 13. Princeton: American School of Classical Studies at Athens.

Mellink, M. J. 1983. “The Hittites and the Aegean World: 2. Archaeological Comments on Ahhiyawa-Achaians in Western Anatolia” American Journal of Archaeology 87, 138-141.

Pollitt, J. J. 1990. The Art of Ancient Greece: Sources and Documents. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press.

Project Troia. Website: http://www.uni-tuebingen.de/troia/eng/

Rose, C. Brian. 2013. The Archaeology of Greek and Roman Troy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Rutter, J. B. 2010. “Mycenaean Pottery” In Cline 2010, 415-429.

Ventris, M. and J. Chadwick. 1973. Documents in Mycenaean Greek, 2nd edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Vermeule, E. D. T. 1986. “‘Priam’s Castle Blazing’: A Thousand Years of Trojan Memories” In M. J. Mellink, ed., Troy and the Trojan War: A Symposium held at Bryn Mawr College, October 1984, 77-92. Bryn Mawr: Bryn Mawr College.

further reading

Aegean Prehistoric Archaeology. Website: http://www.dartmouth.edu/~prehistory/aegean/

Betancourt, P. P. 2007. Introduction to Aegean Art. Philadelphia: INSTAP Press.

Cline, E. H., ed. 2010. The Oxford Handbook of the Bronze Age Aegean. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Immerwahr, S. A. 1990. Aegean Painting in the Bronze Age. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press. Shelmerdine, C. W., ed. 2008. The Cambridge Companion to the Aegean Bronze Age. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Vermeule, E. D. T. 1972. Greece in the Bronze Age. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

(C 1075-700 bce)

Timeline

Pottery

Sculpture

Architecture

Textbox: What is in a Name?

References Further Reading

A History of Greek Art, First Edition. Mark D. Stansbury-O’Donnell.

© 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Published 2015 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

timeline

o speak about Greek art around the year 1050 все, one has to be broad about defining what art is. The works that we saw in the Bronze Age Mycenaean palaces included monumental forms of architecture, sculpture, and painting that we typically associate with “art" but the landscape of Greece around 1050 was quite different than it had been two centuries earlier. Many of the palaces such as Mycenae, Tiryns, and Pylos had been destroyed by 1175 and lay in ruins, although the large citadel walls, such as the Lion Gate at Mycenae, were still visible (see Figure 3.6, page 56). Mycenaean culture continued for a time after 1175, but writing disappeared and the production of mural paintings or luxury items like gold and ivory in the palace workshops ceased. By 1075, the population had declined dramatically, with people living in small clusters; travel and trade were severely limited. This period, broadly lasting from the eleventh until the eighth century все, is sometimes labeled the Dark Ages, signifying the reduction in the scale of material culture and the relative lack of archaeological and historical evidence. An alternative term for the period is the Early Iron Age, signifying the use of a more durable and versatile metal for tools and weapons that was technologically more difficult to make than bronze. As we shall see in the textbox for this chapter, the name of a period can affect our perception of it, whether in this era or another.

Whereas the material remains of this period do not rival in scale or luxury those of the periods before and after it, this is a period that is transformative and inventive. During the eighth century, Homer composes the Iliad and we see the rise of Panhellenic sites such as Olympia and Delphi that will play an important role in Greek culture for many centuries. The adoption and adaptation of the alphabet from the Phoenicians created a form of writing that had much wider use than tracking palace inventories. Perhaps the most significant cultural development was the initial establishment of the polis, rather than the restoration of the palace, as the model for civic life. Rather than a rigid hierarchical organization of political rule by a small elite class and their control of agricultural and production, the polis came to emphasize political rule through laws, constitutions, and collective decision-making. For individuals and households, there was a sense of citizenship and community; even with large differences in wealth and connections, there was an expectation of household autonomy and social leveling.

In the Iliad, Homer describes the Shield of Achilles, which was made by Hephaistos to replace the hero’s original shield after it had been borrowed by his companion Patroklos and then taken by Hektor after the Trojan killed him. The new shield had many figural scenes on it, and in one there is a description of a scene in a peaceful city:

But the people were crowded together in the agora. And there a quarrel had arisen, for two men were arguing on account of the penalty of slaying a man. The first had been swearing to have made full atonement [by] making declaration to the people; the other had declined to accept. But both then had sent forth the issue to an arbitrator to decide. (Il. 18.497-501; tr. Stansbury-O’Donnell 1995, 322)

It is clear that someone has been killed, and that the restitution by or punishment of the killer was rejected as insufficient by the victim’s family or associates. Both make their arguments before the elders of the town seated in a circle in the agora, while the population of the town watches and voices its opinions. The remarkable aspect of the story is that the scene describes a system of justice that has its authority based on the prerogative of the community, the polis, to assert its judgment and rights in arguments between members of the community. Further, the scene does not take place inside a megaron or palace, but in the public space of the city before all of the citizens. The polis, its households and population, are the foundation of the social structure. Further, one could argue that this is the foundation for the monumental architecture and art of succeeding centuries, in which the temple and agora rather than the palace are the monumental forms of cultural expression.