AEGAEUM 37Annales liégeoises et PASPiennes d’archéologie égéenne

PHYSISL’ENVIRONNEMENT NATUREL

ET LA RELATION HOMME-MILIEUDANS LE MONDE ÉGÉEN PROTOHISTORIQUE

Actes de la 14e Rencontre égéenne internationale,Paris, Institut National d’Histoire de l’Art (INHA),

11-14 décembre 2012

Edités par Gilles TOUCHAIS,

Robert LAFFINEUR

et Françoise ROUGEMONT

PEETERSLEUVEN - LIEGE

2014

97631_Aegaeum 37 vwk.indd Sec1197631_Aegaeum 37 vwk.indd Sec11 11/12/14 08:2611/12/14 08:26

SOMMAIRE

Préface 11 A. Cadre naturel : Georgia KOURTESSI-PHILIPPAKIS, Local vs exogène ? L’impact du milieu naturel sur la composition des assemblages lithiques néolithiques en Grèce 15 Georgia STRATOULI, Anaya SARPAKI, Maria NTINOU, Eleni KOTJABOPOULOU, Tatiana THEODOROPOULOU, Vasilios MELFOS, Niels H. ANDREASEN, Panagiotis KARKANAS, Dialogues Between Bioarchaeological, Geoarchaeological and Archaeological Data: Approaches to Understanding the Neolithic Use of Drakaina Cave, Kephalonia Island, Western Greece 23 Erika WEIBERG, Timing, Perception and Response. Human Dimensions of Erosion and Sedimentation in the Greek Bronze Age 33 Evangelia STEFANI, Nikos MEROUSIS, Living on the Edge. People and Physis in Prehistoric Imathia, Macedonia, Greece 41 Mimoza SIDIROPOULOU, Eric FOUACHE, Kosmas PAVLOPOULOS, Maria TRIANTAPHYLLOU, Konstantinos VOUVALIDIS, George SYRIDES,Emanuele GRECO, Geomorphological Evolution and Paleoenvironment Reconstruction in the Northeastern Part of Lemnos Island (North Aegean Sea) 49 Thomas F. STRASSER, Anne P. CHAPIN, Geological Formations in the Flotilla Fresco from Akrotiri 57 B. Ressources naturelles : Katerina ATHANASAKI, A Serpentine Quarry-Scape in Gonies, North-Central Crete 67

Gerald CADOGAN, Water Worries and Water Works in Bronze Age Southern Crete 73 Jonathan M. FLOOD, Jeffrey S. SOLES, Water Management in Neopalatial Crete and the Development of the Mediterranean Dry-Season 79 Nagia SGOURITSA, Eleni SALAVOURA, The Exploitation of Inland Natural Resources on an Island Environment: The Case of the Mycenaean Settlement at Lazarides and the South/Southeast Aegina 85

Thomas G. PALAIMA, Harnessing Phusis: The Ideology of Control and Exploitation of the Natural World as Reflected in Terminology in the Linear B Texts Derived from Indo-European *bheh2u- ‘Grow, Arise, Be’ and *h2eg-ro- “The Uncultivated Wild Field’ and Other Roots Related to the Natural Environs 93

6 SOMMAIRE

C. Paysage et climat : Miriam G. CLINTON, Sarah C. MURRAY, Thomas F. TARTARON, Gis in Action: Analyzing an Early Bronze Age Coastal Landscape on the Saronic Gulf 103 Peter PAVÚK, Magda PIENIĄŻEK, Simone RIEHL, Troy and the Troad in the Second Millennium: Changing Patterns in Landscape Use 111 Fritz BLAKOLMER, Meaningful Landscapes: Minoan “Landscape Rooms” and Peak Sanctuaries 121 Vincenzo AMATO, Fausto LONGO, Maria BREDAKI, Amedeo ROSSI, Matthieu GHILARDI, David PSOMIADIS, Maxime COLLEU, Laetitia SINIBALDI, Doriane DELANGHE-SABATIER, François DEMORY, Christophe PETIT, Geoarchaeological and Palaeoenvironmental Researches in the Area of Ancient Phaistos (Crete, Greece): Preliminary Results 129 Christos DOUMAS, Le paysage côtier de la région d’Akrotiri, Théra, avant l’éruption volcanique du Bronze récent 141 Anne P. CHAPIN, Brent DAVIS , Louise A. HITCHCOCK , Emilia BANOU, The Vapheio Tholos Tomb and the Construction of a Symbolic Landscape in Laconia, Greece 145 Athanasia KRAHTOPOULOU, Rena VEROPOULIDOU, Linking Inland and Coastal Records: Landscape and Human Histories in Pieria, Macedonia, Greece 153 Assaf YASUR-LANDAU, Nurith GOSHEN, The Reformed Mountains: Political and Religious Landscapes in the Aegean and the Levant 159 Georgios FERENTINOS, Maria GKIONI, Maria GERAGA, Georgios PAPATHEODOROU, Neanderthal and Anatomically Modern Human Seafarers in the Aegean Archipelago, Mediterranean Sea 165 D. Iconographie : Fragoula GEORMA, Artemis KARNAVA, Irene NIKOLAKOPOULOU, The Natural World and its Representations: A View from Akrotiri, Thera 175

Andreas VLACHOPOULOS, Lefteris ZORZOS, Physis and Techne on Thera: Reconstructing Bronze Age Environment and Land-Use Based on New Evidence from Phytoliths and the Akrotiri Wall-Paintings 183 Elsa PAPATSAROUCHA, Minoan Landscapes: Plant Communities and their Artistic Representations 199 John G. YOUNGER, The “World of People”: Nature and Narrative in Minoan Art 211 Karen Polinger FOSTER, Fur and Feathers in Aegean Art 217 E. Agriculture : Georgia KOTZAMANI, Alexandra LIVARDA, Plant Resource Availability and Management in Palaeolithic and Mesolithic Greece 229

SOMMAIRE 7

Harriet BLITZER, Preliminary Notes on Olive Domestication and Cultivation in the Prehistoric Aegean 239 Orestes DECAVALLAS, Plant Oils from Neolithic Aegean Pottery: Chemical Proof of the Exploitation of Oleaginous Plants and the Question of “Early” Oil Production 245 Leonidas VOKOTOPOULOS, Gerhard PLATH, Floyd W. McCOY, The Yield of the Land: Soil Conservation and the Exploitation of Arable Land at Choiromandres, Zakros in the New Palace Period 251 Robert Angus K. SMITH, Mary K. DABNEY, Georgia KOTZAMANI, Alexandra LIVARDA, Georgia TSARTSIDOU, James C. WRIGHT, Plant Use in Mycenaean Mortuary Practice 265 Evi MARGARITIS, Katie DEMAKOPOULOU, Ann-Louise SCHALLIN, The Archaeobotanical Samples from Midea: Agricultural Choices in the Mycenaean Argolid 271 Evi MARGARITIS, Acts of Destruction and Acts of Preservation: Plants in the Ritual Landscape of Prehistoric Greece 279 Petra VAIGLOVA, Florent RIVALS, Amy BOGAARD, Rebecca FRASER, Armelle GARDEISEN, William CAVANAGH, Christopher MEE, Josette RENARD, Angela LAMB, Interpreting Ancient Crop and Animal Management Strategies at Neolithic Kouphovouno, Southern Greece: Results of Integrating Crop and Animal Stable Isotopes and Dental Micro- And Mesowear 287 Jörg WEILHARTNER, The Influence of Aegean Iconography on the Design of the Linear B Logograms for Animals, Plants and Agricultural Products 297 Marianna NIKOLAIDOU, Ernestine S. ELTER, Hunting, Fishing and Gathering at Sitagroi and Beyond: Strategies of Wild Resource Use in the Neolithic and Early Bronze Age 305 F. Ressources animales : Pietro MILITELLO, Wool Production in Neolithic and Early Bronze Age Aegean 317 Stavroula APOSTOLAKOU, Philip BETANCOURT, Thomas BROGAN, Dimitra MYLONA, Chrysa SOFIANOU, Tritons Revisited 325 Alexandra KARETSOU, Robert B. KOEHL, The Minoan Mastiffs of Juktas 333 Olga KRZYSZKOWSKA, Cutting to the Chase: Hunting in Minoan Crete 341 Anna Lucia D’AGATA, Sara DE ANGELIS, Minoan Beehives. Reconstructing the Practice of Beekeeping in Bronze Age Crete 349 Tatiana THEODOROPOULOU, Excavating the Sea: Recent Advances in Marine Zooarchaeology of the Prehistoric Aegean 359

8 SOMMAIRE

Nancy R. THOMAS, A Lion’s Eye View of the Greek Bronze Age 375 Ruth PALMER, Managing the Wild: Deer and Agrimia in the Late Bronze Age Aegean 391 Cyrille RIEAU, Armelle GARDEISEN, Florent RIVALS, Alimentation des troupeaux durant l’âge du Bronze à travers l’analyse des micro-usures dentaires, les exemples d’Angelohori et Archontiko (Macédoine, Grèce) 401 Aurélien CREUZIEUX, Armelle GARDEISEN, Evangelia STEFANI, L’exploitation du monde animal en Grèce septentrionale durant le Bronze récent : l’exemple d’Angelochori 409 Rena VEROPOULIDOU, Molluscan Exploitation in the Neolithic and Bronze Age Communities at the Former Thermaic Gulf, North Aegean 415 G. Peuplement et population : Pascal DARCQUE, Haïdo KOUKOULI-CHRYSSANTHAKI, Dimitra MALAMIDOU,Zoï TSIRTSONI, Laurent LESPEZ, Cécile GERMAIN-VALLÉE, The Impact of Environmental Changes on the Neolithic Settlement of Dikili Tash (Northern Greece) 425 Sylvie MÜLLER CELKA, Dario PUGLISI, Frédéric BENDALI, Settlement Pattern Dynamics and Natural Resources in MM-LM I Crete: The Case of Malia 431 Gert Jan VAN WIJNGAARDEN, Pavlos AVRAMIDIS, Nikolaos KONTOPOULOS, Dealing with Extreme Dynamics. Prehistoric Landscapes of Zakynthos 441 Michael L. GALATY, William A. PARKINSON, Daniel J. PULLEN, Rebecca M. SEIFRIED, Mycenaean -Scapes: Geography, Political Economy, and the Eastern Mediterranean World-System 449 H. Posters : Marcus J. BAJEMA, Mycenaean Snail-Lovers? 457 Dora CONSTANTINIDIS, Physis and Space: Aegean Bronze Age Depictions and their Architectural Context 459 Janice L. CROWLEY, Images of the Earth in Aegean Art 465 Mary K. DABNEY, Representations of Fig Cultivation in Aegean Art 469 Bryan FEUER, Environmental Aspects of the Northern Mycenaean Border in Thessaly 473 Walter L. FRIEDRICH, Annette HØJEN SØRENSEN, Samson KATSIPIS, Santorini Before the Minoan Eruption: The Ship Fresco from Akrotiri - A Geological and Archaeological Approach 475 Mercourios GEORGIADIS, The Physical Environment and the Beliefs at Leska, a New Peak Sanctuary on Kythera 481

SOMMAIRE 9

Effie GEMI-IORDANOU, The Meaning of Flowers: Symbolism and Interpretation of Flower Iconography in Minoan Art 485 Angelos GKOTSINAS, Angeliki KARATHANOU, Maria-Fotini PAPAKONSTANTINOU,Georgios SYRIDES, Konstantinos VOUVALIDIS, Approaching Human Activity and Interaction with the Natural Environment Through the Archaeobotanical and Zooarchaeological Remains from Middle Helladic Agia Paraskevi, Central Greece 487 Bernice R. JONES, Revisiting the Figures and Landscapes on the Frescoes at Hagia Triada 493 Dimitra KRIGA, Flora and Fauna Iconography on Strainers and Kymbai at Akrotiri: Theran Ceramic Vessels of Special Use and Special Iconography 499 Florence LIARD, Mineral Resources, Potting Techniques and Social Identities in Late Bronze Age Sissi, Crete 505 Stefanos LIGKOVANLIS, The Exploitation of the Thesprotian Wetlands (NW Greece) During the Middle and Early Upper Palaeolithic; Different Hominins yet ‘Similar’ Strategies? Reflections from the Material World 509 Joanne M.A. MURPHY, The Wealth of Nature and the Nature of Wealth: Aspects of Pylian Ideologies 513 Heleni PALAIOLOGOU, Water Management, Climatic, Social Changes and Agriculture in the Plain of Mycenae during the 13th C. B.C. and Later: The Case of Chania 517 Christina PAPOULIA, Confronting the Sea: Navigation Skills in Pre-Modern Human Societies 521 Vassilis P. PETRAKIS, The Religious Significance of Insects in the Aegean Bronze Age: Three Notes 525 Anna PHILIPPA-TOUCHAIS, Gilles TOUCHAIS, Oreste DECAVALLAS,Armelle GARDEISEN, Matthieu GHILARDI, Evi MARGARITIS, Odysseas METAXASSevi TRIANTAPHYLLOU, Efi TSIOLAKI, Environnement, alimentation, hygiène et mode de vie dans la Grèce mésohelladique : le cas de l’Aspis d’Argos 531 Maria ROUSSAKI, New Evidence in Minoan Pictorial Wall Painting: ‘The Swallows Fresco’ from the Knossos Area 539 Alessandro SANAVIA, How to Improve on Nature: Some Middle Minoan Triton Shells from Phaistos (Crete) 543 Robert SCHON, The Political Ecology of the Pylian State 547 Andrew SHAPLAND, After Naturalism: Human-Animal Relations in LMII-III Crete 555

10 SOMMAIRE

Giorgos VAVOURANAKIS, The Changing Significance of Nature within Minoan Society 559 I. En guise de conclusion ... Thomas G. PALAIMA, The Linear-B-Inscribed Triton PAR Ph 2012 and its Lessons about Phusis 563

MEANINGFUL LANDSCAPES: MINOAN “LANDSCAPE ROOMS” AND PEAK SANCTUARIES*

One of the most remarkable characteristics of Minoan iconography is the great emphasis laid on the representation of the natural ambience occurring in the form of plants, animal motifs and manifold manners of depicting the natural terrain1. In earlier scholarship, the development of landscape painting in Neopalatial Crete and its flourishing throughout all artistic media is mostly seen as a given fact, as an outcome of the Minoan “homo ludens” or of a “Cretan enigma”2. Although a landscape art of comparable prominence can be observed in no other East Mediterranean region of the 2nd or 1st millennia B.C.E., this artistic peculiarity of the Aegean Bronze Age only rarely has led to an inquiry into its origins and reasons. Therefore, in this paper, I will pose the question: For what reason did the representation of landscape and nature play such an eminent role especially in the ritual iconography of Neopalatial Crete?

Categories of Aegean landscape images

In spite of the highly variable character of Aegean landscape images, we can probably distinguish at least six different categories:

1. The first category is the exotic landscape consisting of a river or a marshy landscape including papyrus plants and sometimes also monkeys and griffins3. It is tempting to connect this type of landscape with Egyptian concepts of Nilotic scenes and funerary belief4, although in the Aegean it did not necessarily possess an identical meaning.

2. The second category are maritime landscapes in which typical elements of the Aegean sea such as octopuses, fishes and dolphins, sea shells as well as marine rocks with sea weed are depicted. This Aegean maritime scenery occurs in Minoan as well as in Mycenaean palatial and

* I am very grateful to the organizers of this conference for their invitation and hospitality. I also thank Sarah Cormack for patiently correcting my English.

1 For images of landscape in the Aegean Bronze Age, see L. MORGAN, The Miniature Wall Paintings of Thera. A Study in Aegean Culture and Iconography (1988) 17-40; S.A. IMMERWAHR, Aegean Painting in the Bronze Age (1990) 40-50; M.C. SHAW, “The Aegean garden,” AJA 97 (1993) 661-685; EAD., “Aegean sponsors and artists: Reflections of their roles in the patterns of distribution of themes and representational conventions in the murals,” in R. LAFFINEUR and Ph.P. BETANCOURT (eds.), TEXNH. Craftsmen, Craftswomen, and Craftmanship in the Aegean Bronze Age, Proceedings of the 6th International Aegean Conference, Philadelphia, Temple Univ., 18-21 April 1996, Aegaeum 16 (1997) 486-489; N. ANGELOPOULOU, “Nature scenes: an approach to a symbolic art,” in S. SHERRATT (ed.), Proceedings of the First International Symposium ‘The Wall Paintings of Thera’, 30 August – 4 September 1997 II (2000) 545-553; A.P. CHAPIN, “Power, privilege, and landscape in Minoan art,” in EAD. (ed.), ΧΑΡΙΣ. Essays in Honor of Sara A. Immerwahr (2004) 47-64; P. SCHMITZ-PILLMANN, Landschaftselemente in der minoisch-mykenischen Wandmalerei (2006).

2 Cf. H.A. GROENEWEGEN-FRANKFORT, Arrest and Movement. An Essay on Space and Time in the Representational Art of the Ancient Near East (1951) 185-187.

3 P. WARREN, “Minoan Crete and pharaonic Egypt,” in W.V. DAVIES and L. SCHOFIELD (eds.), Egypt, the Aegean and the Levant. Interconnections in the Second Millenium BC (1995) 6-7; P. MILITELLO, “Nilotic models and local reelaboration: the Hagia Triada example,” in A. KARETSOU and M. ANDREADAKI-VLAZAKI (eds.), Κρήτη – Αίγυπτος: Πολιτισμικοί δεσμοί τριών χιλιετιών. Μελέτες (2000) 78-85; K.P. FOSTER, “A taste for the exotic,” in L.A. HITCHCOCK, R. LAFFINEUR and J. CROWLEY (eds.), DAIS. The Aegean Feast. Proceedings of the 12th International Aegean Conference, University of Melbourne, Centre for Classics and Archaeology, 25-29 March 2008, Aegaeum 29 (2008) 327-338.

4 S. HILLER, „Zur Rezeption Ägyptischer Motive in der Minoischen Freskenkunst,“ Egypt & the Levant 6 (1996) esp. 86-90; ID., “Papyrus und Rosette. Zu einer Motivverbindung in der spätbronzezeitlichen ägäischen Malkunst,“ in F. BLAKOLMER (ed.), Österreichische Forschungen zur Ägäischen Bronzezeit 1998. Akten der Tagung am Institut für Klassische Archäologie der Universität Wien, 2.-3. Mai 1998 (2000) 97-102; J.A. MacGILLIVRAY, “Sir Arthur Evans’s Minoans and the Egyptian Renaissance of the New Kingdom,” in A. KARETSOU and M. ANDREADAKI-VLAZAKI (eds.), Κρήτη – Αίγυπτος: Πολιτισμικοί δεσμοί τριών χιλιετιών. Μελέτες (2000) 153; P. WARREN, “Ηλύσιον Μινωϊκόν,“ in F. LANG, C. REINHOLDT and J. WEILHARTNER (eds.), STEPHANOS ARISTEIOS. Archäologische Forschungen zwischen Nil und Istros. Festschrift für Stefan Hiller zum 65. Geburtstag (2007) 261-270; N. MARINATOS, Minoan Kingship and the Solar Goddess. A Near Eastern Koine (2010) 140-150.

122 Fritz BLAKOLMER

ritual mural and floor paintings, but also possessed a more common representative character as is demonstrated by Aegean seal motifs and pottery decoration5.

3. Another category of images presenting landscape elements are those showing animals or settlements in their natural surrounding. In miniature scenes depicting distinct or indistinct settlements and their topography, geographical elements played an important role6. Plants, trees and terrain motifs very often occur also in simple seal motifs showing animals in their natural living space in the Aegean. Although, when compared to Near Eastern and Egyptian iconography, the weight attributed to landscape elements in these images is remarkably high, this category does not require further explanation.

4. A possible further category of Minoan landscape scenes are “garden landscapes”, an interpretation which is mainly based on the combination of natural elements and supposed architectonic features7. Although the existence of gardens in larger architectural complexes of Minoan Crete cannot be categorically ruled out, we have to confess that in landscape motifs on seals, e.g., one can hardly distinguish between an artificially arranged garden and the forecourt of a shrine built in the great outdoors (Pl. XXXIVh-j).

5. The fifth and most impressive category is ‘landscape rooms’ such as Delta 2 in Akrotiri (Pl. XXXIVa) with its well-preserved mural paintings extending over three walls of this small room8. While nature forms the only pictorial theme of this mural decoration, the wall-paintings of ‘cubicolo 14’ of the ‘Royal Villa’ at Ayia Triada (Pl. XXXIVb) represent a goddess and one or two human ritual participants in a natural setting with animals9. Thus, it shows a ritual in the

5 P. MOUNTJOY, “Ritual associations for LM IB marine style vases,” in P. DARCQUE and J.-C. POURSAT (eds.), L’iconographie minoenne. Actes de la table ronde d’Athènes (21-22 avril 1983) (BCH Suppl. 11, 1985) 231-242; SHAW (supra n. 1, 1997) 488-489; W. MÜLLER, Kretische Tongefäße mit Meeresdekor (1997); M. HAYSOM, “Fish and ships: Neopalatial seascapes in context,” in G. VAVOURANAKIS (ed.), The Seascape in Aegean Prehistory (2011) 139-160.

6 For Aegean representations of settlements, see esp. Ch. BOULOTIS, “Villes et palais dans l’art égéen du IIe millénaire av. J.-C.,” in P. DARCQUE and R. TREUIL (eds.), L’habitat égéen préhistorique. Actes de la Table Ronde internationale organisé par le CNRS, l’Université de Paris I et l’École française d’Athènes (Athènes, 23-25 juin 1987) (BCH Suppl. 19, 1990) 421-459; Th. NÖRLING, Altägäische Architekturbilder (1995); P. PAVÚK, “The city on the slope: some observations on two-dimensional representations of architecture in Aegean art,” in R. ASLAN et al. (eds.), Mauerschau. Festschrift für Manfred Korfmann I (2002) 567-583; C. PALYVOU, “Architecture in Aegean Bronze Age art: façades with no interiors,” in L. MORGAN (ed.), Aegean Wall Painting. A Tribute to Mark Cameron (BSA Studies 13, 2005) 185-197.

7 MORGAN (supra n. 1) 39-40; J. SCHÄFER, “The role of «gardens» in Minoan civilisation,” in V. KARAGEORGHIS (ed.), The Civilization of the Aegean and their Diffusion in Cyprus and the Eastern Mediterranean, 2000-600 B.C. (1991) 85-88; ID., “Gärten in der bronzezeitlichen ägäischen Kultur?,” in M. CARROLL-SPILLECKE (ed.), Der Garten von der Antike bis zum Mittelalter (1992) 101-140; SHAW (supra n. 1, 1993) 661-685; V. STÜRMER, “‘Naturkulträume’ auf Kreta und Thera: Ausstattung, Definition und Funktion,” in R. LAFFINEUR and R. HÄGG (eds.), POTNIA. Deities and Religion in the Aegean Bronze Age, Proceedings of the 8th International Aegean Conference, Göteborg, Göteborg University, 12-15 April 2000, Aegaeum 22 (2001) 69-75; CHAPIN (supra n. 1).

8 Ch. DOUMAS, The Wall-paintings of Thera (1992) 106-107, figs.72-76; p.135, figs. 97-99. See further M.B. HOLLINSHEAD, “The swallows and artists of room Delta 2 at Akrotiri, Thera,” AJA 93 (1989) 339-354; K.P. FOSTER, “A flight of swallows,” AJA 99 (1995) 409-425; E.N. DAVIS, “The organisation of the Theran artists,” in S. SHERRATT (ed.), Proceedings of the First International Symposium ‘The Wall Paintings of Thera’, 30 August - 4 September 1997, II (2000) 859-872. For “allusions” to the natural world in Minoan architecture, see L.A. HITCHCOCK, “Naturalising the cultural: architectonised landscape as ideology in Minoan Crete,” in R. WESTGATE, N. FISHER and J. WHITLEY (eds.), Building Communities: House, Settlement and Society in the Aegean and Beyond. Proceedings of a Conference held at Cardiff University, 17-21 April 2001 (BSA Studies 15, 2007) 91-97.

9 F. HALBHERR, E. STEFANI and L. BANTI, “Haghia Triada nel periodo tardo palaziale,” ASAtene 55, N. S. 39 (1977) 91-93, 229-233; P. REHAK, “The role of religious painting in the function of the Minoan Villa: The case of Ayia Triada,” in R. HÄGG (ed.), The Function of the „Minoan Villa“. Proceedings of the Eighth International Symposium at the Swedish Institute at Athens, 6-8 June 1992 (1997) 163-175; P. MILITELLO, Haghia Triadha I. Gli affreschi (1998) 99-132, pls. 1-8, A-H; ID. (supra n. 3); STÜRMER (supra n. 7); B.R. JONES, “The clothes-line: imports and exports of Aegean cloth(es) and iconography,” in R. LAFFINEUR and E. GRECO (eds.), EMPORIA. Aegeans in the Central and Eastern Mediterranean. Proceedings of the 10th International Aegean Conference, Athens, Italian School of Archaeology, 14-18 April 2004, Aegaeum 25, II (2005) 707-715; EAD., “A reconsideration of the kneeling figure fresco from Hagia Triada,” in Ph.P. BETANCOURT, M.C. NELSON and H. WILLIAMS (eds.), Krinoi kai Limenai. Studies in Honor of Joseph and Maria Shaw (2007) 151-158; B.R. Jones, in this volume.

MINOAN “LANDSCAPE ROOMS” AND PEAK SANCTUARIES 123

open air and a deity in her natural ambience, whereas Delta 2 presents a pure landscape as a natural back-drop which still deserves to be completed by the ritual action.

6. There exists a 6th category of images demonstrating the special concern of the Minoans with the landscape, namely the depiction of the natural surrounding in ritual scenes. The representation of human rituals in the great outdoors constitutes not only a highly widespread form of Minoan landscape scenes, it could also bring us closer to the special meaning of nature in Neopalatial iconography. In Aegean iconography, figurative scenes depicted as taking place in the interior room occur very sporadically,10 whereas by far the majority of ritual scenes were represented as taking place in the open air (Pl. XXXIVb, g-j). This applies equally to Minoan procession scenes as is often indicated by the addition of plants, trees and further natural elements in mural painting, seal glyptic and other artistic media11.

How to understand ‘rockwork’ and ‘terrain-line’ motifs?

Key elements in the rendering of the background in procession and other ritual scenes of Aegean iconography are so-called ‘rockwork’ and ‘terrain-line’ motifs as well as changing background colouration. Interpretations of these multicoloured, wavy zones as the horizon, as the interior of a cave or as clouds can be ruled out for different reasons. It might be tempting to bring mural scenes such as the frieze in the so-called ‘Corridor of procession’ in the palace of Knossos12 (Pl. XXXIVc-d) into close connection with actual procession rituals performed in the room where they are depicted. As W. Schiering and others have concluded, background zones of contrasting colours divided by wavy lines, multicoloured bands and irregular ‘rockwork’ motifs in procession frescoes reflect an architectonic wall covered by gypsum plaques in front of which the figures are meant to walk and to transport objects through the interior room13. However, an interpretation of the multicoloured, wavy forms as incrustation of wall panels seems to be doubtful for several reasons. When we compare these to the real imitation of gypsum plaques in fresco painting in dado zones and on floors, we see that they show different forms and colours14. Furthermore, these background elements correspond closely to the conventional landscape motifs in Aegean scenes of nature (Pl. XXXIVa-b). We can conclude that they constitute more or less abstract indications of natural terrain15.

10 F. BLAKOLMER, “Image and architecture: reflections of mural iconography in seal images and other art forms of Minoan Crete,” in D. PANAGIOTOPOULOS and U. GÜNKEL-MASCHEK (eds.), Minoan Realities. Approaches to Images, Architecture, and Society in the Aegean Bronze Age (2012) esp. 88-90.

11 F. BLAKOLMER, “Processions in Aegean iconography III: Where did they take place?,” in A.-L. SCHALLIN and H. WHITTAKER (eds.), Ceremonies and Processions in the Mycenaean World, Conference, 14-18 September 2011, Oslo, Norway (in preparation).

12 PM II 704-711, figs. 441-445, pl. XII; p. 719-721, 725, fig. 452; p. 728-730, fig. 456, e; S.E. PETERSON, Wall Paintings in the Aegean Bronze Age: The Procession Frescoes, phil. Diss. Univ. of Minnesota (1981) 29-41, 174-177; Ch. BOULOTIS, “Nochmals zum Prozessionsfresko von Knossos: Palast und Darbringung von Prestige-Objekten,” in R. HÄGG and N. MARINATOS (eds.), The Function of the Minoan Palaces. Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium at the Swedish Institute in Athens (1987) 145-156; M.A.S. CAMERON, “The ‘palatial’ thematic system in the Knossos murals. Last notes on Knossos frescoes,” in R. HÄGG and N. MARINATOS (eds.), The Function of the Minoan Palaces. Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium at the Swedish Institute in Athens (1987) 323, figs. 4, 6; U. GÜNKEL-MASCHEK, “Unterwegs im Labyrinth. Zur Gestaltung des ‚Prozessionskorridors’ im spätminoischen ‚Palast’ von Knossos,” in C. REINHOLDT and W. WOHLMAYR (eds.), Akten des 13. Österreichischen Archäologentages, Klassische und Frühägäische Archäologie, Paris-Lodron-Universität Salzburg, vom 25. bis 27. Februar 2010 (2012) 39-46.

13 W. SCHIERING, “Steine und Malerei in der minoischen Kunst,” JdI 75 (1960) 17-36; ID., “Die Naturanschauung in der altkretischen Kunst,” AntK 8 (1965) 3-12; ID., “Stein- und Geländemotive in der minoischen Wandmalerei auf Kreta und Thera,” in H.-G. BUCHHOLZ (ed.), Ägäische Bronzezeit (1987) 314-328; ID., “Elements of landscape in Minoan and Mycenaean art,” in R. LAFFINEUR and J.L. CROWLEY (eds.), EIKΩN. Aegean Bronze Age Iconography: Shaping a Methodology. Proceedings of the 4th International Aegean Conference, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Australia, 6-9 April 1992, Aegaeum 8 (1992) 317-322.

14 For the painted imitation of gypsum plaques, see E.S. HIRSCH, Painted decoration on the floors of Bronze Age structures on Crete and the Greek Mainland (1977) 45-47, pls. 5-9; I. KRITSELI-PROVIDI, “Γραπτό κονίαμα δαπέδου της «Οικίας του Αρχιερέως» (Νοτιοδυτικού Κτιρίου) των Μυκηνών,” in Φίλια Ἐπη εις Γεώργιον Ε. Μυλωνάν II (1987) 285-294; DOUMAS (supra n. 8) 50-51, figs. 14-17.

15 See already PM II 728-730 („the simplified tradition of the rocky Cretan landscape“); BLAKOLMER (supra n. 10) 89-91.

124 Fritz BLAKOLMER

Therefore, we cannot do otherwise but interpret the large majority of Aegean processions and other rituals as represented as taking place in the great outdoors16. Moreover, it is noteworthy that Minoan artists put much emphasis in the definition of the setting of rituals as taking place in nature and thus created many more ‘landscape rooms’ of the sort of ‘Room 14’ in Ayia Triada (Pl. XXXIVb). What is missing in Minoan iconography, therefore, is the depiction of rituals as performed in ‘Lustral basins’, pillar crypts and other built shrines which are known in large quantity in palaces, ‘villas’ and settlements17. This striking discrepancy between the archaeological ‘reality’ and the ‘language of images’ deserves an explanation.

Why are Minoan rituals depicted mainly as taking place outdoors?

What are the reasons for the “Minoan flower-power“18? I do not mean the myth of flower-loving, peaceful Minoans19. I am talking about the fact that nature played a particular role in the representative arts of Bronze Age Crete. Indisputably, Minoans were a kind of ‘flower-lovers’, not in a modern, romanticist, naïve way, but rather by attributing a distinct meaning to nature. It appears doubtful that the postulated existence of a monotheistic “Great Minoan Goddess of Nature” will be an appropriate solution of this problem, as has been proposed20. In his stimulating recent studies, V.-P. Herva has explained the important position of nature in Minoan art as a special, animistic human-environment relation21. Why, then, does this ideological behaviour appear rather suddenly at a distinct period and not from the beginning of the Cretan Bronze Age or before?

Possibly we come closer to the question of meaning by looking for the first appearance of motifs and scenes of nature in the iconographical sources. When considering the significance of landscape scenes in Minoan Crete, we can observe a development in three steps which largely correlates to that of Cretan peak sanctuaries:

1. During the formative and most expansive period of peak sanctuaries, from EM II until the end of MM II, Cretan art does not exhibit a special relation to nature. Although animal and floral motifs occur already in Pre- and Protopalatial minor arts, they did not apply to a larger concept of ‘landscape art’. First attempts at this artistic concept can be observed towards the end of the Old Palace period as is best demonstrated by the sealings from the ‘Archivio di cretule’ at Phaistos22 and the clay relief vessels from ‘Quartier Mu’ at Malia23.

16 Cf. e.g. R. HÄGG, “Pictorial programmes in the Minoan palaces and villas?,” in P. DARCQUE and J.-C. POURSAT (eds), L’iconographie minoenne. Actes de la table ronde d’Athènes (21-22 avril 1983) (BCH Suppl. 11, 1985) esp. 212; A. PEATFIELD, “Palace and peak: the political and religious relationship between palaces and peak sanctuaries,” in R. HÄGG and N. MARINATOS (eds.), The Function of the Minoan Palaces. Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium at the Swedish Institute in Athens (1987) 93; P. WARREN, Minoan Religion as Ritual Action (1988) esp. 33.

17 G.C. GESELL, Town, Palace, and House Cult in Minoan Crete (1985) esp. 19-40; B. RUTKOWSKI, The Cult Places of the Aegean (1986) 20-45, 119-153; S. PRIVITERA, Case e rituali a Creta nel periodo neopalaziale (2008).

18 G. CADOGAN, “From Mycenaean to Minoan: an exercise in myth making,” in P. DARCQUE, M. FOTIADIS and O. POLYCHRONOPOULOU (eds.), Mythos. La préhistoire égéenne du XIXe au XXIe siècle après J.-C., Actes de la table ronde internationale d’Athènes (21-23 novembre 2002) (BCH Suppl. 46, 2006) 51.

19 See esp. Ch. STARR, “Minoan flower lovers,” in R. HÄGG and N. MARINATOS (eds.), The Minoan Thalassocracy. Myth and Reality, Proceedings of the Third International Symposium at the Swedish Institute in Athens (1984) 9-12; J.L. BINTLIFF, “Structuralism and myth in Minoan studies,” Antiquity 58 (1984) 33-38.

20 See, e.g., M.P. NILSSON, The Minoan-Mycenaean Religion and Its Survival in Greek Religion (1968) 75; B.C. DIETRICH, The Origins of Greek Religion (1974) 302-306; IMMERWAHR (supra n. 1) 46; N. MARINATOS, Minoan Religion. Ritual, Image, and Symbol (1993) 149-152.

21 V.-P. HERVA, “Flower lovers, after all? Rethinking religion and human-environment relation in Minoan Crete,” WorldArch 38:4 (2006) 586-598; ID., “Marvels of the system. Art, perception and engagement with the environment in Minoan Crete,” Archaeological Dialogues 13:2 (2006) 221-240. Cf. further A. SHAPLAND, “Wild nature? Human-animal relations on Neopalatial Crete,” CAJ 20 (2010) 109-127.

22 CMS II 5, nos. 253-326; O. KRZYSZKOWSKA, “Impressions of the natural world: landscape in Aegean glyptic,” in EAD. (ed.), Cretan Offerings. Studies in Honour of Peter Warren (BSA Studies 18, 2010) 170-172.

23 J.-C. POURSAT, “Reliefs d’applique moulés,” in B. DETOURNAY, J.-C. POURSAT and F. VANDENABEELE, Fouilles exécutées à Mallia. Le quartier Mu II (1980) 116-132.

MINOAN “LANDSCAPE ROOMS” AND PEAK SANCTUARIES 125

2. This tendency was strongly intensified during MM III and LM I. Ritual iconography as well as what we call ‘Minoan naturalism’ in Cretan arts started approximately at the same time when peak sanctuaries were reduced in number and the few remaining ones became ‘palatial’ in character, i.e. becoming furnished with elaborate architecture and possessing dedications of elitist character. As A. Peatfield and others pointed out, by the Neopalatial period peak sanctuaries became „the main communal shrines“24.

3. After the Neopalatial period, when the political structure of Crete considerably changed and the system of peak sanctuaries largely came to an end25, the depiction of nature in Minoan arts was reduced and could well partly have altered its significance26.

Thus, the depiction of ritual activities in the great outdoors constitutes an artistic phenomenon which appeared rather suddenly in the early Neopalatial period and coincided with the palatial integration of some prominent peak sanctuaries along with further changes in the socio-political system of Crete27. It appears at least reasonable to suggest that outdoor rituals – by now ‘palatial’ in character – as well as the iconography of nature, ‘landscape rooms’ and nature per se became central elements of Minoan palatial society, especially in ‘villas’ and areas outside of palaces themselves, as has been observed already by M. Shaw28. As a consequence, the inclusion of the landscape within architectural space can perhaps be interpreted as a deliberate religio-political strategy. Landscape could have become an iconic sign for traditional open air rituals in connection with peak sanctuaries and hilltop shrines: the processional walk to, or coming from, the outdoor shrine and the adoration as well as other ceremonial activities in front of an architectonic façade were recalled. Thus, the ritual iconography of wall paintings, seals and other artistic media (Pl. XXXIVa-j) fulfilled the important role of memoralising something, namely the natural setting of rituals. Of course, this does not mean that every lily blossom painted on a clay vessel alluded to ceremonies in peak sanctuaries. Elements of nature, though, could have become a common metaphor for an elevated position in a society strongly characterised by rituals.

The idea of connecting Minoan landscape painting in settlement areas with peak sanctuaries is anything but new and has been proposed already by Platon, Cameron, Militello, Rehak and others29. Whatever the rituals were, which were performed in ceremonial spaces decorated with landscape paintings in Neopalatial buildings, murals showing ritual scenes might well depict processions leading to peak sanctuaries and rituals performed in front of outdoor shrines such as on Mount Youchtas. As I have tried to outline before, ritual scenes in mural painting constitute images representing outdoor activities, in the same manner as in seal images and other artistic media, and did not immediately reflect rituals as performed in the respective architectonic spaces themselves. Thus, Minoan „landscape rooms“ strongly suggest what in Classical Archaeology is called a “Filialkult”, a dislocated ritual expression originated in and associated with a cult traditionally practiced elsewhere.

Although the assumption that by far the majority of Minoan ritual scenes allude to ceremonial acts performed in nature sanctuaries can hardly be proven with greater certainty, it can possibly be supported by some further observations. A. Peatfield concluded that Neopalatial “peak sanctuaries and domestic shrines seem to have operated in a complementary

24 PEATFIELD (supra n. 16) 92-93.25 Cf. A.A.D. PEATFIELD, “Minoan peak sanctuaries: history and society,” OpAth 18 (1990) 131; E. KYRIAKIDIS,

Ritual in the Aegean Bronze Age. The Minoan Peak Sanctuaries (2005) 118-119.26 See esp. KRZYSZKOWSKA (supra n. 22) 185-186.27 J.F. CHERRY, The Emergence of the State in the Prehistoric Aegean (1984) 34-35; PEATFIELD (supra n. 16)

esp. 92-93; ID. (supra n. 25) esp. 126-130; D.W. JONES, Peak Sanctuaries and Sacred Caves in Minoan Crete. A Comparison of Artifacts (1999); KYRIAKIDIS (supra n. 25) 99-112.

28 SHAW (supra n. 1, 1997) 486, pl. CLXXXIX.29 S. ALEXIOU, “Η μινωϊκή θεά μεθ’ υψωμένων χειρών,” KretChron 12 (1958) 179-302; K. BRANIGAN, “The

genesis of the Household Goddess,” SMEA 8 (1969) 37; CAMERON (supra n. 12) 324; P. MILITELLO, “Uno Hieron nella villa di Haghia Triada?,” Sileno 18 (1992) esp. 110-111; ID. (supra n. 9) 352-353; REHAK (supra n. 9) esp. 173-174.

126 Fritz BLAKOLMER

fashion”30. While domestic shrines rather served for storage and display of the permanent apparatus of ritual, the objects deposited in peak sanctuaries give much stronger evidence of ritual activities themselves31. It has been observed that the architecture of Neopalatial peak sanctuaries mostly has to be reconstructed as hypaethral areas32 which largely corresponds to the iconography. Baetyl-like stones, as represented in prominent rituals on LM I signet rings (Pl. XXXIVj), have been found mainly in settlement areas33. We should not forget, though, that a baetylic stone has also been identified in the peak sanctuary on the Traostalos34 and the same ritual meaning possibly could have been attributed to many stones in nature. A connection of agrimia such as represented in landscape paintings in Ayia Triada (Pl. XXXIVb) and possibly in Knossos with peak sanctuaries has often been assumed35, but this could also be the case with some of the so-called ‘exotic landscapes’ on a symbolic level: the mixture of Cretan and exotic elements of nature is exemplified by a lentoid seal in the British Museum (Pl. XXXIVf) which combines an agrimi with a papyrus plant36. Although we cannot expect that very many monkeys climbed through the Cretan mountains, we should not forget that terracotta figurines of monkeys have been found not only in the sanctuary of Syme37 but have been reported also from the sanctuary on Mount Vrysinas38. Thus, even exotic landscape paintings such as in the ‘House of the Frescoes’ at Knossos possibly can be understood in a certain, indirect connection with peak sanctuaries39. Although, at first sight, seascapes in mural paintings can hardly be connected with mountainous areas, the presence of sea shells, sea or river pebbles, terracotta figurines of fish as well as miniature boat models in peak sanctuaries could well link, on a symbolic level, both natural spheres far removed from each other40. Recently, I. Papageorgiou has compared the ascent to the upper-floor of Xeste 3 in Akrotiri showing scenes of nature and the representation of a goddess with the mounting into a landscape area41. Moreover,

30 PEATFIELD (supra n. 16) 92.31 PEATFIELD (supra n. 16) 92-93; ID. (supra n. 25) 127-128.32 PEATFIELD (supra n. 25) 122; J.W. SHAW, “Evidence for the Minoan tripartite shrine,” AJA 82 (1978)

esp. 432-442, figs. 5-9; ID., “New evidence for the Minoan tripartite shrine,” in Acts of the IVth International Cretological Congress I, 2 (1981) 559-562, pls. 185-188. See in general B. RUTKOWSKI, “Minoan peak sanctuaries: the topography and architecture,” Aegaeum 2 (1988) 71-99.

33 For baetyl-like stones in the archaeological record, see S. HOOD, “A baetyl at Gournia?,” in Αφιέρωμα στον Στυλιανό Αλεξίου (1989) 17-21; P. WARREN, “Of baetyls,” OpAth 18 (1990) 201-205, figs. 17-22; PEATFIELD (supra n. 25) 122-123; V. LA ROSA, “Minoan baetyls: between funerary rituals and epiphanies,” in R. LAFFINEUR and R. HÄGG (eds.), POTNIA. Deities and Religion in the Aegean Bronze Age, Proceedings of the 8th International Aegean Conference, Göteborg, Göteborg University, 12-15 April 2000, Aegaeum 22 (2001) 221-226; M. GALLO, “Per una riconsiderazione del betilo in ambito minoico,” Creta Antica 6 (2005) 47-58.

34 PEATFIELD (supra n. 25) 122-123, fig. 12; K. NOWICKI, “Some remarks on the Pre- and Protopalatial peak sanctuaries in Crete,” Aegean Archaeology 1 (1994) 37.

35 PEATFIELD (supra n. 25) 120. For the goat in Aegean religion, see in general S. HILLER, “Potnia/Potnios Aigon. On the religious aspects of goats in the Aegean Late Bronze Age,” in R. LAFFINEUR and R. HÄGG (eds.), POTNIA. Deities and Religion in the Aegean Bronze Age, Proceedings of the 8th International Aegean Conference, Göteborg, Göteborg University, 12-15 April 2000, Aegaeum 22 (2001) 293-304.

36 CMS VII, no. 167. The combination of papyrus plants and agrimia possibly occurs also in the mural paintings of room 14 at Ayia Triada: MILITELLO (supra n. 9) 99-132.

37 KYRIAKIDIS (supra n. 25) 150.38 D. SFAKIANAKIS, “You are welcome… to Crete. Goats and monkeys! Πήλινα ειδώλια πιθήκων από την κορυφή

του Βρύσινα,” in Acts of the 11th International Cretological Congress, Rethymno, 21-27 October 2011 (in press).39 PM II 431-467, pls. X-XI; p. 447-461; III, 363, pl. XXII; M.A.S. CAMERON, “Unpublished paintings from

the „House of the Frescoes“ at Knossos,” BSA 63 (1968) 1-31; IMMERWAHR (supra n. 1) 42-46, 170 (Kn No. 2), fig. 16; A.P. CHAPIN and M.C. SHAW, “The frescoes from the House of the Frescoes at Knossos: a reconsideration of their architectural context and a new reconstruction of the Crocus Panel,” BSA 101 (2006) 57-88, for the agrimi horn, see esp. 80-81.

40 For boat models, see KYRIAKIDIS (supra n. 25) 162-163; for sea shells, see JONES (supra n. 27) 57-58, tab. 9; for figurines of fishes, see ibid. 45-46, tab. 3; for pebbles, see NOWICKI (supra n. 34) esp. 39; L.V. WATROUS, “Some observations on Minoan peak sanctuaries,” in R. LAFFINEUR and W.-D. NIEMEIER (eds.), POLITEIA. Society and State in the Aegean Bronze Age, Proceedings of the 5th International Aegean Conference, Univ. of Heidelberg, Archäologisches Institut, 10-13 April 1994, Aegaeum 12, II (1995) 394-395.

41 I. PAPAGEORGIOU, “Η προπαγάνδα της εικόνας: Χώροι εισόδου σε δημόσια αιγαιακά κτήρια της ´Υστερης Εποχής του Χαλκού και ο συναφής τοιχογραφικός διάκοσμος,” in Acts of the 11th International Cretological Congress, Rethymno, 21-27 October 2011 (in press). For the connection of the mural paintings in Xeste 3 with peak sanctuaries, see also HITCHCOCK (supra n. 8) 96.

MINOAN “LANDSCAPE ROOMS” AND PEAK SANCTUARIES 127

M. Shaw convincingly compared the elements of the ‘Fresco of the Goddess’ in Xeste 3 of Thera with the concept of the Throne Room in the palace of Knossos: the special seat of a deity flanked by ‚animals of power’ on a floral background and positioned nearby or on top of symbolic altars with incurved sides. Thus, „what we may have in the Throne Room at Knossos is a recollection of an ancestral ritual in which a structure like the one seen at Thera was set up in the open“ (M. Shaw42). It appears remarkable that the exotic landscape paintings in the Knossian Throne Room functioned as a back-drop of indoor rituals, whereas in the Xeste 3 paintings the rituals are depicted as taking place in a native outdoor setting with crocus plants. The official, ‚propagandistic’ character of ‚landscape rooms’ in LM I Crete is further supported by the phenomenon that the mural paintings in Room 14 of the ‘Royal Villa’ at Ayia Triada, in all likelihood, were painted by Knossian painters and not by the local workshop called by P. Militello a “scuola messaritica neopalaziale”43. This case underlines, to quote Peatfield again, the “increasing monopolisation of religious authority and apparatus, of which the centralisation of the peak sanctuaries was but a part”44.

Of course, it is neither possible nor necessary to find a common explanation for all the diverse kinds of landscape images in Aegean Bronze Age iconography. However, we might well postulate a common Minoan concept of “ritual nature” focussed on open air sanctuaries, irrespective of the multifaceted categories of “landscape” which do not necessarily contradict each other. In any case, the striking popularity of nature in Minoan Crete should not blind us into assuming that this is a given fact which does not require a distinct explanation.

Conclusion:

Although visual arts count amongst our primary sources which provide information about the Aegean comprehension of nature, we are disappointed by the largely unclear character of these images. Therefore, the question of why rituals in Neopalatial Crete, in spite of the very existence of built shrines in palaces and ‘villas’, were depicted almost exclusively as taking place in a rural setting can be answered only tentatively. In Minoan iconography the omnipresence of the natural environment in ritual scenes overshadows rituals inside built shrines. Minoan mural paintings possibly fulfilled the important role of providing a reminder of the natural setting of rituals – as an atavistic, ‘frozen’ idea of former ritual practices or rather as an allusion to synchronous rituals in Neopalatial peak sanctuaries. Bearing this in mind, iconography possibly confirms the assumption of a “process of centralisation as ‘manipulation’ of religion” (Peatfield) in Neopalatial Crete45. In any case, at least in Minoan iconography, natural elements constituted not simply a lively, but rather a meaningful landscape.

Fritz BLAKOLMER

42 M.C. SHAW, “The Lion Gate Relief of Mycenae reconsidered,” in Φίλια Ἐπη εις Γεώργιον Ε. Μυλωνάν I (1986) 118-121; EAD. (supra n. 1, 1993) 676-678.

43 SHAW (supra n. 1, 1993) 678.44 PEATFIELD (supra n. 16) 93.45 PEATFIELD (supra n. 25) 131. Cf. further F. BLAKOLMER and V. DUBCOVÁ, “Orientalische Götterkronen

und das Problem ‚fremder Götter’ in der Ikonographie des minoischen Kreta,” in G. SELZ and K. WAGENSONNER (eds.), Mesopotamian Art Histories. Festschrift for Erika Bleibtreu (in print).

128 Fritz BLAKOLMER

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS:

Pl. XXXIVa Mural paintings from room Delta 2 in Akrotiri, Thera (after S. MARINATOS, Excavations at Thera IV [1971] col. pl. A).

Pl. XXXIVb Mural paintings from room 14 of the ‘Royal Villa’ at Ayia Triada, reconstruction by P. Militello (after MILITELLO [supra n. 3] 79, fig. 1).

Pl. XXXIVc Rhyton-bearer Fresco from the palace of Knossos (after PM II 707, fig. 443).Pl. XXXIVd Procession Fresco from the “Corridor of Procession” in the palace of Knossos,

reconstruction by M.A.S. Cameron (after S. HOOD in L. MORGAN (ed.), Aegean Wall Painting. A Tribute to Mark Cameron [BSA Studies 13, 2005] 68, fig. 2, 17).

Pl. XXXIVe Rhyton from Palaikastro (after L.H. SACKETT and M. POPHAM, “Excavations at Palaikastro VII,” BSA 65 [1970] 218, fig. 9 left).

Pl. XXXIVf Lentoid seal in the British Museum, London (CMS VII, no. 167).Pl. XXXIVg So-called “Mother of the Mountain” seal image from Knossos (CMS II 8, no. 256).Pl. XXXIVh Gold ring from Pylos (CMS I, no. 292).Pl. XXXIVi Gold ring from Mycenae (CMS I, no. 119).Pl. XXXIVj Gold ring from Archanes (after MARINATOS [supra n. 4] 96, fig., 7.6 a).

XXXIV

a b

c d

e f g

h i j