THE ART OF PROPAGANDA IN AEGEAN ICONOGRAPHY: WHEN ART MUST BE SUNG

From Source to History Studies on Ancient Near Eastern

Worlds and Beyond

Dedicated to Giovanni Battista Lanfranchi on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday on

June 23, 2014

Edited by Salvatore Gaspa, Alessandro Greco,

Daniele Morandi Bonacossi, Simonetta Ponchia and Robert Rollinger

Alter Orient und Altes Testament Veröffentlichungen zur Kultur und Geschichte des Alten Orients und des Alten Testaments

begründet von Manfried Dietrich und Oswald Loretz†

Band 412

Herausgeber

Manfried Dietrich • Ingo Kottsieper • Hans Neumann

Lektoren

Kai A. Metzler • Ellen Rehm

Beratergremium

Rainer Albertz • Joachim Bretschneider • Stefan Maul Udo Rüterswörden • Walther Sallaberger • Gebhard Selz

Michael P. Streck • Wolfgang Zwickel

From Source to History Studies on Ancient Near Eastern

Worlds and Beyond

Dedicated to Giovanni Battista Lanfranchi on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday on

June 23, 2014

Edited by Salvatore Gaspa, Alessandro Greco,

Daniele Morandi Bonacossi, Simonetta Ponchia and Robert Rollinger

2014 Ugarit-Verlag

Münster

From Source to History: Studies on Ancient Near Eastern Worlds and Beyond. Dedicated to Giovanni Battista Lanfranchi on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday on June 23, 2014

Edited by Salvatore Gaspa, Alessandro Greco, Daniele Morandi Bonacossi, Simo-netta Ponchia and Robert Rollinger

Alter Orient und Altes Testament, Band 412

© 2014 Ugarit-Verlag, Münster www.ugarit-verlag.de All rights preserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photo-copying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publisher. Hubert und Co, Göttingen Printed in Germany

ISBN: 978-3-86835-101-9

Printed on acid-free paper

Lo studio della Storia Antica è sempre stato, per Gianni, piacere intellettuale, dovere sociale e morale e prosecuzione di

quell’idea di “uomo di studio”, imparata dal padre Luigi e così ben impressa nel suo cuore e nella sua mente. A lui, Gianni fa

riferimento, quando studia, quando insegna, quando scrive. Fonti, documenti, testi, sono imprescindibili punti di partenza delle sue analisi, con il pensiero che guarda sempre al mondo dell’Oriente

Antico. Uomo integerrimo e puro, non conosce la competizione e forse per questo, arriva sempre tra i primi. Ha molto a cuore i suoi

allievi: di loro, non esita a metter in luce le qualità positive, soffocando in un “sono giovani” le intemperanze e gli umani

difetti. Lo ammiro perché non conosce invidia, ira, malizia, sospetto: lo amo perché mi ha insegnato a guardarmi da questi

subdoli amici. Ines

TABLE OF CONTENTS A Festschrift for an Outstanding Scholar and a Real Friend ................................... V Bibliography of Giovanni-Battista Lanfranchi ....................................................... IX Tzvi Abusch Notes on the History of Composition of Two Incantations ....................................... 1 Sanna Aro The Relief on the Slab NKL 2 at Karatepe-Azatiwataya: Neo-Assyrian Impact in Cilicia? ............................................................................ 11 Ariel M. Bagg Hezekiah’s Jerusalem: Nineveh in Judah? .............................................................. 33 Nicoletta Bellotto I contratti pal�hum ad Emar ................................................................................... 41 Reinhold Bichler Semiramis and her Rivals. An Essay ...................................................................... 55 Maria Giovanna Biga The Marriage of an Eblaite Princess with the King of Dulu ................................... 73 Olivier Casabonne Karmylessos : une Lycie chimérique ? ................................................................... 81 Eleonora Cussini Predial Servitudes and Easements in Aramaic Documents of Sale ........................ 87 Rocío Da Riva Assyrians and Assyrian Influence in Babylonia (626–539 BCE) ........................... 99 Stefano de Martino The Hurrian “Song of Release”: an Up-to-Date Overview ................................... 127 Elena di Filippo Balestrazzi Il mostro “anguipede” e il “dio in battello” nelle stele felsinee. Una proposta di lettura ......................................................................................... 139 Betina Faist The Ordeal in the Neo-Assyrian Legal Procedure ................................................ 189

II Table of Contents

Frederick Mario Fales The Two Dynasties of Assyria ............................................................................. 201 Sebastian Fink Sardanapal – Ein Hedonist aus Mesopotamien? ................................................... 239 Massimo Forlanini The Survival of Dynastic Traditions of Bronze Age Anatolia During the Transition to the Iron Age: the Case of �alpa-šulubi and the Historical Connections Between Išuwa and Milidia ................................ 251 Salvatore Gaspa Golden Appliqués in Assyrian Textiles: an Interdisciplinary Approach to the Neo-Assyrian Evidence and Some Remarks on the Use of Dress Decorations in the Periphery of the Empire in Later Times ................... 273 Alessandro Greco The Art of Propaganda in Aegean Iconography: When Art Must Be Sung .......... 305 Bruno Jacobs Historische Aussagen in den Achämenideninschriften im Licht sich wandelnder Legitimationsstrategien .............................................................. 341 Martin Lang Assyrien im 7. Jahrhundert und die Literarische Produktion in der Levante und der Ägäis ................................................................................ 353 Mario Liverani The King and His Audience ................................................................................. 373 Paolo Matthiae Image, Ideology, and Politics: a Historical Consideration of the Message of Neo-Assyrian Reliefs .............................................................. 387 Raija Mattila The Chief of Trade and the Chief Tailor – New Eponyms During the Reign of Assurbanipal ............................................. 405 Mischa Meier Feuer über Konstantinopel: vom Umgang mit einem Nicht-Ereignis .................. 413 Clelia Mora Symbols of Power in the Kingdom of Karkamiš (13th–12th Centuries BC) .......... 433 Daniele Morandi Bonacossi River Navigation and Transport in Northern Assyria. The Stone Quay-walls of the Rivers Gomel and Al-khazir in the Navkur Plain, Iraqi Kurdistan ............. 441

Table of Contents III

Antonio Panaino Daniel the “Magus” and the Magi of Bethlehem .................................................. 455 Simo Parpola Mount Ni�ir and the Foundations of the Assyrian Church ................................... 469 Francesco Pomponio Alcune considerazioni sul cosiddetto periodo di Isin-Larsa ................................. 485 Simonetta Ponchia The Neo-Assyrian Adê Protocol and the Administration of the Empire ............... 501 Beate Pongratz-Leisten Bad Kings in the Literary History of Mesopotamia and the Interface between Law, Divination, and Religion .................................... 527 Claudia Posani La diffusione del culto di Kubaba in epoca neo�assira ........................................ 549 Daniel Potts Guriania, ��o� and the G�r n ....................................................................... 561 Karen Radner Zagros Spice Mills: the Simurrean and the Hašimur Grindstones ........................ 573 Julian Reade – Irving Finkel Between Carchemish and Pasargadae: Recent Iranian Discoveries at Rabat ....... 581 Robert Rollinger Aornos and the Mountains of the East: the Assyrian Kings and Alexander the Great ........................................................ 597 Kai Ruffing Der Reichtum Babyloniens ................................................................................... 637 Paolo Scarpi La divina auctoritas di Ermete Trismegisto: per una nuova religione di tolleranza .................................................................... 647 Gebhard J. Selz Plant Metaphors: on the Plant of Rejuvenation .................................................... 655 Christopher J. Tuplin From Arshama to Alexander. Reflections on Persian Responses to Attack ......................................................... 669 Erik van Dongen The Extent and Interactions of the Phrygian Kingdom ........................................ 697

IV Table of Contents

Lorenzo Verderame A Glimpse into the Activities of Experts (Ummânu) at the Assyrian Royal Court .................................................................................. 713 Josef Wiesehöfer Alfred von Gutschmid und Eberhard Schrader: eine Kontroverse ....................... 729 Anne-Maria Wittke Überlegungen zur Lage von Pteria ....................................................................... 745 Stefan Zawadzki Depicting Hostile Rulers in the Neo-Assyrian Royal Inscriptions ....................... 767 Index of Personal Names ....................................................................................... 779 Index of Place Names ............................................................................................ 793 Plates ..................................................................................................................... 805

THE ART OF PROPAGANDA IN AEGEAN ICONOGRAPHY: WHEN ART MUST BE SUNG�

Alessandro Greco

Quando un lavoro beneficia dell’aiuto costante e sostanziale di un collega, è uso ringraziarlo chiarendo che qualsiasi errore o fraintendimento è dovuto all’autore e non a chi lo ha tanto positivamente aiutato. Posso dire la stessa cosa della mia formazione di studioso. Gianni mi ha formato ed educato alla più rigorosa e limpida indagine scientifica. Gianni è il mio invidiabile maestro. A Lui devo tutto quel che sono: tutto ciò che può avermi allontanato dall’essere un bravo studioso ricade inesorabilmente nel campo delle mie responsabilità. Grazie Gianni.

Aegean Iconography: the Missing Individual Decorated pottery, inlaid seals and clay seal impressions, frescoes and small terracotta figurines represent the bulk of surviving Late Bronze Age Aegean art; frescoes and inlaid seals can be considered the most important and systematic manifesto of the political power of the Minoan and Mycenaean power-elites that we possess.

Although earlier archaeologists considered Aegean art to be a wonderful episode of genuine ante litteram impressionistic and naturalistic art, during the last fifty years scholars have demonstrated that Aegean art is a rigorously structured iconographic system, in which the continuous reiteration of major topics is echoed by the marked repetitiveness of their iconographic structure.1

The themes of Aegean art are very similar to those to be found in other contem-porary civilizations, such as Egypt and the Near East.2 Typically, these motifs also represent ideal locations for the explication of the art of power. As it is well known, however�and was stressed by E. N. Davis�in Aegean art a clear representation of the ruler is missing.3

Through the study of hieratic positions and gestures,4 it is possible, of course, to recognize the high status of portrayed subjects, as for example in the master seal impression of Khanià or the famous Chieftain Cup from Haghia Triada. The iconographic message, however, remains essentially and basically ambiguous, be-

� This article benefited from critical comments by Luca Bettarini. 1 Cain 2001, Crowley 1989a, Crowley 1989b, Crowley 1991, Crowley 1992, Crowley 1995, Crowley 2000, Crowley 2001, Crowley 2003, Crowley 2008, Crowley 2010a, Crowley 2010b, Crowley 2013, Crowley � Adams 1995, Hiller 1999, Immerwahr 1990, Laffineur 1983, Laffineur 1990, Morris 1989, Rehak 1995, Younger 1995, Warren 1979. 2 Crowley 1989b, Crowley 1995. 3 Davis 1995, 11�12, Krattenmaker 1995, 56�57, Rehak 1995, 113–117. 4 Cain 2001, 38–44, Crowley 1995, Rehak 1995.

306 Alessandro Greco

cause it is in any case impossible to know whether the subject is a king, a god, a priest, or simply a high palace official.5

Following the definition of Blalkomer and other scholars, it may be seen that in Minoan and Mycenaean art another important subject is also missing: the individual. Battle scenes and ritual scenes swarm with men and women, but a real protagonist cannot be recognized anywhere. In the pictures, all persons seem to belong to the same heroic and symbolic dimension, where animals and men, gods and goddesses, winners and losers are heroically represented by means of the same artistic lexicon.6

But the list of missing subjects in Aegean art cannot be considered complete without another important actor in propagandistic iconography: the enemy. The enemy does indeed exist; yet any representation of him as a savage, barbarian, or bearer of Chaos is missing. This directly contrasts with typical Near Eastern and Egyptian imagery of the enemy as the counterpart to the social order and loyalty represented by the king. As a result, in battle scenes it is often not possible to distinguish between the “friend” and the enemy, between good and evil.7

The problems connected with the lack of precise representation of the ruler or the individual can also be found in the world of the divine. Gods and goddesses wear the same garments as men and women, and all the subjects portrayed are always young and beautiful. Accordingly, it is impossible to distinguish gods from mortals. The problem becomes even more complex if it is taken into account that the icono-graphic lexicon used for the divine world is the same as that used for representations of the mortal world. Both man and god carry the same command staff and the same weapons; both share the same symbolic gestures. Only on very rare occasions it is possible to differentiate between gods humans.8

Crowley distinguishes ten primary subjects in Aegean art, which also chara-cterize the representation of power in the iconographic lexicon of many other cultures.9 These subjects include hybridization between man and animal, the typical garments and different scales of body size, the insignia dignitatum such as the spear, bow, staff of command and fenestrated axe. Other elements include mythical ani-mals, like the griffin; procession and audience scenes, which often include other insignia, for example thrones and armchairs. Nevertheless, with few exceptions, it remains difficult to distinguish the human sphere from the divine, even in these contexts.

Many scholars have tried to understand the reasons for such (non-)representation of power. Davis,10 for example, concludes that: “If one views ancient art as pro-paganda, that is as imagery deliberately contrived to further the interests of those in power, then it is difficult to conceive how Minoan art served a King. Its message is not a proclamation of the supreme status or of the divine sanction of a ruler, but rather of the status and divine sanction of the cult. In this respect, Minoan art appears to be unique in the Eastern Mediterranean of the Bronze Age”. Krattenma-ker, on the other hand, defined the imagery of power in the Aegean world as an ico-

5 Cain 2001, 40, Crowley 1995, Crowley 2008. 6 Blalkomer 2007, 213–215; Papadopoulos 2008. 7 Blalkomer 2007, 216, Papadopoulos 2008. 8 Crowley 1995, Krattenmaker 1995, 57. 9 Crowley 1995. 10 Davis 1995, 19.

The Art of Propaganda in Aegean Iconography: When Art Must Be Sung 307

nography of legitimacy, instead of an iconography of the ruler.11 Papadopoulos stresssed that the main message of Mycenaean art is that of power being equally distributed between the members of the ruling elite.12

Although I agree with the hypotheses of Krattenmaker and Papadopoulos, the position of Davis seems too extreme. Despite the fact that Davis in his conclusion refers only to Minoan art, excluding Mycenaean,13 and although I can accept that Aegean art is atypical in the context of Middle-Late Bronze Age East Mediterranean civilizations, from a broader perspective it cannot be denied that the iconographic symbolism of Minoan and Mycenaean art uses basically the same lexicon as that found in coeval Near Eastern civilizations.14 This could mean that Minoan and Mycenaean art may be atypical due to a different use of the iconographic instrument to create the message, not due to the existence of a different message.

One might say that the difference between Aegean and Eastern iconography derives neither from the artistic lexicon, nor the final propagandistic purpose, but rather from the respective cultural systems. Figuratively, Aegean culture was appa-rently not interested in the explicit description of the personal qualities of a real subject, whoever it was. As a consequence, our main exegetic problem is not due to an inability to understand the Aegean artistic language,15 but to a misguided presum-ption concerning the role played by Minoan and Mycenaean figurative art16 in the context of the rulers’ propagandistic messages.

Perhaps the problem can be correctly formulated as follows: how did the Aegean artists cope with a traditional iconographic system completely devoted to the glorification of a non-personal, collective image of power, and how did they combi-ne this tradition with the requirements of propaganda aimed at celebrating and justi-fying the political action of dominant elites or individual rulers, who were the clients of the palace decoration programs?

In the Bronze Age Near East, the potential conflict between community and the individual—i.e. between the propaganda of the collective tradition and that of the king—was resolved through a clever use of such propaganda. If the prestige of a king derives from his capacity to actively belong to and concretize tradition (which is itself the foundation of his legitimacy), only through a correct use of propaganda is the king able to establish links with—and legitimate his actions with respect to—the mainstream of tradition.17 This was possible because the iconographic repertoire of the ancient Near East had many systems for the celebration of the individual—particularly if he was king—together with the use of writing.

11�Krattenmaker 1995, 58. 12�Papadopoulos 2008. 13 In fact Linear B texts attest to the existence of kings in major Mycenaean polities. 14 As demonstrated in Crowley 1989b and Crowley 1995. 15 Crowley 1992, 35–36. 16 Blalkomer 2007, 215, Davis 1995, 18, Morris 1992, 206. 17 On the prototypic images of the king personified by Sargon of Akkad (the good king) and Naram-Sin (the bad king) see Liverani 1988, 256–262; on the problems of a king who reached the throne in an “incorrect” way see the history of Ur Nammu of Ur (Liverani 1988, 265–287) or the history of Hattusilis III (Bryce 1998, 275–291); on the role of correct behaviour betwe-en kings of different empires and the relation between good/bad behaviour and the good/bad outcome of the reign see Liverani 1990.


Evidently this does not seem to have been the case with Aegean polities. There, writing was ignored in official-celebrative contexts, and the iconography seems to be inadequate to have guaranteed a positive portrayal of power. So we come back to our previous question, i.e. what intellectual and artistic system operated to reconcile the traditional non-individualistic, collective instances of Aegean iconography with the contextual and personal interests of its leadership?18

To answer these questions, we have to take into consideration another powerful instrument of communication existing in Greek tradition: oral poetry.

Iconography and Poetry Many scholars have understood the close relationship that exists between Aegean art and Homeric epic poetry.19 Such relations are particularly significant at both thema-tic and structural levels.

With regard to the thematic level, Sarah Morris,20 for example, systematically studied the correspondences between Homeric poetry and the representational art of the Thera frescoes. She demonstrated that the frescoes of the North Frieze, in Room 5 of the West House (Fig. 1), show many similarities with some Homeric scenes, not only with regard to iconographic themes like the representation of the hill council, or the band of warriors or the sea battle, but also in relation to more specific topics such as the battle at the wall, or the well and tree where two women walk carrying jars on their heads. The band of warriors and the women at the well depicted in the Theran frescos clearly resemble the Odyssey episode where Homer juxtaposes arriving warriors and female water-carriers in a similar manner. When Odysseus and his companions arrived at the land of the Laistrygons: “… in front of the town they met a girl drawing water. This was the powerful daughter of the Laistrygonian Antiphates, who had gone down to the sweet running well-spring, Artakie, whence they would carry their water back to the city” (Od. X, 105�108).

Fig. 1. Akrotiri, West House, Room 5, North Frieze.

18 Blalkomer 2007, 215 stresses this question. 19 See Crowley 1992, 32–33 for bibliography. 20 Morris 1989.


With respect to the structural level, the correspondence became even more evident after Crowley elaborated her model of Aegean iconography.21 According to Crowley the starting point of all iconographic representation found in Aegean art is embodied in the concept of the icon: for the Aegean artists, the icon does not represent a symbol, but a scene to be remembered; it represents an eidetic picture,22 sometimes a story, but never a real event. An icon can be a bull-leaping scene, a duel or a ritual gesture, and can be composed of a single element, like a person or an animal, or of many elements, such as the bull and the athletes in a bull-leaping scene, or one or more warriors in a duel scene, the shield of a single individual, and so on. An icon such as a hunting scene, or a group of icons portraying ritual scenes, can constitute a theme. Larger themes can be composed of smaller themes, or of many single icons: these large themes were often created as the sum, or the para-tactic juxtaposition, of smaller themes and icons, as in the fresco frieze of Akrotiri.23

Crowley concludes that the formulaic and repetitive structure of Homer’s oral poetry, studied by Parry and his followers,24 fits perfectly with Aegean iconography. Both systems are organized into large themes, where each topic can be composed of one or many smaller constituents. These smaller units, the Homeric formulas, are the exact counterpart of the icons.25 On the basis of such correspondences Crowley developed her thesis, stressing that to speak only of connections or similarities between art and poetry is strongly limiting, because they are actually the same thing, with identical compositional rules and techniques.26

The Application of the Model The model elaborated by Crowley can be easily and systematically applied to the landing and battle frescoes from the North Frieze of the Admiral’s House in Akrotiri. As Morris demonstrated, this fresco constitutes the best example of such themes, but is not the only one, as may be seen from the siege Rhyton from Mycenae and a fragmentary stone vase from Epidaurus.

The fresco is composed of a landscape theme (Fig. 2), which includes multiple icons like the hill icon, the cliff icon, the tree icon and the building icon. Within this landscape, human figures are present in two main thematic groups: war and peace. The War theme includes the ships and the sailors landing, the battle near the sea wall and the shipwreck (Fig. 3); the peace theme includes the council at the top of the hill, the female water-carriers at the well, the goatherds and their animals, and the people looking at the bay from the roof of a building on the seashore (Fig. 4).

Every theme can be divided into single icons, thus making it possible to recognize the ship landing icon, the warrior icon, the drowning people in the typical positions of men falling, the command staff icon and so on (Fig. 3).

21 See fn. 1, above. 22 Crowley 1989a, 210. 23 Crowley 1989a, 203–225. 24 Clark 2004, Parry 1971, Whallon 1964. 25 Crowley 1992, 32. 26 Crowley 1992, 32–34; for further implications see Thomas 1992.


Fig. 2. The landscape theme.

Fig. 3. The war theme.

Finally, each icon can be composed of minimal elements, such as the boar-tusk helm element, the tower-shield element, the warriors’ spears element or the ruffled hair of the dead man in the sea element and so on (Fig. 5).

As we have already seen, Morris stressed that we can find exact counterparts of many themes represented in this fresco in various Homeric episodes in the Iliad and the Odyssey. For example, the council scene on the top of the hill can be added to


the scene of the daughter of the king of the Laistrygons, who is caught up in the warrior landing. In the council scene of the fresco, two opposing groups are represented: on the left the people are wearing simple kilts, while on the right side of the hill there are tall figures wearing long robes with a more martial air. Morris explains such iconographic opposition as a tool “to emphasize the contrast between old and young men”. The Homeric verses are fundamental to her interpretation: in Iliad II. 789–790 Homer says “they were holding assembly in front of the doors of Priam // gathered in one place, the elders and the young men” �� Another council scene cited by Morris is described in the eighteenth book of the Iliad, on the shield of Achilles, where “the invading army is divided in council whether to destroy the city or divide its contents” (�� ).27

Fig. 4. The peace theme. The fresco scene and both Homeric passages share not only the same general war

contexts, but the same precise subjects of landing warriors and coastal city, in the shared context of an incipient battle. But these are only a few examples. Edward’s studies on Homer’s oral compositional methodology pointed out five recurrent type-scenes28 in the poems: 1) battles, 2) social intercourse 3) journeys 4) rituals 5) speeches and deliberations; all these type-scenes have exact counterparts in the recurrent iconographic themes of Aegean art identified by Crowley,29 which are 1) battle scenes; 2) naval scenes; 3) hunting scenes; 4) agonistic scenes; 5) religious activities; 6) important persons; and 7) community activities.

27 Morris 1989, 522. 28 Clark 2004, 135, Edwards 1991, 11, Edward 1992. 29 Crowley 1989a, 210.�


Fig. 5. The various elements which make up an icon.

The correspondences identified at a thematic level can also be found at a lower level: an icon level, as Crowley would say. In their role as memorable images, we find many common icons between Homer and the fresco: the tower-shield, the ships, the defensive wall on the sea coast, the well, the shepherds, the drowning people and so on.

However, an important objection may be made. It is a fact that most of these thematic scenes and icons�such as the lines of marching warriors, the warriors on the ships, the departure scenes and even the shipwreck images�have exact cor-respondences in the iconography of the Early Iron Age, when the poems were created orally (Fig. 6�11).

Fig. 6. Late Geometric Krater from Mycenae (Langdon 2008, fig. 1.11).

Fig. 7. Ivory plaque from Artemis Orthia (Langdon 2008, fig. 4.20).


Fig. 8. Late geometric krater from Pithekussai (Langdon 2008, fig. 0.6).

Fig. 9. LH IIIC Krater from Mycenae. Fig. 10. Signet ring from the

“Treasure of Tyrins”.

Fig. 11. Akrotiri, West House, Room 5, North Frieze, detail.

In this case, although such themes can be found in both Mycenaean and Archaic art, I have no doubt that the cultural environment which inspired Homer must have been the Early Iron Age, when such topoi were partly inherited, partly created, but surely alive and in continuous evolution.30

In the same way, the presence of the boar-tusk helmet in the Iliad is not evidence for an ancient tradition, stemming from Mycenaean times. On the contrary, it only shows that the poet was aware that it was an ancient, old-fashioned object and employed it as a demonstration of the antiquity of his “modern” composition. These examples must warn against any attempt to retrace the many Homeric themes and icons back to the Mycenaean age.

Nevertheless, although such an assumption must be considered valid, I think that it may be less decisive in the case of the correspondences between the Theran frescoes and Iliadic type-scenes.

30 Langdon 2008, 12–16, Morris 1986, Morris 1997.


The first remarkable instance is not only the sharing of some themes and icons, but the extremely high number of such correspondences present in the fresco of the naval battle, where we can find at least four out of the five major Iliadic type-scenes identified by Edwards: battles, social intercourse, journeys, speeches and delibe-rations.

A structural perspective must also be added: is it possible to find similarities not only at a low level (i.e. the icon) or at a high level (i.e. the general themes), but they can also be found at an intermediate level, that is when we try to connect the various icons and themes so as to understand their narrative message.

For example, if we associate the warrior-line icon with the defensive coastal wall, we can compare this compositional unit with the Homeric scene of the battle between the Achaeans and Trojans near the defensive wall. However, if we associate the same warrior formation with the women carrying jars, it can be compared with the Homeric scene of the landing of Odysseus and his meeting with the daughter of the king of the Laistrygons. Again, if the icon of the warrior is associated with the double line of shepherds with their flocks, we can compare this scene with the ambush scene featuring the shield of Achilles. If, however, we associate the naval scene with the same shepherds, we find a correspondence with the scene of the arrival of Odysseus’ ships in the land of the Laistrygons “where shepherd [coming back], hails shepherds driving in [his flocks], and the other [going out], driving [his flocks] answers back”.31

In these cases, it is not only the quantity and the quality of the correspondences that lead us to suppose a common tradition drawn on by Homer and the anonymous artists of Thera, but also the shared conceptual structures used to construct their narrative message.

But even at this level, it might be objected that Homeric epic and Aegean icon-ography may merely share the same eidetic message. As a matter of fact, as in Aegean iconography every icon/scene/theme lacks any detail which might allow us recognize a particular man, hero or god, in Homeric epic too every hero, situation, location etc. can be considered as responding to an absolute eidetic “imperative”. This is easily confirmed by a simple consideration: each formula deprived of its personal name label becomes a universal icon which can be applied to every hero. Thus, for example, the typical battle scene of some Iliadic heroes�the aristei-a�clearly represents an eidetic theme whose protagonist can be changed by the poet according to the needs of his epic tale. This line of reasoning could be correctly used to demonstrate the absence of a genuine Homeric reference to Late Bronze Age traditions. One may conclude that Homer and Mycenaean iconography simply share the same general arguments�battles, revenges, expeditions, heroism, etc.�which are the typical subject matter of many epic systems from Homeric to Serbian epic.32

As a consequence, if correspondences between Homer and Archaic iconography could indeed be shown to be a matter of cause and effect, the supposed analogies between Aegean Art and Homer would have to be considered merely the result of a similar context or, at best, as distant echoes of the Mycenaean age.

31 Morris 1989, 527. 32 Kirk 1962, 83–95.


But in my opinion this explanation is not enough, for in Homeric poems some icons and themes do exist which are not sufficiently “abstract” and “ambiguous” to be considered purely eidetic or judged easily ascribable to post-Mycenaean times.

This thematic group is neither represented simply by single archaic-type icons such as e.g. the Merion boar-tusk helm or the Cup of Nestor, nor by broad typical epic themes. This thematic group consists of a close-knit system of coherent scenes and icons and associated composite features, which exhibits detailed similarity to Mycenaean iconography: the epic of the tower-shield of Aias, the son of Telamon.

Aias’ Heroic Action in the Iliad33

We can say that the same formulaic label which introduces Aias can be seen as a very old, spoken icon: ��. This formula can be read as “Aias, the son of Telamon”, but some scholars agree that the true meaning of �� is not “the son of Telamon” but “Aias the Telamon bearer” and such a Telamon, or strap, cannot by separated from the typical tower-shield that throughout the entire Iliad remains the personal and characteristic shield of Aias. Thus the formula �� can be read as “Aias, the tower-shield bearer”.

The shield of Aias is ��, tower-shaped (�� !�� ). It is ��!��, made of seven folds of oxhide. Homer describes this shield as ��. In the Archaic world, when shields were made of bronze, �� meant “sparkling, shining”, which cannot possibly refer to a shield made of oxhide. But, as we can read in Hesychius, the original sense of �� is !��, which can mean “variegated, dappled”. Thus, what was usually interpreted as a recurrent formula for a typical “bright” Archaic bronze shield loses its generic meaning to become a punctual description of the surface of a typical early Mycenaean oxhide tower-shield34.

In the battle for the defence of the ships, Aias does not utilize a normal spear, a ��, but a "��, a naval pike. This noun occurs in the Iliad only six times, three times in connection with the tower-shield of Aias. In this case, the similarity to the Theran fresco is very precise, because in the landing scene, men on board brandish long naval pikes which seem the same as those held by the warriors already disembarked and, of course, the same as that brandished by Aias.

When the son of Telamon enters the battle, he is described by a chain of formulas. ��’� �#�� $�#��%�� !�� : “Aias came up with his shield like a tower”. We can see counterparts of the formula in Aegean icono-graphy, not only in the Thera fresco, but also in other landing and battle scenes, like the siege Rhyton from Mycenae, where we can observe two tower-shield heroes in the middle of the battle, or in the Epidauros stone vase fragment.

But the most significant episode in the context of the battle of the ships is the memorable scene where Aias and his brother Teucer fight together in a synchronized technique: Homer sings: “came Teucer with his bow, and took his place under cover of the shield of Aias son of Telamon. And then Aias drew (�&! �"�� ) his shield aside, Teucer took a look around (! �! � � � � �), and when he had hit anyone in the

33 For a more detailed treatment of the subject see Anselmi 1998, Frazer 1983, Greco 2002, Greco 2005, Greco 2007, Greco 2010 with bibliography and Whallon 1966. For specific comments on and bibliography for the terms cited in this paragraph, see the next one. 34 For the discussion and bibliography, see Greco 2002, 563�564.


throng, the man would fall dead, then Teucer drew back again near Aias, as a child to his mother, and Aias covered him under his shield” (Il. VIII 267ff).

Homer does not use a common lexicon to describe this procedure. In the Iliad, it is only Aias who �&!�"�� the shield, which is to draw it aside and lower it. In fact, in this specific fighting technique, only carefully synchronized action produced by long training allows the archer, who is without any defensive equipment, to shoot, then hide and reload the bow behind the shield, and then to shoot again, while the shield-carrier protects, exposes and then protects once more his comrade.

Even the verb used for the description of Aias’ defensive action, ��!��, which means “to totally envelop”, seems to describe the effect of the huge tower-shield when it covers a comrade. In Homeric epics, the verb ��!�� is used to represent the action of fog or indeed of death, which envelop the battlefield or a dying man. Only when Aias’s shield is involved do we find the same verb in a fight scene. It must be noted that the preposition ��- is also used in two composite terms: �� (which covers all body) and �� (with double circles); they describe a shield which only with great difficulty could be imagined to correspond to the small round shield of the Archaic Age. Such terms best fit the description of another huge shield used together with the tower-shield: the early Mycenaean eight-shaped body-shield.

In the eleventh book of the Iliad (vv. 593–594), Aias, looking for help, joins his companions who “were gathered, leaning their shield on their shoulders, while holding up their spears” (!�� ’�� / ��’ ��). Hainsworth35 comments: “what is this posture? The context requires it to be some sort of defensive formation to cover the wounded Eurypylos and into whose protection Aias can withdraw, but it is difficult to imagine a satisfactory posture for a man ‘leaning his shield on his shoulders’ while ‘holding up his spear’. Perhaps he held a spear in each hand, letting the shield hang by its strap”. The Mycenaean iconography easily solves this problem: in the iconographic represen-tations (see for example Figs. 12, 13, 17, 21, 23) we can see that, when the tower-shield-carrier moves, he puts his left shoulder into the hollow of the shield, letting the shoulder and the leg help his left hand to sustain and incline the shield, while the right hand brandishes the spear.

Even a particular epithet such as !�#�� (Il. XIII 130), attributed to the �� of Aias, may be better understood in a Mycenaean-warfare context. The etymology is not completely clear but it relates to the idea of “root” or “from the root”. Chantraine admits that “l’obscurité du mot compromet toute analyse étimologique” and, on one hand, prudently concludes that “a moins de recourir à l’hypothèse «prehellenique», le rappreochement qui serait le moins inacceptable est celui qui évoque skr. dharún-a-n «fondement, sol», but on the other hand, translates it as “à la surface penchée en avant”, relating the adjective to the “hoplitic” line of shields described in the homeric verse36. Janko37 correctly stresses that Chantraine has then to apply such translation also to the “trees” (after Homer Il. IX 541 where trees are described eradicated “from the roots”), and therefore concludes that ! � # �-��may better mean “one upon the another”.

35 Hainsworth 1993, 287. 36 Chantraine 1968, 427. 37 Janko 1994, 61.


Homer in Il. XIII 130 narrates that Aias and his companions are forming a line of shields. The scene, of course, sounds very hoplitic, but the presence of Aias and his �� indicates that this is not the case. Homer calls Aias the “�� '� (��'�” which means Aias “the wall” or “the barrier”, “the hedge of Achaeans”. The epithet fits very well with the aspect of the tower shield but it could fit better when applied to a line of tower-shield warriors, when the shields stand close creating an effect of great compactness.

I suppose that the �� intended as a line-formation can help us to better under-stand the value of the adjective !�#��, because thanks to its rectangular form, in a linear formation the tower-shields can stand close each other from the bottom to the top, that is, “from the roots” which can be intended as “from their (rectangular) bases”. With a round shield this formation is simply inconceivable.

The epithet of the �� ! �� of Periphetes may describe a similar effect: Homer describes it as !��, “reaching down to the foot”, and Periphetes himself is defined “the Mycenaean”.38

Finally, the Homeric description of the retreat of Aias from Hector can only be completely understood if compared with the representation of the tower-shield warrior as it can be seen in Mycenaean iconography. In the Iliad, Aias places his shield behind him, �!�#��, turns his back and flees. With the tower-shield, which covered the whole body, this was the best way to retreat, presenting a completely protected back to the enemy. The effect is precisely described in a similar scene, when Hector’s shield “beats him all around the ankles and the neck”, �� !�� )�� *�39 When Aias retreats, Homer uses verbs such as ��!��+�� and ! � ! � �� , which precisely describe a man who, retreating step by step, continuously looks around and listens for the enemy’s movement. But suddenly, Aias turns around from below ��&!�� is the verb�and counterattacks. The verbs used fit the scene well if we imagine a warrior equipped with a tower-shield, but would be inappropriate for an Archaic hoplite, and hoplite battle techniques and ethics.40

In order to demonstrate the exceptional case represented by the epic tale of Aias against the background of the Homeric Iliad, I have collected together in the following section some of the many epithets, formulas and thematic scenes which almost exclusively concern the heroic figure of Aias. Each paragraph lists the epithets, formulas, chain of formulas and thematic scenes, and the corresponding icon, element or theme which is to be found in the Minoan and Mycenaean icono-graphic repertoire.

38 Il. XV 645–646. See § 1.2. 39 VI 117. 40 For the consequences of this “disappointing behaviour” of Aias for his later heroic and traditional evolution, see Greco 2007.


Aias’ Icon 1. ICON: �� / �� (Fig. 12, 13, 14, 15, 19, 21, etc.)41 Formulaic Label –– Epithet: ��!�� “The �� shaker”, V 126. Formulaic. � Tydeus –– Epithet: ��“The �� bearer”, Hesiod, Aspis, 13. � The Cadmians42 –– Formula: )��/ !��*� ��’�� “He has on his

shoulder the wide/many-coloured ��”, XI 526–527. )!��* �� ’�� #�� “He put on his shoulder the many-coloured ��”, X 149, XV 479.

� Odisseus, Aias, Teucer43 –– Formulaic verse: �� !�� .

“….Beats him all around the ankles and the neck”, VI 117–118. � Hector44 Representation

Fig. 12. Thera, West House, Miniature Frieze, North Wall.

Fig. 13. Silver Krater from My-cenae, Shaft Grave IV.

Fig. 14. Krater from Ty-rins.

Fig. 15 Cornelian Lentoid, Crete, London British Museum.

1.1 Element: ��45 (Fig. 21, 22, 23, 24, etc.) Formulaic Label –– Formula: �� “great and sturdy”, III 335, XVI 136,

XVIII 478, 609, XIX 373. �Never in relation to Aias46

41 The translation of the following Iliadic verses is that of Murrey 1924. 42 Hainsworth 1993, 276. 43 Hainsworth 1993, 281. 44 Hainsworth 1993, 282–283, Kirk 1990, 169–170. 45 Anselmi 1998,� Durante 1992, 167, Kirk 1962, 181, Whallon 1966, For etymology see Anselmi 1998, 52–53, Chantraine 1968, 985. 46 Whallon 1966, 9–10.


–– Formula: �� !�� “The tower-shaped ��”, VII 219, XI 485, XVII 128. In formulaic verse. � only Aias ��47

–– Epithet: !�#�� “fixing shield on shield close-pressed (from the root)”, XIII 130. � in relation to shields, only in a context with Aias48

–– Epithet: �&!��. “Made from seven ox-hides”, VII 220, 222, 245, 266, XI

545. Formulaic verse. � only Aias ��49 –– Epithet: �� In the sense of “dapple”, XVI 107 e VII 222. Formulaic verse. � only Aias ��50 –– Epithet: !�� “many-coloured”, X 149. Formulaic verse.

� Odisseus ��51�

1.2 Element: ��!��: body-shield? (Fig. 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 31) Formulaic Label –– Formulaic complement: �� ’ �� … �� !��

“Through the double round of the shield which covers all body”, XX 280-281. Formulaic verse. � only �� ! ��, Aeneas

–– Epithet: )��!��*�� “The shield which covers all body”, XI 32, XII 402, XX 281. Formulaic verse. � only ��!��, Agamemnon, Sarpedon, Aeneas52

–– Epithet: ! �� “reaching down to the foot”, XV 646. � only �� ! ��, only Periphetes “the Myceanean”53

Representation

Fig. 16. Shield fresco from Knossos.

Fig. 17. Cornelian Lentoid, from Crete, London British Museum.

Fig. 18. Cornielian Amygdaloid, from Mycenae.

47 Anselmi 1998, Kirk 1990, 263–264, Whallon 1966, 48 Other recurrences: Il. IX 541 (of trees eradicated), X 15 (of hair torn up). Anselmi 1998, 70–71, Gray 1941, 113 and 119, Janko 1994, 61, But see above 316–317. 49 Anselmi 1998, 57–58, Kirk 1990, 263, Whallon 1966. 50�Anselmi 1998, 64–68, Kirk 1990, 264–265, Mühlenstein 1967, Whallon, 1966, 10–11. 51 Hainsworth 1993, 169. 52 Anselmi 1998, 62–63, Edwards 1991, 324, Janko 1994, 11. 53�Anselmi 1998, 58–59, Janko 1994, 299.


1.3 Element: ��(Fig. 19, 20, 21) Formulaic Label –– Epithet: ��. “The son of Telamon” or “Aias the telamon / tower-shield bearer”. Formulaic verse. � only Aias54 –– Chain of Formulas: ��,'��&�� !�� #�� #��- �� . ��

��- .�� / �� & �&��#�� “The spear struck him (Aias) where two bands passed over his chest�the band of his shield and that of his silver-studded sword�and these (��'��) protected his body”, XIV 404–405. � only Aias55

Representation

Fig. 19. Silver Krater from Mycenae, Shaft Grave IV.

Fig. 20. Thera, West House, Miniature Frieze, North Wall.

Fig. 21. Niello Dagger, from Mycenae, Shaft Grave IV.

1.4 Element: "��(Fig. 21, 22, 23, 24) Formulaic Label –– "�� “pike”, IV 469 Agenor, XI 260 Agamemnon, XI 565 Trojans against

Aias, XIII 497, XV 388, Trojans and Greeks during the battle for the ships, XV 677 Aias in the same battle. In IV 469, XI 565 and XV 677 the scene implies the presence of the �� tower-shield of Aias. � many heroes and Aias56

–– Epithet:�� “Naval pike”, XV 388, XV 677. Formulaic verse. � the Greeks fighting from the ships and Aias57

54 Anselmi 1998, 89–118. 55 Janko 1994, 213–214. 56 Morris 1989, 523–524. For " � �� see Frazer 1983, 127–130. 57 Frazer 1983, 127–130.


–– Epithet: ��. “Big”, XIII 497, XV 388. �Trojans and Greek during the battle for the ship

–– Epithet: ��!�� “Twenty two cubits long”, XV 678. �� “Big”, XV 677. � Aias58

–– Formulaic complement: �� “A pike jointed with rings”, XV 677. � Aias59

Representation

Fig. 22. Thera, West House, Miniature Frieze, North Wall, particulars.

Fig. 23. Gold Ring, from Mycenae, Shaft Grave IV.

2. ICON �� / �� : the arrive (Fig. 22, 24, 26, 31) Formulaic Label –– Formulaic verse: ��’� �#�� $�#��%�� !�� VII 219,

XVII 128. � only Aias –– Formulaic verse: )��*��’� �#�� $�#��%��!�� -��'��

!��". “Aias came up with his shield like a tower and stood hard by”, XI 485–486. � only Aias60

–– Formula: ��#��!�� “But ran and bestrode him”, VIII 331, XIII 420. � Aias, Antilokos both in close association with ��61

58 Janko 1994, 270, 301–302.�59 Are these “rings” represented in the Gold Ring, from Mycenae (Fig. 23)? See Greco 2002, 565. 60 See above, § 1. 61 Kirk 1990, 325.


Representation

Fig. 24. Mycenae, Silver Rhyton.

3. ICON �� / �� : the attack (Fig. 21) Formulaic Label �–– Formula: �!�#�� &!�� When the warrior attacks,

“threw his shield behind him and thrusts with his heavy spear”, XI 545. � only Aias62

–– Formula: )��/ !��*� ��’�� See §1 –– Chain of Formulas: �$�’��!�� "��- �$�’��!�� '��'� / �� +��-

� �� '�� !��+��$ �� ’��,��%�, ��!��#�� 0�� “I know well how to wield to right, and well how to wield to left my shield of seasoned hide, which I deem a sturdy thing to wield in fight; … and I know how to dance in close fight the dance of furious Ares”, VII 238–241. � only Aias63

–– Verb: ��'�� “to draw (his shield) aside, top wield with” in the sense of “to deal out, distribute”. � in relation to shield, only Aias

–– Chain of Formulas: 1��- �� ! � � �� Aeneas… saying “Meriones, full soon, for all thou art a nimble dancer, would my spear...”, XVI 617. � only Meriones64

–– Formulaic verse: ��"�� !�� ,�� “Brandishes a great sea-pike in his hands long and jointed with rings”, XV 677. � Only Aias with "��, others with �� 65�

62 Hainsworth 1993, 282–283. For a detailed description of the episode see Greco 2002, 569–570, Greco 2005, 285. 63 Kirk 1976, 63, Kirk 1990, 170 and 266–268. For the “dance” of the tower-shielded warrior see also Greco 2001, 571–572, Greco 2006, 277–278. 64 See previous fn. 65 For ��!��,�� see Frazer 1983.


4. ICON �� / �� : retreat and counterattack (Fig. 25 (?)) Formulaic Label

When the warrior fails or succeeds in killing his enemy, He must retreat: –– Chain of formulas: �� ! �#�� &!��-��. !�!��

��’&�� … ��!��+��- �� “Aias threw his shield behind him looking fearfully at the throng of his foes as though he were some wild beast, and turning hither and thither but crouching slowly backwards”, XI 543–546. � Only Aias

–– Chain of formulas: ��&��’ �� +��- �� !�� 23 �’�&�� #�� +�� '�’ �� !� �� !�!�� ,' ��!��,��“(Harpalion) then thrust with his spear full upon the shield of the son of Atreus, from nigh at hand, yet availed not to drive the bronze clean through, and back he shrank into the throng of his comrades, avoiding fate, glancing warily on every side, lest some man should wound his flesh with the bronze”, XIII 646–649. � Harpalion

–– Verb: ! �! � � � � �. “To look earnestly, gaze; mostly with notion of alarm or caution, to look or peer around”, XI 546, XVII 673. � Aias, Harpalion

–– Verb: ��!��+�� “To keep turning round, of men retreating”, XI 547, XVII 109, XVII 673. Formulaic. � Aias, Menelaus66

–– Chain of formulas: ��#�� !��#�� !�� !��- �� !�� !��’, �� / �� ,'�� ’ �� #�� ! � � � � ��!�� “Periphetes of Mycenae... for, as he turned back, he tripped upon the rim of the shield that himself bare, a shield that reached to the feet, a defence against javelins: thereon he stumbled and fell backward”, XV 645–646.

� only Periphetes67 Counterattack In some battle scenes, after a short retreat Aias and a small group of heroes turn around and counterattack: –– Formula: �� ’�� #�� $�� &!-

��#��- �� “And Aias would now be mindful of his furious valor, and wheeling upon them would hold back the battalions”, XI 566–567.

–– Formula: ��(��&(�� #�� (�� / �� “But whenso the twain Aiantes would wheel about and stand against them”, XVII 732–733.68

–– Verb: ��- / �&!-�� “To turn back,” with a movement from the bottom towards the top.

66 Both !�!��and ��!�� +��, used in a battle scene, indicate a very slow and hard-fought retreat. 67�Anselmi 1998, 58–59, Janko 1994, 299. 68 For the analogies between the heroic action of Aias and that of the “heroic” boar, see Camerotto 2005.


Representation

Fig. 25. Gold Ring, from Mycenae, Shaft Grave IV.

5. ICON: ��: the duo warrior (Fig. 19, 21, 25, 26, 27, 31)� Formulaic Label –– Formulaic: the two Aiantes: Aias and his brother Teucer: ��IV 285, V

519, VI 436, VII 179, X 228, XII 265, 335, 354, XIII 46, 47, XIII 197, XIII 201, XVI 555, 556, XVII 507, 508, XVII 531, XVII 669, XVIII 163. �� II 406, XIII 313, XVIII 157. ��/��VII 164, VIII 79, 262, XIII 126. ��IV 273, 280, XII 353, XVII 668. � Only Aias69

5.1 Element: ��!�� / �� See § 1, 1.1–1.4.

5.2 Element: & !��. The archer70 (Fig. 21, 24, 26, 27, 28, 29, 31) Formulaic Label

See § 6 and 8.1. Representation

Fig. 26. Warrior duo from Rehak 1999 pl. XLVII.


69 For this question and bibliography see Greco 2006, 277–286. 70 For a definition of the &!��in relation to the warrior duo see Greco 2006, Stagakis 1967, Stagakis 1975a, Stagakis 1975b.


Fig. 28. Stone Vase Fragment from Knossos.

Fig. 29. Sealing from Haghia Triada.

5.3 Element: Variation: &! �� . The spearman (Fig. 30) Formulaic Label

See § 6 and 8.1. Representation


6. THE ICON duo warrior: attack and defence71 (Fig. 19, 21, 25, 26, 27, 30, 31) Elements: ��!�� / �� and the archer / spearman Formulaic Label –– Chain of formulas (with archer): ��'�� ’ �� $ � # � !�� "�

��- � �� ' �’��’ �&!’ �� #’ �� &!�"�� / �� ’��!�!��- ��!��’ ��’ �� &��, ��- . �� $#��!��!��#�� - ��&�� . ��$� �� !� � � �.� �&!� �� #’/�2 �� !�� ,'��“Came Teucer with his bow, and took his place under cover of the shield of Aias son of Telamon. And then Aias drew his shield aside, Teucer took a look around and when he had hit anyone in the throng, the man would fall dead, then Teucer drew back again near Aias, as a child to his mother, and Aias covered him under his shield”, VIII 267ff.; similar scenes XV 442ff. � only Aias and Teucer72

71 For details see Greco 2002, Greco 2005, Greco 2006. 72 Borgna 1992, 89–90, Edgeworth 1985, Fenik, 1968, 225, Kirk 1990, 321–322, Lorimer 1950, 183.


–– Chain of formulas (with spearman): �� ’�� ! � � ! � � - ��4� ��'� �� &�- ��’ ��!’ �� ’ ��- �� ’ ��,' �� 2� �� !�� ’ �� “And Aias, the swift son of Oïleus, would no more in any wise depart from the side of Aias, son of Telamon, no not for an instant; but even as in fallow land two wine-dark oxen … even in such wise did the two Aiantes take their stand and abide each hard by the other’s side”, XIII 701–708. � only Aias and Aias Oïleus. �

–– Formula: �� #��!��& �� 3��VIII 330–331, XIII 420. � Aias, Antilokos both in close association with ��.

–– Formula: ��%��!�� -��'�� ! �� ". See § 2. –– Verb: �&!�"��“To carry out a little, to lift (the � � � �) a little outwards.”

VIII 267–278. � in relation to a shield only Aias73 –– Verb: !� !�� See. § 4. –– Verb: ��3�� “To cover all round, enwrap, enfold, to surround one with a

thing” � in relation to the protection of a shield only Aias and Antilokos74 Representation


7. THE ICON the ��75 Formulaic label –– Formula: �5��’�� !��. “This is huge Aias,

bulwark of the Achaeans”, III 229. �� !��'�� “Aias, son of Telamon, bulwark of the Achaeans was first to...”, VI 5. ��'� ��’ ��$�� !�� '��“sprang forth huge Aias, the bulwark of the Achaeans”, VII 211. � in formulaic context only Aias76

–– Epithet: �� '�� “fence, hedge, wall, bulwark of Achaeans”. � epithet of Aias

73 Anselmi 1998, 61, Greco 2002, 572, Kirk 1990, 321, 74 Anselmi 1998, 62–63. 75 For details see Greco 2002. 76 In I 284 said of Achilles, but in a less formulaic context.


8. THE ICON the �� : attack and defence (Fig. 32, 33, 34) Formulaic Label The �� as a battle formation –– Formula: !��’��/��’��

“Were gathered, leaning their shield on the shoulder, while holding up the spears”,

XI 593–594. �Aias –– Formula: !�� ’�� “were gathered, leaning

their shield on the shoulder”, XIII 488. � various heroes –– Formula: ��’�� XI 594, XV 298, XVII 234.

� various heroes together with Aias77 –– Chain of formulas: �� ’�� ! � � ! � � - ��4� ��'� �� &�- ��’ ��!’

�� ’ ��- �� ’ ��,' �� 2� �� !�� ’ �� 4��’ ��’ ��4� ��,�� 6�� !��/ �� , �&��, � � � � � �� '�/�� #�� &!!��- ��’��!�� '��- �� ’�� "�� ' �$��, ��7��’��!�� !�!�#��- �5�� !�� &� �� /��&��#’ �.�� ! � � # � �� . �’��!�#�� #��“And Aias, the swift son of Oïleus, would no more in any wise depart from the side of Aias, son of Telamon, no not for an instant; but even as in fallow land two wine-dark oxen … even in such wise did the two Aiantes take their stand and abide each hard by the other's side… But the Locrians followed not with the great-hearted son of Oïleus, for their hearts abode not steadfast in close fight, seeing they had no brazen helms with thick plumes of horse-hair, neither round shields, nor spears of ash, but trusting in bows and well-twisted slings of sheep's wool had they followed with him to Ilios; with these thereafter they shot thick and fast, and sought to break the battalions of the Trojans. So the one part in front with their war-gear, richly dight, fought with the Trojans … and the others behind kept shooting from their cover; and the Trojans bethought them no more of fight, for the arrows confounded them”, XIII 701–722.

� in relation to the two Aiantes78 –– Chain of formulas: ��"�� - �� !�#��,/ ��!��

��’ �� ! ��’ �� - �� - ��’ �� “Fencing spear with spear, and shield with serried shield; buckler pressed on buckler, helm on helm, and man on man”, XIII 130–131. � in relation to shields, only in a context with Aias79

–– Epithet: !�#�� see § 1.1.

77 Hainsworth 1993, 287. 78 For a detailed study of the scene see Greco 2002, Greco 2005, Greco 2006. 79 Janko 1994, 60–61.


Representation

Fig. 32. Mycenae, Silver Rhyton. Fig. 33. Thera, West House, Miniature Frieze,

North Wall.

Fig. 34. Stone Vase from Epidauros.

8.1 Element: slingmen and archers (Fig. 35, 36, 37) Formulaic Label –– Chain of formulas: ��. �’��!�#�� #�� “And the others

behind kept shooting from their cover”, XIII 701–722. See § 7.80 Representation

Fig. 35. Stone vase: Slingmen (Evans 1930, 97, fig. 56).

Fig. 36. Mycenae, Silver Rhyton.

Fig. 37. Warrior fresco from Knossos.

80 Janko 1994, 136.


The Mycenaean Epos of Aias As we have seen, many scholars have tried to demonstrate the existence of a Late Bronze Age epic literature and its ties with the Homeric poems:81 I suppose the comparative analysis of the Homeric figure of Aias with respect to Aegean icono-graphy can be taken to support this hypothesis.

It may be also added that all sources that depict Aias coherently set him in a Bronze Age context. Archaeology has demonstrated that the distinctiveness of Aias’ weapons and his heroic action cannot be understood if considered from the perspective of a proto-hoplitic culture. Thematic, linguistic and stylistic analysis of the verses demonstrates that Homer does not describe the shield and spear, or the war scenes of Aias and Teucer, as fixed old-fashioned objects. On the contrary, they are actively utilized in multiple contexts, in which they are explained through a rigid, coherently organized formulaic system that is generally recognized to pertain to a Mycenaean or palaeo-Mycenaean origin.

Even from a literary point of view, as I have attempted to demonstrate in a previous paper,82 Aias cannot be considered a typical hero; both his Iliadic and post-Iliadic heroic actions are characterized by very atypical and non-heroic elements such as the duel with Hector, ending in a draw; his defeat in the battle for the ships; his defeat during the games in Patroklos’ honour; his defeat in the struggle for the weapons of Achilles; his madness; his suicide and, finally, his inhumation. All these episodes can be understood both as products of an epic culturally and historically distinct from the Homeric Iron Age cultural milieu and as consequences of the progressive decay of the heroic figure of the Mycenaean Aias, whose heroic and martial actions were almost completely misunderstood in the context of proto-hopli-tic culture.

In conclusion, if a Dark Age genesis of the myth of Aias is supposed, we have to admit an important inconsistency: Archaic and Classical iconography is fond of Aias, yet not one illustration portrays his tower-shield, his long spear or his battle performance with his brother Teucer, so well-described in the Homeric poem. On the contrary, Iron Age art always represents Aias as a coeval Archaic hoplite hero, whose Iliadic characteristics are systematically omitted. As a consequence, we have to infer that Homer in his representation of Aias could not have taken his inspiration from contemporary Iron Age iconography.

Collective Iconography vs Glorification of the Individual: When ART Must Be Sung As we have seen, the heroic action of Aias can only be fully understood through a careful comparison with the Late Bronze Age Aegean iconographic system; however we have to admit that Aias’ case is unusual and special. As a matter of fact, as far as Archaic and Classical iconography are concerned, the situation can be considered completely inverted: only epic tales and traditions transmitted and tran-scribed later can substantialize an iconographic system which is nearly totally ano-nymous.83

81 Crowley 1992, 32–34, Morris 1989, Bennet 2004, 91–92, Bennet 2007, 14–15, with refer-ences. 82 On this aspect see Greco 2007. 83 As Aristotle says, “just as in the case of the paintings of olden days, unless they were inscribed, one did not know what each thing was” cited by Snodgrass 2000, 22.


From Greek literature it is evident that official Greek art is not at all anonymous, but rather a system which depends on a deeply-shared cultural milieu in order to be fully understood. No Greek would have had a difficulty in distinguishing Ares from other warriors in sculptures or other representations; in the same way, when a hero was portrayed carrying a companion on his back, it was known that he was Aias, with the corpse of Achilles. A deeply-shared tradition helped in the interpretation.

We know that in Greece, almost until the VII century BC, oral culture and visual arts worked together in a reciprocal connection of influences and compensations.84 The fundamental difference was the possibility�characteristic only of poetry�of substantiating a formulaic, stereotyped and anonymous repertoire with a coherent and contextual reference to a particular man or hero. This was possible because, in contrast to iconography, the structure of poetic verse allowed�and provided for�the introduction of the personal name and patronymic into the formula itself.

This integrated system allows us to understand why, in the Archaic period, iconography could be anonymous, but the fundamental difference between these two systems of representation (iconography and poetry)—minimal, but substantial—constitutes important evidence that these artistic media—whilst sharing structures, themes and goals—possessed different roles in the organization of the narrative message.

We have already discussed the analogies between the structure of Aegean art and that of Homeric poems and the probable existence of a Mycenaean epos. To the structural analogies between the two forms of art—the same compositional system of icons and formulas intended as anonymous vehicles of the artistic message—we can now add two additional analogies: 1) both Mycenaean and Greek iconography can be considered anonymous85, and 2) Mycenaean iconography never uses inscriptions and Greek iconography, in particular protogeometric and early archa-ic—especially in official contexts—uses them rarely.

Iconography Poetry Official

Inscription Does it exist? Structure Direct reference to individuals

Late Bronze Age

Anonymous/ Eidetic

Icon-structured

Yes/ Highly

probable

Formulaic structure/

Highly probable ? No

Iron Age Anonymous

Eidetic Icon-structured

Yes Formulaic structure Yes No

Thanks to written sources, we know that Iron Age culture was able to fill out and substantiate the anonymity of its iconography through the oral poetry,86 but with regard to Aegean iconography, the absence of textual evidence prevents us from

84 Snodgrass 1979, Langdon 2008. 85 As already noted by Crowley 1995, 490. On the difficulties of understanding and ex-plaining iconographic representations in the Classical era see Crowley 1995, 489, Cain 2001, 32–33, and 38. 86 But in Protogeometric Greece, for example, oral literature was “a more powerful tool of expression than any image” (Lemos 2000, 18).


understanding the real significance of the absence of an iconography of the ruler or, more generally, of the individual.

Thus we come back to our previous question: how did Aegean artists combine an iconographic tradition devoted to an anonymous, collective image of power with the requirements of propaganda as an instrument for the active and contextual celebration (and justification) of the leading elites’ political actions?

I think that this propagandistic role was given, as in later periods, to poetry, the only official art which had the intrinsic prerogative of narrating individuals’ actions. In this system the role of the bard becomes fundamental, because only through his art could the personal interests of the leading elite emerge from a cultural and traditio-nal context that was deeply egalitarian and impersonal in its figurative represen-tation.

Thus the poet becomes the intermediary between the collective message of iconography and the personal message of the king’s propaganda. His importance is evident at Pylos, as he appears as a subject depicted within the iconographic program of the palace,87 and at Haghia Triada, since he appears in the Sarcophagus as companion and accompanist in the royal (?) funerary procession.88

Fig. 39. Pylos, the singer fresco.

But analogy does not mean complete identity. If the poet, present in the

Mycenaean megara and frescoes, could guarantee that the iconographic system performed its function, the specific structure of the iconography of the megara itself was an extraordinary propaganda instrument. As a matter of fact, as Bennet stresses, in the throne rooms of Knossos and Pylos (and possibly Mycenae) the most important person, the king/queen or priest/priestess,89 was not represented only because he/she was physically present in the room.

87 Bennet 1997, 528�529; for a different point of view see Cultraro 2000. 88 For the iconography and ideology of the Haghia Triada sarcophagus see Burke 2005. 89 For the question of the existence of kings, queens, priests or priestesses in Minoan and Mycenaean palaces, see Maran 2007.


Thus the ruler’s material presence was able to breathe life into all the frescoes in the room (and the palace), becoming the master of a ritual procession in one room, or the leader of warriors fighting in another room, or indeed the live icon of the ruler seated on the throne, directly protected by the heraldic gryphons placed at his sides.90 An extraordinary invention of Mycenaean (and Minoan?) propaganda.

In my opinion further clear evidence of this kind of “live” representation of power is to be found in the pictorial program of the House of the Admiral at Akrotiri: as we have seen, these frescoes portray many subjects, mostly based on tales of naval expeditions and landing battles. In the numerous ships depicted an important person is present, shown as a seated man inside a small “cabin” made of many-coloured cowhides.91 The position of the cabin within the ship and the posture of the man make it clear he is the captain but, in keeping with the ideology of Aegean iconography, no captain can be identified as a specific person or hero: he is only an anonymous leader, recognizable thanks to his position in the ship.

Nevertheless, in Room 4 in the same building it is possible to recognize a program of frescoes totally dedicated to the life-size reproduction of the “cabin” (Fig. 38). Consistently with the structural role of the “missing ruler” inside the throne room, we may suppose that when the “admiral” sat in this room he could have had the same role—within the framework of the building’s fresco program—as the ruler seated on the throne of the megaron.

In other words, the expedition, landing and battle scenes on the walls92 repre-sented an a-temporal and impersonal epos as long as the real subject of the frescoes was missing; but when the “admiral” was materially present inside the “cabin room”, not only did the room acquire its full significance, but all the frescoes in the other rooms also took on their specific, personalistic and contextual meanings.

Fig. 38. Thera, West House, “cabin” fresco, Room 4.

90 Hiller 1996, Bennet 2001, 34, Bennet 2004, 99–100, Bennet 2007, 11–13 and 18, Maran 2007, 288–289 with references. 91 Benzi 1977, Shaw 1982, Doumas 1992, 49. 92 Cultraro 2001, 349–360.


In this particular and peculiar Aegean conception of art (a first-person icono-graphy, as Bennet proposes93), the master of the house/megaron constitutes the ideo-logical and material complement to the iconographic project, which was materially developed around his person. In these archaeological contexts, the ruler became the speaking, live icon of the iconographic program on the wall which surrounded him, exactly as a personal name, represents the speaking subject of a formula in a chain of formulas. Similarly both systems, when deprived of their direct referent become anonymous multipurpose artistic communication modules, suitable to be used for any situation or subject.

We may conclude that the art of palace frescoes could properly express its collective and individual propagandistic message only through the synergy of three protagonists: the fresco program, the palace ruler and the poet. The system repre-sented all the structures of the polity: an impersonal, eidetic, collective and legiti-mating iconography represented the community and the cultural background to the rulers’ power; the material and “iconic” presence of the leader completed this icono-graphic and ideological program. Finally, the voice of the bard was able not only to describe the ruler’s traditional role within the framework of the iconographic programs,94 but also to actively glorify, promote and justify his political actions, through a clever description of his personal talents and “heroic deeds”.

Aegean artists did not depict individual rulers because the iconography was not the appropriate instrument to transmit this message. The principal goal of the official figurative arts, such as glyptics and frescos, was to glorify and legitimate an ideo-logy of the community; poetry was the vehicle for perpetuating the names of leaders, and hence the main propagandistic instrument specifically devoted to their political and personal interests.

In Greek history we have an impressive example of a totally oral tradition. In the nearly complete absence of propagandistic texts, monuments and iconography, Sparta produced a coherent and functional ideology of power which dominated the cultural, political, ideological and propagandistic landscape of Greece from the VIII to IV sec. BC. Similarly, Aegean cultures did not create physical monuments dedi-cated to the glory of their living leaders: no great monumental programs covered the walls of the palaces with inscriptions. Instead, they produced great and “eternal” oral traditions, whose last, distant heirs were the most impressive literary products of Greek culture: the Iliad and the Odyssey.

Bibliography Anselmi L. 1998, “Lo scudo di Aiace: note archeologiche e letterarie”, Aevum

Antiquum 11, 51�126. Arnott R. 1999, “War Wounds and their Treatment in the Aegean Bronze Age”, in

R. Laffineur Ed., POLEMOS. Le contexte guerrier en Égée a l’Age du Bronze, Actes de la VII Rencontre Egéenne Internationale, Liège 14–17 avril 1998, (Aegaeum 19), Liège, 499�506.

93 Bennet 2007, 12–13. 94 Bennet 2007, 15–18. For an opposite point of view see Mikrakis 2013, 231.


Bennet J. 1997, “Homer and the Bronze Age”, in J. Morris � Barry Powell Eds., A New Companion to Homer (Mnemosyne Suppl. 163), Leiden, 511–534.

��. 2001, “Agency and Bureaucracy: Thoughts on the Nature and Extent of Administration in Bronze Age Pylos”, in S. Voutsaki � J. Killen Eds., Economy and Politics in the Mycenaean Palace States. Proceedings of a Conference Held on 1–3 July 1999 in the Faculty of Classics (Cambridge Philological Society Suppl. Vol. 27), Cambridge, 25–37.

��. 2004, “Iconographies of Value: Words, People and Things in the Late Bronze Age Aegean”, in J. C. Barrett � P. Halstead Eds., The Emergence of Civilisation Revisited (Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 6), Oxford, 90�106.

��. 2007, “Representation of Power in Mycenaean Pylos. Script, Orality, Icono-graphy,” in F. Lang � K. Reinhold � G. Weilhartner Eds., STEPHANOS ARI-STEIOS, Archäologische Forschungen zwischen Nil und Istros. Festschrift für Stephan Hiller zum 65. Geburtstag, Wien, 11�22.

Benzi M. 1977, “Gli affreschi dell’ammiraglio”, Prospettiva 10, 3–15. Blalkomer F. 2007, “The Silver Battle Krater from Shaft Grave IV at Mycenae:

Evidence of Fighting ‘Heroes’ on Minoan Palace Walls at Knossos”, in S. Morris – R. Laffineur Eds., Epos, Reconsidering Greek Epic and Aegean Bronze Age Archaeology, Proceeding of the 11th International Aegean Conference, (Ae-gaeum 28), Liege, 213�224.

Bloedow E. F. 1999, “Hector is a Lion: New Lights on Warfare in the Aegean Bronze Age from the Homeric Simile”, in R. Laffineur Ed., POLEMOS. Le contexte guerrier en Égée a l’Age du Bronze, Actes de la VII Rencontre Egéenne Internationale, Liège 14–17 avril 1998, (Aegaeum 19), Liège, 285–295.

Borgna E. 1992, L’arco e le frecce nel mondo miceneo (Memorie Lincee. Scienze morali, storiche, filologiche IX, Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, II, 1).

Bryce T. 1998, The Kingdom of the Hittites, New York. Buchholz H.G. 1980, Kriegswesen Teil II: Angriffswaffen, Gottingen. Buchholz J. � Wiesner H. G. 1977, Kriegswesen Teil I: Schutzwaffen und Wehr-

ebauten, Gottingen. Burke B. 2005, “Materialization of Mycenaean Ideology and the Ayia Triada

Sarcophagus”, American Journal of Archaeology. 109, 403-422. Cain C.D. 2001, “Dancing in the Dark: Deconstructing a Narrative of Epiphany on

the Isopata Ring”, America Journal of Archaeology 105, 27–49. Chantraine P.1968, Dictionnaire étimologique de la langue Greque, Paris. Clark M. 2004, “Formulas, metre and type scenes”, in R. Fowler Ed., The

Cambridge Companion to Homer, Cambridge, 117–138. Camerotto A. 2005, “Cinghiali eroici”, in E. Cingano � A. Ghersetti � L. Milano

Eds., Animali tra zoologia, mito e letteratura nella cultura classica e orientale. Atti del convegno, Venezia, 22–23 maggio 2002, Padova, 117�138.

Cassola Guida P. 1973, Le armi difensive dei micenei nelle raffigurazioni, Roma. Cassola Guida P. � Zucconi Galli Fonseca M. 1992, Nuovi studi sulle armi micenee,

Roma. Chantraine 1968, Dictionnaire étimologique de la langue grecque, Paris. Crowley J.L. 1989a, “Subject Matter in Aegean Art: the Crucial Changes”, in R.

Laffineur Ed., Transition. Le monde égéen du Bronze moyen au Bronze récent. Actes de la 2e Rencontre égéenne internationale de l'Université de Liège, 18–20 avril 1988 (Aegaeum 3), Liège, 203�225.


��. 1989b, “The Aegean and the East: an Investigation into the Transference of Artistic Motifs between the Aegean, Egypt, and the Near East in the Bronze Age” (Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology and Literature, 51.), Jonsered.

��. 1991, “Patterns in the Sea: Insight into the Artistic Vision of the Aegeans”, in R. Laffineur � L. Basch Eds., Thalassa. L’Egée préhistorique et la mer. Actes de la troisième rencontre égéenne internationale de l'Université de Liège, Station de recherches sous-marines et océanographiques, Calvi, Corse, 23–25 avril 1990 (Aegaeum 7), Liège, 219–230.

��. 1992, “The Icon Imperative: Rules of Composition in Aegean Art”, in R. Laffineur � J.L. Crowley Eds., EIKON. Aegean Bronze Age Iconography: Sha-ping a Methodology. 4th International Aegean Conference, University of Tasma-nia, Hobart, 6–9 April 1992, (Aegaeum 8), Liège, 23–37.

��. 1995, “Images of Power in the Bronze Age Aegean”, in R. Laffineur � W. D. Niemeier Eds., Politeia: Society and State in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceed-ings of the 5th International Aegean Conference / 5e Rencontre égéenne inter-nationale, University of Heidelberg, Archäologisches Institut, 10–13 April 1994, Vol II. (Aegaeum 12), Liège, 475�491.

��. 1999, “Essay on Ten Precious Gems: Originality in Aegean Art”, in P. P. Betancourt � V. Karageorghis � R. Laffineur � W.-D. Niemeier Eds., Meletema-ta: Studies in Aegean Archaeology Presented to Malcolm H. Wiener as He Enters His 65th Year (Aegaeum 20), Liège, 155�163.

��. 2000, “ICONAEGEAN: Classification and Database of Aegean Glyptic”, in I. Pini Ed., Minoisch-mykenische Glyptik: Stil, Ikonographie, Funktion. V. Interna-tionales Siegel-Symposium Marburg, 23–25 September 1999, Corpus der Minoischen und Mykenischen Siegel, Beiheft, 15–26.

��. 2001, “The Composition of Complex Scenes in Aegean Glyptic”, Corpus der Minoischen und Mykenischen Siegel, Beiheft 8, 131�148.

��. 2003, “IconA: Classification and Database for Aegean Glyptic”, K. Foster Polinger � R. Laffineur, Eds. Metron: Measuring the Aegean Bronze Age. Pro-ceedings of the 9th International Aegean Conference / 9e Rencontre égéenne internationale, New Haven, Yale University, 18–21 April 2002, Liège, (Aegaeum 24), 421–423.

��. 2008, “In Honour of the Gods – But Which Gods? Identifying Deities in Aegean Glyptic”, in L. A Hitchcock � R. Laffineur � J. Crowley Eds., Dais: The Aegean Feast. Proceedings of the 12th International Aegean Conference / 12e Rencontre égéenne internationale, University of Melbourne, Centre for Classics and Ar-chaeology, 25–29 March 2008, (Aegaeum 29), Liège�Austin, 75–87.

��. 2010a., “The Aegean Master of Animals: The Evidence of the Seals, Signets and Sealings”, in D.B. Counts � B. Arnold Eds., The Master of Animals in Old World Iconography, Budapest, 75�91.

��. 2010b., “The Composition of Complex Scenes in Aegean Glyptic”, in W. Müller Ed., Die Bedeutung der minoischen und mykenischen Glyptik: VI. Interna-tionales Siegel-Symposium aus Anlass des 50 jährigen Bestehens des CMS, Marburg, 9–12 Oktober 2008, Corpus der Minoischen und Mykenischen Siegel, Beiheft 8, Mainz am Rhein, 131–147.

��. 2012, “Prestige Clothing in the Bronze Age Aegean”, in M.-L. Nosch – R. Laffi-neur Eds., Kosmos: Jewellery, Adornment and Textiles in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 13th International Aegean Conference/13e Rencontre


égéenne internationale, University of Copenhagen, Danish National Research Foundation's Centre for Textile Research, 21–26 April 2010, (Aegaeum 33), Leuven – Liege, 231–239.

��. 2013, The Iconography of Aegean Seals, (Aegaeum 34), Leuven – Liege. Crowley J. � Adams A. 1995, “Iconoaegean and Iconostasis. An Iconographic Clas-

sification and a Comprehensive Database for Aegean Glyptic”, in W. Müller Ed., Sceaux minoens et mycéniens: IVe symposium international, 10–12 septembre 1992, Corpus der Minoischen und Mykenischen Siegel, Beiheft 5, Clermont-Ferrand, 39–58.

Cultraro, M. 2000, “L’affresco del cantore di Pilo e l’investitura del potere”, Ostraka 9, 9–30.

��. 2001, L’anello di Minosse, Milano. Davis E. N. 1995, “Art and Politics in the Aegean: The Missing Ruler”, in P. Rehak

Ed., The Role of the Ruler in the Prehistoric Aegean. Proceedings of a Panel Discussion presented at the Annual Meeting of the Archaeological Institute of America, New Orleans, Louisiana, 28 December 1992 (Aegeum 11), Liege, 11–22.

Doumas Ch. 1992, The Wall-paintings of Thera, Athens. Durante M. 1992, Eredità micenee in Omero, in G. Maddoli Ed., La civiltà micenea,

Roma, 161–194. Edgeworth R. J. 1985, Ajax and Teucher in the Iliad, Revue de Philologie 113, 27–

31. Edwards M. 1986, “Homer and the Oral Tradition: the Formula I”, Oral Tradition

1/2, 171–230. ��. 1988, “Homer and the Oral Tradition: the Formula II”, Oral Tradition 3/1.2, 11–

60. ��. 1991, The Iliad: a Commentary, Vol. 5, Books 17–20, Cambridge. ��. 1992, “Homer and the Oral Tradition: the type-scene”, Oral Tradition 7/2, 284–

330. Evans 1930, The Palace of Minos III, London. Fenik B. 1968. Typical Battle Scenes in the Iliad. Studies in the Narrative Tech-

niques of Homeric Battle Description, Wiesbaden. Fortassier P. 1989, “A propos de l’emploi du duel chez Homère”, Revue des études

Greques, 102, 183–189. Frazer R.M. 1983, “Ajax’s Weapon in Iliad”, Classical Philology 78.2, 127–30. Gates I. 1999, “Why Are There no Scenes of Warfare in Minoan Art?”, in R. Laffi-

neur Ed., POLEMOS. Le contexte guerrier en Égée a l’Age du Bronze, Actes de la VII Rencontre Egéenne Internationale, Liège 14–17 avril 1998, (Aegaeum 19), Liège, 277–283.

German S.C. 2005, Performance, Power and the Art of the Aegean Bronze Age Oxford.

Godart L. 2001, “Il nome dell’aedo nella Grecia dell’età del bronzo”, Rendiconti dell’Accademia nazionale dei Lincei 12, 5–10.

Gray D.H.F. 1947, “Homeric Epithets for Things”, Classical Quarterly 61, 109–121.

Greco A. 2002, “Aiace Telamonio e Teucro. Le tecniche di combattimento nella Grecia Micenea dell’epoca delle tombe a fossa”, in F. Montanari Ed., Omero tremila anni dopo, Atti del Congresso di Genova, Roma, 561�578.


��. 2005, “Omero tra mondo miceneo e arcaico: Aiace Telamonio e gli arcieri locresi”, Sileno 31, 275�286.

��. 2006, “La Grecia tra il Bronzo Medio e il Bronzo Tardo: l’armamento di Aiace e il duo guerriero”, in D. Morandi Bonacossi – E. Rova – F. Veronese – P. Zano-vello Eds., Tra Oriente e Occidente, Studi in Onore di E. Di Filippo Balestrazzi, Padova, 265�289.

��. 2007, “Aiace, eroe frainteso,” in A. Coppola Ed., Eroi eroismi eroizzazioni, Atti del Convegno (Padova ottobre 2006), Padova, 101�112.

��. 2010, “Lo scontro delle immagini iconografie e ideologie del duello nel mondo miceneo”, in A. Camerotto – R. Drusi Eds., Il nemico necessario. Duelli al sole e duelli in ombra tra le parole e il sangue. Atti dell’incontro di Studio, Venezia, 17-18 dicembre 2008 (Quaderni del Dipartimento di Scienze dell’antichità e del Vicino Oriente – Università Ca’ Foscari Venezia 6), Padova, 61–87.

Greco A. – Cultraro M. 2007, “When Tradition Goes Arm in Arm with Innovation: Some Reflections on the Mycenaean Warfare”, in AAVV., Arms and Armour through the Ages (from the Bronze Age to Late Antiquity), (ANODOS, Studies of the Ancient World, 4–5, 2004–2005), 45�60.

Hainsworth B. 1993, The Iliad: a Commentary, Vol. III, Books 9–12, Cambridge. Hiller S. 1990, “The Miniature Frieze in the West House � Evidence for Minoan

Poetry?”, in D. A. Hardy � C. G. Doumas � J. A. Sakellarakis � P. M. Warren Eds., Thera and the Aegean World III. Vol. 1: Archaeology. Proceedings of the Third International Congress, Santorini, Greece, 3–9 September 1989, London. 229–236.

��. 1996, “Knossos and Pylos. A Case of Special Relationship?”, Cretan Studies 5, 73–83.

��. 1999, Scenes of Warfare and Combat in the Art of Aegean Late Bronze Age. Reflections on Typology and Development, in R. Laffineur Ed., POLEMOS. Le contexte guerrier en Égée a l’Age du Bronze, Actes de la VII Rencontre Egéenne Internationale, Liège 14–17 avril 1998, (Aegaeum 19), Liège, 319�330.

Immerwahr S.A. 1990, Aegean Painting in the Bronze Age, University Park, Penn-sylvania.

Janko R. 1994, The Iliad: a Commentary, Vol. IV: Books 13–16, Cambridge 1992. Kirk G.S 1962, The Song of Homer, Cambridge. ��. 1976, Homer and the Oral Tradition, Cambridge, 1976. ��. 1990, The Iliad: a Commentary, Vol. I, Books 1–4, Cambridge. Kontorli-Papadopuoluo L. 1999, “Fresco Fighting-scenes as Evidence for Warlike

Activities in the LBA Aegean”, in R. Laffineur Ed., POLEMOS. Le contexte guerrier en Égée a l’Age du Bronze, Actes de la VII Rencontre Egéenne Interna-tionale, Liège 14–17 avril 1998, (Aegaeum 19), Liège, 331–339.

Kopcke G. 1999, “Male Iconography on Some Late Minoan Signets”, in R. Laffi-neur Ed., POLEMOS. Le contexte guerrier en Égée a l’Age du Bronze, Actes de la VII Rencontre Egéenne Internationale, Liège 14–17 avril 1998, (Aegaeum 19), Liège, 341�346.

Krattenmaker K. 1995, “Palace, Peak and Sceptre: The Iconography of Legitimacy”, in P. Rehak Ed., The Role of the Ruler in the Prehistoric Aegean. Proceedings of a Panel Discussion presented at the Annual Meeting of the Archaeological Institute of America, New Orleans, Louisiana, 28 December 1992 (Aegaeum 11), Liège 49–62.


Laffineur R. 1983, “Early Mycenaean Art: Some Evidence from the West House in Thera”, Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies 30, 111�122.

��. 1983, “Mycenaeans at Thera: Further Evidence?”, in R. Hägg � N. Marinatos Eds., The Minoan Thalassocracy: Myth and Reality. Proceedings of the Third International Symposium at the Swedish Institute in Athens, 31 May – 5 June, 1982, Göteborg, 133�139.

��. 1990, “Composition and perspective in Theran wall-paintings”, in D. Hardy � C. Doumas � J. Sakellarakis � P. Warren Eds., Thera and the Aegean World III. Vol. 1: Archaeology. Proceedings of the Third International Congress, Santorini, Greece, 3–9 September 1989, London, 246�250.

��. 1999, “De Mycènes a Homère. Réflexions sur l’iconographie guerrière mycé-nienne”, in R. Laffineur Ed., POLEMOS. Le contexte guerrier en Égée a l’Age du Bronze, Actes de la VII Rencontre Egéenne Internationale, Liège 14–17 avril 1998, (Aegaeum 19), Liège, 313�330.

��. 2007a, “Building for Ruling. Architecture and Power at Mycenae”, in J. Driessen � K. van Lerberghe Eds., Power and Architecture: Monumental Public Architecture in the Bronze Age Near East and Aegean (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 156), Leuven, 117�127.

��. 2007b, “Homeric Similes: A Bronze Age Background?”, in S. Morris, � R. Laffineur Eds., Epos: Reconsidering Greek Epic and Aegean Bronze Age Archae-ology. Proceedings of the 11th International Aegean Conference / 11e Rencontre égéenne internationale, Los Angeles 20–23 April 2006 (Aegaeum 28), Liège�Austin, 79�85.

Langdon S. 2008, Art and Identity in Dark Age Greece, 1100�700 B.C.E., Cam-bridge.

Lemos I. 2000, “Songs for Heroes: the Lack of Images in Early Greece”, in K. Rut-ter � B. A. Sparkes Eds., Word and Image in Ancient Greece (Edinburgh Leven-tis Studies I), Edinburgh, 11�21.

Liverani M. 1988, Antico Oriente, Roma�Bari. ��. 1990, Prestige and Interest: International Relations in the Near East ca. 1600–

1100 BC, Padova. Lorimer. H. L. 1950, Homer and the Monuments, London. Mikrakis M. 2013, “The Destruction of the Mycenaean Palaces and the Construction

of the Epic World. Performative Perspectives”, in J. Driessen Ed., Destruction. Archaeological, philological and historical perspectives, Luvain, 221–242.

Maran 2007, “Potnios Aner”, in E. Alram-Stern � G. Nightingale Eds., KEIMELION The Formation of Elites and Elitists Lifestyles from Mycenaean Palatial Times to the Homeric Period, Akten des Internationalen Kongresse vom 3 bis 5 Februar 2005 in Salzburg, Wien, 285–297.

Marinatos S. 1973, “From the Miniature Fresco of Thera: A Detail of the Body-shield”, Athens Annals of Archaeology 6, 494�497.

Merkelbach R. 1959, Aiante, Glotta, 38, 268 e ss. Morgan L. 1988, The Miniature Wall Paintings of Thera. A Study in Aegean Culture

and Iconography, Cambridge. Morris I. 1986, The Use and Abuse of Homer, Classical Antiquity, 5, 81�138. ��. 1997, “Homer and the Iron Age”, in J. Morris � Barry Powell Eds., A New Com-

panion to Homer (Mnemosyne Suppl. 163), Leiden, 535-559.


Morris S. 1989, “A Tale of Two Cities: The Miniature Frescoes from Thera and the Origins of Greek Poetry”, America Journal of Archaeology 93.4, 511–535.

��. 1992, “Prehistoric Iconography and Historical Sources: Hindsight through Texts?”, in R. Laffineur � J. L. Crowley Eds. EIKON. Aegean Bronze Age Icono-graphy: Shaping a Methodology. 4th International Aegean Conference, Univer-sity of Tasmania, Hobart, 6–9 April 1992 (Aegaeum 8), Liège, 205�212.

Murray A.T. 1924, Homer. The Iliad with an English Translation Cambridge. Muehlestein H. 1967, “Le nom des deux Aiax”, Studi Micenei ed Egeoanatolici 2,

41� 52. Niemeier, W.-D. 1986. “Zur Deutung des Thronraumes im Palast von Knossos”,

Athenische Mitteilungen 101, 63–95. ��. 1987, “On the Function of the ‘Throne Room’ in the Palace at Knossos”, in R.

Hägg � N. Marinatos Eds., The Function of the Minoan Palaces. Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium at the Swedish Institute in Athens, 10–16 June, 1984, (Swedish Institute in Athens, Series in 4°, 35), Stockholm, 163–168.

Page L. D. 1955, History and the Homeric Iliad, Los Angeles. Papadopoulos A. 2008, “I need a Hero: Iconography and Identity in Late Bronze

Age Aegean”, in B. Molloy – A. Papadopoulos Eds., The Experiential Role of Violence and Combat in the Creation of Social Identities, the Sixth World Archa-eological Congress on 3rd July 2008 at University College Dublin, online pu-blication.

Parry A. 1971, The Making of Homeric Verse, Oxford, 1971. Rehak P. 1995, “Enthroned Figures in Aegean Art and the Function of the

Mycenaean Megaron”, in P. Rehak Ed., The Role of the Ruler in the Prehistoric Aegean. Proceedings of a Panel Discussion presented at the Annual Meeting of the Archaeological Institute of America, New Orleans, Louisiana, 28 December 1992 (Aegaeum 11) Liège, 95�118.

Rehak P. 1999, “The Mycenaean “Warrior Goddess” revisited”, in R. Laffineur Ed., POLEMOS. Le contexte guerrier en Égée a l’Age du Bronze, Actes de la VII Rencontre Egéenne Internationale, Liège 14–17 avril 1998, (Aegaeum 19), Liège, 227–239.

Reusch H. 1958. “Zum Wandschmuck des Thronsaales in Knossos”, in E. Grumach Ed., Minoica. Festschrift zum 80. Geburtstag von Johannes Sun-dwall, Berlin, 334–358.

Sacconi A. 1960, “II Mito nel Mondo Miceneo”, Parola del Passato 15, 161–187. Singor H.W. 1995, “Eni protoisi machestai: some remarks in the Iliadic image of the

battlefield”, in P. Crielaard Ed., HOMERIC QUESTIONS: Essay in Philology, Ancient History and Archaology, Amsterdam, 183–200.

Shaw M. C. 1982, “Ship Cabins of the Bronze Age Aegean”, The International Journal of Nautical Archaeology and Underwater Exploration 11.1, 53�58.

Shear I. M. 2004, Kingship in the Mycenaean World and its Reflections in the oral Tradition, Philadelphia.

Sherratt E.S. 1990, “Reading the Texts: Archaeology and the Homeric Question”, Antiquity 64, 807�824.

Snodgrass A. 1980, “Towards the Interpretation of the Geometric Figure-Scenes”, Athenische Mitteilungen 95, 51�58


��. 2000, “The Uses of Writing on Early Greek Painted Pottery”, in K. Rutter � B. A. Sparkes Eds., Word and Image in Ancient Greece (Edinburgh Leventis Studies I), Edinburgh, 22�34.

Stagakis G. 1967, “89�4: in the Iliad”, Historia 16, 414–421. ��. 1975a, “The Aiantes Who They Are”, in G. Stagakis, Studies in the Homeric

society, Historia Einzelschriften 26, 24–40. ��. 1975b, “The Two Ajax: a Study of the Documentary Evidence”, in G. Stagakis

Ed., Studies in Homeric Society, Historia Einzelschriften, 26, 41–64. Thomas C. G. 1992, “Aegean Bronze Age Iconography: Poetic Art?”, in R. Laf-

fineur � J.L. Crowley Eds., EIKON. Aegean Bronze Age Iconography: Shaping a Methodology. 4th International Aegean Conference, University of Tasmania, Hobart, 6–9 April 1992 (Aegaeum 8). Liège, 213�220.

Van Leuven J. 1996, “The Nilssonian Origin of Mycenaean Mythology”, in E. De Miro � L. Godart � A. Sacconi Eds., Atti e memorie del secondo Congresso in-ternazionale di micenologia, Roma–Napoli, 14–20 ottobre 1991. Vol. 2: Storia (Incunabula Graeca 98), Rome, 923�938.

Vermeule E. 1964, Greece in the Bronze Age, Chicago. Younger J. 1995, “The Iconography of Rulership in the Aegean: a Conspectus”, in

P. Rehak Ed., The Role of the Ruler in the Prehistoric Aegean, Proceedings of a panel discussion presented at the annual meeting of the Archaeological institute of America, New Orleans, Louisiana, 28 December 1992 (Aegaeum 11), Liege, 151�211.

Warren P.M. 1979, “The Miniature Fresco from the West House at Akrotiri, Thera, and its Aegean Setting”, Journal of Hellenic Studies 99, 115�129.

Weingarten J. 1999, “War Scenes and Ruler Iconography in a Golden Age: Some Lessons on Missing Minoan Themes from the United Provinces (17th c A.D.)”, in R. Laffineur Ed., POLEMOS. Le contexte guerrier en Égée a l’Age du Bron-ze, Actes de la VII Rencontre Egéenne Internationale, Liège 14–17 avril 1998 (Aegaeum 19), Liège, 347�357.

Whallon W. 1966, “The shield of Ajax”, Yale Classical Studies 19, 1966, 7�36. ��. 1969, Formula, Character and Context, studies in Homeric, Old English, and

Old Testament poetry, Cambridge Mass. Wright J.C. 1987, “Death and Power at Mycenae: Changing Symbols in Mortuary

Practice”, in R. Laffineur Ed., Thanatos: les coutumes funeraires en egee a l'age du bronze: Actes du colloque de Liège (21–23 avril 1986) (Aegaeum 1), Liège, 171�184.

THE ART OF PROPAGANDA IN AEGEAN ICONOGRAPHY: WHEN ART MUST BE SUNG

Documents

Transcript of THE ART OF PROPAGANDA IN AEGEAN ICONOGRAPHY: WHEN ART MUST BE SUNG