Opuscula Atheniensia 29, 2004

Abstract

Previous studies of the development of narrative in the Geometricperiod have revolved around questions regarding the existence ofmythological narratives and the artistic origins of narrative images.Discoveries of new images from the 10th through the early 8th cen-turies during the past few decades have complicated these discus-sions about the development of narrative and pushed back the dateof the earliest representations of human action. By considering nar-rative as a discourse and analyzing the circumstances of artisticproduction, viewer response, viewing context, and visual language,it is possible to suggest that narrative art in Crete and Athens wereindependent phenomena that met local needs in distinct ways.

One of the more debated issues about Geometric pictorialart is the emergence of pictorial narrative. How one definesnarrative itself determines whether one sees narrative asemerging in the Orientalizing period, following an experi-mental period of “proto-narrative” in the Late Geometricperiod, or as emerging in the Geometric period itself. Notonly when narrative art appears, but also its point of originand potential sources are much debated and conclusions areagain shaped by one’s point of view regarding artistic inspi-ration and influence, whether from Bronze Age artifacts,Near Eastern or Egyptian images, or epic poetry. I wouldlike to sidestep this debate to some degree by focusing onnarrative images before the Late Geometric period, from thetenth to the first third of the eighth century. By looking atthe limited examples from this period, we can explorewhether a more multi-dimensional model based on dis-course is appropriate for explaining the emergence of ex-amples of pictorial narrative, and whether the particularcontexts for Protogeometric and Geometric narrative im-ages stimulated and shaped as well as limited their develop-ment.

It is clear that in the late Bronze Age there was a flourish-ing and widespread narrative art.

1

It appeared in a variety ofmedia, including mural paintings, gems, and pottery, andwas also found in a variety of contexts, including palacesand tombs, public and private spaces. While the style of nar-rative scenes in pottery was different from those of the mu-ral painters, they shared a similar visual language of signsand structure in their narratives. Thus, the viewers andartists of the late Bronze Age had a common pictorial lan-

guage that allowed for a narrative discourse to take place. Itis also apparent that in the succeeding period figural repre-sentations declined dramatically in number and quality, andnarrative scenes almost, but did not quite, disappear.

2

Thepublic contexts that had displayed narrative were no longerextant, and smaller scale production, including pottery, dis-continued narrative as a regular element of its repertory.The relative explosion in the Late Geometric period in thedeployment of the human figure, and of narrative particu-larly, after a long hiatus is an eye-catching event, for whichone naturally seeks a cause.

To begin, I should make explicit the assumption thatGeometric pictorial scenes, such as the scene of two war-riors on the leg of a stand in Toronto, do constitute pictorialnarratives (

Fig. 1

).

3

To define narrative, it is important toexamine its most basic structural level. In this case it isnecessary for a picture to show an action, or nucleus, that is“open-ended with a plausible range of events that precedeand follow it”.

4

In this case, each warrior is striking at theother. They have clearly prepared beforehand for battle, asindicated by their armor and helmets, and must presumablyhave some reason for fighting. The match seems equal inthe present moment, but the viewer can easily imagine arange of possible conclusions, whether victory for one sideor a stalemate. The specificity and discreteness that onefinds in a mythological narrative do not exist here, but that

AcknowledgementsMy thanks to the Swedish Institute for inviting me to participate inthe seminar, and especially to Berit Wells and Eva Rystedt for theirsupport and discussion. I would also like to thank the participantsof the seminar for helping to refine my discussion, particularly SueLangdon. Thanks to the Royal Ontario Museum in Toronto, theBritish School at Athens, and the Metropolitan Museum of Art forpermission to reproduce the illustrations. Additional funding forthis project was also provided by my institution, the University ofSt. Thomas.

1

For an excellent discussion of Bronze Age narration and biblio-graphy, see Cain 2001.

2

See the discussion at Hurwit 1985, 54, who describes potters aslosing the market, purpose, and inspiration for pictures.

3

Langdon 1993, 120–121, no. 37 with earlier bibliography.

4

Stansbury-O’Donnell 1999, 35.

THE DEVELOPMENT OF GEOMETRIC PICTORIAL NARRATIVE AS DISCOURSE

MARK STANSBURY-O’DONNELL

248

Mark Stansbury-O’Donnell

is not a precondition for narrative, only a refinement or re-striction of the type of narrative. With this definition inmind, one can find examples of pictorial narrative beforethe Late Geometric, pushing back the focus of the questionof its origins in both time and place, and potentially in moti-vation as well.

5

Broadly speaking, theories regarding the development ofpictorial narrative propose a single explanation for its ap-pearance. This includes its outright invention by the artist,whether from purely internal inspiration or instinct, the

tabula rasa

theory. As J. Hurwit has so well discussed thisquestion of origins, a variation on the

tabula rasa

theory isto see artistic inspiration springing from the transformationof forms such as ornament into figures, or arising from thefunction of the object and the world in which it is used.

6

Asecond type of explanation, the artistic precursor, sees thereappearance of narrative as the result of the imitation ofother sources, whether heirlooms of the Bronze Age, con-temporary discoveries of Bronze Age artifacts, imported orobserved figural art from the Near East or Egypt, or the im-pact of contemporary literature, particularly the epic poetryof Homer. Usually proponents of each theory see a singlestimulus for the origin of narrative art, although additionalfactors may creep into the development of the narrative pic-ture later. As Hurwit points out, however, these theories fo-cus on how narrative art was developed, but not why. Fur-thermore, in each case, there is a common assumption thatartists act independently out of artistic or aesthetic princi-ples and that the figure is born either out of the direct reve-lation to or the inspiration of the artist.

Searching for a single origin or stimulus, however, is toosimple; the growing number of artifacts with pictorial narra-tive from the 10th and 9th centuries, including a new ex-ample from the Argolid presented in this volume by E.Pappi, undermine its assumptions. I would like to advocatefor a more multi-dimensional approach, one that has foundsome advocates in recent literature, that the “invention” offigural representation, and by extension of narrative, is anamalgamation of Bronze age, Near Eastern, and localsources, partly artistic inspiration and partly patron de-mand.

7

The social and cultural conditions that led to the de-velopment of Homer may have also stimulated the develop-ment of pictorial narrative, but it is not likely that literaturedirectly inspired the artists, particularly before the mid-eighth century.

8

Without a single cause for its creation, it isless likely that there is a single point of origin from whichall other examples derive in a linear, progressive, and evolu-tionary manner.

To explore this initial development of narrative morefully, it is important to keep in mind that pictorial narrativeis a discourse. While an artist, say a Phoenician metal-worker, may intend to tell a story through a figural represen-tation on bronze objects such as those found at Lefkandi,Athens, and Crete, that story may be unknown to a Greekviewer, who would substitute another story in its place.

9

While this is a discourse of a sort, it is actually two differentnarratives being constructed, with the viewer becoming anew storyteller, although utilizing the basic structural prop-erties of the original. To be effective as a discourse, a narra-

tive must instead suppose both an artist and a viewer, bothof whom share a common visual language with a range ofexpression and whose culture provides a need or place oroccasion for the exchange of the story.

10

If these conditionsdo not exist, as may happen with a Phoenician bowl inGreece, then narrative as a discourse cannot be said to existexcept in the most limited and partial sense, and not as ashared cultural experience. It is in the terms of this dis-course and its context that we need to consider the develop-ment of pictorial narrative in the Protogeometric and Geo-metric periods.

To explore the level of visual language during the EarlyIron Age, let us consider further this aspect of a Greekviewer looking at a Phoenician bowl or a Bronze Age arti-fact, with a pictorial narrative on it. Even though the tradi-tion of figural imagery was no longer as popular in the tenthcentury and later as it had been in the Bronze Age, this doesnot mean that a Greek viewer of the 9th or 8th century wasincapable of constructing a narrative when looking at a rep-resentation. The

Iliad

mentions objects of foreign manufac-ture, showing an awareness of their origin and specific qual-ities. The Shield of Achilles, while a fictional creation, hasaffinities with the structural qualities of both contemporaryvase painting and Near Eastern metalwork and clearly

5

Stansbury-O’Donnell 1999, 44–49 on generic narrative in theGeometric period.

6

Hurwit 1985, 65–69. For specific theories and discussion seeColdstream 1968a, 26–28; Benson 1970; Carter 1972; Kopcke1977; R.M. Cook 1983; Coldstream 1991; Snodgrass 1998, 12–39.

7

See Coldstream 1980, 67; Langdon 1993, 184 (on Cypro-Geo-metric); Boardman 1999, 78.

8

On the question of Homer, see most recently Snodgrass 1998, 12–39. See also Hurwit 1993.

9

For examples of Near Eastern figured bowls at Lefkandi, see

Lefkandi

III, pls. 133 and 134; at Athens, see Hurwit 1985, fig. 31;at Crete and in general, see Boardman 1999, 54–84.

10

On these aspects as part of the narrative “macro-structure”, seeStansbury-O’Donnell 1999, 70–79 and 92–102.

Fig. 1. Attic MG-II foot from a pot stand with two warriors fighting,

c

. 800–760 B.C. Toronto, Royal Ontario Museum (957

×

245). (After Langdon 1993, no. 37.)

The development of Geometric pictorial narrative as discourse

249

shows the ability of viewers of the later 8th century, poetand audience alike, of being able to imagine together a com-plex picture and to construct a sequential series of eventssurrounding it.

11

While of a later period than the objects dis-cussed below, such viewing habits would not develop over-night and a basic level of deciphering skills surely con-tinued to exist after the Bronze Age and into the Geometricperiod.

What is characteristic of this period’s visual language isthat stylistically artists described only the most basic kindsof action, reducing figures to types based on their pose andmovement, as seen in

Fig. 1

. Images that do not describespecific details must result in constructed narratives that aregeneric in their quality. Even when confronted with im-ported images richer in stylistic detail, it is likely that Greekviewers would have described them still in terms of themost basic categories of human types, based mostly on ac-tion and somewhat on gender as on the Shield of Achilles,since they would not be familiar with more specific identi-ties. Thus, the level of the narrative discourse during thistime would remain fundamental, focusing upon categoriesof figures and basic types of action. To move beyond thetypical or generic in visual language, both artist and viewermust be able to elaborate upon the representation to identifyspecific individuals or situations of importance.

For this to happen, there must be a social and culturalcontext in which visual language can develop through repe-tition of viewing and of artistic manufacture. It is, therefore,not a matter of being unable to imagine or react to symbolsor representations that explains the relative absence of pic-torial narrative in the early Iron Age, but of few occasions to

do so on a regular basis or to demand their local creation.This further means that when pictorial narrative does beginto appear and, more important, reappear in a specific set-ting, we can consider aspects of the narrative discourse topropose explanations for its development. Such a proceduremight help to indicate whether there is an evolutionary dis-persal of narrative from a single source, or whether narra-tive appears concurrently and independently in several loca-tions.

To begin, we can turn to the earliest (to date) figural rep-resentation on the Greek mainland since the end of theBronze Age, a hydria from the cemetery at Lefkandi (

Fig.2

).

12

On the shoulder of this vase we see two seated archerswho have fit arrows to their bows. The figures are verysticklike in their conception, but the important parts of thefigures and their action read clearly enough, even if they areonly at the most rudimentary level. The zig-zag decorationon the vase has been described as earlier than would be ex-pected from a date around the year 1000, and spectrographicanalysis reveals that the vase was not made at Lefkandi, butprobably elsewhere in the region. These facts suggest thatthe production of the vase may have departed from the nor-mal course of acquisition and might well be a special cir-cumstance. If so, then one would expect that the artist andpatron had recourse only to the most basic actions toachieve their purpose.

11

On the Shield of Achilles see Stansbury-O’Donnell 1995, Snod-grass 1998, 40–45, and Stansbury-O’Donnell 1999, 42–44.

12

Lefkandi

I, 127–128 (S Tomb 51), 348, and pls. 106, 210, 270;Hurwit 1985, 53; Boardman 1998, 15 and fig. 15.

Fig. 2. Euboean MPG hydria from Lefkandi with two archers,

c

. 1000 B.C. Eretria, Lefk S51/2.(Drawing, after

Lefkandi

I, pl. 106.)

250

Mark Stansbury-O’Donnell

It is also unlikely, looking at the structure of the scene,that there is a deliberate copy of another work. Whilearchers exist in both Mycenaean and Near Eastern art, typi-cal of these battle scenes is that the opponents do not mirrorone another, but vary in their action or reaction.

13

This per-mits one to deduce a more aggressive figure, whom we as-sume will win, even if no blows have yet been struck. Whatis striking about the nucleus of this scene is its completesymmetry and balance between the two actors. Which fig-ure will win is impossible to determine, although both fig-ures seem resolute in their purpose.

This figural scene remains unique at Lefkandi, althoughthere are other examples of special productions such as thewell-known centaur and the very large krater from theheroon. There is also a later, ninth-century ship representa-tion from a fragmentary pyxis published without descriptionin

Lefkandi

III

.

14

It is possible that this representation andfuture finds will show that pictorial representation was morecommon than we think at Lefkandi, or in mainland Greece.Based on the examples to date, however, it is hard to speakof a narrative discourse being constructed at Lefkandi. Thatthe Lefkandi hydria was not of local manufacture introducesa discontinuity between narrator on the one hand and theviewer and viewer’s context on the other, that makes the de-velopment of a common language difficult to discern. Thevase was also buried in a grave, and so was no longer seenby the community, cutting off the potential for a sustainedviewing context and dialogue. This early hydria, however,does confirm that the ability to conceptualize action in im-ages and to develop a rudimentary, generic, but compre-hensible representation of that action was available duringthe Protogeometric period.

We are on firmer ground for the early existence of picto-rial narrative in Crete. Several vases from graves aroundKnossos of the 10th and 9th centuries suggest that a steadiercontext for figural imagery existed in Crete. An early Proto-geometric krater from Teke Tomb F

shows a hunt scenespread over two sides of the krater.

15

On the main side is ahunter at the left, ready to toss a spear. To the right is a largegoat that has a similar spear already in its back. On the otherside of the vertical, ornamented band are three more ani-mals, a bird, a deer, and perhaps a dog. Behind the dog andon the other side of the vase is a second hunter, armed witha spear and likely carrying a net, moving in the direction ofthe other hunter. While it is impossible to see the full com-position at once, the elements work together as part of asingle representation, as J.N. Coldstream has pointed out,and should be regarded as an extraordinarily early exampleof unified narrative.

16

While the scene is generic, it is note-worthy in that it shows the two figures working together aspart of a group. Given the tradition of chamber tombs thatwere frequently used for more than one burial, the depictionof two hunters may be of significance in emphasizing therole of the deceased as a part of the community. Structur-ally, the scene has affinities with both Bronze Age and NearEastern hunting scenes, particularly bronze stands fromCyprus, and there may well be an effort to heroize the deadin a manner consistent with the Bronze Age heirlooms. Still,there is no comparandum that fully matches the scene, espe-

cially in its deployment of a unified narrative over three-quarters of the vase’s surface. The vase seems to be a re-markable blend of visual sources, artistic ingenuity, andcommunity practices.

While the funerary context for the Teke krater is similarat first glance to the Lefkandi hydria, the nature of chambertombs and group burials means that the funerary art in Creteexisted as part of a more public context that could be seenperiodically. There would be an expectation for furtherviewing at some point in the future when the tomb wasopened for another burial. The krater, while possibly show-ing influence of older and distant models, was also pro-duced locally in a style consistent with other vase painting,so that it was clearly meant to be seen as contemporary, arefreshed tradition at best.

That the Cretan vase is not unique as at Lefkandi is seenin the existence of non-narrative figural decoration on othervases and in the appearance of a later narrative scene of thesame general theme. On a late Protogeometric krater fromKnossos we see a man caught between two lions (

Fig. 3

).

17

This is a theme that reoccurs afterward in the Late Geo-metric period, but has no exact parallel in either Mycenaeanor Near Eastern pictures. Lion attacks are known, but gener-ally the hunter remains upright, sometimes forcing the lionupright as well, as in the master of animals motif. The factthat the hunter, who pushes a sword toward the left lion, ishorizontal changes the structure of the picture significantly,in that the lion is now in the position of power and menace,while the human is in a pose associated with the loss ofpower, through death, sleep, or illness.

18

The closest struc-tural parallel is of two lions devouring a bull or other preybetween them. While there are late Bronze Age and NearEastern precedents for the scene, the painter here has re-ordered them structurally into a new narrative in which aman falls heroically to two lions.

Perhaps we should consider this as a response to theneeds of the representation itself as a funerary image. Thefact to be derived from the vase’s existence in a tomb is thata man is dead, perhaps as a result of a failed hunt.

19

Preda-tors posed not only a challenge to the hero, but also repre-sented more broadly threats to the livestock of a communityand its prosperity. Protecting that resource called for vigi-lant action by members of the community, and it could be

13

On the question of Mycenaean sources, see

Lefkandi

I, 127–128.Osborne 1996, 43 points out that there is little evidence of exten-sive outside contacts at Lefkandi at this time, but not a centurylater.

14

The centaur:

Lefkandi

I, 168–170, and pls. 251–252

et passim

.The krater:

Lefkandi

II.1, 25–26 and 110, no. 327, and pls. 54–56.The birds and ship:

Lefkandi

III, pls. 94 (3), 107 (Sq. XVI,3),126(e).

15

Herakleion, Teke Tomb F. See Coldstream 1980, 71–73; Cold-stream 1991, 43–44; Boardman 1998, 16 and fig. 22.

16

On unified narrative see Stansbury-O’Donnell 1999, 137–139,borrowing the term from H.A. Shapiro.

17

Herakleion. See Sackett 1976; Coldstream 1980, 68–70; Cold-stream 1991, 44–45; Snodgrass 1998, 14; Boardman 1998, 16.

18

See Vermeule 1979, 105 for a discussion of this inversion.

19

For the potential of a biographical approach to the study of Geo-metric pottery, see Langdon 2001.

The development of Geometric pictorial narrative as discourse

251

that the painter is suggesting that only by being outnum-bered did this hunter succumb to his opponents, maintaininghis status while acknowledging his death on behalf of thecommunity.

As R. Osborne has pointed out, the figural decoration ofCretan Protogeometric art shows humans and their contactwith the natural world, with little sign of mythology or out-right fantasy about it.

20

This is also true of the narrativescenes, which focus on hunting. While it is hazardous togeneralize from so few examples, the circumstances inCrete suggest a different context for narrative than atLefkandi and allow a tentative hypothesis regarding its ap-pearance, to be tested against future archaeological finds.First, there is in Crete a consistent limitation in both the fig-ural imagery and the narrative subject. Second, there is apublic context for the images inside the chamber tombs,which could be periodically reopened for new burials.These factors suggest the framework of a narrative dis-course within the community that permitted some variationsof expression and details, but also maintained a constancyof purpose. Through hunting scenes, narrative and figuralimagery emphasized the role of the deceased in the commu-nity in which they lived and continuity with succeedinggenerations. Under these circumstances, narrative did notrequire an individual to be identified specifically since itemphasized the role within the community, and the mini-malist style of the pottery was quite capable of effectivelyconveying the importance of the action and its actors overan extended period of time.

21

The limited opportunities forproduction and for viewing, however, restricted the oppor-tunity for increasing the complexity and range of narrativeimages during this period.

Athens is the other center where pictorial narrative ap-pears in multiple examples before the Late Geometric pe-riod. Horses had already appeared as decoration on funeraryamphorae during the Protogeometric period, and the firsthuman figure, an isolated mourner, is added during theMiddle Geometric Ia period.

22

On a cup from the Kera-meikos and dating to the first quarter of the eighth century,we find two human figures with a horse in the earliest extantAttic scene in which the figures interact with each other in anarrative.

23

The picture shows generally a horse-taming, andit continues the aristocratic association of horses, their pos-session and control, with funerary art. In this sense, thescene represents a logical extension of the earlier symbolicemphasis on the horse as a way of distinguishing the aristo-

cratic members of the Attic community. As J. Whitley hasargued, such a change in figural representation may have todo with the adoption by other classes of Attic society of ear-lier funerary imagery that had signaled distinction of anelite, forcing the elite as patrons to seek ever new forms ofrepresentation to express their status.

24

Demonstrations ofartistic skill and control fulfill such an intention, as does ex-panded subject matter, and we might imagine a small groupof patrons working with one or two artists or workshops indeveloping the incorporation of narrative into the funeraryrepertory.

Adding simple narrative to the repertory, however, wasnot enough to maintain the social distinction of individualsvia imagery once that imagery became more widespread.What distinguishes Middle Geometric II narrative in Athensis the rapid expansion of the narrative repertory over thenext quarter century. In a skyphos from Eleusis we find twoscenes, a ship with archer and helmsman and a battle overtwo fallen warriors.

25

The idea here is not a specific battle,but of the activities of the deceased and the distinction ofthe deceased within the community. Exactly what sign, ifany, represents the deceased is more problematic. If the in-tention were to honor someone fallen in battle, the subjectmatter would be quite appropriate as a grave good, remind-ing the deceased of his encounter and fate. However, mak-ing the deceased one of the corpses on the field would admitto his failure in battle, while also demonstrating his worth inthe recovery of his body and his armor. Given the lack ofspecificity in the figures, however, it is also possible to seethe deceased as one of the fighting warriors. Interestingly,like the Lefkandi hydria, the battle here is evenly balancedand it is impossible to determine a specific outcome from arange of possibilities. This ambivalence helps to overcomethe problem that identifying a winner and a loser has withregard to the deceased, in that the emphasis is simultane-ously upon both heroic action and heroic death. Identifica-tion of the deceased with generalized heroic action over-looks the specific and necessary fact of death apparent inthe context of the work. The neutrality of the Geometricstyle avoids this potential problem of specific identity.

The problem of celebrating both the deeds of the individ-ual as well as the honor due to the social position of the de-ceased leads to further developments in subject matter. On amonumental krater in New York we see more narrativescenes, repeated on each side of the vase (

Fig. 4

).

26

Between

20

Osborne 1996, 131.

21

See the discussion in Farengo 1998, 187.

22

Protogeometric horse: Athens, Kerameikos 560; see Hurwit1985, fig. 25. First mourner: Athens, Kerameikos 1254; see Cold-stream 1968a, 20–21; Hurwit 1985, 64; Osborne 1996, 134.

23

Athens, Kerameikos 2159. See Stansbury-O’Donnell 1999, 36–37 with earlier bibliography.

24

Whitley 1991a, 45–53 and 138–144.

25

Eleusis 741. See Stansbury-O’Donnell 1995, 327–329 with ear-lier bibliography; see also Coldstream 1968a, 26–28 and Stans-bury-O’Donnell 1999, 36–37.

26

New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art, 34.11.2. For a detaileddescription and complete set of views see Marwitz 1961a, with ear-lier bibliography. See also Richter 1934; Kirk 1949, 99, no. 6;Davison 1968, 110, 112–113 and 130; Coldstream 1968a, 26–28;

Fig. 3. Cretan LPG krater from Knossos with lions attackinghunter,

c

. 870–850 B.C. Herakleion. (Drawing, after Sackett 1976,fig. 5.)

252

Mark Stansbury-O’Donnell

the handles we see the earliest prothesis scene in Attic art,with the deceased on a bier with grave goods in the upperpart of the picture and mourners in a line below. On thefrieze below the handles is a ship to the left side with war-riors fighting on its deck; to the right a line of shielded war-riors with two spears march in strict order away from theship around the side of the vase. We actually have two sep-arate scenes in the frieze, one of battle and one of marching.Like the stand in Toronto by the same artist (see

Fig. 1

), thefighting on the ship is mostly balanced, but quite varied inweaponry, including bow and arrow, sword, and spear. Theemphasis is upon heroic action, but the lack of a corpse inthis battle, unlike the Eleusis skyphos, removes the neces-sity of associating the deceased with a defeated figure. Nextto the ship, the marching warriors mark a transition from thebattle, perhaps an invasion that successfully establishes abeachhead before marching to attack a city or another army.It also resembles an honorific procession such as one mightfind at a funeral, particularly that of an aristocrat and fallenhero. The marchers thus serve as a transition from the battleto the third scene of the prothesis above. By separating theprothesis as a narrative scene in the upper part of the vase,

however, the painter does not need to link the deceased di-rectly to failure in battle, but to triumph and perhaps astately return. It is possible to see the scenes below the de-ceased as recalling his triumph, even if they, in fact, alsomarked his demise.

What distinguishes the development of narrative in AtticGeometric art from Crete is the increase in the range of sub-jects and the complexity of narrative scenes and their com-bination over a relatively short period. If the vases contain-ing the narratives were connected with the aristocracy, asseems likely, then it seems the purpose of Attic narrativediffered from Cretan pictures in that Attic images empha-

Benson 1970, 81, 88, 99–101; Ahlberg 1971b, 27–29 and fig. 28–30; Ahlberg 1971a, 25 and fig. 1; Schweitzer 1971, 39–40; Schäfer1983, 76; Hurwit 1985, 95–96; Rombos 1988, 421–422, no. 76

etpassim

; Coldstream 1991, 46–47; Whitley 1991a, 138–139. Thedating of this and the Eleusis skyphos range from the later 9th cen-tury to the late 8th century (see Marwitz). The rareness of figuraldecoration in the early 8th century makes any conclusion tentative,but features such as the fluid and rubbery depiction of the figuresand the lack of a groundline indicate an early and still experimentaldate in the Middle Geometric.

Fig. 4. Attic MG-II krater withprothesis, ship battle, andmarching warriors,

c

. 770 B.C.New York, The MetropolitanMuseum of Art, Fletcher Fund,1934 (34.11.2). Photo courtesythe Metropolitan Museum ofArt.

The development of Geometric pictorial narrative as discourse

253

sized the distinction of an elite group within the society.

27

Such a distinction was probably apparent in the actual cere-monies performed for the deceased, but the more permanentreminders of that status found expression in figural imagery.However, as new images became more widespread andcommon, numerically and socially, the need to distinguishthe elite made it necessary to develop more new imagerythat would serve that purpose, at least over a short timespan. Gradually the Geometric style could only go so far todistinguish the human figure, and it became necessary even-tually to find other means to achieve the purpose of distin-guishing the patron. In a way, the successful early develop-ment of Attic Geometric narrative eventually signaled itsown demise in the last part of the 8th century.

28

To conclude, narrative discourse may be said to have ex-

isted in both Crete and Athens during the 10th to the early8th centuries. The priority of Crete is fairly clear, althoughits development and history are somewhat less well knownthan Athens. What one may propose, however, is that therole of narrative was different in the two places. In Crete,narrative explored the common needs of the community andthe frailty and bonds of humans with nature. In Athens, nar-rative served to distinguish one group within society fromthe others, within the limits of the communal mores. Whilecontact between the two areas is witnessed throughout thisperiod, it is difficult to see that one exclusively influencedor sparked the development of the other, especially con-sidering the earlier date of Cretan narrative images.

In both Crete and Athens, and more generally whencalled upon to create a narrative image as at Lefkandi,artists seem to respond to a variety of stimuli, which may

have included Bronze Age artifacts and/or foreign imports,but only in the broadest way. These influences are com-bined with the requirements of local artistic production andthe demands of the individual patrons and, when a narrativediscourse exists, of the community and its rituals. The varia-tions in these demands and sources indicate that pictorialnarrative develops as a multi-faceted response to a specificcontext, and not as a single source or inspiration.

In this light, we should expect that new discoveries ofnarrative images from the early Iron Age may not conformto the examples known so far and that they should be firstexamined as responses to their context and function.

29

Thisalso implies that later developments in narrative art shouldnot necessarily be seen as logical and continuous extensionsof these earliest efforts, in both the Late Geometric as wellas the Orientalizing periods. The development or refinementof a narrative language and discourse will be, by nature andnecessity, a more organic process, responding as much tochanges in the environment as artistic impulse.

Mark Stansbury-O’Donnell

University of St. ThomasDepartment of History2115 Summit AvenueMail# 57PSt. Paul, MN 55105-1096U.S.A.M9STANSBURYO@stthomas.edu

27

Farengo 1998, 184–185.

28

See Osborne 1996 on the shift to sanctuary dedications.

29

See, for example, the discussion of early Argolid figural art by E.Pappi in this volume.

254

Mark Stansbury-O’Donnell