Laffineur

FROM WEST TO EAST: THE AEGEAN AND EGYPT IN THE EARLY LATE BRONZE AGE It has been Helene Kantor’s merit to confirm or simply emphasize the evidence of Aegean inf luences on Near Eastern art, offering a balance to the traditional ex Oriente lux. A summary of her suggestions and conclusions is certainly welcome before attempting to appraise the state of our knowledge after fifty years of research and finds, in a paper that will concentrate on the Egyptian side and on the beginning of the Late Bronze Age. The period has been the subject of a significant development that has culminated just a few years ago in the extraordinary finds made at Avaris/Tell el-Dabca in the Eastern Nile delta and in two conferences closely related to them.1 Helene Kantor’s contribution The inf luence from the Aegean has first to be identified in the repertory of motifs. It concerns especially several varieties of spirals. The earliest occurrences of spiral-like designs in Egypt, on scarabs from the First Intermediate Period, have an “inchoate nature which emphasizes the fact that the real rise of spiraliform design did not occur before the XIIth Dynasty,” probably under the stimulation of Cretan prototypes.2 The same holds true for simple s-spiral scrolls: they “could have developed on the basis of Middle Kingdom traditions” but “it is possible that an additional impetus for their widespread use in the New Kingdom was provided by the renewed trade with the Aegean.”3 Similar conclusions are to be drawn for interlocked C-spirals and for quadruple spiral rapports.4 The earliest examples of the latter were produced by Egyptian craftsmen independently of Crete,5 but the subsequent development of the motive in the XIIth Dynasty “must have been dependent on Minoan inf luence and example.”6 The most obvious example of Aegean inf luence is provided by the contiguous S-spirals, an all-over decoration made of contiguous rows of spirals,7 which do not appear before the reign of Hatshepsut and which “could have been derived only from the Greek mainland.”8 Further signs are the interlocked crosses9 and the interlocked T-units,10 as well as some meander designs,11 the latter giving an interesting case of adaptation: “The process of transmitting an imported spiral pattern into one formed of straight lines would have been natural to an Egyptian craftsman since rectilinear geometric designs were extremely characteristic of Old Kingdom and Middle Kingdom surface ornament;” the question would be ... of a “combination of the indigenous Egyptian tradition for rectilinear design with the newly acclimatized system of spiral ornament,” of “... indigenous variations, independently produced by Egyptian craftsmen, on spiral themes ultimately derived from the Aegean.”12

______________________ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Egypt, the Aegean and the Levant; Hyksos Egypt and the Eastern Mediterranean World. KANTOR, 23. Ibid. 56-57. Ibid. 23-26. A scarab in Ibid. pl. I, D (IXth Dynasty). Ibid. 24 and pl. III, A-J (XIIth and XIIIth Dynasties). Ibid. 59-61. Ibid. 61. Ibid. 58 and pl. X, J. Ibid. 58. Ibid. 28-30. Ibid. 28-29.

54

Robert LAFFINEUR

Next comes the inf luence on the Egyptian animal style, particularly noticeable, in the early XVIIIth Dynasty, in the adoption of the f lying gallop, an attitude that appears in a strong contradiction with the traditional convention of “earth-bound” animals, touching the ground with all four feet. The earliest example is provided by the dagger of Ahhotep, the mother of Ahmose.13 This very attitude cannot be explained just by the supposed omission of ground lines, since additional obvious signs of Aegean inf luence are observable, such as “the hollow backs of the beasts” and “the f linging of their hind legs into the air, innovations which are utterly at variance with the old Egyptian traditions”14 — and which are not present on the other alleged example on the gold-plated dagger hilt of the Hyksos king Apophis (the predecessor of Khyan), with a depiction of “f lying leap” rather than “f lying gallop”15 — as well as the typically Minoan “circumvallate representation of the landscape in which details such as rocks and vegetation are shown on all sides of the scene.”16 This is confirmed on the slightly later hunting scene in relief from the tomb of Puimre (early in the reign of Thutmose III) and its unusual concentration of innovations: the depiction of dogs on top of their prey, the swift motion, the abrupt movement of the hunting animal’s head and shoulders turned (or even twisted) backward, as well as the specific attitude of the suckling fawn, kneeling on its bent forelegs. Equivalents of the Puimre decoration are not numerous. With the exception of hunting scenes in the tomb of Rekhmire (Thutmose III/Amenhotep II) and on the dog collar from the tomb of Mahirper (under Amenhotep II) — with additional pendant rocks in the characteristic Aegean shape of “tricurved arches” — the vigorous and vivacious style of Aegean derivation finds only faint counterparts in compositions of an advanced stage in the XVIIIth Dynasty (hunting scenes in the tomb of Amenemhet, son of Dhutmosi, and in tomb 53 built for another Amenemhet, both from the reign of Thutmose III) and has completely disappeared by the XIXth Dynasty: “Although for a time Egyptian craftsmen were strongly inf luenced by the Aegean traditions of delineating swiftly galloping and leaping animals, such alien traits were not able to maintain themselves permanently in the Egyptian repertory.”17 Two observations made by Helene Kantor are worth remembering here while introducing the topic. The first is the fact that many Aegean counterparts of the above-mentioned motifs appear as ornaments on skirts or kilts of figures on wall paintings, that is on cloth, a material that is easily traded and that is consequently a well-known and favourite medium for the transmission of iconographic inf luences in later phases of Greek history. The most obvious cases are the interlocked T-motifs on the kilt of the acrobat on the gold sword pommel from Mallia18 and the interlocked crosses on the skirt of a woman on a painting from Ayia Triada,19 and we have evidence on the walls of the tomb of Menkheperrasonb that bolts of cloth were offered by Keftiu tributaries20 — not to mention the kilts worn by the tributaries themselves and their frequent ornamentation of elaborate type.21

______________________ 13 14 15

16 17 18

19 20 21

A. XENAKI-SAKELLARIOU and C. CHATZILIOU, “Peinture en métal” à l’époque mycénienne (1989) 21-22 and pl. IX, 3. KANTOR, 64. PM I 718-19 and fig. 540 (the document is mentioned in KANTOR, 64, n. 39). The image of a dog chasing a hare on a painting of the First Intermediate Period at Mealla is an isolated example of f lying gallop that has to be viewed as an anomaly; cf. Interconnections, pl. 190B. KANTOR, 71. Ibid. 71. F. CHAPOUTHIER, Mallia. Deux épées d’apparat (Études crétoises V 1938). The chronology of the swords has been the subject of a detailed examination by O. PELON, “L’épée à l’acrobate et la chronologie maliote,” BCH 106 (1982) 165-90; Idem, “L’épée à l’acrobate et la chronologie maliote (II),” BCH 107 (1983) 679-703. See the colour illustration in E.J.W. BARBER, Prehistoric Textiles (1991) Col. pl. 2. S. WACHSMANN, Aegeans in the Theban Tombs (1987) 75. J. VERCOUTTER, L’Égypte et le monde égéen préhellénique (1956) 243-89, fig. 14-99 and pl. XIV-XXVII; BARBER (supra n. 19) 330-40.

FROM WEST TO EAST: THE AEGEAN AND EGYPT IN THE EARLY LBA

55

The second observation relates to the area in the Aegean where most of the models come from. If “the greatest expansion of Cretan trade occurred in the MM II period” ... and “apparently continued into the MM III period,” “by LM I, however, Cretan connections with the East must have been greatly diminished”22 and must have been replaced, as early as the beginning of the XVIIIth Dynasty, by mainland connections which will reach their climax under Thutmose III and then considerably decrease until the renewal of Late Helladic imports under Amenhotep III. Where did the Aegean influence come from? The second observation is probably the weakest point in Kantor’s argumentation, and at least the one that has to undergo the greatest modification according to the development of our knowledge in the past fifty years. Middle Minoan imports in Egypt and in the Levant are indeed very numerous23 — not to mention the evidence provided by most of the silver vases in the Tôd Treasure and their obvious MM IB-MM II affinities. Helene Kantor’s suggestion of a decrease of Minoan imports in the Eastern Mediterranean and of a corresponding increase of Mycenaean imports during the early Late Bronze Age is based on two different categories of evidence, actual imports in the former case, illustrations of imports in the latter.24 In addition, it does not seem to find confirmation in the finds made in the last decades. Minoan vessels of LM I date found in Egypt are indeed very few and all of them belong to LM IB, whereas vessels of LM II date are simply non-existent, but vessels or sherds of Mycenaean fabric are no less numerous and the difficulty is to distinguish between Minoan and Mycenaean productions for that early period.25 Such equivocal evidence gained from exports is even in contradiction with the data available concerning the opposite direction of exchange, namely the evidence provided by imports to the Aegean, the “Orientalia” — to use C. Lambrou-Phillipson’s and E. Cline’s designation. The systematic inventories collected by both scholars very clearly indicate that imports from Egypt are by far dominant in LH/LM I-II26 and that most of them have been traded to Crete, and there is no reason to suppose that the general conditions of exchange relations were basically different when working from West to East or from East to West. For the latter direction again, the imports to Crete begin only to decrease significantly during LM IIIB, while those reaching mainland Greece increase accordingly in the same period.27 Such a statistical observation fits much better in the general picture of the shift of hegemony and power that takes place at some advanced stage of the Aegean Late Bronze Age. Specific local conditions may have prevailed and preferential routes may in some cases have been preferred, as rightly emphasized by E. Cline and his differential distribution patterns: “It is possible that instead of speaking in sweeping generalizations about trade between the Aegean and the Near East or between the Aegean and the Central Mediterranean, we should be speaking in more specific terms; i.e. trade between Mycenae and Egypt, Tiryns and Cyprus,28 Thebes and Assyria, Kommos and Italy...”29 It remains, however, that the overall picture favours the idea of a dominating Egypto-Minoan exchange route — whatever the direction. And everybody will agree that the great majority of models that have been suggested by Helene Kantor as sources of inspiration

______________________ 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

29

KANTOR, 74. B.J. KEMP and R.S. MERRILLEES, Minoan Pottery in Second Millennium Egypt (1980); P.M. WARREN and V. HANKEY, Aegean Bronze Age Chronology (1989) 134-35. KANTOR, 64-65 and 74-75. KEMP and MERRILLEES (supra n. 23) 226-49; WARREN and HANKEY (supra n. 23) 139-40 (concerning much discussed finds from Memphis). A 4 to 1 ratio according to E.H. CLINE (“a virtual monopoly”); cf. SWDS, xviii. See the charts in Ibid. “At Mycenae and its surrounding territory, we have a reasonably large number of Egyptian objects but very few Cypriot objects, whereas at Tiryns and its environs, only three kilometers away, Cypriot imports are fairly common while Egyptian imports are virtually unknown” (Ibid. xvii). Ibid.

56

Robert LAFFINEUR

for the innovations of Egyptian iconography (the various types of spirals, the f lying gallop...) are ultimately of Minoan rather than Mycenaean origin, even though most of them have been excavated on the mainland. The complexity of the process of inf luences should not be overlooked, however. For Aegean iconography and style in Egypt — for Aegeanizing in Egypt to take P. Warren’s own words30 — it is particularly well emphasized by the jug of the Hyksos period excavated in Tomb 879 at el-Lisht and its ornamentation consisting of birds and dolphins. The latter are so close to dolphins on pithoi from Pachyammos in Crete31 that the question arises whether “the decorator of the el-Lisht jug had seen Minoan wall-paintings with dolphins or pithoi decorated with them,”32 a foreign inspiration that is “strengthened by the fact that this is, as far as we know, the only instance of dolphins among Egyptian representations of fish, from the Old to the New Kingdom.”33 The shape of the vessel, however, is typical of Syro-Palestinian MB II pottery and the images of birds are reminiscent of ornamentations on Tell el-Yahudiyeh ware, and this gives evidence of the syncretism that inf luences and transfers can assume. The evidence from Tell el-Dabca The extent of Minoan inf luences at the beginning of the Late Bronze Age has been confirmed by the recent finds from Tell el-Dabca. My aim is not to discuss the matter in detail, since conclusions would be premature before the complete restoration and final publication of the paintings. Keeping within the limits of a general appraisal of the finds already allows observations that are relevant to the present topic. Typical of Aegean, especially Minoan, inf luence are the red background,34 the theme of bull-leaping games, the dress and hair-style of bull-leapers, especially the association of black curls and blue-painted parts meant as shaved, as on the Thera wall-paintings,35 the attitude of f lying gallop of running bulls, of leopards and lions36 and of a running dog,37 the pose of the acrobat,38 the spirals on the griffin’s wing39 and their counterparts on the griffin close to the Goddess in the paintings of Xeste 3 and on the griffin in the miniature exotic landscape in the West House at Akrotiri,40 the presence of pebbles similar to the so-called “Easter eggs”41 known in Crete and on Thera,42 as well as the maze-pattern used as background for the bull-leaping scene (the “Bull and Maze Fresco”),43 and directly reminiscent of the Labyrinth Fresco at Knossos,44 but also of earlier designs on the kilt of the above-mentioned Mallia acrobat and on ivory seals from EM Crete.45

______________________ 30 31 32 33 34

35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45

P.M. WARREN, “Minoan Crete and Pharaonic Egypt,” in Egypt, the Aegean and the Levant, 1. WARREN and HANKEY (supra n. 23) 135-36 and pl. 12-13 (the pithoi from Pachyammos and the jug from el-Lisht). WARREN (supra n. 30) 3. WARREN and HANKEY (supra n. 23) 135. M. BIETAK and N. MARINATOS, “The Minoan Wall Paintings from Avaris,” in Hyksos Egypt and the Eastern Mediterranean World, 59 fig. 15. Red background is used on the earliest Minoan figurative paintings (the ‘Saffron Gatherer’); its association with white lines (the crocuses on the ‘Saffron Gatherer’) has probably to be connected to the MM tradition of light-on-dark decoration (see the Discussion at the end of Hyksos Egypt and the Eastern Mediterranean World, 123). Egypt, the Aegean and the Levant, pl. 1, 1. On this, L. MORGAN, “Minoan Painting and Egypt. The Case of Tell el-Dabca,” 43 in the same volume. BIETAK and MARINATOS (supra n. 34) 61 fig. 16. For a general reconstruction, see Pharaonen, 205 with fig. BIETAK and MARINATOS (supra n. 34) 55 fig. 6. Pharaonen und Fremde, no. 225. Ibid. no. 229. C. DOUMAS, The Wall-Paintings of Thera (1992) pl. 128. BIETAK and MARINATOS (supra n. 34) 59 fig. 14. PM II, frontispiece (the Partridge fresco at Knossos); DOUMAS (supra n. 40) pl. 30-34. BIETAK and MARINATOS (supra n. 34) 53 fig. 4. M. BIETAK, “Connections between Egypt and the Minoan World. New Results from Tell el-Dabca/Avaris,” in Egypt, the Aegean and the Levant, 25 fig. 3. KANTOR, pl. X, A-C.

FROM WEST TO EAST: THE AEGEAN AND EGYPT IN THE EARLY LBA

57

Significant technical details are also closer to Minoan than to Egyptian painting: the use of lime instead of gypsum; the choice of colours; the paintings executed in a mixed technique, fresco technique for the ground and tempera technique (secco) for motifs and details, such a mixture typical for Minoan wall-painting; the presence of stucco reliefs.46 That Minoan inf luence has worked to such an unprecedented extent in a foreign country does not seem too surprising, in view of the Minoan material that had reached Avaris as early as the latest stages of the Old Palace period/early XIIIth Dynasty: the fragments of a Kamares cup of MM IIB type and of probably Knossian fabric,47 and especially the slightly contemporary gold pendant with two antithetic animals, probably dogs, an export of unusual quality that will find counterparts only later, in some of the offerings presented by the emissaries from Keftiu in the Theban tombs. The Cretan origin of this piece of jewellery is highly probable, as has been pointed out by G. Walberg:48 the heavy construction of the pendant, with an embossed front sheet and a f lat sheet soldered at the back, is typical of MM goldwork, such as the bee-pendant from Chrysolakkos,49 and the elaborate pendants in the Aegina Treasure in the British Museum,50 as are the openwork structure, similar to the latter, and the antithetic composition of the design common to the whole series.51 Other finds of Aegean or Aegeanizing type have been excavated at Tell el-Dabca in contexts contemporary with early Late Bronze Age: neck of an amphoriskos of MM III/LM IA date,52 pithos fragments with the depiction of a leopard in f lying gallop, possibly of Cycladic origin,53 clay conical rhyta of Egyptian fabric but Minoan type.54 More puzzling, as pointed out by P. Warren, are the chronological implications of the problem. If the paintings from Tell el-Dabca are to be dated to a period that has to be equated with early LM IA — they come from the palatial building built on top of a huge platform H/I, that suffered destruction ca. 1540 BC, when Ahmose destroyed Avaris,55 or, according to the latest revision, slightly later in the reign of Ahmose56 — a derivation from Minoan models necessarily implies the existence of figural painting in Crete prior to that date, i.e. in MM III,57 and such an existence is not attested — with the only possible exception of the Saffron Gatherer fresco from Knossos. The alternative view offered by Warren to the Minoan origin of the paintings at Tell el-Dabca is probably crafty, but it is mere speculation and it lacks the

______________________ 46 47

48 49 50 51

52 53 54 55

56 57

MORGAN (supra n. 35) 30 and 33; also BIETAK (supra n. 44) 23. G. WALBERG, “The Finds at Tell el-Dabca and Middle Minoan Chronology,” Ägypten und Levante 2 (1991) 115-18; J.A. MacGILLIVRAY, “A Minoan Cup at Tell el-Dabca,” in Hyksos Egypt and the Eastern Mediterranean World, 81-84. Another sherd, of post-Kamares date, is reported from the palace, but its stratigraphical position is less clear (BIETAK [supra n. 44] 19). G. WALBERG, “A Gold Pendant from Tell el-Dabca,” Ägypten und Levante 2 (1991) 111-12. M. EFFINGER, Minoischer Schmuck (1996) pl. 48a. R. HIGGINS, The Aegina Treasure. An Archaeological Mystery (1979) 62-63 and fig. 63. Doubts have been raised by J. Aruz who proposes to identify the gold pendant from Tell el-Dabca as a product of Canaanite jewellery; cf. J. ARUZ, “Imagery and Interconnections,” in Hyksos Egypt and the Eastern Mediterranean World, 44-46. Her argumentation, based too exclusively on iconography, does not seem convincing to me. M. BIETAK, “Le début de la XVIIIe dynastie et les Minoens à Avaris,” Bulletin de la Société Française d’Egyptologie 135 (March 1996) 12-13. Pharaonen und Fremde, no. 359. Ibid. no. 314. On the find places and date of the fragments of wall-paintings, see BIETAK (supra n. 44) 20-23, and for a possible minor correction of the chronology, see BIETAK and MARINATOS (supra n. 34) 62 (the platform construction perhaps to be dated in the very beginning of the XVIIIth Dynasty, but uncertainty as to whether the same date has to apply to the wall painting fragments). BIETAK (supra n. 44) 11 and 14 with n. 31. A still longer time would have elapsed if the Tell el-Dabca paintings “fall short of being purely and genuinely Minoan, when compared with frescoes from Crete,” and if this has to be interpreted as evidence that if the painters were Minoans, “they have been abroad long enough to have drifted away artistically from the canonic Minoan methods of representation” and “they would be second or third generation expatriates” (M.C. SHAW, “Bull Leaping Frescoes at Knossos and their Inf luence on the Tell el-Dabca Murals,” in Hyksos Egypt and the Eastern Mediterranean World, 105-106 and 110).

58

Robert LAFFINEUR

slightest support from the archaeological evidence: “the frescoes are indeed Minoan, in subject, style, ground colour and technique (these last two with a long Minoan ancestry) and were painted at Avaris to Minoan order, but were based on knowledge of Egyptian figural painting, and were the first such Minoan frescoes to be painted, providing a model for such work in Crete, to be taken up immediately in early LM IA,”58 the very reason for such a unique phenomenon being that the queen of one of the last Hyksos rulers at Avaris was a Minoan.59 This circumstance would explain the presence in Egypt of themes and motifs intended for Minoans alone, more specifically the possible association of griffin with queenship, that appears to be typically Cretan60 — but other Minoan objects, particularly ritual objects, would be expected if a Minoan princess or community had settled on the site, and these are missing at Tell el-Dabca.61 Such a specific explanation, in addition, fails to account for the later Minoan-style wall-paintings found in early XVIIIth Dynasty levels at Tell el-Dabca,62 unless the link between the two courts — Avaris and probably Knossos — originally limited to political connections, has soon been followed by cultural and artistic connections; unless, in other words, Avaris has developed, as suggested by M. Bietak, as a meeting point for artistic exchanges.63 The consequence of such a position could have been the mutual inf luence from Egypt on the Aegean, that is particularly well illustrated by the so-called “Nilotic iconography,” as well as by the depiction of monkeys. This last observation would confirm the significant similarities between the paintings from Tell el-Dabca and those from Thera. To be added to the above-mentioned similarities is a fragment with hills in red ochre but without plants, for which parallels are known in Kea and Thera.64 An additional similarity could be provided by the fragment with an acrobat close to a palm tree,65 if the male figure close to a tree from sector Alpha in Akrotiri (the ‘African’)66 has to be restored as an acrobat, as suggested by N. Marinatos, convincingly I think, judging from the direction of the palms.67 The yellow skin of the bull-leaper with jewels on his arm68 can also be referred to here: it corresponds to neither of the two conventional colours used for human figures in Minoan art, respectively red for males and white for females, and it finds its only known equivalent in Xeste 3 in Akrotiri, where figures of young boys are depicted with a yellow skin, in contrast to male figures represented in the normal red colour.69 And finally, evidence of similarity would be provided, according to M. Shaw, by the presence of the background of maze-pattern in the “Bull and Maze Fresco,” a setting that has equivalents in the town or landscape background on the miniature paintings in Akrotiri, but offers a significant contrast to the usual blank background of Knossian figural scenes.70 Similarities are also known on the paintings from Kea.71 A fragment with an animal, probably an

______________________ 58

59 60 61

62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71

The time gap between the Tell el-Dabca paintings and the Knossian counterparts is even greater in the case of the bull-leaping scenes, the earliest preserved examples of which do not appear before LM II: MORGAN (supra n. 35) 40-41. WARREN (supra n. 30) 4-5. BIETAK (supra n. 44) 26. See the comments by M.H. WIENER in the Discussion at the end of Hyksos Egypt and the Eastern Mediterranean World, 127 and 129. This is in sharp contrast with the high quantity of Cypriot pottery excavated on the site; see L.C. MAGUIRE, “Tell el-Dabca. The Cypriot Connection,” in Egypt, the Aegean and the Levant, 54-65: “It’s a little difficult for me to imagine that a Minoan princess would forego all other aspects of Minoan cult and life and bring only fresco painters.” BIETAK (supra n. 44) 23; BIETAK and MARINATOS (supra n. 34) 49. BIETAK (supra n. 44) 26. The fragment reproduced in BIETAK and MARINATOS (supra n. 34) fig. 15 on p. 59; the comparison in MORGAN (supra n. 35) 33. Egypt, the Aegean and the Levant, pl. 3, 1. DOUMAS (supra n. 40) pl. 148. MORGAN (supra n. 35) 39. Egypt, the Aegean and the Levant, cover illustration and pl. 1, 1. DOUMAS (supra n. 40) pl. 109-111; the suggestion made by MORGAN (supra n. 35) 42. SHAW (supra n. 57) 106. On those similarities, concerning especially landscape elements, see MORGAN (supra n. 35) 33-34.

FROM WEST TO EAST: THE AEGEAN AND EGYPT IN THE EARLY LBA

59

antelope, hunted by a dog,72 is of particular interest, since hunting dogs in wall-painting are known only from Kea73 — and later in Mycenaean painting. That such affinities are especially observable in the rendering of small details, as noted by L. Morgan, is probably even more significant, since it might appear as the expression of conventions related to a particular workshop — real crazes — : “The unusual features of the Tell el-Dabca fragment [with a large-scale male head] are the painting of a beard in parallel lines and the outlining of the mouth apparently in black... The ear is provided with internal markings in sinuous lines, a feature which is paralleled on both male and female large-scale figures from Thera, while the best-preserved Fisherman from Thera also has lips defined by pink and black. The shape of the eye is of a more rounded type than in Egyptian art and comparable to those of the large-scale figures from Thera, as is the use of red ochre with black dot for iris and pupil.”74 All this could lead to the suggestion that the links are with Akrotiri rather than with Knossos and that the foreign painters who have made the wall-paintings at Tell el-Dabca have come from the Cyclades, not from Crete. This leaves the above-mentioned chronological problem open: the Thera paintings are probably closer to the paintings from Tell el-Dabca than the Knossos paintings, if not contemporary,75 but there is no evidence of their possible anteriority. The “Akrotiri connection” would account also for the eastern characteristics that are observable in Theran pottery and wall-paintings, as pointed out by C. Lambrou-Phillipson: the use of the manganese black technique in order to produce black paint on ceramic products, and, though less surely, the technique of mixing glaucophane and Egyptian blue pigments for use in wall-paintings and the matt-painting technique in the decoration of polychrome vase-painting.76 A significant difference, however, between Tell el-Dabca and Akrotiri could be the apparent absence of bull-leaping scenes on the wall-paintings from Thera, but this is arguing ex silentio and there are two possible occurrences of the theme, on a fragment from the North miniature frieze in the West House with two bulls and a human arm, maybe intended to depict bull-grappling77 and on a graffiti from Xeste 4, possibly depicting a bull-leaper.78 That the specific theme is attested only in the palace of Minos — and that “bull-games seem undoubtedly a Knossian sport,” a “feature that simply marked Knossos apart from the other Cretan centers”79 — is a strong argument for the identification of Knossos as the place from where the painters of the Tell el-Dabca frescoes have come or the place where they have been trained before working on Egyptian soil. The existence of fragments of relief painting at Tell el-Dabca — probably part of another bull-leaping scene80 — adds much weight to the “Knossian connection,” since the occurrences of that mixed technique are, if not limited to Knossos, at least a real speciality of the artistic productions in the city of Minos.81

______________________ 72 73 74 75

76 77 78 79 80 81

Egypt, the Aegean and the Levant, pl. 4, 1. MORGAN (supra n. 35) 34. Ibid. 38. WARREN (supra n. 35) 4: “The (Tell el-Dabca) paintings are at least as early as, and probably a little earlier than, those at Thera;” BIETAK (supra n. 44) 26: “The Theran frescoes are the ones closest to the Tell el-Dabca examples chronologically, whereas most of the preserved Knossos frescoes date to later times.” C. LAMBROU-PHILLIPSON, “Thera in the Mythology of the Classical Tradition: an Archaeological Approach,” in TAW III, vol. I, 168; cf. arguments contra Lambrou-Phillipson’s statements in SWDS, 50-52. C. TELEVANTOU, “New Light on the West House Wall-Paintings,” in TAW III, vol. I, 317, fig. 10. Eadem, “Aegean Bronze Age Wall-Painting. The Theran Workshop,” in Wall Paintings of Thera, B 74 and fig. 1. J.G. YOUNGER, “Bronze Age Representations of Aegean Bull-Games, III,” in Politeia, 523; also B.P. and E. HALLAGER, “The Knossian Bull - Political Propaganda in Neo-palatial Crete,” in Politeia, 547-56. BIETAK and MARINATOS (supra n. 34) 54 and fig. 5; MORGAN (supra n. 35) 41. S. HOOD, The Arts in Prehistoric Greece (1978) 71-77. Outside Knossos, the technique is attested on the well-known female figures from Pseira and on a composition from Thera with rosettes and wavy lines (DOUMAS [supra n. 40] pls. 136-37). It has been suggested that stucco relief painting might have appeared slightly earlier than f lat painting: SHAW (supra n. 57) 100.

60

Robert LAFFINEUR

The impression is finally that the Tell el-Dabca frescoes exhibit predominating inf luences from Knossian painting,82 but that those are not incompatible with links with Theran painting. Are the latter to be explained by the fact that they correspond to features that could have been shared by the various centers of Minoan painting, including Thera,83 and that are not attested in the preserved material excavated at Knossos, rather than to features that are to be viewed as specific Theran features? Or do these Cycladic links give evidence that the painters working at Tell el-Dabca were coming from different parts of the Aegean, even though a majority of them was of Knossian origin? This is difficult to decide, but the possibility should not be ruled out when it comes to try to establish a more synthetical picture. A final comment should be added concerning the decorative border at the bottom of the reconstruction of the bull-leaping scene, namely the frieze of half-rosettes.84 Bull-leaping scenes on seals and rings are sometimes associated with ornaments in the exergue, and half-rosettes are known among those motifs, particularly on a Mycenaean gold ring in Larissa.85 The design does not appear earlier in monumental art, whether painting or sculpture — on the “Grandstand Fresco” and on a LM I/II limestone frieze from the north-west angle of the palace at Knossos86 — so that the occurrence at Tell el-Dabca, once again, is the earliest one in wall-painting. As far as the meaning of the design is concerned, it has been suggested that “since the half-rosette is associated with palace architecture in all Aegean iconography... it signifies palatial architecture on the Tell el-Dabca mural as well,”87 or that it has to be identified as a royal emblem referring to the Knossian component in the supposed dynastic link between the courts of Knossos and Avaris.88 This, again, appears as mere speculation. Prestige weapons Prominent among the earlier finds at Tell el-Dabca are warrior burials that have yielded weapons of elaborate type, presumably intended as prestige weapons. Egyptian types are attested, such as a bronze dagger of XIIth Dynasty date with stone hilt decoration from Grave 17.89 But specimens of probably Syrian origin or inspiration are also known, e.g. a bronze dagger from Grave 3, with decoration of lines and spirals in relief on the central part of the blade, and with gold caps on rivet heads of the ivory hilt (ca. 1750 BC).90 Similarities with the Levant are of both typological and contextual nature, as emphasized by G. Philip, whereas the techniques, particularly the alloy usage, exhibit differences between metal industries at Tell

______________________ 82

83

84 85 86 87 88 89 90

A possible closer link with Knossos has been suggested by M. Shaw. If the maze background of the “Bull and Maze Fresco” represents a pattern-painted stuccoed f loor of similar type as the examples from the Old Palace at Phaistos and as the “Labyrinth Fresco” from Knossos — that has to be considered as a f loor decoration rather than a wall decoration — it could be that “the maze also served more specifically as a pictorial toponym for the Palace of Knossos.” The association of maze and bull-leaping illustrated at Tell el-Dabca could have a precise echo in Knossos, if the room in which the “Labyrinth Fresco” served as f loor decoration had bull-leaping scenes painted on its walls (SHAW [supra n. 57] 108-110). The interpretation is probably too far from the available data. As suggested by P. Betancourt: “What I think of suggesting is that we are touching the tip of the iceberg of a whole series of interrelated workshops, working in Knossos, the Aegean islands, on the coast of Western Asia and in Egypt, perhaps traveling back and forth, perhaps occasionally exchanging personnel or going back to Knossos to learn the most recent things” (in the Discussion at the end of Hyksos Egypt and the Eastern Mediterranean World, 129). For a general reconstruction of the whole scene, see BIETAK and MARINATOS (supra n. 34) 53, fig. 4; Pharaonen und Fremde, 197 with fig. The ring is mentioned and reproduced in SHAW (supra n. 57) 96, fig. 7. On the motif in Crete, see W.-D. NIEMEIER, Die Palaststilkeramik von Knossos (1985) 112 and fig. 52. BIETAK and MARINATOS (supra n. 34) 51. Ibid. 61. Pharaonen und Fremde, no. 39. G. PHILIP, “Tell el-Dabca Metalwork. Patterns and Purpose,” in Egypt, the Aegean and the Levant, 71, fig. 2, 2, p. 68 and pl. 14, 2; Pharaonen und Fremde, no. 23.

FROM WEST TO EAST: THE AEGEAN AND EGYPT IN THE EARLY LBA

61

el-Dabca and in the Syro-Palestinian Middle Bronze Age and indicate that the objects excavated at Avaris were not imported but locally made:91 “Dominant types [of weapons] showing high stylistic similarity to contemporary Syro-Palestinian artifacts can be identified at various periods. These fall into a chronological succession, with shifts in the preferred types occurring broadly in line with corresponding changes in the southern Levant”92... “Such weapons do not represent the military equipment of armies, but that of an élite. They are symbols of the individual ‘heroic’ warrior. These patterns constitute strong evidence for structured human behavior, and are related to similar practices occurring throughout western Asia in the early second millennium BC. Their origins lie outside Egypt, where these sets occur only in the Nile Delta.”93 A similar coexistence is attested at Thebes-Dra Abu el-Naga, with the so-called “dagger of Kamose” (the last king of the XVIIth Dynasty), made of bronze, silver and gold,94 and of Middle Kingdom type,95 and the dagger of Ahhotep, the mother of Ahmose, found in the immediate vicinity, with its Levantine affinities.96 The inlay technique used on the latter — unlike the axe from the same burial, decorated with enamel97 — relates the object to the Levantine tradition of MBA inlaid weapons such as the blade (harpe) of Ypchemouabi from Byblos, from a context dated to the period of Amenemhat IV,98 and similar specimens from Sichem99 and in München,100 on which both metal inlays and niello are used for the decoration of a central rib.101 Examining on several occasions the series of bronze weapons with pictorial decoration found in early Mycenaean contexts on the Greek mainland, I have come to the suggestion that those are to be related to a Near Eastern tradition. Considering on the one hand the absence of real equivalents in the Aegean, whether in Minoan Crete or in Helladic Greece — the protopalatial daggers from Malia102 and in the Mitsotakis collection103 use gold plating, not inlay — and the above-mentioned occurrences in the Levantine MBA, and on the other hand the fact that the inlay technique has been applied in Greece to typically mainland types of weapons and shapes of vases to illustrate typically Minoan iconography, the most plausible interpretation, I think, is that the Mycenaean inlaid objects have been made locally by travelling craftsmen coming from the Levantine coast, rather than manufactured in the

______________________ 91 92 93

94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101

102 103

An opposite view in BIETAK (supra n. 44) 20: “Most probably, this dagger was produced in coastal Syria, a meeting place of the Minoan and Canaanite worlds.” PHILIP (supra n. 90) 67-71. Ibid. 74. The differences in alloy usage at Tell el-Dabca and in MBA Jericho suggest “that we have two distinct industries,” that “two separate metal industries were producing stylistically similar objects,” used for “a common symbolic expression understood throughout a wide area, embracing the eastern Nile Delta and Palestine, during the later MB IIA and MB IIB/C periods” (op. cit. 76). A significant chronological evolution has to be mentioned: “a decline in the significance of weapons during the later MBA. Considered alongside the Egyptianizing tendencies of later Hyksos rulers...;” “I would tentatively suggest that as the upper strata of Delta society adopted new, more Egyptianizing customs, traditionally Levantine symbols, such as weapons, gradually decreased in importance” (op. cit. 77). Pharaonen, no. 382. Compare with a bronze dagger with ivory pommel of unknown provenance: Pharaonen und Fremde, no. 374. Interconnections, fig. 37. Pharaonen und Fremde, no. 398. P. MONTET, Byblos et l’Egypte (1928) 174-76 no. 653 and pl. XCIX-CI. C. WATZINGER, Denkmäler Palestinas I (1933) 35 and pl. 24, fig. 52. Staatliche Sammlung Ägyptischer Kunst (1972) 50-51 no. ÄS 2907 and col. pl. between pl. 24 and 25. This particular decorative process makes a significant difference between the “dagger of Kamose” and the “dagger of Ahhotep” and seems to exclude the possibility that both weapons were manufactured in a same Theban workshop (as suggested in Pharaonen und Fremde, 272). B. DETOURNAY, in Fouilles exécutées à Mallia. Le Quartier Mu II. Études crétoises XXVI (1980) 147-49 no. 219. A. XENAKI-SAKELLARIOU, Poignard minoen de la collection Mitsotakis avec poignée en or ouvragée, RA 1986-2 235-44.

62

Robert LAFFINEUR

Levant and then imported in Greece.104 I would propose a similar suggestion for the dagger of Ahhotep, i.e. that it is the product of Levantine craftsmanship, and since the depiction of animals in f lying gallop on its central rib corresponds to a feature that has just been adopted in Egyptian iconography, that the dagger has been commissioned in Egypt and probably made there. It is not clear whether the two holes at the broad end of the blade are to be viewed as a variation of the holes of fenestrated axes of Levantine type or as equivalents of the two opposed cutouts at the base of the pommel on daggers of Egyptian type, such as the “dagger of Kamose,”105 but I would favour the latter, because of the decoration of enamel on the hilt, of presumably Egyptian type, and because of the “hathoric” ornamentation of the pommel. Early Keftiu trips Early Mycenaean objects are not reported in Near Eastern and Egyptian contexts before LH IIA.106 A well known find from Egypt, the Treasure found at el-Tod, much unexpectedly, seems to provide evidence, however, that objects of mainland manufacture have apparently been transported to Egypt as early as the transitional period between the Middle and Late Bronze Age. The shape and decoration of most of the silver cups in the treasure — shallow open vessels, with a decoration of f luting, torsional f luting, meanders, arcades or rosettes107 — have obvious equivalents in clay vessels of Protopalatial date, especially MM IB/MM II cups from Phaistos,108 and specimens more recently excavated in Quartier Mu at Mallia.109 Two metal cups in the treasure, however, with high vertical handles,110 prove to be extraordinarily close to slightly later metal ware from mainland Greece.111 One of them112 has an exact counterpart in a gold kantharos found in the recent excavations at Peristeria in southwestern Peloponnese, in a burial of the transitional period under the west portion of the peribolos wall of the large tholos tomb.113 The relatively low shape of the two vessels is so similar, and the f loral decoration on their handles so close that a manufacture in the same workshop cannot be excluded. The second kantharos from Tod,114 with a higher body, has parallels in the Shaft Graves at Mycenae115 and in finds from Sotirianika near Kalamata.116 The most significant

______________________ 104 105 106

107

108

109 110 111

112 113 114 115 116

R. LAFFINEUR, “Material and Craftsmanship in the Mycenae Shaft Graves: Imports vs Local Productions,” Minos n.s. 25-26 (1990-1991) 269-73. Supra n. 94. Mycenaean pottery is not attested in the Eastern Mediterranean before LH IIA. The sherds from Kerma are described as “apparently LM I/LH I,” but more precise identification is impossible (WARREN and HANKEY [supra n. 23] 138). The sherds from Kom Rabia (Memphis) are most probably Minoan and of LM IB date, rather than Mycenaean (Ibid. 139). For the treasure as a whole and for individual objects, see F. BISSON de la ROQUE, Tôd (1934 à 1936) (1937); Idem, Catalogue général des antiquités égyptiennes du Musée du Caire, n° 70501-70754. Le trésor de Tôd (1950); F. BISSON de la ROQUE, G. CONTENAU and F. CHAPOUTHIER, Le trésor de Tôd (1953). Parallels cited in WARREN and HANKEY (supra n. 23) 132-33 and Pl. 5-11. More nuance in the approach of the Minoan affinities in G. WALBERG, “The Tod Treasure and Middle Minoan Absolute Chronology,” Opuscula Atheniensia 15 (1984) 175-76. Fouilles exécutées à Mallia. Le quartier Mu II. Études crétoises XXVI (1980) 89 no. 120 and fig. 119; J.-C. POURSAT, “Une thalassocracie minoenne au Minoen Moyen II?,” in Minoan Thalassocracy, 87. BISSON de la ROQUE 1950 (supra n. 107) nos. 70590-70591. R. LAFFINEUR, “Réf lexions sur le trésor de Tôd,” Aegaeum 2 (1988) 17-30; also J. MARAN, “Die Silbergefässe von et-Tôd und die Schachtgräberzeit auf dem griechischen Festland,” Prähistorische Zeitschrift 62 (1987) 221-27. BISSON de la ROQUE 1950 (supra n. 107) no. 70591. G. St. KORRES, Praktika 1976, 498, fig. 8 and pl. 263, a-b. BISSON de la ROQUE 1950 (supra n. 107) no. 70590. G. KARO, Die Schachtgräber von Mykenai (1930-33) no. 440. R. LAFFINEUR, Les vases en métal précieux à l’époque mycénienne (1977) 119 nos. 102-104 and fig. 42-43; E.N. DAVIS, The Vapheio Cups and Aegean Gold and Silver Ware (1977) 305-307 no. 134 (only one specimen mentioned). The two kantharoi in the Metropolitan Museum (DAVIS, op. cit. 324-26 nos. 147-48) are probably contemporaneous.

FROM WEST TO EAST: THE AEGEAN AND EGYPT IN THE EARLY LBA

63

implication of those comparisons is that the precious metal vessels of the Tod treasure, even though found together in copper chests, do not make a homogeneous whole and do not have a unique and identical origin, as accepted by Warren,117 but that the treasure has most probably been gathered from at least two different parts, originating from two different areas, Crete and the Greek mainland, and from two different periods, MM IB/MM II and the transitional period between Middle and Late Helladic. That still another part of the treasure has been collected at a later period than that of Amenemhet II (XIIth Dynasty, 1917-1882 BC), whose name has been engraved on two of the copper chests, and that still another origin can be suggested for some other items is further indicated by the Cappadocian seal included in the treasure,118 the style of which, according to P. Yule, is not documented before Kanesh II, between ca. 1850 and 1730 BC.119 Regarding the possible relations between the Aegean and the East at an early stage, in the transitional period between the Middle and Late Bronze Age, the two kantharoi from Tod appear as the earliest imports from the Mycenaean mainland in the Eastern Mediterranean. They seem at the same time to give evidence that Aegean precious objects could have reached Egypt before the period of the earliest Keftiu representations in Egyptian tombs, i.e. before the reign of Hatshepsut,120 following a still earlier stage, at the end of the Old Palace period, illustrated by the gold pendant of Minoan type found at Tell el-Dabca. It remains to investigate the way in which those mainland objects have come to Egypt. The fact that items of distinctly Helladic type are not attested on Crete during the Shaft Grave period seems to exclude a role of intermediary played by Minoans in the transfer of the vases to Egypt and to favor rather a direct trade. One could wonder, however, why early Mycenaean Greece would not have received in exchange a greater number of Egyptian objects.121 Does this mean that the Tod treasure has been gathered for the most part — excluding the chests at least — rather in the Levantine area, as usually suggested in order to account better for its Levantine, Mesopotamian and perhaps Anatolian affinities,122 and that the addition of the two kantharoi has been made in the Levant, prior to the expedition of the whole from there to the Nile valley? The value of the kantharoi from Tod as evidence of early exchange with Egypt would greatly decrease in that case, but evidence of early exchange with the Levant would accordingly increase and this last picture would fit better indeed with the evidence we have concerning the origin of the metal inlay technique.

______________________ 117 118 119

120 121

122

Most recently in WARREN and HANKEY (supra n. 23) 131-34. Un siècle de fouilles françaises en Egypte 1880-1980 (1981) 147 no. 161. P. YULE, “Appendix” to P. ÅSTRÖM, “The Middle Minoan Chronology Again,” Pepragména tou E& Dieynoûw Krhtologikoû Sunedríou (A. Nikólaow, 25 Sept. - 10 Okt. 1981) (1985) 42-44. The interpretation of a later deposit could possibly find confirmation in the stratigraphical data at Tod: “Appendix II. The el-Tod Treasure, with particular Reference to its Archaeological Context,” in KEMP and MERRILLEES (supra n. 23) 290-96. WACHSMANN (supra n. 20) 27-40 (list of tombs, the earliest one is Senmut’s tomb). Only one Egyptian import has been found in the two grave circles at Mycenae, the alabaster vase 829 from shaft grave V. See LAFFINEUR (supra n. 104) 284-85 and 246-51 for methodological considerations on the identification of true imports. On this J. VANDIER, “À propos d’un dépôt de provenance asiatique trouvé à Tôd,” Syria 18 (1937) 174-82; KANTOR, 19-20; KEMP and MERRILLEES (supra n. 23) 283 and 296; and WALBERG (supra n. 108) 174. It should be noted in that respect that the ingots included in the treasure seem to conform to a Syrian weight system (LAFFINEUR [supra n. 111] 20-24). For the Anatolian connections, see F. SCHACHERMEYR, Ägäis und Orient (1967) 58 (the shapes of the metal vessels, as well as, more generally, the nearly exclusive use of silver that would point to Anatolia — but this could equally point to an origin on the Greek mainland); DAVIS (supra n. 116) 71-73 (the cup with a handle of the Vapheio type); and, most recently, H. MATTHÄUS, “Mykenai, der mittlere Donauraum während des Hajdusamson-Horizontes und der Schatz von Valcitran,” in Thracians and Mycenaeans. Proceedings of the Fourth International Congress of Thracology, Rotterdam, 24-26 September 1984 (1989) 97-100 (with the following statement: “Wünschenswert wäre natürlich ein Vergleich mit originalen westanatolischen Metallarbeiten. Diese jedoch fehlen in Kleinasien”!).

64

Robert LAFFINEUR

Nilotic scenes in the Aegean The epithet ‘Nilotic’ quite commonly refers in Aegean studies to whole scenes involving hunting animals in a landscape of exotic type, consisting of plants of reputedly Egyptian origin.123 Such scenes are not very frequent and this has been generally considered an additional sign of their foreign inspiration. We know three elaborate examples: the decoration of hunting cats or leopards on the inlaid dagger from grave V in Mycenae,124 the wall painting with monkeys from the House of the Frescoes at Knossos125 and the river landscape with a griffin and a feline hunting birds on the east miniature frieze of room 5 in the West House at Akrotiri.126 A typical common feature is that they all associate a river and lush vegetation growing in the immediate surroundings of it. This was perhaps not unknown in the Aegean, especially in Crete, at least on a limited scale,127 but we normally find that very association, as well as the fauna depicted, more suitable to reproduce Egypt and the Nile valley. Such a precise iconography undoubtedly implies a direct contact between the Aegean and Egypt. It does not seem to be just the result of the import of small decorated objects and has to be explained by the presence of Aegean artists in Egypt —as has already been suggested by Evans128 — and by the direct knowledge they could have had of wall paintings and reliefs such as those in the XIIth Dynasty tombs at Beni Hasan. In a paper presented at the Table ronde on L’iconographie minoenne in 1983, S. Immerwahr has listed other traces of that Egyptian pictorial inf luence which are sometimes less directly evident: “... the plundering blue monkeys of Knossos and Thera, the Nilotic landscapes with cats hunting ducks, the fullness of descriptive detail of the Ship Fresco and other miniature frescoes surely seem to owe something to Egypt. Likewise the life-size human figures, the color conventions and some of the poses, as well as the use of modeled stucco reliefs — all of which appear suddenly and fully developed in the New Palace period about 1600 BC or somewhat earlier — strongly suggest inf luence from Egyptian painting and painted relief, as do certain technical features...”129 She also discussed the evidence of probable similar contacts during the preceding centuries. They account for the egyptianizing iconography of some documents of the Old Palace period in Crete, vessels with appliqué reliefs from Quartier Mu in Mallia,130 similar examples from Phaistos and Archanes131 and the faïence town mosaic from Knossos,132 all of which represent the predecessors of monumental pictorial art. Immerwahr’s conclusion is that “both periods [i.e. the Old Palace period and the Hyksos period] suggest direct Minoan acquaintance with Egypt and Egyptian painting rather than indirect inf luence through the medium of small articles of trade.”133 I would like to focus brief ly on the documentation from the beginning of the Late Bronze Age, to examine to what extent the Aegean Nilotic images follow their Egyptian models and to trace their transformation according to Aegean artistic taste and conventions.

______________________ 123 124 125 126 127

128 129 130 131 132 133

See e.g. PM III, 113-17 and PM IV, 329-39. KARO (supra n. 115) no. 765. M.A.S. CAMERON, “Unpublished Paintings from the ‘House of the Frescoes’ at Knossos,” BSA 63 (1968) fig. 13 between p. 26 and 27. C. DOUMAS, Thera. Pompeii of the Ancient Aegean (1983) 105 and pl. XV. See the comments by P.M. WARREN, “Did Papyrus grow in the Aegean?,” Athens Annals of Archaeology 9 (1976) 89-95; Idem, “The Miniature Fresco from the West House at Akrotiri, Thera, and its Aegean Setting,” JHS 99 (1979) 125. PM I, 18. S.A. IMMERWAHR, “A Possible Inf luence of Egyptian Art in the Creation of Minoan Wall Painting,” in L’iconographie minoenne. Actes de la Table Ronde d’Athènes (21-22 avril 1983). BCH Suppl. XI (1985) 47-48. B. DETOURNAY, J.-Cl. POURSAT and Fr. VANDENABEELE, Fouilles exécutées à Mallia. Le Quartier Mu II. Études Crétoises XXVI (1980) 120-23 and fig. 170-74. Documents discussed in IMMERWAHR (supra n. 129) 44-45. K.P. FOSTER, Aegean Faience of the Bronze Age (1979) 99-115. IMMERWAHR (supra n. 129) 49-50. On the foreign origin of some of the pigments in the Thera frescoes (Jarosite and Egyptian Blue), see the recent contribution by H.-G. BUCHHOLZ in Ägäische Bronzezeit (1987) 176-78.

FROM WEST TO EAST: THE AEGEAN AND EGYPT IN THE EARLY LBA

65

All the distinctive individual elements of Aegean Nilotic scenes go back to Egyptian prototypes: the location within a papyrus thicket on the bank of a river crowded by birds and haunted by threatening felines. But the stereotyped presentation prevalent in Egyptian pictures from the Old Kingdom on134 undergoes some significant changes in the Aegean adaptations. The regular arrangement of vertical papyrus stalks and in quincunx horizontally drawn blossoms — associated with an expanse of water curiously seen from above — becomes a more natural setting with free growing vegetation in the naturalistic Minoan style. The strict profile of the models where the elements rest on the water line is replaced by a bird’s-eye perspective presenting the landscape as if seen from above and showing consequently both banks of a naturally meandering river. Panther-like felines take the place of the Egyptian genet and ichneumon or lizard and new animals are introduced in the Aegean Nilotic scenes, monkeys135 and even a griffin,136 and many of them are seen in the attitude of f lying gallop. Human beings are completely absent, whereas they were an essential component in Egyptian compositions with one or two symmetrical figures of the owner of the tomb portrayed in the attitude of throwing a weapon in the direction of the papyrus thicket. The most significant difference, however, lies in the general atmosphere of the scene. The impression we get from the Egyptian versions of the theme — when we consider the thicket itself and not the surrounding figures of hunters — is that of an apparently quiet episode of natural life that is hardly disturbed by animals lying in wait close to nests full of young birds or eggs. The only exception is the relief in Mererouka’s tomb at Saqqara (VIth Dynasty),137 where an ichneumon goes away carrying a bird in its mouth, but the motif is rather inconspicuous and not sufficient to break the general impression. The Aegean examples display a more dramatic event with an overall dynamic effect and a direct threatening or even a real aggression. This is especially evident on the dagger from Mycenae and on the east upper frieze of the West House, but less directly apparent on the painting from the House of the Frescoes, where one of the monkeys is eating an egg.138 Such important differences in the whole conception and in the details are evident signs of an original interpretation by the Aegean artists that seems hardly possible without a familiarity with the models,139 a relatively long practice of the theme, and a series of attempts preceding the perfect three examples that have come to light in the excavations. At the other

______________________ 134

135 136 137 138

139

For a study of the theme, see J. VANDIER, Manuel d’archéologie égyptienne IV Bas-reliefs et peintures. Scènes de la vie quotidienne (1964) 717-86. Some Old Kingdom examples: Le tombeau de Ti II. La chapelle (1953) pl. LXXXII-LXXXIII, CXV-CXVI and CXIX (Vth Dynasty); A.M. MOUSSA and H. ALTENMÜLLER, Old Kingdom Tombs at the Causeway of King Unas at Saqqara. Das Grab des Nianchchnum und Chnumhotep (1977) fig. 5-6 (Vth Dynasty); A.M. MOUSSA and Fr. JUNGE, Old Kingdom Tombs at the Causeway of King Unas at Saqqara. Two Tombs of Craftsmen (1975) pl. 12; Cl. GAILLARD, Recherches sur les poissons représentés dans quelques tombeaux égyptiens de l’ancien Empire (1923) fig. 5 and pl. IV (relief from the tomb of Mera, VIth Dynasty); K. LANGE, M. HIRMER, E. OTTO and Chr. DESROCHES-NOBLECOURT, L’Egypte (1968) pl. 76 (relief from Mererouka’s tomb, VIth Dynasty); VANDIER, op. cit. pl. XI, fig. 132 (relief from the mastaba in Karlsruhe). Some Middle Kingdom examples: P.E. NEWBERRY, Beni Hasan I (1893) pl. XXXII and XXXIV; N. de G. DAVIES, The Rock Tombs of Sheikh Saïd (1901) pl. XI; Idem, The Mastaba of Ptahhetep and Akhethetep at Saqqareh II (1901) pl. XIII-XIV; Idem, The Rock Tombs of Deir El Gebrâwi I (1902) pl. V; Idem, The Rock Tombs of Deir El Gebrâwi II (1902) pl. III; A.M. BLACKMAN, The Rock Tombs of Meir I (1914) pl. II; Idem, The Rock Tombs of Meir III (1915) pl. VI; A.M. BLACKMAN and M.R. APTED, The Rock Tombs of Meir V (1953) pl. XXIV and XXVIII; Idem, The Rock Tombs of Meir VI (1953) pl. XIII. On the painting from the House of the Frescoes at Knossos (supra n. 125). On the east upper frieze of the West House in Akrotiri (supra n. 126). LANGE et al. (supra n. 134) pl. 76. The choice of the monkeys and their attitude are also borrowed from Egypt (see CAMERON [supra n. 125] 19). The pose of the monkey eating an egg (op. cit. 21, fig. 10) is reminiscent of that of apes eating figs on the paintings from the tomb of Chnumhotep in Beni Hasan (Interconnections, figs. 170-71). The possibility of visiting Egyptian tombs in Antiquity has been disputed (see IMMERWAHR [supra n. 129] 49-50), but it is not improbable that the Aegean artists, if they were really present in Egypt, could see their Egyptian colleagues at work while they were executing the decoration of the tombs. We should also keep in mind that the Egyptian palaces and houses were certainly often decorated with paintings — even if the examples which have come to us are rare — and that these were of course easily visible.

66

Robert LAFFINEUR

end of the evolution, the integration in Aegean standards becomes complete in a composition like the scene with cats hunting water-birds on the ivory comb from tholos tomb 2 in Routsi, dated in the first half of the 15th century.140 The landscape elements, river and exotic plants, have disappeared and are replaced by the conventional Minoan image of rocks “growing like stalactites and stalagmites in a cave, some rising from the border at the bottom, others hanging downwards from the top edge of the picture.”141 The representation concentrates on the animal protagonists and their struggle and the theme gets therefore its full dramatic effect. Another indication of the free interpretation by the Aegean artists is their disregarding some minor details of the Egyptian models, such as the butterf lies and dragonf lies among the birds or even the frogs,142 but at the same time other elements are given a special development and importance according to the conventions of local style. This is the case of the eggs depicted in the nests on some of the Egyptian images, which become over-sized and polychrome decorative accessories on the east upper frieze from the West House in Akrotiri143 and on the Partridge fresco from the Caravanserai at Knossos.144 Such are the transformations of the original Egyptian theme and such is the evolution which finally results in a complete assimilation on Aegean soil. The situation is quite different in Egypt, since the images of birds hunted in a papyrus thicket remain almost unchanged there for centuries, from the Old Kingdom to the end of the Middle Kingdom. New versions only begin to appear during an advanced stage of the XVIIIth Dynasty and these exhibit elements and characteristics that we have just met in the Aegean. The most significant is the presence of cats, which are exceptionally rare earlier,145 and especially their aggressive attitude. Cats are found in the papyrus thicket or very close to it in the tomb of Ouah (Thutmose III), where the only preserved part of the hunting animal is a striped tail of a cat;146 in the tomb of Kenamun,147 from the time of Amenhotep II; on a painting in the British Museum dating from the reign of Amenhotep III;148 and in the Ramesside tomb of Ipouy (Ramses II).149 The feline slaughtering birds on the fragment in London is especially reminiscent of the composition on the dagger blade from Mycenae. That an Aegean inf luence should explain the evolution in Egyptian iconography seems to be indicated by another significant change which affects the representation of ships on the walls of Egyptian tombs. The traditional image with vessels seen in strict profile resting on the horizontal water line, of which we have so many examples from the Old Kingdom on,150 is replaced in some relatively late cases by a turned up perspective that allows two rows of ships to be shown supposedly one behind the other, or simply displays one row of vessels on a sea seen from above and full of fishes. The new perspective appears in the Ramesside period151 and clearly derives from Aegean prototypes, especially in the case of marine scenes from the model of the Fleet fresco from the West House in Akrotiri.152 A similar turned up perspective has been adopted for a landscape

______________________ 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151

152

J.-Cl. POURSAT, Catalogue des ivoires mycéniens du Musée National d’Athènes (1977) 138 no. 410 and pl. XLI. HOOD (supra n. 81) 49. A similar integration already occurs on the wall-painting from Ayia Triadha depicting a cat stalking a bird (op. cit. fig 34). E.g. BLACKMAN 1914 (supra n. 134) pl. II. On this, see VANDIER (supra n. 134) 734, 756-57 and 767. Supra n. 126. PM II frontispiece. The only example in Beni Hasan IV. Zoological and other Details (1900) pl. V (Tomb 3). J. CAPART and M. WERBROUCK, Thèbes. La gloire d’un grand passé (1925) fig. 186. N. de G. DAVIES, The Tomb of Ken-Amun at Thebes (1930) pl. LI, A. VANDIER (supra n. 134) 772 and pl. XXXIII, fig. 427. Ibid. 773. For an illustration, see N. de G. DAVIES, Two Ramesside Tombs at Thebes (1927) pl. XXX. See the documentation collected by J. VANDIER, Manuel d’archéologie égyptienne V. Bas-reliefs et peintures. Scènes de la vie quotidienne (1969) 659-1014 and pl. XXXVI-XLVIII. J. VANDIER D’ABBADIE, Deux tombeaux ramessides à Gournet-Mourraï (1954) pl. XII and XXIII (tomb of Amenemonet) and pl. XXIX-XXXI (tomb of Amenemheb). See also the well known relief depicting the battle with the Sea Peoples in the temple of Ramses III at Medinet Habu with three rows of ships (illustrated recently in F. SCHACHERMEYR, Die Ägäische Frühzeit V. Die Levante im Zeitalter der Wanderungen [1982] fig. 5). DOUMAS (supra n. 126) pl. X. On Aegean perspective, see G. WALBERG, Tradition and Innovation. Essays in Minoan Art (1986) 119-20.

FROM WEST TO EAST: THE AEGEAN AND EGYPT IN THE EARLY LBA

67

in the tombs of Kenamun153 and Nakht,154 from the reign of Amenhotep II and Thutmose IV, respectively for a hunting scene and an agricultural scene. Nilotic compositions have long been considered as a simple borrowing by Aegean art from Egypt. The reality is in fact more complex. If the origin of the theme cannot be disputed, it appears that it has been considerably modified by the Aegean artists and that it has been subject to an evolutive process that has led to a complete integration in local standards — which certainly supposes a greater number of examples than those known to us.155 What is most interesting and significant is the feedback process of the inf luence of Aegean iconography and conventions on late Egyptian images, which makes a certain renovation possible in an otherwise extremely traditional and conservative set of compositions. This is an additional sign of the complexity of the artistic relations in the eastern Mediterranean in the second millennium, as well as additional evidence of a f low of eastwarddirected inf luences at the beginning of the Late Bronze Age. Robert LAFFINEUR

______________________ 153 154 155

de G. DAVIES (supra n. 149) pl. XLVIII. N. de G. DAVIES, The Tomb of Nakht at Thebes (1917) pl. XVIII and XXI. It is indeed far from an isolated phenomenon, and this is for instance and mutatis mutandis a quite different situation from that of the famous republican Nilotic mosaic in Praeneste (G.M.A. HANFMANN, Chefs-d’oeuvre de l’art romain [1965] pl. XXVI), which does not seem to have been followed by any offspring.