knossos: palace, city, state || aegean costume and the dating of the knossian frescoes

Aegean costume and the dating of the Knossian frescoesAuthor(s): Ariane MarcarSource: British School at Athens Studies, Vol. 12, KNOSSOS: PALACE, CITY, STATE (2004), pp.225-238Published by: British School at AthensStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40960780 .

Accessed: 28/06/2014 17:21

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

British School at Athens is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to British Schoolat Athens Studies.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 46.243.173.46 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 17:21:49 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=bsa

http://www.jstor.org/stable/40960780?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


17 Aegean costume and the dating

of the Knossian frescoes Ariane Marcar

In the absence of cloth finds and with only limited tex- tual evidence, we can only reconstruct Aegean Bronze Age garment production and use from the sparse tools related to textile production and the better preserved large-scale Late Bronze Age fresco representations of clothing (Carington Smith, 1975; Barber, 1991).1 The latter represent our most important source of costume evidence but, until now, have never been the subject of a systematic, comprehensive study.2 In the main, scholars have tended to use Aegean BA dress as an adjunct in attempts to answer more fundamental questions about the socio-political environment, with most studies focusing on prevalent costume types, as well as isolated or gender-specific items.3 In spite of our recent increased understanding of textile technology brought about principally by Barber, the costumes are currently known only through generic terms; and, although the range of costume types is restricted, we are hardly aware that many of the individual garment types which make up these costumes come in a variety of styles, each one possessing a history of its own. Basically, we acknowl- edge the clothes as faithful renditions of actual garment types, and agree that many of the decorative motifs found on dress accord with the work of weavers rather than that of embroiderers or cloth painters,4 but we still know little, or nothing, about their history.5 The most problematic wall paintings to order chronologically are the Knossian figurative frescoes, many of which are dated stylistically or on the basis of painting schools and hands, for which we have little proof. Cameron, for instance, dated the Main Procession fresco to the period of Mycenaean control of Knossos on the basis that the dress motifs closely resembled those found on Pal- ace Style vases of this date (Cameron 1987, 32s).6

However, as this widely accepted fresco-textile ceramic connection has been little studied, doubts arise as to whether such comparisons are chronologically meaningful, particularly as these crafts tended to ad- here to the same decorative styles. This paper will ex- amine briefly this problematic relationship, with the aim of showing that, if we are to validate such comparisons, we need to define the art of patterned cloth making in more certain terms. Similarly, if we are to assess the chronological value of the garments we must catego- rise them better. I shall demonstrate that, although we cannot always determine exactly when these dress motifs were first incorporated into textiles, and in spite of

the fact that comparable motifs to those found on dress also occur on other media than ceramics, thus weaken-

1 My warmest thanks go to Cyprian Broodbank for reading earlier versions and for his constant support, as well as to Eleni Hatzaki and Maria Shaw for comments on the final draft. I also extend my gratitude to the British School at Athens for

kindly letting me publish Cameron's photographs of the Knossian frescoes. This article is derived from my doctoral

research, funded thanks to a three year Greek Government

Scholarship, and travel expenses covered by a Cary grant from the BSA.

2 My research has centred on creating a framework for the study of Aegean BA costume, the aim of which has been to make a detailed study of the women's wear and men's wear (garment type and clothing motifs). Soon to be published are the much awaited results of Jones's work (2003) on Minoan fashions.

3 Cameron 1974; N. Marinatos 1993; Morgan 1988, chapter 6; Kontorli-Papadopoulou 1996 have listed garments depicted in the Cretan and Theran frescoes as part of their overall icono-

graphical studies. For hairstyles and jewellery: Marinatos 1967; Davis 1986; Koehl 1986; Withee 1992. For recent reviews of

jewellery: Laffineur 1996; Effinger 1996. Jones 1998, 2000; Tzachili 1997; Televantou 1982; N. Marinatos 1984 and Wardle 1988 concentrate on the construction of women's wear, while

Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1971, Giesecke 1988 and Rehak 1996 fo- cus on elements of men's wear. Though instructive, as some of these reconstructions use modern fibres or unsuitable tai-

loring techniques, they must be seen as doubtful, as Barber has recently emphasised (2000).

4 Barber 1 99 1 , 3 1 6-30, showing that dress motifs can be divided on a structural basis into basic categories which are typical of the weaver rather than other decorative techniques, such as painting on cloth or embroidery. In fact, aside from patterned weaving and beading (n. 9), the evidence for other techniques remains extremely scant. The absence of needles from Minoan sites compared with Near Eastern sites certainly weighs against embroidery - a technique which did not catch on in Egypt either (Hall 1986, 58: Barber 1901, 1Ç2, 1004, 260-70).

5 Even though basic differences between Cretan and Mainland dress motifs have been noted, it remains unclear whether these variations reflect regional traditions.

6 This widely accepted vase/ wall painter and weaver associa- tion dates from the nineteenth century AD following Layard's excavations at Nimrud, supported by Evans's excavations at Knossos of the early 1900s. See Evans 1935, I00> %• 66 a-e, for MM floral ceramic designs; also: Kantor 1947; Shaw 1970; Cameron 1974, 549-51; Betancourt 1985, 42; Barber 1991, 346- 51, 1998; Blakolmer 1997, 1999.



226 ARIANE MARCAR

ing their textile origin, the bulk of our dress motifs can indeed be considered typical of cloth production. I shall then show that, although many prevalent garment types are undoubtedly poor chronological indicators, other items of clothing do differ from one period to the next, and so can be used to cross-check the motif data. The final part of this paper will illustrate these points by examining the costume data from the Grand Staircase and Main Procession frescoes, which feature large-scale patterned garments, and from the Miniature Grand- stand and Sacred Dance frescoes, whose garments lack textile motifs. Only the better known motifs and clothing items are treated.

THE FRESCO-TEXTILE-CERAMIC RELATIONSHIP: A REVIEW

Our understanding of the connection between these crafts comes from a handful of brief studies which have focused on seeking ceramic analogues for the more elaborate dress motifs found on the Main Procession fresco at Knossos, generally dated LM H-IIIAi, and on the more securely dated LM I Pseira frescoes, with the aim of refining the dates (Cameron 1987, 325; Shaw 1998, 67-72, 2000). However, although instructive, these studies failed to find exact copies of the dress motifs. For instance, the elaborate lattice with ivy on a kilt from the Main Procession fresco (FIG. 17.2) seemingly has no known ceramic parallel, nor does the wavy lattice with rosettes at the junctions, which decorates a skirt at Pseira (Shaw 2000, 56, pattern C, 1998, 70, pattern 8).

Since, in contrast to ceramics, patterned textiles and fresco are viewed as major art forms, it is presumed that vessel decorators borrowed from the weaver/wall painter. Transference had therefore been argued on the basis that ceramics occasionally arrange the same types of motifs in a similar manner to those found on dress, or create derivatives of the textile motifs. Generally speaking, it is when ceramics place motifs into well de- fined and geometrically spaced zones that recall patterned weaving, or when these feature all-over patterns that resemble our fresco textile patterns, that a textile connection has been proposed (Foster 1989, 38, on tap- estry-like ceramic designs; MacGillivray 1998, 59 and figs. 2.1-2.3, on Old Palace period ceramics).7 In addition, as we shall see, some dress motifs are argued to pre-date the ceramic varieties by several generations, simply on the basis that they must be textile or fresco in origin, or because the garment type on which they are featured is perceived as more typical of the New Palace period (Cameron 1978, 587-8, fig. 4; Sakellarakis and Sapouna-Sakellaraki 1997, 480, for the tricurved arch). Now, although superficially the premise appears relatively sound, for such artists probably did see each other's work, and it is likely that the dress motifs pre- date their ceramic counterparts, the dynamics of ex- change, duration and extent are unclear. Our tendency

to assume that textiles were more influential than ceramics, combined with our inclination to reconstruct several hundred years of artistic activity as progression through time, has also led us to surmise that such exchanges were regular and longstanding, at the expense of highlighting why ceramics occasionally steer away from the prevalent decorative trend. These issues are not easily resolved since:

1 . Dress motifs appear fully developed in conjunction with figurative frescoes during the New Palace period, and although Old Palace period Kamares pottery occasionally features comparable motif types, including all-over repeat motifs similar to those found on dress, this arrangement is also typical of ceramic decoration. We therefore do not know to what extent they are the creation of the wall painters, or whether Late Minoan textile motifs in Crete are based on Old Palace period textiles. There is also the additional problem that the shared motifs may just derive from a common decorative style, some of them, like the adder, crocus and tricurved arch, being clearly symbolic in nature. This would mean that similar designs were applied to several media roughly concurrently, some keeping these for longer periods than others.

2. Although the decoration of certain walls at Akrotiri resembles wall hangings (Doumas 1992, pls. 136- 7: Xeste 3), we lack depictions of patterned dom- estic textiles such as rugs, blankets and cushion covers. This means we know nothing of this class of fabric, which is likely to have differed consider- ably from clothing since, in contrast to furnishing fabrics, costume is principally concerned with sig- nalling identity, status and gender.

We therefore do not know whether motif transference between weaver and vessel decorator did really involve a time lag, or whether the incorporation of these motifs on pottery was direct or indirect via the art of the wall painter.

DURATION AND EXTENT OF MOTIF TRANSMISSION BETWEEN TEXTILES AND CERAMICS: THE EVIDENCE

In light of the unknowns listed above, it is important to recognise that we can only look at how LBA clothing, rather than patterned textiles, developed in relation to ceramics and other arts. Naturally, comparisons between dress and ceramic motifs are more likely to be chrono-

7 What we know of Old Palace garment design is limited to a small handful of painted faience figurines and votive costumes - artefacts that belong to two related crafts. See Barber 1991, 314, fig. 15. 1, 320-1, fig. 15.6, for votive robes whose designs may be symbolic rather than textile derived.



AEGEAN COSTUME AND THE DA TING OF THE KNOSSIAN FRESCOES 227

Fig. 1 j.i. Scale motif, after Shaw 2000, s 4y fig- 2. Courtesy M. C. Sham

logically meaningful if we can show with more certainty that the dress motifs are clothing in origin. This question, including assessing the extent of transference between the crafts, can be addressed by both tracing the motifs and identifying in which periods these crafts converge or diverge.

Indeed, in drawing attention to the decorative similarities between dress and ceramics, we remain unaware that important compositional and thematic distinctions exist between these crafts. These distinctions need to be outlined, as they uphold the clothing origin of the dress motifs, and provide insight into the nature of the contact; a contact which, as we shall see, is irregular, with few signs of transference before LM II- III.

Overall studies reveal that most of our vase motifs are used entirely in a ceramic manner, the combination of elements dictated by vessel shape and function. A ceramic origin therefore appears likely (Walberg 1986, 9-1 1, 86-8, 1989, 12). The evidence also suggests that mural painters painted clothed human figures from MM IIIB/LM IA at the earliest, whereas vessel decorators did so extremely rarely before LH IHAi, and only in sketch form.8 Consequently, some scholars argue that the garment motifs owe more to the repertoire of the wall painter than to that of the vase painter (Crouwel and Morris 1996, 217; Shaw 1998, 69-70, for the lattice motif in the House of the Ladies at Akrotiri,

motifs 19F, 24F, 26F, and pl. G, for a Theran "wall hanging" as a counterpart for the Pseiran skirt motif).

The lack of contact between ceramics and textiles is further reinforced by the fact that certain ceramic motifs are possibly derived from metal, stone or ivory (Furumark 1941, 144-5, l4&~9 [jewellery], 183 [architectural triglyph half-rosette]; Poursat 1977, 217-19 [likely influence of ivory on ceramics]). This is reason- able, as related crafts tend to share greater stylistic af- finities than unrelated crafts. On this basis we can ex- pect the jewellers and metalworkers, who all contrib- uted regularly to the production of clothing, as the finds of beaded cloth fragments, decorated metallic girdles and gold attachments sewn to cloth indicate, to have produced comparable motifs to those found on dress.9

8 Only the LMII Knossos sherd on which a female head is painted in fresco style points to the contrary (Cameron 1974, 550-1; Niemeier 1985, fig. 55. 3).

9 Dendra, T. 2: beadwork in a zigzag pattern (yellow, brown, black, blue and white) was possibly sewn on to a leather belt, and a cloth fragment found in a lamp dated to LH IIIA-IIIB (Persson 1931, 77 (cloth), 79-80, 106 (beads); Barber 1991, 312, n. 1). Upward of 40,000 small glass beads were found with this male burial, which also had a boar's tusk helmet. The huge number of beads points to a large item, possibly a



228 ARIANE MARCAR

This occurs, we find, as early as LM IA, when the crocus frieze that decorates the bodice of the seated god- dess with griffin at Akrotiri is replicated on a silver hair pin from Mavro Spilio (Doumas 1992, pls. 125-6; Alexiou and Brice 1972, pl. 2). Parallel development and contemporary use between these crafts are further reinforced by the fact that this crocus type and the arrangement appear to be atypical on ceramics and are absent after LM IB.

In ceramics, independent development is indicated as early as MM IIIB-LM IA when figurative wall painting flourished for the first time. This is when we see a new range of garment types featuring the first definite textile patterns. The style differs markedly from previous fashions; interlocked and lattice-based motifs domi- nate. These dress motifs occur alongside a very distinctive and limited repertoire of new (and simplistic) LM IA ceramic motifs, which lasted for about three generations and omitted such common clothing motifs, including the all-over dotted scale pattern with striped lozenges as fillers, which decorates a skirt and other fresco fragments at LM I Ayia Triada (Betancourt 1985, 123, 128-30, figs. 98-100, for typical LM IA motifs; Cameron 1974, pls. 22-3 A; Militello 1998, pls. C: skirt, F b. Vi [top right, fragment assigned to dress]). In fact, as far as I am aware, though the all-over repeat scale pattern appears first on ceramics, no ceramic rep- licas for this textile variation exist (Mountjoy 1999, fig. 365. 32: LH IIA; Popham 1970, fig. 15. 114: LM IHA, for the closest comparable types, which also represent the closest counterparts for the textile version on a kilt in the Main Procession fresco [FIG. 17. 1]).

This ceramic change heralded the end of the long lived Kamares style, which occasionally featured motifs and decorative structures reminiscent of our LBA textile patterns. In contrast to textiles, which generally feature plainly decorated bands and designs based on the grid or interlocked concept, LM IA ceramic syntax, or composition, is dominated by a simple zone, as opposed to the unity compositions of the previous period (Furumark 1941, 157). Vessels are also frequently decorated with series of horizontal friezes that feature the same motifs. Characteristic LM IA motifs include the reed pattern, floral bands, tortoise shell ripple, wavy lines, decorated circles generally filled with spirals or rosettes with multiple petals which in turn are encir- cled within a yo-yo band, spirals, the double axe, the ivy and the lily. Though the use of naturalistic floral elements, combined with a change in syntax in LM IA, has been argued to be related to, if not inspired, by the then flourishing art of wall painting, only the lily which occurs on contemporary dress is accurately replicated on ceramics (Furumark 1941, 152, 157; Betancourt 1985, 123, agreeing with Evans, argues that vase decorators were inspired by the wall painters; Doumas 1992, pls. 133-4; Marinatos 1969, pl. 25. 1). Similarly among common geometric patterns, aside from the spiral, only the yo-yo design, a motif that does not survive into LM

IB but is found in frieze form on waistbands at Akrotiri, is replicated on a cup from the same site (Doumas 1992, pl. 138; Popham 1984, pl. 128.1: MM III/LM IA for spiral; Doumas 1992, pls. 105, 138: right edge of waist- band on left figure; Marinatos 1976, pl. 48, top left: A9, 1: yo-yo motif on cup). In fact, as on Crete, there is little to suggest that the vase decorator at LC I Akrotiri, where numerous and well preserved examples of dress have survived, was interested in clothing motifs. Like Crete, we find that clothes were customarily decorated with lattice-based patterns, but here too, vessel decorators failed to adopt them (Barber 1991, 316-17: list of Akrotiri motif categories; Doumas 1992, pls. 1 16-17, 1 20-1: clothing examples; Marthari 1987, figs. 7-29, 1992: Akrotiri pottery). The absence on ceramics of the stylised irises that are so characteristic of women's wear at Akrotiri further separates the two crafts (Doumas 1992, pls. 101,103, 107, 120).

Even in LM IB when many of the so-called Kamares decorative ceramic formulae reappear, few seem connected to textile motifs. The Marine Style motifs remain strikingly absent from agreed representations of dress (Betancourt 1985, pls. 20-1, figs. 104-5). Moreo- ver, even prominent ceramic newcomers at this time, such as the adder motif, are to my knowledge not illustrated for certain on dress until LM II - III when the motif is found in single as opposed to multiple rows (Evans 1928, 707, fig. 443, pl. 1 1 : Cupbearer in the Main Procession fresco; Lamb 1921, pl. 7. 20: Mycenae; Militello 1998, 1 16-18, pls. 1 B,¥ B. V2, 188, pls. 22, 32A, Q. U2 [LM I Ayia Triada fresco fragments attrib- uted to dress, but which I find questionable, as neither fragment features anatomical aspects or typically shaped garments; moreover the arrangement of the adder in multiple rows is atypical on costume]).

It is worth stressing that the absence on Aegean ceramics of the long lasting and common lattice-based and interlocked crosses/quatrefoil dress patterns weighs particularly against any substantial textile influence on ceramics, as these textile motifs endured on clothing for hundreds of years; the former appearing from MM IIIB/LM IA onwards, the latter ranging from LM I to LH II-IIIA (Militello 1998, pls. D-E; Rodenwaldt 1919, pl. 9; Reusch 1953, 35, fig. 5: Mycenae fresco fragment; also Barber 1 991, fig. 15. 10, who also lists it as textile).

All told, during these periods of stylistic innovation, when artistic exchanges were presumably more fre- quent, evidence for contemporary transmission between

beaded kilt such as those known in Egypt (Vogelsang-Eastwood 1993, pl. 18, for a vertically striped example from Tutankhamun's tomb). The eight large cup-shaped gold rosettes, which were surrounded by beading found in T. 10, also allude to clothing accessories made of other materials than fabric (Persson 1942, 80, fig. 93 a-b. 80, and reconstruction as a girdle: pl. 3).




these distinct crafts remains poor. This is most evident in LM IA when vase decorators clearly steered away from the prevalent decorative style, while the textile link with jewellery and metalwork seems much stronger. This suggests that we should not rely so heavily on ceramics to date these dress representations, particularly as good parallels for certain dress motifs occur on related and contemporary media.

I conclude, therefore, that it is unwise to argue transference or concurrent use simply on the basis that ceramics feature comparable motifs to those found on dress. It seems more prudent to argue transference when:

1 . Ceramics feature exact or near identical copies of the textile motifs. Ideally, the same fixed combination of motifs should be present and these should be oriented in the same way.

2 . When a motif is exclusive to the two media, or when the wider dissemination in the arts of a dress motif can be shown to be specific to the period to which that dress motif belongs.

Besides this, comparisons with metal objects and jewellery are likely to be chronologically meaningful, particularly as there is clear pictorial evidence for these dress accessories. In addition, as we shall see, since clothing styles and hairstyles tend to differ from one period to the next, their temporal distribution must be exam- ined in conjunction with the dress motifs.

THE CLOTHING ORIGIN OF THE DRESS MOTIFS

The above discussion has implicitly contrasted the unchanging character of textile decoration with the more dynamic art of vessel painting, thus upholding the textile origin of our dress motifs. As the catalogues of the dress motifs by period and region (Crete, Cyclades and Mainland Greece) reveal, the same restricted range of elementary geometric, interlocked and lattice-based designs motifs occur from the New Palace period onwards, many shared with the Mainland (TABLES 17. 1- 17.2).10 The decorative structures are typical of the weaver, and there is no direct evidence for animal themes on dress.11 This relatively unchanging repertoire is con- sistent with a lengthy master-apprentice weaving system based on repeating the same motifs, and hence impeding the entry of new motifs.12 Indirectly, it suggests that, although we tend to assume that we possess only a fraction of the dress motifs that were in circula- tion in a given period, we may possess the greater part of the range.

In the Aegean this formal and seemingly narrow vo- cabulary can be divided into four general groups: 1) common and simple universal types, often unconnected and repeated in single bands (hems, sleeve and bodice borders); 2) basic unconnected geometric motifs that

are used as the main ornament and repeated to create all-over patterns (such as polka-dot or dotted rosette); some denote items of animal skin or leather (so-called lion's mane: Lang 1969, pl. 6. 1 1 H 5, on textiles; Kanta 1980, fig. 48. 4, on a bull-rhyton from Psychro); 3) more elaborate motifs used in combination or in interlocked fashion to produce all-over patterns, many based on the lattice concept, and many of these exclusive to textile; 4) symbolic motifs that are also traditional to other media, but when found on dress, tend, as we shall see, to be shaped slightly differently or include slightly dif- ferent fillers.

The weaving ancestry of our Aegean dress motifs is further reinforced by their presence on textiles and clothing elsewhere. In fact, a relatively large number of LBA Aegean textile motifs recur on first millennium Assyrian, Babylonian and Greek textile representations and on actual textile remains (Carroll 1965, for a list, including those on extant textiles, dating mainly from the seventh to the fourth centuries; Connell 1968, 73. 3> 6, 7, 9, 78. 6-7, 80. 7, including dotted rosette, scale, lattices; Brown 1980, pls. 41. 361 [Luristan], 43. 385 [Egypt]: scale; pls. 43. 384 [Egypt], 33. 239 [in Assyrian art]: dotted lattice; pl. 42. 375 [Babylonia]: dotted zigzag). As in the Aegean, the representations of these textile motifs are arranged in a known textile manner,

10 I have identified a total of 59 textile motifs from fresco. (The tables form part of my doctoral research.)

1 1 After study of the two fragmentary and heavily restored women in the LM I A Phylakopi fresco (Immerwahr 1990, 189. Ph 2-3; Evans 1930, 43, fig. 26), I believe that Gilliéron's restoration of the rock-work and swallows or griffins as a skirt is in doubt; as is the position of the figures, as Morgan demonstrates. Indeed, the restoration was done at a time when very little was known about female dress styles (Morgan 1990, 259, fig. 8). The fresco was found in 1896, when figurative frescoes were known only from Mycenae and Tiryns. Similarly, the fragmentary Knossian miniature frescoes ascribed to MM IIIB-LM IA, which depict flutes, bucranium, rosette, sphinx and griffin, which Evans originally associated with female robes, cannot be connected to dress, as there is no evidence for such motifs being used on clothing. More importantly, there are no anatomical details to link these to human figures (Evans 1930, 40-2, fig. 25).

1 2 Although weavers can produce wide arrays of designs, they tend to work with a restricted range of motifs - since weaving is done in work groups where weavers of the same com- munity or culture need to be familiar with the same body of designs. All weaving students begin by weaving basic, universal geometric motifs and memorise them as whole units, rather than placing them in pattern books. Only when they are familiar with these, do they move on to more complex designs: a lengthy process based on repetition. This system results in few appreciable decorative changes from one gen- eration to another. Even after major social upheavals or when new technologies offer improved production, changes in decoration may not occur.



230 ARIANE MARCAR

TABLE 17. i: Dress motifs on fresco used in common by Crete and the Greek Mainland during the Final Palatial period.

Lion's mane Plain zigzag Adder with or without dots Hatched zigzag/adder Interlocked cruciform with square ends Architectural

Wavy lines

Squiggle or fur motif Frieze of stemmed spirals Running spiral Dotted spiral Interlocked C-spiral or scroll Plain lattice Tricurved arch or scalloped scale also referred to as a papyrus flower either with or without dotted bloom Petalled rosette Dotted rosette

Ivy

Possibly including Leaf in chain form Disc with short inner radiating lines and central dot forming basic rosette

TOTAL: 19

so a textile rather than a painted origin seems likely. The comparative evidence also tells us which motifs denote animal skins rather than woven designs. The shared motifs include: the four-point dot, pairs of dashes, dotted rosette, isolated cross, quirk, chevron, serpentine without fillers and spiral in band form, running and quadruple spirals, as well as all-over repeats based on the grid: the concentric lozenge, scale and even tricurved arch (for Aegean clothing examples of the first three motifs: Kritseli-Providi 1982, pl. 6 a: LH IIIB Mycenae; Reusch 1953, fig. 1 1 : on sacral knot from LH HIA-B Mycenae; Lang 1969, pl. 120. 8 H 5: LH IIIB Pylos).

We may therefore conclude that the bulk of our dress motifs were traditional to clothing. This is backed up by the regular absence on ceramics and other artefacts of popular clothing motifs such as the lattice-based designs, and the complete absence of the interlocked quatrefoil and cross designs, underscore this, as do the motifs which can be viewed as the joint product of the jeweller/metalworker and weaver.

TABLE 17.2: Cretan dress motifs that continue into the Final Palatial period.

Comb Plain zigzag Dotted zigzag Star-shaped diamond Dotted spiral Scale: plain or with dotted edge and or striped lozenge with "A" as filler Tricurved arch or scalloped scale also referred to as a papyrus flower either with or without dotted bloom Petalled rosette Dotted rosette

Ivy

Possibly including Adder with or without dots Interlocked C-spiral or scroll Disc with short inner radiating lines and central dot forming basic rosette

TOTAL 13

MOTIF AND GARMENT ANALYSIS

The main garments and dress motifs of the Main Procession and the so-called earlier Grand Staircase Frescoes Cameron described the male garments, the kilts, full- length and plainly decorated tunics, as well as the hairstyles of the large scale Main Procession and Cupbearer frescoes that still adorned the walls of the main corridor at Knossos, as typically Mycenaean (FIGS. 17. 1- 17.2; Evans 1928, fig. 450, pls. 25, 27, for the recon- structed processional sequence; Cameron 1987, 324, 328). The implication was that these costumes did not originate from, or were not part of, Cretan fashions until Knossos came under Mycenaean control. Cameron's ethnic labelling of the garments, especially of the kilt, also agreed with Evans's view that the loincloth/ breechcloth was more typical of the New Palace period (Evans 1928, 751). Although objects depicted in the Main Procession fresco have LM IB parallels (Davis 1990, 214) and an LM II date is increasingly favoured, the date range for this fresco remains wide (Hood 2000, 204: Evans: LM IB; Cameron: LM II; Immerwahr: LM II-IIIA. Probably LM II).

With regard to the very fragmentary male figures on the Grand Staircase (?), who wear loincloths/ breechcloths, Cameron dated them to MM HIB-LM



AEGEAN COSTUME AND THE DA TING OF THE KNOSSIAN FRESCOES 23 1

Fig. 17.2, Kilt with ivy pattern from the Main Procession fresco, after Cameron 1974, pi 10 C Courtesy British School at Athens.

Fig- I7-3- Detail of the so-called earlier Grand Staircase Procession, after Cameron 1974, pi 5 Ã Courtesy British School at Athens.



232 ARIANE MARCAR

IA on the grounds that the male heads shared astound- ing similarities with those seen in the Miniatures, which until recently were also assigned to this date (FIG. 17.3; Cameron 1978, 588, 1987, 325). As the fragments of the figures on the Grand Staircase were found "close together in a heap of debris a little South of the Section of the Corridor, containing the remains of the 'Proces- sion Fresco'" (Evans 1928, 751), Cameron not only at- tributed it to an earlier phase of painting but also to a processional theme since, unlike Evans, he believed that at some stage this fresco was removed to make way for the Main Procession fresco (Cameron 1978, 587, pl. 4, for conjectural reconstruction of the former, 1987, figs. 4-6, for restorations of the Main Procession and Cupbearers, of which only two faces survive; Immerwahr 1990, pls. 38-40).

The stylistic differences between the Main Proces- sion and Grand Staircase frescoes, along with the use of an identical theme in the same area of the Palace (if we assume that the fragments depicting men in loincloths/breechcloths do in fact belong to a procession [rather than, say, athletic figures, who are known to have been frequently depicted in this costume during LM I]), conveniently support the chronological distinction. However, attributing the loincloth/breechcloth specifi- cally to the New Palace period cannot be upheld, as it co-existed with the kilt until the destruction of the palaces (Lang 1969, pls. 44, 129, D. 59 a-c: H nws, from LH HIB Pylos). It was also part of processional scenes from MM IIIB-LM IA (Warren 1969, 85. P474 [HM 426], 175). As for the dotted zigzag pattern with alter- nating broken triangles that decorates one of the breechcloths, I interpret this motif as a derivative or deconstructed stylised iris. The stylised iris is only found in zonal compositions and alternates in direc- tion from LM IB, the time when dotted zigzags made a ceramic comeback. Yet close parallels occur only in LM II and IIIAi (Evans 1935, 354, fig. 297 a 1: LM II; Warren 1997, 162, fig. 12. P 1625: LM IIIAi). As it is difficult to show that this fresco predates the Main Pro- cession on thematic grounds, or on the basis of garment type, we must therefore ask whether the stylistic developments noted here are ceramic or fresco in origin. Two alternatives can be proposed. If we accept the MM IIIB-LM IA date for this breechcloth depiction, then it represents the earliest occurrence of such a pattern in Aegean art. Alternatively, as the merging of the iris with the zigzag appears to be an LM II ceramic development, an LM II- IIIAi date may be more likely. If so, this fresco would be roughly contemporary with the Main Procession fresco, as Evans originally thought (1928, 751).

With the other Main Procession fresco garments, the shape and style of the full length male garments with straight hems preserved from the calf down cor- responds with what we know of tunics. In the Aegean the tunic appears as early as LM IA, where it is seen on women at Akrotiri (Televantou 1982, 121, fig. 3 a-

g, for proposed reconstructions; N. Marinatos 1984, 102, fig. 70). These were worn beneath the wrap-around flounced skirt. It seems that it is only in LM IB that men appear in tunics (Abramovitz 1980, pl. 4 a. 59-60, for fragmentary Ayia Irini fresco fragments depicting men in plain white short-sleeved horizontal necked items without waist or seam bands which extend past the hips - lower half missing). On Crete, the earliest possible examples are LM II/IHA, and come in the form of the fragmentary "Palanquin"-Charioteer fresco in which three men are illustrated (Evans 1928, 770-2, figs. 502-3, 1935, fig. 332 a-b' Cameron 1974, pl. 51 A-B, for greater detail). Although these men are usu- ally described as robed, the garment characteristics - plain white and full-length, with side seam and short sleeve with banded border - accord with tunics. The closest parallels for the Main Procession types occur on the LM IIIAi Ayia Triada Sarcophagus and on the fresco at the Villa (Long 1974, fig. 37, pl. 15, for the bucket holder and lyre player).

Of the motifs, the hatched zigzag/adder (FIG. 17.4), which decorates the side seam of one of these tunics, has ceramic parallels only from LM IIIAi onwards (Long 1974, fig. 43, pl. 17, for the Ayia Triada Sar- cophagus depiction; Niemeier 1985, fig. 48. 8-9). As the pattern appears to be exclusive to textiles and ceramics and resembles plaiting, a textile origin seems likely. The derivative waz found in frieze form (FIG. 17.5) on the hem of one of these tunics is also only closely paralleled in terms of shape in LH III, in ivory (Symeonoglou 1973, 59-62, fig. 257, pl. 85: inlays from Thebes; also Xenaki-Sakellariou 1985, pl. 27: Mycenae T. 27). This is because the squatter and more ornate ceramic types with stem, which tend to occur as fillers rather than as the main ornament, do not compare well with the elongated short-stemmed textile variety, although they do occasionally occur in frieze form (Niemeier 1985, fig. 17, pl. 9. VII Ai).

The comb motif seen in multiple rows on the most prevalent LBA female garment, the flounced skirt, is only roughly paralleled in LM II when a rare example of this type of motif occurs on ceramics, but is not arranged in a textile manner (FIG. 17.6; Popham 1984, pl. 159. 2).

As for the kilt, this item appears throughout the Aegean from LB I onwards and several varieties are attested. Only the kilted acrobat represented on the gold hiltguard from Malia implies earlier use. The context of this artefact is either MM IIB-late MM III at earliest, or MM HI-LM I, although Pelon dates it to MM II (Morgan 1995, 39, fig. 4; Hood 1971, 225, fig. 68; Pelon 1983, 701-3, 1985, 38, 1997, 50). In shape and decoration it remains unique. Unlike later examples, the kilt has hanging belt-ends and lacks the distinctive v-shaped front end that typifies later Cretan and Main- land types. It is important to stress that, regarding distribution, the majority of kilt depictions are from the Mainland (mainly LH II- III in date) and depict the V




Fig. 17.4. Hatched zigzag/ adder motif.

Fig. 17.5. Derivative waz motif.

Fig. 17.6. Comb motif

front type or type with parted front sections.13 On Crete, aside from Malia and the example at Chania (CMS 5. Supplementum 1 A. 135), depictions of the kilt are, as far as I am aware, restricted to Knossos. In the Main Procession the front edges not only fall to a point (v- shaped) but also have long meshed tassels. It is perhaps significant that the only other known Aegean example of this accessory may date to LH HIB (?) (CMS 11. 272: the Danicourt ring). During Dynasty XVIII, Egyp- tian tomb painters also linked this v-shaped kilt with tassels to Aegean peoples (for the Keftiu in the tomb of

Rekhmire: see Davies 1943, pls. 18 top left register (beaded hem), 19-20 top registers (short tassel at the edge of the parting front section of the kilt; also Evans

13 Davis 1977, fig. 178: silver krater with battle scene from Mycenae Shaft Grave IV; and CMS 11. 272: bezel of the Danicourt signet ring, LH IIB). The better preserved seals depicting this type are also from Mainland contexts (CMS 1. 9, 15-16 (LH I Mycenae), 290 (Pylos), 306-7 (LH III Pylos); CMS 11. 208 (LH I-II or LH IIA, Kakovatos).



234 ARIANE MARCAR

1928, fig. 473). Outside the Aegean, tassels are most prevalent in Syria, where they too are associated with the kilt. Commonly the representations are connected to Baal or Reshef, and mostly dated to the fourteenth and thirteenth centuries (Institut du Monde Arabe 1993, figs. 175-6: stele of Baal from Ras Shamra; Barnett 1982, pl. 22: ivory bed panel from Ras Shamra). The v- shaped kilt with tassels also found its way to Egypt, as an Egyptian sculptured stele of Reshef (of e. 1550-1 100) confirms (Gray 1964, pl. 19). In Egypt it is also associated with foreign prisoners during the reign of Ramesses HI (Gray 1964, pl. 18). Tasselled belt ends between the legs of "warriors" are also known on fine seals of the Middle Assyrian style of the late fourteenth and early thirteenth centuries (Porada 1993, 578, fig. 41 : seal from Assur with kilted male figure), and on a Cypro-Aegean cylinder seal which falls stylistically into the "Dot-eye Mumps" Group of c. 1430-05 BC (Weingarten 1996, 81-2, pl. 23 a).

As regards kilt motifs, no parallels for the interlocked cross varieties exist, and close parallels for the scale are only found in LM HI. If we turn to the elaborate ivy motif, here too, as recently stated by Shaw, no exact ceramic parallel exists (Shaw 2000, 56, pattern C; FIG. 17.2). This voluted type does however have three revealing diagnostic features: a dot found at the apex of the leaf; an internal line cutting centrally through the leaf; and two parallel lines highlighted by dots which frame its base. It is also significant that this fill ornament is used within a lattice with dotted junctions, a classic textile structure found as early as MM IB-IIA on seals, but only very rarely attested ceramically (CMS 2. 5. 12-15: Phaistos; Levi 1976, pl. 10 a: MM IB-IIA; Furumark 1941, 382, fig. 67: FM57. 1, LH II A ceramic examples). Only the plain net-like lattice occurs peri- odically on ceramics. The latter is probably derived from basketry, so should in all probability be disassociated with the textile type. Among ivy motifs, only the LH IIA ivy used as a filler within a scale pattern, the inner edge of each scale emphasised by a dotted line, is con- ceptually reminiscent to the textile example. Voluted ivies with a central division occur principally in MM IHB, though an ornate example is known in MM IB- IIA at Phaistos (Levi 1976, pl. 70 a). Likewise, the dotted apex is first seen in LM IB where it is used in pen- dant form (Betancourt 1985, fig. 109). As far as I know, a near identical match for this motif occurs only in metalwork (gold attachments) dated to LH IIIA/B or slightly earlier (Immerwahr 1971, pl. 33. 25-9, from Athens, with pierced apex and edges; also Xenaki- Sakellariou 1985: Mycenae T 26. 2309 (2), T. 60. 281 1 (9-10), T. 81. 3217 (20), and copies in faience: T 55. 2793 and T 69. 2929 (3) [?]). These attachments were sewn to the remains of a female burial shroud, thus further linking the pattern to clothing. In sum, this more detailed motif examination reinforces an LM II- III date for this fresco, as does the evidence provided by the distribution of the main garment types.

The Miniatures: The Grandstand and Sacred Dance frescoes (FIGS. 17.7-17.8)

The fragments of the Miniature Frescoes were found in the Room of the Spiral Cornice in a mixed context dated by Evans to MM III, and by Cameron to MM IIIB-LM I A on stylistic grounds (Evans 1921, 527, 1930, 31-80, especially 33; Cameron 1974, 437-8; Immerwahr 1990, 63-5, 173. Kn No. 15). Evans based his date on the fact that the male heads of these miniatures were astoundingly similar with those depicted on a slightly larger scale fresco fragment illustrating a crowd of spectators which was found in the lower stra- tum in the cists in Magazine XIII which he thought dated to MM III; Cameron, however, put the fragments in LM II (1974, 324-5, 428-9, pl. 28 b). Niemeier's review of the context now suggests that the cists that replaced the "kaselles" in the Magazines were sealed by a floor in LM IHA, and not in MM III (Niemeier 1994, 78). This supports Cameron's date, and thus a connection with the Grandstand and Sacred Dance frescoes dated by Immerwahr and Niemeier to LM I seems unlikely, particularly as the miniature style appears to be characteristic of LM I (Immerwahr 1990, 64; Niemeier 1994, 85).

At first glance, the undecorated and sketchily ren- dered costumes of the Miniature Frescoes appear largely uninformative, but on closer examination we find that they are of potential chronological value. Al- though, as we have seen, little can be learnt from the common, long-lasting male garment that is shown, the loincloth/breechcloth, mainly because there are here no obvious distinguishing traits, they feature several female costumes together. It is the distinctions between the female skirt types, horizontally striped and the wrap-around flounced skirts which only bear two or three flounces that are noteworthy (FIG. 17.7) for, to my knowledge, the latter which are found here on female dancers, some with scalp locks, are only closely paralleled in LM I: at Trianda, where a small female bronze figurine possesses the same number of flounced tiers and an identical coiffure, consisting of a partly shaven scalp with forelock and locks cascading mainly down the right hand side of the head and back; and Akrotiri (Marketou 1998, 59, fig. 7. M 1069; Doumas 1992, pls. 107-8 for a veiled woman). The coiffure is especially significant for, as far as I know, depictions of female scalp locks are elusive by LM IB. Moreover, the distribution of horizontally striped skirts on Cretan artefacts ranges from MM IIIB-LM IA (Temple Reposi- tory figurines), to at most LM IB- II or LM IHAi, the dates offered for the Isopata ring (FIG. 17.8; CMS 2. 3. 51). In addition to sharing the same garment type as the Miniatures, the dancers featured on the ring share the same posture and hairstyle as those of the Sacred Dance (Evans 1930, 67-8). The handful of seals and sealings that portray this infrequent skirt type date to LM IB (e.g. CMS 2. 6. 1, 22-3: Ayia Triada; CMS 2.




Fig. 17.7 (above). The Sacred Dance fresco, after Cameron 1974, pi 30. Courtesy British School at Athens.

Fig. 17.8 (below). The Grandstand fresco, after Cameron 1974, pi 47 A. Courtesy British School at Athens.



236 ARIANE MARCAR

7. 23-4: Kato Zakros). The overall costume evidence therefore supports the LM I date for the Miniatures, especially as the ring was probably an heirloom by LM HIAi.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings can be summarised as follows:

1 . With regard to the question of whether fresco-textile ceramic comparisons are chronologically meaningful, the evidence shows that exact ceramic copies rather than imitations or derivatives of the dress motifs are clearly the most decisive parallels. Unsurprisingly, the evidence also shows that identical copies occur in crafts that helped produce patterned cloths (jewellery and metalwork), these often appearing concurrently. Leading on from this, as motif exchanges between patterned textiles and vessel decorator only really become evident during LM II- III, one can therefore begin to chart temporal variations in their relationship with these other decorative media.

2. The findings also confirm that the structure of most of the LBA Aegean dress motifs can indeed be associated to the art of the weaver. However, the evidence also shows that some were created with beads and metallic attachments. The evidence for other textile decorative techniques remains slim. The majority can therefore be viewed as traditional of clothing.

3. The garments and hairstyles are of potential chronological use, as some differ from one period to another. It is therefore important not to divorce the evidence from these categories; hence the im- portance of categorising them.

In sum, I hope this paper has shown that with a better understanding of costume we can gain further insight into the date of the Knossian figurative frescoes. In this instance, the combined costume evidence upholds the prevalent date for the Main Procession fresco and the Grandstand and Sacred Dance frescoes, whereas in the case of the Grand Staircase Procession a later date is indicated, one probably roughly contemporary with the Main Procession fresco.

REFERENCES

Abramovitz, K., 1980. 'Frescoes from Ayia Irini, Keos. Parts II-IV Hesperia 49: 57-85.

Alexiou, S. and W. C. Brice, 1972. 'A silver pin from Mavro Spelio with an inscription in Linear A: Her. Mus. 540' Kadtnos 1 1 : 1 13-24.

Barber, E. J. W., 1991. Prehistoric Textiles: the Development of Cloth in the Neolithic and Bronze Ages with Special Ref- erence to the Aegean. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Barber, E. J. W., 1994. Women s Work: the First 20,000 Years. Women, Cloth, and Society in Early Times. New York: Norton.

Barber, E. J. W., 1998. 'Aegean ornaments and designs in Egypt' in E. H. Cline and D. Harris-Cline (eds) The Aegean and the Orient in the Second Millennium (Aegaeum 18): 13-17. Liège and Austin.

Barber, E. J. W., 2000. 'Minoan fashion: skin deep?' Archae- ology 53-6: 6-7.

Bar nett, R. D., 1982. Ancient Ivories in the Middle East and Adjacent Countries (Monographs of the Institute of Ar- chaeology Qedem 14). Jerusalem.

Betancourt, P. P., 1985. The History of Mino an Pottery. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Blakolmer, F., 1997. 'Minoan wall-painting: the transforma- tion of a craft into an art form' in R. Laffineur and P. P. Betancourt (eds) TEXNH. Craftsmen, Craftswomen and Craftsmanship in the Aegean Bronze Age {Aegaeum 16): 95-105. Liège and Austin.

Blakolmer, E, 1999. 'The history of Middle Minoan wall- painting: the 'Kamares connection" in P. P. Betancourt, V. Karageorghis, R. Laffineur and W. - D. Niemeier (eds) MELETEMATA. Studies in Aegean Archaeology Presented to Malcolm H. Wiener (Aegaeum 20): 41-50. Liège and Austin.

Brown, K. S., 1980. The Question of Near Eastern Textile Decoration of the Early ist Millennium B. C. as a Source for Greek Vase Painting of the Orientalizing Style. PhD diss., University of Pennsylvania.

Cameron, M. A. S., 1974. A General Study of Minoan Fres- coes. PhD diss., University of Newcastle.

Cameron, M. A. S., 1978. Theoretical interrelations among Theran, Cretan and Mainland frescoes' in C. Doumas (ed.) Thera and the Aegean World 1: 579-92. London: Thera and the Aegean World.

Cameron, M. A. S., 1987. The 'palatial' thematic system in the Knossos murals. Last notes on Knossos frescoes' in R. Hägg and N. Marinatos (eds) The Function of the Minoan Palaces (Skrifter Utgivna av Svenska Institutet i Athen 40 35): 320-8. Stockholm.

Canngton Smith, J., 1975. Spinning, Weaving and Textile Manufacture in Prehistoric Crete. PhD diss., Univer- sity of Tasmania.

Carroll, D. L., 1965. Patterned Textiles in Greek Art: a Study of Their Designs in Relationship to Real Textiles and the Local and Period Styles. PhD diss., University of California at Los Angeles.

Connell, P., 1968. Greek Ornament. London: Batsford. Crouwel, J. H. and C. E. Morris, 1996. 'The beginnings of

Mycenaean pictorial vase painting' Archäologischer Anzeiger: 197-219.

Davies, N. de G, 1943. The Tomb of Rekh-mi-Re at Thebes. New York: Plantin Press.

Davis, E. N., 1986. 'Youth and age in the Thera frescoes' American Journal of Archaeology 90: 399-406.

Davis, E. N., 1990. 'The Cycladic style of the Thera frescoes' in D. A. Hardy, C. Doumas, J. A. Sakellarakis and P. M. Warren (eds) Thera and the Aegean World 3.1:214- 28. London: Thera Foundation.

Doumas, C, 1992. The Wall-paintings of Thera. Athens: Thera Foundation - Petros M. Nomikos.

Effinger, M., 1996. Minoischer Schmuck (British Archaeologi- cal Reports International Series 646). Oxford: Tempus Reparatum.




Evans, A. J., 1921 . The Palace of Minos at Knossos 1 . London: Macmillan.

Evans, A. J., 1928. The Palace of Minos at Knossos 2. London: Macmillan.



Foster, K. P., 1989. 'Translations into clay: inspiration and imitation in Minoan pottery' in P. E. Govern, M. D. Notis and W. D. Kingery (eds) Cross-craft and Cross-cul- tural Interactions in Ceramics (Ceramics and Civilization 4): 31-44. Westerville: American Ceramic Society.

Furumark, A., 1941. Mycenaean Pottery: Analysis and Clas- sification. Stockholm: Kungl. Vitterhets Historie och Antik vi tets Akademien.

Giesecke, H. E., 1988. 'Kretische Schurze' Opuscula Atheniensa 17: 91-8.

Gray, J., 1964. The Canaanites. London: Thames and Hud- son.

Hood, M. S. F., 1971. The Minoans: Crete in the Bronze Age. London: Thames and Hudson.

Hood, M. S. E, 2000. 'Cretan fresco dates' in C. Sherratt (ed.) The Wall Paintings ofThera 1: 191-208. Athens: Thera Foundation.

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

Immerwahr, S. A., 1990. Aegean Painting in the Bronze Age. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.

Institut du Monde Arabe, 1993. Syrie, mémoire et civilisation. Nantes: Flammarion.

Jones, B., 1998. Minoan Women's Clothes: an Investigation of their Construction from the Depictions in Aegean Art. PhD diss., Institute of Fine Arts, New York Uni- versity.

Jones, B., 2000. 'Revealing Minoan fashions' Archaeology 53.3: 36-41.

Jones, B., 2003. 'Veils and mantles: an investigation of the construction and function of the costumes of the Veiled Dancer from Thera and the Camp Stool Banqueter from Knossos' in K. P. Foster and R. Laffineur (eds) METRON. Measuring the Aegean Bronze Age (Aegaeum 4): 441-50. Liège and Austin.

Kanta, A., 1980. The Late Minoan III Period in Crete: a Sur- vey of Sites, Pottery and their Distribution (Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 58). Göteborg: Paul Aströms Förlag.

Kantor, H. J., 1947. The Aegean and the Orient in the Second Millennium B. C (Archaeological Institute of America Monograph i). Bloomington: Principia.

Koehl, R. B., 1986. 'The Chieftain Cup and a Minoan rite of passage' Journal of Hellenic Studies 106: 00-110.

Kontorli-Papadopoulou, L., 1996. Aegean Frescoes of Religious Character (Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 1 17). Göteborg : Paul Aströms Förlag.

Kritseli-Providi, I. 1982. Toíxoyçacpíeç too ÛQt]axevrixoo xévTQou Tcov Müxr¡vév. Athens.

Laffineur, R., 1996. 'Polychrysos Mykene. Toward a defini- tion of Mycenaean goldwork' in A. Calinescu (ed.) An- cient Jewelry and Archaeology: 89-116. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Lamb, W., 1921. 'Frescoes from the Ramp House' Annual of the British School at Athens 24 (19 19-21): 189-99.

Lang, M. L., 1969. The Palace of Nestor at Pylos in Western Messenia 2. The Frescoes. Princeton: Princeton Univer- sity Press for the University of Cincinnati.

Levi, D, 1976. Festos e la civiltà minoica (Incunabula Graeca 60). Roma: Edizioni dell'Ateneo.

Long, C. R., 1974. TheAyia Triadha Sarcophagus: a Study of Late Minoan and Mycenaean Funerary Practices and Be- liefs (Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 41). Göteborg: Paul Aströms Förlag.

MacGillivray, J. A., 1998. Knossos: Pottery Groups of the Old Palace Period (British School at Athens Studies 5). Lon- don.

Marina tos, N., 1984. Art and Religion in Thera: Reconstruct- ing a Bronze Age Society. Athens.

Mar ina tos, N., 1993. Minoan Religion. Ritual Image and Sym- bol. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.

Marinatos, S., 1969. Excavations at Thera 2 (Bu3À,io6r|xr| rr|ç ev AGrjvotiç AoYaiokoYixrjç Exaioeíaç 64). Athens.

Marinatos, S., 1976. Excavations at Thera 7 (BißXio9r|xr| xr|ç ev A6r|vaiç AQ%aioXoyixr|ç Exaioeiaç 64). Athens.

Marketou, T., 1998. 'Bronze LB I statuettes from Rhodes' in V. Karageorghis and N. Stampolidis (eds) Eastern Medi- terranean: Cyprus-Dodecanese-Crete i6th-6th cent. B.C.: 55-72. Athens: University of Crete - A. G. Leventis Foundation.

Marthari, M., 1987. 'The local pottery wares of Akrotiri, Thera' Archäologischer Anzeiger: 359-79.

Marthari, M., 1992. 'The pottery at Akrotiri: analysis and method' in C. Doumas (ed.) Akrotiri Thera: Twenty Years of Research (igòj-igSj). Conclusions - Problems - Prospects (Library of the Archaeological Society of Athens 116): 97-109. Athens.

Militello, P., 1998. Haghia Triada 1. Gli affreschi (Monografie della Scuola Archaeologica di Atene e delle Missioni Italiane in Oriente o). Padova: Bottega D'Erasmo.

Morgan, L., 1988. The Miniature Wall Paintings ofThera: a Study in Aegean Culture and Iconography. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Morgan, L., 1990. 'Island iconography: Thera, Kea, Milos' in D. A. Hardy, C. Doumas, J. A. Sakellarakis and P. M. Warren (eds) Thera and the Aegean World 3.1: 252-66. London: Thera Foundation.

Morgan, L., 1995. Minoan painting and Egypt. The case of Tell El-Dabca' in W. V. Davies and L. Schofield (eds) Egypt, the Aegean and the Levant: Interconnections in the Second Millennium BC: 29-53. London: British Museum Press.

Mountjoy, P. A., 1999. Regional Mycenaean Decorated Pot- tery. Rahden/Westf: Marie Leidorf.

Niemeier, W. -D, 1985. Die Palaststilkeramik von Knossos: Stil, Chronologie und Historischer Kontext (Archäologische Forschungen 13). Berlin: Gebr. Mann Verlag.

Niemeier, W. -D, 1994. 'Knossos in the New Palace Period (MM III-LM IB)' in D. Evely, H. Hughes-Brock and N. Momigliano (eds) Knossos: a Labyrinth of History. Papers Presented in Honour of Sinclair Hood: 71-88. Lon- don: British School at Athens.

Pelon, 0., 1983. 'L'épée à l'acrobate et la chronologie maliote (II)' Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique 107: 670-703.

Pelon, O., 1985. 'L'acrobate de Malia et l'art de l'époque protopala tiale en Crète' in P. Dar eque and J. -C. Poursat (eds) L'iconographie minoenne (Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique Supplément 11): 35-40.



238 ARIANE MARCAR

Pelón, O., 1997. 'Le système palatial minoen' Dossiers d'Archéologie 222: 44-Çi.

Persson, A. W, 1931. The Royal Tombs at Dendra near Midea. Lund: C. W. K. Gleerup.

Persson, A. W., 1942. New Tombs at Dendra near Midea. Lund: C. W. K. Gleerup.

Popham, M. R., 1970. The Destruction of the Palace at Knossos: Pottery of the Late Minoan I HA Period (Studies in Medi- terranean Archaeology 12). Göteborg: Paul Aströms Förlag.

Popham, M. R., 1984. The Minoan Unexplored Mansion at Knossos (British School at Athens Supplementary Vol- ume 17). London.

Porada, E., 1993. 'Why cylinder seals? Engraved cylindrical seal stones of the ancient Near East, fourth to first millennium B.C.' Art Bulletin 75: 563-98.

Poursat, J. -C, 1977. Les ivoires mycéniens: essai sur la forma- tion d'un art mycénien. (Bibliothèque des Écoles Françaises d'Athènes et de Rome 230). Paris: École Française d'Athènes.

Rehak, P., 1996. 'Aegean breechcloths, kilts, and the Keftiu paintings' American Journal of Archaeology 100: 35-51.

Reusch, H., 1953. 'Vorschlag zur Ordnung der Fragmente vom Frauenfries aus Mykenai' Archäologischer Anzeiger. 26-56.

Rodenwaldt, G, 1919. 'Mykenische Studien Y Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts 34: 87-106.

Sakellarakis, Y. and E. Sapouna-Sakellaraki, 1997. Archanes: Minoan Crete in a Nerv Light. Athens: Ammos.

Sapouna-Sakellaraki, E., 1 971. Mi vmixóv Çépa (BißXio6r|xr| tt|ç ev A6r|vaiç AQxaioÀ,oyixr|ç ExaiQeíaç 71). Ath- ens.

Shaw, M. C, 1970. 'Ceiling patterns from the tomb of Hepzefa' American Journal of Archaeology 74: 25-30.

Shaw, M. C, 1998. 'The wall-paintings. The painted plaster reliefs from Pseira' in P. P. Betancourt and C. Davaras (eds) Pseira II. Building AC (The "Shrine") and Other Buildings in Area A (University Museum Monograph 94): 55-76. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania.

Shaw, M. C, 2000. 'Anatomy and execution of complex Minoan textile patterns in the Procession Fresco from Knossos' in A. Karetsou (ed.) KQr'Tr''Aíyvnroç: nokiTiößixoi ôeojuoí tqwv xiAierwv. MeXéreç 52-63.

Athens: YttouqysÍo I1oà,itig|ioÓ - AQ%aioXoyixó Mouoeío HoaxXeíou.

Symeonoglou, S. 1973. Kadmeia 1 (Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 35). Göteborg: Paul Aströms Förlag.

Televantou, C, 1982. 'H yuvotixeia evou|iaoia oxr|v 7TQOÏGTOQixr| 0T|Qa' AgxawÀoyixij Ecpr'nsQÍq 121:1 13- 35-

Tzachili, I., 1997. VcpavTixij xai vcpávrQSÇ oro tcqoìgtoqixÓ Aiyaío, 2000-1000 n.X. Herakleion: IIave7riGTr|uiaxéç Exôóoeiç KorVcTiç.

Vogelsang-Eastwood, G., 1993. Pharaonic Egyptian Clothing (Studies in Textile and Costume History 2). Leiden: E. J. Brill.

Walberg, G. 1986. Tradition and Innovation: Essays in Minoan Art. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern.

Walberg, G, 1989. 'Middle Minoan to Late Minoan: changes in ceramic decoration' in R. Laffineur (ed.) Transition: le monde égéen du Bronze Moyen au Bronze Récent (Aegaeum 3): 9-12. Liège.

Wardle, D., 1988. 'Does reconstruction help? A Mycenaean dress and the Dendra suit of armour' in E. B. French and K. A. Wardle (tàs) Problems in Greek Prehistory. 469- 76. Bristol: Bristol University Press.

Warren, P. M., 1969. Minoan Stone Vases. Cambridge: Cam- bridge University Press.

Warren, P. M., 1997. 'Late Minoan III pottery from the city of Knossos: Stratigraphical Museum extension site' in E. Hallager and B. P. Hallager (eds) Late Minoan III Pottery Chronology and Terminology (Monographs of the Danish Institute at Athens 1): 157-84. Athens.

Weingarten, J., 1996. 'The impact of some Aegean gem engravers on Cypriot glyptic art' in D. Evely, I. S. Lemos and S. Sherratt (eds) Minotaur and Centaur: Studies in the Archaeology of Crete and Euboea Pre- sented to Mervyn Popham (British Archaeological Reports International Series 638): 81-2. Oxford: Tempus Reparatum.

Withee, D, 1992. 'Physical growth and aging characteristics depicted in the Theran frescoes' American Journal of Archaeology 96: 336.

Xenaki-Sakellariou, A., 1985. Oi ûaXa^œroi racpoi rœv Mvxì]vév avaaxacpéç Xq. Taoóvra, 1 887-1 8q8. Paris: De Bocear d.



knossos: palace, city, state || aegean costume and the dating of the knossian frescoes

Documents