A Protogeometric Nature Goddess from Knossos

BICS 31 (1984)

93

A PROTOGEOMETRIC NATURE GODDESS FROM KNOSSOS J.N. Coldstream Figured scenes in Hellenic vase-painting were supposed, until quite recently, to have begun in the eighth century B.C. and in Athens, with the work of the Dipylon Master and his immediate predecessors. From the ninth century, or from further back into the Dark Age, the discovery of even a single figure - human, animal or bird - is greeted with mild surprise; but the occurrence of an extended scene is regarded as altogether exceptiona1.l Several of these exceptionally early scenes have come to light in very recent years. At least three, all of the ninth century, have been found in Crete, in the main North Cemetery of Knossos, of which a substantial part has been excavated between 1975 and 1980 by the British School at Athens as a rescue operation.2 In this respect, as in so many others, the record of Crete proves to be utterly unorthodox - that is, if orthodoxy is defined in terms of the Greek mainland. Two of these scenes, from the Teke tombs at the northern end of the cemetery, are already becoming familiar. Both are painted on the bell-krater, a shape which was already dying out of the Knossian repertoire by the close of the ninth century. When found in an unplundered tomb, the bell-krater is accompanied by large numbers of pouring and drinking vessels, forming a complete symposium set for the funeral party in honour of the d e ~ e a s e d . ~ The most usual decoration consists of concentric circles, with other standard Protogeometric motifs. But on one such krater, of the early ninth century, an elaborate hunting scene can be made out on its worn surface - a scene completed by the single huntsman with spear and net on the other side.4 Cautiously tucked away among the Protogeometric circles, these figures comprise the earliest known extended scene in Greek Iron Age vase-painting: two huntsmen with their large hound, closing in upon their assorted prey - an agrimi goat, a large bird and a deer. Hardly any later, but by a quite different hand, are the astonishing scenes on the other figured bell-krater from Teke.5 On one side is a pair of heraldic sphinxes, wearing what looks like an oriental conical helmet and accompanied by a long-necked marshbird; on the other, the desperate struggle of a warrior against two lions. This, too, is an oriental theme6 of which the Greek mainland had no knowledge at all until at least a century later, when it entered the Attic repertoire through the obviously eastern imagery on the first group of Late Geometric gold bands.7 The two Teke kraters are important, then, not only because of their early date. They inaugurate a typically Cretan repertoire of figured scenes with a strong oriental element quite unlike the beginnings of Attic figured painting. The Attic tradition begins with explicit pictures of funerals, or of purely human conflicts perhaps with heroic overtones. These themes apparently had no interest for the Cretans,* who preferred hunting scenes, lion fights, and confronting mythical creatures. Although it is possible to see all three subjects as symbols of death, they must also have had a wider significance, since each theme was to be developed much further in the scenes on the votive bronze shields offered to the young Zeus in the Idaean Cave.9 The third early figured vessel, which is the subject of this paper (figs. 1-2; PIl. 8c-d, 9) takes us into the later ninth century, into the phase which J.K. Brock called “quite the most remarkable . . .in Cretan vase-painting”.1° Here is another point at which Crete parts company with the rest of the Greek world. Its austere Protogeometric style is followed not by an equally austere Early Geometric, as in Attica, but by a wild interlude when every kind of freehand curvilinear motif is tried out: spirals, cables, millsail, net

94

BZCS 31 (1984)

patterns and scale patterns, derived partly from Oriental metalwork and ivories, and partly perhaps from a revival of the latest Minoan repertoire. Since the terminology of vase-painting was evolved in the first instance to suit the Greek mainland, this style lacks a suitable name. Faute de mieux it has been called Protogeometric B (PGB). Gradually Attic Geometric influence filters in, through the adoption of the meander and other rectilinear motifs, but without yet becoming dominant; at this stage we enter Brock’s Early Geometric (EG) phase. Both PGB and EG were dated by Brock within the second half of the ninth century.l This will also be the floruit of the leading shape of these two phases, on which our new scenes are painted: the straight-sided cremation pithos. Brock’s high dating for this wild FGB style has not escaped criticism.12 How illogical it might seem that the Cretans should have been toying with freehand orientalising motifs even before they had formed a proper Geometric style! But if Brock’s chronology needs any further vindication,13 it can be found in a remarkable belly-handled amphora from the North Cemetery, bearing utterly different designs on its two sides: l 4 in front, central rectilinear panel with meander between concentric circles, closely copying Attic MG I; on the back, wild PGB spirals and cables. Thus we have evidence of two quite distinct repertoires of ornament in vogue at the same time: the Atticising Geometric, and the oriental curvilinear. This amphora, while confirming Brock’s dating, also shows how difficult it is to separate his PGB and his EG; perhaps they are best treated as one and the same phase, lasting through the second half of the ninth century.15 Nevertheless, it is still possible to observe some consistent development during these 50 years, if we follow the sequence of the straight-sided cremation pithoi. The origin of this shape, and its contexts withn the North Cemetery, are also of considerable importance. It is an enlargement of a twelfth-century form current in LM IIIC, sometimes called a pyxis but often used as an urn for some of the earliest cremations in Crete - mainly in the east of island.16 At Knossos the change from inhumation to cremation was gradual, beginning in Subminoan times17 but not complete until the middle of the ninth century; the lion krater from Teke, for example, contained the unburnt bones of two secondary inhumations.l* Then, by ca. 850, cremation had become the universal rule. An old Minoan shape was revived as a cremation urn19 and covered with florid decoration in the new PGB style. But these straight-sided urns were not for everyone; they are found mainly in the richer tombs, while more modest cremations are still housed in a rounder shape of urn with more conservative decoration in the PG manner.20 Of the straight-sided type, fewer than 20 decorated examples are known from the Knossos area; most have only linear ornament, but no two are remotely like one another. The shape, however, behaves in a rational way, moving from stout to slender and gradually increasing in height. The earliest, from Teke tomb D, has the squat form of the Minoan prototype, and takes its scheme of decoration from the later PG bell-kraters, that is, circles flanking a rectilinear panel;21 but already, inside the circles, we find a rosette derived from oriental jewellery. About halfway in the series comes the well-known pithos Fortetsa 1440, portraying under each handle a revival of the Minoan Snake Goddess.22 One of the latest, around 800, is the colossal pithos from Teke tomb G23 - a tomb in which almost every shape is enlarged to a vast scale, as though the potters were making special efforts for a family of unusual d i ~ t i n c t i o n .By ~ ~this time the pithos-urns are equipped with matching lids crowned by ornamental kn0bs;2~ and the Atticising motifs - meander and the like - occur mainly on the tallest pithoi, at the stage which Brock called EG. With this sequence in mind, let us now consider the new figured pithos which is the subject of this article, and also two other pithoi from the North Cemetery which seem to be earlier work by the same painter.26 All three are in poor condition, since this painter’s imagination is not matched by his (or his colleagues’) potting technique; the clay is underfired, so that much of the black paint has worn off, leaving behind only a “ghost”. Furthermore, all are sadly incomplete; each one was among the earliest in their respective tombs, which continued to receive several dozens of cremations in the course of the next 200 years - only to be thoroughly ransacked during the Graeco-Roman period. Small wonder, then, that the urns of these “founding fathers” should have been shunted around many times during the many occasions when the tomb was reused, and eventually smashed and scattered all over the chamber and dromos; indeed, the surviving fragments of each urn had to be recovered from over 50 different baskets of sherds.

BICS 31 (1984)

95

There are two further points of interest about the rich tombs (nos. 283,292, 107) in which these urns housed the first incumbents. Each contains several imported vessels from the East Mediterranean, mainly Black-on-Redunguent juglets from Cyprus; but the earliest are from further east and probably from the Phoenician homeland - a Bichrome jug and a Red Slip jug from tombs 107 and 283 re~pectively.~~ Like the urns in question, these oriental imports also go back to the earliest use of the tombs. But in several cases one should say “re-use” - and here is the second point of interest - since Minoan clay larnakes of the fourteenth and thirteenth centuries (LM IIIA-B) have been found smashed in tombs 107 and 292 as well as in several other North Cemetery tombs whose earliest Iron Age use is during PGB-EG.28 Among these tombs are some which on architectural grounds alone one would suspect to have been constructed in LM I11 times, distinguished from the others by their carefully shaped chambers and their long dromoi with walls sloping inwards near the s t ~ m i o n When . ~ ~ these Minoan tombs were cleared to receive later incumbents, the larnakes themselves were not often reused; but nevertheless they could be seen, and their pictorial - and sometimes figured - decoration could have provided a lively stimulus30 for the imagination of the late ninth-century pithos painter whose work we shall now consider. Let us call him the Tree Painter, after the motif which appears so prominently on all three of his works under consideration. His earliest pithos,3l of relatively plump proportions, already shows his favourite kind of tree, with spiral branches growing up from a triangular root (Pl. 8a). Apart from the PGB millsail pattern on the shoulder, the trees have taken over the entire surface of the vase. A single tree of this kind might reverently be called a Tree of Life, or a Sacred Tree; but here we have a whole forest. Did our painter know of the trees in the courtyard of a Cypriot or Near Eastern sanctuary, or a representation thereof? Or, nearer home, did he have in mind the sacred grove of Rhea mentioned by Diodorus, which may then have covered the ruins of the Palace of mi no^?^^ Another strange feature is the addition of applied vertical ribs between the trees, an experiment which was not repeated in the Tree Painter’s later work; was he perhaps taking the idea from a class of small ribbed oinochoe made in coarse local clay in PGB-EG, based on a Cypriot pr0totype?3~ Another experiment, however, had a more assured future. On every other tree there perches a small bird - hard to see in the ruined state of the vase, but nevertheless there (Pl. 8b). And so to the Tree Painter’s second pith0s,3~taller and more graceful than the first. On the shoulder the PGB millsail has here been replaced by a simple EG meander. The grove is now more varied, the spiral trees being joined by others with zigzag branches; these are placed under the handle roots, where they look rather stunted. But all the spiral trees now have birds, their bodies either checked or in silhouette with hatched outline. Every bird opens its throat and sings in this veritable Garden of Paradise. These experiments in landscape are somewhat surprising in a ninth-century context; on what sources of inspiration was our painter drawing? A cruder and less regular version of the bird-and-tree theme appears on several fragments from the cemetery at Prinia~,3~ also painted on straight-sided pithoi; but these look more like provincial adaptations of the Tree Painter’s work, rather than models for it. In the pictorial pottery of the Late Bronze Age it is not difficult to find prototype^.^^ But we ought to pay special attention to the LM IIIA-B painted larnakes, such as were visible whenever a Minoan chamber tomb was opened and cleared for reuse; and their pictorial repertoire does indeed include birds settling on trees, as seen, for example, in a much freer composition on the well-known larnax from ~nogeia.37 Having reviewed the iconography of his earlier work, we pass now to the Tree Painter’s third and latest pithos, from tomb 107 (figs. 1-2; Pll. 8 ~ - d ) . ~ ~The trees and birds are still there, but on both sides have now become part of a figured scene. On the front, two trees flank a goddess who stands on a wheeled platform. She folds her curved wings, and, raising her arms, holds aloft two small birds. She turns her head towards a much larger bird with triangular body, perched upon a tree. Upon the other tree, at right, there is no bird but only extra leafage. Under both handles are three large fish (Pl. 9a), representing another part of the goddess’s domain; she presides over the creatures of the air and sea, and over the fruits of the earth.

BZCS 31 (1984)

96

Figure 1

Knossos T. 107.1 1 4 , figured scene on front. Scale 1 :2

PLATE 8

a. Knossos T. 283.11, pithos. Ht 47cm

b. Knossos T. 283.11, detail of reverse

c. Knossos T. 107.114. tithos. Ht 53.5cm

d. Knossos T. 107.114, detail of front

PLATE 9

a. Knossos T.107.114, side

c. Knossos T.107.114, detail of reverse, top left

b. Knossos T.107.114. reverse

d. Knossos T.107.114, detail of reverse, top right

97

BICS 31 (1984)

And now for the details. First, the wheeled platform, which I take to be the abbreviation of a chariot; in this narrow vertical field there is no room for a team of horses, or even for the suggestion of one. The platform is reminiscent of a similar attempt at compression in a piece of Late Geometric wooden furniture retrieved from the marshes of the Samian Heraion:39 there the platform is flanked by horses instead of wheels, but the intention seems the same. But what is the relevance of this compressed chariot to the scene as a whole? Is it intended merely as an attribute of a particular goddess - an Aphrodite, or possibly an Astarte - or are we supposed to understand that the goddess is at this moment arriving on her chariot? For the moment let us put this question aside, and examine the goddess herself. It is instructive to compare her with the two goddesses on the pithos Fortetsa 1440,40who may be earlier experimental work by the Tree Painter; they are tucked away under the handles, as early experiments during the Geometric period often are. They, too, are rendered with the same easy formula of triangular thorax and rectangular dress, leaving very little room for anatomical observation. The painter has only to add the feet, the long hatched neck, and the outline head with dotted-circle eye, eyebrow, open mouth and no nose. But the Fortetsa ladies seem to portray a chthonic goddess with snakes attached to her dress, possibly emerging from the earth to make her epiphany; and our figure is at least capable of flying through the air. She is also drawn with greater care and assurance, so that her oriental aspects stand out more clearly: the tall checked polos crown, looking like a city gate; and what must surely be the earliest known “layer wig” in Greek art, hardly seen again before the end of the eighth century. In one other respect she sets a fashion with a long future; for how else can we understand the diagonal lines on either side of her neck, if not as an outer garment; that hirnurion like a shawl which, together with the long vertically-patterned dress, is worn by every lady in Cretan art for the next two centuries? To name only a few: first, the goddesses on the Fortetsa bronze belt, in the early eighth century; shortly before 700, the sphyreluron bronze statues of Leto and Artemis from the temple at Dreros; the ladies on the gold pendant from the Idaean cave; and, eventually, the later seventhcentury limestone lady of Auxerre, now in the Louvre.41

-

In her hands the goddess holds up two little birds, drawn very simply; their necks are in single outline, their eyes float in the field. The graceful creatures on the Tree Painter’s second pithos have here been reduced t o a sketchy, “shorthand” version, and we shall soon see why. In searching for comparable scenes, we shall find none before the seventh century, when their number becomes legion not only in Crete but in many other parts of the Greek world.42 Of the many later Cretan pictures showing a goddess of nature with birds, one in particular, on a seventh-century urn from Arkades, presents a useful c0ntrast.4~There the positions of birds and trees are reversed; the goddess holds the trees, while the birds stand on the ground on each side. What is more important, the face of the goddess was frontal, added in relief; apart from her feet, the picture is absolutely symmetrical, and static. If our ninth-century Tree Painter had intended a similarly symmetrical composition, the rendering of a frontal face would not have been beyond his powers of invention. Instead he has deliberately broken the symmetry. The goddess has turned away from the right-hand tree, which carries no bird; she faces left to confront the curiously impressive triangular bird perched upon the left-hand tree. And by reducing the size of the little birds held in the goddess’s hands he has made that bird look as important as possible - and also as different as possible in kind. Unlike the stereotyped birds of Attic Geometric,44 the Cretan repertoire offers a refreshing variety. It may have helped our painter that, even before his time, two distinct ways of drawing a bird had already been established. The small creatures in the goddess’s hands follow the type of the gracefully rounded marshbird, seen beside the heraldic sphinxes on the other side of the Teke lion krater.45 But the triangle-bird occurs at least as early,46 and is also seen on the neck of a PGB amphora from Teke tomb D;47 the drawing is quite close to our painter’s style, but the birds also have hatched wings above and below the body, and - apparently - double, Janus-like heads. Similarly, the creature on the tree in our scene is no ordinary bird. Even in the ninth century, a bird’s head should not end in a sharp apex. It is wearing a helmet with a long wavy crest - the sort of conical helmet in use in Geometric times, covering only the head. It is possible that our painter intended an early, experimental form of Siren; what he has in fact painted is a bird wearing a helmet. At all events, in nature birds do not wear helmets; by any interpretation this must be a supernatural creature. It is either the attendant of a deity, a member of a divine entourage; or possibly a second deity making its epiphany, like the birds of Minoan

98

BICS 31 (1984)

pictorial art who settle on trees or pillars or double axes. But the second hypothesis seems unlikely, since the incomplete scene on the reverse side shows traces of two such birds, one upon each tree.

Figure 2

Knossos T. 107.1 14, figured scene on reverse. Scale 1:2

BICS 31 (1984)

99

Let us now examine the picture on the other side, so similar in some details, so different in others (fig. 2, Pl. 9b-d). Much of the upper part is unfortunately missing. The goddess, who still has her wheeled platform, is preserved up to her shoulder. But, in contrast to the other scene, here she raises her wings and lowers her arms, spreading her fingers in a gesture of dismissal. As for the little birds, one is being released from her hand; the other, already free, raises its wing in self-preservation (Pl. 9c). On the other side they had enjoyed the goddess’s protection; now they are left to fend for themselves. The flanking trees have lost their triangular roots. On the right there is a slight suggestion of a palm in the upper leafage (Pl. 9d), but otherwise the trees have a dead, wintry look. On the left-hand tree the large triangle-bird is still there (Pl. 9c), and in this scene there are traces of another on the right - neck, crest, and apex of the triangular body (Pl. 9d); but now both the larger birds, like the goddess, have raised their wings and are poised for flight. The whole scene presents a poignant contrast to that on the other side - a contrast carefully thought out by the painter, helping to clarify his intention. He is not attempting a narrative, in the strict sense of the word. Instead we have a pair of genre scenes in the Minoan tradition, referring to the seasons - in this case the alternation between summer and winter. It follows that the wheeled platform, as an abbreviated chariot, becomes more than a mere attribute. In both pictures it is a circumstantial part of the scene. The goddess arrives on her chariot in spring, and departs at the onset of winter. And this contrast of seasons must in some way be related to the alternation between birth, death, and rebirth - an entirely appropriate theme for the decoration of a receptacle for human ashes. Can the goddess be named? In Orientalising scenes (in the conventional sense) of the seventh century, we might hope for some help from individual attributes. The lack of wild animals might exclude Artemis. The emphasis on birds, and perhaps the condensed chariot too, might point towards Aphrodite, the fish under the handles reminding us that she was born from the sea. But, for these ninth-century scenes, any speculation along these lines may be somewhat fruitless; for, as Herodotus has warned us,48 “Homer and Hesiod were the first to compose divine genealogies, to give the gods their epithets, to allot them their several offices and occupations, and to describe their forms”. Here we are dealing with a pair of preHomeric, pre-Hesiodic pictures, betraying some oriental features, but also some memories of the Minoan past. Even though some Near Eastern craftsmen may already have been resident at K n o ~ s o s $a~wholly oriental Astarte seems unlikely here. Not much later, Astarte does indeed appear in Cretan figured art as a potnia theron, on the Idaean shields;50 but there she is nude, as also on the seventh-century mould-made terracotta plaques.51 Bearing in mind her Minoan associations, we may prefer to see her as a universal Mother Goddess inherited from the Bronze Age - a goddess of fertility and vegetation, who also receives and protects the dead. But that hypothesis would require us to take account also of the goddess portrayed on Fortetsa 1440, probably painted by the same hand but distinguished by a different attribute - snakes instead of wings. This is no place to become involved in the central and unanswerable puzzle presented by Minoan religious iconography: are we to understand belief in one all-powerful female deity with many aspects, or in a multiplicity of deities with different aspects and offices? Suffice it to say that in the contexts of the representations on the two ninth-century urns both are likely to refer to the same function of the same goddess, if in different ways. Now if our scenes owe anything to the Minoan past, we must face the problem of transmission: how could such an elaborate pictorial image have survived through at least two centuries of the Dark Age, from which we know of no extended scenes of this kind painted on pottery, or represented in any other material? Again the Minoan pictorial larnakes offer a possible solution. It may not be a coincidence that the very same tomb 107 also yielded substantial fragments of an exceptionally interesting larnax, evidently used for one of the original Minoan inhumations, and then becoming visible once again 500 years later while the chamber was being cleared of its Minoan incumbents to make room for new burials in the ninth century. We cannot tell whether the larnax was then reused; for, as with our pithos, it was eventually smashed up by plunderers and scattered all over the tomb. Fortunately a substantial part of one long side could be recovered. It is divided into two panels, each showing a Minoan lady wearing a full Aegean flounced skirt, painted in a fine style of LM I11 A1 . The lady on the right is the better preserved. She raises both arms in

100

BICS 31 (1984)

a dancing pose, her long locks of hair flying in the breeze. In each hand she hold a flower, or some other piece of vegetation. A small bird in full flight is about to settle on her forehead?2 One wonders whether our Tree Painter, having seen this larnax in the tomb, might then have been commissioned to make a cremation urn with a comparable scene, which he would have translated into a Geometric idiom, adding his favourite trees. In that case we would have evidence of a deliberate revival, caused by the reopening of Minoan chamber tombs, and by the great impact made by the pictorial larnakes upon the impressionable eyes of a much later generation. And yet in one respect the Tree Painter has gone beyond Minoan tradition in his use of two contrasting scenes on the same urn, showing a nature goddess at two different seasons of the year. If we turn back to the original purpose of the pithos, one final comparison may help to clarify the religious thought behind these two scenes.

As we have seen, although there had been many cremations at Knossos during the earlier part of the Dark Age, it was not until the introduction of the straight-sided pithos-urn, around 850, that cremation became the universal rule. Before then, no exceptional care had gone into the decoration of earlier urns; but from then onwards, the urn becomes the leading shape of the Knossian repertoire, often lavishly adorned with unusual care; for it was to serve as the house of the dead in the hereafter, containing the ashes of their mortal remains and often their most precious possessions. Now the straight-sided pithos-urn has a close relative in the so-called “temple models”>3 whch make a much more explicit reference to a house; one side is cut open to form a doorway, whle the shoulder is prolonged inwards to form a roof with a narrow central opening for a chimney. Like the straight-sided pithoi, these round house models also have Minoan prototypes and, if we remember the model from the Subminoan Spring Chamber at K ~ O S S O Stheir , ~ ~sequence may be continuous all through the Dark Age. The pithoi and the models, however, develop on parallel lines, approach each other most closely in the later ninth century, and then both disappear from the repertoire around 800. The models may come from domestic or votive contexts as well as from tombs, and many are plain and without any terracotta figures attached; but the latest and best known, made during the Tree Painter’s lifetime, is said to have been found in a tomb at Ar~hanes:~ thus it is reasonable to consider the meaning of its attached figures in relation to the two scenes on our pithos. What kind of structure does this model represent? Alexiou saw it as a temple>6 Boardman as a rediscovered Minoan tomb,57 Nicholls as a granary.58 A few years ago I ~uggested5~ that this was a model of Hades, the House of the Dead, where a corn goddess such as Persephone is compelled to spend the winter months of each year. In the upper world - that is, on the roof of the model - the two farmers and their dog eagerly await her emergence in early spring. In the light of our new scenes, this interpretation may be pursued a little further. The goddess’s right hand in the model is pierced, as though she is holding some distinguishing attribute. Alexiou60 mentioned traces of a wreath, a symbol of vegetation: the promise of future crops and - in the context of the tomb - of future life. Thus the imagery of the Archanes model adds something to the seasonal cycle portrayed on the pithos: the season between the onset of winter, when the goddess takes her departure from the upper world, and her joyful return in spring. During that interval the goddess herself must remain inside her own House of the Dead; but when she is in the upper world, whether arriving or departing, she can be represented on the surface of an urn, the house allotted to the dead who come under her care. But if t h s hypothesis is followed to its logical conclusion, we would need to concede that the deity shown on the Tree Painter’s pithos is no longer an all-powerful Mother Goddess in the Minoan tradition. Instead of making her spring epiphany out of the sky, like the diminutive figure on the Isopata ring,61 she herself must go beneath the earth in winter, to emerge again in spring like the Eleusinian Persephone. If that is the nature of our goddess, then it follows that the Minoan vegetation cult must have been transformed in some way during the Dark Age, perhaps under the influence of the incoming Dorians. At Knossos the worship of Demeter and Persephone was already established at least by the eighth century, in a sanctuary on the southern slope of the Gypsades hill overlooking the site of the Palace of Minos. In the publication of this site62 it was suggested that the sanctuary of Demeter had a predecessor 50 metres away down the hill in the Spring Chamber, where a vegetation cult of the Second Palace period had been

BICS 31 (1984)

101

revived in Subminoan times. Perhaps that is where we can see the first symptom of such a transformation; for among the Subminoan finds there is the only other house model in Crete to contain a figurine of a goddess inside63 - in my interpretation, a vegetation goddess compelled to spend the winter months in the House of Hades before her return to the upper world in spring. Whatever view is taken of the Tree Painter’s scenes, they form a rare and precious document for our understanding of Cretan figured art and religious practice in the later part of the Dark Age. Iconographical analysis is difficult, owing to the extreme scarcity of contemporary images with which the scenes can be compared. That is why the three-dimensional figures of the house models have a special importance in this context. My own tentative effort to elucidate the scenes depends partly on one particular view of the Archanes model. But, just as several other interpretations of the model have been put forward, it would be surprising if, in future discussions, the Tree Painter’s two scenes did not provoke at least as many alternative views. University College London NOTES For permission to present this material in advance of the final publication, my thanks are due to the Managing Committee of the British School at Athens, and also to Dr H.W. Catling, Director of the rescue excavations by the School in the North Cemetery of Knossos. The drawings are the work of my wife, Dr Nicola Coldstream; the final tracings were prepared by Miss Susan Bird. A preliminary draft of this paper was read in January 1983 to the Seminar in Classical Archaeology at the Institute of Classical Studies. Subsequently, further joins were made to the scene on the back of the pithos 107.1 14, which caused me to modify my original interpretation in several respects. Later versions of the paper were read in the Universities of Lund and St Andrews, and to the Scottish Hellenic Society in Aberdeen. I am grateful to all those who took part in the subsequent discussions and offered helpful comments. Abbreviations, other than those in general use: = P. Blome, Die figtirliche Bildwelt Kretas in der geometrischen und frtiharchaischen Periode Blome (Mainz 1982). I VCret.Congr. = Pepragmena tou IV Diethnous Kretologikou Synedriou, 1976 (Athens 1980). = Acts of the International Symposium, “The Relations between Cyprus and Crete, ca. 2000Cyprus-Crete 500 B.C. ” (Nicosia 1979). GG = J.N. Coldstream, Geometric Greece (London 1977). GGP = J.N. Coldstream, Greek Geometric Pottery (London 1968). Stele = Stele: tomos eis mnFm.?n N. Kontoleontos (Athens 1979). 1.

Before the excavations in the North Cemetery of Knossos, the fullest and most recent account of figured drawing in the Dark Age is that of G . Kopcke, in Symposium o n the Dark Agesof Greece (Hunter College, New York 1977) 32-50.

2.

H.W. Catling, ArchReps 1977 11 ff.; 1979 43 ff. The full report will appear as a supplementary volume of BSA entitled Knossos, the North Cemetery: early Greek tombs.

3.

For example, in the intact tomb 285 of the North Cemetery, six oinochoai and 1 3 bell-skyphoi were found stacked inside a large Middle Protogeometric bell-krater.

4.

ArchReps 1977 15 f. figs. 34-5; IV Cret. Congr. 71 ff., fig. 1, P11. 13b, 14; Blome 91 f. figs. 19-20.

5.

L.H. Sackett,BSA 71 (1976) 117-30; ArchReps 1977 15 fig.33; IV Cret. Congr. 68ff.,Pll. l l c , 12; Cyprus-Crete 259,P1.45; Blome 93ff., figs. 21-2.

6.

The theme may have been transmitted through Cypriot artifacts of the Late Bronze Age, of types which have been found in later contexts in Crete; see I V Cret. Congr. 70 P1. 1 3 (cast ring on four-sided bronze stand); Cyprus-Crete 260 PI. 45.3 (cylinder seal).

102

BICS 31 (1984)

7.

D. Ohly, Griechiscfie Goldhleche des 8 Jh. t’. Chr. (Berlin 1953) groups I and 11. For the earliest occurrence of this theme in Attic vase-painting, see M. Brouskari, Apo ton Athenaiko Kerameiko rou 8ou P.Ch. Aiona (Athens 1979) 24ff., 60ff., EPK 643, P11. 10, 11.

8.

Funerary scenes are unknown in Crete until well into the seventh century, when a prothesis scene occurs on an incised cup from Kommos: M.C. Shaw, A J A 87 (1983) 443 ff. P11. 61-2.

9.

E. Kunze, Krerische Bronzereliefs (Stuttgart 1931) nos. 5 , 6, 8; see also Blome 91 ff. PU. 6-9.

10.

Forretsa 143.

11.

Fortetsa 214 f.

12.

P. Courbin, la c4ramiquegdomktrique de I’Argolide (Paris 1966) 5 30 f.; P. Demargne, II O e t . Cangr. (Athens 1968) A 137 ff.; B. Schweitzer, Greek Geomerric Art (London 1971) 70-2.

13.

See already GGP 238 f., supplemented by Srde 409 ff. (note the context of the imported Attic MG I kantharos, P1. 193a, in Teke tomb D).

14.

Tomb 104.23, ht. 64.5cm. Hatched zigzag round neck. On belly, between bucranium handles: A, in centre, hatched meander, triple zigzags above and below; on either side, sevenfold circles enclosing reserved cross, stars in corners of panels. B, running spiral, complex hatching above; cable in narrow strips above and below. The decoration of side A is based on that of imported Attic MG I amphorae like Teke G 3 and N 6.

15.

See Stele 411 f.

16.

A. Kanta, The Late Minoan III period in Crere . . . , SIMA LVIII (GUteborg 1980) 134, 138, on two pyxis-urns from Kritsa, one illustrated there as fig. 54.4-5.

17.

V. Desborough, I”ne Greek Dark Ages (London 1972) 226 f.; Catling, ArchReps 1979 46, on the earliest burials in the North Cemetery, including Subminoan cremations.

18.

Sackett (n. 5) 117; 126 ff. (J.H. Musgrave).

19.

The straight-sided form does survive, however, at Knossos as a pyxis on a smaller scale, throughout the Dark Age: for example, Fortetsa PI. 6 nos. 42, 52, 77 (EPG).

20.

For instance, Forretsa PI. 22 nos. 344, 347; PI. 23 no. 260; P1. 60 no. 1029.

21.

Sre/e 41 0 ff., PI. 194; ht. 28cm.

22.

Forrersa 125 f., PU. 77, 163; ht. 41cm.

23.

Teke G 6; ht. 58.5cm. Shoulder: hatched double arcs, opposed. Body: above, massed scale pattern in double outline; below, massed running spirals.

24.

For other outsize vessels from this tomb see GGP 239 ff., P1. 52a, d.

25.

For instance, Fortetsa P1. 40 nos. 697, 706

26.

Tomb 283.11, hereP1. 8a-b; tomb 292.144, ArchReps 1983 52 fig. 94 (also J.N. Coldstream in Srudies in honour of T.B.I,. Wehster, forthcoming).

27.

These vessels, together with all other Cypriot and Levantine imports from the North Cemetery of Knossos, are to be published in a preliminary study in RDAC 1984.

28.

Tombs 75, 132, 134.

29.

On the plan ArchReps 1979 44 fig. 2, see especially tombs 75, 107, 132.

30.

In passing it is worth noting that the theme of the Teke Hunt krater (n. 4) is also within the pictorial repertoire of the Minoan larnakes; see Y. Tzedakis, A A A 4 (1971) 218 fig. 4, colour PI, 111.3, from Armenoi.

31.

Tomb 283.11, shown in P1. 8a with the PGB lid 283.11 which fits. Ht. 47cm. Fourteen vertical ribs attached to the body. Millsail on shoulder. Between body ribs, fourteen trees with spiral branchesand triangular bases. On every other tree a bird is perched. Their bodies are alternately checked or gridded, except that in the centre of the reverse side (PI. 8b) the centre is solid within a hatched double outline. Wings are shown on all birds except at the centre in front.

32.

Diod. Sic. v. 68; see also A.J. Evans, The Palace of Minos at Knossos 11, 7.

BICS 31 (1984)

103

3 3.

Fortetsa 157 class F; Cyprus-Crete 257 f. n. 8.

34.

Tomb 292.144. Ht. 47.4cm. ArchReps 1983 52 fig. 94, shown with the PGB-EG lid 292.61 which fits. Single-line meander on shoulder. Fifteen trees on body, all with solid triangular base. Those under the four handle roots have zigzag leafage and single stems. All others have double stems and spiraliform branches and leaves, and on each one perches a bird with open beak, reserved and dotted eye, sinuous neck filled with hatching, straight wing, and fan tail. Their bodies are either checked or solid with hatching along the back.

35.

G. Rizza in Anrichitd Cretesi (Studi D. L,eLsi, Catania 1977) 11, 153 ff.

36.

Compare LH IIIA amphoroid krater, CVA Cyprus 1 pl. 1; also birds in LM IIIC, F. Schachermeyr, Die Agflische FrUhzeit 111: Kreta zur Zeit der Wanderungen (Wien 1979) 122 ff., esp. figs. 23-4, 27 and P1. 17a.

37.

S. Marinatos and M. Hirmer, Crete and Mycenae (London 1960) P1. 126.

38.

Tomb 107.114. Ht. 53.5cm. Minor details, not shown in figs. 1 and 2: hatched zigzag on shoulder; on body, figured on each side flanked by columns of cross-hatched triangles.

39.

D. Ohly, AIM 68 (1953) 89 ff., fig. 3; GG 256 fig. 83b.

40.

See n. 22 above.

41.

Forrersa 134 f. no. 1568, PI1. 115, 168; BCH 60 (1936) 255 f. P1. 63 = G. Richter, Korai (1968) figs. 70-75 = GG 284 fig. 91; R.A. Higgins, BSA 64 (1969) 151 PI. 44a; R. Lullies and M. Hirmer, Greek Sculpture (London 1960) P1. 6 = Richter, Korai figs. 76-7.

4 2.

C. Christou, Potnia Theron (Thessalonika 1968) ch. 2.

43.

D. Levi, Annuario 10-12 (1927-29) 331 fig. 431 = Hesperia 14 (1945) 1 3 PI. 12.

44.

For example, J.L. Benson, Horse, Bird and Man (Amherst 1970) PI. 25.

45.

BSA 71 (1976) 124 fig. 6.

46.

Their earliest appearance is on an open-mouthed stirrup-jar, North Cemetery Tomb 207.3, LPG (early ninth century).

47.

Stele 409 P1. 192c, belly-handled amphora, Teke D 14, PGB.

48.

Hdt. ii. 52-3.

49.

GG 100 f., 287 ff., with refs.

50.

Kunze, Kretische Bronzereliefs nos. 2, 5.

51.

Higgins, Greek Terracottas (London 1967) 26 f. P1. 10e. Even in the Levant, however, Astarte need not always be nude: see P.J. Riis, Berytus 9 (1949) 69 ff.

52.

T. 107.214. This larnax will be fully published by Dr Lyvia Morgan. The ladies’ heads are illustrated in ArchReps 1979 45 fig. 4a, b.

5 3.

See most recently C. Mavriyannaki, SMEA 15 (1972) 161 ff.

54.

Evans, The Palace o f Minos 11, 128 ff. fig. 63. The apparent gap in the sequence in Protogeometric times is now filled by two fragmentary LPG examples from Knossos: Unexplored Mansion GB 1, and North Cemetery T. 219.86.

55.

S . Alexiou, KCh. 4 (1950) 441 ff.; Marinatos and Hirmer (n. 37) P1. 139.

56.

Alexiou (ibid) 27 7 ff.

57.

Boardman, BSA 62 (1967) 66.

58.

R.V. Nicholls, Auckland Classical Essays presented to E.M. Blaiklock, ed. B.F. Harris (Auckland 1972) 16f.; Gnomon 44 (1972) 703.

59.

J.N. Coldstream, Deities in Aegean A r t (Bedford College London 1977) 10.

60.

Alexiou (n. 55) 447; KCh. 12 (1958) 279 f.

61.

Marinatos and Hirmer (n. 37) P1. 11la; B. Rutkowski, Cult places in the Aegean world (Warsaw 1972) 208 f. fig. 86.

BICS 31 (1984)

104

62.

Knossos: the Sanctuary of Demeter, BSA Suppl. Vol. 8. 181 f.

63.

See n. 54 above.