A Problem in Orientalizing Cretan Birds: Mycenaean or Philistine Prototypes?

A Problem in Orientalizing Cretan Birds: Mycenaean or Philistine Prototypes? Author(s): J. L. Benson Source: Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Vol. 20, No. 2 (Apr., 1961), pp. 73-84 Published by: The University of Chicago Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/543719 Accessed: 17/11/2010 08:30 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpress. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

The University of Chicago Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Near Eastern Studies.

http://www.jstor.org

JOURNAL OF NEAR Volume XX

EASTERN APRIL

STUDIES 1961

Number 2

A PROBLEM IN ORIENTALIZING CRETAN BIRDS: MYCENAEAN OR PHILISTINE PROTOTYPES? J. L. BENSON

AFUNDAMENTALconcern of those trying to understand the phenomenon of Orientalizing Greek art is to distinguish between elements which are indigenous (either by survival or revival within the Greek world) and elements which are really freshly imported from the Near East. This is a basic task which should precede any discussion of the relative importance of these elements. It is my purpose here to call attention in just this sense to some pertinent motifs in the repertory of Cretan vase-painting of the earlier part of the Orientalizing period. A Cretan painter of polychrome pithoi, recognized but not named by J. K. Brock,1 makes use of a striking motif in the handle zone. He places birds with reverted heads and fishtails antithetically around a vertical center zone of lozenges (P1. III, Fig. 1) to form a panel. For convenience, therefore, I should like to refer to him as the RH (Reverted Heads) Painter. His works are assigned by Brock to the Early Orientalizing Period (dated 1 Fortetsa (Cambridge, 1957), Cat. Nos. 1021 and 1383. P1. III, Fig. 1 is adapted from P1. 120:1383. Text Fig. h is Motif 17y (from No. 1021).

735-680 B.C.). In addition to fishtails the birds on these pithoi have wings. The symmetrical flare of the upper and lower wing seemed to Payne to be a conscious attempt to show the spread-wing "downview" pose.2 It is not inconceivable that this time-honored pose3 did have some influence on the RH Painter. On the other hand, the symmetrical repetition of the wings may simply have arisen in answer to the opposing curves of the fishtail through "sympathetic attraction," as it were. What are the antecedents of the motif just presented? Payne concerned himself solely with the bird type itself and speculated that the bichrome bird with reverted head which appears on Philistine pottery might have survived in Palestine (or elsewhere) until required by the Cretan artist.4 This is a large assumption which must be broken down into its components for 2 BSA, XXIX (1927/28), 290. 3 For a very recognizable version of this pose .dated to the Late Geometric period, see Brock, op. cit., Motif 17h. The pose is in the Aegean repertory (see Appendix I). The Parian birds mentioned by Payne (H. Dragendorff, Thera, II [Berlin, 1903], 204, Fig. 411B) may be crude adaptations or survivals of the Mycenaean motif.

4 Op. cit., p. 288.

73

74

JOURNAL OF NEAR EASTERN STUDIES

discussion. First of all, the whole problem of the relation of Cretan color painting to the same phenomenon in fabrics farther east is involved. This I shall discuss in an excursus. Then, not merely the reverted head but its combination with the fishtail must be considered; and again not merely the motif of individual birds but their combination in antithetic position around a center zone. A perusal of the motifs current at Fortetsa reveals that the well-developed fishtail, identifiable as such even though a dark blue space between its parts binds the whole bird to the outside bar of the panel (Text Fig. h),5 is virtually the monopoly of the RH Painter. I should hesitate to say that any other clearly pronounced instance of it occurs here (or elsewhere in Crete, to my knowledge) at this period, although many purely decorative types of bird tails are represented. There is, however, a good example of it from Karphi6 in the Protogeometric period, although not in this case combined with a reverted head. By the colleagues of the RH Painter the reverted head is employed only occasionally (most notably on Cat. No. 1495 and, somewhat on several multi-headed ambiguously, the combination of reverted birds). Thus, head and fishtail by the RH Painter seems to be a unique creation among the Cretan works now known. Equally striking is the arrangement in which this combination occurs, that is, flanking a center zone. A perusal of bird motifs at Fortetsa again reveals that while antithetical birds (of the ordinary sort) occur with some frequency, they are almost always directly confronted without any center zone. I 5 Brock puts this motif into his category, "Lotus stylization of fantail." However, the perfectly Aegean fish body and fishtail set the scheme of the RH Painter off from the other members of this list. 6 Sherd K 62 to appear in a forthcoming volume of BSA. I am indebted to M. Money-Coutts for knowledge of this piece and permission to mention it.

notice only one exception to this (No. 1454) and here the birds are strangely small and appear to be added as an afterthought to the main pendants which consist of concentric circles. The RH Painter has made precise and conscious use of a vertical center zone between his birds, not in one instance only but consistently. A Late Geometric pot (P1. V, Fig. 1) from Anopolis (Pediada)7 can be cited as a forerunner of this type of panel, but the birds are in a more conventional pose. All in all, the RH Painter has created a composition which stands out as unusual and different among contemporary designs. To complete the characterization it may be noted that Brock8 considered the reserved spot on the bodies of the birds "an unusual feature." Obviously we are dealing here with something out of the ordinary. It is this combination of elements to which we must address ourselves if we are to throw light upon the question of indigenous and Oriental influences. It might, of course, be convenient to see in such a combination simply the creative flare of an imaginative artist who experimented with original ideas. But this is not the way of archeologists, as Payne's suggestion that the artist copied a Bronze Age bird type preserved in Palestine shows. In the light of evidence which has come to my attention, I believe it is possible to accept part of Payne's suggestion, namely the Bronze Age date of the prototype, and at the same time to show that it was preserved not in Palestine but in Greece itself. Payne himself quite rightly rejected the intermediacy of Cyprus in this case.9 Quite apart from the fact that Cypriote Iron Age birds do not have fishtails or even 7 AJA, I (1897), 254, Fig. 3: Herakleion Museum 183. P1. V, Fig. 1 by Linda Benson is reproduced here by courtesy of Dr. N. Platon. The shape is close to Fortetsa No. 394, but the birds can hardly be much earlier than ibid., Motif 17ac, etc. 8 Op. cit., p. 94.

9 Op. cit., p. 289.

A PROBLEM IN ORIENTALIZING CRETAN BIRDS reverted heads,10 the Cypriote arrangement of birds is almost universally in a free field or frieze. Out of dozens, if not hundreds, of Cypriote bird pots I can cite

TEXT FIG. n.-British

Museum

C 763

only two examples (see Appendix I) which show birds antithetically around a center zone and even here the design is in a free rather than strictly panel arrangement. These are comparatively late (CyproArchaic I: 700-600 B.C.) and may well show foreign influence. An investigation of the type is needed, but there is so far no serious clue leading in the direction of Cyprus as having anything to do with the motif in question. Let us turn instead to Greece itself, in fact to Attica. A handsome oinochoe11 in 10 An exception proving the rule is C 763 found at Kourion (CVA British Museum Fs. 2 IIC.c, P1. 5:13, and Text Fig. n of this article), a krater-amphora which is curiously difficult to date. The proportionI (cf. ately low neck suggests Cypro-Archaic E. Gjerstad, Swedish Cyprus Expedition, Vol. IV, Pt. 2, Fig. XXXVI:2-3), but I should not exclude a later date (cf: ibid., Fig. XLVII:3). Cf. also the very schematic bird on a Black-on-Red II jug illustrated in BCH 81 (1957) 35, Fig. 27. 11 A 403 (2532) from Athens (Elgin Coll.). H: 37.2 cm. Photographs by Linda Benson. Acknowledgment for permission to publish A 403 is made to the Trustees of the British Museum. This oinochoe belongs in general to the class discussed by P. Kahane, AJA, XLIV (1940), 469. His P1. 17:4 (which he considered still Early Geometric) may be slightly earlier than C VA Cambridge Fs. 1, Pl. 1:16 and Kerameikos, V.1, P1. 72 (Inv. 2149) to which A 403 has decided affinities in shape and decoration, though with a somewhat taller body. Mrs. E. L. Smithson and Mr. N. Coldstream advise me that on the basis of their studies (as yet unpublished) a date

75

the British Museum (P1. IV, Figs. 1-2), which one may perhaps assign to the first part of the Middle Geometric period, is decorated with a simple, but quite unusual, interlocking ornament on its neck and a series of six evenly spaced groups of three reserved bands on the body. Occupying the center of the shoulder is a small neat panel design in which antithetic birds with reverted heads and fishtails flank a center zone of horizontal zigzags (P1. III, Fig. 2). The birds are rendered in silhouette in deference to the sober mood of Geometric times, but the existence here of the precise formula used by the RH Painter raises the question as to whether his work is related in a direct line to the Attic oinochoe or whether both drew from a common source. There can hardly be doubt that the birds of the Attic oinochoe belong to the early phase of pictorial decoration on Geometric vases. And yet what is particularly striking about them is their flowing, "practiced," almost delicate line, in which lives more of a well-proportioned organic than purely decorative quality. These are not naive and artless ideographs; rather they suggest derivation from more sophisticated prototypes. The organic quality is not a notable trait of the so-called Philistine birds (the only fauna depicted in that fabric), which are gross, decoratively distorted and racy figures with a peculiar raised, hacked wing and pointed tail (Text Fig. a). Moreover, they occur in frieze formation, never in the heraldic arrangement of A 403. The possibility that A 403 borrowed its representation from a Philistine prototype would therefore have in the Middle Geometric period is indicated. Especially interesting is the unusual ornament, for which the designation "meander fork" has been suggested, on the neck of A 403. In view of the painter's interest in Mycenaean prototypes it is tempting to postulate that he has adapted the Mycenaean "sacral ivy" chain (cf. A. Furumark, The Mycenaean Pottery [Stockholm, 1941] p. 271, Fig. 36:31) to geometric needs.

76

JOURNAL OF NEAR EASTERN STUDIES

to be dismissed as untenable on these internal grounds, even if it were not unlikely on external grounds. The question

TEXT FIG. a.-Gezer

TEXT

FIG.

b.-Gezer

of relationship is limited again to discussing whether both Attic and Philistine artists drew from a common source.

TEXT FIG. c.-British

Museum

C 402

The question of the ultimate origin of the motif of birds with reverted heads has been raised but not settled.12 It exists in the Near East at least as early as the Syrian Bichrome ware (see Appendix I) and thence could conceivably have descended or been revived in the Philistine ware. What has not been sufficiently emphasized is the existence of the motif in the Aegean 12 P. Demargne, La Crate Dgdalique (Paris, 1947), p. 174; cf. also F. Matz, Die Friihkretischen Siegel (Berlin, 1928), p. 118, n. 13.

area from at least as early a period, as well as its continuing popularity there during the Late Bronze Age (see Appendix I). Normally, in the Aegean version, it is not combined with the fishtail, but rather with a pointed tail and a folded wing (e.g. Text Fig. c). I take it, therefore, that the Parian bird (Text Fig. d) is a direct descendant of the Mycenaean type, since it has these same features rather than the raised wings of the Philistine variety or the rather geometricized fantail characteristic of Syrian Bichrome birds, as well as being more isolated geographically from these. The fishtail on Aegean birds is not particularly common (see Appendix I; most examples are LH IIIB) but may nevertheless well be a specifically Aegean trait: it could have arisen from the tendency to confuse and commingle land and

TEXT FIG. d.-Thera

marine representations, as when the tentacles of octopods seem to become the branches of a tree.13 At this point we may call in evidence from the excavations of the University Museum, Philadelphia, at the site of 13 Cf. Furumark, op. cit., p. 305, Motif 21:28 for an extreme case of such confusion. On a stirrup jar from the Seraglio, Cos (C 1187) a plant, of which one leaf seems to be in the form of a fish, is opposed to an octopod on the tentacles of which birds are perched. I am grateful to Dr. Rizzo for permission to refer to this.

A PROBLEM IN ORIENTALIZING

Bamboula (Kourion), Cyprus.14 A nearly complete Mycenaean bowl krater (P1. V, Fig. 2), B 1063, is decorated with a panel of antithetic birds in the handle zone of each side. Above the panel is a band, below it three defining bands, and at the base of the pot two bands. Dividing each set of birds is a heavily bordered vertical zone consisting, on one side, of cable pattern15 with scalloped border lines (P1. III, Fig. 3) and, on the other, of a 14 The final publication of the finds from this site, excavated by the late J. F. Daniel, is in preparation and will provide further information about the context of B 1063, which is treated in this paper primarily as an example of Mycenaean pictorial art. However, I must discuss here briefly what is at best an unsatisfactory situation. B 1063 was found in NT 6, the burials of which, although unplundered, were somewhat disturbed. Daniel speculated that the burials had been swept aside to make way for a later interment which never took place. The distribution of wares, particularly sherds, suggests a date in the Late Cypriote IIB period (second half of the fourteenth and first quarter of the thirteenth century B.C.). Daniel, however, who published an illustration of B 1063 in University of Pennsylvania Museum Bulletin, Vol. VIII (1940), No. 1, P1. IV:b, stated there (p. 11) that "the style shows that it belongs to the 13th century and is one of the last pots imported to the island before the isolation of Mycenae." I surmise that he may have connected B 1063 with the later (and purely hypothetical) preparations for the interment which did not take place (although he never so stated). Mrs. Sara Immerwahr supports the dating given in Daniel's published statement and kindly allows me to cite her opinion (from a letter): "I would hesitate to date (B 1063) earlier than 125030. It represents the developed Panel style which is rare in the Levant, and has much in common with the material from the early strata of the Lion Gate deposit, as well as some of the pictorial sherds from Tiryns (cf. Schliemann, Tiryns, Fig. 23 for neat dots, horizontal division of body, shape of legs, and ladder pattern which occurs in incipient form on the reverse of the Kourion krater . . .) which belong to the period of the later palace. Cf. also birds in Coche de la Fert' (Essai de Classification de la Cgramique Mycgnienne d'Enkomi), P1. III, esp. no. 2, which must be about the same period as the Tiryns examples. The birds on the Kourion krater are, I believe, somewhat earlier ... but are ... definitely later (than the first half of the mid-13th century)." While Mrs. Immerwahr may be right, I feel that the predominance of organic plausibility over decorative intent might on stylistic grounds justify the somewhat earlier dating which seems required by the tomb context. As an intermediate stage between the bird type of B 1063 (Text Fig. g) and the examples mentioned by Mrs. Immerwahr I should suggest BM C 400 (P1. VI, Fig. 3 of this article). 15 Cf. MP, p. 414, Motif 75:11.

CRETAN BIRDS

77

vertical chain. The birds have no specific indication of wings, their heads are reverted and they have fishtails. The painter had a firm grasp of his forms as well as a sense of flowing and elegant line which puts him among the better Late Helladic III artists. Thus, the curves of neck, (unprecedentedly long) beak, tail, and legs complement one another and lead the eye pleasantly around a circuit. An important factor is the still vivid feeling for naturalism expressed in the organically plausible shapes and proportions of the birds. The close-set crosses and carefully made dots relate these birds to the "bird and bull" representations of the LH IIIB pictorial style, while at the same time the tidiness and tectonic discipline of the birds and of the whole composition foreshadow the so-called "close style" of pottery decoration. While there is some doubt about the exact dating of this krater, B 1063 is, in my opinion, contemporary with the better "bull and bird" representations which flourished around the middle of the thirteenth century B.C. and a little earlier.16 A date in the second quarter of this century would seem to be required by the evidence of the tomb contents. The excavator, J. F. Daniel, considered B 1063 to be an import from the mainland of Greece, an opinion in which I concur. It is at once clear that B 1063 provides the exact and detailed prototype for the scheme used by the Geometric decorator of A 403 and the Orientalizing RH Painter. If this scheme was unusual at those later less so times, it is-in its details-hardly during the LH IIIB period. The panel style is, of course, at home then, but the combination of reverted head, folded wing, and fishtail is unique-with the doubtful of C 409 lowered reverted exception (with head and a variant of the fishtail: see 16 AJA, LX (1956), 147.

78

JOURNAL OF NEAR EASTERN STUDIES

Text Fig. e). The naturalistic touch of B 1063 seems to descend to A 403 although one can hardly say that this comment

clusion that this transmission took place within the Greek cultural sphere. In addition to the sequence already brought forward, which suggests this conclusion, the question of polychromy may be mentioned

here. In the excursus on Philistine ware (below) I have argued that an influence from Philistine polychromy to Cretan Orientalizing painters may have been transmitted indirectly through Cyprus. (I

know of no evidence for any other mode of transmission). However, since the total motif in question appears to occur neither in Cyprus nor in Palestine there is no TEXT FIG.e.-British MuseumC 409 possibility of upholding any specific Philistine connection with the Cretan birds. The applies also to the Cretan version. The similarity in coloring between the two rendering of the neck of this latter is, types noticed by Payne is a coincidence however, quite reminiscent of the based on the fact that both may have Mycenaean bird. It must be admitted here drawn form and coloring from the same that the combination of reverted neck and tradition, that is, the form of the Cretan fishtail occurs at least once in the Philistine and possibly of the Philistine bird derives repertoire in a debased form, that is, as from a Mycenaean IIIB prototype, and part of a bird design rather than of a bird the color of the Cretan birds may derive representation, for the creature (as often indirectly from the Philistine (if not the in this fabric) has no legs (Text Fig. b). It parallel Minoan) tradition. is really a fish body to which a bird head Turning to the vexed question of how has been added. The significance of this the LH IIIB panel motif presented here may be that the bird-type represented by keeps turning up in Greece, I must confess B 1063 penetrated to Philistine country, that only general comments can be made. but I should not exclude the possibility It first occurs in the thirteenth century. that the Philistine artist spontaneously The next instance known to me is dated to combined a fish body with a typical bird perhaps the end of the ninth century;17the head. In any case, the absence of the Cretan version is dated to the late eighth or center zone from the Philistine design and early seventh.18 The gap between the the fact that antithetic bird compositions second two occurrences is not excessive of any kind appear not to exist in the and it is not impossible to assume that the Philistine repertory seem to place the motif was generally known, if not frespecimen outside the Greek series as a quently used, in Greece from about the peripheral by-product, at most. ninth century B.c. The gap between the first two occurrencesis sufficiently great to CONCLUSIONS require some discussion. Since the GeoHowever the transmission of the basic metric version occurred in Attica, the 17 For a discussion of the motif used by the RH Painter is to be chronology of this see V. R. d'A. Desborough, The Protogeometric period, a I to which must turn explained, subject 294 ff. Pottery (Oxford, 1952), pp. 18 Brock, op. cit., p. 214. shortly, it seems an almost inevitable con-

A PROBLEM IN

79

ORIENTALIZING CRETAN BIRDS

general historical conditions for continuity are favorable. Moreover, the gap can even be reduced theoretically since the motif and its treatment foreshadow the close style of the late thirteenth and twelfth centuries and might easily have found application then even though no examples of it have actually been discovered. One has only to think of the instances of heraldic birds confronting a rosette in the close style (P1. VI, Figs. 1-2).19 Its existence would have been more precarious during the Submycenaean, Protogeometric and Early Geometric periods in Attica. The general rule is no pictorial decoration; however, the horses on Protogeometric amphoras from the Kerameikos20are justly famous exceptions which indicate that the idea of pictorial decoration did not totally die out. There is always the possibility that more such examples will be found. In Crete the pictorial tradition, and precisely in the panel style, is considerably more viable.21 Also, the continuity of pictorial themes in textiles may have been on a greater scale in these periods. The examples cited above have not been intended as proof that the motif of B 1063 survived in use until it was employed on A 403. Rather they suggest merely that the general idea of pictorial decoration remained a possible concept in the minds of artists, out of which background the actual impulse for the use of this motif could perhaps best be explained 19 AJA, Vol. XLII (1938), Pl. 25:3 from Korakou. Athens NM 2685, reproduced here by kind permission of Dr. C. Karouzos in P1. VI, Fig. 2, is obviously by the same hand. 20 W. Krailer and K. Kiibler, Kerameikos, Vol. I (Berlin, 1939), Pi. 58. It is not without significance that K. Kiibler comments on "die Sicherheit der Zeichnung," which in itself might suggest that the drawing tradition had not been entirely interrupted. The same comment applies to the drawing on A 403. Further Protogeometric horses: K. Kiibler, Kerameikos, Vol. IV (Berlin, 1943), P1. 27. 21 Cf. J. D. S. Pendlebury, The Archaeology of Crete (London, 1939), pp. 308 if.; Desborough, op. cit., P1. 33:VI, 8. See also my note 6.

as direct recrudescence, that is, the result of contact (accidental or otherwise) with a Mycenaean artifact (e.g., a pot or a seal stone) which had this motif. This would account not only for the unusual nature of the motif which has been stressed but also for the similar flow of line and profile in the birds of A 403 and B 1063. Probably even in the case of the RH Painter's use of the motif recrudescence is the most plausible explanation. First of all, there is a distinct similarity in the shape and tectonic structure of the Mycenaean and Cretan bird bodies (Text Figs. g-h). Moreover, I am driven in this

TEXT FIG. g.-Kourion

B 1063

TEXT FIG. h.-Fortetsa

1021

80

JOURNAL OF NEAR EASTERN STUDIES

direction by a detail of the birds already noted, viz., the "unusual" reserved circle on their bodies. There is an almost exact parallel to this on the body of an LH IIIA:2 bird from Rhodes (Text Fig. f: 1; see Appendix I). The use of circles, not necessarily reserved, as decorative features on the bodies of Mycenaean birds (Text Fig. f: 2-3) would in any case be an ade-

placed below a bird. I should be inclined to see in some, at least, of these motifs, as did Payne,22 recrudescence rather than step by step continuity: for example, rows of circles under birds. Such details prove, if anything can, that Cretan artists were

TEXTFIa. f:2.-Rhodes

TEXT FIG. f:1.-Rhodes

TEXT FIG. f:3.-Mycenae

quate inspiration for the use of a circle by the Cretan RH Painter. The particular virtue of this explanation is that it accords with various other features of the Cretan Orientalizing vases which Payne connected with the Aegean (specifically Minoan) heritage: birds in trees, multi-headed monsters, raised wings, a row of circles

actually looking at and taking inspiration from Late Bronze Age objects still in existence, or being found, perhaps actually sought, in their environment. Much more ground work is needed on this subject, 22 op. cit., p. 244. For remarks on shapes suggesting the same thing, see ibid., p. 257 (kalathos) and p. 259 (dish on stem).

CRETANBIRDS A PROBLEMIN ORIENTALIZING

81

only on some of the arms27) of a Maltese cross inside a spiral hook. This use of color is remarkably similar to that in the Orientalizing pottery. Proto-White Painted ware of Cyprus, where there are really no antecedents for EXCURSUS ON THE PHILISTINE WARE this kind of thing. There are also some The following remarks do not pretend to close similarities in motifs of these two be more than incidental observations on wares, which I plan to discuss elsewhere. this fabric which is so intriguing and vital The proximity in time and place suggests for Late Bronze Age history. In a recent an interaction. At any rate, it seems logical review of the problem, T. Dothan24 has and allowable to postulate the following characterized Philistine pottery as a "large bichrome progression: Syro-Palestinianand homogeneous" group based on "a Philistine - Proto-White Painted Cyprofusion of various ceramic styles." The Geometric. It is not my intention to disMycenaean element among these "styles" cuss here the debated relationship of is there considered under the headings of Cypro-Geometric and Cretan Orientalizing shape and ornamentation with no word polychromy. I wish merely to revert to about the clay. The clay is invariably drab Payne's attempt to connect the color of and coarse but does, surprisingly enough, Cretan water birds with that of the preserve to some extent the dual color Philistine birds. A direct connection is tradition of Mycenaean pottery, that is, eliminated by the time lag and geographithe basically buff and the basically olive cal disparity involved. Only if Cretan type of clay.25 Much of it is rather orange polychromy derives from the Cypriote can or orange-buff in color. The paint is also Payne's suggestion be upheld, and then on matt and drab in effect, even though there the understanding that it is at two reis much use of bichrome, recalling Near moves: in this event rather an historical Eastern tradition. And surely it is from curiosity than an important fact. this tradition that Philistine polychromy It has been shown that the complex must have drawn its inspiration.26 There motif of the Cretan water birds seems best is a tendency on Philistine ware to use red explained as part of the Aegean heritage paint to point up details in a quite orna- of the Greek world. Payne had already mental way: on the center "dot" of a noted the difference in formulae between spiral hook, on the inner semi-circle of the wings of the Cretan and the Philistine concentric semi-circles, on the arms (or types; it is to this matter that I will now turn. Philistine birds look to some extent 23RapaaT•'aELs EmLHpW•roEAV7VLKWV 9 o7TA.ITOOS like provincial derivatives of the Late IV (1950), ayyELWV •K Kp"~rTr, "Kp'qTLKd XPOVLK&," c 294-320. Cf. also H MLVw'K' OE tLE' Helladic IIIB bird types designated as e bJwOE''wv such as the study by S. Alexiou23 of the use of the Minoan cephalopod motif on

XELpwv,"Kp7qTLKd XpoVLKa," XII (1958), pp. 275 ff. R. S. Young, "Late Geometric Graves and a Seventh Well in the Century Agora," Hesperia Supplement, II (1939), 177, etc., has also made important observations on this subject. The general bibliography on the subject of Oriental and Aegean influences in Orientalizing art is too copious to be cited here. 24 "Archaeological Reflections on the Philistine Problem," Antiquity and Survival, II (1957), 15164. of Bamboula and 25 In the final publication Kaloriziki this matter will be discussed in connection with Late Cypriote III Decorated ware and ProtoWhite Painted ware.

26 The same opinion is expressed by P. Demargne, op. cit., p. 174. It is more difficult, however, to agree with his suggestion that the metope composition of Philistine vases derives from the same source. The exclusion of every other pictorial theme except birds, and the generally different position of the metopes on Philistine pots (belly instead of shoulder) make it seem probable that the Mycenaean panel-system of decoration was at least an important factor in the formation of the Philistine decorative system. 27 E.g., Palestine Museum Bulletin, Vol. IV (1927), Pl. 1:9.

82

JOURNALOF NEAR EASTERNSTUDIES

"Late Eastern." The degree of schematization tends to be excessive so that it often appears that Philistine birds are mere designs. Many, though far from all examples of the Late Eastern type have a raised wing,28 and this feature is incorporated (universally, as far as I have observed) in a distinctive way in the Philistine version, viz., with a peculiar hacked variety (Text Fig. a). Actually, insofar as there is any Aegean precedent for this, one is led rather to Crete,29 where it represents a touch of naturalism, than to the mainland. A Minoan influence on Philistine ware cannot be absolutely excluded,30 but the Philistine wing tends to be so abstractly decorative that I have wondered if there is not a better explanation lying closer to hand. In short, is not this hacked wing inspired from, or at least parallel with, the common motif of chevrons connecting semi-circles on Philistine pots ?31 It is the consistency of traits like this which no doubt impelled Dothan to speak of the homogeneity of the ware. This homogeneity, the strong but slapdash line of birds and ornaments, the propensity toward abstractions which may vary in strength but never in type, lead me to think that we have to do with style in the personal sense in Philistine ware: either all of it created by one man, or at least in one workshop under the complete and dominating influence of one man. It is particularly in the conception of the birds that this theory must be tested; the ornaments by themselves can only be circumstantial evidence. There are surely not any real chronological difficulties with such a theory for the bulk, at least, of this fabric.32 An artisan could have a working 28 MP, Motif 7:39-52, esp. 48 ff. 29 MP, Motif 7:e, i-k. 30 Cf. Dothan, op. cit., p. 151 (reference to Caphthor). 31 E.g., Dothan, op. cit., Figs. 14-15. 32 The so-called Post-Philistine pottery of the second half of the eleventh century B.c. would, of

span of sixty or more years and he may have had sons to carry on the tradition. If there is one unknown man in history about whom it would reveal much historically to know his nationality and movements, it would certainly be this humble artisan. APPENDIX

I:

COMPARATIVE

REFERENCES

FOR BIRD TYPES

Down-view birds in Aegean repertory: A. Furumark, The Mycenaean Pottery, p. 253, Fig. 30:m (LM III); stirrup jar from Perati, EPPON (1954/5) p. 11, Fig. 10, and P1. VI, Fig. 4 of this article; Cabinet des Medailles N 4304 (gem). The Parian birds mentioned by Payne (H. Dragendorff, Thera, II, Fig. 411B) may be crude adaptations or survivals of the Aegean type. Cf. also J. Brock, Fortetsa, Motif 17h. Reverted heads in Aegean repertory: Furtwaingler-Ldschcke, Mykenische Vasen, P1. 39:404 (Text Fig. f:3 of this article); Monumenti Antichi, Vol. XIV, P1. 37:2; BSA, XXV (1921/23), P1. 14:c. The foregoing are mentioned by C. Watzinger, Denkmdler Palistinas (Leipzig, 1933), I, 81 n., where survival of the Aegean motif is proposed. Add: F. Matz, Die Friihkretischen Siegel, P1. XV: 4; XVIII:2a; XXI:4b, 6b; G. Karo, Schachtgrdber, XXVI: 60; G. Nicole, Catalogue des P1. Vases Peints du Musde National d'Athenes, Supplement: No. 228 (5650); ASAtene XIX-XX (1957/58) 103, Fig. 272; BSA, XXV (1921/23), Pl. 9b; Furumark, MP, p. 253, Fig. 30:17, 31; H. B. Walters,

Catalogueof the Greekand Etruscan Vases course, be excluded from consideration: cf. Dothan, op. cit., pp. 153-54. This suggestion was anticipated by W. A. Heurtley, if I have understood aright the following sentence from "Philistine and Mycenaean Pottery" (QDAP, V [1936], 103): "It (Philistine ware) could be explained as one of the parallel regional styles of the twelfth century, and its distribution in South Palestine as due to some local potter with more individuality than his neighbours."

A PROBLEM IN ORIENTALIZING CRETAN BIRDS in the British Museum, Vol. I, Pt. 2: C 400 (Pl. VI, Fig. 3 of this article); C 402 (AJA, LX [1956], P1. 52, Fig. 4; Text Fig. c of this article); C 409 (Text Fig. e of this article); B 1063 (see text of this article); Cyprus Museum CM A 1544 and 1647 (cited by W. Heurtley, QDAP, V [1936], 98, n. 4), the former is illustrated in MP, p. 253, Fig. 30:17 (see above); Vente Publique, X [22/23 Juin, 1951], (Monnaies et Medailles S.A., Basle) 390; Arkeologiska Forskningar och Fynd (Stockholm, 1952), p. 54 Fig., whence Archaeology, XIII (1960), 10, Fig. 10; M. Nilsson, The Minoan-Mycenaean Religion (Lund, 1950) 147, Fig. 55 with older literature. Best illustration in Illustrierte Weltkunstgeschichte (Stauffacher-Verlag, 1959), p. 403;

Opus. Athen., Vol. III (1960), P1. 14: A. Evans, The Palace of Minos, IV, 2, 615, Fig. 602. Fishtail

on birds in Aegean repertory:

A. Wace, Mycenae, P1. 97:c (MH): Furumark, MP, p. 253, Fig. 30:35, 38; B 1063 (see text of this article); BCH, LXXXIII (1959), 354, Fig. 19, and JHS: Archaeology in Cyprus, 1958, p. 27, Fig. 4; H. B. Walters, op. cit.: C 390. Variant of the fishtail: C 409 (AJA, Vol. LX [1956], P1. 54, Fig. 14; Text Fig. e of this article); C 416 (AJA, Vol. LX [1956], P1. 56, Fig. 34); C 583 (AJA, Vol. LX [1956], P1. 55, Fig. 15); Pierides Crater No. 42 (AJA, Vol. LX [1956], P1. 56, Figs. 1-2); Herakleion 5631 (M. Oulid, Les Animaux dans les Peintures de Crdte Prdhistorique,

p. 82).

Circles on birds in Aegean repertory: Furumark, MP, p. 249, Fig. 29 (Motif

7:4, 7); p. 253, Fig. 30:14 (Text Fig.f:3 of this article); 24-25 (ASAtene, VI-VII [1923-24], Fig. 144 whence Text Fig. f:1 of this article); 30. Text Fig. f:2, reproduced here by kind permission of Dr. I.

83

Kondis, is from a cutaway jug in the Rhodes Museum, Memorie Istit. Storico Arch. di Rodi II (1938) Pl. 40. Reverted heads in Near East: E. Herzfeld, Iranische Denkmdler Reihe I.B., P1. 9:3; P1. 13:8; see G. Contenau and R. Ghirshman, Fouilles du T'pd Giyan pres de Ndhavend, P1. 13:8, for another example and ibid., P1. 21 ff. for stratum of all the vase types just cited (date suggested on p. 80 is 1800-1400 B.C.); Guy and Engberg, Megiddo Tombs, p. 93, Fig. 111 (reproduced QDAP, Vol. VIII [1938], P1. A. Rowe, The Four Canaanite XIII:h); Beth Shan, Vol. II, Pt. 1, Temples of XIV:2 (Seti I); A. Moortgat, VorderP1. asiatische Rollsiegel, Pl. 83:534 (date uncertain); M. Oppenheim, Der Tell Halaf, P1. 25:b; Antiquity and Survival, II (1957), 151-164, passim for Philistine examples. Fishtail on birds in Philistine repertory: R. Macalister, The Excavations of Gezer,

Vol. III, P1. LXX:14, whence Text Fig. b of this article. A less accurate (?) version of same in Antiquity and Survival, II (1957), 152, Fig. 2a and QDAP, V (1936),

107, Fig. 12:12. Reverted heads in Geometric and Early Orientalizing Greek repertory: BM A 403 (see text of this article); Thera, II, 42,

Fig. 134a (and p. 201, Fig. 401) and Text Fig. d of this article; Fortetsa, Pls. 119:

1021; 120:1383; 123:1495; H. B. Walters, op. cit., C 763 (Text Fig. n of this article); Nauplia shields: H. L. Lorimer, Homer and the Monuments, Pl. IX:1; Corinth, Potters' Quarter: KP 1772 (unpublished Geometric kotyle fragment); K. Kiibler, Kerameikos, V, 1, 155, Fig. 3; R. M. Cook, Greek Painted Pottery (London, 1960) p. 64, Fig. 8B. Antithetic birds and center panel in Cypriote Orientalizing: Ohnefalsch-Richter,

84

JOURNAL OF NEAR EASTERN STUDIES

Kypros, Bible and Homer, Pl. CVIII:2; Robinson, Harcum, and Iliffe, Greek Vases at Toronto, I, 82. APPENDIX II: PHILISTINE FABRIC

In order to suggest the range of color I offer here detailed descriptions of four sherds from CAin Shems preserved at the University Museum, Philadelphia, with thanks to the Trustees of that institution for permission to refer to them: 34-22-49 Fragment from rim and body of deep bowl. Clay: close-textured without noticeable grits but thick and coarse-looking like brick or tile. Light pink-orange throughout with whitish accretions on the surface. Paint: dark gray-brown and dark red, almost crimson. Around the rim and below the frieze are bands of gray-orange. It would appear here that one must speak of polychromy rather than bichrome technique. Preserved is part of a spiral loop. 34-22-63 Fragment from body of jug (?). Clay: firm texture, perhaps slightly porous; fairly large light and dark grits. Gray-green at core to dull orange at surface but with same range of color at surface in places. Paint: like 34-22-49 but no orange. Concentric circles and semi-circles.

34-22-54 Fragment from rim and body of deep bowl. Clay: close texture, thick and coarse looking. Light gray-green with slightly pinkish hue in places; surface dull graygreen. Paint: matt gray-brown and orangebrown. Concentric circles connected by bars to which are attached semi-circles. Unnumbered: Fragment of rim and body of deep bowl. Clay: has a few light grits and pockmarks; dark, almost carboniferous, core to gray-orange; surface is orange-brown and may be self-slipped. Paint: thick dark red. Spiral hook and vertical wavy line. The piece is probably Post-Philistine. It is surely incorrect to say-as do both Dothan and Watzinger (op. cit., p. 80)that the paint is applied over a "whitish wash." There is sometimes a kind of uneven accretion which vaguely resembles such a wash but this is by no means always the case. The same mistake is sometimes made in describing Iron Age and even Late Bronze Age local Cypriote pottery, which does not generally have a slip or wash. Cf. AJA, XLVI (1942), 286. PRINCETON UNIVERSITY

PLATE III

FIG. 2.-BRITIS

FIG. 1.-FORTETSA 1383

FIG. 3.-KoURIoN

B 1063

PLATE IV

. ..

.

..................................... Aw

FIG. 1.-BRITISH

MUSEUM A

403

FIG. 2.-BRITISH

PLATE V

..........

FIG. 1.-HERAKLEION

iii iiii !i!

183

iiiiii! •??.............................. f!!? !!!! iii iill ?•?• •?• !!•?• ......... ???•??•?• ???••?• •?••?••?•??•

i!!iiii~ii~i~iii~ii~iiiii-mop,~

FIG. 2.-KOURION B 1063

PLATE VI

: i!•iiiiiii!i : ::: •:• .. i'

::

il

---': :i: ::-:-:

: :;:ii "",,'•,•' ,•,,,•,,••, i:,•i,,i;

::

;:::: :::

-:::::::: :-::-:':: :-: :--:: i~:--i-: -i:l~::~:::::-~ ~?_i;~~ ~ii--:;:--:i:~:

iii

•~i!,iiiiiiiii!

i i r ,,i~:,ii' i~~~i --ii.ii :i:: :i•!•i• • i l!i•iiil~•; ..........__:: ::'" 'i !

;;I

ii iiiii iiiii iii•• :: ~iii~iii:-:

:i, ,•,••iiiii?ii•l!••i'

?: ?:-

:;:-:;:::

FIG. 2.-ATHENS

FIG. .--CORINTH

NM 2685

ali~:s~~~~a~~ ?,::-:-;~??s -:::_-:--:::::::::_-m-:::::c:::_--:-_:: ::::-::::::?:::;?:i::::::--:::-::_ '

:

::-ii~:iiii-iii-i ::::::: -:_::: ::::::::;:-_-_ -::

:

il wbi

lbi~ :~~: 1:::~:,:: i-~idii~iiiai i~iii~ ~?

::-::''::?,i-A

::::::::_;i;:::?-::::-:

1::: ::::::::::: ii-~i-.-i-';r:$iii?-i?:: ;:::::-: ::::~;;

:-:-:: It*-:::::::::-

::-:;::

;:::: -i::;:: :::;:-::_? :::::-:-_-__-::-i-

:-:::

I~::!-~l:il::l: :II:: ::!~: :~:::::l::-:!!::l:i :::-:; :'::: ::: ::::: :--:

?I-~:j:--::::: :::.:::;:::::,::li:::: ~:---::;--;:::::::: ~?'-~-'~~;r~L:~_:-~l-;-i:::-:::-::?: FIG. 3.-BRITISH

MUSEUM

C 400

FIG. 4.-MARKOPOULo

261