CHAPTER 2

THE ADOPTION OF PICTORIAL IMAGERY IN MINOAN WALL PAINTING: A COMPARATIVIST PERSPECTIVE

by Charles Gates

A striking feature of Minoan wall paintings is the sudden adoption of pic- torial imagery in the Neopalatial period.1 This change calls for an expla- nation, but so far, that explanation has proved elusive. Those specialists in Aegean frescoes who have addressed this problem have focused on the possible artistic antecedents or on the functions of the mural imagery, no- tably its putative religious and decorative purposes, but have not consid- ered the circumstances that gave rise to such imagery in the first place. This paper will explore these issues of origins and functions, with par- ticular attention paid to . The explanation proposed here, with the help of three cross-cultural comparisons, is that pictorial imagery in Minoan wall painting resulted from the major political change that marked the transition from the Protopalatial to Neopalatial periods on : the con- solidation of island-wide power in Knossos, in the hands not of an auto- 1.That this article could not have crat, but of an oligarchic or theocratic regime. Pictorial imagery, at least been written without the groundwork in Neopalatial Crete, is not only an artistic preference, but also an ideo- laid by Sara Immerwahr in Aegean Painting in the Age goes almost logical choice, an expression of particular political, social, and religious without saying. For her support and conditions. friendship, dating back to my years in First, an introduction of the early Neopalatial wall paintings that in- Chapel Hill, and the example of her spire this study is in order, with comments on their larger Aegean and enthusiasm for the Aegean Bronze eastern Mediterranean context. Second, we shall review previous theories Age, I am most grateful. I would like to express my thanks also to Pietro Mili- explaining the arrival and purposes of pictorial imagery in Minoan mu- tello for sending me a copy of his un- rals. Third, we shall step outside the Aegean and examine published paper (1998) delivered at threethe other cases in which pictorial images make an abrupt, unexpected Italian Symposium of Aegean Studies, arrival in wall painting: late Medieval Siena, 16th-century Malinalco Rome, February 18-20, 1998; and to (Mexico), and 20th-century Mexico. Because these cases share political, Norbert Karg and Nicholas David for religious, and architectural contexts that compare, in a broad way, with advice on, respectively, chronological and ethnoarchaeological matters. those proposed for early Neopalatial Knossos, the detailed information The revised version of this article about them that textual sources provide, about their origins and their was submitted in August 2000; pub- aims, allows us to view Knossian intentions with a richer, more fruitful lications available after that date, most perspective.2 Finally, with the lessons learned from these comparisons kept notably S. Sherratt, ed., The Wall Paint- in mind, we shall return to Crete and especially to Knossos, examine evi- ings of Thera ( 2000), could not be taken into consideration. dence for sociopolitical and ideological changes in the Neopalatial period, 2. On the value of the comparativist and evaluate the appearance of pictorial imagery within the context of perspective, see Lloyd 1991, p. xii. these changes. 28 CHARLES GATES

Focus here is on the Cretan, in particular the Knossian, examples of what Sara Immerwahr calls the First Phase of Aegean wall painting, dat- ing in the first part of the Neopalatial period, from MM III through LM IA.3 I shall use Immerwahr's catalogue as the basic corpus of examples, a convenient point of departure.4 I shall follow her datings as well; I am interested in broader questions that should not be affected by minor revi- sions in her chronology.5 Dating within this period will not be so impor- tant; our sample is sufficiently small and the difficulties in assigning pre- cise dates so great that any arguments based on chronology within our First Phase may be unconvincing. Of the First Phase frescoes in Immerwahr's catalogue, twenty-one entries come from the Palace of ,6 six from Knossian villas,7 and ten from elsewhere on Crete.8 Note that the use of figural imagery in mural paintings is by no means universal on Crete; the other three best-known palaces, Mallia, , and Kato , have yielded virtually none. Of the subjects depicted, decorative motifs, such as spirals, carry on traditions established in the Protopalatial period.9 Our focus is instead on new themes expressed with pictorial imagery: landscape and nature scenes, animals, and people, both miniature and of a larger scale.?1 Pure landscapes are not known from the palace at Knossos, but four have been found in the Knossian villas11 and three elsewhere on Crete.12 Frescoes with animals as the prin- cipal feature have come from the palace (three examples13), the Knossian villas (one example14), but not from other locations. People (excluding those seen in the miniature frescoes) occur in eight cases at the Palace of Minos15 but not at all in the villas, and in three examples outside Knossos.16 Lastly, miniature scenes have been found at the palace (five examples plus various fragments17) but not in the villas; elsewhere, examples have been found at Katsamba, Prasa, and Tylissos.l8 Stuccoed reliefs are represented at Knossos, in the palace19 but not in the villas, and at Palaikastro and Pseira.20

3. Immerwahr 1990, pp. 8.39-75. Amnisos: InAm 1-3; Ayia Triada: phins), 34 (stucco of a lion's mane, absolute dates, we are dealing A.T. 1; Katsamba:roughly Ka 1; Palaikastro: or a bull?). with the 17th and 16th centuries Pa 1; Prasa: B.C. Pr 1; Pseira: Ps 1; and 14. House of the Frescoes: Kn 2 Dating for this period continues Tylissos: Ty 1,to 2. be (monkeys and bluebirds). controversial, with much weight 9. The palace placed at Knossos has yielded 15. Women: Kn 10-14; men: on the date of the eruption six examples ofThera. of decorative motifs dating Kn 7, 8 (various), 9. For further discussion of to chronological the First Phase (Kn 36-38, 40-42), 16. Women: Ayia Triada: A.T. 1 issues, see below. the Knossian villas two (Kn 43, 44). (goddess); Palaikastro: Pa 1; and Pseira: 4. Immerwahr 1990, pp. Immerwahr 169-190. catalogues none from else- Ps 1 (goddess and votary?). 5. Such as those suggested where byon Crete. War- See note 41 for the 17. Kn 15 ("Grandstand" or "Tem- ren (1991, p. 173), or by Niemeierdecorative traditions in Protopalatial ple"), 16 ("Sacred Grove and Dance"), (1994, pp. 84-85). wall paintings. 17 (fragments), 18 (fragments), 19 6. Kn 1, 6-16, 17 (various 10.frag- On the distribution of subjects, (boys playing game?). ments), 18 (various fragments), see Shaw 1997. 19, 18. Katsamba: Ka 1 (flying birds; 36-38,40,41,42. 11. Kn 3 (House of the Frescoes), textile pattern?); Prasa: Pr 1 (cypress 7. Kn 2-5, 43, 44. To this can be 4 (South House), 5 (Southeast House), trees); Tylissos: Ty 1 (men, women, added the Floral in the Unex- and the Floral Fresco from the Unex- trees, architecture, etc.). plored Mansion, not catalogued by plored Mansion (see note 7). 19. Kn 38 (spirals), 34 (lion's mane Immerwahr but included in a second- 12. Amnisos: Am 1-3; Ayia Triada or bull?), 7 ("Priest-King"), 9 ("Jewel ary list of fragments (1990, p. 179, A.T. 1 might be included here, nature fresco"), 8 (various). no. 15); now discussed at length by fresco with goddess. 20. Palaikastro: Pa 1 (arm of fe- Chapin (1997). 13. Kn 1 (blue monkeys), 6 (dol- male); Pseira: Ps 1 (goddess and PICTORIAL IMAGERY IN MINOAN WALL PAINTING 29

Knossos and Crete are not, however, the only sources of striking re- mains of Minoan-type murals of this period. Contemporary wall and floor frescoes from a handful of other sites in the Aegean and the eastern Medi- terranean, art works discovered or restudied within the past decade, have enriched our knowledge of First Phase painting. These murals from Akrotiri (on Thera), Alalakh (southern Turkey), (northern Israel), and Tell el-Dab'a (ancient Avaris, the capital of the Hyksos, northeastern Egypt) show the techniques, subjects, and styles characteristic of Minoan fres- coes. The many well-preserved paintings from Akrotiri have become a classic corpus of mid-2nd-millennium B.C. Aegean art.21 Wall painting fragments from Alalakh level VII show grass or reeds, foliage and border elements, a , and a bull's horn.22 Frescoes from Tel Kabri include a floor painting that imitates stone paving, divided into a grid of red lines decorated with floral motifs, and a miniature fresco from a wall, with a scene of an Aegean town in a coastal landscape that recalls the Miniature Fresco from the West House, Akrotiri.23 Fresco finds from Tell el-Dab'a include scenes of bull-leaping, a theme identified in particular with Knossos.24 In short, the subject matter of these Minoan-type frescoes re- calls that of Crete, and so forms part of a common tradition that would seem to center on Knossos-or for which Knossos at least can stand as representative.25 In addition, the chronology of these frescoes favors Knossos as the site of the earliest pictorial imagery. Immerwahr, whose relative datings we are following here, begins her First Phase frescoes in MM IIIB, but places most of the examples from this group after the MM IIIB earth- quake at Knossos and the rebuilding of the palace.26 Her First Phase ends in later LM IA with the eruption of the volcano on Thera. The frescoes of Akrotiri were, of course, buried in the debris from that eruption. They were thus contemporaries of the early Cretan pictorial frescoes, and part of Immerwahr's First Phase. The span of time in which they were painted votary?). On relief frescoes in general, of Thera," will provide a valuable con- Niemeier 1998, pp. 85-96. see Hood 1978, pp. 71-77, and the tribution to these ongoing discussions These Minoanizing frescoes are detailed treatment by Kaiser (1976, (see note 1). For the context of the wall distinct from wall and floor paintings of pp.257-312,316-318). paintings within the town of Akrotiri, the local art traditions in the Near East 21. Important studies of the wall see Doumas 1983. and in Egypt, although all form part of paintings of Akrotiri, with full refer- 22. Woolley 1955, pp. 228-234, the larger eastern Mediterranean/Near ences, would include Marinatos 1984, pls. 36b-39c; Niemeier 1991, pp. 189- Eastern/Egyptian art world. Under- Davis 1986, Morgan 1988, Immerwahr 196; Niemeier and Niemeier 1998, standing the relationship between them 1990, Doumas 1992, Televantou 1994. pp. 69-71, 82-85. has been and will surely continue to be The proceedings of conferences held on 23. Niemeier 1991, pp. 196-199; a focus of scholarly interest. On Near Thera in 1978 (Doumas 1978, 1980) Niemeier and Niemeier 1998, pp. 71- Eastern wall painting, see Nunn 1988. and 1989 (Hardy et al. 1990) contain 73, 76-78. On the few surviving Egyptian palatial useful discussions of the wall paintings, 24. Bietak 1996, pp. 72-81 and wall paintings, notably at Malkata and often with the aim of distinguishing pls. III-VIII, 33; Shaw 1995; Morgan Tell el-Amarna, see Robins 1997, what is local from what is Minoan; 1995; Marinatos 1998; Niemeier and p. 136; Smith 1998, pp. 163-168,187- such papers include Cameron 1978, Niemeier 1998, pp. 78-82. 191. For comparisons of art works Shaw 1978, Hood 1990, Poursat 1990, 25. The fascinating problem posed among these regions: Kantor 1947, Davis 1990, Laffineur 1990, Marinatos by these eastern frescoes, namely by Smith 1965, Cline and Harris-Cline 1990, Morgan 1990, Televantou 1990. whom and in what circumstances they 1998, Gates 1999. The recent publication of papers from a were executed, lies beyond the scope 26. See notes 3, 5. 1997 conference, "The Wall Paintings of this paper. See Niemeier and 30 CHARLES GATES has been estimated at fifty years, starting with repairs that followed a dam- aging earthquake and finishing with the great eruption.27 A relative chro- nology of these paintings within this fifty-year period has not been at- tempted; therefore we do not know how early these murals first appeared.28 On Crete, the time span from the MM III/LM IA transition until the eruption has been variously estimated, by two opponents in chronological matters, from ca. 80 years (Warren)29 to ca. 47 years (Manning).30 Even if we accept the more precise range, Knossos would have priority over Akrotiri in the earliest appearance of pictorial imagery in murals, thanks to the fragments from MM IIIB.31 The relationship of the remaining wall painting groups, those from Alalakh VII, Tel Kabri, and Tell el-Dab'a, to those from First Phase Crete and Thera, depend on how one views the absolute chronology of the mid- 2nd-millennium B.C. The first chronological touchstone is the date of the eruption of the Thera volcano; the dating of the Akrotiri frescoes and indeed those of the First Phase murals of Crete depend directly on this determination. The possibilities as recently supported by chronological specialists range over a 100-year period, from 1628 B.C. to 1520 B.C.32 Alalakh VII was destroyed some time before 1540 B.C.,33 and the frescoes from Tel Kabri are contemporary with those of Alalakh VII.34 Lastly, the wall painting fragments from Tell el-Dab'a date to the 16th century B.C., although exactly when is the subject of a heated controversy. Bietak, the excavator, attributes them to a fortress of the early New Kingdom, that is, some time after Ahmose, the first king of the Eigh- teenth Dynasty, captured Avaris in ca. 1535 B.C.35 But this dating rep- resents a change from earlier statements in which Bietak assigned the fragments either to an earlier fortress of the later Hyksos periods, ca. 1590- 1540 B.C., or to both the Hyksos fortress and the early-Eighteenth- Dynasty construction.36 The Hyksos, the Canaanite kings of the Fifteenth

27. Morgan 1988, pp. 5-10. Manning 2000, a Web site that one Near Eastern historians and archae- 28. Doumas, e.g., states simplyhopes will become that a public forum for ologists affirming their support for a "they are all Late Cycladic discussion creations, of 2nd-millennium B.C. low chronology (M.-H. Gates, pers. though some are clearly earlier chronology. than comm.). others" (1992, p. 30). 33. This low date for the destruction 34. Niemeier and Niemeier 1998, 29. Warren 1999, esp. pp. of Alalakh 901-902. VII by Hattusili I reflects a p. 73. 30. Manning 1999, summarized recent downdating on of Mursili I's sack of 35. Bietak 1996, pp. 73-80; 1999, p. 340. Babylon to 1499 B.C. (Gasche et al. pp. 40-48. The Eighteenth Dynasty 31. The possibility of Theran prior- 1998). For an earlier, standard "low began ca. 1550 B.C., according to the ity has been raised, however: Doumas chronology" date of ca. 1575 B.C., see standard chronology (Beckerath 1992, p. 17. Gates 1987, McClellan 1989. For re- 1997, pp. 119-123, 136-138, 189). 32. The subject has been compre- cent discussions of the Alalakh VII Ahmose captured Avaris in the fif- hensively analyzed by Manning (1999, chronology that prefer an even earlier teenth or the eighteenth year of his superseding 1995, pp. 200-216), who date that conforms with a late-17th- reign: Bietak 1999, p. 48. For the cur- favors a date of 1628 B.c., but who ad- century B.C. date for the eruption of rent debate on the date of these fres- mits to a possible, if less likely, date of Thera, see Niemeier and Niemeier coes: Niemeier and Niemeier 1998, the mid-16th century, 1530/1525 B.C. 1998, pp. 70-71; Manning 1999, pp. 85-88. at the latest. For 1520 B.C., see Warren pp. 341-366. The issue has been most 36. Bietak 1995a, pp. 20-23: one 1998 and 1999 (a change from 1535/ recently taken up at the International group of fragments is dated to the late 1525 B.C. or 1560/1550 B.c. proposed Colloquium on Ancient Near Eastern Hyksos period, a second group to the ten years earlier, in Warren and Hankey Chronology (2nd millennium B.C.), early Eighteenth Dynasty. 1989, p. 215). To these one can add 7-9 July, 2000, in Ghent, with Ancient PICTORIAL IMAGERY IN MINOAN WALL PAINTING 31

Dynasty, ruled from 1648/1645 to 1539/1536 B.C.,37 SO a date for the fres- coes in the Hyksos period would affirm these paintings as contemporaries, more or less, of the fresco groups already mentioned. An early New King- dom date, however, would place them later than the Alalakh VII and Tel Kabri frescoes, and contemporary with the Akrotiri and later First Phase Cretan frescoes, only if one espoused a late date for the eruption ofThera. The dating has important implications for Aegean art and for eastern Medi- terranean history,38 so further elucidation is eagerly awaited from the ex- cavators of Tell el-Dab'a.39 In conclusion, then, the adoption of figural imagery is a Cretan and probably even a Knossian phenomenon, because of the dominance of the palace at Knossos in the archaeological record of Neopalatial Crete, be- cause the earliest examples of mural decoration with pictorial imagery come from Knossos, and because of the long-lasting importance of Knossos as a findspot for surviving mural fragments with pictorial imagery until the final destruction of the palace. It is difficult to envisage nonCretan prove- niences as centers for fresco innovation: it is the larger art world of Crete in the Proto- and Neopalatial periods, with artworks in a variety of media, that provides the stylistic home for this family of wall paintings. Despite its well-preserved repertoire of early murals, Akrotiri (Thera), for example, would seem the recipient of Minoan artistic influence, not the reverse.40 Wall paintings themselves were not new in Neopalatial Crete. The covering of walls in and then painting them, with solid colors or bands, can be traced back to the EM period.41 Indeed the true fresco tech- nique, painting on wet plaster, may have been already practiced in Proto- palatial times.42 That the figural images of Neopalatial wall paintings show certain artistic conventions already seen in the pictorial art of the Near East and Egypt43 might suggest a sudden inspiring contact with these cul- tures at the beginning of the Neopalatial era. But contacts between Crete and the cultures of the eastern and southeastern Mediterranean had been well established for centuries.44 Minoan artists had ample opportunity to

37. Beckerath 1997, pp. center136, of 189. innovation, she accords Thera highlights the variety of techniques For the history and archaeology a certain autonomyof the in the larger art that can be grouped under the heading Hyksos period, see Oren 1997.world of the Aegean and the eastern "fresco." 38. As, e.g., Morgan (1995) Mediterranean. and the The emotional stakes 43. Such as the profile head, one papers in Bietak 1995b attest; of"who see dominated also whom" are thus frontal eye, frontal torso, profile legs, note 25. removed. and dark skin for men, light skin for 39. For a commentary on theAn additional dating aspect to consider women. See Hood 1978, pp. 83-87, controversy, see Cline 1998; would Niemeier be the implications of the do- for a discussion of the techniques of and Niemeier 1998, pp. 85-88; mestic or Man-private context of the fres- painting; and Immerwahr 1990, ning 1999, pp. 80-107. coes from Akrotiri as compared with pp. 50-54, but stressing Minoan dif- 40. See note 21. Morgan the (1988), varied contexts of First Phase wall ferences from Egyptian practices; and in her study of the paintings of on Crete:the palatial, villas, Poursat 1999, p. 186. For a recent sum- paintings from the West House,official, private Akro- (see Morris 1999). mary of Egyptian conventions for tiri, frames this problem in a 41.different Immerwahr 1990, pp. 11-37; drawing the human body, see Robins way. Instead of making the and, evaluation with valuable comments esp. on 1997, pp. 19-24. of Minoan influence on Theran art an wall painting at Phaistos, Militello 44. For a full account of contacts important aim of her work, with the 1998b. between Crete and Egypt, see Warren risk of labeling Thera either as a Mi- 42. Cameron, Jones, and Philippakis 1995 and several papers in Cline and noan dependent or derivative, or as a 1977; Immerwahr (1990, pp. 14-16) Harris-Cline 1998. 32 CHARLES GATES absorb the conventions of Near Eastern and Egyptian pictorial imagery, had they or their patrons so wished. The explanation for the appearance offigural imagery in the Knossian wall paintings therefore lies not in a new technical or iconographical in- spiration coming from existing neighboring prototypes, but from some newly arising situation on Crete itself that allowed Minoans to refresh their vision and appropriate certain conventions, themes, and techniques from their neighbors, and to integrate them into their own art tradition continuing from the Protopalatial period. Explanations proposed as to why the Minoans suddenly adopted fig- ural imagery have been based on the mural iconography itself, on informa- tion gleaned from the findspots,45 and on the presumed function of the frescoes. The nature of the explanations has varied according to the way the questions have been expressed, and as one might expect, this has evolved during the course of the past century. Such pioneers in the study ofAegean painting as A. J. Evans and Mary Swindler did not ask such questions at all; they aimed to chronicle and characterize.46 If we leap forward to 1990, we see that Sara Immerwahr, herself a student 45. ofA thorough Swindler, documentation doesof raise the question in Aegean Painting in the BronzeAge.47 the contexts For of her, Aegean murals as indeedis being for many undertaken by Fritz Blakolmer and students of Minoan art, the answer lies in Stefan examining Hiller. See Blakolmer 1995.the antecedents, the preexisting art world out of which emerged 46. Evans the discussed pictorial First Phase imagery of murals.48 frescoes from Knossos in PM I, On Crete itself, the appropriately complex designs and images of pp. 524-551, and PM III, pp. 29-106. Protopalatial art belonged to , notably to the Kamares style, and to For Swindler on Minoan painting, see Swindler 1929, pp. 71, 73, 76-78, sealstones. Motifs and stylistic propensities can be tracked. Outside Crete, 88. Egyptian art, especially, lay ready with its particular stylistic conventions 47. Immerwahr 1990, pp. 21-62. and techniques. But how did the Minoans get from the small-scale images 48. A standard approach, even for of pottery and seals to wall paintings? How and why did they absorb, di- those who do not specifically raise the gest, and reformulate Egyptian representational art?49 There is no period question of"why?": e.g., Matz 1962, of experimentation, no archaic era. It happened suddenly. In the end pp. 111-122; Hood 1978, pp. 47-87, esp. pp. 47-48; Poursat 1999, pp. 186- Immerwahr could not understand how the ingredients, as she identified 187; Walberg 1986; Blakolmer 1999. them, mixed, fermented, and metamorphosed into something new.50 She 49. Immerwahr sees Egyptian did not invoke a Minoan Kunstwollen, for which we can be thankful, but influence as important, especially for nonetheless, the dynamics of art change eluded her. Immerwahr is hardly certain techniques and artistic con- alone; others have remained equally puzzled.51 ventions, including the adoption of large-scale figures (Immerwahr 1990, A more fruitful path may lie in another direction, a consideration of pp. 53-62), but notes many differences function.52 A desire to identify an organized pictorial program on the walls between Egyptian and Minoan art of the palace at Knossos has characterized the work of several scholars; (pp. 159-161). Although Egyptian art this interest focuses attention on the function of the paintings. The frag- may have been a "catalyst," Minoan mentary nature of the evidence, however, and the chronological spread of artists were not mere copiers but the fragments over the entire Neopalatial period, through LM IIIA, make charted their own path. 50. Immerwahr 1990, p. 62. it difficult to determine the existence of a program, not to mention modi- 51. For example, Oliver Dickinson fications to that program over the many decades. Let us examine some of (1994, p. 164): "at present the origins these views, nonetheless, for they represent the opinions of several percep- of Minoan figured frescoes remain tive students of Minoan wall painting. unclear." Mark Cameron, in his unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, attacked the 52. Immerwahr does not specifically address the question of the function of problem head-on in his chapter III, "The Rise of Naturalism in Wall Paint- Minoan murals. ing."53 Written in 1975, the chapter can still serve as an excellent state- 53. Cameron 1975, pp. 31-47. A ment of the question at hand. Cameron proposes that foreign influence copy of the dissertation is kept in the was crucial, even if filtered through Minoan aesthetics. The precedent of library of the British School at Athens. PICTORIAL IMAGERY IN MINOAN WALL PAINTING 33

mural decoration in other cultures with their established techniques and artistic conventions would be important. Affinities with Egyptian art in particular are documented, but these aspects are reflected in the "outward appearances," not with the "symbolic content." But certain local Cretan artistic developments were also significant factors leading to the adoption of figural imagery in mural decoration. The developing Minoan tradition of fresco decoration and the increasing pictorialism and naturalism in other Minoan arts, all with continuity from the Protopalatial period, and certain cultural and religious influences, played key roles. As for the function of the wall paintings, Cameron sees them as ex- pressions of religious belief: "To transfer religious representations from the restricted and more private surfaces of gems, pottery, and the like to the large expanses of house and palace walls would in the minds of the Minoans, as to people of most religious persuasions today, sanctify their buildings in addition to any ritual of consecration."54 Cameron notes that the introduction of wall paintings with religious themes into palace and house coincides with the apparent decline of worship in peak sanctu- aries (cult centers on hilltops),55 and the religious themes of the mural paintings are then analyzed in detail.56 That these paintings presented a thematically unified program depicting a great goddess and the festival of her fertility, the mythological underpinnings and the festival rituals, was a conclusion that Cameron reaffirmed in a paper delivered in 1984 not long before his death.57 This unified theme had a long life that extended through the Neopalatial period even into the era of Mycenaean domination.58 Con- sidering the fragmentary nature of the Knossos frescoes and the contro- versies surrounding their findspots, contexts, and chronology, we must note that the claims are sweeping, but Cameron's detailed knowledge of the material commands authority. Robin Hagg, in a paper delivered in 1983,59 does not address the prob- lem of the adoption of figural imagery in Minoan murals, but he does investigate their function. He agrees with Cameron in emphasizing the religious functions of Minoan wall paintings: images of the goddess, to secure the divine presence; cult scenes, to give permanence to the ritual; and pictures that guide people in their ritual behavior.60 He notes, how- ever, that certain images are not religious; indeed, he sounds a more cau- tious note than Cameron, remarking on the difficulties of interpreting such fragmentary material. The identity of the patron of the murals is probed. Any sort of self-advertisement is lacking, such as the hunting or warfare scenes so popular in Egypt or certain Near Eastern cultures-or even in the Mycenaean world, where the ruler does not specifically appear in pictorial art.61 (Also missing, we can note, are other staples of ancient 54. Cameron 1975, p. 39. chap. V, "Interpretation of the Themes 61. Hagg 1985, pp. 214-217. On 55. Cameron 1975, p. 657. Al- of the Paintings." the ruler in the Bronze Age Aegean, though much study of peak sanctuaries 57. Cameron 1987. see the papers in Rehak 1995; on the has been done since Cameron wrote, 58. Cameron 1987, pp. 321, 324. absence of the ruler in Aegean art, see, this statement remains valid. See For another approach to the religious in the same volume, Davis 1995; and Cherry 1986, pp. 29-32 (with refer- significance of the palace at Knossos, on the lack of war imagery in Minoan ences to his earlier work); Peatfield but one that would have fascinated art, see Gates 1999. That the bull was 1994 (with references to his earlier Cameron, see Soles 1995. used as a symbol of Knossian power has work); Nowicki 1994; Watrous 1995. 59. Hagg 1985. been proposed by B. and E. Hallager 56. Cameron 1975, pp. 127-201: 60. Hagg 1985, p. 214. (1995). 34 CHARLES GATES

Near Eastern iconography: images of rulers appearing together with di- vinities, such as to receive a blessing or divine commission,62 or any picto- rial record of pious deeds.)63 Such absences lead Hagg to surmise that the patron may not have been an individual with the power to self-aggrandize, but a collective group, such as "a board of priests or religious officials."64 A different direction concerning the function of certain murals has been taken by Anne Chapin.65 In her analysis of the Floral Fresco from the Unexplored Mansion at Knossos, she proposes that such landscape scenes may have been lavish luxury decorations, displays of wealth and power, even if the origins of the subject matter may have been religious.66 She draws a parallel with wall paintings that decorated the private homes of the wealthy in Renaissance Italy, and indeed refers to a Minoan Neopalatial renaissance, lasting perhaps only through LM IA.67 This pro- posal contrasts with the religious motivations noted above, and certainly, as Chapin states, forces us to consider the possibility of motivations more complex and multifaceted than heretofore suspected. Explanations have thus focused on a supposed religious function for the murals in the Knossos palace, reinforced by the overall character of the palace as a religious center.68 Murals as luxurious, pleasure-giving decora- tions69 may apply to certain examples from villas, as Chapin has proposed, 62. E.g., the Investiture Scene from images that advertised the prosperity and status Court of 106, an theelite Palace class, of picturesZimri-Lim, inspired perhaps by examples in the palace Mari itself (Mari, and pp. by 53-66, Egyptian figs. 47-48, and Near Eastern practice.70 and pls. A, VII-XIV). Symbols of These analyses of the functions of Knossian divine wall authority paintings, as seen comple-in Ancient Near Eastern art may, however, be menting the discussions of stylistic origins as presented earlier, contribute present in Minoan art, even if the important insights with regard to the purpose divinity of this and art the form ruler in are Neopalatial not shown Crete. Yet we still have not answered our primary together: question, Krattenmaker why did 1995. picto- rial imagery appear at this time? Having examined 63. E.g., Gudea style the and Architect, function, a statue though, we are now ready to examine one last of aspect.Gudea seated What with was the the plan, larger placed social or political context in which such wall on hispaintings lap, of the became temple hea desiredbuilt at the behest of the god Ningirsu (Gates art form? An exploration of this, combined with what we have learned 1993, p. 16, nos. 15, 16). about style and function, should lead to an explanation 64. Hagg 1985, of the p. 216.appearance of pictorial imagery in Minoan murals.71 But 65.defining Chapin political 1997. context in early Neopalatial Crete, still essentially a prehistoric 66. Chapin society 1997, with pp. 22-24. poorly understood texts, depends on interpretation of 67. the Chapin archaeological 1997, pp. 23-24. record. 68. Soles 1995. Before examining that record, however, let 69. us For afirst selection ofbroaden modern our per- spectives by investigating the causes of mural examples, painting see Cass 1988. in other places and times. Lessons learned might illuminate our understanding 70. For the controversial subjectof the origins of pictorial imagery in Minoan murals. It is worth of the function noting of Minoan that villas, seethe painting of walls with pictorial imagery is by no means Walberg a 1994universal and the papers habit. in Hagg In the art 1997. traditions of the larger Near Eastern/Mediterranean/European world, to 71. These questions have been take one region as an example, mural paintings are popular in certain peri- posed, if not answered, by Blakolmer ods but at other times they fall out of fashion. (1997, p.This 104). characteristic of the pictorial fresco, as a distinctive and somewhat 72. unusual On the use of artisticanalogy for the vehicle, jus- tifies the search for cross-cultural comparisons interpretation when of archaeological seeking re- to explain the adoption of pictorial imagery in Neopalatial mains: OrmeMinoan 1981, Wylie wall 1985, paintings.72 Stahl 1993. For two recent discussions of I would like to introduce three particularly instructive cases, one Ital- aspects of that ian and two Mexican: first, the early Renaissance depend on the interpretative wall paintings help of of the Palazzo Pubblico, Siena; second, murals in theanalogy, 16th-century see Betancourt 1999 and esp. Augustinian monastery at Malinalco, Mexico; and third, the Weingarten program 1999. of public mural PICTORIAL IMAGERY IN MINOAN WALL PAINTING 35

paintings that burst on the scene in Mexico in the 1920s. My criteria for selecting these comparanda were three, all aspects either demonstrated or postulated for early Neopalatial frescoes. First, any swift flowering of mu- ral painting deserved consideration. Second, keeping in mind the religious function proposed for many Minoan wall paintings and the seemingly official and aristocratic locations of these murals in palatial (Knossos) and villa contexts, I looked for comparable situations in which religion mixed with the official. Lastly, murals with a clear political connection, with or without a religious dimension, merited investigation. Each case presented here displays two of these three criteria.

THE FRESCOES OF THE PALAZZO PUBBLICO, SIENA

The Palazzo Pubblico in Siena, built in 1299-1311 as the meeting place for the Council of Nine that ruled the city, offers an early example of Italian Renaissance wall paintings in a secular context. The construction of the Palazzo Pubblico did not represent a sudden, dramatic change in the political life of the city, but the monumental architectural expression of the solidity and stability of the city's government, evolving, as was true with many other city-states of northern and central Italy, over the previous 200 years.73 For our purposes, the interesting aspect of this case is the combination of religious and secular subjects chosen for the decoration of this official setting, the seat of government. This combination was indeed something new. The previous (13th) century had seen the increasing popularity of fres- coes of religious subjects painted in religious settings. The Byzantine style, the maniera greca, of these paintings, and indeed their placement on plas- tered walls in churches, betray the models offered by eastern Christianity. The influence of a foreign art tradition is strong: but why strong in the 13th century, when the Italians certainly had known for centuries? No doubt the conquest of Constantinople in 1204 during the Fourth Crusade and the loot brought back to Italy allowed a wider audi- ence to admire the artistic production of the great city;74 moreover, the Latins retained control of Constantinople and other portions of the Byzan- tine empire until 1261, allowing further familiarity with its architecture and art. Byzantine power was waning, yet its artistic influence remained strong. Other factors that influenced the rise of wall paintings especially in churches included increased wealth, derived from banking activities in the case of Tuscany; the desire to spend that wealth on church decoration in order to expiate sins of usury and to promote civic pride; and the political stability that followed the victory of the papacy in its long struggle with the Holy Roman Empire.75 This last would lead to Rome's resurgence as an art center, with the pope, already the spiritual leader of western Chris- tianity, emerging as a major secular ruler. 73. Waley 1988, pp. 107-111. 74. Lowden 1997, pp. 371-379. The wall paintings that decorated Siena's Palazzo Pubblico extended 75. White 1987, pp. 143-145. this artistic practice to a secular setting.76 Unlike church decoration, how- 76. White 1987, pp. 227-229. ever, the frescoes in the Palazzo Pubblico offer an eclectic collection of 36 CHARLES GATES images; if not planned as a thematically unified program,77 the paintings, executed over several decades, do seem to echo a similar theme, one that stresses the prestige and importance of the city's governing body. In the Sala del Mappamondo, the council chamber, Simone Martini painted sev- eral scenes at different times. The Maesta of ca. 1315-1316, with impor- tant repainting in 1321, shows Mary and the infant Jesus seated in splen- dor in the center of a saintly gathering, including four patron saints of Siena who surrender the city to her.78 Mary is here on the wall of the council chamber not only as the queen of heaven, but also as a symbolic earthly ruler administering justice.79 Her presence strengthened the hand of the Council of Nine, the oligarchs who aimed to suppress damaging family feuds as they ruled correctly. Opposite the Maesta, Simone Martini, it is generally thought, painted in 1328 a quite different subject: the gen- eral Guidoriccio da Fogliano on horseback, riding between cities.80 The im- age of this successful general commemorates the military successes of Siena, another achievement that the city government was happy to celebrate in a public wall painting. Elsewhere in the building, in the Sala de'Nove, Ambrogio Lorenzetti's painting of the Allegories of Good Government and Tyranny (1338-1339) covers three walls (the fourth consists of windows), a secular painting whose message again supports the mission of the governing Nine: with their lead- ership comes prosperity.81 These paintings of the Palazzo Pubblico show that secular allegories were valued in early-14th-century Italy in government centers. They re- sult from a change in the political and economic 77. Martindale conditions: 1988, p. 14.political and military stability after a period of conflict, and 78. Martindaleincreasing 1988, prosperity.pp. 14-17, They express the mission of the ruling body of the 204-209; city, Hoeniger with 1995,an implied pp. 128-135. warning of disasters that might arise should their authority 79. White 1987,not p. be 349; respected. Hoeniger Im- portantly, the divine in the form of the Virgin 1995, pp. Mary 128-130. is For invoked the Virgin as key Mary and other women used as sym- support. And frescoes were permanent; they could not be removed easily bols of political entities, see Dubisch or replaced, like tapestries or panel paintings. 1995,pp.229-249. They could be only painted over or hacked off.82 80. White 1987, pp. 354-356; the painting could possibly be of the later 14th century, by another artist. For this THE MURALS IN THE AUGUSTINIAN and paintings of cities controlled by Siena that decorated the room, see MONASTERY AT MALINALCO, MEXICO Martindale 1988, pp. 40-44,210-211; he dates Guidoriccio da Fogliano to the The second case I would like to examine is from 16th-century early Mexico. 1330s. Mendicant orders of the conquering Spanish, notably the Augustinians, 81. White 1987, pp. 388-397. 82. A fate that in fact befell ex- Franciscans, and Dominicans, built fortresslike churches and monasteries amples from my next two cases: the and decorated them with wall paintings. The occasion allowing Malinalco the cre- murals were covered with ation of the murals was the huge political, social, and religious change whitewash, that and a mural painted by followed the Spanish conquest; the specific impetus was ideological Diego Rivera ex- in 1933 for Rockefeller pression. The subjects of these paintings are religious, but interestingly Center, New York, was deliberately they include gardens-a combination that recalls the scenes of destroyedritual and on the orders of the patron, John D. Rockefeller Jr., angered by nature much liked by the Minoans.83 Most of these murals were covered Rivera's refusal to remove a portrait of with whitewash in the late 16th and early 17th centuries, the Lenin. result of changing art fashions and, more importantly, the decline in the prestige 83. Immerwahr of 1990, pp. 40-50; the mendicant orders. Shaw 1993. PICTORIAL IMAGERY IN MINOAN WALL PAINTING 37

The instructive case from Mexico is explained and analyzed by J. F. Peterson in her 1993 study of the mural paintings in the Augustinian monastery at Malinalco, southwest of Mexico City. The monastery was founded in 1540, with the buildings begun some twenty years later.84 The paintings were executed during the 1570s and possibly the early 1580s, only to be whitewashed soon thereafter.85 Restorations in 1974-1975 and 1983-1984 liberated the paintings from their centuries-old whitewash covering.86 The paintings decorate the entry, the church, the inner walls of a two-storied cloister, and the stairwell leading to the upper floor of the cloister. Subjects include portraits of two of the first Augustinian friars to arrive in Mexico in 1533 (in the arcaded entryway, or porteria); garden images, with plants, animals, and birds (in the church, although much damaged, and on the inner walls and barrel vaulting of the lower cloister); pelicans, symbols of self-sacrifice (in the stairwell); and Christ's Passion (in the upper cloister).87 The purposes of these murals were various. Instruction was one goal, spiritual inspiration another. The mendicant orders, supported by the Pope and the Spanish crown, were charged with the conversion to Christianity and the Hispanicization of the Indians. Bolstered by the humanistic ideals of Erasmus and Thomas More, the friars hoped to find a people uncor- rupted, in contrast with Europeans, ready to recreate the spirit of earliest Christianity. This idealistic aim combined with the widespread belief that the Garden of Eden was located in these newly discovered, supposedly eastern lands, the Indies. The garden murals, in particular, expressed this vision of a terrestrial paradise, with the echo that such would await the faithful believer upon his or her death. This lower cloister would have been accessible to professed Christians, primarily those working at the monastery and those receiving education. In the private area of the upper cloister, reserved for the friars, the paintings served their spiritual needs for moral support (the self-sacrificing pelican depicted in the stairwell) and for objects of devotion (the Passion scenes). The artisans of these paintings were Indians, but working under the direction of the friars.88 Although the iconography of the garden murals depended largely on European models-16th-century Spanish murals, tap- estries, and the varied European graphic and other portable artworks cir- culating in early colonial Mexico89-the Indian artisans introduced nu- merous plants and animals familiar from their own world. The choice of such plants was distinctive: rare are food plants; well represented are the prestigious decorative and aromatic flowers and medicinal plants that stocked the gardens of the Aztec royalty.90 Moreover, a lush, well-watered 84. Peterson 1993, p. 3. 85. Peterson 1993, pp. garden164, 176- corresponded with Aztec notions of the two desirable places one 178. might go after death, Tlalocan and a heaven associated with the House of 86. Peterson 1993, p. ix. the Sun, and it recalled Tomoanchan, the beautiful, happy place where the 87. Peterson 1993, pp. gods158-164, and mankind originated.91 The garden imagery of the lower cloister and passim for the garden paintings and apparently the church thus suited nicely both European and pre-His- in the lower cloister. panic traditions of the rewards that those who believed and obeyed could 88. Peterson 1993, pp. 29-56. 89. Peterson 1993, pp. anticipate57-82. after death. 90. Peterson 1993, pp. 83-123. In the late 16th century, the mendicant orders lost their influence 91 Peterson 1993, pp. 132-135.and indeed the ideological impulse of the early decades of the Spanish 38 CHARLES GATES conquest. The Counter-Reformation quashed humanistic thought. Pagan- ism and heresy were feared; native artisans were excluded from the paint- ing of religious subjects, and Indians were never encouraged to enter the priesthood. The utopian aspirations of the mendicants were revealed as unattainable; the Indians themselves proved just as humanly imperfect as the Europeans. Further, the secular clergy-parish priests and the episco- pacy-increased in numbers and influence. Even though the pope and the Spanish crown continued to support the mendicants, funding now de- pended on upholding papal and regal policies. At the same time fashions in religious art were changing; a new preference for easel paintings and retables made wall paintings appear antiquated. In this new political, reli- gious, and artistic climate, mural paintings no longer seemed appropriate. Indeed, the Malinalco frescoes were covered with whitewash not long af- ter completion, to be cleaned and revealed only in the 20th century.

THE MEXICAN MURAL MOVEMENT IN THE 1920s

The third case is that of the Mexican mural movement that began in the early 1920s and lasted until the early 1970s.92 Here, too, the wall paintings resulted from political change, in this case a violent internal revolution. Moreover, these paintings were very much a public art, with official gov- ernmental support; many public buildings were decorated with mural paint- ings. Unlike the previous two cases, however, the subjects illustrated were not religious but cultural, historical, and political, subjects that reflected the particular ideological tenor of the new regime.93 The movement originated in the Mexican Revolution of 1910-1917 that followed the long dictatorship of Porfirio Diaz. One tenet of the revo- lution was protest against the academic, European-oriented painting styles favored by the Diaz government. The painter Gerardo Murillo, known as Dr. Atl, promoted an art that would be more specifically Mexican in sub- ject matter, accessible to the public, and filled with spiritual qualities and energy that were lacking in academic painting.94 On travels in Europe he was impressed by Italian Renaissance frescoes, as would be in turn the younger painters Diego Rivera and David Alfaro Siqueiros. The Italian murals displayed the powerful inner qualities for which he was searching; they served as an inspiration for his new movement. He believed that walls of public buildings would be an appropriate location for such paintings. Murals could have an influential role in society. Although he took sides in the struggles in the 1910s, Dr. Atl did not consider that mural paintings necessarily needed to depict revolutionary subject matter. His disciples, however, had other ideas. Siqueiros, while in Barcelona in 1921, issued a manifesto on behalf of an artists' trade union, the Syndicate of Technical Workers and Sculptors.95 Like Dr. 92. Atl,Rochfort he re- 1993, Folgarait 1998. 93. Including "conflicting voices" pudiated any art that was elitist, that appealed to intellectual and upper within the movement: Folgarait 1998, classes. Art should benefit the public, and should educate p. 12. people at this time of transition to a new social order. Monumental art 94. Rochfortwas best1993, pp. po- 14-20. sitioned to achieve these goals. Italian Renaissance frescoes, 95. Rochfort although 1993, p. 6. PICTORIAL IMAGERY IN MINOAN WALL PAINTING 39

religious in subject matter, showed how monumental paintings could ef- fectively transmit philosophical concepts and political ideologies.96 Jose Clemente Orozco, another major Mexican muralist, thought similarly. "The highest, the most logical, the purest form of painting is the mural," he wrote in 1929. "It is, too, the most disinterested form, for it cannot be made a matter of private gain: it cannot be hidden away for the benefit of a certain privileged few. It is for the people. It is for ALL."97 Such an art would have to be a state art, and as such would need a well-placed sponsor. The resources of Dr. Atl and his followers would not suffice to launch mural painting on a scale sufficiently grand to make the public impact they wished. The Mexican mural movement indeed had such a sponsor. Jose Vasconcelos, the Secretary of State for Public Educa- tion in the government of Alvaro Obreg6n (1921-1924), commissioned the first series of mural paintings on public buildings.98 The policy was not universally popular, especially with architects. But Vasconcelos, a philoso- pher and idealist, believed in the power of art to better the human condi- tion. For him, monumental murals painted by first-rate artists would achieve this end far better than small-scale art, however high its quality. Political content was not a concern; he did not require certain subjects or treat- ments from his artists. In contrast, Rivera, Orozco, and Siqueiros, all of whom painted commissions arranged by Vasconcelos, would view their murals as vehicles for their strongly felt, highly politicized leftist-oriented critiques of Mexican and American society and history.99 The Mexican mural movement thus arose from political upheaval (the Revolution) and ideological reorientation (from Spanish-European elitism to a broader-based pro-Mexican outlook), with its launching arranged by a sympathetic intellectual in a powerful government posi- tion at the appropriate moment. Note that the murals themselves did not cause or bring about political change; instead, with the violence of the 1910s now over, the paintings could express the spirit of the Revolution in a way that did not threaten the authority of the governments of the 1920s and beyond.100 For the form itself, the mural, foreign influence was determinant: Italian Renaissance frescoes. The impact of pre-Columbian wall paintings, fragmentary and as yet poorly known, was limited in the early 1920s.

PICTORIAL IMAGERY IN MINOAN MURALS: A PRODUCT OF SOCIOPOLITICAL AND IDEOLOGICAL CHANGE

It is natural that the State should be a partisan of an artistic form that 96. Rochfort 1993, p. 29. would be useful for its political ends. 97. Rochfort 1993, p. 8. 1 98.98. Rochfort Rochfort 1993, pp. 20-21; 1993, pp. 2-21; --Luis Cardoza y Arag6n?01 Folgarait 1998, pp. 16-20. All three groups of murals presented above represent a pictorial expres- 99. See also Hurlburt 1989. 100. Folgaraitee Folgarait 1998, 1998, pp. 197-199.197-199. sion, permanently fixed on walls, of a newly arrived political order, whether 101. Art critic L. Cardoza y Arag6n, from peaceful internal political evolution, violent internal political change, La nubey el reloj, p. 18, Mexico City or external conquest. The iconography is didactic to varying degrees of di- 1940, cited by Folgarait (1998, p. 199). rectness or indirectness, but certainly expresses in each case the metaphysical 40 CHARLES GATES underpinnings of the new order. The lessons learned from these three cases can be applied with profit to the Minoan murals, by directing our search for cultural context to the sociopolitical and ideological changes that took place on the island at the transition from the Protopalatial to the Neopalatial period. Despite unquestionable cultural continuity on Crete from the Proto- palatial period, the Neopalatial period does witness important changes in the archaeological record. These differences strongly suggest changes in the political organization on the island, notably the decline of regional power in favor of dominance by Knossos.102 This centralization of author- ity is deduced from several features of the archaeological record. First, the palace centers at Mallia and Phaistos diminish in size in comparison with the palace at Knossos. Second, pottery types associated with Knossos domi- nate by LM IA, in contrast with the marked regional styles of the Proto- palatial period.103 Third, the network of villas, found in both urban centers such as Knossos and in towns and villages, marks the spread of centralized au- thority in the Neopalatial period. Even if the origins of the villa may lie earlier,104 the number of villas increased sharply in LM I. The villas are not identical designs but variants on a theme,105 and no doubt served a variety of functions that might have ranged from houses of the ruling families, such as those at Knossos itself, to manor houses in the countryside from which regional economic, religious, and social control was exercised.106 On a contrasting note, certain administrative tools of the Neopalatial period, notably sealing practices and the Linear A script, do not have a uniform character, but show variations from place to place. In these mat- ters, it might be explained, if the general concept of sealings and writing were imposed from a center, details could be left to local preference.107 Other changes that point to a centralization of authority are seen in the organization of cult and the network of regional forts and fortifica- tions. In Protopalatial times, peak sanctuaries were widespread. In the Neopalatial period, most were abandoned. Those still in use served pal- ace centers and major settlements, especially Knossos, an inference drawn from the correspondence of finds from Neopalatial centers and the sanctuaries.108 Cave sanctuaries and rural sanctuaries such as at Syme

102. Treuil et al. 1989, esp. pp. p. 115. 307-For the transitional MM III centers in the Neopalatial period); 308; Knappett 1999, pp. period: 637-638; Stiirmer 1992 and Walberg Driessen and Schoep 1995, pp. 659- Schoep 1999, pp. 201-202, 1992. 217-221 662 (local administrations with a (see note 107 below). For 104.a decon-Treuil et al. 1989, pp. 233-234, certain autonomy of practice, but struction of the evidence, 306; seeNiemeier Cherry 1997. under a central authority); and Schoep 1986, pp. 25-26; his conclusion 105. Betancourt is and Marinatos 1999, esp. pp. 201-202 and 217-221 not convincing, however. 1997, A pp.more 91-92; Preziosi and Hitch- (in a more nuanced interpretation, she tentative view is expressed cock 1999,by p.Dab- 110. now sees likely Knossian control in ney (1995) and by Driessen 106. Haggand 1997: this collection of LM IA, with a reversion to region- Macdonald in their useful papers summary is fundamental; and Walberg alism in LM IB). of changes from Protopalatial 1994. to 108. Cherry 1986, pp. 29-32; Peat- early Neopalatial Crete (1997, 107. Schoep 1994 (regional vari- field 1987; 1990; 1994, pp. 19-28; pp. 11-13). ations of script are interpreted as Nowicki 1994. 103. Betancourt 1985, pp. 64-133, evidence in favor of regional political PICTORIAL IMAGERY IN MINOAN WALL PAINTING 4I

also show connections with Neopalatial centers.109 Similarly, the dec- oration of Room 14 at Ayia Triada with wall paintings of religious subjects may reflect the Knossian imposition of its cult practices in south- ern Crete.11l At Knossos itself, an increase of cult space enclosed within the palace suggests greater attention paid to rituals and, with access more restricted than in Protopalatial times, a greater prestige accorded to them.11 Among these rituals, a new importance may have been given to dance.112 The Neopalatial period is a period without fortified sites, a contrast with the previous Protopalatial era and indeed the later Postpalatial pe- riod.ll3 Whatever the causes of the widespread destructions of sites at the end of the Protopalatial era, whether earthquake, violent attacks, and/or economic and social dislocation,114 evidence from the ensuing Neopalatial period indicates a change, a period of internal calm. This absence of forti- fied sites in the Neopalatial period suggests a lack of armed conflict on the island itself and thus internal political harmony, most likely the result of centralized authority rather than a network of independent city-states some- how free of violent rivalries. Later Greeks, notablyThucydides (1.4), wrote of a Minoan thalassocracy, and indeed some scholars have proposed Minoan control over the southern Aegean during this period, from the Greek pen- insula across the southern Aegean islands to the southwest coast of Asia Minor.115 The existence of a king, named Minos in later Greek sources, may be an anachronism, for there is no confirmation of this in the ar- chaeological record. As noted earlier, the iconography of Minoan art is not that of auto- cratic kingship, at least not of the sort typical in Egyptian and ancient Near Eastern civilizations.11 The type of government in the Neopalatial period is more likely to have been an oligarchy with a theocratic orienta- tion, with no one person or family needing a push from personalized ico- nography and objects, but one in which several families may well have had a controlling interest-an elite centered at Knossos. This is the picture proposed by Cameron, Hagg, and Chapin based on their analyses of the function of the murals; others, too, have found this to be the most reason- able hypothesis that explains the available evidence.17 What role does pictorial imagery in wall paintings have in all this? Pictures, after all, communicate messages; "images must have an effect on

109. Peatfield 1994, pp. 26-28. at this time: Betancourt 1999, p. 222. 1998, pp. 134-141. The nature of the 110. Rehak 1997; Militello 1998a, 112. German 1999. relationship between Thera and Crete pp. 99-132,250-282 (the paintings 113. The evidence is discussed in in the early Neopalatial period is dis- of Room 14), and 352-353 (conclu- several papers in Laffineur 1999, in cussed in several papers cited above, sions). particular Chryssoulaki 1999, Nowicki note 21. 111. Gesell 1985, pp. 19-40 (the 1999, Schlager 1999, Tsipopoulou 116. Gates 1999. Neopalatial period throughout Crete); 1999. 117. Betancourt and Marinatos 1987; Moody 1987. On the impor- 114. Godart 1999. 1997, pp. 92-97; Marinatos 1993, tance of the palace at Knossos as a 115. On the Minoan thalasso- pp. 243-244. Also arguing for an cult center, see also Marinatos 1993, cracy: papers in Hagg and Marinatos oligarchy, but emphasizing its mercan- esp. pp. 38-75; and, for its likely 1984; Wiener 1990; and, within a tile rather than religious interests, is cosmological significance, Soles 1995. larger discussion of trade and inter- Weingarten (1999). For a summary of religious changes connections, Rehak and Younger 42 CHARLES GATES us.)118 The pictures, as we have seen, mostly of religious ritual, religious emblems, or nature, do not directly illustrate the governmental system. Instead, as shown by the examples from early Renaissance Siena, early Spanish colonial Malinalco, and 20th-century revolutionary Mexico, they serve to enhance and honor, in a pictorial way, the metaphysical basis of the state and the society, namely, in Neopalatial Crete, the primacy of the religious. The sudden arrival of pictorial imagery on Crete, then, is a pic- torial act that builds upon the stylistic precedents of Protopalatial art and takes advantage of large-scale Egyptian and Near Eastern figural imagery already well known to the Minoans. These elements coalesce now because of the need or desirability of such imagery in 118. Bakewellan evolved 1998: a discussion sociopolitical framework of newly centralized authority for ofwhich images as actions,the venerationparallel to words of na- ture and the importance of religious ritual have as actions-"image become acts"its and metaphysical "speech acts." On the particular effects of foundation. The comparativist outlook espoused in this paper has the merit mural paintings with specific reference of encouraging us to move beyond a restricted, to 20th-century Aegeo-centric Mexican examples, range of explanations and imagine more complex sociopolitical see Folgarait 1998,and esp. ideological pp. 27-32, con- texts in which figural imagery fulfilled particular 191-203. needs. PICTORIAL IMAGERY IN MINOAN WALL PAINTING 43

REFERENCES

Bakewell, L. 1998. "Image Acts," Amer- .1997. "Minoan Wall-Painting: ican Anthropologist 100, pp. 22-32.The Transformation of a Craft Beckerath,J. von. 1997. Chronologie into an Art Form," in TEXNH: despharaonischen Agypten: Die Craftsmen, Craftswomen, and Crafts- Zeitbestimmung der igyptischen manship in theAegean BronzeAge. Geschichte von der Vorzeit bis 332 Proceedings of the 6th International v. Chr., Mainz. Aegean Conference/6e Rencontre Betancourt, P. 1985. The History egeenne of internationale, Philadelphia, , Princeton. Temple University, 18-21 April 1996 . 1999. "Discontinuity in the (Aegaeum 16), R. Laffineur and P. P. Minoan-Mycenaean Religions: Betancourt, eds., Liege, Smooth Development or Disrup- pp. 95-105. tions and War?" in Laffineur 1999, . 1999. "The History of Mid- pp.219-225. dle Minoan Wall Painting: The Betancourt, P., and N. Marinatos. 'Kamares 1997. Connection,"' in Betan- "The Minoan Villa," in Hagg court 1997, et al. 1999, pp. 41-51. pp. 91-98. Cameron, M. A. S. 1975. "A General Betancourt, P. P., V. Karageorghis, Study of Minoan Frescoes with R. Laffineur, and W.-D. Niemeier, Particular Reference to Unpub- eds. 1999. MELETEMATA: Studies lished Wall Paintings from Knos- in Aegean Archaeology Presented to sos," 4 vols. (diss. University of Malcolm H. Wiener as He Enters Newcastle upon Tyne). His 65th Year (Aegaeum 20), Liege. . 1978. "Theoretical Interrela- Bietak, M. 1995a. "Connections tions among Theran, Cretan, and between Egypt and the Minoan Mainland Frescoes," in Doumas World: New Results from Tell 1978, pp. 579-592. el-Dab'a/Avaris," in Davies and .1987. "The 'Palatial' Thematic Schofield 1995, pp. 19-28. System in the Knossos Murals: , ed. 1995b. Trade, Power, and Last Notes on Knossos Frescoes," Cultural Exchange: Hyksos Egypt and in Haigg and Marinatos 1987, the Eastern Mediterranean World, pp.321-328. 1800-1500 B.C. An International Cameron, M. A. S., R. E. Jones, and Symposium at the Metropolitan Mu- S. E. Philippakis. 1977. "Scientific seum ofArt, Wednesday, November 3, Analyses of Minoan Fresco Samples 1993 (Agypten undLevante 5), from Knossos," BSA 72, pp. 121- Vienna. 184. .1996. Avaris: The Capital of Cass, C. 1988. Grand Illusions: Con- the Hyksos. Recent Excavations at temporary Interior Murals, Oxford. Tell el-Dab'a, London. Chapin, A. 1997. "A Re-examination . 1999. "Une citadelle royale a of the Floral Fresco from the Un- Avaris de la premiere moitie de la explored Mansion at Knossos," XVIIIe dynastie et ses liens avec BSA 92, pp. 1-24. le monde minoen," in L'acrobate Cherry, J. F 1986. "Polities and Palaces: au taureau: Les decouvertes de Tell Some Problems in Minoan State el-Dab'a (Egypte) et l'archeologie de la Formation," in Peer Polity Interac- Mediterranee orientale (1800-1400 tion and Socio-Political Change, av. J.-C.). Actes du Colloque organise C. Renfrew and J. F. Cherry, eds., au Musee du Louvre par le Service Cambridge, pp. 19-45. culturel le 3 decembre 1994, A. Cau- Chryssoulaki, S. 1999. "Minoan bet, ed., Paris, pp. 29-81. Roads and Guard Houses-War Blakolmer, F. 1995. "Komparative Regained," in Laffineur 1999, Funktionsanalyse des malerischen pp. 75-85. Raumdekors in minoischen Palasten Cline, E. H. 1998. "Rich Beyond the und Villen," in Laffineur and Nie- Dreams of Avaris: Tell el-Dab'a meier 1995, pp. 463-474. and the Aegean World-A Guide 44 CHARLES GATES

for the Perplexed," BSA Gasche, 93, H.,J.pp. A. 199- Armstrong, S. W. Hallager, B. P., and E. Hallager. 1995. 219. Cole, and V. G. Gurzadyan. 1998. "The Knossian Bull: Political Cline, E., and D. Harris-Cline, Dating theeds. Fall of Babylon:A Reap- Propaganda in Neo-Palatial Crete?" 1998. TheAegean and the Orient praisal of Second-Millennium in Chro- in Laffineur and Niemeier 1995, the Second Millennium: Proceedings nology, Ghent. pp.547-559. of the 50th Anniversary Symposium, Gates, C. 1999. "Why Are There Hardy, D. A., C. G. Doumas,J. A. Cincinnati, 18-20April 1997 No Scenes of Warfare in Minoan Sakellarakis, and P. M. Warren, eds. (Aegaeum 18), Liege. Art?" in Laffineur 1999, pp. 277- 1990. Thera and theAegean World Dabney, M. K. 1995. "The Later 283. Stages III: Proceedings of the Third Inter- of State Formation in Palatial Gates, M.-H. 1987. "Alalakh and national Congress, , , Crete," in Laffineur and Niemeier Chronology Again," in High, Mid- 3-9 September 1989, pt. 1: Archaeol- 1995, pp. 43-47. dle, or Low?Acts of an International ogy, London. Davies, W. V., and L. Schofield, Colloquium eds. on Absolute Chronology Hoeniger, C. 1995. The Renovation of 1995. Egypt, theAegean, and Held theat the University of Gothenburg, Paintings in Tuscany, 1250-1500, Levant: Interconnections in 20th-22ndAugustthe 1987, Part 2, Cambridge. Second Millennium B.C., London. P. Astrom, ed., G6teborg, Hood, S. 1978. TheArts in Prehistoric Davis, E. N. 1986. "Youth and pp. 60-86. Age Greece, Harmondsworth. in the Thera Frescoes," AJA .90, 1993. BiblicalArchaeology . 1990. "The Cretan Element pp.399-406. Society: Mesopotamian Slide Set, on Thera in Late Minoan IA," in 1990. "The Cycladic Style Washington, of D.C. Hardy et al. 1990, pp. 118-123. the Thera Frescoes," in HardyGerman, S. C.et 1999. al. "The Politics of Hurlburt, L. 1989. The Mexican Mur- 1990, pp. 214-228. Dancing: A Reconsideration of the alists in the United States, Albu- . 1995. "Art and Politics Motifin the of Dancing in Bronze Age querque. Aegean: The Missing Ruler," Greece," in in Betancourt et al. 1999, Immerwahr, S. A. 1990. Aegean Paint- Rehak 1995, pp. 11-20. pp.279-282. ing in the BronzeAge, University Dickinson, 0. 1994. TheAegean Gesell, G. C. Bronze 1985. Town, Palace, Park, Pa. Age, Cambridge. and House Cult in Minoan Crete, Kaiser, B. 1976. Untersuchungen zum Doumas, C., ed. 1978. Thera Goteborg. and the minoischen Relief, Bonn. Aegean World I: Papers Presented . 1987. at"The Minoan Palace Kantor, H. 1947. TheAegean and the the Second International Scientific and Public Cult," in Hagg and Orient in the Second Millennium B.C., Congress, Santorini, Greece, Marinatos August 1987, pp. 123-128. repr. Boston 1997. 1978, London. Godart, L. 1999. "La fin des premiers Knappett, C. 1999. "Assessing a Polity . 1980. Thera and theAegean palais cretois: Lutte intestine ou in Protopalatial Crete: The Malia- World II: Papers and Proceedings of tremblement de terre?" in Laffineur Lasithi State,"AJA 103, pp. 615- the Second International Scientific 1999, pp. 39-46. 639. Congress, Santorini, Greece, August Hagg, R. 1985. "Pictorial Programmes Krattenmaker, K. 1995. "Palace, Peak, 1978, London. in Minoan Palaces and Villas?" in and Sceptre: The Iconography of .1983. Thera: Pompeii of the L'iconographie minoenne: Actes de la Legitimacy," in Rehak 1995, AncientAegean, London. table ronde d'Athenes (21-22 avril pp. 49-59. . 1992. The Wall-Paintings of 1983) (BCH Suppl. 11), P. Darcque Laffineur, R. 1990. "Composition Thera, Athens. and J.-C. Poursat, eds., Athens, and Perspective in Theran Wall- Driessen,J., and C. E Macdonald. pp.209-217. Paintings," in Hardy et al. 1990, 1997. The Troubled Island: Minoan , ed. 1997. The Function of the pp.246-251. Crete Before andAfter the Santorini "Minoan Villa": Proceedings of the ,ed. 1999. POLEMOS: Le Eruption (Aegaeum 17), Liege. Eighth International Symposium contexte guerrier en Ege'e a lAge Driessen, J., and I. Schoep. 1995. "The at the Swedish Institute atAthens, du Bronze. Actes de la 7e Rencontre Architect and the Scribe: Political 6-8June 1992, Stockholm. egeenne internationale, Universite de Implications of Architectural and Hagg, R., and N. Marinatos, eds. Liege, 14-17 avril 1998 (Aegaeum Administrative Changes on MM 1984. The Minoan Thalassocracy: 19), Liege. II-LM IIIA Crete," in Laffineur Myth and Reality. Proceedings of the Laffineur, R., and W.-D. Niemeier, and Niemeier 1995, pp. 649-666. Third International Symposium at the eds. 1995. POLITEIA: Society and Dubisch, J. 1995. In a Diffrent Place: Swedish Institute atAthens, 31 May- State in theAegean BronzeAge. Pilgrimage, Gender, and Politics at 5June 1982, Stockholm. Proceedings of the 5th International a Greek Island Shrine, Princeton. . 1987. The Function of the Aegean Conference/Se Rencontre Folgarait, L. 1998. Mural Painting and Minoan Palaces: Proceedings of the ege'enne internationale, University of Social Revolution in Mexico, 1920- Fourth International Symposium at Heidelberg, Archdologisches Institut, 1940:Art of the New Order, the Swedish Institute atAthens, 10-13 April 1994 (Aegaeum 12), Cambridge. 10-16June 1984, Stockholm. Liege. PICTORIAL IMAGERY IN MINOAN WALL PAINTING 45

Lloyd, G. E. R. 1991. Methods and . 1990. "Island Iconography: Peak Sanctuaries," in Hagg and Problems in Greek Science, Cam- Thera, Kea, Milos," in Hardy et al. Marinatos 1987, pp. 89-93. bridge. 1990, pp.252-266. . 1990. "Minoan Peak Sanctu- Lowden, J. 1997. Early Christian and . 1995. "Minoan Painting and aries: History and Society," OpAth ByzantineArt, London. Egypt: The Case of Tell el-Dab'a," 18, pp. 117-131. Manning, S. 1995. TheAbsolute Chro- in Davies and Schofield 1995, . 1994. "After the 'Big Bang' nology of the Aegean Early Bronze pp.29-53. -What? or Minoan Symbols and Age:Archaeology, Radiocarbon, and Morris, S. 1999. "From Thera to Shrines beyond Palatial Collapse," History, Sheffield. Theophilos: Aegean Painting in in Placing the Gods: Sanctuaries and . 1999. A Test of Time: The Vol- Domestic Context," abstract in AJA Sacred Space in Ancient Greece, S. E. cano of Thera and the Chronology and 103, p. 316. Alcock and R. Osborne, eds., History of the Aegean and East Medi- Niemeier, W.-D. 1991. "Minoan Oxford, pp. 19-36. terranean in the Mid Second Millen- Artisans Travelling Overseas: The Peterson, J. F. 1993. The Paradise Gar- nium B.C., Oxford. Alalakh Frescoes and the Painted den Murals of Malinalco: Utopia and .2000. The Thera (Santorini) Plaster Floor at Tel Kabri (Western Empire in Sixteenth-Century Mexico, Volcanic Eruption and theAbsolute Galilee)," in Thalassa: L'tgeepre- Austin. Chronology of theAegean BronzeAge historique et la mer. Actes de la troi- PM = A. J. Evans, The Palace of Minos, (A WWW companion site to sieme Rencontre egeenne interna- 4 vols., London 1921-1935. Manning 1999: http://www.rdg. tionale de l'Universite de Liege, Poursat, J.-C. 1990. "Craftsmen and ac.uk/~lasmanng/testoftime.html). Station de recherches sous-marines et Traders at Thera: A View from Mari = A. Parrot, Mission archeologique oceanographiques (StaReSO), Calvi, Crete," in Hardy et al. 1990, de Mari II: Lepalais, pt. ii, Peintures Corse, 23-25 avril 1990 (Aegaeum 7), pp.124-127. murales, Paris 1958. R. Laffineur and L. Basch eds., . 1999. "Les decouvertes de Marinatos, N. 1984. Art and Religion in Liege, pp. 189-201. Tell el-Dab'a et la Crete, in L'acro- Thera: Reconstructing a Bronze Age . 1994. "Knossos in the New bate au taureau: Les decouvertes de Tell Society, Athens. Palace Period (MM III-LM IB)," el-Dab'a (Egypte) et l'archeologie de la .1990. "Minoan-Cycladic in Knossos:A Labyrinth of History. Mediterranee orientale (1800-1400 Syncretism," in Hardy et al. 1990, Papers Presented in Honour of Sinclair av. J.-C.). Actes du Colloque organise pp. 370-377. Hood, D. Evely, H. Hughes-Brock, au Musee du Louvre par le Service . 1993. : Ritual, and N. Momigliano, eds., Athens, culturel le 3 decembre 1994, A. Cau- Image, and Symbol, Columbia, S.C. pp. 71-88. bet, ed., Paris, pp. 181-194. .1998. "The Tell el-Dab'a .1997. "The Origins of the Preziosi, D., and L. A. Hitchcock. Paintings: A Study in Pictorial Minoan 'Villa' System," in Hagg 1999. Aegean Art andArchitecture, Tradition," Agypten undLevante 8, 1997, pp.15-19. Oxford. pp. 83-99. Niemeier, W.-D., and B. Niemeier. Rehak, P., ed. 1995. The Role of the Martindale, A. 1988. Simone Martini, 1998. "Minoan Frescoes in the Ruler in the Prehistoric Aegean: Pro- Oxford. Eastern Mediterranean," in Cline ceedings of a Panel Discussion Pre- Matz, F. 1962. TheArt of Crete and and Harris-Cline 1998, pp. 69-98. sented at the Annual Meeting of the Early Greece, New York. Nowicki, K. 1994. "Some Remarks Archaeological Institute ofAmerica, McClellan, T. 1989. "The Chronology on the Pre- and Protopalatial Peak New Orleans, Louisiana, 28 December and Ceramic Assemblages of Ala- Sanctuaries in Crete," Aegean 1992, with Additions (Aegaeum 11), lakh," in Essays in Ancient Civiliza- Archaeology 1, pp. 31-48. Liege. tion Presented to Helene J Kantor, . 1999. "The Historical Back- Rehak, P. 1997. "The Role of Religi- A. Leonard Jr. and B. Williams, ground of Defensible Sites on ous Painting in the Function of the eds., Chicago, pp. 181-212. Crete: Late Minoan IIIC versus Minoan Villa: The Case of Ayia Militello, P. 1998a. Haghia Triada I: Protopalatial," in Laffineur 1999, Triadha," in Haigg 1997, pp. 163- Gli affreschi, Athens. pp.191-197. 175. . 1998b. "Influenza orientale sui Nunn, A. 1988. Die Wandmalerei und Rehak, P., and J. Younger. 1998. "Re- palazzi minoici? II caso della deco- derglasierte Wandschmuck im alten view of Aegean Prehistory VII: razione parietale" (unpublished Orient, Leiden. Neopalatial, Final Palatial, and paper, Rome 1998). Oren, E. D., ed. 1997. The Hyksos: Postpalatial Crete," AJA 102, Moody, J. 1987. "The Minoan Palace New Historical andArchaeological pp.91-173. as a Prestige Artifact," in Hagg and Perspectives, Philadelphia. Robins, G. 1997. TheArt ofAncient Marinatos 1987, pp. 235-241. Orme, B. 1981. AnthropologyforAr- Egypt, London. Morgan, L. 1988. The Miniature chaeologists:An Introduction, Ithaca. Rochfort, D. 1993. Mexican Muralists: Wall Paintings of Thera:A Study in Peatfield, A. 1987. "Palace and Peak: Orozco, Rivera, Siqueiros, London. Aegean Culture and Iconography, The Political and Religious Schlager, N. 1999. "'A Town of Castles': Cambridge. Relationship between Palaces and An MM/LM Fortified Site at Aspro 46 CHARLES GATES

Nero in the Far East of Crete," Simpson, New in Haven. . 1995. "Minoan Crete and Laffineur 1999, pp. 171-177. Soles, J. 1995. "The Functions of a Pharaonic Egypt," in Davies and Schoep, I. 1994. "Ritual, Politics, Cosmological and Center: Knossos in Schofield 1995, pp. 1-18. Script on Minoan Crete," Palatial Aegean Crete," in Laffineur and .1998. "Aegean Late Bronze Archaeology 1, pp. 7-25. Niemeier 1995, pp. 405-414. 1-2 Absolute Chronology: Some . 1999. "Tablets and Territories? Stahl, A. B. 1993. "Concepts of Time New Contributions," in Sardi- Reconstructing Late Minoan and Approaches IB to Analogical nian andAegean Chronology: Political Geography through Reasoning Unde- in Historical Perspec- Towards the Resolution of Relative ciphered Documents," AJA tive," 103, AmerAnt 58, pp. 235-260. andAbsolute Dating in the Medi- pp.201-221. Stiirmer, V. 1992. MM III: Studien zum terranean, M. S. Balmuth and Shaw, J. 1978. "Consideration Stilwandel of theder minoischen Keramik, R. H. Tykot, eds., Oxford, Site of Akrotiri as a Minoan Mainz. Settle- pp.323-331. ment," in Doumas 1978, Swindler, pp. M.429- 1929. Ancient Painting, .1999. "LM IA: Knossos, 436. New Haven. Thera, Gournia," in Betancourt Shaw, M. C. 1993. "The AegeanTelevantou, Gar-C. 1990. "New Light on et. al. 1999, pp. 893-903. den," AJA 97, pp. 661-685. the West House Wall-Paintings," Warren, P., and V. Hankey. 1989. . 1995. "Bull Leaping Frescoes in Hardy et al. 1990, pp. 309-326. Aegean BronzeAge Chronology, at Knossos and Their Influence 1994. on Axpor pit OopaS;: Ot Bristol. the Tell el-Dab'a Murals," TzoxoypacrpieAgypten z'q AoTnx7r7 OixiaC, Watrous, L. V. 1995. "Some Observa- undLevante 5, pp. 91-120. Athens. tions on Minoan Peak Sanctuaries," . 1997. "Aegean Sponsors Treuil, R.,and P. Darcque,J.-C. Poursat, in Laffineur and Niemeier 1995, Artists: Reflections of their and RolesG. Touchais, eds. 1989. Les pp.393-403. in the Patterns of Distribution civilisations of egeennes du neolithique et Weingarten, J. 1999. "War Scenes and Themes and Representational de lIAge du Bronze, Paris. Ruler Iconography in a Golden Conventions in the Murals," Tsipopoulou, in M. 1999. "From Local Age: Some Lessons on Missing TEXNH: Craftsmen, Craftswomen, Centre to Palace: The Role of Minoan Themes from the United and Craftsmanship in the FortificationAegean in the Economic Provinces (17th c. A.D.)," in BronzeAge. Proceedings of Transformation the of the Siteia Bay Laffineur 1999, pp. 347-357. 6th InternationalAegean Conference/ Area, East Crete," in Laffineur White, J. 1987. Art andArchitecture 6e Rencontre egeenne internationale, 1999, pp. 179-189. in Italy 1250 to 1400, 2nd ed., Philadelphia, Temple University, Walberg, G. 1986. Tradition and Inno- Harmondsworth. 18-21 April 1996 (Aegaeum vation: 16), Essays in Minoan Art, Mainz. Wiener, M. 1990. "The Isles of Crete? R. Laffineur and P. P. Betancourt, .1992. Middle Minoan III: The Minoan Thalassocracy Revis- eds., Liege, pp. 481-504. A Time of Transition, Jonsered. ited," in Hardy et al. 1990, pp. 128- Smith, W. S. 1965. Interconnections 1994. "The in Function of the 161. the . A Study Minoan ofVillas," the Aegean Archaeology Woolley, L. 1955. Alalakh:An Account Relationships between the Arts1,pp.49-53. of of the Excavations at TellAtchana, Egypt, the Aegean, and Western Waley, D. 1988. Asia, The Italian City- Oxford. New Haven. Republics, 3rd ed., London. Wylie, A. 1985. "The Reaction against .1998. TheArt andArchitecture Warren, P. 1991. Rev. ofImmerwahr Analogy," Advances in Archaeological ofAncient Egypt, 3rd ed., rev. W. K. 1990, in Antiquity 65, pp. 172-173. Method and Theory 8, pp. 63-111.