An Archer from the Palace of Nestor 365
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
hesperia yy (2008) AN ARCHER FROM THE Pages363-397 PALACE OF NESTOR A New Wall-Painting Fragment in the Chora Museum Dedicatedto Mabel L. Lang ABSTRACT The authorsinterpret two joining pieces of a brightlycolored wall painting foundat the Palace of Nestor in 1939.The fragment,removed from the walls ofthe palace prior to itsfinal destruction, represents part of an archer,prob- ablyfemale. Alternative reconstructions are offered.Artistic methods and constituentsofthe plaster and paint are studied by XRD, PIXE-alphaanalysis, XRF, SEM-EDS, PY/GC-MS, and GC-MS. Egyptianblue pigmentwas extensivelyemployed. Egg was used as a binderfor the pigments in a tempera, ratherthan a fresco,technique. The identificationofindividualized painting stylesmay make it possibleto assigngroups of wall paintingsto particular artistsor workshops. Restudyof themany published and unpublishedwall-painting fragments fromthe Palace of Nestorin Pylosthat are storedin the Chora Museum began in 2000.1By 2002 it was possibleto make a fullassessment of the corpusand to definedirections for future work. In the courseof earlier examinationsand the systematicarrangement of wall paintingsin new storagecabinets, an unpublishedpiece of specialinterest was discovered. 1. A reexaminationof thecorpus of Muhly,former director of the Ameri- describedhere has been provided by the wallpaintings from the Palace of can Schoolof Classical Studies at Institutefor Aegean Prehistory, the Nestoris partof the program of the Athens,and to Maria Pilalifor facilita- SempleFund of the Department of Hora ApothekeReorganization Project tingour work in everyway. The con- Classicsof the University of Cincinnati, (HARP), a seriesof interrelated re- stantsupport that we havereceived and,most recently, the American School searchmissions that have taken place at fromXeni Arapoyianni, former director ofClassical Studies, where Brecoulaki Pylossince the completion of the Pylos ofthe Olympia Ephoreia and now was MalcolmH. WienerVisiting Re- RegionalArchaeological Project in directorof the Kalamata Ephoreia, and searchProfessor (2005-2006). Other 1996.The projectas a wholehas been fromYioryia Hatzi, current director of publicationsof HARP includeIsaaki- directedby Sharon R. Stockersince theOlympia Ephoreia, has beencritical dou et al. 2002 and Stockerand Davis 1998.Hariclia Brecoulaki assumed to thesuccess of this enterprise. We 2004. responsibilityfor the study of the wall also takepleasure in recognizingthe Additionalcolor images of the paintingsin 2000.This paperrepre- helpwe havereceived each year from fragmentof wall painting presented sentsa genuinelycollaborative effort on EvangeliaMalapani, Curator of Antiq- hereare freely available for viewing at thepart of its authors, but individual uitiesin theKalamata Ephoreia, and http://dx.doi.Org/10.2972/hesp.77.3.394. contributionsare credited below as theguards of the Chora Museum. Captionsfor these supplementary appropriate.We aregrateful to James Fundingin supportof the research imagesare listed below in Appendix3. © The AmericanSchool of Classical Studiesat Athens 364 HARICLIA BRECOULAKI ET AL. This pieceof plaster, part of what we call theArcher Fragment, lay on shelf 14 III ofthe first apotheke (storeroom) of the museum and had beendepos- itedin a cardboardbox labeled"ANAKTOPON 1939." The piece preserves thedepiction of a whitehuman arm, clothed in partby a garmentwith a shortblue sleeve(Fig. 1, below).The subjectseems to weara bracelet(or bracelets)and holdsan object,only partially preserved, that appears to be a bow.The styleof the paintingis similarto thatof miniaturefrescoes, althoughits scale is somewhatlarger. The representationis particularly detailedand refinedin itsexecution. The purposeof this paper is to presentand examinethe Archer Frag- mentin detail.The iconographyof the wall paintingseems to us to be of greatimportance in itsown right.A lengthypublication also offersan opportunityto showwhat can be learnedabout the technique and styleof prehistoricpainters through the use of severalscientific methods, as well as arthistorical analysis. We beginwith a considerationof the excavated contextof the fragment. We thendescribe and illustratethe piece itself and discussits subject matter with reference to parallelsin prehistoricAegean art,presenting several tentative reconstructions of the scene portrayed. Finally,we examinethe methodsemployed by thepainter, the individual characteristicsof his or hertechnique and style,and, in two appendixes, documentthe compositionof thepigments and binders. CONTEXT OF THE ARCHER FRAGMENT In 1939, a firstseason of excavationat the Palace of Nestorwas directed byKonstantinos Kourouniotis and Carl Blegen.2Blegen, as juniorpartner in the enterprise,took responsibilityfor overseeing the fieldwork,while WilliamMcDonald, thena youngscholar in theprocess of completing his doctoraldissertation atJohns Hopkins University, supervised the excavation oftrenches within the palace proper.Evidence of frescoed decoration was foundin manyplaces, and thelocations of fragments are noted in McDon- ald s notebook.3Although it was not describedaccurately at the timeof excavation,the Archer Fragment is clearlyreferred to byMcDonald in a summarycomposed at the end of the excavationseason. With regardto sectionA of trenchIII, he wrote: Coursesof good roomwith fine walls. Just east of thisroom was foundthe best fragment of plasterwith braceleted hand. Other fragmentsof paintedplaster were numerous. This mustbe dug verycarefully. Some wallsin restof trenchbut nothingof great importancefound here.4 The contextin whichthe fragment was discoveredis thusindisputable. 2. Kourouniotisand Blegen1939. sectionD); p. 37 and planon p. 53 Onlythe briefest reference is made This sectionof our paper represents (trenchII, sectionA); pp. 66, 69-70, to thesefinds in Kourouniotisand thework of Davis, Stacker, and Bre- 80, 120 (trenchII, sectionB and Blegen'spreliminary report (1939, coulaki. trenchV); pp. 66, 121 (trenchVI, p. 561). 3. WAM 1939,p. 20 (trenchI, sectionA); pp. 77, 79 (trenchVII). 4. WAM 1939,p. 119. AN ARCHER FROM THE PALACE OF NESTOR 365 More detailscan be gleanedfrom McDonald s dailyaccounts of exca- vationin trenchIII, sectionA.5 He writesthat, after removing a "massof tumbledstones" at a depthof 40 cm below the surface,he found"a good cornerof a roomwith a good deal of paintedplaster." He furthernoted that"just east of its n.s. wall was discovereda largepiece of plasterwith humanfoot." It is obviousthat he had uncoveredthe northeastcorner of whatwas laterdefined as room32 ofthe palace. The "humanfoot," which he musthave subsequently understood to be a "braceletedhand," was found outsidethe outer ashlar wall of thepalace.6 Once we determinedthat the Archer Fragment had been foundout- side room32, a searchamong other fragments discovered in thevicinity eventuallyyielded a smalljoining piece showing more of the human figure thatholds the bow and ofthe bow itself.This piecewas storedin a drawer thatcontained finds from rooms 25-28. Individualfragments were not clearlylabeled, but the drawerhad been dividedinto three sections. The designation"room 27" was faintlylegible on a slip of paperin the section wherethe relevantpiece was found.Mabel Langs publicationof accom- panyingfragments as being fromroom 27 confirmsthat this context is correct: . manysmall bright pieces which could nothave been exposedto thefire and so wereperhaps in wall-fill.Other very similar pieces fromjust outsideRoom 27 s southwestwall and outsidethe north- eastwall of thepalace havebeen added to theseto makeup a very fragmentaryhunting scene on blue ground.7 The pieces thatLang describes,both publishedand unpublished,were storedtogether by Blegens team. It is impossibleto determinewhich fragments were found inside the roomand which outside. Stylistic and iconographicalconsiderations allow us,however, to drawsome general conclusions about which paintings were attachedto the walls of roomsin the northeastarea of the Main Build- ing in the periodimmediately preceding its destruction.It is clear that the ArcherFragment belongs to the groupof paintingsthat Lang called "brightpieces," and thatit had, like them,been removedfrom the walls priorto thefinal destruction of the palace. These fragmentsare of a "small scale withdetailed painting on a blue background."There is a significant concentrationof fragments of this kind in thenortheast section of the site. Piecesthat are stylistically and thematicallysimilar to theArcher Fragment includethose in thegroup of associated fragments that Lang presumedto come fromthe huntingscene (originallyin room27?). It is possiblethat furtherfragments of the archerwill be discoveredas we widenour search radiusaround room 27. 5. The excavationof trench III, discussedin thepublished preliminary room32, see Palaceof Nestor I, pp. 156- sectionA, is describedin WAM 1939, reportof 1939,but the trench and the 160.No fragmentsof plaster with pp.36, 38,44 (April11); p. 80 (April exteriorwall of room 32 areillustrated figuraldecoration are mentioned 18); p. 88 (April20); and p. 119. For in Kourouniotisand Blegen1939, there. theelevations of walls, see p. 129. Exca- p. 560,fig. 2. 7. Palace ofNestor II, p. 201. vationof the trench is notexplicitly 6. Fordiscussion of the finds from 366 HARICLIA BRECOULAKI ET AL. Figure1. Two joiningpieces of the ArcherFragment. Photo J. Stephens DESCRIPTION AND CONDITION The ArcherFragment is preservedin two joining pieces (Fig. I).8 The dimensionsof the firstpiece (063.70) are p.L. 0.17, p.W. 0.135, p.H.