FROM WEST TO EAST:
THE AEGEAN AND EGYPT IN THE EARLY LATE BRONZE AGE
It has been Helene Kantor’s merit to confirm or simply emphasize the evidence of
Aegean inf luences on Near Eastern art, offering a balance to the traditional ex Oriente lux. A
summary of her suggestions and conclusions is certainly welcome before attempting to
appraise the state of our knowledge after fifty years of research and finds, in a paper that will
concentrate on the Egyptian side and on the beginning of the Late Bronze Age. The period
has been the subject of a significant development that has culminated just a few years ago in
the extraordinary finds made at Avaris/Tell el-Dabca in the Eastern Nile delta and in two
conferences closely related to them.1
Helene Kantor’s contribution
The inf luence from the Aegean has first to be identified in the repertory of motifs. It
concerns especially several varieties of spirals. The earliest occurrences of spiral-like designs
in Egypt, on scarabs from the First Intermediate Period, have an “inchoate nature which
emphasizes the fact that the real rise of spiraliform design did not occur before the XIIth
Dynasty,” probably under the stimulation of Cretan prototypes.2 The same holds true for
simple s-spiral scrolls: they “could have developed on the basis of Middle Kingdom traditions”
but “it is possible that an additional impetus for their widespread use in the New Kingdom
was provided by the renewed trade with the Aegean.”3 Similar conclusions are to be drawn
for interlocked C-spirals and for quadruple spiral rapports.4 The earliest examples of the
latter were produced by Egyptian craftsmen independently of Crete,5 but the subsequent
development of the motive in the XIIth Dynasty “must have been dependent on Minoan
inf luence and example.”6 The most obvious example of Aegean inf luence is provided by the
contiguous S-spirals, an all-over decoration made of contiguous rows of spirals,7 which do not
appear before the reign of Hatshepsut and which “could have been derived only from the
Greek mainland.”8 Further signs are the interlocked crosses9 and the interlocked T-units,10 as
well as some meander designs,11 the latter giving an interesting case of adaptation: “The
process of transmitting an imported spiral pattern into one formed of straight lines would
have been natural to an Egyptian craftsman since rectilinear geometric designs were extremely
characteristic of Old Kingdom and Middle Kingdom surface ornament;” the question would
be ... of a “combination of the indigenous Egyptian tradition for rectilinear design with the
newly acclimatized system of spiral ornament,” of “... indigenous variations, independently
produced by Egyptian craftsmen, on spiral themes ultimately derived from the Aegean.”12
______________________
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Egypt, the Aegean and the Levant; Hyksos Egypt and the Eastern Mediterranean World.
KANTOR, 23.
Ibid. 56-57.
Ibid. 23-26.
A scarab in Ibid. pl. I, D (IXth Dynasty).
Ibid. 24 and pl. III, A-J (XIIth and XIIIth Dynasties).
Ibid. 59-61.
Ibid. 61.
Ibid. 58 and pl. X, J.
Ibid. 58.
Ibid. 28-30.
Ibid. 28-29.
54
Robert LAFFINEUR
Next comes the inf luence on the Egyptian animal style, particularly noticeable, in the
early XVIIIth Dynasty, in the adoption of the f lying gallop, an attitude that appears in a strong
contradiction with the traditional convention of “earth-bound” animals, touching the ground
with all four feet. The earliest example is provided by the dagger of Ahhotep, the mother of
Ahmose.13 This very attitude cannot be explained just by the supposed omission of ground
lines, since additional obvious signs of Aegean inf luence are observable, such as “the hollow
backs of the beasts” and “the f linging of their hind legs into the air, innovations which are
utterly at variance with the old Egyptian traditions”14 — and which are not present on the
other alleged example on the gold-plated dagger hilt of the Hyksos king Apophis (the
predecessor of Khyan), with a depiction of “f lying leap” rather than “f lying gallop”15 — as well
as the typically Minoan “circumvallate representation of the landscape in which details such as
rocks and vegetation are shown on all sides of the scene.”16 This is confirmed on the slightly
later hunting scene in relief from the tomb of Puimre (early in the reign of Thutmose III) and
its unusual concentration of innovations: the depiction of dogs on top of their prey, the swift
motion, the abrupt movement of the hunting animal’s head and shoulders turned (or even
twisted) backward, as well as the specific attitude of the suckling fawn, kneeling on its bent
forelegs. Equivalents of the Puimre decoration are not numerous. With the exception of
hunting scenes in the tomb of Rekhmire (Thutmose III/Amenhotep II) and on the dog collar
from the tomb of Mahirper (under Amenhotep II) — with additional pendant rocks in the
characteristic Aegean shape of “tricurved arches” — the vigorous and vivacious style of Aegean
derivation finds only faint counterparts in compositions of an advanced stage in the XVIIIth
Dynasty (hunting scenes in the tomb of Amenemhet, son of Dhutmosi, and in tomb 53 built
for another Amenemhet, both from the reign of Thutmose III) and has completely
disappeared by the XIXth Dynasty: “Although for a time Egyptian craftsmen were strongly
inf luenced by the Aegean traditions of delineating swiftly galloping and leaping animals, such
alien traits were not able to maintain themselves permanently in the Egyptian repertory.”17
Two observations made by Helene Kantor are worth remembering here while
introducing the topic.
The first is the fact that many Aegean counterparts of the above-mentioned motifs
appear as ornaments on skirts or kilts of figures on wall paintings, that is on cloth, a material
that is easily traded and that is consequently a well-known and favourite medium for the
transmission of iconographic inf luences in later phases of Greek history. The most obvious
cases are the interlocked T-motifs on the kilt of the acrobat on the gold sword pommel from
Mallia18 and the interlocked crosses on the skirt of a woman on a painting from Ayia Triada,19
and we have evidence on the walls of the tomb of Menkheperrasonb that bolts of cloth were
offered by Keftiu tributaries20 — not to mention the kilts worn by the tributaries themselves
and their frequent ornamentation of elaborate type.21
______________________
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
A. XENAKI-SAKELLARIOU and C. CHATZILIOU, “Peinture en métal” à l’époque mycénienne (1989) 21-22
and pl. IX, 3.
KANTOR, 64.
PM I 718-19 and fig. 540 (the document is mentioned in KANTOR, 64, n. 39). The image of a dog chasing
a hare on a painting of the First Intermediate Period at Mealla is an isolated example of f lying gallop that
has to be viewed as an anomaly; cf. Interconnections, pl. 190B.
KANTOR, 71.
Ibid. 71.
F. CHAPOUTHIER, Mallia. Deux épées d’apparat (Études crétoises V 1938). The chronology of the swords
has been the subject of a detailed examination by O. PELON, “L’épée à l’acrobate et la chronologie
maliote,” BCH 106 (1982) 165-90; Idem, “L’épée à l’acrobate et la chronologie maliote (II),” BCH 107 (1983)
679-703.
See the colour illustration in E.J.W. BARBER, Prehistoric Textiles (1991) Col. pl. 2.
S. WACHSMANN, Aegeans in the Theban Tombs (1987) 75.
J. VERCOUTTER, L’Égypte et le monde égéen préhellénique (1956) 243-89, fig. 14-99 and pl. XIV-XXVII;
BARBER (supra n. 19) 330-40.
FROM WEST TO EAST: THE AEGEAN AND EGYPT IN THE EARLY LBA
55
The second observation relates to the area in the Aegean where most of the models
come from. If “the greatest expansion of Cretan trade occurred in the MM II period” ... and
“apparently continued into the MM III period,” “by LM I, however, Cretan connections with
the East must have been greatly diminished”22 and must have been replaced, as early as the
beginning of the XVIIIth Dynasty, by mainland connections which will reach their climax
under Thutmose III and then considerably decrease until the renewal of Late Helladic imports
under Amenhotep III.
Where did the Aegean influence come from?
The second observation is probably the weakest point in Kantor’s argumentation, and at
least the one that has to undergo the greatest modification according to the development of
our knowledge in the past fifty years. Middle Minoan imports in Egypt and in the Levant are
indeed very numerous23 — not to mention the evidence provided by most of the silver vases
in the Tôd Treasure and their obvious MM IB-MM II affinities. Helene Kantor’s suggestion
of a decrease of Minoan imports in the Eastern Mediterranean and of a corresponding
increase of Mycenaean imports during the early Late Bronze Age is based on two different
categories of evidence, actual imports in the former case, illustrations of imports in the
latter.24 In addition, it does not seem to find confirmation in the finds made in the last
decades. Minoan vessels of LM I date found in Egypt are indeed very few and all of them
belong to LM IB, whereas vessels of LM II date are simply non-existent, but vessels or sherds
of Mycenaean fabric are no less numerous and the difficulty is to distinguish between Minoan
and Mycenaean productions for that early period.25
Such equivocal evidence gained from exports is even in contradiction with the data
available concerning the opposite direction of exchange, namely the evidence provided by
imports to the Aegean, the “Orientalia” — to use C. Lambrou-Phillipson’s and E. Cline’s
designation. The systematic inventories collected by both scholars very clearly indicate that
imports from Egypt are by far dominant in LH/LM I-II26 and that most of them have been
traded to Crete, and there is no reason to suppose that the general conditions of exchange
relations were basically different when working from West to East or from East to West. For
the latter direction again, the imports to Crete begin only to decrease significantly during LM
IIIB, while those reaching mainland Greece increase accordingly in the same period.27 Such
a statistical observation fits much better in the general picture of the shift of hegemony and
power that takes place at some advanced stage of the Aegean Late Bronze Age. Specific local
conditions may have prevailed and preferential routes may in some cases have been preferred,
as rightly emphasized by E. Cline and his differential distribution patterns: “It is possible that
instead of speaking in sweeping generalizations about trade between the Aegean and the Near
East or between the Aegean and the Central Mediterranean, we should be speaking in more
specific terms; i.e. trade between Mycenae and Egypt, Tiryns and Cyprus,28 Thebes and
Assyria, Kommos and Italy...”29
It remains, however, that the overall picture favours the idea of a dominating
Egypto-Minoan exchange route — whatever the direction. And everybody will agree that the
great majority of models that have been suggested by Helene Kantor as sources of inspiration
______________________
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
KANTOR, 74.
B.J. KEMP and R.S. MERRILLEES, Minoan Pottery in Second Millennium Egypt (1980); P.M. WARREN and V.
HANKEY, Aegean Bronze Age Chronology (1989) 134-35.
KANTOR, 64-65 and 74-75.
KEMP and MERRILLEES (supra n. 23) 226-49; WARREN and HANKEY (supra n. 23) 139-40 (concerning
much discussed finds from Memphis).
A 4 to 1 ratio according to E.H. CLINE (“a virtual monopoly”); cf. SWDS, xviii.
See the charts in Ibid.
“At Mycenae and its surrounding territory, we have a reasonably large number of Egyptian objects but very
few Cypriot objects, whereas at Tiryns and its environs, only three kilometers away, Cypriot imports are
fairly common while Egyptian imports are virtually unknown” (Ibid. xvii).
Ibid.
56
Robert LAFFINEUR
for the innovations of Egyptian iconography (the various types of spirals, the f lying gallop...)
are ultimately of Minoan rather than Mycenaean origin, even though most of them have been
excavated on the mainland.
The complexity of the process of inf luences should not be overlooked, however. For
Aegean iconography and style in Egypt — for Aegeanizing in Egypt to take P. Warren’s own
words30 — it is particularly well emphasized by the jug of the Hyksos period excavated in Tomb
879 at el-Lisht and its ornamentation consisting of birds and dolphins. The latter are so close
to dolphins on pithoi from Pachyammos in Crete31 that the question arises whether “the
decorator of the el-Lisht jug had seen Minoan wall-paintings with dolphins or pithoi decorated
with them,”32 a foreign inspiration that is “strengthened by the fact that this is, as far as we
know, the only instance of dolphins among Egyptian representations of fish, from the Old to
the New Kingdom.”33 The shape of the vessel, however, is typical of Syro-Palestinian MB II
pottery and the images of birds are reminiscent of ornamentations on Tell el-Yahudiyeh ware,
and this gives evidence of the syncretism that inf luences and transfers can assume.
The evidence from Tell el-Dabca
The extent of Minoan inf luences at the beginning of the Late Bronze Age has been
confirmed by the recent finds from Tell el-Dabca. My aim is not to discuss the matter in detail,
since conclusions would be premature before the complete restoration and final publication
of the paintings. Keeping within the limits of a general appraisal of the finds already allows
observations that are relevant to the present topic. Typical of Aegean, especially Minoan,
inf luence are the red background,34 the theme of bull-leaping games, the dress and hair-style
of bull-leapers, especially the association of black curls and blue-painted parts meant as shaved,
as on the Thera wall-paintings,35 the attitude of f lying gallop of running bulls, of leopards and
lions36 and of a running dog,37 the pose of the acrobat,38 the spirals on the griffin’s wing39
and their counterparts on the griffin close to the Goddess in the paintings of Xeste 3 and on
the griffin in the miniature exotic landscape in the West House at Akrotiri,40 the presence of
pebbles similar to the so-called “Easter eggs”41 known in Crete and on Thera,42 as well as the
maze-pattern used as background for the bull-leaping scene (the “Bull and Maze Fresco”),43
and directly reminiscent of the Labyrinth Fresco at Knossos,44 but also of earlier designs on
the kilt of the above-mentioned Mallia acrobat and on ivory seals from EM Crete.45
______________________
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
P.M. WARREN, “Minoan Crete and Pharaonic Egypt,” in Egypt, the Aegean and the Levant, 1.
WARREN and HANKEY (supra n. 23) 135-36 and pl. 12-13 (the pithoi from Pachyammos and the jug from
el-Lisht).
WARREN (supra n. 30) 3.
WARREN and HANKEY (supra n. 23) 135.
M. BIETAK and N. MARINATOS, “The Minoan Wall Paintings from Avaris,” in Hyksos Egypt and the Eastern
Mediterranean World, 59 fig. 15. Red background is used on the earliest Minoan figurative paintings (the
‘Saffron Gatherer’); its association with white lines (the crocuses on the ‘Saffron Gatherer’) has probably to
be connected to the MM tradition of light-on-dark decoration (see the Discussion at the end of Hyksos Egypt
and the Eastern Mediterranean World, 123).
Egypt, the Aegean and the Levant, pl. 1, 1. On this, L. MORGAN, “Minoan Painting and Egypt. The Case of
Tell el-Dabca,” 43 in the same volume.
BIETAK and MARINATOS (supra n. 34) 61 fig. 16. For a general reconstruction, see Pharaonen, 205 with
fig.
BIETAK and MARINATOS (supra n. 34) 55 fig. 6.
Pharaonen und Fremde, no. 225.
Ibid. no. 229.
C. DOUMAS, The Wall-Paintings of Thera (1992) pl. 128.
BIETAK and MARINATOS (supra n. 34) 59 fig. 14.
PM II, frontispiece (the Partridge fresco at Knossos); DOUMAS (supra n. 40) pl. 30-34.
BIETAK and MARINATOS (supra n. 34) 53 fig. 4.
M. BIETAK, “Connections between Egypt and the Minoan World. New Results from Tell el-Dabca/Avaris,”
in Egypt, the Aegean and the Levant, 25 fig. 3.
KANTOR, pl. X, A-C.
FROM WEST TO EAST: THE AEGEAN AND EGYPT IN THE EARLY LBA
57
Significant technical details are also closer to Minoan than to Egyptian painting: the use of
lime instead of gypsum; the choice of colours; the paintings executed in a mixed technique,
fresco technique for the ground and tempera technique (secco) for motifs and details, such a
mixture typical for Minoan wall-painting; the presence of stucco reliefs.46
That Minoan inf luence has worked to such an unprecedented extent in a foreign country
does not seem too surprising, in view of the Minoan material that had reached Avaris as early
as the latest stages of the Old Palace period/early XIIIth Dynasty: the fragments of a Kamares
cup of MM IIB type and of probably Knossian fabric,47 and especially the slightly
contemporary gold pendant with two antithetic animals, probably dogs, an export of unusual
quality that will find counterparts only later, in some of the offerings presented by the
emissaries from Keftiu in the Theban tombs. The Cretan origin of this piece of jewellery is
highly probable, as has been pointed out by G. Walberg:48 the heavy construction of the
pendant, with an embossed front sheet and a f lat sheet soldered at the back, is typical of MM
goldwork, such as the bee-pendant from Chrysolakkos,49 and the elaborate pendants in the
Aegina Treasure in the British Museum,50 as are the openwork structure, similar to the latter,
and the antithetic composition of the design common to the whole series.51 Other finds of
Aegean or Aegeanizing type have been excavated at Tell el-Dabca in contexts contemporary with
early Late Bronze Age: neck of an amphoriskos of MM III/LM IA date,52 pithos fragments
with the depiction of a leopard in f lying gallop, possibly of Cycladic origin,53 clay conical rhyta
of Egyptian fabric but Minoan type.54
More puzzling, as pointed out by P. Warren, are the chronological implications of the
problem. If the paintings from Tell el-Dabca are to be dated to a period that has to be equated
with early LM IA — they come from the palatial building built on top of a huge platform H/I,
that suffered destruction ca. 1540 BC, when Ahmose destroyed Avaris,55 or, according to the
latest revision, slightly later in the reign of Ahmose56 — a derivation from Minoan models
necessarily implies the existence of figural painting in Crete prior to that date, i.e. in MM III,57
and such an existence is not attested — with the only possible exception of the Saffron
Gatherer fresco from Knossos. The alternative view offered by Warren to the Minoan origin
of the paintings at Tell el-Dabca is probably crafty, but it is mere speculation and it lacks the
______________________
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
MORGAN (supra n. 35) 30 and 33; also BIETAK (supra n. 44) 23.
G. WALBERG, “The Finds at Tell el-Dabca and Middle Minoan Chronology,” Ägypten und Levante 2 (1991)
115-18; J.A. MacGILLIVRAY, “A Minoan Cup at Tell el-Dabca,” in Hyksos Egypt and the Eastern Mediterranean
World, 81-84. Another sherd, of post-Kamares date, is reported from the palace, but its stratigraphical
position is less clear (BIETAK [supra n. 44] 19).
G. WALBERG, “A Gold Pendant from Tell el-Dabca,” Ägypten und Levante 2 (1991) 111-12.
M. EFFINGER, Minoischer Schmuck (1996) pl. 48a.
R. HIGGINS, The Aegina Treasure. An Archaeological Mystery (1979) 62-63 and fig. 63.
Doubts have been raised by J. Aruz who proposes to identify the gold pendant from Tell el-Dabca as a
product of Canaanite jewellery; cf. J. ARUZ, “Imagery and Interconnections,” in Hyksos Egypt and the Eastern
Mediterranean World, 44-46. Her argumentation, based too exclusively on iconography, does not seem
convincing to me.
M. BIETAK, “Le début de la XVIIIe dynastie et les Minoens à Avaris,” Bulletin de la Société Française
d’Egyptologie 135 (March 1996) 12-13.
Pharaonen und Fremde, no. 359.
Ibid. no. 314.
On the find places and date of the fragments of wall-paintings, see BIETAK (supra n. 44) 20-23, and for a
possible minor correction of the chronology, see BIETAK and MARINATOS (supra n. 34) 62 (the platform
construction perhaps to be dated in the very beginning of the XVIIIth Dynasty, but uncertainty as to
whether the same date has to apply to the wall painting fragments).
BIETAK (supra n. 44) 11 and 14 with n. 31.
A still longer time would have elapsed if the Tell el-Dabca paintings “fall short of being purely and genuinely
Minoan, when compared with frescoes from Crete,” and if this has to be interpreted as evidence that if the
painters were Minoans, “they have been abroad long enough to have drifted away artistically from the
canonic Minoan methods of representation” and “they would be second or third generation expatriates”
(M.C. SHAW, “Bull Leaping Frescoes at Knossos and their Inf luence on the Tell el-Dabca Murals,” in Hyksos
Egypt and the Eastern Mediterranean World, 105-106 and 110).
58
Robert LAFFINEUR
slightest support from the archaeological evidence: “the frescoes are indeed Minoan, in
subject, style, ground colour and technique (these last two with a long Minoan ancestry) and
were painted at Avaris to Minoan order, but were based on knowledge of Egyptian figural
painting, and were the first such Minoan frescoes to be painted, providing a model for such
work in Crete, to be taken up immediately in early LM IA,”58 the very reason for such a unique
phenomenon being that the queen of one of the last Hyksos rulers at Avaris was a Minoan.59
This circumstance would explain the presence in Egypt of themes and motifs intended
for Minoans alone, more specifically the possible association of griffin with queenship, that
appears to be typically Cretan60 — but other Minoan objects, particularly ritual objects, would
be expected if a Minoan princess or community had settled on the site, and these are missing
at Tell el-Dabca.61 Such a specific explanation, in addition, fails to account for the later
Minoan-style wall-paintings found in early XVIIIth Dynasty levels at Tell el-Dabca,62 unless the
link between the two courts — Avaris and probably Knossos — originally limited to political
connections, has soon been followed by cultural and artistic connections; unless, in other
words, Avaris has developed, as suggested by M. Bietak, as a meeting point for artistic
exchanges.63 The consequence of such a position could have been the mutual inf luence from
Egypt on the Aegean, that is particularly well illustrated by the so-called “Nilotic iconography,”
as well as by the depiction of monkeys.
This last observation would confirm the significant similarities between the paintings
from Tell el-Dabca and those from Thera. To be added to the above-mentioned similarities is
a fragment with hills in red ochre but without plants, for which parallels are known in Kea and
Thera.64 An additional similarity could be provided by the fragment with an acrobat close to
a palm tree,65 if the male figure close to a tree from sector Alpha in Akrotiri (the ‘African’)66
has to be restored as an acrobat, as suggested by N. Marinatos, convincingly I think, judging
from the direction of the palms.67 The yellow skin of the bull-leaper with jewels on his arm68
can also be referred to here: it corresponds to neither of the two conventional colours used
for human figures in Minoan art, respectively red for males and white for females, and it finds
its only known equivalent in Xeste 3 in Akrotiri, where figures of young boys are depicted with
a yellow skin, in contrast to male figures represented in the normal red colour.69 And finally,
evidence of similarity would be provided, according to M. Shaw, by the presence of the
background of maze-pattern in the “Bull and Maze Fresco,” a setting that has equivalents in
the town or landscape background on the miniature paintings in Akrotiri, but offers a
significant contrast to the usual blank background of Knossian figural scenes.70 Similarities
are also known on the paintings from Kea.71 A fragment with an animal, probably an
______________________
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
The time gap between the Tell el-Dabca paintings and the Knossian counterparts is even greater in the case
of the bull-leaping scenes, the earliest preserved examples of which do not appear before LM II: MORGAN
(supra n. 35) 40-41.
WARREN (supra n. 30) 4-5.
BIETAK (supra n. 44) 26.
See the comments by M.H. WIENER in the Discussion at the end of Hyksos Egypt and the Eastern
Mediterranean World, 127 and 129. This is in sharp contrast with the high quantity of Cypriot pottery
excavated on the site; see L.C. MAGUIRE, “Tell el-Dabca. The Cypriot Connection,” in Egypt, the Aegean and
the Levant, 54-65: “It’s a little difficult for me to imagine that a Minoan princess would forego all other
aspects of Minoan cult and life and bring only fresco painters.”
BIETAK (supra n. 44) 23; BIETAK and MARINATOS (supra n. 34) 49.
BIETAK (supra n. 44) 26.
The fragment reproduced in BIETAK and MARINATOS (supra n. 34) fig. 15 on p. 59; the comparison in
MORGAN (supra n. 35) 33.
Egypt, the Aegean and the Levant, pl. 3, 1.
DOUMAS (supra n. 40) pl. 148.
MORGAN (supra n. 35) 39.
Egypt, the Aegean and the Levant, cover illustration and pl. 1, 1.
DOUMAS (supra n. 40) pl. 109-111; the suggestion made by MORGAN (supra n. 35) 42.
SHAW (supra n. 57) 106.
On those similarities, concerning especially landscape elements, see MORGAN (supra n. 35) 33-34.
FROM WEST TO EAST: THE AEGEAN AND EGYPT IN THE EARLY LBA
59
antelope, hunted by a dog,72 is of particular interest, since hunting dogs in wall-painting are
known only from Kea73 — and later in Mycenaean painting.
That such affinities are especially observable in the rendering of small details, as noted
by L. Morgan, is probably even more significant, since it might appear as the expression of
conventions related to a particular workshop — real crazes — : “The unusual features of the
Tell el-Dabca fragment [with a large-scale male head] are the painting of a beard in parallel
lines and the outlining of the mouth apparently in black... The ear is provided with internal
markings in sinuous lines, a feature which is paralleled on both male and female large-scale
figures from Thera, while the best-preserved Fisherman from Thera also has lips defined by
pink and black. The shape of the eye is of a more rounded type than in Egyptian art and
comparable to those of the large-scale figures from Thera, as is the use of red ochre with black
dot for iris and pupil.”74
All this could lead to the suggestion that the links are with Akrotiri rather than with
Knossos and that the foreign painters who have made the wall-paintings at Tell el-Dabca have
come from the Cyclades, not from Crete. This leaves the above-mentioned chronological
problem open: the Thera paintings are probably closer to the paintings from Tell el-Dabca than
the Knossos paintings, if not contemporary,75 but there is no evidence of their possible
anteriority. The “Akrotiri connection” would account also for the eastern characteristics that
are observable in Theran pottery and wall-paintings, as pointed out by C. Lambrou-Phillipson:
the use of the manganese black technique in order to produce black paint on ceramic
products, and, though less surely, the technique of mixing glaucophane and Egyptian blue
pigments for use in wall-paintings and the matt-painting technique in the decoration of
polychrome vase-painting.76 A significant difference, however, between Tell el-Dabca and
Akrotiri could be the apparent absence of bull-leaping scenes on the wall-paintings from
Thera, but this is arguing ex silentio and there are two possible occurrences of the theme, on
a fragment from the North miniature frieze in the West House with two bulls and a human
arm, maybe intended to depict bull-grappling77 and on a graffiti from Xeste 4, possibly
depicting a bull-leaper.78 That the specific theme is attested only in the palace of Minos — and
that “bull-games seem undoubtedly a Knossian sport,” a “feature that simply marked Knossos
apart from the other Cretan centers”79 — is a strong argument for the identification of Knossos
as the place from where the painters of the Tell el-Dabca frescoes have come or the place where
they have been trained before working on Egyptian soil. The existence of fragments of relief
painting at Tell el-Dabca — probably part of another bull-leaping scene80 — adds much weight
to the “Knossian connection,” since the occurrences of that mixed technique are, if not limited
to Knossos, at least a real speciality of the artistic productions in the city of Minos.81
______________________
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
Egypt, the Aegean and the Levant, pl. 4, 1.
MORGAN (supra n. 35) 34.
Ibid. 38.
WARREN (supra n. 35) 4: “The (Tell el-Dabca) paintings are at least as early as, and probably a little earlier
than, those at Thera;” BIETAK (supra n. 44) 26: “The Theran frescoes are the ones closest to the Tell
el-Dabca examples chronologically, whereas most of the preserved Knossos frescoes date to later times.”
C. LAMBROU-PHILLIPSON, “Thera in the Mythology of the Classical Tradition: an Archaeological
Approach,” in TAW III, vol. I, 168; cf. arguments contra Lambrou-Phillipson’s statements in SWDS, 50-52.
C. TELEVANTOU, “New Light on the West House Wall-Paintings,” in TAW III, vol. I, 317, fig. 10.
Eadem, “Aegean Bronze Age Wall-Painting. The Theran Workshop,” in Wall Paintings of Thera, B 74
and fig. 1.
J.G. YOUNGER, “Bronze Age Representations of Aegean Bull-Games, III,” in Politeia, 523; also B.P. and E.
HALLAGER, “The Knossian Bull - Political Propaganda in Neo-palatial Crete,” in Politeia, 547-56.
BIETAK and MARINATOS (supra n. 34) 54 and fig. 5; MORGAN (supra n. 35) 41.
S. HOOD, The Arts in Prehistoric Greece (1978) 71-77. Outside Knossos, the technique is attested on the
well-known female figures from Pseira and on a composition from Thera with rosettes and wavy lines
(DOUMAS [supra n. 40] pls. 136-37). It has been suggested that stucco relief painting might have appeared
slightly earlier than f lat painting: SHAW (supra n. 57) 100.
60
Robert LAFFINEUR
The impression is finally that the Tell el-Dabca frescoes exhibit predominating
inf luences from Knossian painting,82 but that those are not incompatible with links with
Theran painting. Are the latter to be explained by the fact that they correspond to features
that could have been shared by the various centers of Minoan painting, including Thera,83 and
that are not attested in the preserved material excavated at Knossos, rather than to features
that are to be viewed as specific Theran features? Or do these Cycladic links give evidence
that the painters working at Tell el-Dabca were coming from different parts of the Aegean,
even though a majority of them was of Knossian origin? This is difficult to decide, but the
possibility should not be ruled out when it comes to try to establish a more synthetical picture.
A final comment should be added concerning the decorative border at the bottom of
the reconstruction of the bull-leaping scene, namely the frieze of half-rosettes.84 Bull-leaping
scenes on seals and rings are sometimes associated with ornaments in the exergue, and
half-rosettes are known among those motifs, particularly on a Mycenaean gold ring in
Larissa.85 The design does not appear earlier in monumental art, whether painting or
sculpture — on the “Grandstand Fresco” and on a LM I/II limestone frieze from the north-west
angle of the palace at Knossos86 — so that the occurrence at Tell el-Dabca, once again, is the
earliest one in wall-painting. As far as the meaning of the design is concerned, it has been
suggested that “since the half-rosette is associated with palace architecture in all Aegean
iconography... it signifies palatial architecture on the Tell el-Dabca mural as well,”87 or that it
has to be identified as a royal emblem referring to the Knossian component in the supposed
dynastic link between the courts of Knossos and Avaris.88 This, again, appears as mere
speculation.
Prestige weapons
Prominent among the earlier finds at Tell el-Dabca are warrior burials that have yielded
weapons of elaborate type, presumably intended as prestige weapons. Egyptian types are
attested, such as a bronze dagger of XIIth Dynasty date with stone hilt decoration from Grave
17.89 But specimens of probably Syrian origin or inspiration are also known, e.g. a bronze
dagger from Grave 3, with decoration of lines and spirals in relief on the central part of the
blade, and with gold caps on rivet heads of the ivory hilt (ca. 1750 BC).90 Similarities with the
Levant are of both typological and contextual nature, as emphasized by G. Philip, whereas the
techniques, particularly the alloy usage, exhibit differences between metal industries at Tell
______________________
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
A possible closer link with Knossos has been suggested by M. Shaw. If the maze background of the “Bull
and Maze Fresco” represents a pattern-painted stuccoed f loor of similar type as the examples from the Old
Palace at Phaistos and as the “Labyrinth Fresco” from Knossos — that has to be considered as a f loor
decoration rather than a wall decoration — it could be that “the maze also served more specifically as a
pictorial toponym for the Palace of Knossos.” The association of maze and bull-leaping illustrated at Tell
el-Dabca could have a precise echo in Knossos, if the room in which the “Labyrinth Fresco” served as f loor
decoration had bull-leaping scenes painted on its walls (SHAW [supra n. 57] 108-110). The interpretation
is probably too far from the available data.
As suggested by P. Betancourt: “What I think of suggesting is that we are touching the tip of the iceberg of
a whole series of interrelated workshops, working in Knossos, the Aegean islands, on the coast of Western
Asia and in Egypt, perhaps traveling back and forth, perhaps occasionally exchanging personnel or going
back to Knossos to learn the most recent things” (in the Discussion at the end of Hyksos Egypt and the Eastern
Mediterranean World, 129).
For a general reconstruction of the whole scene, see BIETAK and MARINATOS (supra n. 34) 53, fig. 4;
Pharaonen und Fremde, 197 with fig.
The ring is mentioned and reproduced in SHAW (supra n. 57) 96, fig. 7.
On the motif in Crete, see W.-D. NIEMEIER, Die Palaststilkeramik von Knossos (1985) 112 and fig. 52.
BIETAK and MARINATOS (supra n. 34) 51.
Ibid. 61.
Pharaonen und Fremde, no. 39.
G. PHILIP, “Tell el-Dabca Metalwork. Patterns and Purpose,” in Egypt, the Aegean and the Levant, 71, fig. 2,
2, p. 68 and pl. 14, 2; Pharaonen und Fremde, no. 23.
FROM WEST TO EAST: THE AEGEAN AND EGYPT IN THE EARLY LBA
61
el-Dabca and in the Syro-Palestinian Middle Bronze Age and indicate that the objects excavated
at Avaris were not imported but locally made:91 “Dominant types [of weapons] showing high
stylistic similarity to contemporary Syro-Palestinian artifacts can be identified at various
periods. These fall into a chronological succession, with shifts in the preferred types
occurring broadly in line with corresponding changes in the southern Levant”92... “Such
weapons do not represent the military equipment of armies, but that of an élite. They are
symbols of the individual ‘heroic’ warrior. These patterns constitute strong evidence for
structured human behavior, and are related to similar practices occurring throughout western
Asia in the early second millennium BC. Their origins lie outside Egypt, where these sets
occur only in the Nile Delta.”93
A similar coexistence is attested at Thebes-Dra Abu el-Naga, with the so-called “dagger
of Kamose” (the last king of the XVIIth Dynasty), made of bronze, silver and gold,94 and of
Middle Kingdom type,95 and the dagger of Ahhotep, the mother of Ahmose, found in the
immediate vicinity, with its Levantine affinities.96 The inlay technique used on the latter —
unlike the axe from the same burial, decorated with enamel97 — relates the object to the
Levantine tradition of MBA inlaid weapons such as the blade (harpe) of Ypchemouabi from
Byblos, from a context dated to the period of Amenemhat IV,98 and similar specimens from
Sichem99 and in München,100 on which both metal inlays and niello are used for the
decoration of a central rib.101
Examining on several occasions the series of bronze weapons with pictorial decoration
found in early Mycenaean contexts on the Greek mainland, I have come to the suggestion that
those are to be related to a Near Eastern tradition. Considering on the one hand the absence
of real equivalents in the Aegean, whether in Minoan Crete or in Helladic Greece — the
protopalatial daggers from Malia102 and in the Mitsotakis collection103 use gold plating, not
inlay — and the above-mentioned occurrences in the Levantine MBA, and on the other hand
the fact that the inlay technique has been applied in Greece to typically mainland types of
weapons and shapes of vases to illustrate typically Minoan iconography, the most plausible
interpretation, I think, is that the Mycenaean inlaid objects have been made locally by
travelling craftsmen coming from the Levantine coast, rather than manufactured in the
______________________
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
An opposite view in BIETAK (supra n. 44) 20: “Most probably, this dagger was produced in coastal Syria, a
meeting place of the Minoan and Canaanite worlds.”
PHILIP (supra n. 90) 67-71.
Ibid. 74. The differences in alloy usage at Tell el-Dabca and in MBA Jericho suggest “that we have two
distinct industries,” that “two separate metal industries were producing stylistically similar objects,” used for
“a common symbolic expression understood throughout a wide area, embracing the eastern Nile Delta and
Palestine, during the later MB IIA and MB IIB/C periods” (op. cit. 76). A significant chronological
evolution has to be mentioned: “a decline in the significance of weapons during the later MBA. Considered
alongside the Egyptianizing tendencies of later Hyksos rulers...;” “I would tentatively suggest that as the
upper strata of Delta society adopted new, more Egyptianizing customs, traditionally Levantine symbols,
such as weapons, gradually decreased in importance” (op. cit. 77).
Pharaonen, no. 382.
Compare with a bronze dagger with ivory pommel of unknown provenance: Pharaonen und Fremde, no. 374.
Interconnections, fig. 37.
Pharaonen und Fremde, no. 398.
P. MONTET, Byblos et l’Egypte (1928) 174-76 no. 653 and pl. XCIX-CI.
C. WATZINGER, Denkmäler Palestinas I (1933) 35 and pl. 24, fig. 52.
Staatliche Sammlung Ägyptischer Kunst (1972) 50-51 no. ÄS 2907 and col. pl. between pl. 24 and 25.
This particular decorative process makes a significant difference between the “dagger of Kamose” and the
“dagger of Ahhotep” and seems to exclude the possibility that both weapons were manufactured in a same
Theban workshop (as suggested in Pharaonen und Fremde, 272).
B. DETOURNAY, in Fouilles exécutées à Mallia. Le Quartier Mu II. Études crétoises XXVI (1980) 147-49 no.
219.
A. XENAKI-SAKELLARIOU, Poignard minoen de la collection Mitsotakis avec poignée en or ouvragée, RA 1986-2
235-44.
62
Robert LAFFINEUR
Levant and then imported in Greece.104 I would propose a similar suggestion for the dagger
of Ahhotep, i.e. that it is the product of Levantine craftsmanship, and since the depiction of
animals in f lying gallop on its central rib corresponds to a feature that has just been adopted
in Egyptian iconography, that the dagger has been commissioned in Egypt and probably made
there. It is not clear whether the two holes at the broad end of the blade are to be viewed as
a variation of the holes of fenestrated axes of Levantine type or as equivalents of the two
opposed cutouts at the base of the pommel on daggers of Egyptian type, such as the “dagger
of Kamose,”105 but I would favour the latter, because of the decoration of enamel on the hilt,
of presumably Egyptian type, and because of the “hathoric” ornamentation of the pommel.
Early Keftiu trips
Early Mycenaean objects are not reported in Near Eastern and Egyptian contexts before
LH IIA.106 A well known find from Egypt, the Treasure found at el-Tod, much unexpectedly,
seems to provide evidence, however, that objects of mainland manufacture have apparently
been transported to Egypt as early as the transitional period between the Middle and Late
Bronze Age. The shape and decoration of most of the silver cups in the treasure — shallow
open vessels, with a decoration of f luting, torsional f luting, meanders, arcades or rosettes107
— have obvious equivalents in clay vessels of Protopalatial date, especially MM IB/MM II cups
from Phaistos,108 and specimens more recently excavated in Quartier Mu at Mallia.109 Two
metal cups in the treasure, however, with high vertical handles,110 prove to be extraordinarily
close to slightly later metal ware from mainland Greece.111 One of them112 has an exact
counterpart in a gold kantharos found in the recent excavations at Peristeria in southwestern
Peloponnese, in a burial of the transitional period under the west portion of the peribolos wall
of the large tholos tomb.113 The relatively low shape of the two vessels is so similar, and the
f loral decoration on their handles so close that a manufacture in the same workshop cannot
be excluded. The second kantharos from Tod,114 with a higher body, has parallels in the Shaft
Graves at Mycenae115 and in finds from Sotirianika near Kalamata.116 The most significant
______________________
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
R. LAFFINEUR, “Material and Craftsmanship in the Mycenae Shaft Graves: Imports vs Local Productions,”
Minos n.s. 25-26 (1990-1991) 269-73.
Supra n. 94.
Mycenaean pottery is not attested in the Eastern Mediterranean before LH IIA. The sherds from Kerma
are described as “apparently LM I/LH I,” but more precise identification is impossible (WARREN and
HANKEY [supra n. 23] 138). The sherds from Kom Rabia (Memphis) are most probably Minoan and of LM
IB date, rather than Mycenaean (Ibid. 139).
For the treasure as a whole and for individual objects, see F. BISSON de la ROQUE, Tôd (1934 à 1936)
(1937); Idem, Catalogue général des antiquités égyptiennes du Musée du Caire, n° 70501-70754. Le trésor de Tôd
(1950); F. BISSON de la ROQUE, G. CONTENAU and F. CHAPOUTHIER, Le trésor de Tôd (1953).
Parallels cited in WARREN and HANKEY (supra n. 23) 132-33 and Pl. 5-11. More nuance in the approach
of the Minoan affinities in G. WALBERG, “The Tod Treasure and Middle Minoan Absolute Chronology,”
Opuscula Atheniensia 15 (1984) 175-76.
Fouilles exécutées à Mallia. Le quartier Mu II. Études crétoises XXVI (1980) 89 no. 120 and fig. 119; J.-C.
POURSAT, “Une thalassocracie minoenne au Minoen Moyen II?,” in Minoan Thalassocracy, 87.
BISSON de la ROQUE 1950 (supra n. 107) nos. 70590-70591.
R. LAFFINEUR, “Réf lexions sur le trésor de Tôd,” Aegaeum 2 (1988) 17-30; also J. MARAN, “Die
Silbergefässe von et-Tôd und die Schachtgräberzeit auf dem griechischen Festland,” Prähistorische Zeitschrift
62 (1987) 221-27.
BISSON de la ROQUE 1950 (supra n. 107) no. 70591.
G. St. KORRES, Praktika 1976, 498, fig. 8 and pl. 263, a-b.
BISSON de la ROQUE 1950 (supra n. 107) no. 70590.
G. KARO, Die Schachtgräber von Mykenai (1930-33) no. 440.
R. LAFFINEUR, Les vases en métal précieux à l’époque mycénienne (1977) 119 nos. 102-104 and fig. 42-43; E.N.
DAVIS, The Vapheio Cups and Aegean Gold and Silver Ware (1977) 305-307 no. 134 (only one specimen
mentioned). The two kantharoi in the Metropolitan Museum (DAVIS, op. cit. 324-26 nos. 147-48) are
probably contemporaneous.
FROM WEST TO EAST: THE AEGEAN AND EGYPT IN THE EARLY LBA
63
implication of those comparisons is that the precious metal vessels of the Tod treasure, even
though found together in copper chests, do not make a homogeneous whole and do not have
a unique and identical origin, as accepted by Warren,117 but that the treasure has most
probably been gathered from at least two different parts, originating from two different areas,
Crete and the Greek mainland, and from two different periods, MM IB/MM II and the
transitional period between Middle and Late Helladic. That still another part of the treasure
has been collected at a later period than that of Amenemhet II (XIIth Dynasty, 1917-1882 BC),
whose name has been engraved on two of the copper chests, and that still another origin can
be suggested for some other items is further indicated by the Cappadocian seal included in the
treasure,118 the style of which, according to P. Yule, is not documented before Kanesh II,
between ca. 1850 and 1730 BC.119
Regarding the possible relations between the Aegean and the East at an early stage, in
the transitional period between the Middle and Late Bronze Age, the two kantharoi from Tod
appear as the earliest imports from the Mycenaean mainland in the Eastern Mediterranean.
They seem at the same time to give evidence that Aegean precious objects could have reached
Egypt before the period of the earliest Keftiu representations in Egyptian tombs, i.e. before
the reign of Hatshepsut,120 following a still earlier stage, at the end of the Old Palace period,
illustrated by the gold pendant of Minoan type found at Tell el-Dabca.
It remains to investigate the way in which those mainland objects have come to Egypt.
The fact that items of distinctly Helladic type are not attested on Crete during the Shaft Grave
period seems to exclude a role of intermediary played by Minoans in the transfer of the vases
to Egypt and to favor rather a direct trade. One could wonder, however, why early Mycenaean
Greece would not have received in exchange a greater number of Egyptian objects.121 Does
this mean that the Tod treasure has been gathered for the most part — excluding the chests at
least — rather in the Levantine area, as usually suggested in order to account better for its
Levantine, Mesopotamian and perhaps Anatolian affinities,122 and that the addition of the
two kantharoi has been made in the Levant, prior to the expedition of the whole from there
to the Nile valley? The value of the kantharoi from Tod as evidence of early exchange with
Egypt would greatly decrease in that case, but evidence of early exchange with the Levant
would accordingly increase and this last picture would fit better indeed with the evidence we
have concerning the origin of the metal inlay technique.
______________________
117
118
119
120
121
122
Most recently in WARREN and HANKEY (supra n. 23) 131-34.
Un siècle de fouilles françaises en Egypte 1880-1980 (1981) 147 no. 161.
P. YULE, “Appendix” to P. ÅSTRÖM, “The Middle Minoan Chronology Again,” Pepragména tou E& Dieynoûw
Krhtologikoû Sunedríou (A. Nikólaow, 25 Sept. - 10 Okt. 1981) (1985) 42-44. The interpretation of a later
deposit could possibly find confirmation in the stratigraphical data at Tod: “Appendix II. The el-Tod
Treasure, with particular Reference to its Archaeological Context,” in KEMP and MERRILLEES (supra n.
23) 290-96.
WACHSMANN (supra n. 20) 27-40 (list of tombs, the earliest one is Senmut’s tomb).
Only one Egyptian import has been found in the two grave circles at Mycenae, the alabaster vase 829 from
shaft grave V. See LAFFINEUR (supra n. 104) 284-85 and 246-51 for methodological considerations on the
identification of true imports.
On this J. VANDIER, “À propos d’un dépôt de provenance asiatique trouvé à Tôd,” Syria 18 (1937) 174-82;
KANTOR, 19-20; KEMP and MERRILLEES (supra n. 23) 283 and 296; and WALBERG (supra n. 108) 174.
It should be noted in that respect that the ingots included in the treasure seem to conform to a Syrian weight
system (LAFFINEUR [supra n. 111] 20-24). For the Anatolian connections, see F. SCHACHERMEYR, Ägäis
und Orient (1967) 58 (the shapes of the metal vessels, as well as, more generally, the nearly exclusive use of
silver that would point to Anatolia — but this could equally point to an origin on the Greek mainland);
DAVIS (supra n. 116) 71-73 (the cup with a handle of the Vapheio type); and, most recently, H. MATTHÄUS,
“Mykenai, der mittlere Donauraum während des Hajdusamson-Horizontes und der Schatz von Valcitran,”
in Thracians and Mycenaeans. Proceedings of the Fourth International Congress of Thracology, Rotterdam, 24-26
September 1984 (1989) 97-100 (with the following statement: “Wünschenswert wäre natürlich ein Vergleich
mit originalen westanatolischen Metallarbeiten. Diese jedoch fehlen in Kleinasien”!).
64
Robert LAFFINEUR
Nilotic scenes in the Aegean
The epithet ‘Nilotic’ quite commonly refers in Aegean studies to whole scenes involving
hunting animals in a landscape of exotic type, consisting of plants of reputedly Egyptian
origin.123 Such scenes are not very frequent and this has been generally considered an
additional sign of their foreign inspiration. We know three elaborate examples: the
decoration of hunting cats or leopards on the inlaid dagger from grave V in Mycenae,124 the
wall painting with monkeys from the House of the Frescoes at Knossos125 and the river
landscape with a griffin and a feline hunting birds on the east miniature frieze of room 5 in
the West House at Akrotiri.126 A typical common feature is that they all associate a river and
lush vegetation growing in the immediate surroundings of it. This was perhaps not unknown
in the Aegean, especially in Crete, at least on a limited scale,127 but we normally find that very
association, as well as the fauna depicted, more suitable to reproduce Egypt and the Nile
valley.
Such a precise iconography undoubtedly implies a direct contact between the Aegean
and Egypt. It does not seem to be just the result of the import of small decorated objects and
has to be explained by the presence of Aegean artists in Egypt —as has already been suggested
by Evans128 — and by the direct knowledge they could have had of wall paintings and reliefs
such as those in the XIIth Dynasty tombs at Beni Hasan.
In a paper presented at the Table ronde on L’iconographie minoenne in 1983, S.
Immerwahr has listed other traces of that Egyptian pictorial inf luence which are sometimes
less directly evident: “... the plundering blue monkeys of Knossos and Thera, the Nilotic
landscapes with cats hunting ducks, the fullness of descriptive detail of the Ship Fresco and
other miniature frescoes surely seem to owe something to Egypt. Likewise the life-size human
figures, the color conventions and some of the poses, as well as the use of modeled stucco
reliefs — all of which appear suddenly and fully developed in the New Palace period about
1600 BC or somewhat earlier — strongly suggest inf luence from Egyptian painting and painted
relief, as do certain technical features...”129 She also discussed the evidence of probable
similar contacts during the preceding centuries. They account for the egyptianizing
iconography of some documents of the Old Palace period in Crete, vessels with appliqué
reliefs from Quartier Mu in Mallia,130 similar examples from Phaistos and Archanes131 and
the faïence town mosaic from Knossos,132 all of which represent the predecessors of
monumental pictorial art. Immerwahr’s conclusion is that “both periods [i.e. the Old Palace
period and the Hyksos period] suggest direct Minoan acquaintance with Egypt and Egyptian
painting rather than indirect inf luence through the medium of small articles of trade.”133
I would like to focus brief ly on the documentation from the beginning of the Late
Bronze Age, to examine to what extent the Aegean Nilotic images follow their Egyptian models
and to trace their transformation according to Aegean artistic taste and conventions.
______________________
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
See e.g. PM III, 113-17 and PM IV, 329-39.
KARO (supra n. 115) no. 765.
M.A.S. CAMERON, “Unpublished Paintings from the ‘House of the Frescoes’ at Knossos,” BSA 63 (1968)
fig. 13 between p. 26 and 27.
C. DOUMAS, Thera. Pompeii of the Ancient Aegean (1983) 105 and pl. XV.
See the comments by P.M. WARREN, “Did Papyrus grow in the Aegean?,” Athens Annals of Archaeology 9
(1976) 89-95; Idem, “The Miniature Fresco from the West House at Akrotiri, Thera, and its Aegean Setting,”
JHS 99 (1979) 125.
PM I, 18.
S.A. IMMERWAHR, “A Possible Inf luence of Egyptian Art in the Creation of Minoan Wall Painting,” in
L’iconographie minoenne. Actes de la Table Ronde d’Athènes (21-22 avril 1983). BCH Suppl. XI (1985) 47-48.
B. DETOURNAY, J.-Cl. POURSAT and Fr. VANDENABEELE, Fouilles exécutées à Mallia. Le Quartier Mu II.
Études Crétoises XXVI (1980) 120-23 and fig. 170-74.
Documents discussed in IMMERWAHR (supra n. 129) 44-45.
K.P. FOSTER, Aegean Faience of the Bronze Age (1979) 99-115.
IMMERWAHR (supra n. 129) 49-50. On the foreign origin of some of the pigments in the Thera frescoes
(Jarosite and Egyptian Blue), see the recent contribution by H.-G. BUCHHOLZ in Ägäische Bronzezeit (1987)
176-78.
FROM WEST TO EAST: THE AEGEAN AND EGYPT IN THE EARLY LBA
65
All the distinctive individual elements of Aegean Nilotic scenes go back to Egyptian
prototypes: the location within a papyrus thicket on the bank of a river crowded by birds and
haunted by threatening felines. But the stereotyped presentation prevalent in Egyptian
pictures from the Old Kingdom on134 undergoes some significant changes in the Aegean
adaptations. The regular arrangement of vertical papyrus stalks and in quincunx horizontally
drawn blossoms — associated with an expanse of water curiously seen from above — becomes
a more natural setting with free growing vegetation in the naturalistic Minoan style. The strict
profile of the models where the elements rest on the water line is replaced by a bird’s-eye
perspective presenting the landscape as if seen from above and showing consequently both
banks of a naturally meandering river. Panther-like felines take the place of the Egyptian genet
and ichneumon or lizard and new animals are introduced in the Aegean Nilotic scenes,
monkeys135 and even a griffin,136 and many of them are seen in the attitude of f lying gallop.
Human beings are completely absent, whereas they were an essential component in Egyptian
compositions with one or two symmetrical figures of the owner of the tomb portrayed in the
attitude of throwing a weapon in the direction of the papyrus thicket. The most significant
difference, however, lies in the general atmosphere of the scene. The impression we get from
the Egyptian versions of the theme — when we consider the thicket itself and not the
surrounding figures of hunters — is that of an apparently quiet episode of natural life that is
hardly disturbed by animals lying in wait close to nests full of young birds or eggs. The only
exception is the relief in Mererouka’s tomb at Saqqara (VIth Dynasty),137 where an ichneumon
goes away carrying a bird in its mouth, but the motif is rather inconspicuous and not sufficient
to break the general impression. The Aegean examples display a more dramatic event with an
overall dynamic effect and a direct threatening or even a real aggression. This is especially
evident on the dagger from Mycenae and on the east upper frieze of the West House, but less
directly apparent on the painting from the House of the Frescoes, where one of the monkeys
is eating an egg.138
Such important differences in the whole conception and in the details are evident signs
of an original interpretation by the Aegean artists that seems hardly possible without a
familiarity with the models,139 a relatively long practice of the theme, and a series of attempts
preceding the perfect three examples that have come to light in the excavations. At the other
______________________
134
135
136
137
138
139
For a study of the theme, see J. VANDIER, Manuel d’archéologie égyptienne IV Bas-reliefs et peintures. Scènes de
la vie quotidienne (1964) 717-86. Some Old Kingdom examples: Le tombeau de Ti II. La chapelle (1953) pl.
LXXXII-LXXXIII, CXV-CXVI and CXIX (Vth Dynasty); A.M. MOUSSA and H. ALTENMÜLLER, Old
Kingdom Tombs at the Causeway of King Unas at Saqqara. Das Grab des Nianchchnum und Chnumhotep (1977)
fig. 5-6 (Vth Dynasty); A.M. MOUSSA and Fr. JUNGE, Old Kingdom Tombs at the Causeway of King Unas at
Saqqara. Two Tombs of Craftsmen (1975) pl. 12; Cl. GAILLARD, Recherches sur les poissons représentés dans
quelques tombeaux égyptiens de l’ancien Empire (1923) fig. 5 and pl. IV (relief from the tomb of Mera, VIth
Dynasty); K. LANGE, M. HIRMER, E. OTTO and Chr. DESROCHES-NOBLECOURT, L’Egypte (1968) pl.
76 (relief from Mererouka’s tomb, VIth Dynasty); VANDIER, op. cit. pl. XI, fig. 132 (relief from the mastaba
in Karlsruhe). Some Middle Kingdom examples: P.E. NEWBERRY, Beni Hasan I (1893) pl. XXXII and
XXXIV; N. de G. DAVIES, The Rock Tombs of Sheikh Saïd (1901) pl. XI; Idem, The Mastaba of Ptahhetep and
Akhethetep at Saqqareh II (1901) pl. XIII-XIV; Idem, The Rock Tombs of Deir El Gebrâwi I (1902) pl. V; Idem, The
Rock Tombs of Deir El Gebrâwi II (1902) pl. III; A.M. BLACKMAN, The Rock Tombs of Meir I (1914) pl. II; Idem,
The Rock Tombs of Meir III (1915) pl. VI; A.M. BLACKMAN and M.R. APTED, The Rock Tombs of Meir V
(1953) pl. XXIV and XXVIII; Idem, The Rock Tombs of Meir VI (1953) pl. XIII.
On the painting from the House of the Frescoes at Knossos (supra n. 125).
On the east upper frieze of the West House in Akrotiri (supra n. 126).
LANGE et al. (supra n. 134) pl. 76.
The choice of the monkeys and their attitude are also borrowed from Egypt (see CAMERON [supra n. 125]
19). The pose of the monkey eating an egg (op. cit. 21, fig. 10) is reminiscent of that of apes eating figs on
the paintings from the tomb of Chnumhotep in Beni Hasan (Interconnections, figs. 170-71).
The possibility of visiting Egyptian tombs in Antiquity has been disputed (see IMMERWAHR [supra n. 129]
49-50), but it is not improbable that the Aegean artists, if they were really present in Egypt, could see their
Egyptian colleagues at work while they were executing the decoration of the tombs. We should also keep in
mind that the Egyptian palaces and houses were certainly often decorated with paintings — even if the
examples which have come to us are rare — and that these were of course easily visible.
66
Robert LAFFINEUR
end of the evolution, the integration in Aegean standards becomes complete in a composition
like the scene with cats hunting water-birds on the ivory comb from tholos tomb 2 in Routsi,
dated in the first half of the 15th century.140 The landscape elements, river and exotic plants,
have disappeared and are replaced by the conventional Minoan image of rocks “growing like
stalactites and stalagmites in a cave, some rising from the border at the bottom, others hanging
downwards from the top edge of the picture.”141 The representation concentrates on the
animal protagonists and their struggle and the theme gets therefore its full dramatic effect.
Another indication of the free interpretation by the Aegean artists is their disregarding some
minor details of the Egyptian models, such as the butterf lies and dragonf lies among the birds
or even the frogs,142 but at the same time other elements are given a special development and
importance according to the conventions of local style. This is the case of the eggs depicted
in the nests on some of the Egyptian images, which become over-sized and polychrome
decorative accessories on the east upper frieze from the West House in Akrotiri143 and on the
Partridge fresco from the Caravanserai at Knossos.144
Such are the transformations of the original Egyptian theme and such is the evolution
which finally results in a complete assimilation on Aegean soil. The situation is quite different
in Egypt, since the images of birds hunted in a papyrus thicket remain almost unchanged there
for centuries, from the Old Kingdom to the end of the Middle Kingdom. New versions only
begin to appear during an advanced stage of the XVIIIth Dynasty and these exhibit elements
and characteristics that we have just met in the Aegean. The most significant is the presence
of cats, which are exceptionally rare earlier,145 and especially their aggressive attitude. Cats
are found in the papyrus thicket or very close to it in the tomb of Ouah (Thutmose III), where
the only preserved part of the hunting animal is a striped tail of a cat;146 in the tomb of
Kenamun,147 from the time of Amenhotep II; on a painting in the British Museum dating
from the reign of Amenhotep III;148 and in the Ramesside tomb of Ipouy (Ramses II).149 The
feline slaughtering birds on the fragment in London is especially reminiscent of the
composition on the dagger blade from Mycenae. That an Aegean inf luence should explain
the evolution in Egyptian iconography seems to be indicated by another significant change
which affects the representation of ships on the walls of Egyptian tombs. The traditional
image with vessels seen in strict profile resting on the horizontal water line, of which we have
so many examples from the Old Kingdom on,150 is replaced in some relatively late cases by a
turned up perspective that allows two rows of ships to be shown supposedly one behind the
other, or simply displays one row of vessels on a sea seen from above and full of fishes. The
new perspective appears in the Ramesside period151 and clearly derives from Aegean
prototypes, especially in the case of marine scenes from the model of the Fleet fresco from the
West House in Akrotiri.152 A similar turned up perspective has been adopted for a landscape
______________________
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
J.-Cl. POURSAT, Catalogue des ivoires mycéniens du Musée National d’Athènes (1977) 138 no. 410 and pl. XLI.
HOOD (supra n. 81) 49. A similar integration already occurs on the wall-painting from Ayia Triadha
depicting a cat stalking a bird (op. cit. fig 34).
E.g. BLACKMAN 1914 (supra n. 134) pl. II. On this, see VANDIER (supra n. 134) 734, 756-57 and 767.
Supra n. 126.
PM II frontispiece.
The only example in Beni Hasan IV. Zoological and other Details (1900) pl. V (Tomb 3).
J. CAPART and M. WERBROUCK, Thèbes. La gloire d’un grand passé (1925) fig. 186.
N. de G. DAVIES, The Tomb of Ken-Amun at Thebes (1930) pl. LI, A.
VANDIER (supra n. 134) 772 and pl. XXXIII, fig. 427.
Ibid. 773. For an illustration, see N. de G. DAVIES, Two Ramesside Tombs at Thebes (1927) pl. XXX.
See the documentation collected by J. VANDIER, Manuel d’archéologie égyptienne V. Bas-reliefs et peintures.
Scènes de la vie quotidienne (1969) 659-1014 and pl. XXXVI-XLVIII.
J. VANDIER D’ABBADIE, Deux tombeaux ramessides à Gournet-Mourraï (1954) pl. XII and XXIII (tomb of
Amenemonet) and pl. XXIX-XXXI (tomb of Amenemheb). See also the well known relief depicting the
battle with the Sea Peoples in the temple of Ramses III at Medinet Habu with three rows of ships (illustrated
recently in F. SCHACHERMEYR, Die Ägäische Frühzeit V. Die Levante im Zeitalter der Wanderungen [1982]
fig. 5).
DOUMAS (supra n. 126) pl. X. On Aegean perspective, see G. WALBERG, Tradition and Innovation. Essays
in Minoan Art (1986) 119-20.
FROM WEST TO EAST: THE AEGEAN AND EGYPT IN THE EARLY LBA
67
in the tombs of Kenamun153 and Nakht,154 from the reign of Amenhotep II and Thutmose
IV, respectively for a hunting scene and an agricultural scene.
Nilotic compositions have long been considered as a simple borrowing by Aegean art
from Egypt. The reality is in fact more complex. If the origin of the theme cannot be
disputed, it appears that it has been considerably modified by the Aegean artists and that it
has been subject to an evolutive process that has led to a complete integration in local
standards — which certainly supposes a greater number of examples than those known to
us.155 What is most interesting and significant is the feedback process of the inf luence of
Aegean iconography and conventions on late Egyptian images, which makes a certain
renovation possible in an otherwise extremely traditional and conservative set of
compositions.
This is an additional sign of the complexity of the artistic relations in the eastern
Mediterranean in the second millennium, as well as additional evidence of a f low of eastwarddirected inf luences at the beginning of the Late Bronze Age.
Robert LAFFINEUR
______________________
153
154
155
de G. DAVIES (supra n. 149) pl. XLVIII.
N. de G. DAVIES, The Tomb of Nakht at Thebes (1917) pl. XVIII and XXI.
It is indeed far from an isolated phenomenon, and this is for instance and mutatis mutandis a quite different
situation from that of the famous republican Nilotic mosaic in Praeneste (G.M.A. HANFMANN,
Chefs-d’oeuvre de l’art romain [1965] pl. XXVI), which does not seem to have been followed by any offspring.