x. o,' "I" .rl. a. 2... , . 3. -. .;. up: “3%: V3 :874 [I 6 :a' 9332‘ Y, a :le 5 +3 NIT") o ;. 3%“. I . fit? 3;: ._ _ , - 2:- 2’2?" $53 $5.. 3:? I :1 I \ y I ' . I'I :: 3i:'.332:§_ 2 2:32" 'tzizat‘i'fifil 225‘.2:~é.<«‘.¢ .2. 9.23 2'1“. .2}; t q;- J ' ’g'.‘ A'u ' ...‘ p. 2'2 “-'r 33203393333. . . ‘ . , 39-3333 :3 3‘ 3 . “I, - .33" (’33 ."J fi:-‘~§ 3 ‘ .2 I‘ . -"‘ oil-’3'- r! v . J n 7“ 3W ‘3‘“ 3 3’13- 2%} . I‘— w:’.‘:. K.- :‘-\ . 4 ,2 _L‘ )- a~‘ $13-32“..:' 43“.“ Isl-3‘ 1‘ x-A .4 . 1" 4 "| 3" , '33.?‘3'333 It. ‘ ‘l 33 333-3 .I -'I 3? 3 ' 3 Hg“ 3:335 5 ~z-;u2‘2.2..2;r 2333-3 “3' <2"- ‘ ' . 5 n v ‘I ' a.“ "IN :jy‘kfi .. 53":31 2 “33,333‘ 3 ”3'3 P“-333\33 I? ,. « 3:37} ’3‘. V3 3'15;- 2.2.3.2 . .'..'3 v3— 35‘. "3’13 . .-. - 1:5}: *‘ 2.9:”? fl}.- 22.: u ., ‘31:? l “~\Kq}:.'v ‘ 542.223.3322— 3 -2: n .. 5 I: .. ‘v .. 33'. 3 .. l I: 2 :3‘uu5‘3‘2. .- -v.- ..«33"€2 :_ 3,“; r s r , Och-1225.2 Y . ‘. ... .3 'I'L 3:6".‘1312' ‘3 ‘ II_I 3 22-232. .3 . 3 *C‘ 4"? ‘ .V‘. 1.22. 3 '3 ..‘ 3 I 5. u‘.‘ I 3 |,I:'3,'u5:1. o ' 3.3:._-:a‘2.v"\.‘ . ,. ’ x .292...” . ' . 2 ‘ 2' ’ 3 3 ‘ I 3 3 H . .v , .. ‘. 2 .3 2 3' I 2 ‘3 '3 3. w " 3‘ 3 3} 2 I ‘ . l3 ‘3. , 3 ‘. ; . . 2. 2 ' -' l2. 7 ‘ , . . , .. Vii, ; . , 3‘ a .2“ 3- ' ; ' 2 '.l.'3' . ‘ _;|- 3’ .3 3 - .5 -I I 4 I v 2. 3‘ u. | 3 ‘ ‘ 3. . 1‘ . . . « .‘.' J;333}+ . If; s ‘ .. ,3 33 I' ”22.21.... .. ,1... \ I:‘ V ‘ I ”,13 l 3 3| 3 ‘3 2 ‘. I. 33" ' 2. 2. 2); I ‘fi‘r,- t',_ 'I- 4‘ “L a" .333 3333‘3'k'3333 ‘.'.‘n"23i '43 K. 43333 1;” 1&qu {I l;r ‘ 1’ j‘ mn‘fili 38‘ Michigan State University This is to certify that the thesis entitled A Re-Evaluation of the Importance of the Mycenaean Pottery Sherds from Tell- E l-A marna ’ Eggegefnted by Marshall Ted Phelps has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for MA degree in History—curt X5321"). OQZKWC~ ~- — Major professor Date MW 0-7639 © 1978 MARSHALL TED PHELPS ALL RIGHTS RESERVED A RE-EVALUATION OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THE MYCENAEAN POTTERY SHERDS FROM TELL EL-AMARNA, EGYPT BY Marshall Ted Phelps A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS Department of Art 1978 p- ~ v‘ 5-.‘5 ‘ h --A _ ‘ ,_V-u‘ ~"‘-u. . ~A..... ‘ Altv “. QAWYA. “V ‘ .nlv ‘ A: ‘ F“. V‘ y‘ R., ' '2»- U.» m: V‘ (xi/087%.? ABSTRACT A RE-EVALUATION OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THE MYCENAEAN POTTERY SHERDS FROM TELL EL-AMARNA, EGYPT BY Marshall Ted Phelps This study attempts to redefine the importance of the abstract motifs found on the Mycenaean pottery sherds at Tell el-Amarna. I have tried to show that these motifs, in finding royal favor, constituted one possible source of influence on the art of the Amarna Period. Chapter I deals with the site at Tell el-Amarna and Petrie's excavation there. Furthermore, it introduces Hankey's study of the Mycenaean sherds including shape and motif identification. Chapter I also covers the results of other excavations at Amarna as they pertain to the dis- covery of additional sherds from Mycenae. Chapter II deals primarily with the art background of the Amarna Period including a discussion of canon and proportion and the sculpting methods of the ancient Egyptians. Chapter III discusses the art of Mycenae and the importance of Minoan art and Egyptian art in its formation. ¢-.-._‘ Marshall Ted Phelps The Conclusion brings into specific focus the reasons why the Mycenaean sherds might have had an influence on the art of the Heresy Period. To Raymond F. Phelps and Joyce Phelps, Father and Mother, the two people to whom I owe everything. ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The debt of gratitude that I owe to all those who have helped in supplying information and support is so great that I shall never be able to repay them. I would like to thank several scholars from Great Britain, who, by their willingness to assist me, have demonstrated their great concern for the spread of international understanding and knowledge. Dr. P. R. S. Moorey, Acting Keeper of the Egyptian Collection, and Mrs. J. C. Payne, his assistant, two wonderful, warm people who showed me the Amarna-Mycenaean sherds in the collection of the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford. Also from England, Mrs. Vronwy Hankey has my thanks not only for her help- fulness in providing information, but also her interest. Julia Samson, Honorary Research Fellow of the Petrie Collection, University College, London, also provided information and proved to be a vital link with other scholars for me. And a special thanks to Miss Hall, Keeper of the Petrie Collection at the University College, London, for her cheerfully rendered assistance to my research assistant and historian, Susan Gervais. iii .III. ..s W. .~ .C .o. “v. p: u. 2L 6. 5. s b» uflu .Au a.» «flu 5. ”a v. u“ r“ v. .u r. .,n ..n .n. .__ .t. ... ..u :5 . z; A: S ;. .3 z“ a» a. a. V” 2. a». \U .. . . A c A“ T‘ It U ‘3 A-» Vu w fitter The value of critical comment is undeniable. I must thank Dr. Guenter KOpcke, Art Historian of Ancient Art at New York University, for his critical comments and for his supplying of information about the Minoan and Mycenaean cultures. I should like to thank my readers, Dr. E. Huzar, Professor of Ancient History at Michigan State University, and Dr. William Peck, Egyptologist and Curator of Ancient Art at the Detroit Institute of Arts. Their patience and helpful suggestions were very much appreciated. Dr. Molly Teasdale Smith, a good friend and a great Professor of Medieval and Byzantine Art (Michigan State University Department of Art History), is owed a great deal by me for her continuous urging and support and interest. One also owes a great deal to one's colleagues who share the miseries and the joys of such an under- taking. For their support and continuous intelligent discussion of this thesis as it developed, I thank Jack Williamson, Mrs. Marilyn Tanis-Borst, and especially Kathy Dow for her unwavering confidence. The probability of this thesis being completed would have been greatly reduced if it were not for the attention and devotion of my friend and research assistant Susan Gervais, student of history at Michigan State Uni- versity. iv Finally, I want to thank the one man who was ever ready to offer advice and direction, my major advisor Dr. Paul W. Deussen, Classical archaeologist, and Pro- fessor of Ancient Art at Michigan State University. v‘v- ‘ 'A o.‘. A' h... DA‘\'P\. ‘ LIST OF FIGURES INTRODUCTION Chapter TABLE OF CONTENTS I. PETRIE AND THE SHERDS. II. III. THE AMARNA STYLE OF THE SHERDS. CONCLUSION SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY FIGURES EGYPTIAN AND MYCENAEAN vi ART: IMPORTANCE Page vii 36 77 102 113 124 LIST OF FIGURES Figure l. Mycenaean Pottery Sherds from Tell el-Amarna. Now in the collections of the University College, London (U.S. or U.C.L.) and the British Museum (B.M.). Shallow Cup, Furu- mark shape (hereafter F.S.) 220. (Photos courtesy of Vronwy Hankey) (Figures 1 through 10 are examples of Mycenaean pottery sherds from Tell el—Amarna, Egypt. These examples are now found in the British Museum (B.M.), the University College, London (U.C.L. or U.C.) and the Ashmolean Museum.) . . . . . . . . Mycenaean Pottery Sherds from Tell el-Amarna. Globular Flask, vertical type (F.S. 189). (Photos courtesy of Vronwy Hankey). . . Mycenaean Pottery Sherds from Tell el-Amarna. Globular Flask, vertical type (F.S. 189) and flask made from two bowls (lower photo). (Photos courtesy of Vronwy Hankey). . . . Mycenaean Pottery Sherds from Tell el-Amarna. Flask (F.S. 189) of the "Palace" style and small jugs (F.S. 114/118). (Photos courtesy of Vronwy Hankey) . . . . . . Mycenaean Pottery Sherds from Tell el-Amarna. Upper photo: Stirrup Jar and Stirrup Jar (?) of the "Palace" variety. Lower photo: Stirrup Jar, (a) zonal decoration, (b) flat topped of the III B:l period. (Photos courtesy of Vronwy Hankey) . . . . . Mycenaean Pottery Sherds from Tell el-Amarna. Upper photo: (a) Stirrup Jar, flat-topped with zone, (b) Stirrup Jar (?), closed variety. Lower photo: Stirrup Jar, globular or piriform. (Photos courtesy of Vronwy Hankey) . . . . . . . . . . vii Page 124 125 126 127 128 129 - a a n v- .4 -. .A -v. “ “. ‘ ‘W 1 ‘Q }-J Lu Figure 7. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. Mycenaean Pottery Sherds from Tell el-Amarna. Upper photo: Squat Jar/Alabastron (F.S. 85). Lower photo: Squat Jar/Alabastron with straight sides (F.S. 94). (Photos courtesy of Vronwy Hankey) . . . . Mycenaean Pottery Sherds from Tell el-Amarna. Upper photo: Piriform shape (F.S. 45), lower body may be from F.S. 166, Stirrup Jar. Lower photo: lower body--Piriform shape. (Photos courtesy of Vronwy Hankey). Mycenaean Pottery Sherds from Tell el-Amarna. Upper photo: Closed vessel. Lower photo: Flask, vertical type (?). (Photos courtesy of Vronwy Hankey) . . . . . . . . Mycenaean Pottery Sherds from Tell el-Amarna. Upper photo: Kylix (stem?). Lower photo: Mycenaean sherds in the collection of the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford. (Kylix photo courtesy of Vronwy Hankey; Ashmolean sherd photo by M. T. Phelps) . . . . . . . The Great Boundary Stela of Pharaoh Akhena- ten. From Tell el-Amarna, Egypt. Lime- stone; 26 feet in height; 18th Dynasty. The relief above shows Ikhnaton on each side, accompanied by his queen and daughters, worshipping the sundisk, whose rays, terminating in his hands, embrace them, and offer them the symbol of life. (Breasted, A History of Egypt, p. 345) - Map of Tell el-Amarna. The east bank, with the city proper and surrounding land. Scale l:40,000. Map executed 1891. (Petrie, Tell el-Amarna, Plate XXXV). . . Plan of the Palace of Akhenaten at Tell el- Amarna. Plan executed 1891. Scale: 1:1500. (Petrie, Tell el-Amarna, Plate XXXVI). . . . . . . . . Block Plan of Tell el-Amarna. The Central City. Defined by grid squares. (Julia Samson, City of Akhenaten and Nefertiti-- Key Pieces from the Petrie Collection, Plate B, p. 10). . . . . . . . viii Page 130 131 132 133 134 136 137 138 If. at. .U . 21. Figure Page 15. Sketch Map of Central and North areas of Tell el-Amarna. Dots indicate areas where Mycenaean pottery was found. Map executed by Vronwy Hankey . . . . . . . . . . 139 16. Artifacts and House 11 Plan from Tell el- Amarna. Two Egyptian vases decorated with the Mycenaean lily motif (Frankfort and Pendlebury, The City of Akhenaten, Part II, Plate XII). Plan of House 11. Scale 1:300. Letters stand for Petrie's interpretation of room function (Petrie, Tell el-Amarna, Plate XXXIX). Fragment of blue paste vase (27) with the names of the king and queen and a piece of blue engraved glass (36). Scale 2:3 (Petrie, Tell el-Amarna, Plate XIII) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141 17. Chart of the percentage of total pottery finds that the Mycenaean sherds constitute from Tell el-Amarna. (Petrie, Tell el- Amarna, p. 16). . . . . . . . . . . 142 18. Mycenaean Pot Shapes: three-handled jars (#35), amphoroid kraters (#45?, 53), alabas— tra (#85, 94), small jugs (#114, 118, 134?). (Furumark, Mycenaean Pottery I: Analysis and Classification, figures 4, 11, 12, 6, 5). 143 19. Mycenaean Pot Shapes: stirrup jars (#167, 171, 173, 178?, 183?), globular vertical flask (#189), Rhyton (a) (#199). (Arne Furumark, Mycenaean Pottery I: Analysis and Classification, figures 4, 6, 12, 20). . 145 20. Mycenaean Pot Shapes: cups-alabastron (#202, 208, 221, 283), kylix (#257). (Arne Furu- mark, Mygenaean Pottery I: Analysis and Classification, figures 13, 15, 17). . . . 146 21. Mycenaean Papyrus, motif 11. Showing examples of Late Minoan II (c), Voluted III A:21 (37), Late Unvoluted III A:2e (40, 41), Zwickel and in variant compositions often used as a filling ornament (64, 66). (Arne Furumark, Mycenaean Pottery I: Analysis and Classifi- cation, figures 33 and 34) Examples of the papyrus motif on Mycenaean sherds from Tell el-Amarna (142, 143). Scale 2:3. (Petrie, Tell el-Amarna, plate XXX, sherds 142, 143) . 147 ix Figure Page 22. Mycenaean Sacral Ivy, motif 12. Showing an example of detached leaf chain form of the III A:2 period (33). (Arne Furumark, Mycenaean Pottery I: Analysis and Clas— sification, figure 36) Petrie's examples include four sherds (26, 27, 28, 29). Scale 2:3. (Petrie, Tell el-Amarna, plate XXVII) Mycenaean Palm I, motif 14. Showing one Furumark example (8) from III A:2 period. (Arne Furumark, Mycenaean Pottery I: Analysis and Classification, figure 38) Petrie's examples include two possible variants from the Tell el-Amarna-Mycenaean sherds (139, 138?). Scale 2:3. (Petrie, Tell el—Amarna, plate XXX) . . . . . . 149 23. Mycenaean III Flower, motif 18. Showing two examples (69, 70) of the Unvoluted variety from the III A:2 period. (Arne Furumark, Mycenaean Pottery I: Analysis and Classification, figure 45) Petrie's example includes two sherds (36, 39). Scale 2:3. (Petrie, Tell el-Amarna, plate XXVII) Mycenaean Multiple Stem and Tongue, motif 19. Showing two types: angular (20, 21) from the III A:2 period and semicircular (31) from the III A:2B (Arne Furumark, Myce- naean Pottery I: Analysis and Classifi- cation, figure 47). Petrie's examples include Amarna Mycenaean sherds 85, 87, 59. Scale 2:3. (Petrie, Tell el-Amarna, plates XXVIII and XXIX) . . . . . . . 151 24. Mycenaean Bivalve Shell, motif 25. Showing two examples: top zone decoration (9) of the III A:2 period, and a chain variety (23) of the III A:21 to III B periods. (Arne Furumark, Mycenaean Pottery I: Analysis and Classification, figure 53) Petrie's examples include Amarna—Mycenaean sherds 122, 125, 126. Scale 2:3. (Petrie, Wm. plate XXIX) Mycenaean Rock Pattern I, motif 32. Showing two possible variants: continuous (5) from periods I through III B, and crested (21) from II B-III Azl periods. (Arne Furumark, Mycenaean Pottery I: Analysis and Classifi- cation, figure 54Y Petrie's example from the Mycenaean-Amarna sherds includes sherd 20. Scale 2:3. (Petrie, Tell el-Amarna, plate plate XXVI) . . . . . . . . . . . 153 X pr» Figure Page 25. Mycenaean Isolated Semicircles, motif 43. Showing one type (7) from the III A:21 period. (Arne Furumark, Mycenaean Pottery ll, Analysis and Classification, figure 57) Petrie's example includes the Myce- naean-Amarna sherd 102. Scale 2:3. (Petrie, Tell el-Amarna, plate XXIX) Mycenaean Running Spiral, motif 46. Show- ing two varieties: connected and sym- metrical (52) from III Azl-B periods, and two connected-one separate unsymmetrical type (56) from the III A:21. (Arne Furu- mark, Mycenaean Pottery I: Analysis and Classification, figure 60) Petrie has two examples of the variants of the Run- ning Spiral from the Mycenaean-Amarna sherds (40, 80). Scale 2:3. (Petrie, Tell el-Amarna, plates XXVII, XXIX) . . . 155 26. Mycenaean Quirk Design, motif 48. Two varieties, #51 of the I-III C:1 period and #8 of the III A:2 period. (Arne Furumark, Mycenaean Pottery I: Analysis and Classification, figure 61) Petrie has two examples from the Mycenaean-Amarna sherds (105, 109). Scale 2:3. (Petrie, Tell el-Amarna, plate XXIX) Mycenaean Curved Stem Spiral, motif 49. One variety (1) from the III A:2 period. (Arne Furumark, Mycenaean Potterin: Analysis and Classification, figure 62) Example from Petrie includes Mycenaean- Amarna sherd 51(?). Scale 2:3. (Petrie, Tell el-Amarna, plate XXVII) . . . . . 157 27. Mycenaean Wavy Line, motif 53. Three varie- ties include: #5 of the III A:2 period, #6 of the III A:21 period, and #8 also of the III A:21 period. (Arne Furumark, Mycenaean Pottery I: Analysis and Clas- sification, figure 65) The Mycenaean- Amarna sherds from Petrie which show these types include: 13, 15, 71, 96, 97. Scale 2:3. (Petrie, Tell el-Amarna, plates XXVI, XXVIII, and XXIX). . . . . 159 xi .3. r. .hv AL Figure 28. Mycenaean Diaper Net, motif 57. One variety used from the III A:1 to the III C:1 period (2). (Arne Furumark, Mycenaean Pottery I: Analysis and Classification, figure 67) Two Mycenaean-Amarna examples taken from Petrie (21, 22). Scale 2:3. (Petrie, Tell el-Amarna, plate XXVI) Mycenaean Parallel Chevrons, motif 58. One variety (32) of the III A:2 period. (Arne Furumark, Mycenaean Pottery I: Analysis and Classification, figure 67) One Myce— naean-Amarna sherd (94) example from Petrie. Scale 2:3. (Petrie, Tell e1- Amarna, plate XXIX) Mycenaean V-Pattern, motif 59. One type only from the III A:2 period. (Arne Furu- mark, Mycenaean Pottery I: Analysis and Classification, figure 67) Example taken from Petrie's Mycenaean-Amarna sherds (65) possibly a variant--no exact match. (Petrie, Tell el-Amarna, plate XXVIII). . 29. Mycenaean N-Pattern, motif 60. Two examples: wide-n (1) of the III A:1-2 periods and a narrow-n (2) type of the III A:2 to III B periods. (Arne Furumark, Mycenaean Pottery I: Analysis and Classification, figure 67) From Petrie's Mycenaean-Amarna sherds comes two examples: wide-n (130) and the narrow-n (99). (Petrie, Tell el-Amarna, plates XXIX and XXX) Mycenaean Zig-Zag Pattern, motif 61. One example (#17) of this pattern which was used from the II A to the II A:2 periods. (Arne Furumark, Mycenaean Pottery I: Analysis and Classification) The Mycenaean-Amarna sherds have one possible example sherd (135). Scale 2:3. (Petrie, Tell el-Amarna, plate XXX) Mycenaean Foliate Band, motif 64. One example (27). (Arne Furumark, Mycenaean Pottery I: Analysis and Classification, figure 69) The Mycenaean-Amarna sherds show one possible example (70, Palace). Scale 2:3. (Petrie, Tell el-Amarna, plate XXVIII). . . . . xii Page . 161 . 163 Figure Page 30. Mycenaean Scale Pattern, motif 70. One example: scale (1) in use from II A period through the III B period. (Arne Furumark, Mycenaean Pottery I: Analysis and Classification, figure 70) Mycenaean- Amarna example (48). Scale 2:3. (Petrie, Tell el-Amarna, plate XXVII) Mycenaean Lozenge, motif 73. One example (a) from early III B period. (Arne Furu— mark, Mycenaean Pottery I: Analysis and Classification, figure 71) Mycenaean- Amarna sherd example (95). Scale 2:3. (Petrie, Tell el-Amarna, plate XXIX) Mycenaean U Pattern, motif 45. One example (1) of the III A:2 period. (Arne Furu- mark, Mycenaean Pottery I: Analysis and Classification, figure 58) Mycenaean- Amarna sherd 137. Scale 2:3. (Petrie, Tell el-Amarna, plate XXX) . . . . . . 165 31. Carved Wood Cosmetic Spoon in the shape of a swimming girl reaching out to touch a duck. From Abu Gurob in the Fayum. New Kingdom, 18th Dynasty, c. 1370 B.C. Egyptian Museum, Cairo. Length 30 cm. (C. Aldred, The Deve10pment of Ancient Egyptian Art from 3200 B.C. to 1315 B.C., Vol. 3, plate 48) Seated Statue of Prince Hem-On, Vizier of Cheops, from the Western Cemetery, Giza. Old Kingdom, IV Dynasty, c. 2650 B.C. Limestone, height including base--61% inches. Roemer-Pelizaeus Museum, Hilde— sheim. (C. Aldred, The Development of Ancient Egyptian Art from 3200 B.C. to 1315 B.C., Vol. 1, plate 11) Statue of Ka-Aper (Sheikh e1 Beled), from Saqqara, IV or V Dynasty, c. 2600 B.C. Wood, height 43% inches. Egyptian Museum, Cairo. (Erman, Life in Ancient Egypt, p. 30). . . . . . . . . . . . . 167 xiii 33. F“. .3 Figure Page 32. Statue Triad of Mycerinus, Hathor, and Local Deity, from the Valley Temple of Mycerinus, Giza. Old Kingdom, Dynasty IV, c. 2570 B.C. Green slate, height 37 3/8 inches. Egyptian Museum, Cairo. (C. Aldred, The Development of Ancient Egyptian Art from 3200 B.C. to 1315 B.C., Vol. 1, plate 25) Drawing of Prince Mer-‘Eb, Treasurer of the god under King Chufu. Tomb painting from Giza. Old Kingdom, Dynasty IV, c. 2580 B.C. (A. Erman, Life in Ancient Egypt, p. 86) Nature and Peasant Drawing, Middle Kingdom, XII Dynasty, c. 2100. (A. Erman, Life in Ancient Egypt, p. 403) Free Representation of a Catch of Fish from 4th Dynasty, Old Kingdom, c. 2600 B.C. (A. Erman, Life in Ancient Egypt, p. 401) . 169 33. Wall Paintings (frescoes) from the Tomb of Rekh-mi-ra (Rekmara). New Kingdom: 18th Dynasty during the reign of Thuthmosis (Thutmose) III. Theban Necropolis, Tomb 100. (C. Aldred, The Development of Ancient Egyptian Art from 3200 B.C. to 1315 B.C., Vol. III, plates 44, 45, 46). . 171 34. Relief of Sculptor's workshop from the tomb of T'y. Old Kingdom, Vth Dynasty, Saqqara. (A. Erman, Life in Ancient Egypt, p. 414) Geese of Medum (detail). Paint on Plaster (entire frieze 9% by 63 inches) Old Kingdom Fourth Dynasty, c. 2570 B.C. From the tomb of Atet at Medum. Egyptian Museum, Cairo. (Petrie, Arts and Crafts of Ancient Egypt, figure 68) Seated Scribe, from Saqqara, Dynasty V, c. 2560 B.C. Painted limestone, height 20 7/8 inches. The Louvre, Paris. (A. Erman, Life in Ancient Egypt, p. 33) Egyptian Grid for Drawing of Human figures-- Adaptation from XII Dynasty originals. (I. Woldering, The Art of Egypt at the Time of the Pharaohs, p. 103) Comparison of Old and New Kingdom Figures, Prince Ment' Uherschapshef (Son of Ramses III, New Kingdom) and Prince Mr 'Eb (Son of Pharaoh Chufu, Old Kingdom). (A. Erman, Life in Ancient Egypt, p. 51) . . . . . 173 xiv ~v. v.4 the .u. “1.4 Add NI Riv FF. 3 ‘(U Figure Page 35. Statue of King Senusret III. Dark grey granite. Height 55 inches. Excavated by the Egypt Exploration Fund at Deir e1— Bahri, 1905. Late XII Dynasty. British Museum. (C. Aldred, The Development of Ancient Egyptian Art from 3200 B.C. to 1315 B.C., Vol. II, plates 50 and 51) . . 175 36. A Kingfisher in the Marshes, wall painting, XVIII Dynasty Amarna Period, c. 1372-1355 B.C. Gouache on thin plaster over mud— brick. 11% by 15 inches. From a room in the Northern Palace at Tell el-Amarna. Reign of Akhenaten. (C. Aldred, The Dev- elopment of Ancient Egyptian Art from 3200 B.C. to 1315 B.C., Vol. III, plate 128) Akhenaten and Family Worshipping the Aten Disk, limestone relief, XVIII Dynasty. From the Royal Tomb at Tell el-Amarna. Approximately 19 by 20 inches. (A. Erman, Life in Ancient Egypt, p. 406) Statue of Queen Hatshepsut as Pharaoh. XVIII Dynasty. Red granite. Height 95 inches. Found at Deir el-Bahri. At Cairo (No. 52, 458). (C. Aldred, The Develop- ment ofAncient Egyptian Art from 3200 B.C. to 1315 B.C., Vol. III, plate 24) . . . 177 37. Colossi of King Akhenaten. Painted Sand- stone. l8th Dynasty. From Karnak. Co- regency of Amenhotep III and Akhenaten. Original height over 13 feet. At Cairo (Nos. 49, 528, 55, 938, and 49, 529) . . 179 38. Cretans Bearing Tribute. Painting from Chapel of Senmut. Thebes 18th Dynasty, reign of Hatshepsut. Keftians Bearing Tribute. Chapel of Menpheperraseneb (tomb 86) and (on right) Rekh-mi-ra (tomb 100). (W. S. Smith, Interconnec- tions in the Ancient Near East, figures 90, 91) . . . . . . . . . 181 XV .3. at. a. a... Av IQ. .4 a3 4. It“. .3 AS Figure Page 39. Scene from a feast. (Woman being enter— tained). Two styles combined: Formal (woman on right) and Informal (servant woman on left). Wall painting (detail). Tomb (100) of Rekh-mi-ra. Thebes, 18th Dynasty. Reign of Thutmose III. Ser- vant woman says, "For thy ka! Celebrate the joyful day." (A. Erman, Life in Ancient Egypt, p. 405) . . . . . . . 182 4C). Mycenaean II Sherds from Near East Sites. Alabastron from Ras Shamra. Four sherds from Byblos. Four sherds from Gezer. One sherd from Lachish. (F. H. Stubbings, Mycenaean Pottery of the Levant, figures 9, 10, 11, 12, 13) . . . . . . . . 184 4].. Three Fragments of Mycenaean III B Kraters from Ras Shamra. One showing geometric patterns, one showing horses (?), and one showing abstract human figures. (F. H. Stubbings, Mycenaean Pottery of the Levant, figures 22, 23). . . . . . . 185 42!. The Queen's Megaron (detail), Palace at Knossos (reconstruction), Late Minoan. c. 1600-1400 B.C. (Frederick Hartt, Art: A History of Painting, Sculpture, and Architecture, Vol. I, plate 124) . . 186 43 . The Young Prince Fresco from the Palace at Knossos. Late Minoan. c. 1600-1400 B.C. Life-size. (H. F. L. Mellersh, Th3 Destruction of Knossos, figure 3) . . . 187 44.. Lion Gate at Mycenae. Limestone high relief. c. 1250 B.C. Height approx. 9 feet 6 inches. (G. Mylonas, Mycenae and the Mycenaean Age, plate 13). . . . 189 45. Grave Stela at Mycenae. Grave of "Cassan- dra." Early Bronze Age. Limestone-- shallow relief. Height 1.8 meters: width at bottom 1.15 meters. (George Perrot and Charles Chipiez, History of Art in Primitivg_Greece: Mycenaean Art, Vol. 2, figure 355) . . . . . . . . . . 190 xvi w.‘.- 50" rrc In; ah. I». In. Figure 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. Hyksos—-Te11 e1 Yahudiyyah Pottery. Bronze Age II B—C: (a) Syrian; estinian; (c) Cypriot and Egyptian. A New (J. Van Seters, The Hyksos: (b) Pal- Investigation, figure 9) . Relief from the Tomb of Horemheb (detail showing soldiers). Memphis. plate 2) . . . . . . 19th Dynasty. White hard limestone. 0.418 x 0.366 meters. (J. D. Cooney, Relief from the Tomb of Haremhab," Measures Designs in Relief from the Vaphio Cups. Cups were found in a tomb at Laconia. Height approx. 38 inches. (Perrot - Chipiez, History of Art in Primitive Greece: Date: c. 1500 B.C. Gold. Mycenaean Art, Vol. 1, plate XV) "A Clay Mask (tripod leg) from Amarna (House T 36.36)--Compared to a Gold Mask from Middle Mycenae (Graveshaft V of Grave Circle A). Clay Mask, c. 1360 B.C., scale k. Mask height approx. 12 inches. Mask: J. D. S. Pendlebury and H. Frank- fort, The City of Akhenaten, Part II, (Clay plate 10. Gold Mask: H. L. F. lersh, The Destruction of Knossos, Mel- figure 84). . . . . . Gerzean Pottery and Designs. From the Fayum, el—Gerza. Late Predynastic. Red designs on buff color vases. include the palm variant, wavy line, and the spiral. (M. Raphael, Prehistoric Gold Motifs Pottepy and Civilization in Ancient Egyp , plates 28, 29, 30). xvii Page 191 192 193 195 196 INTRODUCTION I must admit that my great interest in art and archaeology plus a life-long infatuation with the civili- zation that was ancient Egypt have prompted this inquiry into the importance of the Mycenaean pottery sherds found at the capital city of Akhenaten, the remains of which are located at the present day site of Tell el-Amarna. One might rightly wonder why ancient Greek pottery would have any importance at all in regards to Egyptian art and archaeology beyond the inestimable value of establishing a pattern of ancient trade relations and Old World chrono- logical sequence. The sherd motifs could also be signifi- cant as one of the influences that conditioned the art climate of New Kingdom Egypt in abstraction and general looseness of design. In this way they may have formed one of the major models for the excentricities of the art of the Heresy Period, or at least provided a continuing sup- port. Thus, from an art historical point of View, as well as an archaeological one, these fragments of clay vessels from Mycenae could very well be of tantamount importance. There are a great many problems in interpreting and even classifying such finds as the Mycenaean sherds. There is still a vast amount of controversy and conjecture . Ilalll .2 . v. .: Av .h» .b» ~.. Ry V. Ob ‘. u- n. he v. .1 a T. C C S 2. Th . . .... ..,e 5 he M“ a .1 F« . V b. 2. hell“ 2 over them from all quarters. The debate centers not only over the sherds' relative dates (absolute dating being somewhat tenuous), but also their relationship to and provenance from the Greek Peloponnesus. Hankey and Warren, in their study of the chronology of the Aegean Late Bronze Age,1 have done much to set the time sequence into a logical order by determining that the III A:2(1ate) Period corresponds to the reign of Akhenaten. Stubbings relates a Mycenaean chronology which gives dates consis- tent with Egyptian dates of the 18th and 19th Dynasty: Mycenaean I c. 1550 1500 B.C. Mycenaean II A 1500 1450 B.C. Mycenaean II B 1450 1425 B.C. Mycenaean II A:1 1425 1400 B.C. Mycenaean III A:2(ear1y) 1400 1375 B.C. Mycenaean III A:2(1ater) 1375 1300 B.C. Mycenaean III B 1300 1230 B.C. Mycenaean III C:1a 1230 1200 B.C. Mycenaean III C:1b 1200 1125 B.C. Mycenaean III C:1c 1125 1075 B.C. Mycenaean III C:2 1075 1025 B.C.2 The value of decorated pottery for historical research is no longer seriously doubted. Every sherd is quite literally an original work of art; not only being the product of individual initiative, but simultaneously and aesthetic reflective of the communal, industrial, needs. In answering these needs many factors come into play. The geographical nature of a country provides a varying distribution for each area in question. In pre- historic times the transportation of pottery in Greece presented a considerable problem as the rocky slopes and mountainous terrain proved an effective barrier to such endeavors. Therefore, if one looks at pottery from that time period, one finds that for the most part it remained in close proximity to its place of manufacture. On the other side of the coin, Egypt, because of its main artery-- the Nile--was able from the outset to maintain an amazing unity. The Greeks, because of the arduous task presented by overland transport, developed a seagoing trade. Thus Mycenae was able to achieve a wide distribution of its clay ware during the Bronze Age from Syria to the first cataract of the Nile Valley. A curious thing occurs as pottery types (of any manufacture) diffuse from a single center to remote locations; it provides for the survival of archaic forms in these out-of-the-way places. For instance, in Egypt, the appearance of a "blacktopped" ;pottery as late as the Hyksos Dynasties, which was simi- lar to prehistoric wares, may have been due to the appearance of the Nubians from the south, as we gather from archaeological evidence that this pottery was made tfllere as late as Roman times.3 The difficulties are increased a thousandfold When one no longer restricts the field of research to a SiJugle area, as is the course of this study. Unity of Style is the first thing to be sacrificed in a cross- Cttltural study. The most difficult thing to ascertain is: the determining of mutual influences of different Cifililizations, in this case one old (Egypt) and one A”... VV‘ . "' -"“ ”0"" ..¢-"‘ .nu :u .uu “Xfcl. ‘ 5 -.u 3a 1.7 in, s S“N comparatively young (Mycenae). How far can one trace this influence in one class of remains, i.e., pottery? How much can be laid on the doorstep of local development free from outside stimulus? Such a comparison does have one valid basis: that of consideration of the character— istics of the pottery involved. The independent attributes of the Mycenaean sherds consists of three major types: (1) technical, (2) shape, and (3) decoration. The classification of the Mycenaean pottery types has been done completely and brilliantly by Arne Furumark, and this study depends heavily on his authoritative find- ings, and on Mrs. Vronwy Hankey's studies of the Mycenaean sherds from Amarna. I must concur with her findings (for the most part) after having personally inspected the lflycenaean-Amarna sherds kept by the Ashmolean Museum, (foord and those in the collections of the British Museum arui the University College, London (Petrie Collection). Also, the field records of Pendlebury and Frankfort, Fwstrie, and Peet and Woolley from their excavations at T€£11 el-Amarna have proved invaluable. The early German exxzavation reports, however, are both unpublished in entirety and are not as thorough as one would expect. Therefore, they have proved less than useful to this Study. 5 INTRODUCTION--NOTES lVronwy Hankey and Peter Warren, "The Absolute Chronology of the Aegean Late Bronze Age," London Uni- versipy Institute of Classical Studies Bulletin 21 (November 1974): 142—52. 2Frank H. Stubbings, Mycenaean Pottery from the Levant (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1951), p. xvi. 3H. Frankfort, Mesppotamia, Syria and Egypt and Their Earliest Interrelations (London: Royal Anthro- pological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland, 1924), pp. 1—3. 41bid., p. 4. 5For the account of the architectural discoveries (Df the Deutsche Orient-Gesellschaft see Ricke's Der (irundriss des Amarna-Wohnhauses. In (1‘ CHAPTER I PETRIE AND THE SHERDS The annals of archaeology are replete with the names of men and women who have dedicated their lives to the scientific study of past cultures: J. D. S. Pendlebury, Henri Frankfort, M. Barsanti, Helen Kantor, T. Eric Peet, and Leonard C. Woolley. But none stands in higher repute than that of Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie. His career in Egyptian archaeology (seventy active years) began on a survey expedition in 1880, the purpose of which was to measure and record facts about the Great Pyramid. His reaction to the haphazard and unsupervised excavating there was immediate: he required stratigraphi- cal excavation (something taken for granted in many digs today) and accurate recording of finds' positions and their typology. He forged the science of archaeology out of the diletantish pasttime of treasure hunting. His scheme of sequence dating for prehistoric sites remains in use today with minor modifications. Not only did he manage to select and dig over thirty significant sites,1 but he also managed to publish, relatively quickly, con- cise summaries of his work. w~. Lu. T. C we Petrie arrived at Tell el-Amarna on the 17th of November, 1891. He had in his company five trusted fellahin and with them began the task at hand on the 23rd of November. By the 26th of November he had uncovered the painted pavement of the main palace. He completed active digging by the time of the arrival of the Ramadan at the end of March. The next two months ‘were consumed in tallying the results of the season and jpacking the finds for shipping. Also during this time iPetrie managed to complete a preliminary survey of the Inigh desert above the cliffs of the site.2 Akhenaten, or Amenhotep IV, himself, established 'the boundary stelae (see page 134) of his beloved city (dedicated to Aten, Akhetaten (Horizon of Aten). These stelae, set up in the years 6—8 of his rein, define the tnotal area encompassed by the city on the east bank of tihe Nile. The recession of the limestone cliffs from tide east bank forms an ever—widening crude semicircle. Tfiue lay of the city proper in the enveloping natural rwack mass was of a rather confined nature. The so-called "Central City" and the "North Suburb," as well as all (Dtdler original structures at Akhetaten except the royal tcnnbs, tend to follow the contours of the river. This nDocket" formed the district of the city and measured ej4.th miles wide from north to south, and varied twelve tC> seventeen miles long from the east cliffs to the west cliffs3 (see page 136). Breasted continues his description of Akhetaten with a relation of the king's testimony as it was engraved on these extreme Northern and Southern stelae. It is here reproduced to show the resolve and the force of the monarch's character (one must make allowances for the propagandistic nature of the "official" language in which it was couched): His majesty raised his hand to heaven, to him who made him, even to Aton, saying, "This is my testimony forever, and this is my witness forever, this land- mark. . . . I have made for my father as a dwelling. . . . I have demarked Akhetaton on its south, and on its north, on its west, on its east. I shall not pass beyond the southern landmark of Akhetaton toward the south, nor shall I pass beyond the northern land- mark of Akhetaton toward the north. . . . He has made his circuit for his own, he has made his altar in its midst, whereon I made offering to him. Now as for the area within the . . . landmarks from the eastern mountain to the western mountain of Akhetaton opposite, it belongs to my father, Aton, who is given life forever and ever: whether mountains or cliffs, or swamps . . . or uplands, or fields, or waters, or towns, or shores, or people, or cattle or trees, or anything which Aton, my father has made . . . I have made it for Aton, my father, forever and ever.4 TTue Great Boundary Stelae is certainly unique in the history of the world. Further to the east of the city were the royal tonflos and those of the court nobles hewn out of the cliffs twc> and one-half miles up an advantageously centralized desert wadi, known as the Royal Wadi. These tombs, according to Breasted, reflected in their painted reliefs Akhenaten's philoSOphy of life and death. Even though SORKB of the rituals connected with death remained as they 11ad been for over two thousand years, it was still neces- sary for the deceased to be buried in an "eternal house" and to have continuous offerings in order to sustain the soul. However, the tombs no longer showed in decoration the unearthly creatures and odd spells that the Theban Book of the Dead5 called for. In place of these demons of the Tuat were depictions of the deceased and scenes of his daily life. Of particular interest are reliefs that refer to the dead man's relationship to Akhenaten.6 Of central importance to this thesis is the location of the Mycenaean pottery sherds within the layout of Akhetaten. For it is the location of the majority of sherds in the dumps from the royal palace which points up their importance to the ruling circles, and hence greatly increases the probability that their design-decoration was one of the influences on what is called the Amarna Style. Petrie maintains, in his book Tell el-Amarna, that the position of the main palace belonging to Akhena- ten is self-evident. There were only three "possible" Sites for it in the central city. One, Petrie marked "Palace" and two other structures he designated as "temples" on his plan. Quite correctly, Petrie deter- mined that there were no other structures impressive enough to be fitting as the main palace of the reigning Pharaoh in his sparkling new capital (see page 137) . Ck 9*; .r 10 The "great temple" he dismissed as the palace because it consisted of only one central undivided building and its position in relation to the river was disadvantageous in its distance from a ready water supply; nor could it take full advantage of the cooling evening breezes that often arose from the Nile. The other building, compara- tively small, called a "temple" by Petrie, showed in its foundations the more traditional great-pylon approach known from Egyptian architecture and was also a single ‘undivided building. The only structure left which came (close to being the correct size for a royal palace was ‘unrelated in form and content to "temples." It was com- ]prised of several buildings connected with highly decor- aated pavements, and the finishes of interior surfaces as a: whole all indicate that it was a special structure. The s<2enes on these pavements were not of the sort character- isatically found in Egyptian temples. They showed wildlife sc:enes--e.g., ducks taking to wing, flushed from marshy fcnliage by joyfully cavorting bulls. Several other factors also indicate that this was indeed the living quarters of the pharaoh. First, there were numerous POttery sherds with Akhenaten's cartouche on them. Secondly, the structure was so situated that it Opened uE> <5n the bank of the Nile. Thirdly, and most importantly fcxr- our purposes: in association with the pottery sherds containing the king's prenomen and titles was found what 11 Petrie classed simply as Aegean pottery;7 but thanks to the monumental work of Arne Furumark, we know much more about these Mycenaean sherds and their motifs. The Great Palace, as Petrie's excavation laid it bare, consisted of three main buildings, all more or less connected by either simple doorways or impressive gateways. Connecting the king's house with the Great Palace was a unique ramp-bridge arrangement. Petrie's excavation squares (200 meters square) were laid out on a true north-south axis while the city itself lay on a slightly N.E.-S.W. axis. Most of the Great Palace falls snithin squares 041, 042, p41, p42--with spurs continuing .into 040, 043, and p40 (see page 138). The first sections (grid squares 041, p41 primarily) were most likely in some way connected with state functions. The docking area off the Nile opened directly into this segment of tile Palace through a gateway which immediately gave way tr) a great court ringed with colossal figures of Akhenaten 811d Nefertiti. A columned portico on the south gave acmcess into a transverse pillared hall and then opened on a :rectangular court. Beyond that was situated a series (Df' interconnected columned halls, the purpose of which was probably to serve as a combination audience hall and throne room. Finally, to the south, was a gigantic hall as; ‘thickly forested as virgin timberland with square m‘-31C1~brick columns.9 This great hall measured 423 feet, 12 4 inches wide, and 234 feet, 7 inches long. The 542 pillars measured 4.3 feet square and were spaced 8.92 feet apart. The passage in the middle was 14.42 feet wide. The purpose of this great hall according to Petrie was to provide an escape from the heat since it had the cooling effect of an earth-bound cavern. Julia Samson maintains that the purpose of this hall was to serve as the setting for the coronation of Akhenaten's successor, Smenkhkare. She bases this theory on the obvious haste with which the structure was built (note that its outline 10 As additional evi- foundations are quite irregular). dence that it was not part of the original plan for the city, I cite Petrie's own testimony of its lack of finish. He states that not a single chip of stonework (excepting the sill and pivotblock of the great doorway) was found anywhere in the hall.11 The last element of the Great Palace included structures to the east of the entryway discussed above. There one found, in an elongated rectangular form, the North and the South Harems separated by a garden-court. To the north of the Harems was another garden separating them from servants' quarters. The South Harem was closed off and separated from storage magazines by the foun- dations of the causeway ramp leading to the Window of Appearances which bridged the Royal Road and connected the Great Palace with Akhenaten's private living quarters. 13 These "magazines" or storerooms are of particular interest to this paper because of what Petrie found there. This series of rooms was slightly removed from the halls in general and lay to the north-east of the Great Hall. Contained in its various compartments were blue paste fragments of a vase, emboldened with the cartouche of Akhenaten and Nefertiti, and many other fine pieces: and in the passage in the Hall were pieces of Aegean pottery and engraved glass (see pieces 27 and 36, page 141).12 One of Petrie's first objectives on beginning his excavations of Tell el-Amarna was to find the palace dumps. He dug test trenches everywhere in a vain attempt to locate the dumps in close proximity to palace confines. While digging a few furlongs from the palace, in the desert on the nearest open ground, he found a vast stretch of waste accumulations. Scattered throughout the mound was much debris (600 feet by 400 feet) which varied from 4 feet thick to a few surface sherds, with an average depth of about 1 foot (see page 139). The whole area was excavated by Petrie, who ordered his workmen to preserve everything except the coarse Egyptian ware which was as common as Roman clay roof tiles are on classical sites. The list of artifacts that Petrie recovered from this area, in addition to the all important "Aegean" sherds, was impressive. Broken rings and seals with cartouches of Thutmose III and Amenhotep III (doubtlessly 14 relics of a bygone day) were found, plus between eighty and ninety belonging to Akhenaten and his successor Smenkhkare (Ra-smenkh-ka). Those rings belonging to the Heretic's successor were all inscribed "beloved of Akhenaten," which would indicate, as Petrie maintains, that Smenkhkare still relied on the dead Pharaoh's name as a main support for his position, but it would also indicate, under close analysis, that not yet enough time had elapsed for his successor, whoever he or she may have been,13 to feel confident enough to issue edicts in his or her own name. The importance of these rings is that by their association with the Mycenaean sherds they are given terminus date. The dump appears to have been used not much longer than one short generation. There was no measurable stratigraphy, as the sherds were mixed from the tOp of the dump mound to the bottom. Furthermore, the total reign of Akhenaten and his successor was, at most, fifteen years.14 We also have a fair date for the arrival of Aegean ware at Akhetaten. The date of Amen- hotep IV's accession was most likely c. 1368 B.C.15 Due to the strong probability that the Heretic and his prede- cessor Amenhotep III were associated in a coregency, it was not until the sixth year of his reign, when at last the Heretic occupied the throne alone (0. 1362 B.C.), that he was able to set up the boundary stones at Tell el-Amarna. Therefore, we also have the earliest possible 15 date that the Mycenaean sherds (i.e., pots) could have arrived at the Aten City. But it was not until the year eight of his reign that Akhenaten, with his family, court and hangers-on, moved to Gem-Aten (Tell e1- Amarna).16 I would say that the earliest period for the arrival of the foreign pottery was c. 1362-1360 B.C. and would most likely be closer to 1360 B.C. It was then (c. 1362-1360 B.C.) that the royal occupation occurred and the dump would have been put to its first use. And the pottery would have been broken and consequently dis- carded in the area where Petrie found it. Petrie elaborates at length on the importance of the Aegean pottery from the royal dumps. He maintains that there is no evidence that this pottery was ever pro- duced or exactly imitated in Egypt. The sum total of the number of sherds equals 1329 (in the dumps), excavation of the palace yielded nine fragments, and three come from house 11 (see page 141). By Petrie's estimation, based on the distinction of individual decorative pat- terns, there exist 45 sherds which came from 28 vases so that the law of averages dictates that there should be at least 800 vases represented by the 1341 sherds found Iby Petrie and his crew.17 In his book, Tell el-Amarna, Petrie ranks the fiAegean" sherds according to shape (i.e., the number of sherds of each shape and what percentage of the whole 16 accumulation they represent (see chart, page 142). He uses the term "piriform" to describe the vase fragments resembling in shape those from Ialysos (Rhodes). The piriform as Petrie reconstructed it had a wide shoulder and tapered in a long slope to a narrow base. There seem to have been two types of piriform vases: (1) an open neck and (2) a false-neck. The clay walls of the false-neck were thickened to prevent free and copious flow. These false-necked vessels seem to have puzzled Petrie as he could not determine whether or not he should in reality class them as "piriform" or put them in the category of a flatter type of vessel found at "Mykenae." Petrie ultimately decided these false-necked fragments were piriform because he had not discovered any sherds clearly belonging to the flatter, elusive "Mykenae" type mentioned above. The second largest share of Aegean pottery sherds, Petrie classified as globular and coming from the island of Cyprus. Following his description of this globular type, Petrie made the statement that the remaining 8 per— cent of the whole lot is not distinctive of any other locality and that "there is no type specially Mykenaean."18 Herein lies my first serious contention with Petrie's conclusions. I maintain that the sherds (the majority of them) are, quite to the contrary, very specifically .Mycenaean. One of the major reasons that Petrie tended . E L .. S a. E t ._ .3 Au a: .{u C. «nu E Z. a. .2 .H .1 Z T. :u "P“ “V. Av n. A .V.. a: I d v nHu w he :. at to th ins 17 to shy away from calling the pottery fragments "Mykenaean" was that so little was really known in the last decade of the nineteenth century about the Mycenaeans and their pottery. There were no monumental compendia on the pottery of that culture, nor more than a vague and often- times wrong idea of its dating sequences. But, even Petrie himself was unsure of the pronouncement made against the possibility of the sherds being from Mycenae. He says that in view of the absence (or near absence) of Phoenician pottery, as well as that of Semitic origin, one must conclude that the ancient trade routes were not likely to have been carried out mainly overland, but instead were carried out by Mycenaeans who manufactured and exported the Aegean pottery.19 The uniqueness of this pottery on the Egyptian scene as a whole is underlined by Petrie himself. Referring to his excavation at Gurob, an Eighteenth Dynasty Egyptian town, he states that the pottery finds there do not correlate with those at Tell el-Amarna. Hydriae with animal figural decoration and small, low- form, flattish, false-neck containers are in abundance at Gurob, yet are largely absent from Amarna and, spe- cifically, the royal dumps. For Petrie, the difference in finds is accounted for by a difference in trade routes to the two centers. Gurob "Aegean" ware (which he main- tains correctly does belong to Greece--i.e., Mycenae) 18 came along the African coast to the Fayum. Petrie's reasons for so arbitrarily stating that this was the trade route are unknown. But, I do not believe that a difference in trade routes adequately accounts for the predominance of Mycenaean ware at Tell el-Amarna. Other forces were at work, forces of choice by design, the instigator of which was the pharaoh himself. Petrie's conclusions related in a chapter under "Historical Results" are, at worst, a mix—up, and his best ones are still acceptable today. Petrie assumed that Amenhotep IV and Akhenaten were not two separate 20 We know this to have been the case. individuals. As his religious revolution reached its fanatical stages, the name Amenhotep IV became somewhat awkward for the ruler (Amenhotep meaning "Amon rests"), as he had ordered even his own father's name erased from monuments because it too contained the hated name of the god of Thebes. Naturally, then, Amenhotep IV changed his name to Akhenaten (meaning "Spirit of Aten").21 Again we must return to Petrie's adamant stance that there was no Mycenaean pottery at Tell el-Amarna. In a recent seminar on this pottery, Vronwy Hankey, after years of research, has given the latest scholarly inter- pretation of their shapes, patterns, and motifs (based on.Arne Furumark's studies of Mycenaean pottery), date a . .3 ._ .3 r: .t I. a ~HM O .W m. 865 .8 CO. a bee t rade sea p: 19 and place of manufacture, locations at Amarna, and trade patterns that they demonstrate between Egypt and the Greek mainland.22 Mrs. Hankey records, to date, that there are seven whole (or restored) vessels, 1430 sherds, and an unspecified number of fragments listed as "sherds" in many private collections and museums. The date of production for the Tell el-Amarna-Mycenaean ware is tenuous at best. Hankey, in conjunction with Furumark, places the sherds' manufacture, for the most part, during the Mycenaean III A:2 period, with a very few of earlier date (III A:1), and a very small percentage from the III B period (and of Argolid manufacture). The study determines also that the main portion of sherds came from the palace dumps, as Petrie recorded.23 The trade route that brought the Mycenaean pottery to Egypt's borders is still much in dispute. Two possibilities exist, either of which might be feasible. The pottery might have been part of a direct sea trade with the Mycenaean culture or it could have come through the traditional route which used Cyprus as a stepping-stone to the Levant and consequently arrived overland in Egypt. I favor the former theory because of the probable disruption of the traditional trade route which accompanied the collapse of Minoan sea power, circa 1400 B.C. t. 20 Hankey has also done a tremendous amount of work in determining, mostly from sherds, the shapes, patterns, and motifs found in the Mycenaean ware of Tell el-Amarna. For her shape-type and motif classifications she relied on the solid work of Arne Furumark on the pottery of the Mycenaean culture. The shapes and motif decorations of the Mycenaean-Amarna ware are fairly typical of Mycenaean pottery in general. Hankey, in her study, has identified nine major pot shapes and has distinguished twenty different motifs.24 The nine major pot shapes (see pages 143-46) include: the three-handled jar (Furumark shapes 35, 45), the amphoroid krater (53), the alabastron (85, 94), the small jug (114, 118, 134), the stirrup-jar (166, 167, 171, 112' 178?, 183?), the globular vertical flask (189), the rhyton (199), the cup (308, 220, 221, 283), and the kylix (257). It must be reiterated that the shapes of the vessels in question are not significant except in that they do not represent any abnormal type for the corpus of Mycenaean work.25 One hopes that each specific typological class of pot-shape is self-explanatory to those acquainted with the field, but for those who are not, a brief description is necessary. It should be stated that this author, following authorities in the field of ancient pottery (specifically Furumark, Hankey, and Samson), does not believe that the shape of the Mycenaean ware found at V h". ~¥ ‘ O WEIE 21 Tell el-Amarna had any symbolic meaning for the ancient Egyptians, therefore, shape could not have been one of the reasons for the Egyptian preference for these Mycenaean products. Furumark maintains that conical- piriform shapes were, in all probability, of Minoan origin. Their shape design is too similar to Minoan shape to permit any other interpretation. This conical- piriform category includes pithoid, amphoroid, hole- mouthed, and false—necked jars, deep amphoroid kraters, and jugs coming from several classes. Generally speaking then, one can conclude that the shape of the Mycenaean pots from Amarna derived from those perfected and used during the period of the Minoan supremacy on the Eastern Mediterranean Sea. The three-handled jar (Furumark 35, 45) is an obviously descriptive title. The two opposing handles were for grasping when carrying the vessel, and the third handle was to control pouring. The amphoroid krater (53) describes a pot form derived from the pithoid jar (ulti- mately the pithos storage pots from Minoan Crete), given the shape and handle arrangement of an amphora (or a squat version thereof). The alabastron (85, 94) is best described as a jar with a low profile, a bulbous body, and relatively large neck opening. Two versions Of this vessel have been detected among the Mycenaean sherds. Pot shape 85, whose body resembles a slightly flattened :9 .2 .C v; 3“ PL . 1“ O O L. r . o 1“ a. a 3. Th at .1 +. ~ . S a X e TN» xi .1 .«u h... a ~:/ c a 2L 22 ball, and pot shape 94, whose body is more rectilinear thus resembling a sawed-off milk can, form these two versions. This relatively unusual pot is in fact a form related to a baggy type of Egyptian alabastron. The Egyptian alabastron was produced mainly during the Late Hyksos Period, toward the middle and end of the Sixteenth Dynasty. Early in the Late Aegean era, these squat Egyptian alabastra were a popular import to Crete and the northern Aegean area. Later, local imitation in the same material developed; the squat type won in popularity in the Mycenaean area. The success of this squat version is probably due to the presence of a native vessel of similar design. Hence, the return of this shape to Egypt as import pottery during the 18th Dynasty is yet another example of cross-cultural influence.26 Small jugs (114, 118, 134) need no explanation, for "jug" is a familiar and adequate term of description. The stirrup jars (166, 167, 171, $12! 178?, 183?), or depressed globular forms as Furumark calls them, resemble a stirrup as the neck handles form that shape. The globular vertical flask (189) resembles a small round-bodied pitcher (without pour spout) with a single handle. The conical rhyton is a curiously shaped vessel, funnel-like in appearance. This shape is definitely of Minoan origin (none of the known specimens being older than Middle Minoan III). Originally, it was most likely a libation vessel and later became a drinking vessel As an unct. (.4 D ((1 (n (I) (f {u ’3 ‘1: 'r3 (I) O I. } J 15 the MYCen tWen 23 vessel when imitated in clay by the Mycenaean potters. As an import into Egypt it could have had no other function than drinking vessel as it is never mentioned in any religious text or shown in any religious offer- ing art of the Heresy Period. Cups were generally of standard shape (228, 220, 221, 283) and classed by Furu— mark as deep, medium, shallow, or simple. Most "cups" appear like small bowls with one, or, in some cases two (283), handles. Specimens like 298 often had the peculiar, nearly vertical, single handle attachment (for ease in dipping liquids from a larger vessel?). The kylix (257) is a large, stemmed, two-handled drinking vessel. More important to this investigation than shape is the study of the decorative motifs found on the Amarna— Mycenaean ware. According to Hankey, there are some twenty identifiable motifs. The Papyrus motif (Furumark's type 11)27 most certainly derived from Minoan prototypes using this par— ticular decoration. The Papyrus underwent many changes from its Minoan origin. This decoration appeared in various forms from an intricate fan to simple triangular shapes. Once again this motif, one which was readily identifiable with the culture of ancient Egypt, makes one more reason why the Nile Dwellers were drawn to the Mycenaean imports. To be sure, the papyrus plant assigned sequent deri‘yed related Plants W PalaCe Na Page 151 24 examples on the Mycenaean pots were far more abstract than they appear in Egyptian art, yet they resemble in their sketchiness hierarchic symbols (see motif 11, page 147). Yet another design Hankey pinpoints as coming from the Amarna site is referred to by Furumark as "Sacral Ivy" (Cordiform Leaf). This decoration, too, develops out of Minoan art, particularly from abstract Kamares designs (see motif 12, page 149). The Palm motif is one of the oldest decorations known not only for pottery, but also in most of the minor decorative arts. Furumark maintains that none can be assigned to the Mycenaean III A:1 period, but that sub- sequent forms (number 6 of early Mycenaean III A:2) derived from this time (see motif 14, page 149). The Mycenaean Flower designs are closely inter- related and can be discussed as one group. The lily, or plants with lily-like attachments, seem to have been favored by the Mycenaean potters. The genesis of the Mycenaean III A:1 lily under the influence of Late Minoan (LM) III A:1 - LM III:2 hybrid floral types with the Palace Style papyrus as the basic element (see motif 18, page 151). The Multiple Stem and Tongue pattern betrays a certain interaction with the Mycenaean III flower motif. This motif, too, was more often used as a detached element 25 of a purely ornamental character and used frequently as an accessory to other designs (see motif 19, page 151). The Bivalue Shell and other similar decorations are placed in one category by Furumark. The various types originated in many different manners but developed together and were used unexclusively. The chain-type bivalue shell seems to have been in use throughout the entire Mycenaean III Period and was very frequent in the III B and III C:1 phases. Other composed hybrids using the bivalue shell are almost totally absent after III A:2. In the III B era the shell chain occasionally became an integral part of the corresponding version of the lozenge (see motif 25, page 153). Rock Pattern I, as Furumark calls it, resembles a solid "wave" design. The outline of this "wave" is always irregular to a degree. However, occasionally quite symmetrical forms do occur, sometimes assimilated to the tricurved arch. The more simple wave remains the standard decoration of squat alabastron jars (shape 85) in the IIIA:2 and III B periods (see motif 32, page 153). The Isolated Semicircles are described by Furu- mark as mostly concentric, and often, as is the case with many of the designs previously discussed, used as subsidiary, peripheral decoration (see motif 43, page 155). The Running Spiral can be subdivided into six main divisions: (a) a derivative from LM I A style, A¢.o‘ 26 (b) types from LM I B and LM II styles, (c) later deriva- tives of LM I B type, (d) late band spiral, (e) simple line spiral, and (f) spirals forming a double row. In the III A:2 period a slightly curtailed form of spiral developed in which the coils were eliminated (numbers 22- 24, 26). At certain times there seemed to be a tendency for the running spiral to degenerate into a single "s" or into small coils (II B and III C:1). In regard to the running spiral, one thing remains fairly constant: this motif is almost always incorporated as the main decoration of any given example (see motif 46, page 155). The Quirk Design (or Running Quirk) is a common motif and seen throughout Mycenaean times. The "linked line" variety looks like a series of small waves on a body of water. The "band" type appears like braids and the various disintegrations like rows of "S" (see motif 48, page 157). The Curved Stem Spiral derives from an early floral type motif with an S-curved stem. The type with which it has close affiliation is the III A:1 variety of lily (see motif 49, page 157). The Wavy Line, as a rule, occurred on many zoned vases in a complimentary way with other motifs. It was used in an accessory fashion by placement under rims and necks, but on most of the examples from the III A:2 period, when this motif appears, it forms the sole decoration (see motif 53, page 159). variety Number 1 pct surf 27 The Diaper Net, as Furumark calls it, is a variety of a surface pattern composed of crosses. Number 1 is a rapport design, evidenced over the entire pot surface. The Number 2 design, which is simpler, is found in all Mycenaean III periods and is used as an ordinary filler most frequently (see motif 57, page 161). Parallel Chevron, in some cases resembling mili- tary rank insignia, had two main varieties (structural and compositional): (a) the detached chevron group and (b) the chevron zone surrounded by parallel lines. The detached chevron group was used quite widely and indis- criminately in the late III A:2 decorations (see motif 58, page 161). The V-Pattern is a simplified derivation taken from LM III A:1 and continued in use into the early III A:2 period. In all but a few cases this motif served as the sole decorative element, placed in narrow horizontal bands on various smaller vases as well as the handle areas of false-necked jars and in the side panels of flasks. When it appeared as a secondary design, it was found in the central zone of false-necked jars (see motif 59, page 161). The N-Pattern, much like the V-Pattern, is a relatively old decoration. The N-Pattern, however, is obscure in its origin. It played a very unassuming role in Minoan pot painting, and in fact could be classed as became : III s 335 types: Callefi 1 dOU‘CIe). metallic and in a Such be: from the 28 rare in Cretan art, but in Mycenaean works it became a more common element (frequent even in the III B period). The design has a fairly regular composition, the N's usually being reversed and slightly inclined to the left (see motif 60, page 163). The Zig Zag Pattern is unusual in that there are few, if any, Minoan parallels. It can, therefore, be considered as a native tradition in design wholly con- temptuous of Minoan influence. The Zig Zag Pattern became one of the most characteristic designs of the III B period (see motif 61, page 163). The Foliate Band is divided by Furumark into two types: an early one of Middle Minoan origin and a later, called the metallic type (subdivided into simple and double). Both types survive into Mycenaean times. The metallic type degenerates into a series of parallel bars, and in a number of late III A:2 and early III B examples such bars form triglyphs (see motif 64, page 163: The Chevron motif, number 58, is difficult to differentiate from the Foliate Band; see page 161). The Scale Pattern developed out of Minoan prece- dents. In some II B examples the fish scale pattern is interrupted by vertical lines; sometimes these "inter- ruptions" form something akin to a facial expression, at other times it is simply a means of highlighting handles. The variants are very much Mycenaean in nature (see motif 70, page 165). seer 8 RT: 29 The Lozenge Pattern basically resembles a diamond. Furumark distinguishes 49 different types of lozenge— diamond decorations. The Lozenge, like so many other motifs, was used as an accessory to main pictorial sub- jects. And again like other motifs, the lozenge was used as a singular, main decoration on smaller vases. It is quite curious that this ornamentation makes such a sudden appearance in the III B period. Furumark attributes its appearance and heavy use to factors of a stylistic nature. The moving force behind this "lozenge" motif's usage seems to have been a conscious preference for the more symmetrical construction offered by the diamond shape. The fact that the lozenge has in many cases taken the place of chevron-shaped elements seems to underwrite this theory. In fact, the lozenge pattern may easily have been born through a symmetrization of parallel chevron or floral designs (see motif 73, page 165).28 So concludes the list of Mycenaean motifs and pot shapes from Tell el-Amarna which Hankey deems impor- tant. Furumark mentions one motif which Hankey failed to point out. The U-Pattern, while quite common, does not often form the main decoration of the pots on which it appears. The uncomplicated U-design is seen most often in three varieties: (1) placed in collateral row, uniform or altering; (2) forming a surface pattern (usually partial); and (3) isolated as an accessory. Host 01 t variety a variety C 2.;‘k _P\_v~ (“‘b‘.‘ SVA. fOUnd it“. ACCOrdigg has GVQr in the Le 30 Most of the known designs belong to the first mentioned variety and probably represent a disruption of an old variety of wavy line (see motif 53, page 159). The "U" also made an easy (difficult to botch) and quick filler, hence it occurs repeatedly in that function (see motif 45, page 165).29 Other sources, too, mention the "Aegean" (Myce- naean) pottery from Tell el-Amarna. J. D. S. Pendlebury and Henri Frankfort, in their book on the city of Akhena- ten, mention the finding of Mycenaean pottery in an exca- vation. Most of non-native pottery consisted of Mycenaean III A:1 (Late Helladic III a) and was definitely Mainland (with some Island) work. Some examples recall pottery found in the Argolid, Cyprus and Rhodes, the very typical Rhodian pilgrim flask being found in great quantities. According to Pendlebury, only one Minoan (Cretan) sherd has ever been found at Amarna. He places the fragment in the Late Minoan II period and attributes its presence to having been left over from a previous period. Pendle— bury makes an amusing statement about the dating of Mycenaean-Amarna pottery sherds: It must here be stated that there is no doubt what- soever that the Aegean pottery at Amarna is con- temporary with the city. Those who argue otherwise must postulate a wandering maniac with a sackful of carefully sorted sherds (all belonging to the same period) who went around the site after the desertion of the city carefully inserting them into floor deposits. 0 i1 7‘ V 0 revealed n c uh, .rom tncSt Amarna. t not been e I '1 31 Pendlebury and Frankfort's excavation at Amarna revealed no new or different types of Mycenaean pottery from those found by Petrie and other excavators of Amarna. Nor were there any motifs discovered which had not been evidenced before. Still, there is an absence of human and animal motifs which were quite common in the Mycenaean repertory of pot decoration. One might wonder if this were a matter of chance (the chance that of the several hundred Mycenaean vessels represented by the Amarna sherds not a single one shows us human or animal life) or more probably a matter of choice and individual taste. There were other expeditions to Amarna besides Petrie's: Pendlebury and Frankfort's, the Deutsche Orient-Gesellschaft's (which failed to file a formal excavation report),31 and M. Barsanti's dig (1896, no published report), and the Peet and Woolley excavation of 1921-1922. The Peet and Woolley dig concentrated on exposing the Maru-Aten and the river temple site with additional work in the Eastern Village and the main town site (work had already been started by Petrie and con— tinued by the Germans from 1907-1914). Although this expedition failed to turn up a quantity of Mycenaean sherds such as Petrie discovered, still they found a few (eighteen sherds total). One of the most significant finds was two vases from the Eastern Village (see \f 4.1 3. av; .- s 0‘ both :5 CL C t r a 32 page 141). The base clay of the vases is pinkish buff biscuit color covered by a greenish slip. The decoration of both vessels is in brown, but the lily motif which appears on the vessel to the right may very well be a derivation of Mycenaean prototypes.32 So, here perhaps one finds the direct influence of foreign designs on Egyptian art, the source of which in this case was the art of mainland Greece. CHAPTER I --NOTES 1Petrie's sites include Hawara, Kahun, Gurob, the Fayum, Tanis, Gizeh, Naukratis, Thebes, Coptos, Medum, Abydos, Qurna, Hierakonpolis, Memphis, Sedment, Lahun, Denderah, Tell el-Amarna, Naquada, Diospolis Parva (Hu), Riqqueh, Ballas, and Illahun to mention a few of the more important ones. 2Sir W. M. F. Petrie, Tell el-Amarna (London: Menthuen and Co., 1894), pp. 1-2. 3James Henry Breasted, A History of Egypt from the Earliest Times to the Persian Conquest (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1951): p. 365. 4Ibid., pp. 365—66. 5For further information see the work by E. A. Wallis Budge, The Egyptian Book of the Dead: The Papyrus of Ani (reprint ed.; New York: Dover Publications, Inc., 1967). 6Breasted, p. 370. 7 . Petrie, p. 7. 8Arne Furumark, Mycenaean Potterin: Analysis and Classification (Stockholm: Shrifter Utgina dv Svenska Institutet I Athen, 1972). 9Julia Samson, Amarna: City of Akhenaten and lNefertiti-Key Pieces from the Petrie Collection (London: ‘Department of Egyptology, University College, 1972), pp. 10-11. 10Petrie, p. 7. 33 T ". A4 ‘O L: 7 ‘4 . .- . v +- ‘ 1t" C- .~. ___L_—— H ‘Y; the reel 1 [cu -l ‘V‘Wfi v‘ Ab |"‘ddl.n..&.l: _ t l ‘l ‘ 1":v-n “I “‘“‘-o¢a r: . ltchej‘ ' . ‘ _ 171 Relatl \ Press, IE 1 1‘. LV 4 34 11Samson, p. 11. 12Petrie, p. 7. 13For more information see Julia Samson, Amarna-- City of Akhenaten and Nefertiti--Part I Key Pieces from the Petrie Collection, with Part II--Nefertiti as Pharaoh (Warminster, Wiltshire, England: Aris and Phillips, Ltd., 1978). l4Petrie, pp. 15-16. 15The establishing of absolute dates for the Amarna Period is not possible at this time. See K. A. Kitchen, Suppiluliuma and the Amarna Pharaohs-~A Study in Relative Chronology (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 1962). l6Samson, p. 4. l7Petrie, p. 16. 18Ibid., p. 17. lgIbid. ZOIbid., p. 39. 21Breasted, pp. 363-64. 22Vronwy Hankey, in a personal letter to me giving summary of talk delivered in a seminar at Columbia Uni- versity on 8 December 1977. 23See Hankey's sketch map-illustration, p. . 24Vronwy Hankey, personal letter to me containing summary of talk given in a seminar at Columbia University in New York on 8 December 1977. 25Underlined shape numbers (especially 45, 173, 89, and 208) indicate whole or restored pots. is I a u. S E T. t .l O t P I a» e C. C. n\. ~u F“ C t e T t E D r w. .1 C t C r . 2. .fl. 0 e q/. e C S afiau .3 “(We 35 26Furumark, pp. 39-42. 27All the following "motifs" and their descrip- tions are taken from Arne Furumark's book, Mycenaean Pottery I: Analysis and Classifications (see note 28). 28Furumark, pp. 268-412. 291bid., p. 351. 30Henri Frankfort and J. D. S. Pendlebury, The City of Akhenaten, Part II (London: Egypt Exploration Society, 1933), p. 110. 31See preliminary reports in the Mittheilungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft, 34, 46, 50, 55, and 57. The latter was partially reprinted in the Smithsonian Report for 1915, pp. 445-57. 32T. Eric Peet and C. Leonard Woolley, The City of Akhenaten: Part I--Excavations of 1921 and 1922 at El- 'Amarneh (London: Egypt Exploration Society, 1923), p. 141. CHAPTER II THE AMARNA STYLE Egyptian art has suffered greatly not only from the ravages of time and man, but also from a lack of understanding and even acceptance. All too often a clinical archaeological viewpoint is adopted, one which grasps the surface details but fails to appreciate fully the passion and the will behind works of art. In order to appreciate and understand the revolutionary character of the art of Amarna, one must study the art of the pre- ceding dynasties. In general, then, one must concede that the art of preceding dynasties, and particularly the early 18th Dynasty, formed a solid basis on which the art of the Heresy Period was constructed. Only by looking at the most ancient of the Egyptian dynastic art can one gauge the extent of the break with tradition that formed in the 18th Dynasty and culminated under the rule of Akhenaten. In this chapter I will not deal with the pre- historic art of Egypt, nor with the art of the Second Intermediary Period, as these will be considered in the 36 Artisans i to emphas. set their 37 last chapter. But I will deal with the art of the Old and Middle Kingdom, which most likely arose from a foun- dation of prehistoric art and gives us many examples of an extraordinary development of the artistic sense. Artisans building on this model or foundation learned to emphasize the principal lines of their models, to set their contours, to simplify and enliven their move- ments and postures. Artists favored slow, majestic, tranquil gestures; war scenes which demanded violent action were not abrupt and hard, thereby minimizing the impact of cruelty. The length of time (predynastic and early dynastic) and the philosophic ideals adopted by the Egyptian artist led to the replacement of the direct observation of nature with a formulaic system. Equally important to the adoption of this system was the attitude of the artist. The Egyptian "ideal" of beauty was that found in nature. But all things of beauty were created on a basis of ultimate utility, whether it was a carved handle of a wooden cosmetic spoon (see Carved Wood Cos- metic Spoon, page 167) or the highly decorative tomb wall relief. So, by nature, the Egyptian artist was not inclined to produce the beautiful object solely for its beauty. In consequence, the practical usually dominated sculpture in the Old Kingdom. At first it is difficult to see what could possibly be "practical" about creating a useless statue which was intended to be sealed forever J... at least Of the st 05 art t}: it gave 1' a Stock minimUn1 which St the reSe and eyes SCulptor in the v 38 in the serdab chamber of a mastaba tomb. With this example, one is able to discern that the Egyptians, in deciding that the afterlife was so much a reflection of this world, created their art to play an active role in that other world. Hence, the funerary statue served, to the Egyptian way of thinking, as an alternate place of habitation for the soul in the event the mummy of the deceased suffered destruction. The soul's ability to recognize the statue as a likeness of the deceased, at least in some degree, was paramount to the success of the statue as a practical work. But, for the history of art this practical sculpture is a great development as it gave rise to portrait sculpture. There were two main ways of sculpting portrait statues in the Old Kingdom. One type was the faithful depiction of an individual with the features showing a degree of intimacy and personality. The other type was a stock variety, very formal and conventional with a minimum of resemblance to the individual. But no matter which style was used, every effort was made to increase the resemblance to a living being. Natural flesh tones and eyes comprised of inlaid rock-crystal added greatly to this illusion of life.1 Even though the Old Kingdom sculptors attempted to make their statues human looking, in the greater share of them there was little real attention paid to the unique bodily characteristics of 39 the individual. Occasionally a double chin or "middle age spread" is shown on a work, but for the most part the sculptures tend to be of a common mold, with the head and face as a limited indicator of personality (see Prince Hem-On, Old Kingdom, page 167). Yet there are no examples of Old Kingdom sculpture in which the gender of the person portrayed can be questioned. The gender of Old Kingdom sculptural studies may be easy to establish, certainly the aspects of the Egyptian method of sculpting are more difficult to explain. Egyptian sculptures were done in wood, metal, and stone. Perhaps the most frequently used for royal portraiture destined for public places was stone. The beginning phase of work was the acquisition of the raw stone. The stone quarries found ready—users in the Egyptians of the First Dynasty. Undoubtedly, these quarries were used in predynastic times in addition to rock in advantageous boulder form. Rocks of moderate hardness included serpertine, sandstone, limestone, calcite or Egyptian alabaster, and steatite. The ancient Egyptians, contrary to popular theories, did not possess powerful liquids or strange devices capable of cutting these stones. The tools they possessed were stone and copper, and with these tools they mastered the fine techniques of sculpting. Mauls, picks, Chisels, and saws were of copper. The same tools of c0pper and stone 4o served to sculpt more resistant rock that was favored by these ancient artisans, including basalt, granite, quartzite, obsidian, gneiss, dolerite, pophyritic rock, diorite, and several types of marble. Bronze, not native to Egypt, appeared in the Nile region during the XII Dynasty and iron did not come into general use until the XXVth Dynasty.2 Metal portrait sculpture of a large-scale variety is rare in Egyptian art perhaps because of accidents of preservation. After having been laboriously removed from its natural surroundings and often roughed out in a partial human form, the block of stone was floated up or down the Nile, usually to a location somewhat near the final resting place of the work. Once in a sculptor's studio (see Sculptor's Workshop from the Tomb of T'y, page 173), the stone block underwent a number of workings: this number depended on two factors: the importance of the person for whom it was being executed, and the difficulty of execution presented by the hardness of the rock. One of the IVth Dynasty pyramid builders, Mycerinus (Men- Kau-Re), left posterity with many fine examples of Old Kingdom statuary (see Mycerinus, Old Kingdom, page 169). Some works done for him remained unfinished, thereby providing scholars with examples of the various stages that an Egyptian stone sculpture passed through from the block state to its polished form. There were eight basic stages in sculpting a statue: 't r? :r‘ :7‘ O (D D 'U U) .1 t. .' v- C H- H U) ’1 U U) 0 (r yr: (1) :3 (T) t-‘ (1’ t r 1 I 'J‘ O F? (D rrrtSH-St Eu 3‘ D 4 I-) O Hid“ H n; im rtr'rIHm 05,719)"; gmm O a H P-rfm (I) O H r:< ”’3’ 41 The first four show the gradual reduction of the block, probably undertaken by journeymen and appren- tices according to markings applied in red paint, presumably by the master craftsmen. The fifth to seventh stages were probably undertaken by the master, as no guide-lines are apparent. The fifth stage comprises the pounding or cutting of the individual planes of the status; the sixth stage-- the modelling of the forms of limbs and features. In the sixth and seventh stages the small details of the features were applied by delicate drilling, cutting and grinding, while the seventh stage included the final polishing process. Though the essential form and effect of the statue depended upon the skill with which the original guide-lines were laid out and the grain of the stone utilized its perfection is largely a measure of the time, work and skill expended on these final stages. In the eighth stage, the inscriptions were laid out by the draftsman (ss kd) and cut by the sculptor in relief (gnwty). No doubt the in-laying of eyes, the filling of hieroglyphs or headdresses with faience or pigment where so desired the attachment of metal uraei or other details was done after all cutting and polishing was finished. Finally the statue was painted. With most stones, this doubt- less required the laying on of a thin coat of plaster to act as ground. Limestone and sandstone were normally painted all over, but it is probable that with some hard stone statues only details were picked out in paint. Clearly, so elaborate a series of stages applied only to the finest statues, but the basic processes of blocking out modelling, detailing, polishing, cutting inscriptions, and painting must have applied even to crude provincial works. 1. Pounding with stone mauls of various shapes, sometimes mounted on wooden handles. 2. Grinding and rubbing with stone tools of varied size and shape held in hand almost certainly used in most cases with an abrasive powder or paste of quartz sand. The process was the same with dif— ferent refinements in the weight, shape and sharpness of the tool and fineness of the powder, both in the modelling and polishing stages. 3. Sawing by means of a hardened copper blade, sometimes serrated, fixed in one or two wooden handles, and employed with an abrasive paste. 4. Boring by means of a hollow copper tube turned by rolling between the hands or with a crank, or for deep work such as eye-sockets or ear-holes with a bow. Such tubular drills had to be used with a w. (a. 42 grinding powder or paste; they required weighting and no doubt the application of heat to reduce frictional heat. 5. Drilling with a copper stone point with an abrasive. This could be done by hand, or by means of a kind of centerbit, the weighted borer, to which a bow might also be applied for speed work. 6. Cutting and rubbing with a weighted point or chisel of stone or copper with a grinding paste. Other materials, as stated before, were used in making sculptures, relief-works, and paintings; but the artisans of ancient Egypt excelled in the use of stone. Wood was most likely used earlier than stone. Egypt had no ready supply of it and had to depend on imports for most of its large scale works in this material. Stone was nearly equal in price to wood imports, despite its being much more demanding of the sculptor's time and energy. Acacia, sidder, sycamore, fig, tamarisk, and willow were all woods which were locally available to the Egyptians, but the size of the chunks usually made them unsuitable for full—length sculptures (see Sheik el-Beled, page 167). As a result, most wood statues of this early period had the arms made separately, then joined to the trunk by mortise and tenon joints or by dowelling. Occasionally the advanced left foot was similarly joined to the body of a statue, as was the head. The finished wood sculpture could still present problems even if it were made of imported hardwood such as ebony or African paduk. Because of stress caused by drying out rapidly, the wood tended to warp and split. 43 If the work survived this hazard, it was often subjected to the devouring destruction of the ever-present white ant. The relative scarcity of full-size wood statuary happened not because of pOpular dislike, but because of its less durable nature.4 Regardless of the medium of a sculpted work, certain formal qualities prevailed in almost all sculptures. This "formulaic system" mentioned briefly before consisted of many elements. This system, as its rules generally applied to royal sculpture, is of the greatest importance to this paper. Whatever does not directly pertain to the sculpture of royal houses is of less consequence. Sculpture in the Old Kingdom was mainly concerned with fulfilling two needs: (1) providing portrait statues of the dead (and other sculptural needs such as shawabti figures) and (2) providing statues of gods, deified animals, and kings for the embellishment of temples, palaces, and public places. There were certain restric- tions placed on both classes in the amount of latitude that the artist was allowed. The statues had to be of a serious nature, and in formal positions, which were carefully spelled out to the Egyptian sculptor, thus allowing little artistic license, particularly when the subject was a king. Therefore, in most Old Kingdom sculpture, there were two predominant formal positions. One position placed the figure seated squarely and 44 stiffly on a stone block, its eye staring directly for- ward, hands clasping knees, the right hand closed in a fist (perhaps as a sign of strength or will, or to hold the seal of office?); and in the other position, the figure stands stiffly erect with his left foot advanced in a calm ceremonious step forward.5 The arms of such a standing figure usually either hang down to the sides with hands clenched into fists or are bent at the elbow holding a scepter of various lengths. The Egyptian artist, probably out of concern for the time, energy, and expense put into a finished statue, did not quite dare to have it free-standing, except in the case of the more lightweight and manageable wood or metal which, though unsupported, maintained the standard positioning and stance. Seated statues often would lean against a back slab with the buttocks and calves of their legs pressing firmly into stone seats. Standing figures often had a stone prOp which ran the length of the spine and up the back of the head, and the left striding leg was connected to a pillar by a triangular stone piece resemb- ling a clinging spider-web, except that it was much more solid in reality.6 Artistic tenets applied not only to the general form of sculpture, but to the detail as well. Each section of the body was subject to this "typology." Rarely is there an indication of a joint in the fingers, ment , a S necessary A O’N’er eY‘7e- 45 which appear stick-like and relatively flat. The calves of the legs are mere smooth, rounded bulges with no indication of underlying muscles. The collar bone is almost always shown and is somewhat incorrect in place— ment, as though it were more a pectoral collar than a necessary integral part of the human skeleton. But by the time of the Vth Dynasty some of the artistic con- ventions were beginning to loosen up, not in royal por- trayals, but in portraits of lesser individuals. The Seated Scribe (see page 173) shows a new cross-legged seated position. More attention was paid to the indi- vidual characteristics of the scribe in this sculpted work.7 Perhaps Maspero was correct in describing Thinite art when he said that the "care for solidity prevailed over every other consideration both with sculptor and architect, this giving their works unity."8 Leaving the realm of three-dimensional sculpture one turns to other artistic precedents set in the time span of the Old Kingdom. Relief sculpture became a greatly desired style for tomb and temple decoration during the early dynasties. It had several advantages over in-the-round or almost in-the-round sculpture. It was considerably flatter and less susceptible to acci- dental damage. And it was cheaper to produce as it could be done much more rapidly and easily. It was also used to decorate large areas of blank wall. 0"" A the inher objects h A convent (probably As cne-pc Painting5 different CIEux. th_ It but it h tible to 46 The Egyptians met a basic problem presented by the inherent nature of relief work. How does one put objects having roundness and thickness on a flat surface? A conventional style evolved before the Third Dynasty (probably in predynastic times) to answer this question. As one-point perspective was unknown to the ancient Egyptians, they developed the idea of showing two dif- ferent points of view combined in the same figure. The eyes and shoulders were frontal and the body was in pro- file. All such reliefs kept in low profile were painted, making them appear as though they were very rich impasto paintings.9 In fact, the Egyptian artist saw very little difference between painting, has-relief, and relief en creux. Painting had several advantages over the other two. It was cheaper, easier to execute, and quicker too; but it had a strong disadvantage in that it was suscep- tible to damage by water or contact of almost any kind. Bas-relief, with its background recessed, was an extremely expensive type of work to commission. Relief en creux, with the figures recessed into the background, was the second most expensive type of sculptural relief carving. It was especially durable, as its recessed position helped to avoid accidental damage. But the real determining factor on which type of decoration to use was cost. Consider, for instance, the tombs near Thebes, those of nobles, and even the monarchs: the GORE q c r r r a y l w. w hf E R . .¢ 3 s .1 “A \HU ‘1“ .l ”I My 3 1 VI (A ~ . .. . . .9 e e D. C . r r S O C . C t A... in Sc; Po fe is fr an Vi th 47 entryway and areas immediately around it were frequently done in has—relief; the first room encountered was often done in relief en creux, and the remainder of the tomb was usually painted. There was another factor besides cost which tied these three methods of decoration together. The method of execution, or at least the preparation for execution, is the same in painting and relief, it consists mainly of outline drawing (see Prince Mer-Eb, page 169).10 The art of drawing in Egypt was governed as much by rules as three-dimensional sculpture. The rules which guided drawing dictated that the human figure be portrayed in a posture which appears strange, but it must be remem- bered that the Egyptian concept of the reality of the human figure differed considerably from modern concepts. Profile, being the logical point of view to the Egyptian artist, demanded that a view contrary to nature be given in portraying people. Profile fit well into the artist's scheme which required an effort to show clearly every possible part of the body. The head, arms, legs, and feet are shown generally in definite profile. The eye is shown en face, the shoulders are positioned in a frontal View, the wrist is in profile, while the chest and lower regions alternate between frontal and profile views. The chest attempts to combine a profile view on the nearer side while the farther side is frontal. The Err 48 lower regions are in three-quarter View. The feet are always drawn in profile and most often spread in walking posture when the scene involves a standing male figure. Erman believes that the decision to show the feet in profile was to avoid the problem of drawing the toes, but this may be only a partial explanation, and a rather weak one, as it does not give enough credit to the ability of the Egyptian artisan. Two general rules governed the portrayal of human figures: when one arm or foot was in advance of the other, it must always be the one farther from the observer. The reasoning behind this rule might have been that if the arm closest to the observer was in advance, it would cross the body and obscure it, thus lessening the clarity. The other "law" stated that all figures facing right must maintain that outlook; thus, the onlooker saw the right side of the body. Facing right became the favored position for artists' figural depictions. Statuary of the Old Kingdom, for instance, shows that the pleated section of the formal male skirt was always on the right side, and in drawings where a male figure, oriented to the right, is depicted wearing such a skirt, the pleat would appear. Animal depictions also generally come under these rules for drawing. Naturally enough, the Egyptian artist of the Old Empire did not think of this style as the only possible mode of a are exam; manner. 2 people wh: F.‘ , eg and c: bu ( f U' 4- DO. ‘ \ mares tnes 49 mode of drawing. Even during the Fourth Dynasty there are examples of figures treated in a perfectly natural manner. Erman makes the amusing comment that we "see peOple who turn their backs to us, or advance the wrong leg and commit similar crimes allowed indeed by nature, 11 . The sureness of execution but not by Egyptian art." makes these drawings more than just experimental candi- dates. Instead, a better explanation is that there existed another school of art besides the traditional one. This "other" school seemed to have a slightly freer style built upon the rules of the old formal style. But for public art and for the art of nobles and pharaohs, the old style prevailed as the only acceptable means of depicting the dead. Drawing, as a basis for relief sculpture and painting, is one of the Old Kingdom's greatest claims to artistic renown. The clearness of drawing in the first dynasties is rarely matched in later Egyptian epochs. This clarity was attained by the artist's putting his figures closely together in the horizontal lines of each register. The dominant figures in bas-relief were humans, and the next most important were animals, landscapes, and, finally, immovable, unliving objects which were only cursorily indicated. In relief carving the back- ground tends to be stark and never exceeds what is .absolutely necessary to the integrity of the scene. The Gree lushness the earl; possibly rather 1 Plane tC Cathred figures that the Symbolic The COlc DECesSaI ber’ ‘ from red Pigmehts unrefrac 50 The Greeks seemed to appreciate this idea and consequently adopted it. The Egyptian relief work never reached the lushness of nature detail found in their painting.13 Petrie states that painting was most certainly the earliest art of Egypt. From the tomb of Princess Atet at Medum comes one of the finest examples of nature captured in paint (see the Geese of Medum, page 173). On a plastered panel section of the tomb wall (forming a subregister was a great mural which originally depicted birds being trapped in the marshes with nets) are the famed Geese of Medum. The painter was a close observer of nature and delighted in being as true to nature as he possibly could. It is true that the range of colors was rather limited, but the subtlety of shading from one plane to another produced a spark of life that is seldom captured in ancient painting. In the portrayal of human figures in painting and relief work, it must be reiterated that the Egyptian artist of the Old Kingdom was attempting symbolic representation primarily and a likeness second. The color scheme in painting these human figures was not necessarily life-like. Backgrounds tended to be grey, blue, or white, while the figures ranged in color shades from red to yellow to black to green, blue, or white. Pigments for this work were acquired from mineral sources; unrefracted colors alone occur. Throughout the Old Kingdom the Egyptian concept of the human figure, shown L-J 51 in painting and sculpting, remain fairly simple, unclut- tered, somewhat naive and linear: a symbol, to the very end, of the essence of human nature.14 If painting and relief sculpture, as well as sculpture in-the-round, are connected by the common modes of drawing outline, they are even more closely related by a common canon and proportion. This canon was an interpretation of the natural bodily proportions given in Egyptian measures of length and the fitting of that interpretation to grids. In spite of all time and sub- ject differences, the many theories of proportion adopted by the artists of Egypt, the Levant, the Classical Empires, Byzantium, and Medieval Europe are in reality a mainstream of tradition in art history. And in order to understand different systems of proportions one must make a structural analysis of the art in question. The Egyptian canon was technical and rather unspeculative in nature. Its main purpose was to make artistic, in particular sculptural, works showing human figures come into alignment with the proportions inherent in the human body. This relation of body parts includes that of the thumb to the fingers, fingers to palm to fore-arm, and fore-arm to height and breadth of the body, given in uncomplicated numerical terms, positioned geo- metrically in grids based on the fist. As the canon was essentially symmetrical in itself, i.e., based on the an: tO the pos us. re] in: the she Whi Hie met. SCH. the 52 mutual relations of all parts of the body, it had no proper module (or measure), but in order to place it in grids, each body part had to be identified with the side length of the modular square (see Egyptian Grid for Drawing Human Figures, page 173).15 The greatest advantage of this Egyptian canonical rule scheme was that any sculptor who had learned the correct positioning of the various parts in the grids was capable of producing an acceptable facsimile of a person in stone. This is especially practical when one thinks of the vast numbers of such works that were created in ancient Egypt. The Egyptians also understood and used foreshortening and shifts of proportion contrary to what Panofsky maintains in his book.16 In determining the prOportions of bodily parts in a less than static position, such as a flexed finger, these parts were usually foreshortened by fixed fractions in their relation to the grids. The Egyptian type of foreshorten- ing was not that which was employed by the Greeks. In the Classical Age, the Greeks developed perspective fore- shortening based on general laws of optics and perspective, while Egyptian foreshortening almost always retained tech- nical conventions. Iversen, therefore, terms them geo- metrical foreshortenings. The Egyptians could create sculptures of any size merely by changing the length of the grid square that they were using. 53 It is most difficult to discuss Egyptian "laws" comprising canon. To date there is no textual material discovered which gives an account of this subject, if indeed, such an account even existed; for the Egyptians, for most of Egyptian history, thought of the artist, no matter how talented, as a mere craftsman and not worthy of recognition. The canon was subject to social pressure, too. In portraying the principal figure in a scene, or tomb, as larger than life and greater in stature than his subordinates, the artist reflected a social view. These changes in subject size formed a well-established law in Old Kingdom art. The more important the stature of an individual, the greater his relative size--Gods to Goddesses, Gods to Kings, Kings to subjects, men to women, owners to slaves, adults to children. The relationships of these people and their social positions would have been instantly recognizable to the ancient Egyptian. The relation of male to female was particularly interesting as both were shown equal in height when from the same social class. The distinction was made in the breadth of the figure. In general, the female tended to be more slender in prOportion than the superior male.1.7 Behind Egyptian artistic conventions was a system of measures that was an extremely accurate standardization of the natural proportions; it was not originally invented for the artistic cause. The Egyptians adapted the 54 metrological system to the working of art by depriving the measuring units of their number meaning, and using their ratios as a-dimensional, proportional elements in the sculptural canon. The base of the Egyptian metro— logical system was the Small Cubit. This was the measure of the length of the fore-arm from the elbow to the end of the thumb. The Small Cubit was subdivided into six palms, each "palm" representing four digits (or fingers). The distance from the elbow to the wrist (four palms) stood for two-thirds of the cubit measure. Four cubits equalled one fathom or the distance from the tip of one thumb to the tip of the other, with the hands and arms extended in an opposing fashion. Another favored measure was the "two palms" or one-third cubit. The elbow to the shoulder, a measure called the Remen, was a distance of five palms. There was an uncial subdivision of the digital division of the cubit which is considered a vulgarization. Iversen explains it in detail: . . . this digital division of the cubit was also in Egypt supplemented with a "vulgar" uncial division, based on a tripartite division of the cubit into one-third cubit of two palms and its complementary fraction of two-thirds cubit of four palms, that is, the two-thirds measure. . . . The principal units of this division were the thumb or inch representing one-twelfth of the two-thirds measure or one and one-third finger, and the fist, of four fingers plus a thumb of one and one—third fingers, that is one and one- third palms or five and one-third fingers, or four inches . . . smaller units of the system were based on the subdivisions of digit and inch, both of which had dyadic and tripartite divisions. The dyadic division was considered with particular 55 reverence, owing to its mythical association with the eye of Horus, and was one also used in the Egyptian measures of capacity. It divided the digit into halves, quarters, eighths, sixteenths, the latter being the smallest unit of the dyadic division. Parallel to the dyadic was a tripartite division, dividing the digit into one-third and two-thirds digits but in Egypt, as elsewhere, there seems to have been a marked tendency to prefer the uncial to the digital division for the ordinary practices of daily life. The Egyptians did not, of course, possess a measure which we call the inch; however, they did have an equivalent measure in their digit. One and one-third digits equalled the inch, and it too, like the inch, could be subdivided into one-half inch equalling two- thirds digit, one-fourth inch corresponding to one-third digit, one-eighth inch to one-sixth digit, and one- sixteenth inch to one-twelfth digit. The smallest unit that it dealt with, in a practical sense, was one- twentieth of an inch, or one-fifteenth digit. Closely related to the Small Cubit was the Royal Cubit. This Royal Cubit depended on fractions denoted in the terms of the Small Cubit's measures; it had no major or minor subdivision of its own. The Royal Cubit was referred to by the Egyptians as the "stone-cutter's" cubit and its functions were restricted to cult and monarchial building programs. It was measured from the tip of the middle finger to the elbow; it was seven palms, or twenty-eight fingers long, thus exceeding the Small Cubit by one palm (or four fingers).19 56 Canon and proportion, then, are closely tied to each other. More closely, thus, we can define proportion as "an anthropometric description of the human body, based on the standardization of its natural pr0portions expressed in the Egyptian measure of length." The grids serving as a technical aid for the actual application of this system of proportions are canonical proportions, based on the identification of the modular square with the anatomical and metrological fist of one and one-third proportional palms. With these definitions solidly in hand, we are able to determine the proportional scheme used to construct any canonical figure by means of direct measurements. Naturally enough, the law of proportion is generally the same for reliefs and drawings as it is for sculpture in-the-round. But there is a special problem in relief work and painting: that of putting a three- dimensional object onto a two-dimensional plane. The first thing an Egyptian artist did, in producing a two- dimensional representation, was to reduce the model to its basic parts; thus, the artist sought complete agree- ment of the model and its reproduction. Truly, then, the parts were equal in importance to the whole. Some relatively simple technical rules applied and their practice has been demonstrated earlier in this chapter; "in their two-dimensional projection, parts protruding from the three-dimensional plane must be seen in profile, 57 and parts extending on the plane, en face." So, the relief becomes a technical projection and not a perspec- tive reflection of the true model. Foreshortening was used also to indicate the turns of the body from the frontal towards the focal plane. An imaginary, vertical line demarcation of this plane change can be drawn through the ear of many Old Kingdom relief figures, thereby proving, without a doubt, the existence of a frontal axis in Egyptian art.20 The art of the Middle Kingdom held true to the demands of the Egyptian system of canon and proportion. On the whole, the art of this period is very unappreciated. It has been called rude in nature and a bad copy of the glorious works of the Old Kingdom as it grew out of a backwater, provincial art. It is my opinion that many works of the Middle Kingdom were equal to those of the ancient Memphite capital. All the conventional laws of style were still enforced in art and artistic license occurred occasionally in secondary figures. But in this "secondary" art there survives a good amount of the liveliness of the Pyramid Age in genre-like depictions.21 Petrie maintains that during this time art became a subject which was clearly outlined and taught much as a scribe might learn to write the Egyptian scripts. First the positions of figures in slow action were learned, then the differences between male and female figures, 58 next, mythological subjects, and lastly, the attitudes of rapid action. This mechanical training naturally went with elaboration of detail. The minute lining over of large masses of hair, the carving of every bead of a necklace, was the outcome of intellectual training. When speaking of the works of the XIIth Dynasty, Petrie said: "They have neither the grandeur of what went before nor the grace of what followed them."22 It is little wonder that the art of the Middle Kingdom falls at the bottom of a crevasse between the two high plateaus that were artistic accomplishments of the Old and New Empires. But considering the relatively poor economy of the early Middle Kingdom and its short-lived era, it is no wonder that the art took on a form which was some— what "rude." Still, it reflects a depth of feeling for the times, the real accomplishment of this art in its formal state (see the Free Representation of a Catch of Fish and the Nature and Peasant Drawing, page 169). One has only to look at statues of Senusret III to discover the burden that the weight of the pharaonic throne bore «on an individual (see page 175). The face of the ZPharaoh is a masterpiece in the study and perception of <:are, frowning suspicion, and worldliness. Following the fall of the Middle Kingdom, the Second Intermediate Period occurred, and Egypt came under 1:}1e domination of the Hyksos. These people and their 59 pottery will be considered in the last chapter. Towards the end of the 17th Dynasty a new and forceful native Egyptian noble family arose in Thebes and drove the Hyksos out of Egypt. With this reunification of Egypt under Ahmose I, native Egyptian art received new impetus. The art of the Empire or New Kingdom was mainly concerned with the decoration of great wall areas, made necessary by the new surge of grandiose building. For this purpose they adopted the conventional art style, canon, and pro- portions of their ancestors (see the Comparison of Old and New Kingdom figures, page 173). There were inno- vations also. The artists began to portray a figure with its arm in advance and crossing over the body--a depiction strictly forbidden by the canon of the old tradition. The official art showed some tendencies to regress too. Much of the stiffness and formal nature of Old and Middle Kingdom art was emphasized in the Opening years of the 18th Dynasty. Mannerisms abound, such as the balancing of objects (heavy or otherwise) on the fingertips by kings and gods--giving the works a stilted air, but perhaps thought of by the artist of the early New Kingdom as a higher and more ideal form of art.23 It is my opinion that the strong reliance on the formal aspects of the old canon denotes a new idynasty struggling to consolidate its somewhat weak jpolitical position by emphasizing its ancestry. 60 The war against the Hyksos brought about certain social changes. The Old and Middle Kingdoms had a more individualistic outlook set amidst an almost feudal society. The rise of the Empire gave birth to a much more expansive governmental bureaucracy which first and foremost demanded the submission of the individual to its will. It is the Egyptian feeling for conservatism manifesting itself in the country's change from the individualistic and objective manner of living to a more communal and subjective one. The Egyptian held sacro- sanct the forms of his culture. The literature of the times reflects this change also. From the Middle Kingdom survive tales such as The Story of Sinhue: the champion is a common man who through his own efforts and play of ‘wits manages to earn his just reward. The New Kingdom invents such a tale as The Foredoomed Prince, the gist (of which is that men by their own actions cannot escape tlueir predestined fate. Their fortunes are good only jgf they submit to the control and decisions of the state.24 One of the stimuli which caused the change in arrt known as the Amarnan Age was this outward look force onto Egypt by her Age of Empire. No longer could the Egyptian concern be limited to a narrow river valley. Consequently, the influx of foreign ideas was greatly increased and among those foreign influences was the Pottery of Mycenaean manufacture. It is as Baikie states: 61 The discoveries at Knossos, Phaistos, Hagia Triada, and other Cretan sites have come to supplement and to interpret that which Schliemann gathered from 1870 onwards to Troy, Mycenae and Tiryns, and to tell us of another great empire and civilization which formed one of the elements of that inter- national medium in which Egyptian revolution moved and wrought so that the Aegean pottery from Tell el-Amarna and other sites, and the frescoes in the tomb of Rekhmara [see page 171], now call up to us the definite picture of the Minoan Seekings [and later Mycenaean rulers], dealing on equal terms, whether of trade, diplomacy, or artistic influence; [my emphasis], with the empire of the Nile Valley.25 During the Hyksos domination, contacts with the Minoan civilization became much more involved. Minoan artisans, particularly goldsmiths, settled in the Delta regions. Hyksos jewelry from the Delta area showed Near Eastern and Aegean influence with the use of such motifs as the flying gallop and the lion pouncing on its victim from a high vantage point. The Hyksos chariots were decorated also with un-Egyptian motifs such as the scroll- device, lily, palmetto, and the marquerite.26 Theban art displays two parallel yet different sstyles (see Two Styles Combined--The Informal and the FWormal, page 182). One, already expounded on, was the cxfficial style deriving its force and justification from the examples of Old and Middle Kingdom Art. The other style might have developed out of the Hyksos period and has qualities which make it akin to a man- nerrist sort of depiction. Contrived distortions, elegant in clemeanor such as wasp waists, heavy hips, elongated linuas, and small heads jutting forward on long swan-like 62 necks. Aldred seems to think that "We may perhaps see in this genre style a vernacular art, uneven in its achievement, yet expressing a developing taste for the graceful and less austere on the part of the rising middle classes."27 Aldred does not give any substantial reasons why he attributes the rise of this "mannerism" art to the support of the middle class and not the sup— port of noble and royal patrons, such as Hatshepsut, who were influenced by foreign designs. Hatshepsut (see statue, page 177), one of the most colorful and forceful women of the ancient world, usurped the Egyptian throne and held in obscurity, for almost twenty years, one of the greatest military leaders in the realm of Egyptian history, Thutmose III. Perhaps, though, her most lasting impression was in the realm of art. True, the court sculpture still relied heavily on the models provided by the Middle Kingdom, but gone was the austere outlook and fiercely concerned frown. The Queen-Pharaoh's limbs are more slight, lacking the requisite powerfully muscled upper torso of her Middle and Old Kingdom predecessors. The torso becomes longer in proportion, and the shoulders are more rounded. Heads with pointed chins, rounding cheeks, and protruding noses are, to a degree, idealized. Aldred believes that this mannerist tradition, so readily adopted by the sculptors of Hatshepsut's court, was the motivating 63 force for giving the official statuary of the 18th Dynasty an underlying current of the idealistic and the feminine.28 When the throne was regained by the males of the dynasty, the art tended once more toward the formal current. Yet the freer tendency was retained. The flood tide of Empire with its accompanying rise of wealth and luxury must have brought about new attitudes toward art. "Art for art's sake" may be pushing the point a bit too far; yet during the reigns of Thutmose IV and Amenhotep III there were art objects being produced which had no religious or practical functions and cer— tainly did not form part of funerary equipage. A taste for such articles must have been fostered by the annual display, a kind of Royal Academy exhibition, which it was customary to hold in the palace at the New Year, when products of the royal studios, and possibly of other workshops as well were presented to the king by some high official. After consecration, the exhibition would be inspected by the king, who would select objects for his family, friends and officers. On these occasions, he might receive gifts in return. . . . Such functions, and the annual display of foreign tribute, must not only have stimulated the craftsmen to produce objects of novelty and ele— gance, but also have set standards of taste, and encouraged among the wealthy courtiers the fashion of commissioning similar luxuries.2 Perhaps by their selection of certain pieces in certain styles, the great pharaohs of the 18th Dynasty subtly influenced the art movement of their times. Amenhotep IV (Akhenaten) who was anything but subtle in his direct demands on court artists was the exception. 64 Amenhotep III's greatest contribution to the nuances in art and religion, which had actually begun before his demise, was his permissive attitude toward the art, thereby creating the broadminded attitude of his court as it welcomed foreign influences from Syria and the Aegean.30 He also contributed in another fashion. The pleasure palace he built at Thebes was decorated on the ceiling with those scenes which were in great evi- dence after the Amarna Period began. Scenes from nature. decorated the uppermost regions of his palace: birds hovering and many colored butterflies seeking out gaily colored flowers, and below on the pavement painted ducks paddling about complacently, completing the frozen picture of nature captured in the artist's brushstroke. This accomplishment showed that the artists of the time of Amenhotep III were as capable of depicting realistically scenes from nature as those from the succeeding reign, though perhaps the earlier scenes were not as involved as the later ones. There was precedent even older than the reign of Amenhotep III. It occurred in the tomb of Amenemhat, a scribe who lived during the reign of Thutmose III. Paintings in this scribe's tomb show birds flushing from marshy cover.31 Perhaps wittingly, or unknowingly, Amenhotep III contributed to the religious fervor with ‘which his successor pursued the theme of truth or ma'at 65 in regard to art; for "ma'at" forms a part of Amenhotep III's prenomen. One thing should be kept in mind when discussing the concept of ma'at as it was understood in the 18th Dynasty: it did not mean concrete reality, but "rightness" or orderly management.32 Cracks in the armour of orthodox art appeared with increasing frequency as the 18th Dynasty progressed toward the Amarna Period. In the tomb of Senmut, chief architect for Hatshepsut, there appeared a work of art, though much damaged, which depicted foreign tribute being presented by emissaries from lands that Egypt had over- come. There are similar figures, from the reign of Thutmose III, in the tomb chapels of Menkheperrasereb and Rekh-mi-ra (see page 181). The workmanship of these displays of artistic skill seem to suggest that the artists were well aware of the canons of Minoan Art. It is more than probable that foreign influence was acting as a catalyst even at this early date.33 The main reason why the Amarna eccentricities did not occur before the reign of Amenhotep IV was due to the lack of sufficient interest and a pressing need for a full-time administrator of a nascent empire. The other male rulers of the 18th Dynasty did not take a deep personal interest in the art (except possibly in the decoration of their own tombs) as it was probably not very high on an agenda which had as its uppermost 66 goal the subjugation of most of the known civilized world. At any rate, the artists of Amenhotep IV's reign found in him an instigator and supporter with sustained personal interest. Bas-reliefs show him as Pharaoh, along with his Great Royal Wife, Nefertiti, inspecting the sculptors' studios. One can imagine him giving the artist instructions in the art forms he desired to sup- port his cult of Aten visually.34 This cult of Aten, which Akhenaten so fervently espoused, was as ancient as civilization along the banks of the Nile. The worshippers of Re, the sun-god at HeliOpolis, held that one of his manifestations was the solar disk, the Aten. Apparently the youthful Akhenaten maintained a palace at nearby Memphis and was acquainted with the doctrine that the priesthood of the Re had developed. In their reformed doctrine these priests put forth the belief that all the gods of ancient Egypt were an incarnation of the Sun-god. He was the supreme creator and benefactor of the Egyptian people. The Aten dispensed light, warmth, and life to the world. The Solar-Disk appeared early in the reign of Thutmose IV, when its round form is seen on a scarab in association with the pharaoh's titles.35 Atenism gained in impor- tance during the reign of Amenhotep III, as this monarch named his royal barge, his pleasure palace, and even some of the royal offspring after the deity. Akhenaten 67 carried this support of Aten to a fanatical conclusion by "overthrowing" the pantheon of Egyptian gods in the fifth or sixth year of his rule, except for Aten and himself.36 Akhenaten did, however, recognize some of the gods as manifestations of Aten. There was a tremendous void left in royal tradi- tional art by this banishment of the old gods and their retinues of priests. The walls of the temples at Tell el-Amarna could not be decorated with their images_nor could the walls be left blank. The symbol for the Aten, the solar disk flanked by protective royal uraei, could not form the sole decoration either. The solution, whether it was arrived at by Akhenaten's command or by artists attempting to curry favor, was to show scenes involving the royal family. Seen in private dwellings at Amarna were brick altars with stelae set upon them. These stelae showed not household gods, but the Aten disk with its shining beams ending in hands caressing Akhenaten and Nefertiti. The tomb no longer displayed the cult of Osiris; the theme now was life as it is in this existence.37 The life of the royal family was governed by Akhenaten's persistent pursuit of ma'at. The demand for the "right way" of depicting things that the Pharaoh made on his artists is apparent from a statement which a chief sculptor, one called Bek, made on a stele as he I 68 calls himself "one whom his majesty himself taught." The art which Akhenaten demanded was not mere "reality," but the reflection of the established and unchanging order of creation--that order being from the Sun—God, Aten, to himself as the son of Aten and hence to the people. He was his god's prophet. Ma'at was then part and parcel with Aten. The order presented by this idea of "truth" was a conscious element in every facet of life. Nature took its normal course, society run by justice, the ideal of nondeceit in private life all added up to, and underlined the meaning of ma'at. This concept demonstrates again that something unusual was happening during this time to the idea of ma'at. The deviation from its orthodox application is seen in Akhenaten's becoming a personal prophet of it as ma'at was a chief characteristic of the Aten. Here, perhaps for the first and last time in Egyptian history, is the opportunity to see the personal feelings of a man in the traditionally unapproachable role of Pharaoh.38 Akhenaten's changes in art were against the age- old restraint of Egyptian conservatism. Of course, not all of the canon established by the Old and Middle Kingdom precedent was violated: but parts of it were drastically changed. A new concept of space is displayed in painting and relief of the Amarna Period. There is seen in the royal tomb a relief of sun—worship. In the 69 background of this relief, beyond the temple boundaries, animals of the desert frolic upon rock-strewn hills, converging on some point on the horizon. Thus, we see an attempt at perspective in official art. This was not something which the orthodox canon would condone. Also, we see a refreshing unity of composition in the relief works-~open air temples and animals playfully moving in the background are much more cohesive than temples placed in the fantasy world of hawk-headed humans and hippopotami walking on two legs. Compositionally, most of the Amarna art was still set in registers as in the old tradition, but there is more of a unity of action and thought than before. The "unity of action" is indi- cated by a piece of building or some other "stage prop," and the unity of thought is shown by the people held together in some psychological bond in facial expression. The bond puts them a step above the traditional depic- tions of people who often appear shawabtilike in their subservience to a god or to a pharaoh.39 Another aspect of Akhenaten's program for art was his obvious taste for nature scenes in decorating his new city. His palace, like that of Amenhotep III, was done in marshy scenes with multitudes of beautiful birds and in pastoral scenes in sort of a great flourescence of natural beauty (see Amarna Wall Painting, page 177). It was more dense and vibrant, more alive and more 70 colorful than those same sorts of scenes that appeared earlier. Nature in Amarna art was more than just a line of geese in relatively somber colors. Yet another change occurred. This one was of a more technical kind. Relief en creux gained in popu- larity over the traditional raised relief. There were probably several reasons for this change and Pfeiffer discusses it: The rock in which they are hewn is far from having the uniform good quality which would invite bas- reliefs of the usual kind. Nor was Akhenaten will- ing, it appears, to employ the flat painting on plastered walls which was so much in vogue, and which the artist of Akhenaton also employed at times with good effect. The idea of modelling in plaster was conceived or adopted, and since figures in plaster relief would have been liable to easy injury, the outline was sunk so far below the general surface as to bring the parts on highest relief just to its level. Nor was this the only measure taken to ensure durability. The whole design was first cut roughly in sunk-relief in the stone itself. Then a fine plaster was spread over it, covering all the inequalities and yet having the support of all points of a solid stone core. While the plaster was still soft, it was molded with a blunt tool into the form and features which the artist desired. Finally the whole thing was painted, all the outlines being additionally marked out in red, frequently with such deviations as to leave the c0pyist in dilemma between the painted and the moulded lines. Many of these reliefs dealt with a subject which was relatively unknown: the private life of a reigning pharaoh. Not only do many reliefs from Amarna tombs and palace paintings reveal the private life but also the atypical appearance of the Heretic. The colossi of the king, curiously powerful in a brooding sort of way, 71 would make one believe he suffered from some extreme malformity (see the Colossi of Akhenaten, page 179). Indeed, in order to explain his effeminate appearance, the Pharaoh has been said to have had everything from rickets to inherent glandular problems brought on from generations of inbreeding in the royal families! Accord— ing to the Pharaoh's insistence on "ma'at," one would suspect that the artists must have had some basis in truth for showing him in that condition. Yet, it is probable that given sufficient license the artists of Amarna moved quickly into the unfamiliar and went beyond true portraiture so that the early part of Akhenaten's reign shows him in a close to caricatured state. It is small wonder that the artists would dare to go this far; for the Pharaoh commanded that such intimate scenes as the king's playing with his children or kissing his wife, and even eating ravenously should be depicted in stone and paint. The mystique of his godly nature seems to be denied for a more human nature. The remoteness which fostered the respect and the worship of the incompre- hensible nature of the Pharaoh-god was totally dis- credited. The Pharaoh was supposed to be a perfect example of robust manhood. This excessive display of personal affections and informality could only help to undermine his prestige.41 True, the statues and reliefs of Akhenaten and his family (see Akhenaten and Family 72 Worshipping the Aten Disk, page 177) are most appealing in the multitudes of sensuous curves and the friendly nature of their intimate glances, but at what price? If the works on limestone flakes (artists' studies?) are not true caricature then they are at least abstractions serving to emphasize (for purposes of recognition?) the distinct features of a very unusual Pharaoh. Akhenaten's art, though delicately contrived and lovingly executed, was doomed not to flourish as a main- stream of Egyptian art. This style of art died for all effective purposes when the Pharaoh did. Perhaps one reason that it did so was its devotion to the cult of the individual man as opposed to the more formal and universal nature of the old tradition, where one Pharaoh was shown much like another. J. D. S. Pendlebury would have us believe that mainly because of Minoan influence the art of Egypt changed. The Minoan art, according to him, was much more true to personal observation; and this is what attracted Akhenaten to it. There was a "complete change of outlook at Amarna, a sudden switch over from an objective to a subjective point of View."42 This theory of Minoan art as the main influence on the Heretic's revolution in art is untenable. The Minoan civilization had ceased to exist early in the reign of Amenhotep III. Secondly, only one pottery sherd was ever found at Tell el-Amarna that could be attributed 73 to Minoan manufacture.43 A powerful ruler with unlimited wealth, such as Akhenaten, surely could have surrounded himself with more Minoan luxuries than one miserable vase. By the time of Akhentaen's rule there was simply nothing left of the original civilization of ancient Crete. Perhaps, though, Akhenaten settled for what was available; a last vestige of the once graceful and proud Minoan art tradition, surviving in the decorative motifs of Mycenae. Judging from the number of pots represented by sherds from Amarna, and the amount of other Mycenaean objects found there, plus the presence of Mycenaean traders, it would seem that someone important favored the abstracted remains of "Minoan" decorative motifs. CHAPTER II--NOTES lBreasted, p. 103. 2Anthea Page, Egyptian Sculpture, Archaic to Saite: From the Petrie Collection (Warminster: Arts and Phillips Ltd., 1976), pp. xiv-xv. 3Ibid., pp. xv-xvi. 41bid., p. xvii. 5Erman states that contrary to the pose of the standing male figure, those of the women and children are sculpted with their feet close together, and that this position was probably considered the more modest one. 6Adolf Erman, Life in Ancient Egypt, trans. H. M. Tirard (London: Macmillan and Company, 1894; reprint ed., New York: Dover Publications, 1971), p. 409. 71bid., p. 410. 8G. Maspero, Art in Egypt (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1952), p. 12. 9Breasted, p. 105. 10Erman, p. 398. 11Ibid., p. 400. lZIbid., pp. 399-401. 74 75 13George Perrot and Charles Chipiez, A History of Art in Ancient Egypt, trans. and ed. Walter Armstrong, 2 vols. (London: Chapman and Hall, Limited, 1883), vol. 2, p. 287. 14Irmgard Woldering, The Art of Egypt in the Time of the Pharaohs (New York: Crown Publishers, Inc., 1963), pp. 68—70. 15Erik Iversen, Canon and Proportions in Egyptian Art, 2d ed., rev., in collaboration with Yoshiake Shibata (Warminster: Aris and Phillips Ltd., 1975), p. 9. l6Erwin Panofsky, The History of the Theory of Human Proportions as a Reflection of the History of Styles: Meaning in the Visual Arts (New York: Anchor Books, 1955), p. 57. l7Iversen, pp. 10-12. 18Ibid., p. 15. lgIbid., p. 16. 2°1bid.. pp. 27-37. 21Erman, p. 403. 22W. M. F. Petrie, The Arts and Crafts of Ancient Egypt (London: T. N. Foulis, 1909), p. 18. 23Erman, p. 403. 24Cyril Aldred, The Development of Ancient Egyptian Art from 3200 to 1315 B.C., 3 vols. (London: Alec Tiranti Ltd., 1952), vol. 3, pp. 2-3. 25James Baikie, The Amarna Age: A Study of the Crisis of the Ancient World (New York: Macmillan Company, 1926): PP. 8-9. 26Aldred, vol. 3, pp. 8-9. 27Ibid., p. 9. 76 281bid., p. 11. 291bid., p. 15. 30J. D. S. Pendlebury, Tell el-Amarna (London: Lovat, Dickson, and Thompson Ltd., 1935), p. 126. 31Baikie, p. 288. 32Alan Gardiner, "The So-Called Tomb of Queen Tiye," Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 43 (1957): 14. 33Aldred, vol. 3, pp. 16-17. 34Charles F. Pfeiffer, Tell el-Amarna and the Bible (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1963): p. 58. 35F. A. Bannister and H. J. Plenderleith, "Physico- Chemical Examination of a Scarab of Thutmosis IV Bearing the Name of the God Aten," Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 22 (1936): 3-6. 36Cyril Aldred, Akhenaten and Nefertiti (London: Thames and Hudson, 1973), pp. 17-18. 37Henri Frankfort, "Heresy in a Theocratic State," Warburg and Courtauld Institute Bulletin 21 (1958): 163. 38Ibid., pp. 154-55. 39Eleonore Bille-De Mot, The Age of Akhenaten (London: Evelyn Adams and Mackay, 1966), pp. 91-92. 40Pfeiffer, pp. 58-59. 4lIbid., pp. 60-61. 42Pendlebury, Tell el-Amarna, p. 126. 43Ibid., p. 110. CHAPTER III EGYPTIAN AND MYCENAEAN ART: THE IMPORTANCE OF THE SHERDS Mycenae and Egypt were in contact from a very early date. The appearance of the Mycenaean sherds at Tell el-Amarna is not then a total surprise. The question of whether the majority of the sherds were Cypriote or Rhodian or from Mycenae itself is not of prime importance. They remain basically Mycenaean in shape and decoration and quality. The only way to prove conclusively their place of origin would be to test the clay and compare it with that of various regions in question. The Mycenaean II period pottery is very rare in Syria and Palestine. A few examples have come from Ras Shamra (Ugarit). One is an alabastron decorated with the Mycenaean lily motif. Byblos has four sherds to its credit. The designs on these sherds include the ogival canOpy (rare in Minoan art but not in Mycenaean art) and the zigzag pattern. Gezer also has a minimum of four sherds and has the running spiral, the ivy-leaf, and the wavy-line motifs. One sherd from Gezer was decorated with a figure-of-eight 77 78 shield and an accessorial rossette. At Lachish (Tell e1 Duweir) was found a beautifully symmetrical one- handled kylix decorated with an ivy-leaf motif (see page 184). Additionally there was a lip fragment from another kylix.l In Egypt many sites attest to the presence of Mycenaean II pottery, but never in as large a quantity as has been found from the III A:2 period. Mycenaean II pottery was found at Abusir, Saqqara, Gurob, Lahun, Thebes, and Armant. The design on these pots was very standard and included the wavy line and concentric rings. An alabastron from Armant was decorated with sea motifs. Even though Mycenaean II pottery is not very abundant in Egypt, it is almost nonexistent in Palestine and Syria.2 Surely this would indicate that the Mycenaeans of this early date were already building up a trade route that their pottery found acceptance in Egypt, if not out— right favor. Another important point to remember is that this Mycenaean pottery with its abstracted designs pre- pared the Egyptians for the influx of Mycenaean pottery about 125 years later during the time of Akhenaten. The Mycenaean III A (early and late) pottery in Egypt comes from sites other than Tell el-Amarna. But Mycenaean ware from Amarna is comparatively in much greater concentration than anywhere else in Egypt. These other Egyptian sites included Abydos, Gournah, 79 Heliopolis, Thebes, and Zawyet e1 Amwat (near Minieh, Middle Egypt), plus three pots of unknown provenance now in the Toronto Museum. Standard designs appear on these examples of Mycenaean III A ware also. Stripes and lines, rings on pot vases, and concentric arcs on the shoulders are common motifs, again as at Amarna: there are no sherds or pots which depict human or animal form.3 Towards the end of III A period and the beginning of III B there are finds of greater amounts of Mycenaean ware in Syria as in Egypt. Ras Shamra (Ugarit) provides evidence of a Mycenaean colony during the III B period by the presence of abundant cult figures and ritual vessels. Numerous finds of Mycenaean pottery were made in tombs at Minet e1 Beida (Tomb VI). Mainly the pots were decorated with human and animal figures (see page 185). This would seem to indicate that Mycenaean ware of this period was coming from a different center than it did during the Amarna period (because of the absence of human and animal motifs). This change may have already begun in the III A era as types of pots unfamiliar to Greece itself began to appear. Mycenae or the Pelopon- nese in general were most likely not the exporters to this area. A more likely exporter of the Syrian- Mycenaean ware was Cyprus.4 80 But the Mycenaean culture was definitely the producer of III A pottery whether it was from a colony on Cyprus or Rhodes. And behind this decorated ware lay an art tradition which had been developing from pre- historic times until the Bronze Age. The Bronze Age arts of Egypt and Myceane were by no means exclusive. There is evidence of contact between the two civiliza- tions as early as the sixteenth century B.C. Near 1500 B.C. Mycenaean pottery appeared in Egypt. Like- wise, objects of Egyptian manufacture began to be found in tombs at Mycenae. Substantial evidence has come to light that the influence and the connection between Egypt and Mainland Greece increased dramatically near the end of the Middle Helladic era. Egyptian practices influenced even the Mycenaean burial customs. The chamber tombs of Mycenae most likely derived from the Egyptian rock-hewn graves of the Middle Kingdom. Mylonas states that "more than eight times as many Mainland (Helladic) as Cretan (Minoan) vases are known from Egypt which date from the sixteenth and fifteenth centuries B.C.S It is doubtful that Egypt and the Mycenaean world had prehistoric connections. The evidence of such a con- nection at an early date is much too sparse to draw any conclusions about. The evidence which implied a direct connection between Egypt and Crete and pre-Mycenaean 81 cultures during the Old Kingdom is simply seal-stones. These "seal stones" are questionable as evidence because their place of discovery is not well documented. The period of the strongest relations between Egypt and Mycenae remains during the New Kingdom. The Mycenaeans were known to the Egyptians as the Keftiu. This name did not refer to the Phoenicians. The Keftiu were Mycenaeans of distinctly un-Syrian appearance and, additionally, the ancient Egyptian name for the inhabitants of Phoenicia was Zahi. One reason for the contact between the Keftiu and Egypt was the Egyptian need for c0pper. The Mycenaeans exported this metal in a raw state. The word "Keftiu" does not refer only to the people of Crete (the Minoans). But the Egyptians were often given to using the same name for peoples from similar geographical areas. Actually the word "Keftiu" translates as a closer description of the Greek mainland than the isle of Crete as it means the "country at the back of the very green sea" (i.e., the Mediterranean Sea).6 The art of the Mycenaean culture developed not in a vacuum but with influences from at least two main sources: Egypt and Crete. The Minoans and the Myce- naeans were in much closer geographic proximity to each other than to Egypt. Crete might have been expected logically to have had a greater influence on Mycenaean 82 art than would that of Egypt. Mycenae and Crete certainly had more in common with each other than with Egypt. The Minoans and the Mycenaeans were seafarers and traders nearly from the beginning of their historic times. In the world of art the Mycenaeans, like the Minoans, left few examples of monumental sculpture or great temples. Their rulers, apparently for unknown social reasons, did not commission great statuary of themselves. The Minoans and the Mycenaeans, as the Egyptians, excelled in the working of frescoes. Some scenes depicted in Minoan palaces, the Queen's Megaron (see page 186) at Knossos for instance, were of marine life in joyous frolic. If one is allowed to draw con- clusions from scenes generally shown by Minoan artists about the nature of Cretan society, it must be that this island culture was one of the brightest in outlook ever to exist. Truly, one does not find scenes of war, unrest, or cruelty in Minoan art. Minoan figures tend to be somewhat like Egyptian ones with their eyes frontal and body askew (see page 187). The Minoan type of figure differed in that although it was poised much like the Egyptian one, waspish waist and all, the mood was somewhat less solemn, less processional, and the figures were attired differently. The usual attire for male figures was a kilt-like garment which left the outer thigh bare nearly to the waist. There seemed to be a 83 greater relaxation in Minoan art as though its artists favored the example of the informal school of Egyptian art in which one found more natural poses with accompany- ing bodily freedom. Mycenaean art developed out of co—equal bases of Egyptian and Minoan influences. It chose to use parts of the forms offered in a piecemeal fashion and the end result was an art different from that which had gone before it. Many attitudes of the Mycenaeans differed from those of the Egyptians and the Minoans. The Mycenaeans, being a fierce, warrior people, reflected in their art their war-like tendencies. One must not make the mistake of dismissing these early Greeks as barbarians without the slightest idea of what civiliza- tion was except for creating a poor imitation of the advanced cultures surrounding them. The Mycenaeans were building great citadel cities at the time of Akhenaten's reforms in Egypt. They also were developing a great sea trading network and establishing colonies on Cyprus and Rhodes as well as on Crete itself. The Minoan culture as it was displaced by the Mycenaeans became less effectual in the world of art. It might be said that the tradition lived on in the art of the Mycenaeans; but in some regards this Greek culture most certainly surpassed Cretan efforts. The Mycenaeans were able to rise rather quickly, perhaps because they were militant as a seapower and consequently propagate their art style. 84 In comparing the arts of a very aged civilization and a relatively new one (such as Egypt and Mycenae), it is necessary to take into account the basic elements of each. The art of the Mycenaeans was a nearly mature and vital one. Its singular elements included the limited imagination, integrity, and a certain heroic nature that only rising, not totally civilized, cultures seem able to capture. The Mycenaean Greeks were great builders. Their architecture included CyclOpean walls surrounding citadel cities in the center of which were comfortable palaces. Outside these cities were built the bee-hive- domed tholos tombs. At Mycenae the skill of the architect and the builder was apparent by their ability to cut and dress hard stone, transporting, lifting, and placing in locus immense blocks of conglomerate and to terrace the land in order to fit the natural terrain to their floor plans. The deliberate design of the megaron at Mycenae is apparent by its orientation to axis of a central court. Surrounding this throne room were apartments for the royalty and governmental business. The Mycenaeans were not content with just massive structures; they also added the amenities with which older high civilizations had accompanied their architecture: regal reception rooms decorated with bright frescoes, guest rooms, bathrooms, grandiose stairways and propyla, waiting rooms with stone benches layered over with plaster finish, and even painted pavements much like those at Tell el-Amarna.7 85 These frescoes and painted pavements were copied by the Mycenaeans after Minoan examples. It is not true that Mycenaean frescoes were dull, uninspired, or pro- vincial. Some works do display these faults but not every work surviving from ancient times can be a master- piece. There is no evidence for tentative attempts by the Mycenaeans at fresco painting before their contact with the Minoan culture. Therefore, it is most likely that the art of fresco painting was introduced from Crete in a fully develOped state. Probably at first Minoan artists were commissioned to do the works, but mainland apprentices soon were using the same two-dimensional style, conventions, and mannerisms. They painted figures of people in silhouette. A ruddy red was used for the flesh tones of men and creamy white for women's skin, a color scheme very close to that of the Egyptian artist. Like the Egyptians, the eye was seen fully frontal and the face in profile. Strong contrasts of light and shadow were avoided, and the painting was done in two planes exclusively without raised surfaces. Colors ranged from primary ones to a few flat tones of ungraded quality. The most frequently used colors included red, blue, white, yellow, pink, brown, and black. The last two colors were used for filling in details. The Mycenaean artists added their own interpretations, how- ever; their contours have greater strength and definition. In their choices of subject matter for these frescoes, 86 the Mycenaeans left the Minoan sphere of influence and, like pharaonic art, favored art showing hunting and war in lively action scenes. These works also tend to be smaller in scale than either Egyptian or Minoan frescoes as though the Mycenaean artist was unsure of himself to some degree.8 If the Mycenaean artists excelled in fresco and were nearly the equals of the Minoans and Egyptians in this respect, they certainly did not reach the pinnacle of the Egyptians in monumental sculpture. That is not to say that the Mycenaeans had no monumental sculpture at all (for example, the Lion Gate at Mycenae [see page 189] has an heraldic arrangement of lions in con- junction with architectural elements), rather that per- haps it was not as highly favored as a tool of propaganda as it was in Egypt. Sculptured stelae were erected over the grave shafts containing the royal dead (see page 190). The decoration of these stelae tends to be rather Neo- 1ithic in its simplicity. Human figures, when they appear, are outlined in an incised way. Subject matter on these grave markers was usually narrative in nature-- like a hunting episode. Grave stelae such as these may have served the Mycenaeans as a starting point for the large-scale sculpture so highly prized by the Egyptians. Some of these stelae are more artistically advanced than others. Occasionally a differentiation of figure and 87 background is discernible, but the forms generally remain flat without modeling or plasticity though they show crisp contour lines. While the Mycenaeans may have failed to achieve great progress in the sculpting of large-scale works, they excelled as carvers on a miniature scale like the Minoans.9 Working on a smaller scale in gold the Mycenaean artisan achieved spectacular results which rivaled much of what Egypt and other oriental cultures produced. Gold was beaten into sheets of unbelievable thinness and delicacy to be used as facing material on objects of less value. It was drawn into thin strands and was granulated for use in creating jewelry. One area of goldwork in which the Mycenaeans equalled or possibly even excelled the Egyptians was the technique of repoussé. This technique, perhaps an offshoot of miniaturist sculpt- ing, necessitates a steady hand and keen eye in order to pound out minute details. Numerous examples have been found of small coin-like pieces of gold decorated pro- fusely with complex spiralform patterns. The finest examples of the repoussé technique produced during Mycenaean times were the Vaphio cups (see page 193). There is some conjecture (according to Guenter Kopcke, original source, see bibliography, page 123) as to the cultural origin of these works. But whether they are Minoan work or Mycenaean work under Minoan tutelage is 88 most likely an unsolvable problem. The bull netting scenes on them seem to come closer to the Mycenaean love of the hunt than Minoan gaiety. One other aspect of gold working in which this early culture had an affinity (not necessarily direct influence) with the Egyptians was the use of electrum. Electrum is a natural alloy of gold and silver. The pharaohs liked to decorate obelisks and ceremonial chariots with it. One of the six death masks known from the Mycenaean world, one from Shaft Grave IV, is made of electrum.10 The Mycenaeans are perhaps best understood as a developing culture built upon a basis of two older ones (Egypt and Crete). Mycenae added new life blood to the older ideas and then modified those ideas, injecting their own less inhibited manner. Perhaps one of the best indicators of change in attitude and the Mycenaean relation to the Mediterranean world is seen in their pottery. The pottery shapes and motifs employed by the Mycenaeans in producing their export ware (that found at Tell el-Amarna in particular) have already been discussed; and while I dismissed pottery shape as being irrelevant from the Egyptian point of view (see Chapter I, page 21), it is more significant when one studies the whole range of Mycenaean pottery from a Greek viewpoint: The terms of valuation here used to describe the evolution of shape during the Myc. II-III A:2 phase, like all valuations, imply the application of a particular standard. This standard is the Minoan 89 style. Thus the real nature of the process that takes place is the gradual breakdown of the Minoan tradition--what we observe is only a mechanical repetition of ultimately Minoan schemes until these have become distorted and worn-out [in effect new shapes].11 The same principle applies most readily to the vessel decoration of the Amarna-Mycenaean ware. Built upon the Minoan idea of abstraction, the Mycenaeans soon metamorphosed into something different but not distinctly un-Minoan. Most of the motifs of the Amarna-Mycenaean pots betray an organic character in their abstractions. These designs, such as the Mycenaean flower, have little resemblance to a real flower but they capture the essential symbols of what a real flower should be like. Perhaps this is what strongly appealed to the Egyptian's mind which was familiar with art that substituted symbol of a higher reality for mere tangible objects. Take, for instance, a motif used on some of the sherds which was very familiar to the Egyptians, copied by the Minoans, and ultimately picked up by the Mycenaeans: the Papyrus motif. The actual execution on Mycenaean pots contains un-Egyptian elements. An Egyptian element is the tripartition of the lower part of tuft. But certain elements of the Mycenaean papyrus are not found in Egyptian art. These traits include foliate stalks, side petals, and circular elements inside and at the upper margin of the tuft.12 A subject in regard to Mycenaean pottery which is quite neglected is the technical aspect of its 90 production. What is really necessary for this sort of study is a technical analysis based on mineralogical and chemical tests and on rediscovery or reconstruction of the mode of manufacture. As far as Mycenaean pottery is concerned, the method of manufacture has been very much the same throughout all periods. Nature can alter the clay color and add to the confusion when one wishes to class Mycenaean sherds according to color as they came from an earth context. So, one must be careful not to base a technical study in any part on coloration of the clay. There were two distinguishable types of ware: a finer and a coarser ware. The finer variety was usually constructed of nearly pure clay and formed on a potter's wheel. The biscuit was comparatively thin and hard and usually a buff color. The finer vessels were usually slipped and, when decorated, painted with lustrous paint of one color, sometimes varied between black and red. Once in a while details were added in white. The coarse ware was reddish, rough, and porous (compared to the fine ware) and the clay was sometimes hand-formed. Large vessels of both types usually contained grit, most likely added deliberately in order to prevent cracking and warping. Both types of ware were painted and some examples of both were also left blank. In all periods some vases were painted with a lustreless medium. Most often the decoration was applied to the vases by brush 91 in the usual manner, but in earlier phases there were two special techniques, each with its own distinctions: the stippled and rippled decoration. Monochrome vases are not very usual and most open vases are entirely coated on the interior. Plastic decoration is very rare on Mycenaean vases. Coarse Mycenaean pottery of all periods was extremely constant throughout the entire span of time. But with the fine ware it is possible to distinguish a few differences between materials belonging to different times. Even though this is possible, it must be remem- bered that there were no clear-cut classes coinciding with chronological divisions: Myc. II-III A:1 Clay: Well refined, colour and slip yellowed green to buff with slip lustrous and smooth. Paint: Lustrous, varying from black to red. Seldom white accessories. Method of Wheel-made on quick wheel. Big vases have forming: sometimes been built up in sections or remodelled by hand after turning. Wheel- marks clearly visible, except in last- mentioned case. Method of Ornaments mostly drawn in free hand but painting: more carefully than in the preceding period. Horizontal lines as a rule drawn while the vase was revolving on the wheel. Myc. III A:2-III B Clay: Usually buff in colour and pinkish at the core, very well refined. Slip (as a rule), lustrous and in the same colour. 92 Paint: Lustrous, more often red than black, owing to firing at a high temperature. Sometimes white accessories. Monochrome vases generally red. Method of Turning on a quick wheel. Wheel—marks forming: very evenly distributed. Method of Like the preceding. Linear decoration as painting: a rule very exactly drawn. This class 13 marks the acme of technical perfection. The bulk of the Mycenaean pottery from Amarna falls within this second grouping and consequently in some of the finest pottery produced by that culture, at the zenith of its power, for export. Yet another indicator of Mycenaean influence in Tell el-Amarna, other than a large quantity of fine vases is the presence of what J. D. S. Pendlebury calls the Greek street.l4 Finds in houses on and near this street apparently indicate the presence of a group of Mycenaean traders in a distinct "Greek Quarter." The location of this Greek area was in the central western Quarter of Amarna. Of particular interest is what Pendlebury found when excavating House T 36.36. Architecturally it was very much Egyptian. It had storerooms (or perhaps ShOpS?) on the west side of the house, which had an entrance from the street for the public (presumably). A curious archi- tectural element, the pier of a central stairway closely resembled one found at the South East House of Knossos. Also the random arrangement of the trees around the chapel of the house, instead of the orderly ceremonial 93 rows cultivated by the Egyptians, suggests the scattered clumps of trees and rings of trees found in Mycenaean wall paintings. The bathroom of this house had been coated eleven times with thick layers of plaster. This, too, is like the hearth at Mycenae and the multi-layered floors found in most Bronze Age settlements in the Aegean world. The most interesting object found in the house was a face done in clay. It resembles the gold death masks from Mycenae (for comparison see page 195), and was originally the leg of a tripod supported pot (an essentially Mycenaean pot shape). Pendlebury believes it must have been made for or by a Mycenaean resident of the city. The clay face was created at least two cen— turies after the gold masks of Mycenae and in a crude material. Pendlebury maintains that it is near carica- ture. The house, or so he says, was most likely the house of a Mycenaean merchant.15 It is interesting that Pendlebury found no Mycenaean pottery in House T 36.36, and yet in House T 36.57 he found three fragments of Late Helladic IIIa (Late Myc. III A:2) pottery. Other houses in the vicinity also occasionally showed an example of the Mycenaean ware (including Houses T 36.76 and 36.79).16 Perhaps the merchant of House T 36.36 had sold his stock to the royal household and a few odd pieces to his neighbors! 94 This survey of Mycenaean remains at Tell el—Amarna is not meant to exclude evidence indicating the presence of other foreigners at the capital. Surely almost every other nation of the Levant and Mesopotamia had a repre- sentative group (at least an ambassador) there. There may well have been among this multitude other sources for the Egyptian artists to draw upon for the Amarna style at its height. One possible source was not foreign but can be mentioned only as an idea as concrete proof is lacking. That source is prehistoric pottery. The existence of several pre—dynastic cemetaries makes this idea slightly more realistic. The red decorated ware of the Gerzean Epoch contains some elements which appear very close to some elements seen on the Mycenaean sherds from Amarna. Raphael shows the decorative elements of some of the Gerzean ware to be single spirals, wavy lines, and abstractions of the papyrus motifl7 (see page 196). Of course, these motifs can be explained away as common elements of Neolithic pottery designs in general. Geo- metric designs appear on the pre-dynastic ware because of the relative ease in producing them, and probably these symbols had cultural meaning and significance for the Gerzean people. It must be stated again that proof positive for this idea is totally lacking. Not a single sherd of pre-dynastic pottery was uncovered at Amarna. 95 Therefore, the coincidence of designs which are similar on the Mycenaean pottery and Egyptian pre-dynastic ware remains merely coincidental. Yet another possible pottery source for the Amarna style was the African pottery of Nubia. This possibility of influence is, in my opinion, almost as negligible as that of pre-dynastic pottery. Nubian design motifs tend to be generally geometrical and much in imitation of Egyptian pottery itself. The art of the parts of Africa in contact with Egypt tended to become derivative, much as those areas adopted Egyptian governing and social practices. Again, there was no "nubian" ware present in Amarna or any other 18th Dynasty center of importance. That is not to say that Egypt was free from Hamitic (Nubian) influence. It was certainly subject to influence in pottery types and decoration from that region in the pre-dynastic era as Frankfort maintains.18 There is one more source of possible influence to be considered and that is from Near Eastern sources. The powers that ruled Syria, Palestine, and MeSOpotamia must have had trading contact with Egypt that intensified as the Nile Valley entered its age of empire. At the court of Amenhotep III, and surely at the court of his successor, Akhenaten, princes from Syria with their retinues arrived bearing the obligatory tribute and bringing their social and artistic tenets as well. 96 Influence from the east did not begin to arrive during the 18th Dynasty. It had been filtering in on the trade routes since pre-dynastic times from other ancient cultures such as the Sumerians of Mesopotamia. But Egypt, being of a conservative nature, did not readily adopt all that was offered at this early period. Indeed, the Egyptian outlook was still quite introspective. But with the collapse of the Middle Kingdom and the invasion of Egypt by the hordes of the chariot-equipped Hyksos, overwhelming pressure was brought to bear by Eastern culture. It is true that the Hyksos readily adopted the traditions of the Egyptians, but still there remained a distinctly foreign element. The ethnic origin of the Shepherd Kings of the Second Intermediate Period is the subject of much debate. There are three probably sources for the Hyksos: (1) they were Hurrians, (2) or perhaps they were West Semitic peOples, or (3) they were some combination of the two. Regardless which of the three theories is correct (I favor the latter for linguistic reasons), the influx of the Hyksos warriors into Egypt was the high point of Near Eastern influence to enter Egypt (by force of arms) until several centuries later. Therefore, if one considers the Hyksos as prime movers in foreign influence from that region, one has quite thoroughly covered the problem. Basic to the Hyksos pottery motifs are those of the more ancient cultures that occupied the Levant.19 97 While to Manetho the Hyksos seizure of supreme power seemed an unmitigated disaster, we can recog- nize it as one of the great fertilizing influences in Egyptian civilization, bringing fresh blood, new ideas, and different techniques into the Valley and ensuring that Egypt kept to the mainstream of the Bronze Age culture in the Eastern Mediterranean. A number of innovations now appear. Even during the time of the Asiatic invasions of the Delta at the end of the Old Kingdom, a curious perforated hemispherical seal, known to archaeologists as a button-seal, made its appearance. During the Middle Kingdom this was transformed into the char- acteristic Egyptian scarab, perhaps more of amulet than a seal, and this artifact was adopted with enthusiasm by the Hyksos, too, bronze comes into general use. It was easier to work than copper and more effective for weapons and hardware gen- erally. In the later phases of the war of liber- ation that developed between the Hyksos and the Thebans at the end of our period, a whole range of novel weapons was introduced from Asia, such as the horse-drawn chariot, scale armour, the composite bow, and new designs of daggers, swords, and scimitars. It is doubtful whether such weapons as the horse and chariot were fully effective in Egypt where the inundation and the topography gave a greater impor- tance to water-borne operations; but the Thebans certainly adopted all these weapons in their wars against the Hyksos both in Egypt and Palestine. The Asiatic origin of the chariot was preserved in the different woods used in its construction, the Canaa- nite names for its various parts, and by the tradition of retaining Asiatics to drive and maintain some of them at least. A war-helmet, probably made of leather sewn with gilded metal disks, was added to the Pharaoh's regalia and is known to Egyptologists as the Blue, or War Crown. More important than these weapons of destruction were certain abiding inventions of peace, such as improved methods of spinning and weaving, using an upright loom; new musical instruments, a lyre, the long-necked lute, the oboe, and tambourine. Hump- backed bulls were imported from an Asiatic source, probably brought by ship with the greatly increased trade that the Hyksos fostered. Other im ortations included the olive and pomegranate tree.2 There are a great many pottery types from Pales- tine that can be classed as "Hyksos." But of prime 98 importance to this paper is the type of pottery found in Egypt during the XIV through the XVII Dynasties (c. 1730 B.C. to 1500 B.C.). The most famous, i.e., recognizable Hyksos ware in Egypt, was the Tell el- Yahudiyyah,21 pottery from the Delta Region (see page 191). The shape of these vases was generally piriform adorned with a long constricted neck and a double handle extending from the shoulder to the rim. The surface was most often highly polished and decorated in orange and black. If the ground of a vessel was black, the surface designs were often indented and filled with white coloring. Two other pot shapes appeared at this site as well. One was a large jar with shoulder handles and the other a small jug (cylindrical juglet) with a pointed bottom. H. Junker maintains that this pottery was of Nubian origin primarily because of decorative similarities.22 But he is wrong, as the Tell el—Yahudiyyah is quite characteristic of Near Eastern pottery from the Middle Bronze Age (II B-C) in shape and decoration. If one looks closely at the decorative ele- ments of the Hyksos ware, it is possible to distinguish two styles. One appears Syrian (or from coastal Syria) in derivation because of its high-shouldered piriform shape with a disc base. The motifs forming the decor- ation were zones of diamond shapes contained between horizontal lines. The ground tended to be filled with 99 incised dots. This "Syrian" type of Hyksos ware was found at Khatana in Nubia. The second style is termed "Palestinian" and may be a derivative form of the Syrian style. Its characteristic shape is the baggy piriform. The decoration of these vessels is, again, horizontal lines between which chevron or zigzag patterning appears. This "Palestinian" style has been found at Khatana and Tell el-Yahudiyyah, and none has been found in Nubia (a few questionable pieces have come from Middle Egypt). Perhaps this second style is the result of Hurrian influence or even Cypriot as this ware has been found at Enkomi and Cyprus.23 Perhaps the finding of the Tell el-Yahudiyyah (Palestinian) ware on Cyprus points out the true impor- tance of the Hyksos influence in Egypt. Through their trade relations with the Mycenaean culture of Cyprus, the Hyksos rulers of Egypt encouraged the importation of not only copper but Mycenaean motifs as well. But in the final analysis there is really little resemblance between the Hyksos motifs on their pottery and the Mycenaean ware of Tell el-Amarna (except for the infre- quent use of the chevron and zigzag designs). CHAPTER I I I - -NOTES 1Frank H. Stubbings, Mycenaean Pottery of the Levant (Cambridge: Cambridge at the University Press, 1951), PP. 53-58. 21bid., p. 58. 31bid., p. 69. 41bid., p. 71. 5George E. Mylonas, Mycenae and the Mycenaean Age (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1966), pp. 132-330 6H. R. Hall, The Oldest Civilization of Greece: Studies of the Mycenaean Age (London: David Nutt, 1901), pp. 143-65. 7Mylonas, pp. 187-88. 8Ibid., pp. 201-02. 91bid., pp. 188-90. lOIbid., pp. 192-94. llFurumark, p. 108. lzIbid., p. 138. 13Ibid., pp. 11-14. l4Frankfort and Pendlebury, p. 44. 100 101 lsIbid., pp. 44-45. 16Ibid., p. 58. 17Max Raphael, Prehistoric Pottery and Civili- zation in Egypt, trans. Norbert Guterman (New York: Pantheon Books Inc., 1947), p. 19. 18H. Frankfort, "The African Foundation of Ancient Egyptian Civilization," Congresso Internazionale Di Preistoria E. Protostoria Mediterranea (1950): 115-17. 19John Van Seters, The Hyksos: A New Investi- gation (London: Yale University Press, 1966), p. 181. 20Cyril Aldred, The Egyptians (London: Thames and Hudson, 1961), pp. 126-27. 21Tell el-Yahudiyyah ware was so-called because W. M. F. Petrie found large quantities of it in graves at this Delta site. 22H. Junker, "Der nubische Ursprung der sogen. Tell el-Jahudeyeh-Vasen," Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien, Philos——hist. Klasse, Sitzungsberichte, Vienna, 198 (1921): 3. 23Van Seters, pp. 49-51. CONCLUSION H. R. Hall states: Of late several writers have seemed to incline towards the view that Mycenaean art influenced that of Egypt more than Egyptian art did that of Mycenae. This view would appear to be erroneous. It is, of course, easy to exaggerate the extent of oriental artistic influence in Mycenaean Greece: Professor Helbig, for instance, exaggerates it enormously. This naturally provokes a reaction. But this reaction has now progressed so far that an attempt is being made to prove that Mycenaean influence practically dominated the less trammelled forms of Egyptian art under the XVIIIth and XIXth Dynas- ties. Eventually it will, no doubt, be asserted by somebody that the whole naturalistic development which marked Egyptian art at the end of the XVIIIth Dynasty was of Mycenaean origin. Here lies the danger of overemphasizing the importance of a foreign design influencing the progress of a basically native art movement. One can no more claim that the abstraction found on the Mycenaean sherds at Amarna caused the new art style than one can claim that Egyptian art formed without foreign influence of any kind. The truth lies somewhere between these two extremes. Stubbings succinctly states the extent of the possibility of Mycenaean influence: In Egypt itself, however, the reign of Akhnaton was marked by a violent break with traditional prejudice, and the lively encouragement of foreign influences. This new atmosphere, added to the final 102 103 removal of the Minoan obstacle, may well have pro- duced something like an Eldorado for Mycenaean traders in Egypt. Whether it was imported for its own excellence, or for the sake of whatever deli- cacies it contained--and perhaps, as with ginger in a Chinese jar, both seemed desirable--Mycenaean pottery was a familiar thing in Akhnaton's city at Tell el-Amarna from its foundation in the sixth year of his reign until his death fifteen years later [I disagree that it was familiar in Tell e1- Amarna as there is little evidence anywhere but the palace dumps]. This was, however, a special luxury trade, limited in extent as in duration, and there is little trace of it in other parts of Egypt. Of course, Mycenaean influence was ended or at least severely limited by the end of the 18th Dynasty: In Egypt itself the violent reaction which suc- ceeded the revolutionary Amarna period no doubt discouraged Mycenaean trade, which as far as we can see was concentrated in Akhnaton's city, and to a great extent died with it. There is nothing either of the later III A or of the III B period to compare in quantity with the Tell el-Amarna material, even if we marshal together the finds from the whole country. Apart from Gurob, in the Fayum, we have to deal with scattered single pots, which although widely distributed are too few to imply any real demand in Egypt for such foreign pottery in the 13th century B.C. It is in this phase of its history that the Mycenaean civiliza- tion exerted its widest influence in the Levant. The "demand" for Mycenaean pottery fell off dur- ing the succeeding XIXth Dynasty as though the rulers of this dynasty (especially Horemheb) were trying to eradi- cate all connections linked to the memories of the heresy of the Amarna Period. Does this indicate a close con- nection between the pottery and Mycenaean objects in general with the Heretic Pharaoh? So close in fact that their mere existence caused people to remember with whom that culture was held in high esteem during the Amarna 104 interlude? The best indicator that the Pharaoh himself favored the pottery from Mycenae (i.e., that produced by Mycenaean culture) is the location of the majority of it in the palace dumps at Amarna. Some may object that even if the Pharaoh favored these Mycenaean vases, it may have been for their contents rather than for the designs on them. This is unlikely, though, because what product was manufactured by the Mycenaean culture that the advanced civilization of Egypt did not already have access to? The extent of the Pharaoh's own personal involvement in the selection of these Mycenaean pots is impossible to prove, but we do know that he could have been acquainted with the Mycenaean motifs from pottery that was found in his father's palace at Thebes. From this it is possible to gauge the extent of the pottery's influence (in the aspect of design) on the Amarna style. Akhenaten was deeply interested personally in the art as we have already seen. If we take Bek's statement that "his Majesty taught me himself" as a more literal occurrence than mere flattery, then the Pharaoh must have had a source (or sources) to call upon in suggesting a new art to support his religious ideals. And as an immediate example, what was better than the Mycenaean motifs from his "special" palace ware? The curvilinearity of the designs were certainly in keeping with the soft curves introduced as a prominent element 105 of Egyptian art during this period. Also the abstract nature of these Mycenaean motifs may have appealed to the Pharaoh. Long indoctrination in the Egyptian culture would have caused him to appreciate that art which sym- bolized an object (such as a papyrus plant, a rock, or a flower) in abstract form, because this is a basic function of the hieroglyph system of writing. Also, the great love of nature which abounded during the Amarna period would have encouraged the preference for pottery designs that, while abstract, by and large were decorated with natural objects. One might wonder why there did not appear in the court of Akhenaton more concrete examples of Mycenaean art. The answer to this is that art did not travel in ancient times as it does today; nor did artists themselves travel widely unless forced to by displacement. Pottery, though, was the most mobile way for art designs to travel from one area to another; and such is the case with the Mycenaean pottery at Tell el-Amarna. Certain questions are raised by considering the Mycenaean designs as important a facet of Amarna art (an impetus perhaps is a better designation). Why, one may wonder, were there no depictions of humans on the Mycenaean sherds? A logical answer may be that there were humans shown in abstract form (we know that Mycenaean pot painting included such motifs) but that none of these 106 depictions have survived on the Amarna sherds. It must be admitted that, given the number of vases involved, it is not highly likely that every single sherd in the lot which had abstracted humans on it has disappeared. The vases from Mycenae itself favored the use of human motifs in a balanced scheme with other abstracted motifs of nature, while vases from Rhodes generally showed abstracted nature motifs and only occasionally depicted humans. But the decoration of these vases is of Main- land derivation. Mycenaean pottery of all periods tended to be so uniform in manufacture and decoration that it is often impossible to determine the place of origin on the basis of style alone. Given the general Mycenaean love of abstraction, the pinpointing of a place of origin on the basis of stylistic inclusions or exclusions is tenuous at best. The problem of determining the real extent of Mycenaean influence on Amarna art is difficult to solve. Perhaps it will always remain in the realm of "best guess." But certain motifs appearing in the art of the Heresy Period cannot be attributed to the Egyptian base of that art. New designs included the Mycenaean rockwork ("waz-lilies"), and the animal art occasionally reflected affinities with Mycenaean types. The other new charac- teristics of Amarna art include: the interest in action, individual characters showed more thought and personal 107 features, nonfigural landscape, the unity of single room decoration (particularly in the royal palaces at Amarna), and the use of an "off-hand" perspective--can be partially attributed to the influence of Mycenaean art. Helen Kantor feels strongly about these influences and states her position: Such features consist of significant aesthetic attitudes or principles, the very nature of which precludes the tracing of connection by the dis- covery of similarity in detail. Demonstration of the coincidences between the concepts guiding Akhenaton's artists and those of the Aegean, together with the evidence proving that commercial contacts were taking place at the time, certainly suggests the probability of Aegean influence upon Amarna art. However, divinitive proof is difficult to attain when detailed similarities cannot be cited. Moreover, in view of the fact that many features of Amarna art appear to have sprung from earlier phases of Egyptian art, the similarities with Aegean traditions may possibly result from convergent development . . . we must stop short with the statement that if the Aegean did contribute to the deve10pment of some of the characteristics of Amarna art, these would be, as far as the field of art is concerned, the most significant results of connections with the mainland.4 Amarna was not the only place where one saw the influence of the Mycenaean works. As mentioned before, the tomb of Rekh-mi-ra at Thebes shows tribute scenes in which Mycenaean men bring gifts to the Egyptian ruler (Thutmose III, C. 1550 B.C.). But also on the walls of this tomb (and that of Menkheperrasenb) are seen repre- sentations of metal cups and vases, some of which are undoubtedly like real Mycenaean products. The shape of some of these cups is very similar to that of the Vaphio 108 Cups. The designs found on those in the Egyptian tomb paintings are typically Mycenaean in character. But the human figures from the "Tribute Frieze" in Rekh—mi-ra's tomb (and that of Senmut) are still the most expressive link with the northern Mediterranean world. Among these "Keftians,' one is shown as a Semite, while others are definitely Mycenaean. Their dress, boots, waistcloths, long hair sometimes hanging down to the middle of the back and twisted up in front like the hairstyle worn by Paris appear Mycenaean. These figures are identical to ones seen on the Vaphio Cups not only in type and costume but also in gesture and attitude.5 Even from the tomb of Tutankhamun came examples of Mycenaean influence. On a small chair from his tomb was a triple spray of vegetation (potamogeton most likely) which served as a filling motive often in Mycenaean art as well as in this case. Petrie found a small round ointment box in an XVIII Dynasty grave at Kahun. One carved scene shows a charging bull threatening three hunters. This would appear to be an Egyptian imitation of a Mycenaean bull-baiting scene. It must be that certain objects often served as models for Egyptian artists even though the Mycenaean style was not whole-heartedly adopted.6 Schafer gives us a good re-cap of what was acceptable to Egyptian and Mycenaean artists in the "trade" of stylistic elements: 109 The particular quality of Egyptian self-control stands out in the larger context of "pre—Greek" art against the marvellous but somewhat unrestrained nature of Cretan-Mycenaean art. The latter had considerable attractions for New Kingdom artists who took much over from it, but always removed from it what they must have felt to be formally crude, just as Mycenaeans in their turn may have felt that Egyptian motifs needed to be made looser. In two- and three—dimensional work Egyptian artists always concentrated on the solid construction of figures (static qualities), and not on making them appear to be carried away by their inner strength (dynamic qualities) [except during the Amarna Period], which is the area in which the depictions of early Medi— terranean art excel; nor is their aim a harmonious development of organic forms as in the case of Greek artists. The brilliance of the Amarna art was not simply a flash in the dark. It survived in feeling, if not con- cretely in the art, of succeeding dynasties. It is ironic that even in the tomb of Horemheb (at Memphis), the first pharaoh of the XIXth Dynasty, there remains a trace of the Heresy (see page 192)--ironic because he was one of the prime persecutors of the memory of Akhena— ten and his art. A relief of white limestone shows Pharaoh Horemheb, when he was a general, receiving golden honors in the presence of his troOps. It is a fairly conventional depiction except that each soldier is shown as an individual through facial features and expressions. The inscription above one of the soldiers contains even a reference to the Aten, a far from popular sect with the pharaohs of the XIXth Dynasty.8 From the Mycenaean end of the argument, it became apparent that their art was not born of a painful clash 110 between old and new styles. The artists and potters of the Mycenaean age were "concerned more with technique and execution than with invention; the decoration of their work shows order more often than imagination. They were, one feels, potters first, true to their skilled craft, the most mechanical industry of a machineless age, and 9 The only secondarily, who might also be artists." essence of Mycenaean vase painting was its ornamental character. This idea applies not only to pictorial ren- ditions but abstract and floral motifs as well. Truly it is as Furumark states the case for Mycenaean art in general: "there is little or nothing in Aegean art that can be justly claimed to be individual, historical, or mythological."10 Consequently the III A:1 and 2 style is the product of a more or less orderly series of borrow- ing and successions from the II B period. The chief dif- ference is that the stylization of the designs became more advanced and the syntax more pronouncedly tectonic. There is also during the III A:1 period a new influx of decorative elements taken over from Crete. There also seems to be a preference for a confined composition as opposed to simple unbound motifs of early periods. The Mainland shows its influence in the decoration of the Amarna sherds because of its preference for abstract- geometrical designs. Even certain Mycenaean shapes derived from LM III: some types of pithoid jars, false- necked jars, and flasks.ll 111 The purpose in writing this paper has been to help illuminate the complicated problem that the origin of an art style, such as that of Amarna, presents. Com- plicated because of the number of variables, any part or combination of which could have given birth to this brilliant art style. I hope that I have shown that, in some part at any rate, the art of the Mycenaean culture was responsible for the rather un-Egyptian char- acteristics of Amarna art. Addendum: It has come to my attention that a chemical-compositional analysis of Mycenaean-Minoan pottery has indeed been done. The results prove con- clusively that the Mycenaean sherds from Tell el-Amarna could not have been of Rhodian manufacture but were instead of Mainland production. In fact, the lack of pottery of Rhodian manufacture in Cyprus, North Syria, and Egypt is quite astonishing.12 CONCLUSION--NOTES lHall, p. 184. 2Stubbings, p. 105. 3Ibid., p. 108. 4Helene J. Kantor, The Aegean and the Orient in the Second Millenium B.C. (Bloomington, Ind.: The Principia Press, 1947), pp. 83-84. 5Hail, pp. 53-54. 6 Kantor, p. 84. 7Heinrich Schafer, Principles of Egyptian Art, 5th ed., trans. and ed. John R. Baines (Leipzig: Otto Harrassowitz, 1919; reprint ed., Oxford, England: Clarendon Press, 1974), p. 19. 8John D. Cooney, "A Relief from the Tomb of Haremhab," Art Quarterly 2 (1939): 67-73. 9F. H. Stubbings, "Some Mycenaean Artists," British School of Athens Annual 46 (1951): 168. 10Furumark, p. 430. llIbid., pp. 504-05. 12H. W. Catling, E. E. Richards, and A. E. Blin- Stoyle, "Correlations between Composition and Provenance of Mycenaean and Minoan Pottery," Annual of the British School of Athens 58 (1963): 114. 112 SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY SELECTED B IBL I OGRAPHY Books Aldred, Cyril. Akhenaten and Nefertiti. London: Thames and Hudson, Ltd., 1973. . The Development of Ancient Egyptian Art from 3200 to 1315 B.C. 3 vols. London: Alec Tiranti, Ltd., 1952. . The Egyptians. London: Thames and Hudson, 1961. Baikie, James. The Amarna Age: A Study of the Crisis of the Ancient World. New York: Macmillan Company, 1926. Bille-de Mot, Eleonore. The Age of Akhenaten. Translated by Jack Lindsay. London: Evelyn, Adams & Mackay, 1966. Borchardt, Ludwig. Excavations at Tell el-Amarna, Egypt in 1913-1914. Berlin: Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft, 1914. Bratton, Fred Gladstone. The First Heretic: The Life and Times of Akhnaton the King. Boston: Beacon Press, 1961. Breasted, James Henry. Ancient Records of Egypt, Histori— cal Documents. 5 vols. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1906. . A History of Egypt from the Earliest Times to the Persian Conquest. 2d ed. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1951. Brugsch, Henry. A History of Egypt under the Pharaohs Derived Entirely from the Monuments. 2 vols. 2d ed. Translated and edited by Philip Smith. London: John Murray, 1881. 113 114 Budge, E. A. Wallis. The Egyptian Book of the Dead: The Papyrus of Ani. New York: Dover Publications, Inc., 1967. Burn, Andrew Robert. Minoans, Philistines, and Greeks, B.C. 1400-900. London: K. Paul, French, Trubner and Co., 1930. Campbell, Edward Fay, Jr. The Chronology of the Amarna Letters: With Special Reference to the Hypg- thetical Coregency of Amenhophis III and Akhena- pgp. Baltimore: The John Hopkins Press, 1964. Davies, N. De G. The Rock Tombs of e1 Amarna. 6 vols. London: Egypt Exploration Society, 1903-1908. Demargne, Pierre. Aegean Art. Translated by Stuart Gilbert and James Emmons. London: Thames & Hudson, 1964. Desborough, U. R. d'A. The Last Mycenaeans and Their Successors: An Archaeological Survey c. 1200- 1000 B.C. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1964. Desroches-Noblecourt, Christine. The Sculpture of Ancient Egypt. London: Oldbourne Press, 1960. Emery, W. B. Egypt in Nubia. London: Hutchinson, 1965. Engberg, Robert M. The Hyksos Reconsidered. Chicago: The University of Chicago, 1939. Erman, Adolf. Life in Ancient Egypt. Translated by H. M. Tirard. London: Macmillan and Company, 1894; reprint ed., New York: Dover Publications, 1971. Finley, M. I. Early Greece: The Bronze and Archaic Age . London: Chatto and Windus, 1970. Frankfort, Henri. Mes0potamiay Syria and Egypt and Their Earliest Interrelations. London: Royal Anthro- pological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland, 1924. Frankfort, Henri, and Pendlebury, J. D. S. The City of Akhenaten, Part II. London: Egypt EXploration Society, 1933. 115 Frankfort, Henriette Antonia. Arrest and Movement: An Essay on Space and Time in the Representational Art of the Near East. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1951. Furumark, Arne. Mycenaean Pottery I: Analysis and Classification. Stockholm: Shrifter Utgina Av Svenska Institutet I Athen, 1972. Giles, F. J. Ikhnaton: Legend and History. London: Hutchinson, 1970. Hall, H. R. The Oldest Civilization of Greece: Studies of the Mycenaean Age. London: David Nutt, 1901. Higgins, Reynold. Minoan and Mycenaean Art. London: Thames & Hudson, 1967. Iverson, Erik. Canon and Proportions in Egyptian Art. 2d ed. Warminster, England: Aris and Phillips Ltd., 1975. Kantor, Helen J. The Aegean and the Orient in the Second Millenium B.C. Bloomington, Indiana: The Principia Press, Incorporated, 1947. Kitchen, K. A. Suppiluliuma and the Amarna Pharaohs--A Study in Relative Chronology. Liverpool: Liver- pool University Press, 1962. Marinatos, Spyridon. Crete and Mycenae. New York: H. N. Abrams, 1960. Maspero, G. Art in Egypt. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1952. Matz, Friedrich. The Art of Crete and Early Greece: The Prelude to Greek Art. New York: Crown Pub- lishers, Inc., 1962. Mekhitarian, A. Egyptian Painting. Translated by S. Gilbert. Geneva: Great Centuries of Painting, 1954. Mellersh, H. E. L. The Destruction of Knossos: The Rise and Fall of Minoan Crete. London: Hamish Hamilton, 1970. Moortgat, Anton. The Art of Ancient Mesopotamia: The Classical Art of the Near East. London: Phaidon Press Ltd., 1967. 116 Murray, M. Egyptian Sculpture. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1930. Mylonas, George E. Mycenae and the Mycenaean Age. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1966. Nagel, George. La Céramique Du Novel Empire A Deir El Médineh. Le Caire: L'Institut Francais D'Archeologie Orientale, 1938. Noguera, Anthony. How African Was Egypt? New York: Vantage Press, 1976. Page, Anthea. Egyptian Sculpture Archaic to Saite: From the Petrie Collection. Warminster, England: Aris and Phillips, Ltd., 1976. Panofsky, E. Meaning in the Visual Arts. Garden City, N.Y.: Anchor Books, 1955. Peet, T. Eric, and Woolley, C. Leonard. The City of Akhenaten, Part I--Excavations of 1921 and 1922 at El-Amarneh. London: Egypt Exploration Society, 1923. Pendlebury, John Devitt Stringfellow. Aegyptiaca, a Catalogue of Egyptian Objects in the Aeggan Area. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1930. . Tell el-Amarna. London: Lovat, Dickson and Thompson, Ltd., 1935. Pendlebury, John Devitt Stringfellow, and Frankfort, H. The City of Akhenaten: The Central City and the Official ggarters. The Excavations of Tell El- Amarna During the Seasons 1926-1927 and 1931- 1936, Part 3. 2 vols. London: Egypt Explor- ation Society Memoirs, 1951. Perrot, Georges. History of Art in Primitive Greece: Mygenaean Art. Translated by Walter Armstrong. 2 vols. London: Chapman and Hall Limited, 1894. Perrot, Georges, and Chipiez, Charles. A History of Art in Ancient Egypt. Translated and edited by Walter Armstrong. 2 vols. London: Chapman and Hall, Limited, 1883. Petrie, W. M. Flinders. The Arts and Crafts of Ancient Egyp . London: T. N. Foulis, 1909. 117 Petrie, W. M. Flinders. Ceremonial Slate Palettes and the Corpus of Proto-Dynastic Pottery. London: Ber- nard Quaritch, 1953. . A History of Egypt. London: Methuen and Co., Ltd., 1924. . A History of Egypt During_the XVIIth and XVIIIth Dynasties. 7th ed. London: Methuen and Co., Ltd., 1924. . The Making of Egypt. London: The Sheldon Press, 1939. . Syria and Egypt from Tell e1 Amarna Letters. London: Methuen and Company, 1898. . Tell El Amarna. London: Methuen and Co., 1894; reprint ed., Warminster, England: Aris and Phillips Ltd., 1974. Pfeiffer, Charles F. Tell E1 Amarna and the Bible. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1963. Rachelwitz, Boris de. Egyptian Art. New York: Viking Press, 1960. Ramsay, Sir William Mitchell. Asianic Elements in Greek Civilisations. London: J. Murray, 1928. Ranke, H. The Art of Ancient Egypt: Architecture, Sculpture, Painting, Applied Art. Vienna: Phaidon Press, 1936. Raphael, Max. Prehistoric Pottery and Civilization in Egypt. Translated by Norbert Guterman. New York: Pantheon Books Inc., 1947. Redford, Donald B. History and Chronology of the Eighteenth Dynasty of Egypt. Toronto: Uni- versity of Toronto Press, 1967. Samson, Julia. Amarna, City of Akhenaten and Nefertiti: Key Pieces from the Petrie Collection. London: Department of Egyptology University College, 1972. Samuel, Alan E. The Mycenaeans in History. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, Inc., 1966. 118 Schafer, Heinrich. Principles of Egyptian Art. Leipzig: Otto Harrassowitz, 1919; 5th reprint ed., trans- lated and edited by John R. Baines, Oxford, England: Clarendon Press, 1974. Schleimann, Henrich. Mycenae; A Narrative of Researches and Discoveries at Mycenae and Tiryns. 2d reprint ed., New York: Arno Press, 1976. Silverberg, Robert. Akhenaten--The Rebel Pharaoh. Phil- adelphia: Chilton Company, 1964. Smith, W. S. The Art and Architecture of Ancient Egypt. Baltimore: Pelican History of Art, 1958. . Interconnections in the Ancient Near East: A Study between the Arts of Egypt, the Aegean and Western Asia. New Haven and London: Yale Uni- versity Press, 1965. Stubbings, Frank H. Mycenaean Pottery of the Levant. Cambridge: Cambridge at the University Press, 1951. Taylor, Lord William. The Mycenaeans. Edited by Glyn Daniel. New York: Frederick A. Praeger, 1964. Tsountas, Chrestos, and Manatt, J. Irving. The Mycenaean Agg: A Study of the Monuments and Culture of Pre- Homeric Greece. New York: Houghton, Mifflin and Company, 1897. Van Seters, John. The Hyksos: A New Investigation. London: Yale University Press, 1966. Warren, Peter. The Aegean Civilizations: The Making of the Past. Belgium: Elsevier Publishing Projects, 1975. Weigall, Arthur. The Life and Times of Akhnaton, Pharaoh of Egypt. Rev. ed. London: Thornton Butters- worth, Ltd., 1934. Wingert, Paul S. Primitive Art: Its Traditions and Styles. New York: Oxford University Press, 1962. Woldering, Irmgard. The Art of Egypt at the Time of the Pharaohs. Translated by Ann E. Keep. New York: Crown Publishers, Inc., 1962. Wolf, Walter. Die Kunst Aegyptens Gestalt und Geschichte. Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1957. 119 Journals and Periodicals Aldred, Cyril. "The Beginning of the E1-'Amarna Period." Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 45 (1959): 19-33. . "The Tomb of Akhenaten at Thebes." Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 47 (1961): 41-65. Anthes, R. "Die Maat des Echnaton von Amarna." Journal of the American Oriental Society 14 (1952). Avdief, V. I. "Geometrical Ornament on Archaic Egyptian Pottery." Ancient Egypt (1935): 37-48. Bannister, F. A., and Plenderleith, H. J. "Physico- Chemical Examination of a Scarab of Thuthmosis IV Bearing the Name of the God Aten." Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 22 (1936): 3-6. Baud, Marcelle. "Caractére Du Dessin Egyptien." L'Institut Francais D'Archeologie Orientale 66 (1934): 13-20. Bille—De Mot, E. "Comment Les Egyptiens Faisaient Leurs Statues." Chronique Egypte 26 (1938): 220-33. Brion, Marcel. "Amenophis IV Et L'Art De Tell-el-Amarna." Art Vivant, 1933, pp. 443-46. Capart, Jean. "Dans le studio d'un artiste." Chronique Egypte 32 (1957): 199-217. . "Pensées d'éternité sur un mode plaisant." Chronique Egypte 32 (1957): 159-77. Catling, H. W.; Richards, E. E.; and Blin-Stoyle, A. E. "Correlations between Composition and Provenance of Mycenaean and Minoan Pottery." Annual of the British School at Athens 58 (1963): 94-114. Cattaui, Georges. "Variantes Et Constantes De L'Art Egyptien A Travers Les Ages." A. Centre univ. mediterr. 5 (1951-52): 31-41. Cooney, John D. "A Relief from the Tomb of Haremhab." Art gparterly, 1939, pp. 67-73. Davies, M. de G. "Akhenaten at Thebes." Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 9 (1923): 139. Davies, P. O. A. L. "Red and Black Egyptian Pottery." Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 48 (1962): 19-24. 120 Doresse, Marianne, and Doresse, Jean. "Le Culte D'Aton Sous La XVIIIE Dynastie: Avant Le Schisme Amarnien." Journal Asiatigue 233 (1941): 181-99. Drioton, Etienne. "Esthétique Amarnienne." Amour de l'Art 34-36 (1948): 223-30. Dunham, Dows. "Some Notes on Egyptian Drawing." Bulletin of the Boston Museum of Fine Arts, August 1939, PP. 62-64. Engelbach, R. "Material for a Revision of the History of the Heresy Period of the XVIIIth Dynasty." Annales du Service Des Antiquities Egypte 40 (1940-41): 133-83. . "The So-Called Coffin of Akhenaten." Annual of Ancient Egypt 31 (1931): 98-114. Fakhry, Ahmed. "Blocs Decores Provenant Du Temple De Lowxor avec Bas-Reliefs D'Akhenaton." Annales du Service Des Antiquities Egypte 35 (1935): 35-51. Fechheimer, Hedwig. "Die Neuen Funde aus Tell el-Amarna." Kunst und Kfinstler, 1914, pp. 218-28. Fischer, H. "Anatomy in Egyptian Art." Apollo 82 (1965): 169-75. Frankfort, H. "The African Foundation of Ancient Egyptian Civilization." Congresso Internazionale Di Preistoria E Protostoria Mediterranea (1950): 115-17. . "Heresy in a Theocratic State." Warburg and Courtauld Institute 21 (1958): 152-65. . "On Egyptian Art." Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 18 (1932): 33-48. . "Recently Discovered Paintings from Tell El Amarna." Burlington, 1927, pp. 233—39. Gardiner, Sir Alan. "The So-Called Tomb of Queen Tiye." Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 43 (1957): 10-25. Ghalioungui, P. "A Medical Study of Akhenaten." Annales du Service Des Antiquities Egypte 47 (1947): 29- 46. 121 Gilbert, Pierre. "Influences orientales sur l'art d'Amarna." Annu. Inst. Philol. Hist. Orient. 15 (1958-60): 5-16. Glanville, S. R. K. "Some Notes on Material for the Reign of Amenophis III." Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 15 (1929): 2-8. Guest, E. M. "Pathology and Art at E1 Amarna." Ancient Egypt (1933): 81-88. Harden, D. B. "Centenary of Sir Flinders Petrie." Museums Journal London 53 (1953): 107-10. Harper, P. et a1. "Origin and Influence of Cultural Contacts: Egypt, the Ancient Near East, and the Classical World." The Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin 29 (1971): 318-26. Hayes, W. "Inscription from the Palace of Amenhotep III." Journal of Near Eastern Studies 10 (1951): 156-83. Hornblower, G. D. "Funerary Designs on Predynastic Jars." Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 16 (1930): 10—18. Immerwahr, S. A. "Three Mycenaean Vases from Cyprus in the Metropolitan Museum of Art." American Journal of Archaeology 49 (1945): 531-56. Jesi, Furio. "Elementi africani delle civilta di Nagada. Aegyptus, 1957, pp. 219-25. Junker, H. "Der nubische Ursprung der sogen, Tell el- Jahudeyeh-Vasen." Akademis der Wissenschaften in Wien 198 (1921). Kamal, Moharram. "Fouilles Du Service Des Antiquités 6 Tell el-Amarna en 1934." Annales du Service Des Antiquités Egypte 35 (1935): 193-96. . "Some Fragments from Shawabti—Figures of Akhenaten in the Egyptian Museum." Annales du Service Des Antiquités Egypte 39 (1939): 381-82. Karageorghis, Vassos. "Myth and Epic in Mycenaean Vase Painting." American Journal of Archaeology 62 (1958): 383-87. Mackay, E. "PrOportional Squares on the Tomb Walls in the Theban Necropolis." Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 4 (1917): 74. 122 Merrillees, R. S. "Aegean Bronze Age Relations with Egypt." American Journal of Archaeology 76 (1972). Morgan, J. De. "De L'Influence Asiatiqge Sur L'Afrique A L'Origine De La Civilisation Egyptienne." L'Anthropologie 31 (1921): 425—68. Newberry, Percy E. "Akhenaten's Eldest Son-in-Law 'Ankhkhepruré'." Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 14 (1928): 3-9. Pendlebury, J. D. S. "Report on the Clearance of the Royal Tomb at El-Amarna." Mashalat-al-Athar, Egypt: Annales du Service Des Antiquitiés Egypte 1931 . Petrie, W. M. F. "Links of Palestine and Egypt." Ancient Egypt Supplement (1935): 143-45. Piankoff, A. "Les grandes compositions religieuses du Nouvel Empire et la réforme d'Amarna." Bulletin de 1'Institut Francais d'Archéologie Orientale 62 (1964): 207-18. Pillet, M. Maurice. "Quelques Bas-Reliefs Inédits D'Amenhotep IV-Akhenaton A Karnak." Revue De L'Egypte Ancienne 2 (1928-29): 131-43. . "A Propos D'Akhenaton." Revue D'Egyptologie (1950): 63-82. Rostem, Osman R. "Remarkable Drawings with Examples in True Perspective." Annales du Service Des Antiquities 48 (1948): 167-77. Schachermeyr, Fritz. "Welche Geschichtlichen Ffihrten Zur Entstehung Der Mykenischen Kultur?" Archiv. Orientalni. 17 (1949): 331-50. Seele, K. "King Ay and the Close of the Amarna Age." Journal of Near Eastern Studies 14 (1955): 168-80. Senk, Herbert. "Vom perspektivtschen Gehalt in der agyptischen Flachbildnerei." Z. aegypt. Spr. 69 (1933): 78-94. Smith, Ray Winield, and Kristof, Emory. "Computer Helps Scholars Re-Create an Egyptian Temple." National Geographic 138 (1970): 634-55. 123 Stubbings, F. H. "Some Mycenaean Artists." Annual of the British School of Athens 46 (1951): 168-76. . "The Mycenaean Pottery of Attica." Annual of the British School of Athens 42 (1947): 1-75. Tankard, Elaine. "The Art of the Amarnah Period." Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 18 (1932): 49. Uphill, Eric. "The Sed-Festivals of Akhenaton." Journal of Near Eastern Studies 22 (1963): 123-27. Wace, A. J. B., and Blegen, C. W. "Pottery as Evidence for Trade and Colonisation in the Aegean Bronze Age." Klio 32 (1939): 131-47. Warren, Peter, and Hankey, Vronwy. "The Absolute Chronology of the Aegean Late Bronze Age." London University Institute of Classical Studies Bulletin 21 (November 1974): 142-52. Weinberg, S. "Aegean Chronology." American Journal of Archaeology 51 (1947). Westendorf, Wolfhart. "Amenophis IV in Urgottgestalt." Pantheon 21 (1963): 269-77. Original Sources Hankey, Vronwy. Personal letter giving summary of talk delivered in a seminar at Columbia University on 8 December 1977. Kopcke, Guenter. Art Historian in Ancient Art at New York University. Discussion with author follow- ing a talk entitled "Minoan and Mycenaean Arti- facts" and delivered on 17 October 1977 at Michigan State University. FIGURES 124 KC. 3w..- uc Shallow Coops F‘s bm A994/I ohqtlm a”. F8 220 Fig. l. Mycenaean Pottery Sherds from Tell el- Amarna. Now in the collections of the University College, London (U.C. or U.C.L.) and the British Museum (B.M.). Shallow Cup, Furumark shape (hereafter F.S.) 220. (Photos courtesy of Vronwy Hankey) (Figures 1 through 10 are examples of Mycenaean pottery sherds from Tell el-Amarna, Egypt. These examples are now found in the British Museum (B.M.), the University College, London (U.C.L. or U.C.) and the Ashmolean Museum.) 125 ucL 718 I.- not (zloEDMqur'FacyoLL lanXait ‘E592.433d?7 3M was {-20 a. I (fishms ghfbulax Fhmok. Ma~62é1 53PK.AESIIK7 Mycenaean Pottery Sherds from Tell el- 189). Fig. 2. Globular Flask, vertical type (F.S. Amarna. (Photos courtesy of Vronwy Hankey) «c24iu EMA.A9§33 Grlobukw Wade Vod: 1312 F5 189 8~\ 499870 BAA bM £965 n" 937 M: has? 6” ”5 I ‘- .‘7’5 I3 Ffiaok WundC—Ofih 2—3 (s Mcu14889 Fig. 3. Mycenaean Pottery Sherds from Tell e1- Amarna. Globular Flask, vertical type (F.S. 189) and flask made from two bowls (lower photo). (Photos courtesy of Vronwy Hankey) 127 6M 1943 8-213 2. c Pume’ aw I457 "'g “4 A998 I A l...9 FLRSK. F¥>189 5997 l u: BMr'uc son-u: qus rs “4 la? Fig. 4. Mycenaean Pottery Sherds from Tell el- Amarna. Flask (F.S. 189) of the "Palace" style and small jugs (F.S. 114/118). (Photos courtesy of Vronwy Hankey) 128 ”0|. 1“”! 8 'Pnlacc ’ 51'Wm'4: JM BM A 999 (4 . "C4- 7z€+1~z Stump JAR chloral dumhm. b. Flau- hyped E51 Fig. 5. Mycenaean Pottery Sherds from Tell e1- Amarna. Upper photo: Stirrup Jar and Stirrup Jar (?) of the "Palace" variety. Lower photo: Stirrup Jar, (a) zonal decoration, (b) flat topped of the III B:1 period. (Photos courtesy of Vronwy Hankey) 129 UCL «Half (’D'Pped. 6hvni+ 30.” m ache. below? V. €532" ucLs°18 M A 99' Sum.» Jar, qtowow w mm. Fig. 6. Mycenaean Pottery Sherds from Tell e1- Amarna. Upper photo: (a) Stirrup Jar, flat-topped with zone, (b) Stirrup Jar (?), closed variety. Lower photo: Stirrup Jar, globular or piriform. (Photos courtesy of Vronwy Hankey) 130 I I I Iva A:999’( F3 95 sfunu-~Tav,’thtbamflvcn F594— ». A 991’2. Bm sac-5 8-so 54" mm} Jan /A-(¢bmhm Shrauo'hlr suite “6 Fig. 7. Mycenaean Pottery Sherds from Tell e1- Amarna. Upper photo: Squat Jar/Alabastron (F.S. 85). Lower photo: Squat Jar/Alabastron with straight sides (F.S. 94). (Photos courtesy of Vronwy Hankey) 131 Ramona. 6ka+g F5 4,5_ Lam bay W WW F5 (.66 - S—Jaur uc14988 acuzugc‘ : one a J’- I) “amt“ 3",“ “‘- “W "‘ 1"!- mg: 3.6.. BM A9915 LM may 9kg"... skate-c Fig. 8. Mycenaean Pottery Sherds from Tell e1- Amarna. Upper photo: Piriform shape (F.S. 45), lower body may be from F.S. 166, Stirrup Jar. Lower photo: lower body--Piriform shape. (Photos courtesy of Vronwy Hankey) 132 BMH-qq '2. an“: Ueascl I I I MAggs'l Fig. 9. Mycenaean Pottery Sherds from Tell el- Amarna. Upper photo: Closed vessel. Lower photo: Flask, vertical type (?). (Photos courtesy of Vronwy Hankey) 133 6M Aqqs KgIéc Fig. 10. Mycenaean Pottery Sherds from Tell e1- Amarna. Upper photo: Kylix (stem?). Lower photo: Mycenaean sherds in the collection of the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford. (Kylix photo courtesy of Vronwy Hankey; Ashmolean sherd photo by M. T. Phelps) 2 " I. A; 1.9% 1 .fifififijmpgi . was; * . -- «3 TEWW apxéafi Fig. 11. The Great Boundary Stela of Pharaoh Akhenaten. From Tell el-Amarna, Egypt. Limestone; 26 feet in height; 18th Dynasty. The relief above shows Ikhnaton on each side, accompanied by his queen and daughters, worshipping the sundisk, whose rays, terminat- ing in his hands, embrace them, and offer them the symbol of life. (Breasted, A History of Egypt, p. 345) 135 Fig. 12. Map of Tell el-Amarna. The east bank, with the city prOper and surrounding land. Scale 1:40,000. Map executed 1891. (Petrie, Tell el-Amarna, Plate XXXV) '. '4 1" |____—_L——_A——d .o- """‘ Tell el-Amarna General Plan (after Petrie) \»‘- l5k¢|K {2111mm Figure 12 0 ~ \ ' g 0 o 3. . a a ’ 3 .' fr '3 0 -. := 3 .. :1 5 '7 E I -9 I. T ‘ -o4 N K I; '3 ’ L 'S ' ' " 3' :‘sz' ‘ = “I; | H ‘ u " . ' ‘ d. " 1“: J14 7" q. g A, ‘z i :00- _- ) . . : I :2 ‘. Q _ ’:‘;‘: ‘1 00- ~‘ ' ,5 *. -"_'-.'Q1La.rl'1.1h' (abuse. - - ) s, I0 ’- q' .. I I. . J "K . v I .‘ _ .'-'- Q .‘L 5‘. ., '1‘. 3 .I' . a: ’ “0’ ic1' \' . "Mn‘ ' 'J'ITIT‘ v c End. .4 137 J 53 k 0.009 ( 0055/ 1111111 V.‘ ’IITTIIIIE Native Sand (no walls) I ‘ n . .. ':-.9 1955?: .ug“ ‘.'. ‘- s‘a .‘ éflsz Mortar Bed E553 Ill-I Brickwork E F Painted Pavement C. O -r-( 4.) to 'O C. :5" 0'0 {140) > (DO CE 00) «HS-a my '0 0) 4.) :3 U (D X (D C (U H D... RS (1‘. H g I H QJA H H> -—1>< OX [-‘x 4J0.) (04-) (O CH 0D: Plan of the Palace of Akhenat (Petrie, Tell el-Amarna, O O In 0H Moo HP! '0) OH «4‘0 I340 U) 1891. 138 \ n|urk PLAN .... .,. ...~..‘r'.“.....'.. // \ Fig. 14. Block Plan of Tell el-Amarna. The Central City. Defined by grid squares. (Julia Samson, Cit of Akhenaten and Nefertiti--Key Pieces from the Petrie Col- lection, Plate B, p. 10) 76.1, 6.3mm h Spud “Lu" \NOQTH Palace of Nefivttt} %\ CITY (: 1 J l l IOfO Manes I '. To 9030.}. Wan-3.1. and ~- Wovkmcn s' VJMJC 12> Mm Aten and, River Tcvale \I To Soufhnem ‘I‘Ombs Fig. 15. of Tell el-Amarna. pottery was found. Sketch Map of Central and North areas Dots indicate areas where Mycenaean Map executed by Vronwy Hankey. 140 Fig. 16. Artifacts and House 11 Plan from Tell el-Amarna. Two Egyptian vases decorated with the Mycenaean lily motif (Frankfort and Pendlebury, The City of Akhenaten, Part II, Plate XII). Plan of House 11. Scale 1:300. Letters stand for Petrie's interpretation of room function (Petrie, Tell el-Amarna, Plate XXXIX). Fragment of blue paste vase (27) with the names of the king and queen and a piece of blue engraved glass (36). Scale 2:3 (Petrie, Tell el-Amarna, Plate XIII). 141 Egyptian use of the Mycenaean lily motif (after Pendlebury) White in blue (after Petrie) House 11 (after Petrie) Blue glass engraved' (after Petrie) Figure 16 142 Pieces Percentage Pyxides . . . . . . 51 4 Bowls . . . . . . 15 l Piriform, wide neck . . 50 4 Piriform, white line. . 7 % Piriform. . . . . . 477 35% False necks, piriform? . 136 10 (Total piriform . . 670 50) Globular. . . . . . 569 42 Conchoidal pattern . . 24 2 Thick, matt face . . . 12 l 1341 100 Cypriote. . . . . . 3 Phoenician . . . . . 81 6 1425 Fig. 17. Chart of the percentage of total pottery finds that the Mycenaean sherds constitute from Tell el-Amarna. (Petrie, Tell el-Amarna, p. 16) 143 THREE-HANDLED JARS (after Furumark) ' 1:20 #35 III A:21 Advanced Piriform 4 I 0 III A-2e Q 9 (Amphor01d Krater?) AMPHOROID KRATER Piriform V (after Furumark) PZQ 1'20 ‘ o #53 III A:2e Conical Piriform _* ALABASTRA (after Furumark) #85 ' III A:2 “r“ 1:5 ‘-\ —‘ #94 {g \ / ‘ III A:2 E 1:10 SMALL JUGS (after Furumark) #114 III A:21 Glob.-Conical E335 8§E§> and Globular 1: 10 weighed ba # 118 down ggy III A: 1 ( Depressed Ovoid 1:10 #134? III A:21 Advanced Piriform 1:20 Fig. 18. Mycenaean Pot Shapes: three-handled jars (#35), amphoroid kraters (#45?, 53), alabastra (#85, 94), small jugs (#114, 118, 134?). (Furumark, Mycenaean Potter I: Analysis and Classification, figures 4, ll, 12, 6, 5 144 Fig. 19. Mycenaean Pot Shapes: stirrup jars (#167, 171, 173, 178?, 183?), globular vertical flask (#189), Rhyton (a) (#199). (Arne Furumark, Mycenaean Pottery I: Analysis and Classification, figures 4, 6, 12, 20) 145 STIRRUP JARS (after Furumark) #167 I]:[ B ‘4143 Heavy Piriform K ) 1:20 #171 III A:21 Depr. Globular 1:10 #173 III B Perked Up 1:10 #178? III A:21 Squat Glob. 1:10 #185? 111228 Alabastron Shape - CC:33 @ Detached Leaf Chain III A:2 MOTIF l4-PALM I Furumark: Petrie: 8 1 variants .52 $2 III A:2 Figure 22 150 Fig. 23. Mycenaean III Flower, motif 18. Showing two examples (69, 70) of the Unvoluted variety from the III A:2 period. (Arne Furumark, Mycenaean Pottery I: Analysis and Classification, figure 45) Petrie's example includes two sherds (36, 39). Scale 2:3. (Petrie, Tell el-Amarna, plate XXVII) Mycenaean Multiple Stem and Tongue, motif 19. Showing two types: angular (20, 21) from the III A:2 period and semicircular (31) from the III A:2B (Arne Furumark, Mycenaean Pottery I: Analysis and Classifica- tion, figure 47). Petrie's examples include Amarna Mycenaean sherds 85, 87, 59. Scale 2:3. (Petrie, Tell el-Amarna, plates XXVIII and XXIX) 151 MOTIF 18-MYCENAEAN III FLOWER Furumark: Petrie: 7o Unvoluted III A:2 MOTIF l9-MULTIPLE STEM AND TONGUE Furumark: Petrie: E51 ‘3! 2 0‘11] 25)“ Angular III A:2 31-‘\ «v, . . \ Sem1c1rcular III A:ZB v :=====:r Figure 23 152 Fig. 24. Mycenaean Bivalve Shell, motif 25. Showing two examples: top zone decoration (9) of the III A:2 period, and a chain variety (23) of the III A:21 to III B periods. (Arne Furumark, Mycenaean Pottery I: Analysis and Classification, figure 53) Petrie's examples include Amarna-Mycenaean sherds 122, 125, 126. Scale 2:3. (Petrie, Tell el-Amarna, plate XXIX) Mycenaean Rock Pattern I, motif 32. Showing two possible variants: continuous (5) from periods I through III B, and crested (21) from II B-III A:1 periods. (Arne Furumark, Mypenaean Pottery I: Analysis and Classifica- tion, figure 54) Petrie's example from the Mycenaean- Amarna sherds includes sherd 20. Scale 2:3. (Petrie, Tell el-Amarna, plate XXVI) 153 MOTIF 25-BIVALUE SHELL Furumark: Petrie: 9 l__ _122 E. 1" ‘ ,1- In top zone ‘ i of F.-N. jars III A:2 ’/ 23. ./E /, ’ \“ \._ 26 1 III A:21-III B ”It MOTIF 32-ROCK PATTERN I Furumark: Petrie: 5 £L£L£LJ§ Continuous I-III B Crested II B-III A:1 Figure 24 154 Fig. 25. Mycenaean Isolated Semicircles, motif 43. Showing one type (7) from the III A:21 period. (Arne Furu- mark, Mycenaean Pottery I: Analysis and Classification, figure 57) Petrie's example includes the Mycenaean-Amarna sherd 102. Scale 2:3. (Petrie, Tell el-Amarna, plate XXIX) Mycenaean Running Spiral, motif 46. Showing two varieties: connected and symmetrical (52) from III A:1-B periods, and two connected-one separate unsymmetrical type (56) from the III A:21. (Arne Furumark, Mycenaean Pottery I: Analysis and Classification, figure 60) Petrie has two examples of the variants of the Running Spiral from the Mycenaean-Amarna sherds (40, 80). Scale 2:3. (Petrie, Tell el-Amarna, plates XXVII, XXIX) 155 MOTIF 43-ISOLATED SEMICIRCLES Furumark: Petrie: 7 III A:21 MOTIF 46-RUNNING SPIRAL Furumark: Petrie: 52 III A:1-B @ @56@’ III A:21 Figure 25 156 Fig. 26. Mycenaean Quirk Design, motif 48. Two varieties, #51 of the I-III C:1 period and #8 of the III A:2 period. (Arne Furumark, Mycenaean Pottery I: Analy- sis and Classification, figure 61) Petrie has two examples from the Mycenaean-Amarna sherds (105, 109). Scale 2:3. (Petrie, Tell el-Amarna, plate XXIX) Mycenaean Curved Stem Spiral, motif 49. One variety (1) from the III A:2 period. (Arne Furumark, Mycenaean Pottery I: Analysis and Classification, figure 62) Example from Petrie includes Mycenaean-Amarna sherd 51(?). Scale 2:3. (Petrie, Tell el-Amarna, plate XXVII) 157 MOTIF 48-QUIRK DESIGN Furumark: .Petrie: 5 _1o5‘ C/Q/C/Q/O/Q (?G()J>” I-III C:1 J (7“ , , 109 8 ((3 6) (' JUU‘J‘. =- ( IIIA2 ' () n MOTIF 49-CURVED STEM SPIRAL Furumark: Petrie: © 4L@/\ III A:2 Figure 26 158 Fig. 27. Mycenaean Wavy Line, motif 53. Three varieties include: #5 of the III A:2 period, #6 of the III A:21 period, and #8 also of the III A:21 period. (Arne Furumark, Mycenaean Pottery I: Analysis and Clas- sification, figure 65) The Mycenaean-Amarna sherds from Petrie which show these types include: 13, 15, 71, 96, 97. Scale 2:3. (Petrie, Tell el-Amarna, plates XXVI, XXVIII , and XXIX) 159 MOTIF 53-WAVY LINE Furumark: Petrie: GWUUU') \\' ~/ "I “1 n Bununun III A:21 51W III A:2 Figure 27 160 Fig. 28. Mycenaean Diaper Net, motif 57. One variety used from the III A:1 to the III C:1 period (2). (Arne Furumark, Mycenaean Pottery I: Analysis and Clas- sification, figure 67) Two Mycenaean-Amarna examples taken from Petrie (21, 22). Scale 2:3. (Petrie, Tell e1- Amarna, plate XXVI) Mycenaean Parallel Chevrons, motif 58. One variety (32) of the III A:2 period. (Arne Furumark, Mycenaean Pottery I: Analysis and Classification, figure 67) One Mycenaean-Amarna sherd (94) example from Petrie. Scale 2:3. (Petrie, Tell gl-Amarna, plate XXIX) Mycenaean V-Pattern, motif 59. One type only from the III A:2 period. (Arne Furumark, Mycenaean Pottery 1: Analysis and Classification, figure 67) Example taken from Petrie's Mycenaean-Amarna sherds (65) possibly a variant--no exact match. (Petrie, Tell el-Amarna, plate XXVIII) 161 MOTIF 57-DIAPER NET Furumark: Petrie: 2% ' 21& III A:1-C:2 A \ ‘= MOTIF 58-PARALLEL CHEVRONS Furumark: Petrie: 3 2 >>2>>>>§§§ III A:2 MOTIF 59-V PATTERN Furumark: Petrie: only III A:2 Figure 28 162 Fig. 29. Mycenaean N-Pattern, motif 60. Two examples: wide-n (l) of the III A:1-2 periods and a narrow-n (2) type of the III A:2 to III B periods. (Arne Furumark, Mycenaean Pottery I: Analysis and Classifica- tion, figure 67) From Petrie's Mycenaean-Amarna sherds comes two examples: wide-n (130) and the narrow-n (99). (Petrie, Tell el-Amarna, plates XXIX and XXX) Mycenaean Zig-Zag Pattern, motif 61. One example (#17) of this pattern which was used from the II A to the II A:2 periods. (Arne Furumark, Mycenaean Pottery I: Analysis and Classification) The Mycenaean-Amarna sherds have one possible example sherd (135). Scale 2:3. (Petrie, Tell el-Amarna, plate XXX) Mycenaean Foliate Band, motif 64. One example (27). (Arne Furumark, Mycenaean Pottery I: Analysis and Classification, figure 69) The Mycenaean-Amarna sherds show one possible example (70, Palace). Scale 2:3. (Petrie, Tell el-Amarna, plate XXVIII) Furumark: lIHHHHHH III A:1-2 2 VW\V\\/\V\V\ III A:2—B Furumark: l ANV II A-III A:2 Furumark: 27W Double III A:2 Figure 29 163 MOTIF 60-N PATTERN Petrie: MOTIF 6l-ZIG ZAG PATTERN Petrie: MOTIF 64-FOLIATE BAND Petrie: 7U Palace 164 Fig. 30. Mycenaean Scale Pattern, motif 70. One example: scale (1) in use from II A period through the III B period. (Arne Furumark, Mycenaean Pottery I: Analy- sis and Classification, figure 70) Mycenaean-Amarna example (48). Scale 2:3. (Petrie, Tell el-Amarna, plate XXVII) Mycenaean Lozenge, motif 73. One example (a) from early III B period. (Arne Furumark, Mygenaean Pottery I: Analysis and Classification, figure 71) Mycenaean-Amarna sherd example (95). Scale 2:3. (Petrie, Tell el-Amarna, plate XXIX) Mycenaean U Pattern, motif 45. One example (1) of the III A:2 period. (Arne Furumark, Mycenaean Pottery I: Analysis and Classification, figure 58) Mycenaean-Amarna sherd 137. Scale 2:3. (Petrie, Tell el-Amarna, plate XXX) 165 MOTIF 70-SCALE PATTERN Furumark: Petrie: / / 48 I I \ \— q. I V II A-III B MOTIF 73-LOZENGE Furumark: Petrie: a<> III B MOTIF 45-U PATTERN Furumark: Petrie: l UUUUUUUU III A:2 Figure 30 166 Fig. 31. Carved Wood Cosmetic Spoon in the shape of a swimming girl reaching out to touch a duck. From Abu Gurob in the Fayum. New Kingdom, 18th Dynasty, c. 1370 B.C. Egyptian Museum, Cairo. Length 30 cm. (C. Aldred, Tpg Development of Ancient Egyptian Art from 3200 B.C. to 1315 B.C., Vol. 3, plate 48) Seated Statue of Prince Hem-On, Vizier of Cheops, from the Western Cemetery, Giza. Old Kingdom, IV Dynasty, c. 2650 B.C. Limestone, height including base--61% inches. Roemer-Pelizaeus Museum, Hildesheim. (C. Aldred, TEE Development of Ancient Egyptian Art from 3200 B.C. to 1315 B.C., Vol. 1, plate 11) Statue of Ka-Aper?(Sheikh e1 Beled), from Saqqara, IV or V Dynasty, c. 2600 B.C. Wood, height 43% inches. Egyptian Museum, Cairo. (Erman, Life in Ancient Egypt, p. 30) 167 Carved Wood Cosmetic Spoon (after Woldering) 0 "ll .. it'll ' T fiver-f1 2‘“; — “0“.“ ' (. s Portrait of An Unknown Man of the Fourth Dynasty .x Call Prince Hem-On Old Kingdom (after Aldred) ed "Sheik-el-Beled" Figure 31 168 Fig. 32. Statue Triad of Mycerinus, Hathor, and Local Deity, from the Valley Temple of Mycerinus, Giza. Old Kingdom, Dynasty IV, c. 2570 B.C. Green slate, height 37 3/8 inches. Egyptian Museum, Cairo. (C. Aldred, Tpg Development of Ancient Egyptian Art from 3200 B.C. to 1315 B.C., Vol. I, plate 25) Drawing of Prince Mer-‘Eb, Treasurer of the god under King Chufu. Tomb painting from Giza. Old Kingdom, Dynasty IV, c. 2580 B.C. (A. Erman, Life in Ancient Egyp , p. 86) Nature and Peasant Drawing, Middle Kingdom, XII Dynasty, c. 2100. (A. Erman, Life in Ancient Egypt, p. 403) Free Representation of a Catch of Fish from 4th Dynasty, Old Kingdom, c. 2600 B.C. (A. Erman, Life in Ancient Egypt, p. 401) *1: “L Prince Mer-‘Eb (after Erman) Nature and Peasant . - - -5 72.. Drawing Mycerinus from Old Kingdom Middle Kingdom (after Aldred) (after Erman) Free Representation of a Catch of Fish Most Remarkable for the Man with His Arms Bent Back. (after Erman) Figure 32 170 Fig. 33. Wall Paintings (frescoes) from the Tomb of Rekh-mi-ra (Rekmara). New Kingdom: 18th Dynasty dur- ing the reign of Thuthmosis (Thutmose) III. Theban Necro- polis, Tomb 100. (C. Aldred, The Development of Ancient Egyptian Art from 3200 B.C. to 1315 B.C., Vol. III, plates 44, 45, 46) 171 Wine Carriers of the Vizier Rekh-mi—ra asaaFHJH rs Brick Makers -‘ Water Carriers Figure 33 172 Fig. 34. Relief of Sculptor's workshop from the tomb of T'y. Old Kingdom, Vth Dynasty, Saqqara. (A. Erman, Life in Ancient Egypt, p. 414) Geese of Medum (detail). Paint on Plaster (entire frieze 9% by 63 inches) Old Kingdom Fourth Dynasty, c. 2570 B.C. From the tomb of Atet at Medum. Egyptian Museum, Cairo. (Petrie, Arts and Crafts of Ancient Egypt, figure 68) Seated Scribe, from Saqqara, Dynasty V, c. 2560 B.C. Painted limestone, height 20 7/8 inches. The Louvre, Paris. (A. Erman, Life in Ancient Egypt, p. 33) Egyptian Grid for Drawing of Human figures--Adap- tation from XII Dynasty originals. (I. Woldering, The Art of Egypt at the Time of the Pharaohs, p. 103) Comparison of Old and New Kingdom Figures, Prince Ment' Uherschapshef (Son of Ramses III, New Kingdom) and Prince Mr 'Eb (Son of Pharaoh Chufu, Old Kingdom). (A. Erman, Life in Ancient Egypt, p. 51) (H Wu! .mm,gy.'-I..,pm.j y . v ['1' 3.. v ,1 , (“um”) . IL). ‘ Iw'lll‘rtwlk'qfi ‘ “ ',_M§fi -. : 3' H: Mm“. Sculptor's workshop of the time of 5th Dynasty from the Tomb of T'y (after Erman) 1, .~g9-:“1‘:r"'-' , ..r~': AT” '1 ‘1 ., Ami-Isa! 1?. #? A ‘ Egyptian Grid for Drawing of Human Figures (after Woldering) Geese of Medum (detail) Comparison of Old and New (after Petrie) Kingdom Figures (after Erman) Prince Ment'Uherschopshef Son of Ramses III New Kingdom (left) Prince Mr'Eb 1' ' ' »-‘ Son of King Chufu Seated Scribe Old Kingdom (right) (after Erman) - , v V I; w «55.118 '3, it 1’ W fm ,Ihgl. 'fi ‘L “'7‘.’ 35.76;) L f ”’18.: ._. “5:!er .. 1%,. MM, - Figure 34 174 Fig. 35. Statue of King Senusret III. Dark grey granite. Height 55 inches. Excavated by the Egypt Explor- ation Fund at Deir el-Bahri, 1905. Late XII Dynasty. British Museum. (C. Aldred, The Dpvelopment of Ancient Egyptian Art from 3200 B.C. to 1315 B.C., Vol. II, plates 50 and 51) 175 Figure 35 176 Fig. 36. A Kingfisher in the Marshes, wall paint- ing, XVIII Dynasty Amarna Period, c. 1372-1355 B.C. Gouache on thin plaster over mud-brick. 11% by 15 inches. From a room in the Northern Palace at Tell el-Amarna. Reign of Akhenaten. (C. Aldred, The Deve10pment of Ancient Egyptian Art from 3200 B.C. to 1315 B.C., Vol. III, plate 128) Akhenaten and Family Worshipping the Aten Disk, limestone relief, XVIII Dynasty. From the Royal Tomb at Tell el-Amarna. Approximately 19 by 20 inches. (A. Erman, Life in Ancient Egypt, p. 406) Statue of Queen Hatshepsut as Pharaoh. XVIII Dynasty. Red granite. Height 95 inches. Found at Deir el-Bahri. At Cairo (No. 52, 458). (C. Aldred, The Dev- elopment of Ancient Egyptian Art from 3200 B.C. to 1315 BLQ., Vol. III, plate 24) 177 c-Q‘ .pgfléakc‘sb, .3. .- . ,1 h ' I "v i - 'I f,..v - . . ‘ ' ‘ ‘ . ~ ._ .,- ~ V Wall Painting from Amarna Kingfisher in the Marshes (after Aldred) (v u . 31:1 We; pvmw ‘pfigmmlg P ,_t>b v“ Statue of Queen Hatshepsut as Pharaoh Akhenaten and Family Worshipping (after Aldred) the Aten Disk (after Erman) Figure 36 178 Fig. 37. Colossi of King Akhenaten. Painted Sandstone. 18th Dynasty. From Karnak. Co-regency of Amenhotep III and Akhenaten. Original height over 13 feet. At Cairo (Nos. 49, 528, 55, 938, and 49, 529). r. . \o. . 1 ,. . . 4 V . a 179 ..,...... in“ [luv A”. , ... I I. q C) . r . .. 9 . .... 46.4.3... ..Lv.u¢m...w.. . x. . .u .. tfl~flw......:. “$46.. . .\..Jm;.. . .. m,,..\..l... . {Ba-nut... . .. J .. .n L :. . .. . .21» ...- }« ”9 Figure 37 180 Fig. 38. Cretans Bearing Tribute. Painting from Chapel of Senmut. Thebes 18th Dynasty, reign of Hatshep— sut. Keftians Bearing Tribute. Chapel of Menpheper- raseneb (tomb 86) and (on right) Rekh-mi—ra (tomb 100). (W. S. Smith, Interconnections in the Ancient Near East, figures 90, 91) Cretans bearing tribute» Painting from Chapel of Senmut. Thebes, 18th Dynasty. Reign of Hatshepsut. Keftians bearing tribute. Chapel of Menkheper- raseneb (tomb 86) and Rekh—mi-ra (on right, tomb 100) Figure 38 182 Fig. 39. Scene from a feast. (Woman being entertained.) Two styles combined: Formal (woman on right) and Informal (servant woman on left). Wall paint- ing (detail). Tomb (100) of Rekh-mi-ra. Thebes, 18th Dynasty. Reign of Thutmose III. Servant woman says, "For thy ka! Celebrate the joyful day." (A. Erman, Life in Ancient Egypt, p. 405) 183 Fig. 40. Mycenaean II Sherds from Near East Sites. Alabastron from Ras Shamra. Four sherds from Byblos. Four sherds from Gezer. One sherd from Lachish. (F. H. Stubbings, Mycenaean Pottery of the Levant, figures 9, 10, ll, 12, 13) 184 Mycenaean Alabastron from Ras Shamra Four Mycenaean Sherds from Byblos One Mycenaean Sherd from Lachish Four Mycenaean Sherds from Gezer Figure 40 185 Fig. 41. Three Fragments of Mycenaean III B Kraters from Ras Shamra. One showing geometric pat- terns, one showing horses(?), and one showing abstract human figures. (F. H. Stubbings, Mycenaean Pottery of the Levant, figures 22, 23) 186 Fig. 42. at Knossos (reconstruction), Late Minoan. The Queen's Megaron (detail), Palace c. 1600- 1400 B.C. (Frederick Hartt, Art: A History of Paint- ing, Sculpture, and Architecture, Vol. I, plate 124) 187 - .u ..\v I‘ll:'.§:1|b,fi .l It's“... . .ihlru 1! .3): .I..I‘..D§Q~ Life-size. e ) C 3 a l e a r P u g e .1 h f t m S O O r .S fcs .O OBn C K so e0f r40 F1 _n 600 C0.l ncut .llC r u P .r Ct g S n e u .D on Yae Oh enT hi. TM: h es ctr 3ae 4L1 1 . e g M .1 F u L F H at Knossos . 188 Fig. 44. Lion Gate at Mycenae. Limestone high relief. c. 1250 B.C. Height approx. 9 feet 6 inches. (G. Mylonas, Mycenae and the Mycenaean Age, plate 13) Figure 44 Relief from Lion Gate 190 Fig. 45. Grave Stela at Mycenae. Grave of "Cassandra." Early Bronze Age. Limestone--shallow relief. Height 1.8 meters; width at bottom 1.15 meters. (George Perrot and Charles Chipiez, History of Art in Primitive Greece: gycenaean Art, Vol. 2, figure 355) 191 Fig. 46. Hyksos--Te11 e1 Yahudiyyah Pottery. Middle Bronze Age II B-C: (a) Syrian; (b) Palestinian; (c) Cypriot and Egyptian. (J. Van Seters, The Hyksos: A New Investigation, figure 9) 192 .2: // H ‘ v «Civ- 9 ' P "I!" ‘ . ‘ .. w‘. . t 1’ 1". I ”fine" ' .E r " ‘t." .. 1"... ‘. 'q a " y)» . /' ,‘I' .r Q I s‘ I‘ ' J, ’41,: I. l x 0’ ‘l ‘ . 'J {I ' ’ t J = ' ' ' \ ‘ '.' ’)‘ .- ‘ I: ; s ‘.‘4‘ \ )-‘\' . . ’ . ‘ I \ s i I .' S ‘ / ‘ I i x X l - x \ I! ‘1 / . i ‘ ‘ a i \ ‘a % /Z:} ' 3... .- ‘ ." \- . 'o-of’“ . .‘ ‘ .. 7 [A III/{Y (I; . ' ‘ \\ ‘\ x' \ ‘ . /'/0" f .’ s."\ ’f "- \ ./ [’{/' ‘Jj 1 o " e ) , 31 ( . yard-9 ‘ t. . . . .v : l‘ ' flu'i" l"?‘ K i ‘r ‘ ‘ 1 W .J ’. " l v ' .' I". 1‘ (1'? \ ; .' . ( :\\’°\\1\ e \ ‘. ' .I .f ‘.‘-s H i' ' .1) v .H‘ !‘ J ‘ Ufa-Li" th; n“ 14' Fig. 47. Relief from the Tomb of Horemheb (detail showing soldiers). Memphis. 19th Dynasty. White hard limestone. Measures 0.418 x 0.366 meters. (J. D. Cooney, "A Relief from the Tomb of Haremhab," plate 2) .---—-’——— - - -“ 193 A>x mumfia .H .Ho> .uud cmwmcoowz "wooouu m>wuflfiflum :fl un< mo Muoumflm .Nmfimflso I uouummv .mchCfi mm .xoummm #nmfiwm .Uaow .o.m coma .o "mama .MH:OUMA um DEC» m :a 6:50w wu03 mmsu .mmoo oflsmm> map Eoum wwflamm ca wcowmwo .mv .mwm I. . , n flux 4 ‘ 1 F4. , g . . F 4.7. t E . . .f .. 194 Fig. 49. Clay Mask (tripod leg) from Amarna (House T 36.36)--Compared to a Gold Mask from Mycenae 1360 B.C., (Graveshaft V of Grave Circle A). Clay Mask, c. Gold Mask height approx. 12 inches. (Clay Mask: scale %. J. D. S. Pendlebury and H. Frankfort, The City of Akhena- ten, Part II, plate 10. Gold Mask: H. L. F. Mellersh, The Destruction of Knossos, figure 84) Figure 49 Clay Mask 196 Fig. 50. Fayum, el-Gerza. Red designs on buff color vases. Motifs include the palm variant, wavy line, and the spiral. (M. Raphael, Prehistoric Pottery and Civilization in Ancient Egypt, plates 28, 29, 30) Gerzean Pottery and Designs. From the Late Predynastic.