The Excavation of Wall-Paintings at the Site of Akrotiri

The excavation of Akrotiri is unquestionably unique for more than one reason but mainly because the preservation of the site permits a complete study of the basic features of an Aegean culture of the beginning of the Late Bronze Age. Architectural remains and portable objects, ceramics and wall paintings, undoubtedly the most spectacular discovery, are in an excellent condition considering the nature of the destruction. Ironically enough, it is this tremendous catastrophe that contributed to the preservation of the ruins. The excavation therefore does not present the problems of most contemporary sites which have seen many building phases and the working methods may be simple and yet most effective, if only certain basic rules are applied.

In the case of the wall paintings, with which we are here concerned, it is most important to keep in mind that they have not deteriorated with time but fell violently and in a relatively short time. The majority fell together with the walls they decorated and only occasionally sections remained in their original place, as e.g. the Antelope in the NE corner of room B1. Unique is the case of the Lilies wall painting in room D2, where they were found in situ on the walls with only minor damage. This, however, is logically explained by the fact that the room is on the ground level and the walls withstood the tremors. It will not be a surprise therefore if other ground floor rooms are discovered in the site with their wall paintings in situ.

The wall paintings in the houses of Akrotiri, which decorate mainly upper floors, are found fallen in pieces, large or small, under stones and mudbricks and among other objects. Certainly sections of them were irreparably damaged during the destruction. Nevertheless the situation is not hopeless and the experience of the excavation of a number of wall paintings leads to certain basic and vital remarks which help to establish certain rules for the excavation technique.

It is logical to assume that the pieces were not dispersed in various places in the room but followed a certain direction, depending on their position on the wall. As a result their position on the ground is related to their original position on the wall and the accurate recording of the exact place on the ground will indicate the original position on the wall. In general it appears that the upper part is in the lowermost layers, the middle above and the bottom section on the top. Certainly these "layers" should not be understood as regularly superimposed since the fragments are found among stones and mudbricks as well as other objects and in several cases the floor of the room has sunk and the pieces have penetrated in the room below. Moreover, if the paintings spread on more than one wall, fragments from one composition may overlap with those of another from a different wall.

In excavating the fragments, therefore, the aim should not be simply to recover the pieces but to begin at the site the right process for their future reconstruction and collect all the data that will establish the position of each fragment in the composition even if it does not join with the adjacent pieces. A mere recording of a related group of fragments together with other objects in the general plan of the room will not suffice. The pieces should be recorded meticulously and drawn in a separate plan.

The simplest and well tested method in this case is to establish a grid of one meter square to secure that even the numerous small fragments are accurately drawn and measured. Besides measurements, it is also necessary to note the direction, the position, face-up or down and give a very detailed description with photographs. Within this general scheme certain other factors are important to consider. Since the fragments are not found in regularly superimposed layers and because of the very nature of the restoration work, pieces which are very close in the composition or even join together, may be removed in sections and at different dates. Their position on the plan however indicates their connection.

It is not only the large pieces that should be recorded carefully, the same attention must be paid to the small pieces, as well, especially if a number of them is concentrated on one place. They need to be removed and recorded as a group because these meaningless fragments may later prove crucial for the reconstruction of the composition, since they may be joins between larger pieces which otherwise would remain questionable as to their exact position. It is also important to keep in mind that in several cases the plaster is neither thick nor resistant and consequently the edges may be worn and not join. In this case the relation between the adjacent fragments as well as their exact position depends solely on the drawings and the excavation data.

These simple but important principles facilitate considerably the understanding of the composition during the excavation proper. The reconstruction of the wall paintings therefore is not the last stage, after the fragments have been removed and restored - on the basis of insufficient excavation information and of the imagination of the restorer, or the expertise and iconographical knowledge of the archaeologist - but begins at the site itself.

The second stage of the work is the restoration and conservation of the pieces in the laboratories. After this is accomplished and the fragments belonging to the same piece are restored and joined together, the actual reconstruction of the composition may begin. First, all fragments with the same square number and primarily those found on the floor are gathered to check whether they join and to establish the relation to each other as well as their relative place in the composition, then the remaining fragments from higher levels. This procedure is followed for all fragments with the same square number. During this very important stage the excavation notes and drawings provide all the necessary information.

To illustrate the above theoretical presentation a characteristic example is the excavation of the wall paintings from room B1 ⁽¹⁾ . In the section of the room closed off by the north and west walls and the south partition wall of rubble ⁽²⁾ a grid of 15 one metre square was established. The fragments from the Boxing Children were concentrated at a short distance and along the south partition wall, a small number were in front of the entrance to the compartments, and only a few were behind the west partition wall and close to the entrance. The Antelopes lay in pieces, mainly along the west partition wall and in the NW corner, where they overlapped with fragments from the Antelope on the west part of the north wall of the room. A small number were in the middle of the room, at the NE corner, and only a few were found behind the west partition wall ⁽³⁾.

The position on the ground of the larger pieces from the left hand figure in the Boxing Children, as related to their original position on the wall, indicates in what direction the pieces fell. The large piece with the ivyleaf band was on the floor face down at a short distance from the corner of the wall ⁽⁴⁾. The fragment wiith the boy's head lay face up next to the previous one, to the west and a little higher ⁽⁵⁾. Partly on top and to the left (south) lay the large fragment with the lower body of the same figure, face down, and on the very top the fragment with the legs of the same figure as well as the decorative band below ⁽⁶⁾. When these pieces were removed a number of fragments were found on the floor, mainly in the area below the head. They belonged to the ivyleaf band and were from the center and the west end; some of the pieces joined, others did not. It appears, therefore, from their position on the ground that the topmost part of the wall with the ivyleaf band fell first, face down in most cases. Then followed the middle part with the head, face up, with the body, face down and lower part, again face down. These are not the only examples, since the close relation between the place of the fragments on the ground and the original position on the wall may be shown for most, if not all, fragments in the room ⁽⁷⁾.

Characteristic of the conditions in B1 is that the pieces lay very close, either on the floor above, or under the mudbricks of the west partition wall. There were in general few portable remains except for the southernmost section, where the compartments contained a number of vases. The fact that the wall paintings fell in a rather empty room, on the one hand, caused them enough physical damage since they were crushed under the walls which found no obstacle as they fell, and, on the other, contributed to a relatively easy recording. Fortunately also, the paved floor withstood the destruction and the fragments did not penetrate below onto the ground floor as in the case of other wall paintings e.g. the Miniature wall paintings of the West House.

This difference in the conditions in the rooms with fragments of wall paintings does not affect their system of excavation. It can be easily adapted and improved to serve every purpose, but it should not be abandoned.

We conclude with the remark that the wall paintings of B1 were excavated mainly during the month of October of 1970 and the reconstructed compositions were exhibited in April of 1971. A large team of restorers worked continuously and intensively, but they were immensely helped by the notes and drawings.

The search for adjacent fragments was not based on either similarity in motifs or the physical condition of the fragment, but on the evidence of the excavation data. The reconstruction of the compositions therefore is not proposed as the "only possible correct theoretical solution" ⁽⁸⁾, but as unquestionably correct. ⁽⁹⁾

- (1).   For a general account of the excavation of room B1 during the 1970 season S. Marinatos 1971, pp. 28 - 31 and the plan fig. 2 on p. 30. As mentioned there, the room was first opened in 1967 when it was realised "that everywhere plaster hung on the walls" (op. cit. p. 28). It states also that "we had already reached the floor at several points in the room" (op. cit. p. 29). This is clear also from the 1967 report (Marinatos 1968, 38 - 47, figs. 67 - 69 and indicated in the plan of the report for the 1968 season (Marinatos 1969, plan III). On plate 7 of the latter, room B1 is shown covered up again except for the area of the eastern entrances and the entrance to room B2 at the SE corner. Plaster fragments with decoration are also reported (Marinatos 1968, 42 - 45, fig. 66).

- (2).   Not of mudbrick, as stated in the report (Marinatos 1971, 32). It is clear also on pl. 53.

- (3).   The antelope on the west section of the north wall is not restored yet while that on the east section which was found in situ, has been removed.

- (4).   Marinatos 1971, col. pl. D and pl. 61a, fragment 3 of 9/10/1970. The drawing shows the reconstructed composition of the Boxing Children and is not "one of the designs of the frescoes of B1 before their removal". On each fragment are indicated the date and number. See also fig. 3 on p. 48.

- (5).   Marinatos 1971, col. pls. D and E, pl. 58 where the head is shown still on the ground. Fragment 1 of 9/10/1970 on the drawing of pl. 61a.

- (6).   Marinatos op. cit., fragment 2 of 9/10/1970.

- (7).   Hopefully a more detailed account of the excavation of B1 will appear soon.

- (8).   Cameron 1976, 22 and fn. 12.

- (9).   Stated already in the 1970 report, Marinatos 1971, 49. See also 32.

-------------------------------------