Cretan Ships on Seal-Stones: Some Observations

We naturally have to deal with the representations of Minoan ships. We have had to layout descriptor grids for engraved drawings on the seals. During this rather hard task, we met with an apparently minor difficulty, but a real one for us: which end was the prow and which the stern? in which direction were the ships moving? what to surmise from the angular position of the oars (or paddles?) toward this direction?

Since the first discoveries until quite recently, ships descriptions derived from two main theories (See bibliography at the end). According to the first one, the stern is generally higher than the stem, which is distinguished by a ram, a beak, or a simple projection (Cohen, 1938, passim). Ships are always represented as moving in the same direction. Oars are turned towards the prow. If the layout seems different, then the engraving is said to be "dubious" (Gray 1974, G 77) the work "neglected" (Marinatos 1933, no 5), the oars become figuration of the sea waves (Gray 1974, G. 76) or only scratches on the hull (Sakellariou 1958 p. 79). Following the second theory, the stem is higher than the stern: the conclusions are just the opposite, and the reservations are the same. Some authors admit to an evolution, or even a transformation of the rendering, from A.M. times to L.M. (Marinatos 1933; Casson 1971). Others think of a single convention for all periods (Laviosa 1969; Betts 1971). Others change their mind after a new element is discovered (Marinatos 1974). People may be self-contradictory and write stem for stern (Sakellarakis 1971, p. 211) and, as for myself, I am not quite sure that I have never fallen into such an error... Add that, before the publication of the CMS and the establishment by Fr. Matz of some rules for the description of seals and sealings, it was often difficult in archaeological works to know whether the drawings were made from the stone or from the cast (e.g. Marinatos, 1933 pl. 15, no 37 and Gray, 1974, G 41, fig. 6m). That was an other source of confusion.

You may guess how much a commonly accepted and valid system would be appreciated. So I should like to help establish some sense of order in the reading of formerly published documents, and I hope to give a key for further descriptions of ships on seal-stones. I am quite conscious that, in the short time allotted, it will only be possible to present my ideas in a very simple way, without the usual documentary support.

Some years ago on this island, my husband and I were so fortunate as to have seen the miniature marine fresco just beginning to come to light, in the diggings of our friends Marinatos and Doumas. From this discovery, we gained invaluable information on the Aegean navy, thanks to the colouring and the acuteness of the fresco. Many technical theories became obsolete (Marinatos 1974 A; Casson 1975) even if they continue to appear in the literature on the subject. New arguments were also presented to support some views when discussions arose on new points (Marinatos 1974 A; Casson 1975; Tilley-Johnstone 1976; Alexiou 1976).

I, therefore, profit from this occasion to make the following observations:

1. All the ships on the fresco, whatever their dimensions, are of the same type, the rounded hull; they are moving in the same direction; they are depicted with prow higher than stern, the more so if you take into account the bow-sprit or άκροστόλιον visible on most of them (Marinatos 1974, G 145).
2. They are often decorated at both ends. On the prow, they show a kind of hook, reminiscent of the fleur-de-lys end of ships on "talismanic" seals, with round flowers or butterflies over the sprit. In some cases, the other end is carved in the form of an animal stretched along the curved stern.
3. In one way or another, the ships are moved forward in the same waters and in the same circumstances by paddlers or by rowers sitting in the usual position towards the stern or standing towards the stem like gondoliers. One ship is navigating under sail. Paddles are normally inclined astern, oars in the opposite direction unless they are used as setters; either may be depicted in the sea or only over the hull. The sail is of the "Egyptian" type, which appears to be the normal Minoan form (Casson 1971, 33).
4. There is never more than one mast, which may be stayed by shrouds or back-stays or only by brailing ropes, and sometimes is decorated with garlands. It may be strengthened by a horizontal device which seems to be an awning. If lowered down with the sail and other rigging, it is bedded astern on a heavy rack and, on the forepart, on a "crutch topped by a curved broad bottomed rest" (Casson 1975, 5), the ίστοδόκη of Homer, (Marinatos 1974, 44).
5. On the stern, there are one or two steering oars, one for the rowed or paddle-manned ships, two for the sailing ship. On the paddled ships may also be seen a "bifurcated piece of wood" (Marinatos 1973, 29), a kind of projecting ram, high on the water line, the use of which is still very disputed (Marinatos 1973, 29; Casson 1975, 7; Tilley-Johnstone 1976).
6. All of these ships show a cabin or canopy astern. It is made of three vertical stakes with a (leather?) decorated wall, the upper part of which is hollowed out by two crescent-shaped curves. Such canopies were also known, on a bigger scale and apart from any marine figure, from another fresco discovered in 1971 by Marinatos in the same "West House" of Thera. At first, he thought they were "banners" (Marinatos 1972, 19), but soon the miniature fresco proved to him they were canopies or moveable cabins. Similarly, the new fresco enabled scientists to emend some previous interpretations (e.g. Sakellariou 1971, 8; 1975, 207, n. 3). Indeed, the painting is very accurate and its minuteness rules out many doubts, at least on such points as those we have just reviewed.

So, I should like to look once more at the fresco and advance some conclusions:

1. Parallel strokes drawn on or under the hull do not necessarily indicate the direction that the boat is moving. They may represent either oars or paddles, without any visible difference in most cases.
2. Hooks, and ornaments such as flowers, birds or fishes, in whichever direction they are figured on top of a ship's extremity, normally indicate the prow (Sakellarakis 1971; contra Basch 1973, 73).
3. The stern may also bear an animal-like decoration, but it never appears as a dominant figure above the ship. The stern is normally a bit lower than the prow. Steering-oars, and, on the long ships, a double hollowed-out canopy, occasionally indicate the stern.
4. If a sailing ship is meant to be shown, the sail is always figured transversal to the mast, with a horizontal yard and a boom. So, according to Minoan traditional rules of perspective, the sail is represented to be turned at right angle along the ship's axial plan. The sail may be hoisted high up on the mast or furled above the central shelter or awning.
5. Many other details appear, such as helmets on the top of canopy stakes, spars pointing out obliquely from these canopies, light constructions on the forepart of the "battle ships", parapets instead of awnings on the sailing ship, etc. I dare not enter into any discussion about them.

If you apply these observations and conclusions to the bulk of Minoan-Mycenean naval representations, you will find that they hold good for practically all the known seal-stones and sealings, even the oldest or the most debased or "talismanic" ones, provided you add the following clues: it is quite impossible to admit the so-called three masts (visible on many stones) as actual masts. It is also completely ruled out by specialists that these strong vertical strokes mean spars holding cross-hatched sails in the wind on both sides of the mast, or, in other instances, vertically furled tight along the mast. How could such devices be handled at sea? How would they actually be tied on the ship? The only way to avoid this aporia is to consider the three so-called masts and the cross-hatched "sails" as a symbolised rendering of the stern canopy, frequently depicted with crescent-shaped hollows so suitable to the engraver's work with a tubular drill.

Such a comparison was made by Chapouthier, many years ago (Chapouthier 1953, 26), when nobody had any idea of the Thera marine fresco. But, as it was expressed in a contribution to a Byzantine jewelry collection, it remained nearly forgotten (or put aside as "dubious". Gray 1974, G 77), and only I looked into it after this study was nearly ready.

So I confidently venture to say that the rigging above the hull, on most of the seal-stones, is nothing else than a more or less symbolised stern canopy. And the process of stylisation must have been the same for those cabins as the one we know for Minoan fish or sepia: they were treated like bundles or spindles, with more and more crescents and circles carved over them. At the last stages of debasement and disintegration of the drawings, they appear to be no more than a meaningless mixture of vertical lines and curves.

Let us return to our initial problem. We come to the following conclusions:

1. On complete ships, eventually depicted under an "Egyptian" sail, the sense of movement may only be deduced either from the higher prow (with ornament or hook) or from the steering-oars astern, if they are represented.
2. If only a part of the ship is depicted, it is always the forepart, from the prow to the mast, or more frequently to the canopy, stylizised as said above.

On such representations, whatever may be the visible length of the hull, or the way it ends toward the rear (by a vertical stroke or along the edge of the stone), you always find the three elements which seem to symbolise the whole ship in Minoan glyptic: a more or less curved hull, a high-hooked prow and a stern canopy (or at least a stayed mast). Inscribed clay roundels, recently found at Chania (Papapostolou-Godart-Olivier, 146  - 147), show the same symbolism for boats: a hooked prow, a kind of cabin astern. "Talismanic" stones, which are fairly numerous in the MM III B - LM I A period, often show such symbolic ship representations.

If we leave aside the terracotta or ivory models and the hastily drawn graffiti, which are not conclusive evidence on the matter, we know of 66 glyptic representations of ships. The above interpretation is valid for 54 examples. The remaining 12 instances which do not seem to apply, correspond either to ceremonial boats (gods have no need for oars, nor sails...), fragmentary or hypothetical figures, or to seals of which the genuiness has been disputed.

I hope that this ratio, on which I base the interpretation which I submit, will not appear as a too bad one.

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