The Mode of Representation in Egyptian Art in Comparison to Aegean Bronze Age Art

It takes as its starting point certain well documented aspects of artistic representation in Egypt - the close relationship between figural art and  writing, the modes of representation of the human body, animals and birds, the conventions which govern the representation of numbers and group compositions, the portrayal and meanings of different types of landscape, the lexical function of art and the use of hierarchical perspective - and compares and contrasts these with the modes or conventions characteristic of Aegean art. The results of this exercise not only illuminate the complex cross-currents of artistic influence which flowed between the two areas at different times, but also provide some insight into the different cultural patterns which underlie the art of each civilisation.

INTRODUCTION

Ancient Egyptian art, like most ancient art, had primarily religious and magical functions and is known to us mainly from funerary and sacred contexts. Art for its own sake was, as far as the evidence indicates, only very occasionally produced. Egyptian art was created by a society in which writing, recording, listing and controlling was of central importance (Kemp 1989, 19-63, 111-136); and it was this society which forged the Egyptian state at the dawn of civilisation. There is evidence that the majority of the population was resettled at the beginning of the First Dynasty in new, planned settlements (Bietak 1984, 1233ff.; Bietak 1986), and that in border areas, such as Nubia and the Sinai, the entire population was deported and probably sent to Egypt (Gundlach 1994, 3-70). Before the historical period, Egypt had already occupied the southern part of Palestine and had outposts as far north as Megiddo.⁽¹⁾ In view of such acts of absolute power, evidence of skill in organisation and of control by means of writing, we are forced to acknowledge that this was also the time which saw the creation of dynastic art. In order to understand the code of ancient Egyptian art we must therefore recognise that it has much to do with the system and mode of writing.

THE CONCEPT OF EGYPTIAN WRITING AND ITS RELATIONSHIP TO FIGURAL ART

Egyptian writing is a complicated pictorial system. Here we are concerned primarily with the way in which figures are rendered, and the manner in which they are simplified into ideograms so that they can be recognized quickly. If one goes through the ancient Egyptian sign list, one realises that the human or animal figures furnish the majority of standard modes of representation in Egyptian art (Wilkinson 1992). Most of the human representations can be derived in one way or another from the more than 60 hieroglyphs with human figures (Gardiner 1957, 442-448 Section A and B). The same can be observed to some extent in the case of animal representations. The artists had, of course, to adapt this corpus to the needs of the wall programme, and not every theme could be covered by hieroglyphic prototypes. The relationship between picture and script can best be seen, however, in strictly conventionalised religious/funerary painting, with the stereotyped man sitting at the offering table, or with the bearers of offerings or crouching persons who abound at banquet scenes (Fig. 1). For this, art created its own hieroglyphic standardisation.

The affinity between two dimensional art and writing in Ancient Egypt can best be seen in the illustrations of religious texts, particularly netherworld texts as written and drawn on funerary papyri. Good examples are the Book of the Dead (Fig. 2) or the exclusive royal book Amduat ('What is in the Netherworld') and related literature, as copied with their vignettes on the walls of the royal tombs in the Valley of the Kings. The relationship to the abbreviated cursive drawing and writing of the papyri can be studied illuminatingly in the Amduat illustrations in the tombs of Tuthmosis III and Amenophis II in the Valley of the Kings at Thebes (Figs. 6, 12). Here the figures of gods, demons, kings and humans are rendered in simplified line drawings, and are directly derived from hieroglyphic writing. Probably all wall programmes which we see in tombs or temples were transferred from small scale papyrus drawings. There the texts were written in hieratic or cursive hieroglyphic script, and the often superbly executed reliefs or wall paintings also originate from abbreviated line drawings in model collections on papyri. This system invites schematisation.

In what follows I shall try to present the most important modes of representation in Egyptian art before the period of the late New Kingdom, and compare them with Aegean examples in order to assess the different patterns arising from cultural background. In a short survey simplification is of course inevitable, and an exhaustive treatment of the subject impossible.

There is some advantage in comparing modes of representation rather than themes: we thus avoid the problem of comparing art mainly from funerary and sacred contexts in Egypt with art from palaces, villas and houses in the Aegean. Even the latter, however, ought to be regarded as sacred and emblematic (Morgan 1995, 44). The mode of representation in funerary and more secular spheres can be expected to be similar within one and the same culture.

THE MODE OF REPRESENTATION OF HUMAN BODIES

Certain standard attitudes which were part and parcel of hieroglyphic writing had to be introduced into Egyptian art, in order that concepts should easily be recognisable. Certain modes of representation were necessary for the character of the representation to be understood. This led to the convention of dividing parts of a human figure into different aspects (Fig. 3) and showing them in their most characteristic view (for a full discussion, see Schäfer 1986): the head and neck in profile, the eye in frontal view, the shoulders from the front. On male and female figures only one breast is shown as if one were looking at the chest from the side.⁽²⁾ This surely comes from the reduced line drawing mode of the ideogram. The pelvis and the legs are shown from the side, as are the arms. Standing male figures are shown striding with the inner leg to the front and the outer leg at the back.⁽³⁾ Only very rarely, in banqueting scenes of the mid-Eighteenth Dynasty, are maidservants depicted with their outer leg to the front (Fig. 23), in order to emphasise their bodily appearance (Davies 1943, pl. lxiv second and third register). In Aegean art this latter mode of representation is relatively frequent in male representations. It gives more depth to the figure and greater bodily delineation. Good examples are the representation of the boys in Xeste 3 on Thera (Doumas 1992, figs. 109, 111-113), athletes on the Boxer rhyton, on the Katsambas pyxis (Marinatos and Hirmer 1976, pl. 106 uppermost register; Hood 1978, fig. 111) and examples in glyptic art (Pini 1988, no. 272; Marinatos 1993, figs. 221ff.).

In Egypt, females are shown with a much less pronounced stride in comparison to males, merely for the sake of showing that they have two rather than only one leg. This is in keeping with the mode of representation used in sculpture in the round, where male figures have a pronounced stride whereas females either have their legs parallel or are shown striding very slightly.⁽⁴⁾ Hands are shown either with all five fingers open or as fists. The thumbs of open hands are often rendered as the final rather than the first finger, even though this view is not realistic. On the other hand, both feet are normally portrayed from the inner side, showing only the big toe. Only one foot of a sitting person is shown. The same applies in the case of a simple kneeling position.

Special representational formulae were used to show kings advancing in a ritual kneeling position, in which the inner foot covers the outer thigh in an unnatural manner in order to render the complete body. This mode was occasionally also used for representations of other persons of high status (Fig. 4). For the same reason, in representations of the king shooting arrows or handling spears in battle the weapons do not overlap his body (Schäfer 1986, 117).

The mode of showing the shoulders en face is sometimes changed to a more realistic profile view in which the figure bends forwards with both hands extended to pay homage, pray or work (Fig. 4). In such cases the two halves of the shoulders often seem to be folded forwards in an unnatural way. It should also be stressed that in many two dimensional human representations the head and limbs look as though they have been knit together with the trunk in order to produce a complete body regardless of harmony.

A profile view is also used (though not exclusively) for the mummiform bodies of gods or the deceased and for representations of statues (Fig. 5A-B) (Eaton-Krauss 1984a; 1984b). Shoulders are depicted en face, however, in order to show the royal Osirian attitude of arms crossed over the chest. Otherwise arms are not shown, and hands may either protrude from the white bandaged body holding a staff (Fig. 5A) or are not shown at all. Mummiform figures are never in striding position, and they have only one foot. This rule applies, for example, to the resurrected ithyphallic image of Osiris in a nude representation in the 'Book of Caverns' in the tomb of Ramses VI (Hornung 1982, fig. 129), in order to indicate that it is the body of the deceased god.⁽⁵⁾ Mummiform numina and gods, sitting on the floor as illustrated, for example, in the Book of the Dead, perfectly match the types of the hieroglyphs (A/40-49, C/1-7 in Gardiner's system: Gardiner 1957). Genuine hieroglyphs are also used as models for kneeling enemies with their arms tied backwards (Gardiner A/13), and for fallen enemies with blood streaming from their heads (Gardiner A/14) as well as for the souls of the damned in pits of glowing charcoal. In the Amduat illustrations in the Tomb of Tuthmosis III (Fig. 6) they are rendered in the manner of sketchy hieroglyphs (Hornung 1963, foldout 'Elfte Stunde'; 1984, 174, fig. 13; 1982, fig. 134).

The mode of representation of humans is much more varied in the Aegean world than in ancient Egypt. Besides full profile,⁽⁶⁾ we also have the same aspective type of rendering as in Egypt, with the head in profile, a single eye seen from the front, the chest from the front normally showing both breasts of men in relief⁽⁷⁾ where in Egypt only one is shown (though it should be noted that in Aegean painting the details of the chest are often missing altogether⁽⁸⁾). The pelvis and legs⁽⁹⁾ are depicted from the side. There are also other aspective views, such as those of females with the head in profile but the rest of the body enface, as on the Temple fresco (Evans 1930, 46-80, pls. XVI-XVIII), or profile views of women with the skirt en face like one of the Xeste 3 saffron gatherers (Doumas 1992, figs. 116-119; Pls. 8-9).⁽¹⁰⁾

We sometimes have profile and aspective views side by side. Is there some logic behind this? The two boy fishermen in the West House on Thera may be a useful group to study from the point of view of this question (Marinatos and Hirmer 1976, 155, pl. XXXIV; Doumas 1992, figs. 18-19; Pls. 5, 7). One is shown in pure profile, the other with the chest as seen from the front as in Egyptian art. What is the reason for this variation in posture? While the boy in profile carries only a single string of fish, the other carries two strings, one in each hand. In order to show this clearly and to avoid any obscuring overlap, he holds his hands at the sides of his body and thus exposes the front of his chest (Immerwahr 1990, 50ff.). In this way, the two strings of fish are shown clearly. Another possible subject for study is the larnax from Ayia Triada (Fig. 7) which depicts funerary rites (Marinatos and Hirmer 1976, pls. XXVIII-XXXII). Only the offering bearers are shown there with their chests en face; the other persons involved are depicted in pure profile. ⁽¹¹⁾ While we have offering bearers in pure profile in many other instances,⁽¹²⁾ the en face view o fthose here can be explained by a desire to show the offerings in clear view. A jar or a bowl can be seen from any side, but it would be difficult to show a man in profile carrying a big object like a calf or a ship model which must be shown in side view.

It seems that the en face chest combined with profile view is used in the Aegean primarily when it is especially meaningful, for example when something bulky is carried, or when such a view would be natural - for example, when a helmsman holds an oar (Doumas 1992, figs. 36-38; Pl. 3 (0-3.60 m.)), when somebody turns around⁽¹³⁾ or an arm is stretched forward for reasons of balance,⁽¹⁴⁾ or when somebody is delivering a punch,⁽¹⁵⁾ holding out a staff⁽¹⁶⁾ or brandishing a lance.⁽¹⁷⁾ In contrast to Egyptian practice, the legs need not be in a striding position when the situation demands a standing position (for example, Marinatos and Hirmer 1976, pl. 100).

More difficult to explain is the frontal view of the chest area of most of the participants in the 'harvesters' procession on a stone vase from Ayia Triada (Evans 1935, 218; Marinatos and Hirmer 1976, 144, l. 103-105; Buchholz and Karageorghis 1973, 94 no. 1165). They carry harvesting tools on their shoulders, but this need not have compelled the artist to show the upper body from the front. As far as the representation of rows of overlapping men, which give depth to the scene, is concerned, one might think of Egyptian influence, except that in this case both breasts are shown. Moreover, a number of glyptic representations in aspective mode cannot be explained in terms of the above; rather, there seem to be some different traditions at work in male and female representations (for example, Sakellarakis 1982, no. 113; Platon, Pini and Salies 1977, no. 174; Platon and Pini 1984, no. 24; Pini 1975, no. 199; Pini 1988, no. 34).

It is conceivable that the aspective view might have been developed in the Aegean independently of Egypt. Egyptian influence, however, may be seen in the frequent representation of females with shoulders in frontal view, in order better to show the open décolletage. However, only one breast is shown, even when the décolletage is wide enough to expose both breasts (Fig. 9).⁽¹⁸⁾ This conclusion is all the more compelling in view of the fact that it appears mainly in painting and is rare in glyptic art (Sakellariou 1964, 102 no. 86, 124 no. 108). Besides this, we have the alternative frontal view of standing or sitting ladies/deities which shows both breasts clearly.⁽¹⁹⁾ In the sitting position the legs are normally folded sideways (Evans 1930, figs. 28-34, pls. XVI-XVII). An exception is a young saffron gatherer from Xeste 3, whose legs are depicted from the front (Doumas 1992, figs. 116-119; Pls. 8-9).

The human face is, however, hardly ever shown en face in painting, except on the bead representations of the 'Jewel fresco'. Such representations frequently occur, however, in glyptic art without clear details of the face (for example, Platon and Pini 1984, nos. 276, 327; Platon and Pini 1985, no. 111). Could it be that, as Peter Warren has suggested, this iconographical detail was reserved for goddesses?

Frontality is also exceptional in Egyptian art, although it occurs in the cases of the goddess Qudshu, female musicians (Fig. 24) and enemies (James 1985, frontispiece and fig. 27). It seems that there is a kind of taboo attached to this form of representation in the Aegean. However, monkeys, bulls, felines and other animals, are occasionally depicted en face (Morgan 1995, 43).

In contrast to Egypt,⁽²⁰⁾ Aegean representations in relief and glyptic art show a much greater awareness of the athletic male body, both in outline and in the depiction of a detailed, muscular anatomy. In paintings, we meet the details of muscles mostly in stucco reliefs (Evans 1928, fig. 508; 1930, figs. 147, 220, 342, 345, 348, 350-352, 355; Kaiser 1976, 278-282; Shaw 1995, 98-100, pls. 6, 8) and in the Taureador frieze paintings (Evans 1930, figs. 144-146, 148; Cameron and Hood 1967, pls. A, IX-X, XIIA). This particular feature would seem to be a fundamental expression of Minoan and Mycenaean ideology.

THE MODE OF REPRESENTATION OF ANIMALS

Animals, striding or crouching, are normally shown in profile in Egyptian art. There are also, however,representations of animals such as the cobra which, like human representations, are divided into different aspective views: (Gardiner I/12,13). The head is in profile, the chest en face, and the rest of the body, including a representative coil, is again in profile. Again one could claim that this kind of composite view comes from pictographic writing, in order to facilitate quick recognition of the type of snake concerned. The swollen chest of a cobra is not easily shown in side view.

Other composite views of animals are chosen for similar reasons, that is to present the most informative view. The owl, for example, is represented with the head in its most characteristic frontal view, while the rest of the body is shown in profile with the legs in striding position (Gardiner G/17). Birds, other than the owl, are shown in profile, as are most animals. At the same time, spread wings are normally shown frontally and tails, if characteristic of a specific bird, in back view.

The horns of cattle and of cow-antelopes are shown from the front, whereas the rest of the body is in profile (Fig. 10A). This mode of representation can already be observed on prehistoric Red Decorated Ware and in prehistoric rock art in Egypt and elsewhere. It combines the two most representative views of those animals.

In Aegean art, on the other hand, the horns of bulls are normally shown from the side except when the bull is shown en face (Evans 1930, 208, fig. 142; catalogue in Morgan 1995, 43 n.140; catalogue in Younger 1976, 130, 133-134; 1995, 517 nn.35 and 36) or in back view (for examples, see Sakellariou 1964, no. 283; Sakellarakis 1982, nos. 53, 77, 100; Pini 1988, nos. 55, 128-129, 185; Marinatos and Hirmer 1976, pls. 231 middle, 232 top, 233 top, 234 middle). There are exceptions on seals which give an aspective front view of the horns with the head in profile, as in Egypt (for examples, see Sakellarakis 1982, nos. 21, 112; Platon and Pini 1984, no. 271; Pini 1975, nos. 195ff.; Pini 1993, nos. 68, 111; Pini 1988, nos. 55, 129, 185; Marinatos and Hirmer 1976, pls. 123 bottom left, 232 top, 233 top, 234 middle; Younger 1988, xviii). The horns of other animals, such as oryx or gazelles, are shown in Egypt in strict side view, which is more informative for the identification of the animal. In Aegean art, heads shown en face may have a special meaning, for instance to indicate threat (Bietak forthcoming) or sacrifice (Morgan 1995, 43; for bucrania, cf. Marinatos 1986, 40).

In Egypt, mammals in striding position are shown with the inner hind leg forward, just as in humans the inner leg is shown in front. The front legs repeat this motion in an analogous fashion (Fig. 10A).⁽²¹⁾ In Egyptian art, as a rule, mammals are shown walking and even trotting with an incorrect parallel stride (ambling), which in nature occurs only among mammals with very long legs, such as camels and giraffes (for examples, see Baud 1978, pl. 70; Hofmann 1989, pls. 11, 43-44, 137). The static impression created by this parallel stride, also seen in a running motion in which all four legs touch the ground, is perpetuated in Egyptian art until the middle of the Eighteenth Dynasty (Fig. 10C) (Groenewegen-Frankfort 1978; Vandier 1964-1969, figs. 454, 458-459, 468; Houlihan 1996, figs. 34-35). Although the parallel stride is strictly correct for mammals in full gallop, the extreme upwards motion in which chariot horses are normally depicted is highly unrealistic.

On the other hand, Aegean art shows a much better awareness of the movement of animals. Mammals, as a rule, have alternating strides (Fig. 10B),⁽²²⁾ while in the flying gallop the inner hindleg is normally represented in a backward position and the inner foreleg in an extended forward position (Fig. 10E) (Rhyne 1995).⁽²³⁾ This movement appears earlier in Syrian glyptic art (Collon 1994, 84, figs. 2, 9), but is also found in Egypt from the reign of Tuthmosis III onwards (Fig. 10D), with an acanonical exception from the First Intermediate period (Vandier 1950; Stevenson Smith 1965, fig. 190b) and another example on the niello inlay dagger of Ahmose (Cairo CG 52654: biblio.: Saleh and Sourouzian 1987, no. 121). Dogs hunting prey and, in some cases, hunted animals are shown suspended in mid-air without any groundline (for examples, see Davies 1943, pl. XLIII; Säve-Söderbergh 1957, pl. XVII/D. For the flying gallop in Egypt and its Aegean origin see in general Kantor 1947, 62-64; Stevenson Smith 1965, 155ff.; Schachermeyr 1967,44-46). They show the same leg arrangements as in Aegean art (Fig. 10E). A feature which points to Aegean influence, according to H. Kantor, is the reverse twist of animals in full motion (Kantor 1947; Stevenson Smith 1965, 156).

At the time of Tuthmosis III, horses are occasionally shown walking and trotting with a natural alternating stride alongside the traditional Egyptian parallel stride (Hofmann 1989, pls. 48 (reconstruction doubtful), 49, 52, 91, 102).⁽²⁴⁾ As this is a period of intensive contacts with the Aegean, it may not be coincidental and together with the appearance of the flying gallop may be regarded as a manifestation of Aegean influence.

As represented in Egypt, birds flying or sitting in the marshes relate to standardised hieroglyphic postures. The body is posed diagonally, the wings outstretched as in the hieroglyph (Houlihan and Goodman 1986, figs. 20-22, 105, 106a, 129, 136, 153, 160, 168, 182). Often the birds combine closed and outstretched wings, as on a Beni Hassan painting from the tomb of Khnumhotpe II (Fig. 11), which shows how deeply rooted art is in the hieroglyphic system (Houlihan and Goodman 1986, 155; Boessneck 1988, pls. 181-182; Shedid 1994, figs. 107, 111). Other birds from the same scenes show outstretched wings only in a very realistic manner. The bodies of these are not shown in diagonal pose, but instead they fly with their bodies almost horizontal or even pointing downwards. Both standardised and innovative renderings are found side by side. The time of the Fifth Dynasty was an innovative period, when kingfishers defending their nest against a predator are shown from the front in lively movement with outstretched wings and neck bent downwards, or divebombing the intruder (H.-W:Müller in Leclant 1978, fig. 138; Houlihan and Goodman 1986, fig. 164). Such scenes disappear afterwards and reappear only in the palace paintings of the Amarna period (Houlihan and Goodman 1986, fig. 163).

From the time of the Old Kingdom onwards birds' nests are arranged in a completely unnatural manner on top of open papyrus plants, so as to make visible what would otherwise be deeply hidden between the stems. The nests resemble the hieroglyphic representation (Gardiner G48), except that one of the three little birds may be turned round in order to enliven the scene (for example, H.-W:Müller in Leclant 1978, fig. 149). We often find only eggs in the nests instead of small birds in the marsh scenes (Houlihan 1996, pls. XXIIIff.).

Aegean birds, which are particularly well preserved in the wall paintings of Thera, display a keen observation of nature. They are shown in a variety of views, sometimes even with foreshortened wings. There are representations in pure profile view, with the body floating horizontally through the air, both wings depicted overlapping in upward motion and the tail shown from above or below (Doumas 1992, 25 above, and figs. 73, 74 left, 75). There is also a more aspective view, with the body shown horizontally from the side and the wings shown from below or above in the same way as in Egypt (Doumas, 1992, 25-27 and fig. 135; for a similar mode in the House of the Frescoes at Knossos cf. Evans 1928, 451, figs. 262, 264, 270, 272, 275; Evans 1930, pl. XXII).

Swallows depicted in full movement in lively contest in the Room of the Lilies are shown, exceptionally, from above and from below in a three-quarter view, their tails angled as they manoeuvre in the air (Doumas 1992, figs. 69-76, v. also p. 26). They are acutely observed and in sharp contrast to traditional bird representations in Egypt, which have a static pictographic character even when in flying movement. Only in palaces such as that of Amenophis III at Malqata (ca. 1388-1350 BC) do we have comparable bird representations which give the impression that one is looking skywards (Tytus 1994, pls. II-III). Closer inspection, however, shows that the birds are represented in traditional modes, with only the differing orientation giving an impression of naturalism.

Alighting birds in Egypt appear to be relatively naturalistic, but even they are stereotypes firmly established in hieroglyphs (Gardiner G41). Alighting birds can also be found in Aegean art (Marinatos and Hirmer 1976, pl. 109 top), as can the motif of sitting birds, as on the partridge frieze from the Caravanserai at Knossos (Evans 1928, 108-116, frontispiece, figs. 49, 51-54; Hood 1978, 57ff., fig.41) where the tail is shown in profile, and in an unique back view of a blue bird in the House of the Frescoes also at Knossos (Evans 1928, opp. 453, pl. XI; Hood 1978, 50ff., fig. 32; Michailidou 1992, fig. 73).

NUMBERS AND GROUP COMPOSITION

Artists in Egypt also drew on writing in their practice of using groups of three to indicate the simple meaning 'plural'. On the wall paintings of the predynastic Hierakonpolis tomb, for example, the king smites three enemies (Case and Crowfoot Payne 1962, 13, fig. 4/B). In the 7th Hour of the book Amduat a cat-eared demon punishes a group of three identical beheaded and bound enemies (Fig. 12). The hieroglyphic prototype shows those enemies with heads aaa (Gardiner A/13). Another demon follows holding the ends of the ropes of three bound enemies. The subsequent scene shows three identical bau (soul birds) of gods, a typical sign of plurality.

Even in the naturalistic art of the New Kingdom the formula of three signifying many persists. In the tomb of Nakht (TT 52) in the Theban necropolis, we see in a banquet scene groups of three men and groups of three ladies in identical hieroglyphic attitude and orientation (Fig. 13) (Porter and Moss 1960-1964, 1, 100(3); Shedid and Seidel 1991, 46). In the same register are two other triple groups, varied in this case by the different orientation of the central figure and by different dresses. One group also depicts banqueting ladies, the other group consists of the well known representation of three female musicians. Similar triple groups can be observed again and again in all kinds of scenes, although sometimes instead of groups of three one may find pairs (especially in banqueting and working scenes) or multiple groups.

In the Aegean, where there is no connection between writing and art, the number three is unlikely to have the same significance as in Egypt. We often encounter it, nevertheless, and this aspect of composition should perhaps be taken as an indication of Egyptian influence, especially where plants are concerned.⁽²⁵⁾ This is especially obvious in the representation of a tripartite papyrus clump in the 'House of the Ladies' on Thera (Doumas 1992, figs. 2-5)⁽²⁶⁾ where it can almost certainly be seen as an iconographical transfer⁽²⁷⁾ of the Egyptian sign mhyt = papyrus land, i.e. Lower Egypt (Hiller 1996, 86-89, figs. 7, 5, 14) (Gardiner M/15-16). It also appears earlier, as a hybrid with lilies ('waz-lilies'). The papyrus (Egyptian: wadj) and the lilies combine the heraldic plants of Lower and Upper Egypt (suggestion N. Marinatos), and were probably regarded as a sacred symbol (Rutkowski 1973; 1978, 661-664; Morgan 1988,21-24).

Triple arrangements of plants are frequent. Arthur Evans already recognised the frequency of the 'three palm motif' (Evans 1928, 493-499). There are also tripartite lilies on Palace style vases (Marinatos and Hirmer 1976, pl. XXVI) and on wall paintings in the 'House of the Lilies' on Thera (Doumas 1992, figs. 66-74; Pl. 15) and from Amnissos (Evans 1935, suppl. pl. LXVIIa-b; Marinatos and Hirmer 1976, 136, pl. XXIII).

In connection with the number three one should also mention the motif of the tripartite shrine on the Zakros vase, on pendants from the Shaft Graves at Mycenae (general discussion in Shaw 1978; see also Karo 1930, 74, nos. 242-244; Marinatos and Hirmer 1976, 117, pl. 227 centre) and probably on the 'indoor scene' of the Miniature fresco at Knossos (Evans 1930, 46-65. pl. XVI).⁽²⁸⁾ If the number reconstructed is correct, then the three trees on the 'outdoor scene' of the Miniature fresco may symbolise a compound plural signifying a sacred grove (Evans 1930, 66-80, pl. XVIII). The three bearers of oxhides on the Chieftain Cup (Marinatos and Hirmer 1976, pls. 101-102) and the three offering bearers posed opposite three performers of ritual on the larnax from Ayia Triada should also be mentioned (Marinatos and Hirmer 1976, pls. XXVIII-XXXII), as they are singled out by a change in background colour (Fig. 7).

Of special importance in Aegean art is the arrangement of paired figures in the composition of scenes. Besides the heraldic composition of emblematic animals such as griffins, lions or dogs (Evans 1935, pl. XXXII and frontispiece; Cameron 1970, 163; Marinatos 1993, figs. 154-161) and other opposing pairs of figures,⁽²⁹⁾ there are also parallel arrangements, such as the ships in the ship procession in the West House on Thera (Doumas 1992, fig. 35; Pl. 3), the participants in the procession in the Corridor of the Processions at Knossos (Evans 1928, suppl. pls. XXV-XXVII; Cameron 1987, 321-328, figs. 4 and 6), or the Harvester procession from Ayia Triada (Marinatos and Hirmer 1976, pls. 103-105) (Fig. 8). The procession of paired animals on the north wall of Room 5 of the West House on Thera also comes under this category (Doumas 1992, fig. 28). The animals in each pair are differentiated by their grey or reddish dappled skins, a convention which is also found in the representation of pairs of bulls on Thera, at Knossos and at Tell el-Dab'a (Morgan 1988,  56; 1995,40 n.101; Bietak forthcoming). This convention most likely comes from Egypt, as do the quadrilobal and multilobal dapples on the hides (Evans 1928, 513, fig. 370), which are also found on the linings of the captains' cabins in the West House (Doumas 1992, figs. 49-56).

LANDSCAPE AND ITS CONNOTATIONS

For long periods in Egyptian art, the representation of nature is purely symbolic. In practical terms, the space is reduced to a ground line, and made recognisable by vegetation, animals and men rendered in the aspective side view discussed above. The arrangement is linear, as in other scenes, and can be divided into strict registers, one on top of the other. Only in hunting scenes is an attempt made to render depth in two dimensional space (Fig. 14). The desert is indicated by undulating ground lines and several ground lines can be arranged behind (that is, above) one another. This might be seen as a more liberal application of the register system, but the different ground lines are linked together by two vertical fences which are shown flipped over in side view (Davis 1989, 82-92).

There is a bold attempt to show bifurcating channels in a map view on the mace head of King Scorpion (Ashmolean Museum, Oxford E3632: Quibell and Green 1898, pl. 26c, new drawing in Shaw and Nicholson 1995, 254). Thereafter, in the representation of water landscapes, water is shown in a very schematic way, like a ground line, in the form of a thin rectangular strip of water which can be related to the elongated form of the hieroglyph mr (Gardiner 1957, 491 N36) with the original meaning of a channel or river. This sign is also used from the Eighteenth Dynasty onwards to denote a lake or sea, and is further used as a determinative for different expressions for the sea (Erman and Grapow 1926, 78, 269). It merges with (Gardiner 1957, 491 N38), originally meaning 'pool' or 'basin', but also meaning 'lake' which may have the dimension of a sea, as in the case of the Fayum lake or the inshore lakes of the Delta (Erman and Grapow 1930, 397). In its purest hieroglyphic form, we can see the sign as an addition under the morning- and evening-barge of the sun-god in representations in the netherworld texts, for example in the tomb of Ramses VI (Piankoff 1954, pl. 149). In the book Amduat, which shows the voyage and regeneration of the sun god through the twelve hours of the night, the rectangle of water becomes more elongated, but is still clearly distinguishable as a hieroglyphic addition to the barge rather than as a realistic image of a river. A good illustration of how closely related two dimensional art is to writing is the representation of landscape in the famous Punt expedition of Queen Hatshepsut (Pl. 23) on the west wall of the southern middle colonnade of her temple at Deir el-Bahri (Naville 1898, pls. LXIX-LXXV). There the Red Sea is shown only as a thin strip of water. In order to identify which sea was meant, the artist filled the zone of water with fish typical of the Red Sea (Naville 1898, pls. LXIX-LXXV; for the identification of the fish represented, cf. Danelius and Steinitz 1967, 15-24).

Whether it is the display of a big overseas expedition to the land of Punt (Naville 1898, pls. LXIX-LXXV; Eggebrecht et al. 1984, 80; Pl. 23), or merely the standard representations of fishing and fowling in papyrus boats in private tombs, in principle the same rules of composition apply. The base is formed by an elongated rectangle of water, which is filled for identification purposes with sea fish in the case of Punt or Nile fish in the fishing/fowling scenes (Vandier 1964-1969 V, 510-668; cf. Shedid and Seidel 1991, pls. 56-61). The papyrus marshes which form the background of this type of genre scene consist of a rectangular light green area covered by the very straight, evenly distributed stems of papyrus. The heads of the plants are shown in three or more rigid levels above the green background, with the lowermost line of blossoms still closed, and open blossoms on the upper two registers. Only occasionally is a stem bent, which lends a touch of naturalism; otherwise, this representation is purely schematised and relates to the hieroglyph (Gardiner M/8).

Going back to the landscape of Punt, we find it is shown without any specific topographical features (Eggebrecht et al. 1984, 80; Pl. 23). Nevertheless, there is an attempt by the artist to identify this exotic land, which he does not know from personal knowledge, by including some attributes which he knows of only from hearsay. Characteristic are the round reed(?) huts on top of a pile construction situated by the sea. The plants, such as myrrh trees and dom palms, are shown in a purely symmetrical hieroglyphic fashion (Naville 1898, pls. LXIX-LXXI). The listing and representation of the products, such as incense, resin, gum, ebony and other exotic plants, the representations of giraffes, rhinos, baboons, monkeys, leopards and cheetahs, help the Egyptian viewer to identify the country. The Puntites, in particular, with their long coiffure, are distinguished from the Upper Nubians with their short peppercorn hair and negroid features. Nevertheless, they also show the strong nasolabial folds used to denote southerners.

In the Aegean, in contrast to the flat pharaonic ground, one of the basic methods of rendering the craggy landscape is a simple side view. We meet such a scheme on a stone vase from Zakros showing a peak sanctuary (Warren 1969, 87; Platon 1971, 136; Marinatos and Hirmer 1976, pls. 108ff.; Hood 1978, 146, fig. 140) or on the silver Siege Rhyton from Shaft Grave IV at Mycenae (Evans 1930, figs. 50-54; Stevenson Smith 1965, 63-66, figs. 84-86; Marinatos and Hirmer 1976, 173, pl. 196).

A second basic approach to rendering mountain landscape can be likened to early attempts at map drawing. This approach also incorporates a simple side view. Examples are the niello inlaid daggers from the Mycenae Shaft Graves and from Pylos (Fig. 16). Landscape can be seen there in its simplest form, as a single valley bordered on both sides by vegetation, hills and rocks. The towering mountains unfold in outline from the lower frame upwards and from the upper frame downwards (inverted landscape). Three lions run, as if in a valley, between rocks above and below (Marinatos and Hirmer 1976, pls. XLIX, LI) (Fig. 16A). There is a similar concept on a dagger from Pylos, where three leopards stalk among vegetation amidst inverted landscape (Marinatos and Hirmer 1976, pls. LII centre, 195 bottom). On another dagger from Mycenae, there is a representation of a winding river (Fig. 16B) (Marinatos and Hirmer 1976, pls. XLIX and LI top). As in Egypt, the water is identified by means of freshwater fish; among them catfish can be recognised. The fish are rendered in a view from above, as fits the concept of a plan or map, though only one eye is shown. On the sides of the river we have papyrus and cats hunting ducks. One of the cats, probably following an Egyptian model representation, has caught a duck with one each of her front and hind paws.⁽³⁰⁾ The inverted landscape is here replaced by alternating patches of bank with papyrus vegetation, integrated into the plane of the picture, and by cats with their prey. A similar motif can be found on an ivory comb from Routsi (Xenaki-Sakellariou 1985, 298ff., fig. 7).

A more detailed representation of a single valley with a river can be studied on the east wall of Room 5 in the West House on Thera (Doumas 1992, figs. 30-34; Pl. 2). Here the course of the river winds in a natural way, whereas in Egypt, until the later New Kingdom, the river is indicated merely by an elongated rectangle (see above). Its symbolic attributes are hooklets, perhaps weeds, which hang from both black-outlined banks into the blue water. The banks on both sides have yellow rocks deposited by river action and, at intervals, concentrations of pebbles which are unnaturally enlarged for the sake of easy recognition. To the river habitat belong palm trees in different sizes, arranged in three groups of three. They are situated on both sides of the river, together with other trees, papyrus and sedges. At the base of this long stretch of scenery are undulating low hills placed at intervals, completing the landscape.⁽³¹⁾ Exotic animals and a griffin, galloping along the banks to the right, inform us that it is an exotic-fantastic landscape (Marinatos 1984, 96; 1993, 193-195; most recently Hiller 1996, 89ff.).

In a more developed scheme, landscape may be rendered as a system of bifurcating valleys separated by rocks. In the House of the Frescoes at Knossos (Fig. 17) we have just such a representation, with winding rivers accompanied by patches of pebbles, papyrus, flowers and other vegetation (Evans 1928, 451, figs. 262, 264, 270, 272, 275; 1930, pl. XXII; new reconstructions in Cameron 1968). Ridges of rock between the rivers enclose plains, side valleys and hollows which are filled with more vegetation or with flying birds and monkeys. Again, we are dealing with an imaginary landscape, which has nevertheless been designed like a map.

Similar to the river landscape is the concept of marine landscape on a dagger from Pylos (Fig. 16C) (Marinatos and Hirmer 1976, pls. LII, 195 top). The sea, however, is not outlined and does not wind like the river, but covers practically the entire area of inlay. The sea shores are denoted symbolically by abbreviated indications of craggy coral reefs and hooklets below and above (Niemeier 1985, 33-39 with n. 179). This concept of a confined sea accords well with the topography of the Aegean where the shores of fjorded mainland or of islands are visible everywhere. The water is filled with nautiloi in order to define its nature (see also Marinatos and Hirmer 1976, pl. 251). This compares well with the function of the Red Sea fish depicted in the waters of the Hatshepsut expedition (see above, and Pl. 23). We have a very similar representation of the sea on the rounded external area of a tripod from Thera (Doumas 1992, figs. 142-144). Coral reefs are depicted on the upper and lower borders, while the area of the sea is filled with dolphins whose orientation follows the coastline. This is much more in accord with the concept of a plan than of a scene to be viewed from one side only, as the upper dolphins are shown upside down. In both cases, river and sea are framed from above and below with inverted landscape and hooklets.

The most complicated landscape composition in the Aegean, combining land and sea, is the Miniature Ship Frieze from Thera (Doumas 1992, figs. 35-48; Pl. 3). In many ways, it has the character of a plan, especially at the left end where there is a simplified side view of a town enclosed by mountain ridges between deltaic river channels. The map aspect is here combined with side views not only of the town but also of the mountains, which together with the uppermost riverbeds form an undulating silhouette. On top of this, we see fallow deer chased by a lion against an empty background. The rivers have their usual denoters in the form of weed hanging in the water and shrubs along their banks. The mountains display yellow, pink, red and brown rocks, and enclose the houses of a suburb in white hollows. The uppermost river course even displays woods along its banks against an empty background.

The town and landscape protrude like a promontory into the sea, which links the town along an extended frieze of water, with another town on the righthand side of the scene. This town is also presented in a terraced side view, framed by individual towering mountains also in side view. These reach almost to the upper frame of the scene, and have a different character from that of the rocks surrounding the lefthand town. On top of the foremost peak we recognise a group of three attached buildings, perhaps some kind of mountain sanctuary. The middle one is walled up.

The shores in this composition are denoted by the usual outcrops of coral reef. At the base of the town we have a procession of youths. Another series of people walk along the mountain skyline. They all face left, as do the different groups of people distributed on the balconies and roofs of the houses. On the other hand, the people on the lefthand side of the picture face the right. As a result of this, the focus is on the sea and on the procession of manned ships moving from the lefthand to the right-hand town. The emblems on their hulls display symbols of the different powers of nature involved in the microcosmos of this great composition (N. Marinatos here, vol. II). Oversized dolphins are used to denote the sea.

This large frieze teaches us one important thing about Aegean landscape composition. There are two approaches to representing nature: the simple side view, and the map scheme. Both are used side by side and in an integrated way. In the Theran ship frieze, only the lefthand part is based on the scheme of a map. The town on the right along with its environment is rendered purely in side view.

Egyptian art originally lacked such ambitious landscapes. Mountains in side view appear only from the Amarna period onwards (Stevenson Smith 1958, fig. 62; Pitsch 1980, 924). While castles in side new standing on a simple ground line are known to us from the Eleventh Dynasty onwards, in stereotyped battle scenes, especially those of Sethos I and Ramses II, we have the representation of a hill (tell) with a castle on top of it, rendered in simple side view (Fig. 22) (Porter and Moss 1960-1964 I, 113 [13]). On vignettes in the religious papyri of the Book of the Dead, which date to the Nineteenth Dynasty and later, the slope of the Theban mountain with Hathor emerging is also represented in side view. All this is comparable to Aegean pictures of a mountain with architecture on top of it, seen in side view (Evans 1930, figs. 50-54; Stevenson Smith 1965, 63-66, figs. 84-86; Warren 1969, 87; Platon 1971, 136; Marinatos and Hirmer 1976, pls. 108ff., 173, pl. 196; Hood 1978, 146, fig. 140).

In Egypt, the beginning of this convention most likely dates back to the second half of the Eighteenth Dynasty. The composition of the hunting scene in the tomb of Userhet (TT no. 56, time 1 of Amenophis II, ca. 1424-1398 BC) reminds us very much of the above mentioned battle scenes, ere the pharaoh in his chariot chases his enemies up a hill with a fortress (Fig. 22). The same basic scheme of battle can also be found on the chariot lining of Tuthmosis IV (Stevenson Smith 1965, fig. 211) and on the painted box of Tutankhamun (Porter and Moss 1960-1964 II, 577ff.; Davies and Gardiner 1962; Saleh and Sourouzian 1987, no. 186; v. also Schulz, this volume). However, these early representations do not show the outlines of the mountain clearly. We can only perceive them through the cluster of foes in confusion and, in the case of Tutankhamun's box, through the addition of sparse vegetation which creates the impression of a hill in side view. From the point of view of chronology, an Aegean inspiration for this mode of representation is a possibility.

In Egypt an understanding of map drawing was, of course, a necessity from the pyramid age onwards. However, only occasionally did aspects of it enter artistic composition. In the Old Kingdom we have representations of fortress plans in outline, with the interiors filled with registers (Stevenson Smith 1965, figs. 14ff.). Eighteenth Dynasty plans of houses, gardens and temples are integrated into the wall art of the tombs, especially in Amarna art (Badawy 1948; Roik 1988, gardens figs. 84b,f, 85ab,  93-94,97, houses figs. 86-100). The representation of landscape in map scheme, however, appears for the first time in the hunting scene of the tomb TT no. 93 of Qenamun (Fig. 18), a chief steward of Amenophis II (ca. 1424-1398 BC) (Davies 1930, pls. 48-50). There the landscape per se can be studied from all sides of the scene as if it were a map. Undulating hills are even arranged along the side and top frame as inverted landscape, projecting into the plane of the composition. They are connected by an irregular network of winding strips of desert gravel which enclose empty spaces. We get a sense of what is up and what is down only from the orientation of the hunters and animals placed within the voids. This is an extremely innovative and unique way of showing landscape including some kind of inverted landscape, and the use of voids filled with wild animals reminds us particularly of Aegean art. Evans particularly noted the similarity between the landscape features from this tomb and the landscape of the House of the Frescoes (Evans 1928, 448-450, figs. 262, 264, 270, 272, 275; 1930, pl. XXII; new reconstructions in Cameron 1968). Some maplike features can also be found in the approximately contemporary tomb TT no. 52 of Nakht (Schäfer 1986, fig. 159).

We again meet representations of landscape in maplike form from the time of Sethos I onwards, for example in the representation of his first campaign against the Shosu Beduins in Canaan (Wreszinski 1923-1935, pls. 34-53a; Porter and Moss 1972, 53-57). But this is mainly a linear affair. Full use of a map scheme in displaying landscape was made from the time of Ramses II onwards, particularily in showing the different versions of the battle of Qadesh on the Orontes (Wreszinski 1923-1935 II, pls. 63ff., 68ff., 81-106; Porter and Moss 1972, 179, 304ff., 334ff., 433ff.; Desroches Noblecourt 1971; Heinz forthcoming). There the topography of the town and of the river bifurcating around the town becomes an important item in the dramatic narrative of the battle.

LEXICAL ASPECTS OF EGYPTIAN ART

We saw in the Punt scenes the fulsome listing of goods in quasi-lexical fashion. This is a specific feature of ancient Egyptian art right from the beginning. We already have it in the oldest offering scenes where the items of offering become hieroglyphs. Nature is also lexically described through the abundance of its animals. In the sun temple of Niuserre' at Abu Ghurab near Abusir, there is even an attempt to show nature in its entirety as known in Egypt (Edel and Wenig 1974). Similarly, exotic plants and animals are listed in representations in the so-called 'Botanical Garden' in the Akh-menu temple of Tuthmosis III at Karnak (Porter and Moss 1972, 120-122). Lexical listing is also found in Theban tomb paintings in connection with representations of craftsmen in their workshops. In the tomb TT 100 of the vizier Rekhmire' the products of the workshops are shown above the workmen on an unrealistically large scale (Fig. 19). Sandals, for example, are much larger than the feet of their producers, and weapons of exaggerated size are shown floating neatly arranged in the space above the heads of the workmen (Davies 1943, pls. LIII-LIV). They have become signs identifying the kind of work performed in the workshops and have taken over the function of hieroglyphs. The same is true of the representation of bearers of boxes as offerings for the funerary furnishing of the mayor and vizier Sennufer at Thebes (TT no. 96), where the contents are displayed above the boxes: shendjit kilts, sceptres, sandals, weapons and other items of personal gear (Gundlach et al. 1988, figs. 17, 28).

The lexical listing of objects is not a concept present in Aegean art, although objects, vessels and tools related to production and the palatial magazines occur on seals from the Old Palace period (Yule 1980). We also find listing of objects represented on later seals showing cult paraphernalia on top of an altar (for example, Pini 1975, no. 608). A full display of offering goods is represented on the larnax from Ayia Triada (Fig. 7), including a ceremonial jug and a bowl with loaves or fruit, hovering in the air above the altar like the hieroglyphs and indicating the kind of offerings to be made (Marinatos and Hirmer 1976, pl. XXXI).

HIERARCHICAL PERSPECTIVE

Hierarchy in Egypt is expressed in royal and private art by the 'perspective of importance'. Tomb owners; and their wives are often represented twice the size of their attendants or offering bearers in inspection, hunting or offering scenes (Fig. 1). Cattle accompanying offering bearers are usually drawn on an unrealistically small scale. They become attributes, and are thus conceptually close to the determinative signs of the hieroglyphs.

The natural relationship between husband and wife is either ignored in favour of equal sizes (especially in sitting position (Fig. 1) or the wife is shown smaller, commensurate with the smaller average size of women. In fishing and fowling scenes, the size of the tomb owner in relation to his wife and children is, as a rule, exaggerated, while the papyrus boat in which he and his family are located is reduced to a tiny symbolic attribute (Fig. 15).

There may be no differentiation in size between parents and children in circumstances where the children, in priestly function, make offerings to their parents (Porter and Moss 1960-1964, 470 (26) for list of references). The same is true when, in the mid-Eighteenth Dynasty, the tomb owner has the privilege of himself presenting offerings to the king, who sits under a palanquin (Porter and Moss 1960-1964, 463, Ia,e-f for list of references). Normally, however, from the time of the Narmer palette onwards, the king is shown oversized in relation to human beings and the same size or almost the same size as the gods. Sometimes the king may even be slightly larger than the god, in order to balance the higher ground line of the divinity who stands on a podium or within a shrine: for example Sethos I offering the captives of his campaigns in Asia and Libya to Amon on the outer north wall of the hypostyle hall of the Amun temple at Karnak (Porter and Moss 1972, 53-57). The superiority of the god is, however, indicated by the higher position of his ground line.

Enemies are usually smaller than the pharaoh, though there are exceptions. In a face to face combat between the Pharaoh and a Libyan chieftain (a scene found with variations with Sethos I, Ramses I and Ramses III), the enemy is depicted at almost the same scale as the Egyptian ruler (Heinz forthcoming, pls. XX-XXV). In royal battle and private tomb scenes, subsidiary representations may be reduced in scale in order to emphasise the main scene.

The hierarchic scale is very distinct during the Amarna period, with the king being the largest, the queen second largest, and the daughters decreasing in scale according to their age (or equally sized at a smaller scale), while the courtiers and attendants are the smallest (Schäfer 1931; 1986).

In Aegean art, hierarchic scaling is rarely depicted in painting. Exceptions are the goddess of nature in Xeste 3, Thera, who is approximately twice the size of the offering girl in front of her (Doumas 1992, fig. 122; Pl. 12). Another exception is the so-called 'Parisienne' from the Camp-stool Fresco at Knossos (Fig. 20) (Platon 1959, 319-345; Cameron 1964; 1987, 321-328, fig. 2). There a female, most probably a goddess, is twice the size of the banqueting males, who are divided into two registers.

On seals, the female goddess is often represented on a larger scale than male figures thought to be gods (Marinatos 1993, figs. 171, 196, 199). Of particular interest is a small scale representation of an epiphany of a male god high in the sky (Evans 1921, fig. 115). This representation has been thought to indicate some perspective of distance (Marinatos 1993, 178; Blakolmer 1996).

Among human representations the difference in size is minimal and may merely indicate the relative importance of smaller scale figures, such as the oarsmen on the Ship Frieze on Thera, who are reduced to an almost undifferentiated body. Their role in the event depicted is regarded as minimal. The hierarchy of the boats, however, is indicated both by relative size and by the number of appliqués on the bowsprit (Morgan 1988, 133f.).

INNOVATIONS IN EGYPTIAN ART

The strict rules of Egyptian art and its standardisation have been discussed above. However, Egyptian art would be extremely dull if the laws of the canon had always been followed rigidly and copied again and again from model sketches. There was indeed a creative element in this art, and the artist occasionally liberated himself from the hieroglyphic standardisation, deviating discreetly from the canon. This, of course, was difficult to do in strictly conventional funerary scenes, even in private tombs, and it thus occurs more frequently in the scenes of daily life. Already in the reliefs of the mastabas of the Old Kingdom, farmers, herdsmen, fishermen, carpenters and other workmen can be found arranged in composite groups, which introduce subgrouping, opposition and postures which cannot be found in hieroglyphic standardisation. Realistic features, such as baldness, swollen abdomens, arthritic defects of the legs etc., are introduced in order to create some differentiation and a sense of contrast with the more aesthetic, idealised features of the tomb owner and his family.

The static nature of Egyptian art in scenes of the Old and Middle Kingdoms was broken early by lively representations of water tournaments in which fishermen push each other into the water and are momentarily captured in action, beating each other with sticks. Another opportunity to liven up the scenes occurs in the relief art of the mastabas of the Old Kingdom, with the introduction of subtle humour which is never subsequently repeated. This humour can be seen in occasional caricatures, such as representations of farmers and the working class. It is also expressed in conversations among these people, written in hieroglyphic text. For example, a father who is a shipbuilder asks his son to bring him a rope, and the young boy hands him a thin string and adds with aplomb, "Here it is, O father." Humour seems to be a specifically Egyptian feature (as it is today). It is rare in Aegean art (see below, in the concluding section).

Painting reached a high standardin the early Fourth Dynasty, as can be seen from the silver, glossy plumage of the geese in a tomb at Meidum. Later, in the period of Old Kingdom relief art, colour variation declines and colour is used only to cover the relief features. The palette also continued to be poor in pure painting applications. It was only during the Twelfth Dynasty, at provincial art centres like Beni Hassan, that shading was introduced. The colours were applied in different intensities. This can be observed above all in the shading of animal skins and the plumage of birds, but human skin was also given greater plasticity by a bold use of the brush and differentiated colouring. An acme of development can be seen in the art of Tomb no. 3 at Beni Hassan, belonging to Khnumhotep, the mayor of the town Menat Khufu, where an important innovation in convention can be observed in that the ground line is abandoned in order to create a sense of spatial depth. For example, a herdsman clasps the horns of an antelope from behind, while another crouching antelope conceals the level where his feet ought to be planted, which is not the level of the ground line (Fig. 21A). This represents a discreet but firm departure from the canon (Newberry 1893, pl. XXVII; Shedid 1994, 92, fig. 149). The same trick can be found later at the beginning of the Akhenaten period in the tomb of Ramose (TT no. 55) (Fig. 21B). There we see a densely packed group of mourning women of all sizes and ages, the smaller ones in front hiding the feet and ground lines of those standing behind, who must clearly have been standing on a higher level (Lange and Hirmer 1957, pI. 164). This can be seen clearly by the relationship of the tall mourners at the back to the males approaching them in procession. The latter are planted firmly on the ground line and do not reach the level of the heads of the mourners at the back. In short, the ground line of the upper female mourners has mentally to be reconstructed on a higher level, and this creates spatial depth without openly deviating from the canon.

In another centre of Middle Kingdom provincial art, Meir, low relief was used in the rock tombs. In the tomb of Ukhhotep there is a hunting and herding scene in which there is open deviation from the ground line, although the animals follow invisible ground lines in space (Blackman 1915, pls. VII-VIII). The scene has the depth of a two dimensional perspective (the term 'Cavaliers' perspective' used in mediaeval European and Persian art history). In the same tomb we have another interesting artistic convention: a cinematographic approach to rendering aged workmen collecting rushes. All stages of movement are depicted as if it were one and the same workman with the harvest in a bundle on his back. He is represented first in a kneeling position, then in several stages of getting up, until he reaches the position in which he carries the bundle home (Blackman 1915, pls. III, XXV, XXVI). This approach was also not unknown in Egyptian art of the Old Kingdom, when, in the temple of King Sahure', oarsmen are shown in all stages of motion of rapid paddling, which gives the normally static representation of ships a dynamic feel (Stevenson Smith 1958, fig. 32).

Mural art in the Theban tombs displays animation, especially from the middle of the Eighteenth Dynasty onwards and particularly from the time of Tuthmosis III and Amenophis II. Just as at Beni Hassan, there is greater variation in the use of shades of colour. New concepts of composition were introduced. In particular, the banquet scenes were enlivened by seductive and often almost nude servant girls, hardly seen earlier, who face the guests whom they serve. They show new varieties of postures, departing from the standardised modes of representation used earlier (Figs. 13, 24). New arrangements of the guests vis à vis the servants are introduced. In the tomb of Rekhmire' (TT 100), for example, the guests are shown in partly overlapping pairs of ladies or men with one or two girls serving them, the girls in a great variety of postures (Fig. 23). For example, one servant girl is rendered in an uncanonical three-quarter view from behind (Davies 1943, pl. LXIV third register). Another enlivening factor is the introduction of groups of female musicians and dancing girls, who look equally seductive in their varied costumes and differing postures (Fig. 13). Their arrangement is innovative, and their posture far from static as they are shown swaying to the rhythm they produce. They appear captured at a characteristic moment (Groenewegen-Frankfort 1978, 84). Female musicians are shown en face in the tomb of the above-mentioned scribe Nebamun, with the hands of a claqueuse in reduced perspective (Fig. 24) (James 1985, frontispiece and fig. 27).

A propos the mode of landscape representation already mentioned, there are new bold attempts to introduce maplike features in the representation of landscape at the time of Amenophis II (ca. 1424-1398 BC). An example of this is the hunting scene in the tomb of Qenamun (Fig. 18) (Davies 1930, pl. 48). Such attempts go hand in hand with new modes of representation of animals like the ibex, which in this tomb represents, to the best of my knowledge, one of the earliest rare examples of a natural stride with alternating pace (Davies 1930, pls. 49-50). This combination surely indicates foreign influence. The introduction of an undulating landscape at the side of the hunting panel in this tomb is very reminiscent of the concept of inverted landscape in Aegean art. Stevenson Smith (1965, 157), however, has attempted to explain this landscape in terms of an Egyptian development.

CONLCUSIONS

Comparative study of the modes of representation in Egyptian and Aegean art results in several conclusions. The most important one is not new: both civilisations influenced each other in art, but each stream of influence occurred at different periods. Let us first consider the Egyptian influence on the representational modes of the Aegean:

     1. There is some consensus that Aegean art owes its aspective mode of representation to Egypt (Immerwahr 1985, 48; 1990, 51). That this mode was transmitted from Egypt may be demonstrated, according to the results of the present study, by the female representations where only a single breast is indicated. The depiction of both feet from the inner side, showing only the big toe, also points to an Egyptian origin.

     2. Stucco relief is also believed to be a form of imitation of Egyptian relief, particularly as stucco (although of gypsum rather than lime) was used to create Egyptian reliefs when the rock was of insufficient quality for modelling (Kaiser 1976; Immerwahr 1985, 48; 1990, 52ff.).

     3. The application of string lines for planning wall decorations comes from Egypt (Shaw 1967, 158-163; Immerwahr 1985, 48). The difference is that in the Aegean the string lines were not applied with colour but impressed into the still moist plaster surface. Grids were not used as a proportional aid in the Aegean, but for the planning of regular patterns. Nevertheless, the idea seems to come from Egypt.

     4. The colour code suggests Egyptian influence: reddish brown for males and a light colour for females are assumed to have been taken over from Egypt. There, however, females are normally depicted in yellow, while in the Aegean they are painted white (Shaw 1967, 158-163; Immerwahr 1985, 48; 1990, 53). In both civilisations colour codes were not strictly applied.

     5. The hierarchical perspective (for example, the goddess in Xeste 3, and the Camp-stool fresco) may derive from Egypt. However, it is not frequent in the Aegean.

     6. The register arrangement is also rare in the Aegean, and probably comes from Egypt or the Near East. An example is the Boxer Rhyton with four registers (Marinatos and Hirmer 1976, pl. 106). Examples in painting are very late in date (LM IIIA): for instance, the Camp-stool fresco, which shows two registers of banqueting people (Evans 1935, figs. 323-325, pl. XXXI; Cameron 1964, fig. 5), and the Temple Fresco at Knossos also with two registers (Evans 1928, pls. XVI, XVIII).

     7. Compositional principles: the triple arrangement of figures, trees or other plants seems to derive from Egyptian numerical writing concepts (see above).

     8. We have details, such as pairs of black and reddish dappled animals - in particular bulls with quadrilobal dappling on their skin - which definitely come from Egyptian art, as Evans has shown (Evans 1928, 513, fig. 370). It lies beyond the scope of this paper to discuss numerous additional motifs, such as papyrus, palm trees, Nilotic landscape, monkeys (including those with waistbands) and many others (Morgan 1988, 17-68; Hiller 1996).

How all this was transmitted, and how Egypt helped to create or influence Aegean art, it is at present too early to tell, as we lack the earliest Minoan figural wall paintings. We do not even know exactly when these modes of representation reached the Aegean. We know only that, by LM IA, Minoan mural art was fully developed; and the presence of this art at Avaris at the beginning of the Eighteenth Dynasty (ca. 1530-1500 BC) shows us that the Egyptian stimuli must have reached Crete before that time. It is hardly conceivable that Minoan mural art was created within just a few years at the beginning of the New Kingdom. In the preceding Hyksos period, we have evidence of contacts with the Aegean. Besides the well known Khayan lid from Knossos, three jugs, one of them a Tell el-Yahudiyeh jug from the Hyksos period, made of Nile clay (personal examination), have been found on Thera (Ǻström 1971). However, we have practically no evidence of creative art in Egypt during that period. Egyptian art flourished during the Middle Kingdom, and it is precisely during this time that we also have most evidence for contacts with the Minoan world (Stevenson Smith 1965, 130-137; Shaw 1967; 1970; Immerwahr 1985). Nevertheless, we still lack decisive finds of figural wall paintings in the Minoan Old Palaces. The question can be approached for the time being only through an assessment of glyptic and other minor art from the Aegean.

As for the other side of the mutual influence of the two civilisations, the following modes of representation in Egyptian art show Aegean features:

     1. Representation of landscape as a map, including limited application of inverted landscape (Tomb of Qenamun).

     2. Landscape with a mountain in side view, mainly in connection with battle scenes.

     3. Representations of mammals shown walking or trotting with alternating strides as against the traditional Egyptian parallel stride (ambling).

     4. Mammals in flying gallop with the inner front leg extended forwards and the inner hindleg extended backwards.

     5. Less certain is the Aegean origin of the abandonment of the ground line, since this occurred in Egypt for a short time during the First Intermediate period and again in Middle Kingdom provincial art. During the Eighteenth Dynasty, however, this deviation from the canon could have originated in the Aegean along with the other features mentioned above.

     6. Aegean influence may perhaps be responsible for human representations in full profile and for the forward stride of the outer leg.

Apart from the brief appearance of the flying gallop and inverted landscape in association with Aegean motifs on some weapons of king Ahmose (ca. 1540-1515 BC), it can be claimed that Aegean influence appeared in Egyptian mural art during the later reign of Tuthmosis III and the reign of Amenophis II (ca. 1450-1400 BC). This is contemporary with or subsequent to the appearance of repeated representations of Keftiu delegations in Theban tombs, which date from the time of Hatshepsut and Tuthmosis III down to Amenophis II (Porter and Moss 1960-1964 I, 464ff. with references; Kantor 1947; Vercoutter 1956: Strange 1980; Sakellaraki and Sakellarakis 1984; Wachsmann 1987).⁽³²⁾ Is it a coincidence that this contact took place in a period when in Crete we can observe major changes which resulted in the emergence of Knossos as the only surviving palace? Another floruit of Aegean motifs can be recognised during the reigns of Amenophis III and Akhenaten (Frankfort 1929).

Despite strong Egyptian and Near Eastern influence from the beginning of Minoan mural art, the modes of representation give us important insight into the very different cultural patterns of both civilisations. Minoan art does not originate in a society which was dominated by writing, listing and rigid order. Art had a much freer spirit than in Egypt. This explains the spontaneity in composition, as well as the sense of animation and movement. Figures were not subjected to hieroglyphic clichés, rigid canonical order and ground lines. They were distributed with much greater freedom. As far as modes of representation are concerned, despite the influence from Egypt there is a greater variety at the disposal of the artist. On the other hand, there is a particular consciousness of the ideals of the youthful male athletic body. We lack the realism of the fat Egyptian scribes and intellectuals, who openly display their unmuscular status, especially in sculpture in the round. Typical of these are the scribe statues, especially those of the sage Amenophis, son of Hapu (e.g. Porter and Moss 1972, 169, 188; Saleh and Sourouzian 1987, nos. 148-149). The fat typically accumulated by people in sedentary professions was considered a status symbol. The convention is designed to show that they are not subject to any physical strain and work only with their brains. An exception in the Aegean is perhaps the supervisor of rituals in Xeste 3, who is depicted with an indication of a large stomach (Doumas 1992, fig. 114). In the Aegean we also lack the defective bodies of the working class as represented in tombs of the Old and Middle Kingdom in Egypt.

In the representation of females, Egyptian and Aegean art show some similarities in their idealistic approach. In the Aegean, this is combined with some realism: for example, sagging breasts are an expression of age (e.g. Doumas 1992, figs. 7, 10, 12). This feature never occurs in Egypt among goddesses, queens and the main female representations in tombs, but it does occur among subsidiary figures, such as female mourners.

Egypt and the Aegean share the attempt to present an ideal world, but the concept of this world is fundamentally different. In Egypt the harmony and protection of a strongly organised hierarchical society is displayed. Personal attachment and even tenderness is a part of this show. Hierarchy and attachment are seen in the religious scenes in the relationship between the king and the gods. In secular scenes they are shown in the relationship of the tomb owner to his family, and in their superior size and position in relation to their attendants (the so-called hierarchical perspective).

In the Aegean, alongside the ritual scenes, we can see an emphasis on nature and its different spheres (land, sea, air), which reveals a religious concept very different from that of Egypt. Whereas in Egyptian art gods and humans are normally at the centre of attention,⁽³³⁾ in Aegean art we can have representations of landscape without human and visible divine presence. The divine presence may be indicated by exotic or fantastic animals and plants. Tenderness and love, absent in scenes with humans, are only occasionally indicated symbolically through nature, for example in the display of courting birds (Platon and Pini 1984, nos. 250, 351ff.) or a cow with its calf (for examples, see Evans 1921, 516ff.; Marinatos and Hirmer 1976, pl. 71; Sakellarakis 1982, nos. 28, 110, 178; Platon, Pini and Salies 1977, no. 306b; Platon and Pini 1984, nos. 339, 344, 383; Platon and Pini 1985, no. 159; Pini 1993, nos. 34, 136, 165, 472),⁽³⁴⁾ Even the otherwise absent humour may be indicated through the medium of animals, such as monkeys playing the harp or fighting with a sword and scabbard (Marinatos 1984, fig. 80; Doumas 1992, fig. 147). This scene comes from Egypt, as can be seen from an ostracon with a monkey with waistband and harp (Houlihan 1996, fig. 147).

Hierarchy in nature - probably an important aspect of Minoan ideology - is expressed by griffins or felines chasing ungulates or birds (Doumas 1992, figs. 30-36; Pls. 2 (3-3.40 m.), 3 (0-1.50 m.)). The position of man in nature is made clear by special scenes of men hunting:⁽³⁵⁾ of particular importance are scenes of lion-hunting on a Shaft Grave dagger and on seals. To this ideology also belongs the display of tough competitions such as athletic games and bull leaping, which include the deadly outcome of such games (Marinatos 1995, 579ff.). This raises the question of whether this was as peaceful an ideology as popular fantasy would have us believe.

(1). New results of excavations by the University of Tel Aviv under I. Finkelstein and D. Ussishkin, reported in a lecture given by Israel Frinkelstein at the University of Vienna on the 18th of November 1996.

(2). There are exceptions from the mid-Eighteenth Dynasty and from the Amarna period, showing a frontal view of both breasts (cf. Schäfer 1986, 306ff. figs. 315ff.).

(3). See below for deviations from this scheme, especially on the wall paintings of the mid-Eighteenth Dynasty.

(4). For example the triades of Mycerinus, where the king's legs are in a striding position, the goddess Hathor is shown striding slightly, whereas the female nome deity has her feet parallel. Cf. Reisner 1931, 109, pls. 38a, 39, 40, 46; Porter and Moss 1974, 27.

(5). The yellow skin colour of the god symbolises that he is already resurrected.

(6). For example, one of the boy fishermen in the West House on Thera (Doumas 1992, fig. 18; Pl. 7); the 'Assembly on the Hill' also from the West House (Doumas 1992, figs. 26-27; Pl. 1 (0.70-2 m.)); one of the boxing boys (Doumas 1991, fig. 79); the Xeste 3 boys and one of the saffron-gathering girls whose skirt is even shown in side view (Doumas 1992, figs. 111-112, 115, 120-121); offering bearers on a steatite rhyton (Evans 1928, fig. 37); the acolytes on the taureador panels at Knossos (Evans 1930, 209-218, figs. 144-145; Marinatos and Hirmer 1976, pl. XVII; Cameron and Hood 1967, pls. IX, X, XVII); examples on the Miniature fresco and the Procession fresco at Knossos (Cameron and Hood 1967, pl. IV fig. 3; Evans 1928, 718-723, fig. 450, suppl. pls. XXV-XXVII).

(7). The Chieftain Cup from Ayia Triada, though not in striding position but standing with overlapping legs (Marinatos and Hirmer 1976, pls. 100-102); the Harvester Vase from Ayia Triada (Marinatos and Hirmer 1976, pls. 103-105); the Boxer Rhyton (Marinatos and Hirmer 1976, pls. 106-107); the bull hunters on the pyxis from Katsambas (Hood 1978, fig. 111); Vapheio cup A (Marinatos and Hirmer 1976, pls. 182, 184).

(8). For example, the boy fishermen from the West House and the Xeste 3 boys (cf. following note), and representations of athletes and hunters at Tell el-Dab'a (Bietak 1994, pls. 15A, 16; Bietak and Marinatos 1995, figs. 9, 11).

(9). See for example the boy fishermen and the Xeste 3 boys from Thera (Doumas 1992, figs. 19, 113; Pl. 5) and all representations on the miniature frescoes. An exception is the alighting leaper from the taureador frescoes at Knossos (Evans 1930, pl. XXI).

(10). Cf. fishermen in glyptic art: Platon, Pini and Salies 1977, nos. 174 and 267; Pini 1975,no. 181, which all have an aspective view where only one or two big fish are shown (no strings of fish are possible at this scale).

(11). We may observe that the ladies with extended arms have both halves of their shoulders folded forward as in Egypt, which may indicate some Egyptian influence on this scene.

(12). For example, the Xeste 3 boys (Doumas 1992, figs. 111-112, 115); the Procession fresco at Knossos, where one finds in addition to pure profile a three-quarter view with foreshortened shoulder (Evans 1928, 718-723, fig. 450, suppl. pls. XXV-XXVII; Cameron 1987, 4 and 6); an offering bearer on a steatite rhyton (Evans 1930, fig, 37). An exception may be the 'priestess' from the West House on Thera who carries a small incense burner but is nevertheless shown with her chest as seen from the front. This, however, is necessary to show her characteristic ritual dress which is flung across her breast and over her right shoulder. In order to show this, the lady has to be seen as from the front (Doumas 1992, fig. 24).

(13). For example, one of the Xeste 3 boys (Doumas 1992, fig. 113).

(14). A taureador alighting (Evans 1930, pl. XXI).

(15). One of the boxing boys as a result of this movement (Doumas 1992, fig. 79), and the athletes on the Boxer Rhyton (Marinatos and Hirmer 1976, figs. 106-107); v. also Evans 1930, 35, fig. 17.

(16). The attitude of a god (Hood 1978, 143-145, 262 n. 60 (biblio.)), as the so-called 'Prince of the Lilies' may be according to a new reconstruction by Niemeier (1987, 65-97). For divine appearances with a staff on seals, see also Marinatos 1993, figs. 124, 133, 154, 170-172, 174.

(17). For example the hunters on the Katsambas pyxis (Hood 1978, 122, fig. 111).

(18). For example in the Thera West House Ship frieze (Marinatos 1984, 53, fig. 32; Doumas 1992, fig. 38); the adorants on the north wall of the Lustral Basin (Doumas 1992, figs. 100-102); the goddess in Xeste 3 (Doumas 1992, figs. 122, 125; Pl. 12) and two ladies from Room 3a of the same building (Doumas 1992, figs. 131-134). For similar Mycenaean representations, cf. Immerwahr 1990, pl. 57.

19. For example: Pseira (Evans 1930, fig. 15A); stucco relief from Knossos (Evans 1930, figs. 22, 27); Temple fresco, Knossos, standing and sitting ladies with skirt shown from the front (Evans 1930, figs. 28-34, pls. XVI-XVII); Thera, Xeste 3, crouching saffron gatherer (Doumas 1992, fig. 118). In glyptic art the most frequent representation is that of the lady in frontal view, showing both breasts even when in walking position, but with feet and head in side view: e.g. Platon and Pini 1984, no. 63; Pini 1993, no. 115; Pini 1988, no. 27. There is also the pure profile view of the shoulders and head side by side with the frontal view: Platon and Pini 1984, nos. 51, 326; Pini 1988, nos. 29, 30. The pure en face mode is very common in glyptic art.

20. Even in royal sculpture in the round with idealised features, muscular relief is shown only in a schematised, moderate way. This can even be observed on the statues of Amenophis II, who emphasised his personal bodily strength and endurance in his inscriptions.

(21). The unnatural leg positions of Egyptian animals in motion has not been commented on as far as I know (cf. Brunner-Traut 1986). See for example Boessneck 1988, pls. 12 (on the Tjehenu palette of late Predynastic date), 29b (see, however, the natural leg position on the scientific drawing in pl. 29a), 33-34, 38-39, 47, 49, 51-52, 54a (cf. the natural leg position on a picture taken from nature in pl. 54b), 59, 75-77, 79, 87, 89-94 (see, however, the modern scientific drawing from nature in pl. 95a), 105-106 (see, however, the natural leg position in the photograph pl. 108), 110, 116, 118-119, 121, 124-128, 130-132, 137 (see, however, the natural leg position in the scientific drawing in pl. 138a), 172, 176; Houlihan 1996, figs. 3, 5, 7-9, 13, 16, 17-19, 21,  23-26,29, 33-37, 39-40, 46, 56-58, 65-66, 74, 78, 83, 85, 140, pls. VI, IX, XIII-XVI, XXIV.

(22). For example Marinatos and Hirmer 1976, pls. 115 (bottom right), 195 (bottom), 234 (top). See however the ambling Vapheio Cup bull (ibid. pl. 204), whose right hindleg is tied. For exceptions see the horses and griffins pulling the chariots on the Ayia Triada larnax (Marinatos and Hirmer 1976, pls. XXXII bottom, XXXIII) which have a parallel stride.

(23). The forelegs may almost merge into one in representations of felines: Thera, Nilotic landscape (Doumas 1992, fig. 34), Shaft Grave daggers (Marinatos and Hirmer 1976, pls. XLIX-LI).

(24). A natural stride also occasionally appears during the Nineteenth Dynasty.

(25). In Egypt tripartite plant representations are common; cf. the landscape of Punt, Pl. 23.

(26). The tripartite papyrus at Tylissos (Shaw 1972) is doubtful according to Peter Warren (personal communication). Triple papyri also appear on LM jars (e.g. Evans 1935, 342-345; Marinatos and Hirmer 1976, pls. 82, 91; Hood 1978, 39, fig. 18; Niemeier 1985, 13, 43).

(27). For iconographical transfer see Warren 1995, 2.

(28). The reconstruction cannot, however, be considered as safe.

(29). For example, the Camp-stool fresco (most recent reconstruction in Cameron 1987, 321-328, fig. 2); the 'Assembly on the Hill' on Thera (Doumas 1992, figs. 27-29); the Procession fresco (Cameron 1987, figs. 4 and 6).

(30). We have a good Egyptian parallel for this 'supercat' from an unidentified tomb at Thebes, belonging to a scribe by the name of Nebanum (cf. H.-W Müller in Leclant 1978, fig. 66; James 1985, inner frontispiece and fig. 25; Malek 1993, fig. 43). It is, however, later in date than the dagger (between Amenophis II and Amenophis III, ca. 1424-1350 BC). Nevertheless, the theme is assumed to be an Egyptian one, since cats stalking in the papyrus marshes (though without catching birds) are known from the time of the Middle Kingdom (Shedid 1994, figs. 106-107; see also Immerwahr 1985, 41-44). The chronology of the cat in action might also imply feedback of an Aegean version of this scene to Egypt.

(31). We might also expect undulating hills placed at intervals at the upper edge of this scene. Inverted landscape is, however, rarely used in the art of Thera. We find it above the crouching wounded girl in Xeste 3 (Doumas 1992, figs. 100, 105-106) and on the emblems on the hulls of the ships (ibid., figs. 35-38; Pl. 3 (1.90-2.30 m.)).

(32). The only tomb (TT 120) with Keftiu representations which dates after Amenophis II, to the time of Amenophis III, shows them as enemies of Egypt, not as a delegation.

(33). Exceptions are the reliefs of the seasons from the sun temple of Niuserre' and in the paintings of the palace of Amarna, together with a devastated landscape left behind after a campaign of Ramses II.

(34). An exception in human representation is a Mycenaean ivory figurine showing two ladies, one embracing the other who lovingly puts an arm around a child - perhaps representing three generations (Marinatos and Hirmer 1976, pls. 242ff.; Hood 1978, fig. 114).

(35). Fragments of wall plaster with different hunting scenes were recently found at Tell el-Dab'a, and are undergoing restoration. An analysis by Nanno Marinatos is in preparation. Similar hunting scenes from Keos will be published by Ellen Davis (personal communication).

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

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