Sunteți pe pagina 1din 11

DAIDALOS AND KOTHAR: THE FUTURE OF THEIR RELATIONSHIP*

Unlike others at this conference, I cannot claim to have been a student of Helene Kantor: in fact, when I began to explore the Aegean and the Near East, her work was held up as a deterrent, in that advisers warned me that the topic had already been exhausted by her thorough research. (As has been pointed out at this conference, her approach followed a direction opposite to that taken by many of us: whereas she tracked Aegean inf luences on the east, a new generation has concentrated on Near Eastern sources of Hellenic culture.) Among my younger colleagues, freshly inspired by new archaeology, I met a different lack of engagement, the result of processual archaeology in the Aegean. Twenty-five years ago, Colin Renfrew urged us all to turn our backs on V. Gordon Childe and new light from the most ancient East, and seek organic answers for cultural change instead, in local environments and systems theory.1 As I observed in a review of Martin Bernals Black Athena, old-fashioned forms of diffusion (demonized as diffusionism) became unacceptable to progressive prehistorians as explanation of culture change.2 Hence Oriental imports and inf luence receded from our horizons, as we sought to engage, instead, a closer dialogue with the methods and arguments subscribed to in the social sciences. If regionalism became a novel virtue, what measure of parochialism did it entail? In turn, what brought the East back in? Not so much a wave of post-processualism,3 but new discoveries too glamorous to ignore, and challenging new theories of Orientalism, which have expanded dramatically the horizons of the Aegean and of our field. So this conference marks a return to a more integrated view of the eastern Mediterranean, one better informed than past enthusiasms of Egyptomania or readings of Linear A as Semitic, and one attuned to the way neighboring cultures can co-evolve (in the Sherratts phrase), beyond isolation. These circumstances of intellectual history seem necessary to understanding why Kantors work of fifty years ago was a hard act to follow, how it was superseded by new approaches, and why we are witnessing a revival of this approach, fifty years later. In assessing the future of studies bridging the Aegean and the Levant, I begin by emphasizing what is obvious by the end of this conference, the tremendous increase in information over the past fifty years. In particular, the fruits of maritime archaeology (the excavation of the Cape Gelidonya and Uluburun shipwrecks), illustrated in George Basss presentation at this conference, now reveal mechanisms of trade and exchange en route, not just in imports and texts. Related and equally revolutionary is the expansion of ancient

______________________
* My title alludes to the craftsmen figures, East and West, discussed in Daidalos and the Origins of Greek Art (1992), Part II. It is a pleasure to acknowledge what I have learned from my student, Eric Cline, and a privilege to have been invited to speak at this conference. C. RENFREW, The Emergence of Civilization. The Cyclades and the Aegean in the third millennium B.C. (1972), esp. his dedication and preface (xxv) and pp. 15-44. S.P. MORRIS, Greece and the Levant, JMA 3/1 (1990) 63. Sturt MANNINGs paper at this conference appeals explicitly to such an agenda with its stress on the individual, but I fail to see how refining absolute chronology more precisely brings us closer to that individual. To liberate Aegean prehistory from its dependence on Near Eastern and Egyptian king lists is a goal we all share, but for other reasons, including those to which this conference is devoted, we need to keep the cultures of the Eastern Mediterranean connected in our view of the past. If we manage to pinpoint the exact year in which a fresco in the Delta or the Aegean was painted, will we be any closer, except in time, to answering those questions about international relationships we are trying to solve?

1 2 3

282

Sarah P. MORRIS

evidence to highlight what has disappeared the textile industry and its economic import, as we have learned from the work of Elisabeth Barber,4 but also organic products, the actual contents of the ceramic containers once our exclusive focus.5 Finally, a shift in research, away from the textual tyranny of palaces and tablets, towards resources and towns where extraction and manufacturing took place -- projects in the mining districts of the Taurus mountains in Anatolia and Troodos in Cyprus, the Delta of Egypt (Avaris, Qantir), and new discoveries in coastal Crete deserve special mention -- is advancing our pursuit in radical ways, and producing a better image of the ancient crafts(wo)men who made it all possible.6 Beyond all these milestones and moving past them, what lies ahead? In Bernard Knapps phrase (see his paper in this volume), where is the new frontier? In honoring the work of Helene Kantor in negotiating multiple worlds, we should be equally impressed with her double achievement as archaeologist, tracing ceramic exports and their implications, and as an art historian sensitive to visual patterns, their migration and evolution. One legacy of the past fifty years is the divergence of those two approaches, as we define ourselves either in fieldwork, archaeometry and anthropology, OR in visual analysis. Here lies one agenda for the future, when specialized positions are rare and Aegean prehistory must often be delivered in a single appointment: can we function legitimately as both art historians and archaeologists? At the same time, how realistic is it for us and our students to become expert in both Near Eastern and Aegean civilizations? This double challenge across ancient and modern boundaries sets an agenda for our future, visible in two problems which bridge art history and archaeology, as well as the Aegean and the Levant. To begin with art history, few objects epitomize problems unsolved better than the ivory pyxis from Minet el-Beida, much discussed at this conference. For Kantor, this object hovered between the work of an Asian craftsman who desired to produce a work of LH III character and that of a Mycenaean migrant to the East who produced a hybrid carving.7 At a recent Aegaeum conference, Marie-Henriette Gates, a Near Eastern archaeologist, returned it to the Aegean, in a careful contextual study that considers different models and serves as an example for this kind of pursuit.8 New discoveries like the Potnia fresco at Mycenae only complicate the picture, by demonstrating the existence of a similar figure in the Aegean. In the end this image has no close parallel in Levantine art, and yet has been rejected as Aegean; the jury is still out, as numerous interventions at this conference make clear (see Paul Rehak and John Youngers paper on ivories and the International Style). An important lesson lies here, in not translating a mixture of styles into some kind of ethnic hybrid, as if the genealogy of artifactual style ref lected a mixed race. In moving away from forms of essentialism predicated on ethnicity to the multinational realities of ancient life, we have advanced in one direction for the future. Turning to an object from a site so much in the news these days that it forms a subtext for this conference, another orphan is the gold pendant from a Thirteenth Dynasty (early 18th century BC) tomb at Tell el-Dabca, discussed by others here (see paper by Robert Laffineur). In its initial publication, it was attributed to the Aegean, through comparison to the well-known (but unprovenanced) Aegina treasure in the British Museum.9 The pendant

______________________
4 5 6 E. BARBER, Prehistoric Textiles (1991), esp. chapter 15 on the Bronze Age Aegean and Egypt; cf. her paper at this conference. C. HALDANE, Direct Evidence for Organic Cargoes in the Late Bronze Age, World Archaeology 24 (1993) 348-60. Well documented in the papers published as TEXNH, especially reports by M. ANDREADAKI-VLASAKI (on Khamalevri), N. DIMOPOULOU (Poros-Katsamba), and J. SOLES (Mochlos), to which add P. BETANCOURTs work at Chrysokamino (see his paper in this volume). KANTOR, 86-89. M.-H. GATES, Mycenaean Art for a Levantine Market? The Ivory Lid from Minet el-Beidha/Ugarit, in EIKVN, 77-84. G. WALBERG, A Gold Pendant from Tell el-Dabca, gypten und Levante 2 (1991) 111-12; juxtaposition of the pendant and Aegina treasure repeated in the exhibition catalogue, Pharaonen und Fremde, 211-13.

7 8 9

DAIDALOS AND KOTHAR: THE FUTURE OF THEIR RELATIONSHIP

283

from Egypt shares similarities in its repouss technique to objects now in London, such as the Master-of-Animals pendant, and in design and motif, such as the facing animal figures (probably dogs) mirrored in the earrings in London. The presence of Kamares sherds in the same stratum (not the same tomb, robbed of most of its contents) was adduced as further support for an Aegean provenance for this Delta discovery, although there has been disagreement as to the precise date of these sherds.10 This interpretation troubled me, and raised old problems about the Aegina treasure. To my delight, Joan Aruz stepped in to set the record straight: the gold pendant from the Delta is probably not Egyptian or Aegean, but Levantine in both technique and design, an argument she supports with parallels from Syrian glyptic.11 In the appendix to her discussion of Imagery and Interconnections, she concludes the piece is probably Canaanite, made in the Delta or the Levant by a craftsman versed in the Syrian animal style. Aruz also confronts the difficulty of using the Aegina treasure as an index of Aegean art: I believe that the enigmatic objects in the Aegina treasure are a varied collection and do not appear to be explainable as works in a uniform style from a single original context or of a single date.12 Should we go one step further? Several objects in the Aegina Treasure in particular, the pendant with Master of Animals grasping geese, and the earrings with the facing dogs and squatting monkeys could well be of Levantine origin, as Sarah Peirce argued in her masters thesis for Bryn Mawr College some years ago.13 As Ingo Pini pointed out in discussing the finger rings from the Aegina Treasure last year (abstract published in TEXNH), the best parallels are often found in Middle Kingdom Egypt. Jewelry from the 12th Dynasty tombs at Dahshur (for example, the necklaces with pendants from the tomb of Khnumet) belong to the same kind of luxury workshops of the Middle Bronze Age.14 The collar with human heads in the Aegina Treasure15 was inspired by Middle Kingdom pectorals with hawk-headed (or falcons, the Horus motif) terminals, but the translation may have transpired in a Levantine workshop producing Egyptianizing work, as plausible in the Delta as in the Canaanite Levant, rather than in Crete. It may have been such Near Eastern work which inspired the Orientalizing motifs of Middle Minoan jewelry (e.g. from Chrysolakkos, Mallia) and glyptic (the Phaistos sealings), in what Sarah Peirce called a Middle Minoan Orientalizing movement, with reference to Syria and Anatolia.16 Such an hypothesis would be greatly

______________________
10 11 See J.A. MacGILLIVRAYs revision of Walberg, A Minoan Cup at Tell el-Dabca, in Hyksos Egypt and the Eastern Mediterranean World, 81-85. J. ARUZ, Appendix: the gold pendant from Tell el-Dabca, in Hyksos Egypt and the Eastern Mediterranean World, 44-46. See also forthcoming discussion in E.H. CLINE, Rich Beyond the Dreams of Avaris: Tell elDabca and the Aegean World A Guide for the Perplexed, BSA 93 (1998; in press). Ibid. 46. The treasure includes gold jewelry (diadems, rings, earrings, pendants, a bracelet), plaques (once attached to garments?), and a cup (E. DAVIS, The Vapheio Cups and Aegean Gold and Silver Ware [1977], 321-22), plus semi-precious beads and pendants: see R. HIGGINS, The Aegina Treasure: An Archaeological Mystery (1979) for full description and history of scholarship. S. PEIRCE, Syrian Inf luence on Middle Minoan Art, AJA 84 (1980) 226, based on her masters thesis on the Pratt ivories in the Metropolitan Museum of Art. I am grateful to Sarah Peirce for sharing her research with me and look forward to its eventual publication. Also known at Byblos: see W. STEVENSON SMITH, The Art and Architecture of Ancient Egypt (rev. ed. 1981), chapter 11; Idem, Interconnections, figs. 26-29. HIGGINS (supra n. 12) 28, fig. 22, whose caption reads: The typical Greek profile is anticipated by about a thousand years, an unfortunate reminder of our misunderstanding of Aegean art. I am unable to consult Helene Kantors opinion on the Aegina treasure in her book, as these objects were only fully published and rehabilitated as Bronze Age Aegean (in Higgins view, Cretan made between 1700 and 1500 BC) in his article in BSA 52 (1957) 42-57; see chapters 1-2 in HIGGINS (supra n. 12) for history of interpretations. PEIRCE (supra n. 13); cf. J. ARUZ, Crete and Anatolia in the Middle Bronze Age: Sealings from Phaistos and Karahyk, in M. MELLINK, E. PORADA, and T. ZG (eds.), Aspects of Art and Iconography: Anatolia and its Neighbors. Studies in Honor of Nimet zg (1993) 35-54, with review of earlier literature by D. LEVI, C. MORA, E. FIANDRA and J. WEINGARTEN.

12

13

14 15

16

284

Sarah P. MORRIS

reinforced by Vance Watrous recent re-casting of the Middle Minoan period as one of intensified contacts with the Near East.17 For the time being, we should consider the Aegina Treasure a miscellaneous collection of luxury ornaments and vessels, similar in its mixture of origins and periods to the status of the Td treasure (without the latters precise source),18 but certainly not a landmark of Aegean art. It could still come from Aegina a provenance rendered more plausible since the discovery fifteen years ago of a stone-built tomb of the Shaft Grave era with similar objects, enhanced by new understanding of the importance of prehistoric Aegina19 but certain pieces may be Syrian. If so, the Tell el-Dabca pendant joins its Aeginetan mates, and such enigmas as the ivory lions (inlay for a wooden box lid) from Pella in Jordan, dated to the opening of the Late Bronze Age, as the work of Canaanite artists of the Delta or Levant, equally fruitful in their inf luence on Aegean and Egyptian art.20 I believe that the background to understanding the new Minoan frescoes from Kabri and Tell el-Dabca, as well as the opening of the palace period on Crete itself, lies in such Levantine connections of the Middle Bronze Age the Hyksos in Egypt, Asiatic craftsmen in the Delta, and the ever-critical Cyprus not the supernovas of Egypt and the Aegean.21 The new Oriental Institute project in the Amuq plain initiated by Aslihan Yener, presented at this conference, marks an important re-investigation of a critical area inadequately explored too many years ago. Here lies an opportunity for a major re-orientation in Aegean prehistory towards the northern Levant, the fulcrum of Bronze Age international activity. The longevity of Delta workshops in luxury arts in metal is a Bronze Age phenomenon worth appreciating: with all Aegean attention focussed on Avaris, we may have neglected other discoveries in the Delta. I refer to Edgar Puschs excavations at Pi-Ramesses-Qantir, the XIX-XXth Dynasty city with a vast complex of stables and workshops serving pharaonic armies for several centuries, with Aegean connections in the form of about a hundred vessel fragments reported to be Mycenaean.22 The two areas explored thus far are a large garage

______________________
17 L.V. WATROUS, Review of Aegean Prehistory III: Crete from Earliest Prehistory through the Proto-Palatial Period, AJA 98 (1994) 695-753, esp. 728-36. His proposed re-dating of Early Minoan metalwork and jewelry from Mochlos and the Mesara tombs to the Middle Minoan period (pp. 729-31), if correct, would bring much Cretan jewelry closer in date to that of Middle Kingdom Egypt and the Middle Bronze Age Levant. On the el-Td treasure, especially its chronological complications, see B. KEMP and R. MERRILLEES, Minoan Pottery in Second Millennium Egypt (1980) Appendix II, pp. 290-96; G. WALBERG, The Td Treasure and Middle Minoan Absolute Chronology, OpAth XV (1984) 173-77; K.R. MAXWELL-HYSLOP, A note on the Anatolian connections of the Td treasure, AnatSt 45 (1995) 243-50. S. HILLER, On the Origins of the Shaft Graves, in R. LAFFINEUR (ed.), Transition: Le monde gen du Bronze Moyen au Bronze Rcent. Aegaeum 3 (1989) 137-44; R. HIGGINS, A Gold Diadem from Aegina, JHS 107 (1987) 182; M. EFFINGER, Minoischer Schmuck (1996) 7 n. 74. J.B. RUTTER, Review of Aegean Prehistory II: The Prepalatial Bronze Age of the Southern and Central Greek Mainland, AJA 97 (1993) 775-80 on the central role of Aegina (Kolonna site) in the prehistoric Aegean. Ivory lions from Pella: S. Morris, Prehistoric Iconography: Hindsight through Texts?, in EIKVN, 208, n. 16, pl. XLIXc; see final publication in Pella in Jordan 2 (1992) 59-62, pls. 36-37. J. YOUNGERs proposed identification of the Lion Gate relief from Mycenae as a re-used Late Minoan II sculpture (Interactions between Aegean Seals and Other Minoan-Mycenaean Art Forms, in Sceaux minoens et mycniens [1995] 346-71) would bring it closer in date to the Pella lions. See now also M. SCHLESINGER, The Very UnEgyptian Jewelry of Egypts Early 18th Dynasty (paper presented at the 99th meeting of the Archaeological Institute of America, 27-30 December 1997, Chicago IL; abstract forthcoming in AJA 102/2 [1998]). G. PHILIP, Tell el-Dabca Metalwork. Patterns and Purpose, in Egypt, the Aegean and the Levant, 66-90; cf. Idem, Warrior Burials in the Ancient Near-Eastern Bronze Age: The Evidence from Mesopotamia, Western Iran and Syria-Palestine, in S. CAMPBELL and A. GREEN (eds.), The Archaeology of Death in the Ancient Near East (1995) 140-54, esp. 144-45. On the Middle Bronze Age Levant, see my comments in MORRIS (supra n. 2) 61-62 and in MORRIS (supra n. *) 102. Note that the loss of royal inscriptions and noble tombs in Middle Kingdom Egypt reduces greatly our impression of contacts between Egypt and Keftiu in this period, as observed by J. QUACK, kft3w and i3sy, gypten und Levante 6 (1996) 81. E. PUSCH, Pi-Rameses-Beloved-of-Amun, Headquarters of thy Chariotry: Egyptians and Hittites in the Delta residence of the Ramessides, Pelizaeus-Museum Hildesheim: The Egyptian Collection (1996) 126-45, Mycenaean (or Cypriot?) lentoid f lask illustrated p. 140, fig. 140; cf. his earlier report in gypten und Levante 1 (1990) 75-113.

18

19

20

21

22

DAIDALOS AND KOTHAR: THE FUTURE OF THEIR RELATIONSHIP

285

for chariots and structures likely to be a stable, with metal workshops making the area an armory with facilities for repair and manufacture of military equipment. In addition to fittings for chariots and horse-bits (similar to those newly reported from Miletus), the site produced such anomalies as molds for bronze fittings covering what we identify as Hittite shields (from their depiction in enemy hands at the Battle of Kadesh, in Egyptian reliefs), evidently made in the Delta in the Late Bronze Age.23 Other types of weapons found at Qantir are familiar in the Aegean and the Levant: the short sword or dagger, bronze projectile points, scales for bronze armour (and cheaper imitations in clay), even the plaque of a boars tusk helmet. They complement Egyptian representations of battles at Thebes the way the contents of the Uluburun wreck animate scenes of foreigners in Eighteenth Dynasty tombs at the same site. At Qantir an international arsenal was maintained precisely when Ramses II, Merenptah, and Ramses III were beset by marauders from abroad, armed and attired differently in Egyptian representations. These new discoveries challenge our confidence in dividing allies and enemies in Egyptian art. This internationalism of weaponry may have extended through the second millennium: the new Ramesside workshops invite comparison to another recent (re)discovery, the fragments of painted papyrus showing battle scenes found decades ago at Amarna, now recovered and acquired by the British Museum.24 Libyan archers attack Egyptians; other fragments show running warriors both Egyptian and foreign (in tunics or corslets and helmets covered with strips of leather, metal or tusk?, but Egyptian kilts). I join those who doubt these are securely Aegean boars tusk helmets, and wonder whether we are too hasty in identifying specifically Aegean warriors here. Parallels for helmets and tunics, even physiognomy, accommodate identification as Asiatics (in the Egyptian sense) as well as Aegean soldiers.25 More accurate parallels exist in zone helmets, like the archaic one of iron found at Sardis ten years ago, made of metal strips sewed onto goat leather with bronze trim, an Anatolian parallel that may be significant (below, n. 30), even across the intervening centuries.26 Here I cannot resist a modern analogy. This year is also the fiftieth anniversary of the invention of the Kalashnikov rif le, an automatic weapon now essential to armed insurgence around the world.27 Its ubiquity once derived from Soviet intervention; by the time Russians invaded Afghanistan, they faced opposition from Chinese and Egyptian versions of their own weapons (and blueprints were distributed to countries like Poland and Bulgaria, for mass production of variants). Some seventy million examples were made, now in use by fifty-five nations: today, the AK-47 is the weapon of choice for rebels and opportunists around the globe, and we no longer call every example Russian. Perhaps we should adopt a similar global perspective on so-called Mycenaean swords of the Late Bronze Age, rather than seeing them as attributes of ethnically exclusive warriors. In the famous fresco from Pylos where men dressed in skins fight warriors in body armour and boars tusk helmets, opponents use the same weapon, a short sword, while their appearance suggests cultural differences which might correspond to different ethnonymns in Linear B. The Aegean sword became a prestige weapon around the Mediterranean and even in Europe:

______________________
23 P. HAIDER, Menschenhandel zwischen dem gyptischen Hof und der minoisch-mykenischen Welt?, gypten und Levante 6 (1996) 148, connects these molds with resident smiths from Kaska, renowned for their quivers, arrows and bows, according to royal correspondence between Amenophis III and Tarhundaradu, king of Arzawa. R. PARKINSON and L. SCHOFIELD, Of helmets and heretics: a possible Egyptian representation of Mycenaean warriors on a papyrus from el-Amarna, BSA 89 (1994) 157-70; L. SCHOFIELD and R. PARKINSON, Images of Mycenaeans on a recently acquired papyrus from El-Amarna, in Egypt, the Aegean and the Levant, 125-26. PARKINSON and SCHOFIELD (supra n. 23) 163, 169 on Asiatic features. C.H. GREENEWALT, JR. and A.M. HEYWOOD, A Helmet of the Sixth Century B.C. from Sardis, BASOR 285 (1992) 1-31. The event was marked with a special exhibition at the Museum of Armed Forces in Moscow, and with celebrations and awards for Mikhail Kalashnikov, its inventor: M. GORDON, Burst of Pride for a Staccato Executioner: AK-47, The New York Times (March 13, 1997) section A, page 4.

24

25 26 27

286

Sarah P. MORRIS

especially after the decline in production in post-palatial Crete, many different peoples of the eastern Mediterranean must have used them in combat, even made them. Thus the sword recently found at the Hittite capital is captured from a western Asiatic (Assuwa) campaign, perhaps from a warrior like the one depicted on the incised bowl from the same site. Neither sword nor warrior is necessarily Cretan or mainland, once we accept the ambiguity and ubiquity of some of these weapons.28 According to Jan Driessen, Knossos itself may have hired foreign troops in the era of Linear B, if the foreign cloths which Barber thinks are for export are for foreign troops (*ke-se-no).29 Some were recruited from different Aegean localities (according to their names), and even include I-ja-wo-ne; Ionians, not necessarily from western Asia in this era. Rather than Mycenaeans for hire, should we imagine Aegean centers hiring foreigners to maintain order, before the final crisis? I have tried elsewhere to call these figures ancestors of those Carian, Lycian and Ionian (western Anatolian) mercenaries so essential to archaic armies in Egypt and elsewhere in the next millennium.30 In other words, let us admit the limitations of certain artifacts for tracking the history we crave, and consider wider classes of ancient combatants, as Robert Drews has. From manufacturers, to mercenaries, to migrants: my third example involves an Aegean plea to our Levantine colleagues regarding the Philistines. Here I see a case for closer collaboration and consultation between Aegean and Near Eastern archaeologists, along the lines of working partnerships at Kabri and Tell el-Dabca. Guided primarily by the Hebrew Bible, which attributes the Philistines to Kaptor (escorted by Yahweh), archaeologists at several sites in modern Israel -- Ashkelon and Ekron, in particular -- have certified an intrusive culture as immigrant from the Aegean, using Mycenaean pottery and local imitations, consumers of iron and pork, anomalies in their West Semitic home. More recently, including at this conference (see contribution by Ann Killebrew), a more modified and judicious view of this assemblage has tempered earlier identifications. Several scholars31 (Brug, Noort, and Bunimowitz) have presented arguments against a homogeneous view of this culture, and cautioned against treating what is a modern construct as ancient reality. Eduard Noort has urged us to understand this culture in anthropological terms of emulation and assimilation, not as newly arrived Aegean migrants. Here is a case where our colleagues in Israel need input from the Aegean, but in the Aegean we should heed the same lesson, by not resorting to Homeric scenarios as the most ready explanation for archaeological phenomena. I recommend we reconsider the implications of sites like Perati, and of various warrior burials at new (and old) coastal sites in the IIIC and later Aegean: at Knossos, Lef kandi, in Achaea,

______________________
28 29 For the most recent discussion, with earlier bibliography, see E.H. CLINE, Assuwa and the Achaeans: The Mycenaean sword at Hattusas and its possible implications, BSA 91 (1996) 137-51. J. DRIESSEN and C. MACDONALD, Some Military Aspects of the Aegean in the Late Fifteenth and Early Fourteenth Centuries B.C., BSA 79 (1984) 49-74, especially Part I by J. DRIESSEN, Mercenaries at Mycenaean Knossos?, pp. 49-56. Cf. R. DREWS, The End of the Bronze Age: Changes in Warfare and the Catastrophe ca. 1200 B.C. (1992), esp. The Recruitment of Infantrymen in the Late Bronze Age, pp. 147-57; HAIDER (supra n. 23) 138-40 on foreign mercenaries (the Captain of the Blacks fresco, etc.) in the Late Bronze Aegean. S. MORRIS, Ex Oriente Books: Near Eastern Resources for Classicists, AJA 101 (1997) 151; pace the scepticism of A.M. SNODGRASS, Carian Armourers: The Growth of a Tradition, JHS 84 (1964) 107-118. J. BRUG, A Literary and Archaeological Study of the Philistines. BAR 265 (1985); S. BUNIMOWITZ, Problems in the Ethnic Identification of the Philistine Material Culture, IEJ 17:2 (1990) 210-22; S. BUNIMOWITZ and A. YASUR-LANDAU, Philistine and Israelite Pottery: A Comparative Approach to the Question of Pots and People, Tel Aviv 23 (1996) 88-101; E. NOORT, Die Seevlker in Palstina (1994); MORRIS (supra n. 30) 151. See also the superb discussion by E.S. SHERRATT, Immigration and Archaeology: Some Ref lections, in P. STRM (ed.), Acta Cypria (1992) 316-47, of similar material (Mycenaean pottery) on Cyprus and why it need not necessarily ref lect mass immigration from the Aegean.

30 31

DAIDALOS AND KOTHAR: THE FUTURE OF THEIR RELATIONSHIP

287

Cyprus, and Rhodes. We may be too quick to make them native, and need to incorporate their anomalies into an eastern Mediterranean scenario, not just one dictated by the Trojan War.32 Cyprus is a major player here, and may indeed be a likely origin for those who settled in Palestine and Crete, as some have suggested; but that conclusion needs to be reconciled, in turn, with the evidence of new settlements from Cyprus itself (see paper by V. Karageorghis at this conference). Heroes returned is what one Aegean scholar has termed them: I see them as opportunists empowered by the disintegration of centralized control in the twelfth century, perhaps a new generation of soldiers of fortune who found permanent homes, as new in the Aegean as in Palestine. The kind of analysis initiated by Graham Philip (applied by Polly Muhly to Cretan burials) and Robert Drews, in drawing attention to certain warrior classes and their ubiquity in the Bronze Age, has provided us with a departure from ethnicity in archaeology, like the one recommended earlier in the study of art.33 A retreat from such essentialism is now standard for understanding early Iron Age history, and should be more widely applied to prehistoric archaeology.34 I look forward to more bilateral discussion of these problems, to explore what must be related phenomena of re-settlement and re-configuration in the twelfth-century eastern Mediterranean, beyond simplistic classifications of material culture. These three cases illustrate problems we can solve together, where we can at least admit our mutual limitations, and work towards a common consensus. Beyond scholarly dilemmas, what about institutional ones? The most important challenge for the future involves the structure of our discipline and its survival. Here I am worried about the stability of Aegean prehistory as a field in this country, where departments of archaeology are rare, and most of us are forced to pass for classicists or art historians.35 I would add, as anthropologists, but our colleagues in the social sciences have largely failed to embrace the Mediterranean in ethnography or archaeology over the years. The need to heal divisions within what is anthropology today -- linguistics, paleontology, and contemporary socio-cultural studies, as well as archaeology -- plus an ongoing bias towards New World and Third World cultures, have prevented them from paying serious attention to Old World/Mediterranean cultures, in hiring and teaching. So our most important task for the future is to work together, within the humanities: for those in metallurgy and archaeometry to admit the critical role of art history; for those engaged in the study of the visual arts to appreciate the role of texts. Aegean prehistory has become a field as complex as Egyptology, and the kind of collaboration conducted in the field witness projects like PRAP, where field archaeologists, ceramicists, epigraphers, and ethnographers offer an equal voice in forging interpretations should be duplicated in our institutions. Among ourselves, we have spent too much time in critique of each others methods and views (as in the modern Greek proverb about two donkeys fighting over someone elses manger). We need to close ranks as we enter the next century, to present a united front, concentrate on making the second millennium BC vital to classics and art history, and generate the kind of public relations about our field that guarantees replacements follow academic retirements.

______________________
32

33 34

35

As I ventured in introducing (p. 4) H.W. CATLINGs Heroes Returned? Sub-Minoan Burials from Crete, in J.B. CARTER and S.P. MORRIS (eds.), The Ages of Homer. A Tribute to Emily Townsend Vermeule (1995) 123-36, could these eleventh-century warriors be intrusive to Crete, descendants of Sea Peoples or mercenaries enriched by foreign campaigns? Catling argues for a more exotic origin for these warriors (Cyprus) in the final publication: H.W. CATLING, The Subminoan Phase in the North Cemetery, in J. N. COLDSTREAM and H.W. CATLING, Knossos North Cemetery. Early Greek Tombs. BSA Suppl. 28 (1996) 639-50. Cf. also SHERRATT (supra n. 31). PHILIP, Warrior Burials (supra n. 21); P. MUHLY, Minoikos Laxeutos Taphos ston Poro Herakleiou (1992) 169-75, 196-97; DREWS (supra n. 29). Unlike the native definition of Egyptian, such self-consciousness is hard to identify from Aegean Bronze Age visual depictions and ethnic names in Linear B, as it becomes manifest in later Greek culture: J. HALL, Ethnicity in Early Iron Age Greece, in N. SPENCER (ed.), Time, Tradition and Society in Greek Archaeology: Bridging the Great Divide (1995) 6-17; idem, Ethnic Identity in Greek Antiquity (1997). In thanking those who supported this conference, we should recognize the Institute for Aegean Prehistory as the defining framework for our discipline in this country, in the absence of commitments by academic departments to give this field a permanent home.

288

Sarah P. MORRIS

Here Helene Kantors legacy serves us in an unexpected way, for no classics (or art history) department can afford to ignore the import of Egypt and the Near East these days, thanks to Black Athena, a major event in our field hardly mentioned at this conference but another implicit subtext. In the humanities, literary critics and art historians are eager to recover subaltern voices of artists and poets behind the veil of Orientalism; within the wider curriculum, deans and committees are scrambling to redefine a non-Western curriculum, as classics departments themselves seek to embrace Mediterranean studies. What Aegean archaeology offers is to open up the classical world to the manifold contributions of eastern cultures: at the scholarly level it provides us with an excuse for exploring the relationship with the Levant, as it allows us, on the pedagogical side, to enrich traditional disciplines with the multi-cultural view everyone currently craves. I want to encourage more of you to seek colleagues in other departments (or nearby institutions) for team-teaching efforts, team-learning, to view the same problems from two views. At my own institution, I am fortunate to have colleagues in Egyptology, Near Eastern studies, and Biblical literature; we audit each others classes, have tried to design courses together, or even programs, which span departments. Toronto launched a course on the second millennium last year in Joint Ancient Studies; Chicago is training some students in both classical and Semitic languages. At smaller institutions, those of us in classics can find colleagues in religious studies or ancient history, or even modern European scholars interested in Orientalism, for engagement in courses linking Homer and the Bible, or Egypt and Greek art. Those still in training should maintain an interest in developing such courses, for future teaching; many classics graduates have learned this on the job market, and art historians seeking jobs are well-advised to maintain second fields in non-Western art. We should thank NESTOR for keeping us equally informed of publications and developments in the Near East, along with Aegean news and bibliography, and be grateful to its current editors for their interests and expertise in multiple areas. In ways like these, we may seek to bridge art history and anthropology, texts and artifacts, even prehistory and history, as they help conjoin east and west. The relationships that attracted Helene Kantor and have continued to absorb scholarship, fueled by exciting new discoveries, may contain the very seeds of our survival. Thus Daidalos needs Kothar even more at the end of this twentieth century AD than he may have borrowed from him towards the twentieth century BC. Sarah P. MORRIS

DAIDALOS AND KOTHAR: THE FUTURE OF THEIR RELATIONSHIP Discussion following S.P. Morris paper:

289

E. Percival: You were just offering a critique of the common discussions of the consumption of symbols that we all consider Aegean, or objects that we think are Aegean, and that we should be looking more carefully at how these things are used. I think that many people here have pointed out the frescos from the Near East, because what I see as the exciting thing about them is that the point of production and the point of consumption is in the east. Why do you think that so little of the discussion here has been about the point of production, the ideology of production, of symbols that we consider Aegean? S.P. Morris: Rather than consumption? E. Percival: Rather than consumption. S.P. Morris: Im not. I think weve heard a lot about it from Bernard Knapp, about why you appropriate and use symbols that are exotic. E. Percival: Bernard Knapp is just one person here. S.P. Morris: What do you mean? Do you mean that we have not discussed this enough? Why people are using these symbols is that what youre asking? E. Percival: No, thats not what Im asking. Im not asking why people are using these symbols, but rather why people are producing these symbols, and where are people producing these objects that we consider have both Aegean and Near Eastern affinities? S.P. Morris: I dont know. Take the pyxis lid, for example, since we have this problem that its not Aegean, and its not Syrian, or it is both. Usually we kick it back into Cyprus. Ive decided that its perhaps an exercise in false precision. I thought that Marie-Henriette Gates had eliminated it from the East and thrown it back to us. Paul [Rehak] and John [Younger] have convinced me otherwise. Im really stuck on this one. But I think what youre asking is about consumers as well as producers. And, youre asking where it took place...

S-ar putea să vă placă și