DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.3044#0200
5 - DECORATIVE SYNTAX1
The literature written by Matz, Furumark and others with regard to decorative syntax in-
vites further comments. The term "syntax" refers to the way in which component elements of
the motifs relate to each other as well as the relations between the shape of the field with the
composition. Syntax can refer to either a two-dimensional field or a three-dimensional surface
(the outlines and proportions of vessels, for instance). Following Alois Riegl and other late
nineteenth century scholars, Matz described characteristic tendencies of Minoan decorative syntax
in "Die friihkretischen Siegel". Matz's name is generally associated with the often cited term "tor-
sion", which he coined. Torsion, as used by him, refers to helical, not whirling movement. The
second association arose secondarily.
In the decoration of pottery Matz distinguished two types of syntax: zonal decoration
("Streifenverzierung") and a surface decoration ("Flachenmusterung"). Zonal or tectonic decora-
tion is based on an analytical attitude to the separate parts of the compositional field, resulting
in a division of the surface into a system of zones. The tectonic type represents a natural method
of decorating, so obvious, that it is hardly a method at all.4 Height and width and not volume
are emphasized in tectonic systems. Furumark suggested the concept of "unity decoration" as a
logical pendant to zonal decoration instead of Matz's Flachenmusterung. Unity decoration is
planned with regard to accentuating the shape and volume of the entire form. The "unity" is
that between the shape and its decoration. On a two-dimensional surface unity decoration can
extend infinitely, as in the case of a checkerboard.
Hagen Biesantz contributed the most concentrated application of the structural analysis of
Matz, his professor, to seal motifs in his dissertation, "Kretisch-mykenische Siegelbilder".7 Among
Biesantz's goals which are pertinent to our study was his defining of Minoan and Helladic com-
positional principles. As such, Biesantz's work must be dealt with as it conditions the method
to be used in this chapter.8 At the base of his structural analysis lies the theoretical assumption
that within each art form one may speak of a constant ethnic style in the sense of Egyptian,
Cretan or Hittite9, and that the extant glyptic material is essentially representative and thus cap-
able of supporting broad generalizations regarding style and geographic distribution of motifs. An-
other point is that a general aspect of composition (for example, a whole or divided field) is a
characteristic which is more likely to have been imported than invented.
Considering these assumptions proven, Biesantz characterizes Minoan and Helladic composi-
tion and maintains that to the end of the MM III no seal motifs show Helladic structure.10 To
clarify the contrast between Minoan and Helladic structure, Biesantz presents several diagrams. A
casual perusal of these reveals that they are drawn arbitrarily in order to prove conclusions which
in fact are based on other criteria.11 Regarding Biesantz's assumption that a stylistic and struc-
tural unity exists which can be characterized easily in early Cretan glyptic12, one can only note
that the heterogeneity of every aspect of this material has hindered its study since the begin-
ning.13
Rotation and rapport, while in a certain sense typical of the composition of early Cretan
seals, characterize only a small minority of the designs, and the criteria which Biesantz cites
as Minoan and Helladic find many more exceptions than examples. His Helladic "diagonale Ver-
The literature written by Matz, Furumark and others with regard to decorative syntax in-
vites further comments. The term "syntax" refers to the way in which component elements of
the motifs relate to each other as well as the relations between the shape of the field with the
composition. Syntax can refer to either a two-dimensional field or a three-dimensional surface
(the outlines and proportions of vessels, for instance). Following Alois Riegl and other late
nineteenth century scholars, Matz described characteristic tendencies of Minoan decorative syntax
in "Die friihkretischen Siegel". Matz's name is generally associated with the often cited term "tor-
sion", which he coined. Torsion, as used by him, refers to helical, not whirling movement. The
second association arose secondarily.
In the decoration of pottery Matz distinguished two types of syntax: zonal decoration
("Streifenverzierung") and a surface decoration ("Flachenmusterung"). Zonal or tectonic decora-
tion is based on an analytical attitude to the separate parts of the compositional field, resulting
in a division of the surface into a system of zones. The tectonic type represents a natural method
of decorating, so obvious, that it is hardly a method at all.4 Height and width and not volume
are emphasized in tectonic systems. Furumark suggested the concept of "unity decoration" as a
logical pendant to zonal decoration instead of Matz's Flachenmusterung. Unity decoration is
planned with regard to accentuating the shape and volume of the entire form. The "unity" is
that between the shape and its decoration. On a two-dimensional surface unity decoration can
extend infinitely, as in the case of a checkerboard.
Hagen Biesantz contributed the most concentrated application of the structural analysis of
Matz, his professor, to seal motifs in his dissertation, "Kretisch-mykenische Siegelbilder".7 Among
Biesantz's goals which are pertinent to our study was his defining of Minoan and Helladic com-
positional principles. As such, Biesantz's work must be dealt with as it conditions the method
to be used in this chapter.8 At the base of his structural analysis lies the theoretical assumption
that within each art form one may speak of a constant ethnic style in the sense of Egyptian,
Cretan or Hittite9, and that the extant glyptic material is essentially representative and thus cap-
able of supporting broad generalizations regarding style and geographic distribution of motifs. An-
other point is that a general aspect of composition (for example, a whole or divided field) is a
characteristic which is more likely to have been imported than invented.
Considering these assumptions proven, Biesantz characterizes Minoan and Helladic composi-
tion and maintains that to the end of the MM III no seal motifs show Helladic structure.10 To
clarify the contrast between Minoan and Helladic structure, Biesantz presents several diagrams. A
casual perusal of these reveals that they are drawn arbitrarily in order to prove conclusions which
in fact are based on other criteria.11 Regarding Biesantz's assumption that a stylistic and struc-
tural unity exists which can be characterized easily in early Cretan glyptic12, one can only note
that the heterogeneity of every aspect of this material has hindered its study since the begin-
ning.13
Rotation and rapport, while in a certain sense typical of the composition of early Cretan
seals, characterize only a small minority of the designs, and the criteria which Biesantz cites
as Minoan and Helladic find many more exceptions than examples. His Helladic "diagonale Ver-