DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.3044#0241
8 - CONCLUSIONS
Linear Development
Using quality of workmanship as a criterion, seal shapes in general were not found to evolve
linearly from crude to fine. In the case of seals from contexts which appear to be unmixed, one
repeatedly notes that stylistically and qualitatively very different seals occur with a single given
kind of ceramic. Only in isolated instances can these stylistic incongruencies convincingly be ex-
plained as holdovers from previous periods. There can be no question that the numerous crudely
fashioned Three-sided Prisms from the MM II Malia Workshop are contemporary with the fine de-
signs of the Hieroglyphic Deposit Group as well as with those of the Classical Tectonic Group
from the Phaistos sealing deposit. The discontinuous development in the rendering of animal fig-
ures is demonstrated by a juxtaposition of motifs from the EM III-MM IA (-? ) Border/Leaf Com-
plex and the MM IB-II Malia Workshop Complex. A good example belonging to the former style-
complex is Motif 4:2, a representation of a fawn, which is carved on a seal from an EM I-II -
MM IA/B? context in Siva. The animal shows delicate, thinly modelled legs, neck and head. The
artist has successfully rendered not only a correctly drawn representation, but also one showing
sensitivity for the movement of the animal (which appears to walk). This motif can be compared
to any of the much later, evidently mass-produced motifs on seals of the Malia Workshop (cf.
CMS 112 86-198).
Several designs which clearly date to MM II do, however, show a more decisive mastery of
naturalism than Prepalatial ones. "Naturalism", as the term is used here, is characterized by three
features. First, naturalistically depicted animals are more supple and less stiff. Second, they show
relatively correct observation of bodily proportions. Finally, they are integrated in a realistic way
i
into a background setting. So-called naturalistic representations may be contrasted to convention-
al ones, those where the artisan wants to depict a design without giving any really specific infor-
mation as to pose or setting. Striking examples of naturalistic motifs occur early, in the designs
of the MM IIB Hieroglyphic Deposit and in the contemporary Phaistos sealing deposit. On seal-
ings of the Hieroglyphic Deposit these designs occur on the same nodules as highly geometricized
ones of the Hieroglyphic Deposit Group. Thus, in the case of this deposit, one cannot assume
that chronology is a variable which explains differences in style.
Notions of the existence of a linear development in the rendering of animals and humans in
Cretan glyptic have their roots in the time when very few stratified seals were known and when
no other method was available for dating seals. Today, seal motifs which were uncovered from
datable contexts and which do not neatly fall within a linear scheme are so numerous, that for
dating purposes the observation of trends whereby seal motifs become increasingly more compe-
tently rendered and less abstract is deemphasized somewhat here in favor of assigning seals (where
possible) to groups defined by common stylistic characteristics. In any case, linear development
underlies this dating system to some extent.
How is one to explain these developmental incongruities? The role of quality must not be
underrated. Early Cretan seals in soft stone are often large, irregular in shape and show poorer
workmanship. Compared to hard stone and ivory seals they are often cheap products.
Linear Development
Using quality of workmanship as a criterion, seal shapes in general were not found to evolve
linearly from crude to fine. In the case of seals from contexts which appear to be unmixed, one
repeatedly notes that stylistically and qualitatively very different seals occur with a single given
kind of ceramic. Only in isolated instances can these stylistic incongruencies convincingly be ex-
plained as holdovers from previous periods. There can be no question that the numerous crudely
fashioned Three-sided Prisms from the MM II Malia Workshop are contemporary with the fine de-
signs of the Hieroglyphic Deposit Group as well as with those of the Classical Tectonic Group
from the Phaistos sealing deposit. The discontinuous development in the rendering of animal fig-
ures is demonstrated by a juxtaposition of motifs from the EM III-MM IA (-? ) Border/Leaf Com-
plex and the MM IB-II Malia Workshop Complex. A good example belonging to the former style-
complex is Motif 4:2, a representation of a fawn, which is carved on a seal from an EM I-II -
MM IA/B? context in Siva. The animal shows delicate, thinly modelled legs, neck and head. The
artist has successfully rendered not only a correctly drawn representation, but also one showing
sensitivity for the movement of the animal (which appears to walk). This motif can be compared
to any of the much later, evidently mass-produced motifs on seals of the Malia Workshop (cf.
CMS 112 86-198).
Several designs which clearly date to MM II do, however, show a more decisive mastery of
naturalism than Prepalatial ones. "Naturalism", as the term is used here, is characterized by three
features. First, naturalistically depicted animals are more supple and less stiff. Second, they show
relatively correct observation of bodily proportions. Finally, they are integrated in a realistic way
i
into a background setting. So-called naturalistic representations may be contrasted to convention-
al ones, those where the artisan wants to depict a design without giving any really specific infor-
mation as to pose or setting. Striking examples of naturalistic motifs occur early, in the designs
of the MM IIB Hieroglyphic Deposit and in the contemporary Phaistos sealing deposit. On seal-
ings of the Hieroglyphic Deposit these designs occur on the same nodules as highly geometricized
ones of the Hieroglyphic Deposit Group. Thus, in the case of this deposit, one cannot assume
that chronology is a variable which explains differences in style.
Notions of the existence of a linear development in the rendering of animals and humans in
Cretan glyptic have their roots in the time when very few stratified seals were known and when
no other method was available for dating seals. Today, seal motifs which were uncovered from
datable contexts and which do not neatly fall within a linear scheme are so numerous, that for
dating purposes the observation of trends whereby seal motifs become increasingly more compe-
tently rendered and less abstract is deemphasized somewhat here in favor of assigning seals (where
possible) to groups defined by common stylistic characteristics. In any case, linear development
underlies this dating system to some extent.
How is one to explain these developmental incongruities? The role of quality must not be
underrated. Early Cretan seals in soft stone are often large, irregular in shape and show poorer
workmanship. Compared to hard stone and ivory seals they are often cheap products.