DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.9804#0103
MINOAN AND EGYPTIAN ART 77
the faience that we find in XVIIIth Dynasty Egypt, not
only in the Deir-el-Bahari of Thothmes III., but even
the Tell-el-Amarna of Amenophis III. and Akhenaten.1
They may allow the glazed bowls of the XVIIIth and even
the XlXth Dynasty, in which an open lotus enfolds the
whole outside of the bowl with petals that spread from
their common centre at the base,' to suggest to them that
some direct ancestor of theirs, separated by no gulf of two
thousand years, inspired the Cretan artist whose water-lily
cup is the chef d'ceuvre of the Kamares period.3 They
may admire the naturalistic treatment of plant life as
we see it on the early XVIIIth Dynasty glazed ware
found by Petrie at Serabit,4 and venture to connect it,
not only with the reed and grass designs of Late Minoan I.,'
but with something that is still more similar, the vine
and willow of the porcelain plaques discovered in 1902.6
Yet these clearly belong to the same factory as the
Middle Minoan III. porcelain that was unearthed in the
Temple Repositories the following year.
We have now reached our final point, the time needed
for the development of Cretan art on its own merits. It
is here somewhat surprising to find Professor Petrie claim-
ing Mr. Evans's support in favour of his new dating.7
Now it is true that Mr. Evans has, up to the present,
been disinclined to accept the Berlin dating, and has
considered that it does not allow time enough for the
changes that can be traced in the shapes of swords, and
scripts, and vases between Middle Minoan II. and the
last days of the Palace in Late Minoan II. It must be
noticed, however, that the time required may be gained
1 British Museum Tabic Case, Nos. 21654-5, 21665-6, 21673-4.
3 Wallis, E.C.A. 1898, Plate VI. ibid. 1900, Plate IV.
3 See p. 61.
* Sinai, fig. 156, p., 151, Nos. 6 and 7.
» Phylakopi, Plate XIX. 9 and 10. See below, p. 85.
" B.S.A. viii. fig. 10, p. 21. See above, p. 20.
' Sinai, p. 173.
the faience that we find in XVIIIth Dynasty Egypt, not
only in the Deir-el-Bahari of Thothmes III., but even
the Tell-el-Amarna of Amenophis III. and Akhenaten.1
They may allow the glazed bowls of the XVIIIth and even
the XlXth Dynasty, in which an open lotus enfolds the
whole outside of the bowl with petals that spread from
their common centre at the base,' to suggest to them that
some direct ancestor of theirs, separated by no gulf of two
thousand years, inspired the Cretan artist whose water-lily
cup is the chef d'ceuvre of the Kamares period.3 They
may admire the naturalistic treatment of plant life as
we see it on the early XVIIIth Dynasty glazed ware
found by Petrie at Serabit,4 and venture to connect it,
not only with the reed and grass designs of Late Minoan I.,'
but with something that is still more similar, the vine
and willow of the porcelain plaques discovered in 1902.6
Yet these clearly belong to the same factory as the
Middle Minoan III. porcelain that was unearthed in the
Temple Repositories the following year.
We have now reached our final point, the time needed
for the development of Cretan art on its own merits. It
is here somewhat surprising to find Professor Petrie claim-
ing Mr. Evans's support in favour of his new dating.7
Now it is true that Mr. Evans has, up to the present,
been disinclined to accept the Berlin dating, and has
considered that it does not allow time enough for the
changes that can be traced in the shapes of swords, and
scripts, and vases between Middle Minoan II. and the
last days of the Palace in Late Minoan II. It must be
noticed, however, that the time required may be gained
1 British Museum Tabic Case, Nos. 21654-5, 21665-6, 21673-4.
3 Wallis, E.C.A. 1898, Plate VI. ibid. 1900, Plate IV.
3 See p. 61.
* Sinai, fig. 156, p., 151, Nos. 6 and 7.
» Phylakopi, Plate XIX. 9 and 10. See below, p. 85.
" B.S.A. viii. fig. 10, p. 21. See above, p. 20.
' Sinai, p. 173.