DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.3044#0017
2 STATE OF RESEARCH
stood them are difficult to maintain.7 In the first third of the twentieth century the cultural de-
pendence of Minoan Crete on the neighboring areas was generally emphasized. In contrast, more
recent writers have placed increasing weight on the inherent originality of Minoan culture.8 Neither
Matz nor Evans attempted a systematic treatment of early Cretan seals but rather of the most ob-
vious or special aspects. Moreover, if one contrasts the 275 Early and Middle Minoan seals available
to Matz with the over 2600 currently known, this fact in itself suggests that the picture of seal de-
velopment has become more complex.
In 1954 the excavations of the American School of Classical Studies in Athens produced
seventy stylistically highly developed seal impression types from EH II and EH III contexts in Lerna
which radically altered current ideas on the development of Aegean glyptic, as the Lerna designs date
to a period which hitherto was a blank in our knowledge of mainland glyptic. Also in 1954 the doc-
toral dissertation of Hagen Biesantz, "Kretisch-mykenische Siegelbilder", provided a short overview
of Late Bronze Age glyptic and sought criteria to aid in the identification of seal forgeries made
in Neopalatial styles. Biesantz's dissertation also attempted to define the structural characteristics
of Minoan and Helladic art forms. It does not, however, deal with early Cretan seals.
The excavation of 326 seal impression types from underneath the floor of vano 25 in
Phaistos in 1955 is a find of the greatest importance for the study of Aegean glyptic. In the
preliminary report of the finds, Doro Levi dated the deposit to the first phase of the Middle Mi-
noan Period partly by means of comparisons with seals from Dynasty XII in Egypt. Writers,
however, had considerable difficulty in reconciling Levi's chronology for his first Old Palatial
phase (ca. 1850-1750) , the latest associated Kamares ware (ca. 1800-1750) , his allusions to
the contemporaneity of Dynasty XII (1991-1785)15 and of the EH II-III Lerna sealings as well.
17
A dating for the deposit based solely on the sealing motifs also resulted in some confusion. The
discovery of 423 baked sealing types in 1955 at Karahiiyuk in the Konya plain in Turkey from
a context datable to the second quarter of the second millennium B.C. aroused further controver-
sy with regard to the Aegean artistic influence in the eastern Mediterranean. This discussion arose
from the resemblance of some of the motifs to ones principally in Phaistos and Lerna.
In 1958 Agnes Sakellariou published the Giamalakis collection as the first major catalogue
of Aegean seals. Given the tentativeness of the seal chronology, Sakellariou grouped the 426
seals into three broad chronological categories: Vepoque prepalatiale, Vepoque des premiers palais
and Vepoque des seconds palais. In the same year Sakellariou undertook a study of Minoan
20
"prismes" in which she investigated the different shapes, their geographic distribution and dating.
This study, based more on factual information than any other at that time, nevertheless suffers
from several weaknesses, not the least of which is the vagueness of the dating of the archaeologi-
cal contexts which yielded the seals. Furthermore, the absence of reproductions hinders compre-
hension.
Shortly afterward in 1960, "Cretan Seals" by the Reverend Victor Kenna, appeared as the
first monograph attempting to treat Minoan glyptic as a whole. The first half of this book is a
summary of Minoan glyptic development and the second is a catalogue of the Aegean seals in the
Ashmolean Museum in Oxford. The early publication of these seals was important, for the Ash-
molean collection is a large one (over 500 pieces) and is unrivaled in its quality. While Kenna div-
ides the seals of his catalogue into Early, Middle and Late Minoan groups, in his treatment of
glyptic development he arbitrarily dates seal shapes and motifs to single ceramic subphases (for
instance MM IA) although stratigraphic evidence is either meager or altogether lacking. Moreover,
stood them are difficult to maintain.7 In the first third of the twentieth century the cultural de-
pendence of Minoan Crete on the neighboring areas was generally emphasized. In contrast, more
recent writers have placed increasing weight on the inherent originality of Minoan culture.8 Neither
Matz nor Evans attempted a systematic treatment of early Cretan seals but rather of the most ob-
vious or special aspects. Moreover, if one contrasts the 275 Early and Middle Minoan seals available
to Matz with the over 2600 currently known, this fact in itself suggests that the picture of seal de-
velopment has become more complex.
In 1954 the excavations of the American School of Classical Studies in Athens produced
seventy stylistically highly developed seal impression types from EH II and EH III contexts in Lerna
which radically altered current ideas on the development of Aegean glyptic, as the Lerna designs date
to a period which hitherto was a blank in our knowledge of mainland glyptic. Also in 1954 the doc-
toral dissertation of Hagen Biesantz, "Kretisch-mykenische Siegelbilder", provided a short overview
of Late Bronze Age glyptic and sought criteria to aid in the identification of seal forgeries made
in Neopalatial styles. Biesantz's dissertation also attempted to define the structural characteristics
of Minoan and Helladic art forms. It does not, however, deal with early Cretan seals.
The excavation of 326 seal impression types from underneath the floor of vano 25 in
Phaistos in 1955 is a find of the greatest importance for the study of Aegean glyptic. In the
preliminary report of the finds, Doro Levi dated the deposit to the first phase of the Middle Mi-
noan Period partly by means of comparisons with seals from Dynasty XII in Egypt. Writers,
however, had considerable difficulty in reconciling Levi's chronology for his first Old Palatial
phase (ca. 1850-1750) , the latest associated Kamares ware (ca. 1800-1750) , his allusions to
the contemporaneity of Dynasty XII (1991-1785)15 and of the EH II-III Lerna sealings as well.
17
A dating for the deposit based solely on the sealing motifs also resulted in some confusion. The
discovery of 423 baked sealing types in 1955 at Karahiiyuk in the Konya plain in Turkey from
a context datable to the second quarter of the second millennium B.C. aroused further controver-
sy with regard to the Aegean artistic influence in the eastern Mediterranean. This discussion arose
from the resemblance of some of the motifs to ones principally in Phaistos and Lerna.
In 1958 Agnes Sakellariou published the Giamalakis collection as the first major catalogue
of Aegean seals. Given the tentativeness of the seal chronology, Sakellariou grouped the 426
seals into three broad chronological categories: Vepoque prepalatiale, Vepoque des premiers palais
and Vepoque des seconds palais. In the same year Sakellariou undertook a study of Minoan
20
"prismes" in which she investigated the different shapes, their geographic distribution and dating.
This study, based more on factual information than any other at that time, nevertheless suffers
from several weaknesses, not the least of which is the vagueness of the dating of the archaeologi-
cal contexts which yielded the seals. Furthermore, the absence of reproductions hinders compre-
hension.
Shortly afterward in 1960, "Cretan Seals" by the Reverend Victor Kenna, appeared as the
first monograph attempting to treat Minoan glyptic as a whole. The first half of this book is a
summary of Minoan glyptic development and the second is a catalogue of the Aegean seals in the
Ashmolean Museum in Oxford. The early publication of these seals was important, for the Ash-
molean collection is a large one (over 500 pieces) and is unrivaled in its quality. While Kenna div-
ides the seals of his catalogue into Early, Middle and Late Minoan groups, in his treatment of
glyptic development he arbitrarily dates seal shapes and motifs to single ceramic subphases (for
instance MM IA) although stratigraphic evidence is either meager or altogether lacking. Moreover,