DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.3044#0190
No. 58: ABSTRACTED AND PICTORIALIZED MOTIFS 175
I interpret the primary reason for this pictorializing and abstracting of motifs to be a for-
mal one. One generally associates form with visual values and content with substantive ones (i.e.
beliefs and ideas). An essentially magical or religious explanation for changes in style as such,
while possible, finds few supporting analogues from other cultures.
Schiering's treatment of the motifs under discussion as a reflection of an attempt to create
playful, spontaneous designs is important in determining the motivation behind them. His inter-
pretation is controversial, particularly certain examples which he cites, but no one has yet chal-
lenged him in print. In any case, much of what from antiquity which appears humorous to the
twentieth century viewer was conceivably not so perceived by ancient ones. The manipulation of
form for its own sake is a familiar phenomenon and need not imply a "playful" intent in what-
ever sense. An explanation of pictorialization and abstraction as a formal phenomenon is the
most obvious one. But this interpretation in no way excludes others with regard to special mean-
ings of pictorialized motifs to the Minoans. Moreover, from Pliny (Hist. Nat. XXXVII) it is clear
that all precious stones had a magical significance in the antique. But whether specific styles (i.e.
"talismanic") possessed special attributes above those of other seals in hard stone is purely a mat-
ter for speculation.
As Gombrich notes with reference to works of art from later periods, one is in danger of
losing contact with an essential aspect of the material if one accepts the doctrine that visual
puns and the like never had anything to do with art. Pictorialization and abstraction are well
documented in the ancient and modern world and their existence in the highly decorative art of
the Aegean (cf. frontispiece) comes as no great surprize.
INDEX: Abstracted and Pictorialized Motifs
1 CMS 112 118b*; AGD II 15a, 17c; CMS I 424; 112 78c, 228; IV 14Da; VII 207b; XII 14b, Similar: CMS
112 231a, Cf: CS 36c. 2 CMS XIII 80c, Sim: CMS 112 235a; VII 253a; CS 38c. 3 CMS 112 104a'; IX 17d;
CS 8b. 4cS 53b, Sim: CMS XII lie; CS 3a, 5b, 8b, 24b, Cf: CS 43a. 5 CMS 112 299b, Cf: CMS XII 58b;
CS 18b,c. 6 CMS CS 19a, Cf: CMS 112 231a; CS 42b. 7CS 19b, Cf: CMS 112 300b. 8 Kopenhagen NM 1367a.
Sim: CMS VIII 20b; XIII 85b. 9 CMS 112 295a; AGD II 15c; CMS I 419b; 112 232c, 274b, 299c, 309b; VII
207c; XII 29b, 32b; CS 21c, 55c, Cf: CMS XII 29c. 10 CMS 112 232b, 222a; IX 3c, lie; CS 8c, 57c, Sim:
CMS IX 3b, Cf: CMS 112 231b. 11 CMS 112 3; CM 182; CMS 112 282, 316d; IV 132a; VIII 34; X 280; XII
112b; CS 170a; Knossds P74a2, Sim: CMS IV 156b; XII 113a; Knossos HI. 12 CS 141. 13 CMS XII 100.
14 AGD II 9. 15 CS 129. 16 CMS 112 284b; CM 166, 167; CS 151c. 1 7 CMS 112 284a. 18 CMS IV 137c.
Sim: CMS XII 110a. 19 CMS VII 33. 20 CMS XII 103. 21 CMS XII 115b,a,c: IV 27Da-c. 22 CS 152, Cf:
CM 153; CMS IV 164. 23 CMS 112 203; CM 126; IV 159; VIII 105a; IX 33; CS 155, Sim: CMS XIII 72.
24CS 78, CMS 115 169*. 171*. 172*. 25 CMS 115 40*, Cf: CMS 112 16*, 24*; 115 36*. 37*. 26HM 1318*.
27 CMS XIII 62, Cf: CM 145; CMS X 93; XIII 97. 28 Knossos L15*.
General Observations on Iconography
In summary, in EM II geometric ornament such as cross-hatching and random scratching
seems to dominate early Cretan glyptic. Figural representations date as early as EM II but do not
appear to be popular until EM III-MM IA. At this time leaves, petaloid loops, hatched triangles
and cross-hatching are the most frequently occurring motifs. Hieroglyphic writing also makes its
appearance.
I interpret the primary reason for this pictorializing and abstracting of motifs to be a for-
mal one. One generally associates form with visual values and content with substantive ones (i.e.
beliefs and ideas). An essentially magical or religious explanation for changes in style as such,
while possible, finds few supporting analogues from other cultures.
Schiering's treatment of the motifs under discussion as a reflection of an attempt to create
playful, spontaneous designs is important in determining the motivation behind them. His inter-
pretation is controversial, particularly certain examples which he cites, but no one has yet chal-
lenged him in print. In any case, much of what from antiquity which appears humorous to the
twentieth century viewer was conceivably not so perceived by ancient ones. The manipulation of
form for its own sake is a familiar phenomenon and need not imply a "playful" intent in what-
ever sense. An explanation of pictorialization and abstraction as a formal phenomenon is the
most obvious one. But this interpretation in no way excludes others with regard to special mean-
ings of pictorialized motifs to the Minoans. Moreover, from Pliny (Hist. Nat. XXXVII) it is clear
that all precious stones had a magical significance in the antique. But whether specific styles (i.e.
"talismanic") possessed special attributes above those of other seals in hard stone is purely a mat-
ter for speculation.
As Gombrich notes with reference to works of art from later periods, one is in danger of
losing contact with an essential aspect of the material if one accepts the doctrine that visual
puns and the like never had anything to do with art. Pictorialization and abstraction are well
documented in the ancient and modern world and their existence in the highly decorative art of
the Aegean (cf. frontispiece) comes as no great surprize.
INDEX: Abstracted and Pictorialized Motifs
1 CMS 112 118b*; AGD II 15a, 17c; CMS I 424; 112 78c, 228; IV 14Da; VII 207b; XII 14b, Similar: CMS
112 231a, Cf: CS 36c. 2 CMS XIII 80c, Sim: CMS 112 235a; VII 253a; CS 38c. 3 CMS 112 104a'; IX 17d;
CS 8b. 4cS 53b, Sim: CMS XII lie; CS 3a, 5b, 8b, 24b, Cf: CS 43a. 5 CMS 112 299b, Cf: CMS XII 58b;
CS 18b,c. 6 CMS CS 19a, Cf: CMS 112 231a; CS 42b. 7CS 19b, Cf: CMS 112 300b. 8 Kopenhagen NM 1367a.
Sim: CMS VIII 20b; XIII 85b. 9 CMS 112 295a; AGD II 15c; CMS I 419b; 112 232c, 274b, 299c, 309b; VII
207c; XII 29b, 32b; CS 21c, 55c, Cf: CMS XII 29c. 10 CMS 112 232b, 222a; IX 3c, lie; CS 8c, 57c, Sim:
CMS IX 3b, Cf: CMS 112 231b. 11 CMS 112 3; CM 182; CMS 112 282, 316d; IV 132a; VIII 34; X 280; XII
112b; CS 170a; Knossds P74a2, Sim: CMS IV 156b; XII 113a; Knossos HI. 12 CS 141. 13 CMS XII 100.
14 AGD II 9. 15 CS 129. 16 CMS 112 284b; CM 166, 167; CS 151c. 1 7 CMS 112 284a. 18 CMS IV 137c.
Sim: CMS XII 110a. 19 CMS VII 33. 20 CMS XII 103. 21 CMS XII 115b,a,c: IV 27Da-c. 22 CS 152, Cf:
CM 153; CMS IV 164. 23 CMS 112 203; CM 126; IV 159; VIII 105a; IX 33; CS 155, Sim: CMS XIII 72.
24CS 78, CMS 115 169*. 171*. 172*. 25 CMS 115 40*, Cf: CMS 112 16*, 24*; 115 36*. 37*. 26HM 1318*.
27 CMS XIII 62, Cf: CM 145; CMS X 93; XIII 97. 28 Knossos L15*.
General Observations on Iconography
In summary, in EM II geometric ornament such as cross-hatching and random scratching
seems to dominate early Cretan glyptic. Figural representations date as early as EM II but do not
appear to be popular until EM III-MM IA. At this time leaves, petaloid loops, hatched triangles
and cross-hatching are the most frequently occurring motifs. Hieroglyphic writing also makes its
appearance.