DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.3044#0198
CHAPTER 4 183
156 Cf. Furumark, MP 265 fig. 34, motif lie.
157 For a pictorialized version, cf. Motif 58:24
158 SM I 232 sign 18; Cf. Branigan, "The Origins of the Hieroglyphic Sign 18," Kadmos 4 (1965) 81-83.
159 E. Hall, The Decorative Arts of Crete in the Bronze Age (Philadelphia 190/') 10, "...naturalistic designs not
necessarily begin as a realistic arrangement of lines which suggest rather than picture natural forms." Cf.
N. Aberg, Bronzezeitliche und fruheisenzeitliche Chronologie IV (Stockholm 1933) 162-163; Furumark, MP
133; Levi, ASAtene 35-36 (1957-58) 105-106; Levi, PP 127 (1969) 250; V. Kenna, The Cretan Talismanic
Stone in the Late Minoan Age, SIMA XXIV (Lund 1969) 26-33; Boardman, GGFR 27; Schiering, Marburg
Symposium 1, 143-148; Walberg, Kamares 65.
160 Walberg, Kamares 65. The partial decorative function of seals as jewelry gives a possible clue to the mo-
tivation for pictorializing motifs. In support of this view, the most developed pictorialized motifs are en-
graved into semiprecious and not plain stones.
161 Poor workmanship: Boardman, GGFR 43. Contra: Betts, BiOr 31 (1974) 311.
162 The interpretation of these motifs as "conventional representations of architecture" stems from Evans
(PM I 564), who may have been moved to this interpretation by two factors: First, several tectonic mo-
tifs (thirty-four) are formed by a n-shaped configuration of horizontal and vertical lines, vaguely sugges-
tive of a doorway. Second, schematic representations of reed architecture as well known from ancient
Near Eastern seals which superficially, at least, resemble Minoan tectonic designs (cf. Frankfort, Cylinder
Seals [London 1939] pi. IHe, Vlld-i, k). W. Schiering suggested the name "tektonischer Muster" in Gno-
mon 50 (1978) 567.
Evans (PM I 564) and Kenna (CS pp. 42-43) understood this kind of decoration as stylized representa-
tions of building facades. Writing in 1958 in "CM", Sakellariou was more cautious and describes these de-
signs as "facades architectonique" (p. 23). In 1970 Boardman suggested that this type of decoration resem-
bles basketry rather than architecture (GGFR 32). Finally, in 1972, Schiering interpreted these motifs as
essentially ornamental and not pictorial (Marburg Symposium % 143-148). Only he hitherto has articulated
his reasons for challenging Evans' original notion.
163 Cf. Motifs 3:11 and 6:3.
164 Cf. Biesantz, MarbWinckProg (1958) 17.
165 Cf. the normal heads in 8:6 and 58:1. I favor this interpretation rather than that opposite the jaws horns
are depicted.
166 For this sign: SM I 233, sign 110.
167 Ibid. 232-233.
168 Cf. Walberg, Kamares, motif 25vil-3.
169 Levi, ASAtene 35-36 (1957-58) 105-106.
170 BSA 9 (1902-03) no. 22 fig. 31.
171 "Trees in the Wind on Cretan Sealings," AJA 72 (1968) 149-150, pi. 61.
172 Here and at other places it is not always easy to distinguish style from content.
156 Cf. Furumark, MP 265 fig. 34, motif lie.
157 For a pictorialized version, cf. Motif 58:24
158 SM I 232 sign 18; Cf. Branigan, "The Origins of the Hieroglyphic Sign 18," Kadmos 4 (1965) 81-83.
159 E. Hall, The Decorative Arts of Crete in the Bronze Age (Philadelphia 190/') 10, "...naturalistic designs not
necessarily begin as a realistic arrangement of lines which suggest rather than picture natural forms." Cf.
N. Aberg, Bronzezeitliche und fruheisenzeitliche Chronologie IV (Stockholm 1933) 162-163; Furumark, MP
133; Levi, ASAtene 35-36 (1957-58) 105-106; Levi, PP 127 (1969) 250; V. Kenna, The Cretan Talismanic
Stone in the Late Minoan Age, SIMA XXIV (Lund 1969) 26-33; Boardman, GGFR 27; Schiering, Marburg
Symposium 1, 143-148; Walberg, Kamares 65.
160 Walberg, Kamares 65. The partial decorative function of seals as jewelry gives a possible clue to the mo-
tivation for pictorializing motifs. In support of this view, the most developed pictorialized motifs are en-
graved into semiprecious and not plain stones.
161 Poor workmanship: Boardman, GGFR 43. Contra: Betts, BiOr 31 (1974) 311.
162 The interpretation of these motifs as "conventional representations of architecture" stems from Evans
(PM I 564), who may have been moved to this interpretation by two factors: First, several tectonic mo-
tifs (thirty-four) are formed by a n-shaped configuration of horizontal and vertical lines, vaguely sugges-
tive of a doorway. Second, schematic representations of reed architecture as well known from ancient
Near Eastern seals which superficially, at least, resemble Minoan tectonic designs (cf. Frankfort, Cylinder
Seals [London 1939] pi. IHe, Vlld-i, k). W. Schiering suggested the name "tektonischer Muster" in Gno-
mon 50 (1978) 567.
Evans (PM I 564) and Kenna (CS pp. 42-43) understood this kind of decoration as stylized representa-
tions of building facades. Writing in 1958 in "CM", Sakellariou was more cautious and describes these de-
signs as "facades architectonique" (p. 23). In 1970 Boardman suggested that this type of decoration resem-
bles basketry rather than architecture (GGFR 32). Finally, in 1972, Schiering interpreted these motifs as
essentially ornamental and not pictorial (Marburg Symposium % 143-148). Only he hitherto has articulated
his reasons for challenging Evans' original notion.
163 Cf. Motifs 3:11 and 6:3.
164 Cf. Biesantz, MarbWinckProg (1958) 17.
165 Cf. the normal heads in 8:6 and 58:1. I favor this interpretation rather than that opposite the jaws horns
are depicted.
166 For this sign: SM I 233, sign 110.
167 Ibid. 232-233.
168 Cf. Walberg, Kamares, motif 25vil-3.
169 Levi, ASAtene 35-36 (1957-58) 105-106.
170 BSA 9 (1902-03) no. 22 fig. 31.
171 "Trees in the Wind on Cretan Sealings," AJA 72 (1968) 149-150, pi. 61.
172 Here and at other places it is not always easy to distinguish style from content.