Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-4rdrl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-04T19:15:32.845Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Another Mycenaean Horse-leader?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 September 2013

Abstract

A fragment of Mycenaean pictorial pottery, unprovenanced and now in Florence, is published. It depicts, partly preserved, a man standing between two (chariot ?) horses. This is the so-called horse-leader motif, illustrated on only one or two other Mycenaean vases but well-known from late Geometric Argive and Attic vase painting.

It is suggested that the reappearance of the motif in the 8th cent. B.C. may be explained not as inspired by surviving Mycenaean models but as an independent creation.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © The Council, British School at Athens 1991

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Acknowledgements. I am most grateful to the authorities of the Archaeological Museum, Florence, for permission to publish the potsherd in their collection and for providing a photograph of it. I also wish to thank Professor P.E. Pecorella for his assistance, Miss P. Lulof for technical observations and the profile drawing, and Dr H.W. Catling and especially Dr E.S. Sherratt for comments upon the fragment.

Abbreviation in addition to those in standard use:

MPVP = E. Vermeule and V. Karageorghis

Mycenaean Pictorial vase Painting (1982).

1 Langdon, S., ‘The Return of the Horse-Leader’, AJA 93 (1989) 185201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

2 See especially Mountjoy, P.E., Mycenaean Decorated Pottery. SIMA 73 (1986) fig. 134Google Scholar (Furumark's shape 9, dated to LH IIIB:1). It should be noted that monochrome interiors, such as that of our sherd, are not often found on neckless kraters, especially in the Argolid; see, however, Schönfeld, G., AA 1988, 173Google Scholar, fig. 4:18 (rim sherd, quite probably from a neckless krater, found in an early LH IIIB context at Tiryns).

3 Mountjoy, op. cit. (n. 2) figs. 142, 159 (Furumark's shape 281).

4 See also a.o. Courtois, J.-C. in Acts of the International Archaeological Symposium ‘The Mycenaeans in the Eastern Mediterranean’ (Nicosia 1973) 155–61Google Scholar; Courtois, J.-C. and Courtois, L. in Ugaritica VII (1978) 346f. and fig. 54:2, A–CGoogle Scholar; MPVP XIII.28.

5 MPVP IV.18 (with bibl.). A 13th cent. B.C. larnax from Tanagra shows two men, apparently fighting a duel, between two antithetic Dual-chariot groups; see Spyropoulos, T.G., PAE 1969, 14f. and pl. 13:aGoogle Scholar; Crouwel, J.H., Chariots and Other Means of Land Transport in Bronze Age Greece. Alllard Pierson Series 3 (1981) 139 no. L 2.Google Scholar

6 A.o. MPVP XI.14, 16, 19.1–20, 24, 25, cf. 37.

7 Cf. a krater fragment from Mycenae where a helmeted man on foot is holding not the reins but two separate lead ropes of a chariot team, MPVP IX.8 (the given date – LH IIIB – may well have to be corrected to LH IIIC Middle).

8 BSA 25 (1921–23) pl. XXVII; Rodenwaldt, G., Der Fries des Megarons von Mykenai (1921)Google Scholar no. 2, cf. no. 4. MPVP XI.7–8.

9 MPVP X.27.

10 See also MPVP XI.13–14, 21, XII.42.

11 Fish appear on fragments of another vase from the site, probably by the same painter, see Courtois and Courtois, op. cit. (n. 4) fig. 44:1. cf. 2; MPVP XIII.29; Langdon, op. cit. (n. 1) figs. 5, 8, cf. also fig. 7.

12 See Courtois, op. cit. (n. 4) 149–65; Mee, C., AS 28 (1978) 136Google Scholar; Schachermeyr, F., Griechenland im Zeitalter der Wanderungen (Wien 1980) 147, 149, 151, 158–60, 176Google Scholar; Langdon 1989, 188. For Chios, see Hood, S., Excavations in Chios 1938–1955 II. BSA Suppl. 16 (1982) 590Google Scholar no. 2743 (incorrectly identified as ring-based krater). For fragments of other kraters of this group from Ras Shamra-Ugarit, see Schaeffer, C.F.A., Ugaritica II (1948) figs. 60:19, 95:27 (= fig. 124:2–3)Google Scholar; Courtois, op. cit. (n. 4) figs. 5–7; Courtois and Courtois, op. cit. (n. 4) especially figs. 46:3, 9, 47:2 and 9 (cf. 45:3).

13 Gödeken, K.B., ‘A Contribution to the Early History of Miletus’ in Problems in Aegean Prehistory (French, E.B. and Wardle, K.A. eds.; 1988) 307–15 with pl. 18:e–f, also a, d.Google Scholar

14 Zervoudaki, E., ADelt 26 B2 (1971) 550f.Google Scholar with pl. 558.

15 The fabric cannot readily be grouped with that of the decorated pottery of LH IIIA–IIIB found in the Argolid.

16 For the existence of such models at this time, see Langdon, op. cit. (n. 1) 197f., 200f.; also Benson, J.L., Horse, Bird and Man (1970) 114–23Google Scholar; Hurwit, J.M., The Art and Culture of Early Greece, 1100–480 B.C. (1985) 68f.Google Scholar

17 Cf. Langdon, op. cit. (n. 1) 197f.; also Carter, J.M., BSA 67 (1972) especially 2831 (horse)Google Scholar; Hurwit, op. cit. (n. 16) 53–70; Muscarella, O.W., The Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society of Columbia University 9 (1977) 4345.Google Scholar