SEA BROUGHT ONTO LAND: SEASCAPE IMAGERY IN THE CYCLADIC POTTERY FROM PHYLAKOPI (MELOS) IN THE NATIONAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL MUSEUM, ATHENS

Christopher Nuttall

doi:10.1017/S0068245424000017

SEA BROUGHT ONTO LAND: SEASCAPE IMAGERY IN THE CYCLADIC POTTERY FROM PHYLAKOPI (MELOS) IN THE NATIONAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL MUSEUM, ATHENS

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 07 March 2024

Christopher Nuttall

Show author details

Christopher Nuttall*: Affiliation:
Swedish Institute at Athens and National and Kapodistrian University of Athens
*: chrisnuttallacademia@gmail.com

Article contents

Abstract
INTRODUCTION
SEASCAPE ICONOGRAPHY
DISCUSSION
Footnotes
References

Rights & Permissions

Abstract

This study examines seascape depictions on pottery, including seafaring and sea creature scenes, from the 1896–9 excavations at Phylakopi on Melos, held in the National Archaeological Museum of Athens. This analysis demonstrates that seascape scenes varied in character through time and were typically associated with vessel shapes connected to the pouring of liquids between Early Cycladic (EC) III and Middle Cycladic late and were later focused on basins. A focus on seafaring is evident in EC III, while later the iconographic focus on the sea concentrates on sea creatures. An iconographic interest in the sea, alongside that of birds and floral depictions, is suggestive of an interest in living forms that inhabit different places to humans (i.e., non-domestic) with different corporeality to humans. This research contributes further to the growing debate on human–animal/plant relationships and ontologies in the Aegean Bronze Age.

Η μελέτη αυτή εξετάζει τις απεικονίσεις θαλασσογραφιών στην κεραμική, συμπεριλαμβανομένων σκηνών πλεύσης και θαλάσσιων πλασμάτων από τις ανασκαφές του 1896–9 στη Φυλακωπή της Μήλου, που φυλάσσεται στο Εθνικό Αρχαιολογικό Μουσείο της Αθήνας. Η ανάλυση αυτή δείχνει ότι οι σκηνές των θαλασσογραφιών ποικίλλουν στο χαρακτήρα τους μέσα στο χρόνο και συνήθως συνδέονται με τα σχήματα των αγγείων που σχετίζονται με την έκχυση υγρών, μεταξύ της Πρωτοκυκλαδικής (ΠΚ) ΙΙΙ και της ύστερης Μεσοκυκλαδικής περιόδου ενώ αργότερα επικεντρώθηκαν σε λεκάνες. Η εστίαση στις σκηνές πλεύσης είναι εμφανής στην ΠΚ ΙΙΙ, ενώ αργότερα η εικονογραφική εστίαση επικεντρώνεται στα θαλάσσια πλάσματα. Η εικονογραφική ενασχόληση με τη θάλασσα, σε συνδυασμό με την εικονογραφική αποτύπωση πουλιών και φυτικών απεικονίσεων, υποδηλώνει το ενδιαφέρον σε ζωντανές μορφές που κατοικούν σε διαφορετικά μέρη από τον άνθρωπο (δηλαδή μη-οικιακά) και με διαφορετική σωματικότητα από αυτήν των ανθρώπων. Η έρευνα αυτή συμβάλλει περαιτέρω στη συζήτηση για τις σχέσεις και τις οντολογίες ανθρώπων–ζώων/φυτών στην Εποχή του Χαλκού στο Αιγαίο.

Information

Type: Articles
Information: Annual of the British School at Athens , Volume 119 , December 2024, pp. 61 - 81
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0068245424000017 [Opens in a new window]
Copyright: Copyright © The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Council, British School at Athens

INTRODUCTION

Held in the National Archaeological Museum (Athens) is a large pottery assemblage from the 1896–9 excavations at Phylakopi on Melos.Footnote ¹ This assemblage covers a range of Bronze Age wares, of which several carry pictorial decoration in various forms. A component of these pictorial depictions at Phylakopi are seascape representations, defined here as any representation incorporating the sea, sea creatures or boat components.

While these forms of representation have previously received scholarly attention, seascape depictions on pottery have rarely been the central focus of study, and the different forms (boat, animal, fishing) are rarely treated together. Seascape depictions have been considered a natural result of coastal life (Bosanquet Reference Bosanquet1904b, 321), with research exploring the potential for a species typology of marine creatures in Minoan iconography (Gill Reference Gill, Darcque and Poursat1985), and a similar typological approach has been advocated in the iconographic analysis of boat depictions (Wedde Reference Wedde, Laffineur and Basch1991; Reference Wedde2000). Marine animal depiction was also utilised alongside faunal remains and material culture in the analysis of fishing in Bronze Age Greece (Powell Reference Powell1996), and an iconography of the sea has been considered as part of an analysis of Minoan religion (Saunders Reference Saunders2008). The introduction of ‘seascapes’ into discourse in Classical Archaeology (Georgiadis Reference Georgiadis2003, 29–31; Vavouranakis Reference Vavouranakis2011; Mylona Reference Mylona2020; Nuttall Reference Nuttall2021) has prompted some to re-evaluate seascape imagery. Berg (Reference Berg2013, 13), for example, argues for a lack of marine knowledge evident through analysis of Minoan pictorial pottery. Haysom (Reference Haysom2011, 153–4) argues for a land-centred worldview for Neopalatial Minoan elites based on a lack of seascape imagery in palatial contexts, and von Rüden (Reference Rüden, Lichtenberger and von Rüden2015, 57) argues for a profound social interest in the marine world for Minoan society. Work on seascapes has brought forward insights into the worldviews and characteristics of the societies that created these seascape depictions.

Most analyses mentioned above consider seascape representation from a Cretan standpoint, given the concentration of seascape depiction on the island. Analyses of Cycladic seascape depictions are considerably rarer and typically form part of a broader discussion of Cycladic iconography (Nikolakopoulou Reference Nikolakopoulou and Krzyszkowska2010; Marthari Reference Marthari and Vlachopoulos2018). The present study seeks to fill this gap by analysing seascape representation in the Cycladic pottery from Phylakopi on Melos (Appendix 1: see Supplementary Material). The objective is to uncover novel avenues for interpretation that shed light on the social context and temporal evolution of the attitudes within the society that produced and consumed such imagery.

Methodology

This analysis divides the settlement into its three constituent ‘cities’ (settlement phases) as laid out in the original excavation report (City I, II and III), each divided into their subdivisions (e.g. City II-iii), chronologically covering EC IIIB to LC II.Footnote ² City III-iii has been omitted due to the more intensive penetration of non-Melian ceramic styles in the Mycenaean imported pottery, while Minoan imports between City II and City III-ii have similarly been excluded from discussion. While evidence of Melian pottery in other parts of the MC islands suggests that pre-LC II Phylakopi was not socially isolatedFootnote ³ and local ceramic styles do pick up external influences,Footnote ⁴ locally made ceramics are more likely to be representative of local social attitudes than Minoan or mainland imports. Although Melian potters likely drew inspiration from various sources, the critical aspect is that their choices mirror the local community's tastes in the selection of specific inspirations, concepts, and designs to integrate into their unique ceramic iconography. The destruction at the end of City III-ii serves as a neat demarcation point for considering local Cycladic pottery at Phylakopi – pottery that could still be influenced by external styles – as distinct from pottery that is exclusively Mycenaean in inspiration.Footnote ⁵

As pictorial imagery is at the core of this analysis, a specific methodology is used to aid interpretation. The methodology taken here is a hybridisation of two approaches (Appendix 3: see Supplementary Material). Firstly, an art contextualisation of the iconography focusing on factors such as the identification of the iconographic subject, the artist's intention, a chaîne opératoire of production, the social context of the depiction and its likely reception (Chapin Reference Chapin and Blakolmer2020). Secondly, as the subject matter partially concerns marine animals, a ‘folk taxonomic’ view is advocated (Hunn Reference Hunn2007; Binnberg Reference Binnberg2019). This perspective allows for a popular identification of species classes (i.e., small fish, large fish, dolphin, octopus) rather than a scientific taxonomic approach.Footnote ⁶ The combination of the two approaches allows for a deconstruction of imagery, without considering examples as faithful photographic rendering of past events.

The material discussed herein are ceramic vessels which were portable, functional and likely to have been consumed visually in social events (Nikolakopoulou Reference Nikolakopoulou and Krzyszkowska2010, 219). Although little is known about the contextual or stratigraphic information of the material under study, it is highly probable that most, if not all, derive from settlement contexts rather than mortuary contexts. These items are likely to have been used repetitively in social contexts and may have carried social meaning that could be communicated between individuals and groups. This approach is a helpful way of thinking about these objects, which have social meaning ‘in action’ (Malafouris Reference Malafouris, Knappett and Malafouris2008, 28–9), making them ‘partners in the social conversation of being’ (Boast Reference Boast1997, 190) and therefore possessive of an agentic potential or, in other words, materiality (Wertsch Reference Wertsch1998; Knappett Reference Knappett2005; Malafouris Reference Malafouris, Knappett and Malafouris2008; Johannsen Reference Johannsen, Johannsen, Jessen and Jensen2012). The following section analyses the material using the outline methodology and considers the social context of the material as well as the physical characteristics of the vessels.

SEASCAPE ICONOGRAPHY

Phylakopi I (EC IIIB–MC Early; nos 1–9)

Seascape representation in Phylakopi I can be found on a range of ceramic wares, including Dark-faced Incised (DFI), Early Matt-painted (EMP) and Soft Matt-painted (SMP) Geometric.Footnote ⁷ The seascape representations in City I appear mostly on vessels connected to pouring (Table 1), such as duck vases (two examples), a beaked jug and an askos.

Table 1.

Overview of the examples of seascape representation on pottery from Phylakopi I.

Present in seascape representation from City I are five possible boat depictions. 1 is a representation of a longboat with paddling oars and a larger steering oar (Fig. 1:1), with circular features and a schematic human figure (Edgar Reference Edgar, Atkinson, Bosanquet, Edgar, Evans, Hogarth, Mackenzie, Smith and Welch1904, 90, pl. v:8c). It represents a seafaring scene, though the fact that the boat and the circular elements are decorated with dotted incisions may indicate that the circular elements are also wooden objects, potentially making these fishing traps, perhaps baskets. The boat's shape conforms to Wedde's Ship Type 1 and van de Moortel's Type A2, that of a curved hull longboat (Wedde Reference Wedde2000, 314, no. 416; van de Moortel Reference Moortel and Litwin2017, 265). The scene follows earlier Keros-Syros boat depictions incised on frying pan vessels,Footnote ⁸ though human figures are not incorporated in EC IIA pottery. The inclusion of the human figure with the boat is replicated in rock peckings from EC IIA Korfi t'Aroniou on Naxos (cf. Doumas Reference Doumas1966, 49, figs 4 and 7), though neither in the frying pans nor the rock peckings are steering oars depicted. This omission led Broodbank (Reference Broodbank2000, 343) to suggest that this example was an incomplete depiction of a masted boat rather than a longboat. There are, however, two points against this interpretation. Firstly, the depicted boat is missing any ropes extending diagonally from the stern (as seen in 4) – a common feature in masted boat depictions (cf. Soles Reference Soles, Mantzourani and Betancourt2012, 192, fig. 21:7; Seager Reference Seager1912, 39, fig. 14; Strasser Reference Strasser2010, fig. 5) – and, given around half of the scene is depicted, it seems unlikely that the ropes would be present in the missing half. Secondly, a recently published rock pecking from Vathy on Astypalaia (Vlachopoulos Reference Vlachopoulos2012, 119–20, pl. 93a–b) has led to a convincing argument for the presence of a steering oar in an EC IIA boat type (van de Moortel Reference Moortel and Litwin2017, 264). The paddled boat is likely to have been an important symbol of the community's active role in the inter-island ‘Phylakopi I trading system’ (Broodbank Reference Broodbank2000, 343).

Fig. 1.

Seafaring and possible seafaring depictions from Phylakopi I (EC IIIB). Drawings by K. Theodoropoulou, courtesy of R. Barber.

Examples 2 and 3 are broadly contemporary with 1, though are much less clear in their rendering. The arguments in favour of supporting the diamond-shaped features of 2 (Fig. 1:2) as a sailing craft are three: first, the diamond-shape features have short strokes extending from the body which are commonly interpreted as oars as in 1; second, the diamond body is decorated with dotted incisions also seen in 1; and third, there is a coexistence of a possible boat alongside circular objects, also decorated with dotted incisions, which were interpreted as possible fishing traps in 1. Missing, however, are several of the key characteristics of contemporary boat depictions, making its interpretation as a sailing craft tenuous. 3 (Fig. 1:3) is even less convincing – and can only be interpreted as a boat if one accepts that the diamond shape of 2 represents a boat – and this example is missing several of the features that support this interpretation in 2.

The earliest iconographic appearance of the masted sailing boat in the Cyclades (Edgar Reference Edgar, Atkinson, Bosanquet, Edgar, Evans, Hogarth, Mackenzie, Smith and Welch1904, 104, pl. xii:23; Renfrew Reference Renfrew1972, 357; McGeehan Liritzis Reference McGeehan Liritzis1988, 254; Broodbank Reference Broodbank2000, 343; Nuttall Reference Nuttall2021, 224–5) is evident in 4 (Fig. 2:4). This example has a clear mast, from which diagonal ropes descend towards the stern of the boat, and has a large steering oar. Unlike 1, this example bears no trace of human figures or any other features except, perhaps, for representing the sea or waves in the two horizontal lines. The best parallels come from broadly contemporary Minoan seal stones, which also depict curved-hull boats with a mast affixed to the stern with ropes.Footnote ⁹ 5 is unclear but could feasibly be a boat depiction (Fig. 2:5). In favour of this interpretation are the eight vertical strokes extending from the thick black line, which could represent the ship's body with oars, and the slight curvature of the possible boat body, which may indicate the straighter stern of a curved hull ship as seen in 4. The incompleteness of the composition, however, makes this interpretation tentative.

Fig. 2.

Seafaring and possible seafaring depictions from Phylakopi I (EC IIIB). No. 4 by K. Theodoropoulou, courtesy of R. Barber. No. 5 by author after photograph taken by R. Barber.

Present in the City I assemblage are also depictions of sea creatures. Depicted in 6 (Fig. 3:6) are several long, solidly painted objects which conform in shape to large fish (Edgar Reference Edgar, Atkinson, Bosanquet, Edgar, Evans, Hogarth, Mackenzie, Smith and Welch1904, 100, pl. ix:11). Supporting their interpretation as fish is the presence of a head, ventral fin, dorsal fin and caudal (tail) fin, though the first such example to the left (Fig. 3:6) could equally be a large squid with tentacles. Several geometric objects are placed between the sea creatures, some decorated and others undecorated, which border each sea creature. Though these could be convenient framing objects inserted by the artist, they could also represent fishing traps, making this a possible fishing scene. 7 is an incomplete depiction of a triangular shape decorated with cross hatches (Fig. 3:7). A marine interpretation hinges on the small depiction of a ventral or dorsal fin extending out from the body of the potential large fish. 8 and 9 are much less certain representations of sea creatures. The diamond-shaped body of 8 could be a fish (Edgar Reference Edgar, Atkinson, Bosanquet, Edgar, Evans, Hogarth, Mackenzie, Smith and Welch1904, pl. vii:17, 182), given the potential presence of fins and a tail (Fig. 3:8), though the scheme could as easily depict a schematic bird. Between the wings of the chevron in 9 is a triangular object with a small appendage (Fig. 3:9), potentially a mistake by the artist or part of a fish's caudal fin, though this interpretation is tenuous.

Fig. 3.

Sea creature and possible sea creature depictions from Phylakopi I (EC IIIB–MC Early). Nos 6 and 9 by K. Theodoropoulou, courtesy of R. Barber. Nos 7 and 8 by author after photographs taken by R. Barber.

The sea creature depictions seen here are not of the type seen in EC IIA, which are generally more schematic and represent small fish.Footnote ¹⁰ A lack of attention to physical characteristics is evident in sea creature representation, making their character difficult to interpret.

Phylakopi II (MC Early–Late; nos 10–21)

Seascape representation in City II comes exclusively in the form of Cycladic White (CW) and Black and Red (B&R) wares,Footnote ¹¹ mostly from its later levels (II-ii/iii).Footnote ¹² The seascape representations of City II come in a wider variety of ceramic forms than earlier, with pouring vessels (two beaked jugs, one bridge-spouted jar), a pyxis (storage), a basin (liquid), a shallow cup (food or drinking) and a lampstand (lighting) potentially suggesting a shift in the types of practices that may be associated with seascape depiction.

Seascape representation in City II solely takes the form of sea creatures, with more diversity in the features and creatures depicted (Table 2). An increased knowledge of the physical features of sea creatures is evident in the more accurate rendering of the caudal fins of fish, with examples in 10 (Edgar Reference Edgar, Atkinson, Bosanquet, Edgar, Evans, Hogarth, Mackenzie, Smith and Welch1904, pl. xviii:17) and 11. The caudal fin of 10 (Fig. 4:10) is paralleled in a seal stone from Palaikastro (CMS II.2, no. 261a), while 11 (Fig. 4:11) is paralleled in a Kamares cup from Gournia (Boyd Hawes et al. Reference Boyd Hawes, Williams, Seager and Hall1908, 56, fig. 40:3). 12 is a probable large fish (Fig. 4:12) with caudal fins, pelvic fins, and even a possible seahorse head to the left (Edgar Reference Edgar, Atkinson, Bosanquet, Edgar, Evans, Hogarth, Mackenzie, Smith and Welch1904, 116, pl. xviii:5).

Table 2.

Overview of the examples of seascape representation on pottery from Phylakopi II.

Fig. 4.

Sea creature and possible sea creature depictions from Phylakopi II (MC Early–Late). Nos 10 and 12 by K. Theodoropoulou, courtesy of R. Barber. No. 11 by author after photograph taken by R. Barber.

13 is a particularly puzzling piece (Edgar Reference Edgar, Atkinson, Bosanquet, Edgar, Evans, Hogarth, Mackenzie, Smith and Welch1904, 109, pl. xiv:6a–c). Depicted on body sherds from a nippled ewer is a representation of a winged ‘goblin’ or gorgon complete with a tail, which appears to fly over the sea, represented by the presence of small fish (Fig. 5:13). These fish are rendered similarly to incised EC IIB examples from Markiani (cf. Eskitzioglou Reference Eskitzioglou, Marangou, Renfrew, Doumas and Gavalas2006, 155, fig. 7:26, nos 17 and 18). It is unclear what exactly the winged creature represents. The presence of this depiction on a nippled ewer, a ceramic form with plastic breasts and a long beaked spout exhibiting both anthropomorphic and zoomorphic characteristics, is significant due to its possible symbolic role (N. Marinatos Reference Marinatos, Hägg and Marinatos1984, 176). Frequently found in domestic settings at the well-preserved site of Akrotiri (Tyler Reference Tyler2012, 22–30), this shape has been suggested to correlate with pouring vessels associated with a female goddess (N. Marinatos Reference Marinatos, Hägg and Marinatos1984, 176) and involved in ‘folk’ religious practices (Goodison Reference Goodison, Brodie, Doole, Gavalas and Renfrew2008, 421), potentially serving a fertility function (Tzachili Reference Tzachili and Bonanno1986, 102), or pertaining to divine possession (Tyler Reference Tyler2012, 73). This example may depict the inclusion of either a mythical event or a human–animal hybrid related to the sea in a ritual context at Phylakopi, explored in more detail below. The mythical link is also replicated in 14 (Edgar Reference Edgar, Atkinson, Bosanquet, Edgar, Evans, Hogarth, Mackenzie, Smith and Welch1904, 109, pl. xiv:2), where two gryphons are depicted and a large fish or even a small whale is also depicted (Fig. 5:14), evident through the caudal and pectoral fins. This example is also depicted on a nippled ewer, suggesting a link between sea creature representations and pouring vessels.

Fig. 5.

Sea creature and possible sea creature depictions from Phylakopi II (MC Early–Late). Drawings by K. Theodoropoulou, courtesy of R. Barber.

Examples of fish are also evident in B&R ware from the latest deposits of City II. 15 bears a unique scene of a fish caught in the talons of a bird (Fig. 6:15), decorated with a red infill (Edgar Reference Edgar, Atkinson, Bosanquet, Edgar, Evans, Hogarth, Mackenzie, Smith and Welch1904, 121, fig. 93). Birds are typically decorated with a red infill in B&R style (cf. Barber Reference Barber1987, 150, fig. 108). In 16, a large net pattern is depicted over three large sherds belonging to one larger composition (Fig. 6:16). The net pattern is filled-in with brown paint, and it may represent either a fishing net or the scales of a much larger fish. Included also are two fish evident through their caudal fins.

Fig. 6.

Sea creature and possible sea creature depictions from Phylakopi II (MC Early–Late). By author after photographs taken by R. Barber.

The ‘Fishermen Vase’ (17) has received treatment elsewhere (Nuttall and Theodoropoulou Reference Nuttall and Theodoropoulou2024), so only a brief comment will be presented here. The scene depicts four fishermen (males) holding a fish in each hand (Edgar Reference Edgar, Atkinson, Bosanquet, Edgar, Evans, Hogarth, Mackenzie, Smith and Welch1904, 124, fig. 95, pl. xxii). The dotted surface beneath likely represents a sandy surface,Footnote ¹³ indicating that this scene takes place on the beachfront (Fig. 7). The significance of the ‘Fishermen Vase’ has been amplified by the identification of a near-contemporary thematically related scene in a fresco from the West House at Akrotiri.Footnote ¹⁴ As in the fisherman fresco scene, the fish represented in the ‘Fishermen Vase’ could be ‘dolphinfish’ (Mylona Reference Mylona and Sherratt2000, 565). The ‘Fishermen Vase’ has been here placed chronologically in City II-iii for several reasons. Firstly, it was found close to the Pillar Rooms Complex with which it is likely associated, constructed in MC late (Mackenzie Reference Mackenzie1963, 64). The representation of the human form is not as naturalistic as seen in LM/LC I/II fresco examples and is some way between the more schematic human form of earlier periods and the naturalistic form of the Late Bronze Age (Evans Reference Evans1921, 314; Herva Reference Herva2006; Shapland Reference Shapland2010). B&R sherds have been identified in MC late stratified deposits in the most recent excavations at Phylakopi (Barber Reference Barber2007, 212–13), and the scene could be contemporary with fresco fragments identified from late City II contexts at the Pillar Rooms Complex (Bosanquet Reference Bosanquet, Atkinson, Bosanquet, Edgar, Evans, Hogarth, Mackenzie, Smith and Welch1904a; Evans Reference Evans1921, 542–7; Furumark Reference Furumark1950, 192; Whitelaw Reference Whitelaw, Dakouri-Hild and Sherratt2005, 56). The ‘Fishermen Vase’ has been interpreted in several ways: a ‘return of the fishermen’ scene (Gerontakou Reference Gerontakou, Dimitropoulos and Olympitou2010, 15–18), local officials performing a ritual procession (Mastrapas Reference Mastrapas1991, 35, no. 133, 101–4) and an exaggerated expression of fishing skill (Nuttall and Theodoropoulou Reference Nuttall and Theodoropoulou2024). The Pillar Rooms Complex has been argued to have been a focal structure of City II-iii (MC late)Footnote ¹⁵ and either an elite residence (Whitelaw Reference Whitelaw, Dakouri-Hild and Sherratt2005, 58) or a ritual complex (Hitchcock Reference Hitchcock, Westgate, Fisher and Whitley2007, 92). The ‘Fishermen Vase’ may have been used in rituals mediating the relationship between humans and the sea or as an expression of a deep connection between the elite group connected to the structure and the source of their wealth, the sea.Footnote ¹⁶

Fig. 7.

The ‘Fishermen Vase’ (MC Late). Drawing by K. Theodoropoulou, courtesy of R. Barber.

City II sees the first appearance of dolphin depictions in the ceramic material, and there are several parallels for these pieces from Phylakopi held in the Melos Museum.Footnote ¹⁷ Dolphins also make an appearance in imagery from other places contemporary with City II, such as Pacheia Ammos (cf. Seager Reference Seager1916, 19, 23, pls IX, XIV) and Knossos (cf. Evans Reference Evans1921, 675, fig. 495), while later examples are known from Kea (K. Coleman Reference Coleman1973, 294–6, fig. 2) and Knossos (Evans Reference Evans1921, 346).Footnote ¹⁸ The dolphins from Phylakopi are all rendered with large eyes, uncommon in dolphin depictions elsewhere (cf. S. Marinatos Reference Marinatos1999a, pl. 11:2; Reference Marinatos1999b, 18, pl. C), where they are rather displayed as considerably smaller in relation to the size of the dolphin.Footnote ¹⁹ 18 is a depiction of a dolphin (Edgar Reference Edgar, Atkinson, Bosanquet, Edgar, Evans, Hogarth, Mackenzie, Smith and Welch1904, 113, pl. xix:3), evident through the head, large eye and beak, swimming beside another probable dolphin (Fig. 8:18), also evident through the stripes often seen in such representations (cf. Seager Reference Seager1916, pl. xiv; Ergon 1980, 40–1, fig. 89; S. Marinatos Reference Marinatos1999a, pl. 11:2). 19 is less secure, and while it could be a dolphin (Fig. 8:19), given the large eye and beak, this example could just as easily depict a bird or mythical creature (Edgar Reference Edgar, Atkinson, Bosanquet, Edgar, Evans, Hogarth, Mackenzie, Smith and Welch1904, 120, pl. xxi:6). It has been included as a dolphin based on the significant differences in depicted bird heads on contemporary sherds from Phylakopi (cf. Edgar Reference Edgar, Atkinson, Bosanquet, Edgar, Evans, Hogarth, Mackenzie, Smith and Welch1904, pl. xxi:5,9,11). The reconstructed scene on 20 (Fig. 8:20) appears to depict a large dolphin with several smaller fish possibly present (Edgar Reference Edgar, Atkinson, Bosanquet, Edgar, Evans, Hogarth, Mackenzie, Smith and Welch1904, pl. xxi:15). 21 is certainly a sea creature (Fig. 8:21), though its features, which include a large dorsal fin and caudal fin, are more akin to that of a shark than a fish, though there is a possibility this could be a stylised dolphin (Edgar Reference Edgar, Atkinson, Bosanquet, Edgar, Evans, Hogarth, Mackenzie, Smith and Welch1904, 114, pl. xvi:21). The depiction of other sea creatures, particularly dolphins and a possible shark, suggests an interest in the pelagic zones of the sea, suggesting an increased knowledge and social interest in the deep sea.

Fig. 8.

Sea creature and possible sea creature depictions from Phylakopi II (MC Early–Late). Nos 18, 19 and 21 by K. Theodoropoulou, courtesy of R. Barber. No. 20 by author after Edgar Reference Edgar, Atkinson, Bosanquet, Edgar, Evans, Hogarth, Mackenzie, Smith and Welch1904, 120, pl. xxi:6.

It is worth noting that City II does not have any representations of active seafaring. This is despite the participation of Phylakopi in Aegean exchange networks, suggested by the appearance of MM (Hood Reference Hood2007) and MH (Dickinson Reference Dickinson2007) imports. This lack of seafaring representation could be explained as a result of a decline in the local importance of maritime movement as a source of social power in interpersonal dynamics.Footnote ²⁰ This decline may have been caused by shifts in navigation technology from Early Cycladic paddled boats to Minoan masted sailing ships during EC III (Broodbank Reference Broodbank2000, 341–9), relegating Cycladic mariners from leaders to participants in a wider exchange network now dictated by Crete in the MBA (Broodbank Reference Broodbank2000, 357–61; Berg Reference Berg2019, 206–13).

Phylakopi III-i/ii (LC I; nos 21–28)

Seascape representation in Phylakopi III-i/ii comes in the form of Late Cycladic White (LCW) and Later Local (LL) ceramic wares,Footnote ²¹ though after LC I, seascape representation can mostly be found on imported wares.Footnote ²² Later local ceramics also take on Minoanising influences in City III (Barber Reference Barber2008, 116), particularly the naturalism seen in Minoan art (Evans Reference Evans1921, 314; Herva Reference Herva2006; Shapland Reference Shapland2010). There is a complete abandonment of seascape depictions on pouring vessels in City III, with all seascape depictions now decorating small basins. Contemporary seascape representations also come in the form of fresco paintings associated with LC I/II levels in the Pillar Rooms Complex (Bosanquet Reference Bosanquet, Atkinson, Bosanquet, Edgar, Evans, Hogarth, Mackenzie, Smith and Welch1904a, 70–2; Morgan Reference Morgan2007, 381–3), suggesting a penetration of these concepts into static, elite, and ritual social contexts and not just portable media.

Seascape representation from the ceramic material consists entirely of sea creatures (Table 3). Fish are depicted on 22 (Fig. 9:22) and 23 (Fig. 9:23), with the latter possessing an odd circular feature connected to the two fish represented (Edgar Reference Edgar, Atkinson, Bosanquet, Edgar, Evans, Hogarth, Mackenzie, Smith and Welch1904, 140, fig. 113). A common feature in seascape representation in City III is the presence of a wavy line which typically sits just below the painted line around the rim. It is present in 22, 23, 24 and 25 and could represent a sea-level line, an effort by the artist to depict the subject matter below the surface of the water. This feature is not evident in the near contemporary representation of birds at the end of City II (cf. Edgar Reference Edgar, Atkinson, Bosanquet, Edgar, Evans, Hogarth, Mackenzie, Smith and Welch1904, pl. xxi), nor is it present in floral or abstract representation, where a non-wavy line (Edgar Reference Edgar, Atkinson, Bosanquet, Edgar, Evans, Hogarth, Mackenzie, Smith and Welch1904, pl. xxvi:18; Barber Reference Barber2008, pl. 14:15) or cross-hatched line (Edgar Reference Edgar, Atkinson, Bosanquet, Edgar, Evans, Hogarth, Mackenzie, Smith and Welch1904, pl. xxiii:1) is preferred in the rare occasions when a framing motif is used. The function of a basin vessel is unclear, though their open shape may indicate their use as serving vessels. However, they could also have served as a proto-krater for drink mixing. This function could be hinted at with the coexistence of the wavy line depicting a liquid line and the sea creatures indicating that the vessel should be filled with liquid, an ‘iconographic reinforcement’ that has also been suggested for LM IB Marine Style vessels (Morris Reference Morris1995, 193).

Fig. 9.

Sea creature and possible sea creature depictions from Phylakopi III-i (LC I). Drawings by K. Theodoropoulou, courtesy of R. Barber.

Table 3.

Overview of the examples of seascape representation on pottery from Phylakopi III.

There are no clear representations of dolphins in the assemblage, though the presence of dolphins can be surmised. 24 is likely to be a dolphin (Fig. 10:24) based on the presence of curvilinear caudal fins and the fact that the body has been filled in with red, similar to an example from Akrotiri (cf. S. Marinatos Reference Marinatos1999b, 18, pl. C). 25 (Fig. 10:25) and 26 (Fig. 10:26) are also probable dolphins based on the decorated, striped bodies, as also seen in other contemporary examples (cf. Ergon 1980, 40–1, fig. 89; S. Marinatos Reference Marinatos1999a, pl. 11:2).

Fig. 10.

Sea creature and possible sea creature depictions from Phylakopi III-i (LC I–II). Nos 26 and 28 by K. Theodoropoulou, courtesy of R. Barber. Nos 24 and 25 by author after photographs taken by R. Barber. No. 28 by author after Edgar Reference Edgar, Atkinson, Bosanquet, Edgar, Evans, Hogarth, Mackenzie, Smith and Welch1904, 141, pl. xxx:6.

27 is the first explicit appearance of the octopus at Phylakopi (Fig. 10:27), evident through part of a tentacle extending at an oblique angle, along with two clear eyes and a series of tentacles extending down from the main body (Edgar Reference Edgar, Atkinson, Bosanquet, Edgar, Evans, Hogarth, Mackenzie, Smith and Welch1904, 141, pl. xxx:5). 28 is a less certain representation of an octopus (Edgar Reference Edgar, Atkinson, Bosanquet, Edgar, Evans, Hogarth, Mackenzie, Smith and Welch1904, pl. xxx:6), though in favour of such an interpretation is the depiction of eight tentacles, which are present in other contemporary examples (cf. Schliemann Reference Schliemann1878, 181, nos 270–1), and the schematic eye (Fig. 10:28), present also in 27. There are surprisingly few parallels for octopus depiction in the Cyclades until this point. It anticipates the depictions seen in imported LM IB Marine Style sherds from Phylakopi (Mountjoy Reference Mountjoy2007, 309–10). Contemporary parallels are known from Pacheia Ammos (Seager Reference Seager1916, 21, pl. 8:3), missing the suction pads of the octopus, though the golden cut-outs from Shaft Grave IV at Mycenae (Schliemann Reference Schliemann1878, 268, no. 424) and a steatite rhyton from the Room of the Throne at Knossos (Evans Reference Evans1928, 502–3, fig. 307) are the best parallels. As with the appearance of dolphins in City II, the City III depiction of octopuses marks a further development in knowledge of the sea, and artists may have been drawn to the subject theme due to their sentient and transformative capabilities.Footnote ²³

DISCUSSION

This discussion attempts to interpret the role seascapes played in the community at Phylakopi following the presentation of the iconographic evidence. First, however, it needs to be ascertained why this material is significant. To achieve this, we must consider the realities of the physical environment at Phylakopi. Phylakopi is a coastal settlement, though it is not located beside the best agricultural land on Melos nor its key raw material sources (obsidian quarries). Instead the impetus for the choice of location may have been fishing and ease of access for boat navigation. The small bay beside the settlement (Davidson and Tasker Reference Davidson, Tasker, Renfrew and Wagstaff1982, 94; Whitelaw Reference Whitelaw, Cherry, Scarre and Shennan2004, 150) is also likely to have been deep enough to encourage sailing boat visitation later. Although few fish or marine mollusc remains have been reported from the various excavations at Phylakopi, this may be due to the fact that wet-sieving was not employed during the site's early excavations, when many of the purest deposits from the site were excavated.Footnote ²⁴ It has also been suggested that inhabitants of the site placed a considerable focus on traction animals, due to the recovery of large amounts of bovine remains (Wagstaff and Augustson Reference Wagstaff, Augustson, Renfrew and Wagstaff1982, 130; Gamble Reference Gamble, Renfrew and Wagstaff1982, 168). We can assume then, that the physical setting at Phylakopi would have included sea, hills, arable land, humans, terrestrial animals, marine animals, wild animals and boats.

Pulling together the published material from several publications of the pottery at Phylakopi, it becomes possible to work out the proportion of different motifs depicted in different ceramic wares (Appendix 1: see Supplementary Material).Footnote ²⁵ While we must be cognisant of the Phylakopi ceramic sample, consideration of 2275 published sherds (Table 4) provides a sufficient sample for iconographic interpretation. Among a range of motifs found in all periods, boats and sea creatures are depicted in City I, while humans, birds, floral designs, and sea creatures are depicted in City II, and humans, birds, floral designs, and sea creatures are also represented in City III. Entirely omitted are depictions of landscape features (mountains, fields), domesticated animals (bovines, caprids, sus) and wild animals (other than birds, snakes and a solitary lion). Boats were also omitted in Cities II and III, when they are likely to have been a more common sight if Phylakopi was a key node along the ‘western string’ trading route.Footnote ²⁶ These omitted elements are all likely to have been daily sights for many inhabiting Phylakopi throughout its long history. Therefore, the depiction of birds, humans and sea-related content was not a passive reflection of observed life, but a culturally conscious decision embedded in a specific cultural and social setting.

Table 4.

Subject matter represented on the decorated locally made wares published from Phylakopi. ‘Abstract’ denotes geometric elements. Highest prevalence for each category (other than ‘abstract’) is in bold. ‘Total sherds’ indicates the total number of decorated sherds from Phylakopi published in the various articles and monographs dealing with Phylakopi. The data to support this table can be found in Appendix 2 of the Supplementary Material.

Seascape representations are not especially numerous at Phylakopi when considered as a proportion of total decorated sherds and are always less numerous than plant and bird representations (Table 4), though the fact that the seascape is depicted at all is significant. Most contemporary coastal settlements on Aegean islands do not exhibit anywhere near the same iconographic investment in the sea or any other iconographic theme. The contemporary MC settlement at Paroikia on Paros does not yield one ceramic depiction of a seascape, with most iconographic decoration coming in the form of bands, panels and other abstract motifs (cf. Overbeck Reference Overbeck1989, figs 52–84). Similarly, Thermi on Lesbos also does not provide any ceramic examples of seascape representation, and with the exception of the skeuomorphic representation of human figures in EBA marble figurines (Lamb Reference Lamb1936, 149–56, 177–8, pls xx–xxi), most of the pottery comes in burnished monochrome wares (Black and Red Wares for the EBA and Lesbian Red and Grey Ware for the MBA/LBA), which are only decorated by linear incisions and dots in the EBA (cf. Lamb Reference Lamb1936, pls viv–xv). At Poliochni on Lemnos, geometric incised and painted decorations are observed during the Blue period (EB I/II), become less common in the Green period (EB IIA), and in the Red period (EB IIB), such decorations are limited solely to pithoi (Doumas and Angelopoulou Reference Doumas, Angelopoulou, Doumas and La Rosa1997, 543–55). The representation of seafaring (with a militaristic undertone) at MH Kolonna on Aegina (Siedentopf Reference Siedentopf1991, no. 158, pls 35–37, no. 75, pl. 14, no. 162, pl. 38) is a counterpoint, though emerges at precisely the time when it is abandoned at Phylakopi. These examples illustrate that depictions of the sea were locally inspired and reflected the unique preferences and cultural perspectives of the communities living in these coastal areas, perspectives that were subject to change over time and were not an inevitable consequence of coastal living.

In attempting to explain the role of seascape depiction at Phylakopi, we can begin with the first chronologically significant iconographic development, the depiction of seafaring. Phylakopi has two clear EC III boat representations from a period when boat iconography had ceased to be popular in the Cyclades. The EC IIA boat representations on frying pans have been taken to be part of an iconography of power and a connection to a ‘maritime ideology’ performed by a relatively small group of seafarers (Broodbank Reference Broodbank2000, 247–75). The cessation of these kinds of boat depiction after EC IIA could represent the undermining of maritime ideology linked to the appearance of the Kastri group phenomenon (Broodbank Reference Broodbank2000, 316), though the resurgence of boat depiction at Phylakopi in EC III requires some explanation. At Phylakopi, the longboat and masted boat varieties are depicted, illustrating that EC III was a period of shifting technologies. Phylakopi has been argued to have been a central hub in the ‘Phylakopi I culture trading system’ (Broodbank Reference Broodbank2000, 351–6), a Cycladic-focused insular interaction zone typified by the distribution of so-called ‘Duck Vases’ (Rutter Reference Rutter1985). The importance of this interaction zone to Phylakopi may have led Melian seafarers, at first in longboats (1) and later in masted boats (4), to derive social capital from such trading ventures, and the deployment of symbols connected to seafaring may have been a way to mark social status. Going deeper, however, the subtle hints at links to fishing (1, 2, 6) and the representation of the sea as a place to be mastered through sailing suggest that the sea was perceived as a functional space for the inhabitants of EC III–MC early Phylakopi. As the ‘Phylakopi I culture trading system’ disintegrated (Broodbank Reference Broodbank2000, 356–61), the significance of seafaring to the local population at Phylakopi declined, leading to a complete cessation of boat iconography in City II.

From the start of City II onwards, there was a shift toward bird, plant and sea creature depiction in figurative art at Phylakopi. Sea creatures are typically represented in some form of movement (12, 15, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23, 27), indicated by the curvature of the body, and when preserved, the eyes of the sea creatures are typically large and clear (18, 19, 23, 27), even when the sea creature is presumably dead (15, 17). The depiction of sea creatures trends towards naturalism (15, 18, 21, 27) though there are exceptions (23). In interpreting the marine iconography of LM IB Marine Style pottery – a ceramic style decorating several vessel types in religious and secular contexts – Morris (Reference Morris1995, 193) suggested that the sea creatures served as an ‘iconographic reinforcement’ of the function of the vessels as liquid containers.Footnote ²⁷ This argument centred on the high proportion of marine decoration on shapes connected with liquids found in ritual contexts (Mountjoy Reference Mountjoy, Darcque and Poursat1985, 231, 242). In the application of this reasoning to the sea creature representation in the pottery at Phylakopi, we can observe that the representation of sea creatures is indeed connected to ceramic shapes with a clear or possible connection to liquids (12, 13, 14, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28). Where the iconographic reinforcement interpretation fails is when we consider sea creature iconography as part of a wider iconographic assemblage at Phylakopi, including birds (cf. Edgar Reference Edgar, Atkinson, Bosanquet, Edgar, Evans, Hogarth, Mackenzie, Smith and Welch1904, pl. xxi; Barber Reference Barber2008, 74, 111, 148–9), humans (cf. Edgar Reference Edgar, Atkinson, Bosanquet, Edgar, Evans, Hogarth, Mackenzie, Smith and Welch1904, 124, fig. 95, pl. xxii) and plants (Edgar Reference Edgar, Atkinson, Bosanquet, Edgar, Evans, Hogarth, Mackenzie, Smith and Welch1904, pl. xxiii; Barber Reference Barber2008, 114, 139–40). Depictions of birds and plants are also commonly found on shapes associated with liquids, and it is difficult to understand what function a bird or plant material would indicate as iconographic reinforcement in connection to such vessels.

While iconographic reinforcement is a plausible interpretation, it does not underscore the role that such representations played in social contexts at Phylakopi. If we exclude abstract geometric designs, the depiction of plants, birds and sea creatures (in order of popularity) can be said to represent the natural world. Why the natural world is prioritised over the depiction of domestic animalsFootnote ²⁸ at Phylakopi can only be explained by comparing the physical characteristics of plants, birds and sea creatures to those of humans. Each can inhabit places humans cannot (sea, sky and subsurface), and each has very different corporeality, allowing them to swim, fly or grow beneath the ground. The material agency of these natural world depictions could have created social situations in which humans could transcend their corporeal limitations and inhabit their world differently, connected to pouring, drinking and general consumption in social and potentially ritual events.

To highlight the role of the natural world in allowing humans to transcend the boundaries of their corporeal form, we can briefly reconsider the nippled ewer with the representation of the fish and the ‘goblin’ (13). The vessel would have been used for pouring and may have been used in ceremonies. Several commentators have recognised the anthropomorphic features of the flying creature (Edgar Reference Edgar, Atkinson, Bosanquet, Edgar, Evans, Hogarth, Mackenzie, Smith and Welch1904, 109; Evans Reference Evans1921, 704; Goodison Reference Goodison, Brodie, Doole, Gavalas and Renfrew2008, 421; Lazarou Reference Lazarou2019, 361–2; Nuttall Reference Nuttall2021, 238). It could have been the intention of the artist to portray the flying ‘goblin’ as part human, potentially a bird–human hybrid.Footnote ²⁹ This form of representation could have indicated that the flying creature was inhabited by a human, who had transcended their physical capabilities to be able to fly over the sea. It should also not be overlooked that the vessel's physical features themselves present a human–animal hybrid, with the swollen belly and nipples associated with the pregnant female human form but the head, neck and beak of a bird. To inhabit a zoomorphic form may have been the goal of such ceremonies, and the depiction of this scene, added to the material properties of the nippled ewer, could have set the intention for such rituals.

Through this long-term overview of seascape representation on pottery from Phylakopi, as well as a ceramic analysis of published pottery, it has been possible to chart changes in the social significance of the seascape and its relation to other forms of iconographic representation on ceramics. Although seascape representations are less numerous compared to more popular themes like those of birds, flora, and abstract forms, identifiable themes can still be discerned in the character of their iconographic representation. From a place to traverse in City I, toward a place of deep interest and knowledge in City II and City III, the meaning of the seascape was consistently negotiated and revised over time at Phylakopi, eventually succumbing to replacement with Mycenaean contact after LC II. Taking a seascape perspective has generated new perspectives from old material and explored how pottery, through its materiality, could convey a message about both artist and society, each of which appears to have been socially invested in seascapes alongside the depiction of the bird and plant world in a rich iconography of their physical and cognitive environment.

SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL

To view supplementary material for this article, please visit https://doi.org/10.1017/S0068245424000017.

Appendices 1, 2 and 3 are published as online-only Supplementary Material.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

My thanks to Robin Barber for allowing me access to pursue a personal interest in marine iconography from Phylakopi during our work on the re-publication project and generously allowing me to use several of the excellent drawings made by Kalliopi Theodoropoulou as part of that project. I also warmly thank all the staff at the National Archaeological Museum of Athens for their hospitality during several working stints over the years. This research has benefitted from discussions with Claire Zikidi, Michael Lindblom and Gunnel Ekroth over the years. I also wish to thank the peer reviewers, whose comments have greatly improved this paper, and the editors for their patience.

Footnotes

¹ This study is based partially on research undertaken as part of a PhD dissertation on seascapes in Aegean prehistory, as well as part of a re-assessment of the material held in the National Archaeological Museum (Athens) (Barber Reference Barber2024). Most of the drawings were made by Kalliopi Theodoropoulou for the Phylakopi republication project. The following abbreviations are used in the text: EB/EBA/MB/MBA (Early/Middle Bronze Age), EC/MC/LC (Early/Middle/Late Cycladic), MM/LM (Middle/Late Minoan), and MH/LH (Middle/Late Helladic). Ceramic wares from Phylakopi are also abbreviated: DFI (Dark-faced Incised), EMP (Early Matt-painted), SMP (Soft Matt-painted), CW (Cycladic White), B&R (Black and Red), LCW (Late Cycladic White) and LL (Later Local). For Appendices 1, 2 and 3, see online-only Supplementary Material.

² Mackenzie Reference Mackenzie, Atkinson, Bosanquet, Edgar, Evans, Hogarth, Mackenzie, Smith and Welch1904, 243–72 for the three cities as determined by the original excavators. For the revised stratigraphic sequence, see Renfrew Reference Renfrew2007, 10.

³ See Abell Reference Abell2016, table 2, fig. 5 for Melian/Theran imports at MC–LC I Ayia Irini; Berg Reference Berg2000, appendix for MC Melian/Theran imports on the Greek mainland; Overbeck Reference Overbeck1989, 22–3 for Melian ‘Cycladic White’ imports on Paros.

⁴ E.g., see Barber Reference Barber2007, 206–7 on the Minoan link in ‘Cycladic White’ and Earle Reference Earle, Angliker and Tully2018, 47–53 for the Minoan influence on LC I–II ‘Later Local Wares’.

⁵ Barber Reference Barber1987, 229; see also Cummer and Schofield Reference Cummer and Schofield1984, 146 for the same sentiment for contemporary Ayia Irini.

⁶ See Binnberg Reference Binnberg2018 for ‘folk taxonomy’ in iconography.

⁷ These are discussed extensively by Barber (Reference Barber2008, 51–5, 59–76), and the reader is directed there for a discussion of the features, distribution, and interpretation of these wares.

⁸ The most canonical examples of this type come from the Chalandriani cemetery on Syros. See Hekman Reference Hekman2003, 330, fig. 46.

⁹ The most contemporary example is an unprovenanced seal with a similar boat: Weiner Reference Weiner and Koehl2013, 164, fig. 12:4. Other examples are known from MM II Crete, for example, seals from Palaikastro (CMS II.2, no. 261b), Malia (CMS II.2, no. 100a) and Mochlos (CMS II.2, no. 249).

¹⁰ The earliest examples in ceramics come from a Kampos (EC I/II) frying pan from Louros Athalassou – see J.E. Coleman Reference Coleman1985, 197, no. 37, fig. 23 – a feature continued in Keros-Syros (EC IIA) frying pans. Other examples are known from EC IIB/IIIA Markiani, incised into two vessels; see Eskitzioglou Reference Eskitzioglou, Marangou, Renfrew, Doumas and Gavalas2006, 155, fig. 7:26, nos 17 and 18.

¹¹ Though see Barber (Reference Barber2008, 91, 297; fig. 15; ‘sea creature’) for an example in ‘Combination ware’ (Dark Burnished with Geometric painted elements) from the 2008 study of the collection held on Melos.

¹² These are discussed extensively by Barber (Reference Barber2008, 94–116, 146–52), and the reader is directed there for a discussion of the features, distribution and interpretation of these wares. There is debate about the assignment of Black and Red in either City II or City III ware, as examples are found in deposits of both. For the sake of convenience, they have been included here under City II.

¹³ Edgar Reference Edgar, Atkinson, Bosanquet, Edgar, Evans, Hogarth, Mackenzie, Smith and Welch1904, 123. A light-on-dark pithos from the cemetery at Pacheia Ammos (Seager Reference Seager1916, 23, pl. XIV) depicting dolphins has the same execution for the sandy seabed below. Given that the fisherman scene is unlikely to have taken place underwater, it is argued to depict a sandy beachfront.

¹⁴ Doumas Reference Doumas1983, 84. For further discussion of its subject theme and interpretation, see Doumas Reference Doumas1987, 151–9; Säflund Reference Säflund, Hägg and Marinatos1981, 189–203; Mylona Reference Mylona and Sherratt2000, 565.

¹⁵ See Whitelaw Reference Whitelaw, Dakouri-Hild and Sherratt2005, 53–60 for an extensive discussion of the Pillar Rooms Complex. It has been argued to have been an LC I construction by Renfrew et al. (Reference Renfrew, Scarre, Whitelaw and Brodie2007b, table 2:2), though Brodie (Reference Brodie2009, 51) and Whitelaw (Reference Whitelaw, Dakouri-Hild and Sherratt2005, 54) have suggested a use-life between MC late and LC I/II. See also Braun Reference Braun2022 for an analysis of its Minoan architectural characteristics.

¹⁶ See McNiven Reference McNiven2003 for an illuminating case study of ritual practice in connection with the sea in northern Australia.

¹⁷ Cf. Barber Reference Barber2007, 198, fig. 6:5, no. 67; Barber Reference Barber2008, 148, pl. 20, no. 695, pl. 20, no. 696. The possible second half of a dolphin may be represented in Edgar Reference Edgar, Atkinson, Bosanquet, Edgar, Evans, Hogarth, Mackenzie, Smith and Welch1904, pl. XXI:15, though this sherd was not located during the study of the material.

¹⁸ Dated variously to between MM III and LM III; see Koehl Reference Koehl1986, 413.

¹⁹ Barber (Reference Barber2008, 148) correctly observes that the eyes of the dolphins from the Knossos Dolphin Fresco are closer in their form to those at Phylakopi; cf. Evans Reference Evans1921, 346.

²⁰ See Broodbank Reference Broodbank2000, 249–75 for maritime movement as a source of social power in the EB II Cyclades.

²¹ These are discussed extensively by Barber (Reference Barber2007, 207–13; Reference Barber2008, 116–46), and the reader is directed there for a discussion of the features, distribution and interpretation of these wares. Also known as Later Local Painted; see Vaughan and Williams Reference Vaughan and Williams2007, 102; Davis and Cherry Reference Davis and Cherry2007, 266–7, 279–90.

²² See Earle Reference Earle, Angliker and Tully2018 for a discussion of LC II and the difficulties in determining a local LC II style. Barber (Reference Barber1974, 5) tentatively suggests that LC II is essentially a continuation of LC I styles. A problem is where to place LM IB imports in the Phylakopi sequence. Barber (Reference Barber1974, 44, fig. 10) places them in City III-ii (LC II), as do Davis and Cherry (Reference Davis and Cherry2007, 296) and Warren and Hankey (Reference Warren and Hankey1989, 71, table 2:6), while Betancourt (Reference Betancourt2007, 3, fig. 1:2) places them contemporary with ‘LC IB’, rather than LC II. See Mountjoy (Reference Mountjoy2007, 309–10) for examples of Marine Style imported pottery from the 1974–7 excavations at Phylakopi. See Vaughan and Williams Reference Vaughan and Williams2007, 110 for the non-local origin of these Marine Style sherds.

²³ Including the ability to hunt, manipulate objects, spew deep-coloured ink and change the colour of their bodies to blend into their surroundings. See Caldwell et al. Reference Caldwell, Ross, Rodaniche and Huffard2015 for more on octopus behaviour.

²⁴ Wet-sieving was employed during the 1974–7 excavations at the site, though mention of marine faunal remains is conspicuously absent in Renfrew et al. (Reference Renfrew, Brodie, Morris and Scarre2007a), and Gamble (Reference Gamble and Renfrew1985) mentions only three identified fish specimens. Marine molluscs are not mentioned in either report. See Nuttall Reference Nuttall2021, 116–20 for the importance of wet-sieving programs in recovering marine faunal remains.

²⁵ Included in this material is the 1911 material held in the Melos Museum published by Barber (Reference Barber2008), the relevant material published from the 1974–77 excavations in Renfrew and Evans (Reference Renfrew and Evans2007), Barber (Reference Barber2007) and Davis and Cherry (Reference Davis and Cherry2007) and the material published in the original report by Edgar (Reference Edgar, Atkinson, Bosanquet, Edgar, Evans, Hogarth, Mackenzie, Smith and Welch1904). For a recent re-evaluation of the material held in the National Archaeological Museum of Athens, see Barber Reference Barber2024.

²⁶ Davis Reference Davis, Davis and Cherry1979; Schofield Reference Schofield1982; Broodbank Reference Broodbank2004, 62; Davis and Gorogianni Reference Davis, Gorogianni, Brodie, Doole, Gavalas and Renfrew2008; Belza Reference Belza2018. Though for a critique of the ‘Western String’ concept, see Berg Reference Berg, Andreadaki-Vlazaki and Papadopoulou2006. For a LH IIIC kalathos decorated with boats, see Mountjoy Reference Mountjoy2007, 355, no. 478.

²⁷ Though see Driessen and Macdonald Reference Driessen and Macdonald1997 for an alternative view.

²⁸ Which are entirely unrepresented in the ceramic iconography; see Appendix 2 in Supplementary Material. Cf. Shapland Reference Shapland2010, 118 on domestic animal representation in Minoan iconography. Terrestrial animal depictions at Phylakopi are limited to one deer depiction (Edgar Reference Edgar, Atkinson, Bosanquet, Edgar, Evans, Hogarth, Mackenzie, Smith and Welch1904, 109, pl. xv:14), two possible lions (Barber Reference Barber2007, 196, fig. 6:5, pl. 24h; Edgar Reference Edgar, Atkinson, Bosanquet, Edgar, Evans, Hogarth, Mackenzie, Smith and Welch1904, pl. xxi:7) and three possible snakes (Edgar Reference Edgar, Atkinson, Bosanquet, Edgar, Evans, Hogarth, Mackenzie, Smith and Welch1904, 104, pl.xii:22, 152, pl. xiii:15, pl. xx:1).

²⁹ See also Edgar Reference Edgar, Atkinson, Bosanquet, Edgar, Evans, Hogarth, Mackenzie, Smith and Welch1904, pl. XIV:9. There are several comparable examples of a human–bird hybrid known in Minoan glyptic, including the ‘bird ladies’ with female bodies and bird-heads (CMS VI, no. 294; II.3, no. 4; III, no. 484) and the possible ‘Bes’ depictions with bird bodies and human-heads (CMS II.7, nos 117 and 118).

References

REFERENCES

Abell, N. 2016. ‘Minoanisation in the Middle Bronze Age: evaluating the role of Cycladic producers and consumers’, BSA 111, 71–93.Google Scholar

Barber, R.L.N. 1974. ‘Phylakopi 1911 and the history of the later Cycladic Bronze Age’, BSA 69, 1–53.Google Scholar

Barber, R.L.N. 1987. The Cyclades in the Bronze Age (London).Google Scholar

Barber, R.L.N. 2007. ‘The Middle Cycladic pottery’, in Renfrew et al. 2007a, 181–237.Google Scholar

Barber, R.L.N. 2008. ‘Unpublished pottery from Phylakopi’, BSA 103, 43–222.Google Scholar

Barber, R.L.N. 2024. Phylakopi, Melos, 1896–99: The Finds in the National Archaeological Museum, Athens (BSA Supp. Vol. 53; London).Google Scholar

Belza, A. 2018. ‘(Re)assessing the Western String Model: archaeological data from the Cyclades post-1979’ (unpublished MA thesis, University of Cincinnati).Google Scholar

Berg, I. 2000. ‘The Minoanization of the Southern Aegean: a comparative approach to ceramic assemblages’ (unpublished PhD thesis, University of Cambridge).Google Scholar

Berg, I. 2006. ‘The “Western String”: a reassessment’, in Andreadaki-Vlazaki, M. and Papadopoulou, E. (eds), Proceedings of the 10th International Cretological Congress, Elounda, 1–6 October 2001 (Heraklion), 135–50.Google Scholar

Berg, I. 2013. ‘Marine creatures and the sea in Bronze Age Greece: ambiguities of meaning’, Journal of Maritime Archaeology 8, 1–27.CrossRef Google Scholar

Berg, I. 2019. The Cycladic and Aegean Islands in Prehistory (London).CrossRef Google Scholar

Betancourt, P.P. 2007. Introduction to Aegean Art (Philadelphia, PA).CrossRef Google Scholar

Binnberg, J.K. 2018. ‘Birds in the Aegean Bronze Age’ (unpublished DPhil thesis, University of Oxford).Google Scholar

Binnberg, J.K. 2019. ‘Like a duck to water – birds and liquids in the Aegean Bronze Age’, BSA 114, 41–78.Google Scholar

Boast, R. 1997. ‘A small company of actors: a critique of style’, Journal of Material Culture 2.2, 173–98.CrossRef Google Scholar

Bosanquet, R.C. 1904a. ‘The wall-paintings’, in Atkinson, T.D., Bosanquet, R.C., Edgar, C.C., Evans, A.J., Hogarth, D.G., Mackenzie, D., Smith, C. and Welch, F.B. (eds), Excavations at Phylakopi in Melos (Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies Supplementary Paper 4; London), 70–9.Google Scholar

Bosanquet, R.C. 1904b. ‘Some “Late Minoan” vases found in Greece’, JHS 24, 317–29.CrossRef Google Scholar

Boyd Hawes, H.A., Williams, B., Seager, R. and Hall, E. 1908. Gournia, Vasiliki and Other Prehistoric Sites on the Isthmus of Hierapetra, Crete (Philadelphia, PA).Google Scholar

Braun, G.C. 2022. ‘Evaluating entanglements at Middle–Late Bronze Age Phylakopi: a space syntax approach to the Pillar Rooms Complex and LH IIIA Megaron’ (unpublished MA thesis, University of British Colombia).Google Scholar

Brodie, N. 2009. ‘A reassessment of Mackenzie's Second and Third Cities at Phylakopi’, BSA 104, 49–72.Google Scholar

Broodbank, C. 2000. An Island Archaeology of the Early Cyclades (Cambridge).Google Scholar

Broodbank, C. 2004. ‘Minoanisation’, PCPS 50, 46–91.Google Scholar

Caldwell, R.L., Ross, R., Rodaniche, A. and Huffard, C.L. 2015. ‘Behavior and body patterns of the Larger Pacific Striped Octopus’, PLoS ONE 10.8, no. e0134152.Google Scholar

Chapin, A.P. 2020. ‘Iconography in context: the visual elements of Aegean art’, in Blakolmer, F. (ed.), Current Approaches and New Perspectives in Aegean Iconography (Aegis 18; Louvain-la-Neuve), 369–84.Google Scholar

Coleman, J.E. 1985, ‘“Frying pans” of the Early Bronze Age Aegean’, AJA 89.2, 191–219.CrossRef Google Scholar

Coleman, K. 1973. ‘Frescoes from Ayia Irini, Keos. Part I’, Hesperia 42.3, 293–6.CrossRef Google Scholar

Cummer, W.W. and Schofield, E. 1984. Ayia Irini: House A (Keos III; Mainz).Google Scholar

Davidson, D. and Tasker, C. 1982. ‘Geomorphological evolution during the Late Holocene’, in Renfrew, C. and Wagstaff, M. (eds), An Island Polity: The Archaeology of Exploitation in Melos (Cambridge), 82–94.Google Scholar

Davis, J.L. 1979. ‘Minos and Dexithea: Crete and the Cyclades in the Later Bronze Age’, in Davis, J.L. and Cherry, J.F. (eds), Papers in Cycladic Prehistory (UCLAMon 14; Los Angeles, CA), 143–57.Google Scholar

Davis, J.L. and Cherry, J.F. 2007. ‘The Cycladic pottery from the Late Bronze I levels’, in Renfrew et al. 2007a, 265–306.Google Scholar

Davis, J.L. and Gorogianni, E. 2008. ‘Potsherds from the edge: the construction of identities and the limits of Minoanized areas of the Aegean’, in Brodie, N., Doole, J., Gavalas, G. and Renfrew, C. (eds), Horizon. Ορίζων: A Colloquium on the Prehistory of the Cyclades (McDonald Institute Monographs; Cambridge), 339–48.Google Scholar

Dickinson, O.T.P.K. 2007. ‘Appendix E: the Middle Helladic pottery’, in Renfrew et al. 2007a, 238–47.Google Scholar

Doumas, Ch. 1966. ‘Κορφή τ’ Άρωνιοΰ’, ArchDelt 20A, 41–64.Google Scholar

Doumas, Ch. 1983. Thera, Pompeii of the Ancient Aegean: Excavations at Akrotiri, 1967–79 (New York).Google Scholar

Doumas, Ch. 1987. Santorini: A Guide to the Island and its Archaeological Treasures (Athens).Google Scholar

Doumas, Ch. and Angelopoulou, A. 1997. “Οι Βασικοί Κεραμικοί Τύποι της Πολιόχνης και η Διάδοση τους στο Αιγαίο κατά την Πρώιμη Εποχή του Χαλκού”, in Doumas, Ch. and La Rosa, V. (eds), Η Πολιόχνη και Η Πρώιμη Εποχή του Χαλκού στο Βόρειο Αιγαίο, Διεθνές Συνέδριο Αθήνα, 22–25 Απριλίου 1996 (Athens), 543–55.Google Scholar

Driessen, J. and Macdonald, C.F. 1997. The Troubled Island: Minoan Crete before and after the Santorini Eruption (Liège).Google Scholar

Earle, J.W. 2018. ‘Coming to terms with Late Cycladic II: questions of style and stratigraphy at Phylakopi on Melos’, in Angliker, E. and Tully, J. (eds), Cycladic Archaeology and Research: New Approaches and Discoveries (Oxford), 43–55.Google Scholar

Edgar, C.C. 1904. ‘The pottery’, in Atkinson, T.D., Bosanquet, R.C., Edgar, C.C., Evans, A.J., Hogarth, D.G., Mackenzie, D., Smith, C. and Welch, F.B. (eds), Excavations at Phylakopi in Melos (Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies Supplementary Paper 4; London), 80–176.Google Scholar

Eskitzioglou, P. 2006. ‘The pottery of phase IV’, in Marangou, L., Renfrew, C., Doumas, Ch. and Gavalas, G. (eds), Markiani, Amorgos: An Early Bronze Age Fortified Settlement. Overview of the 1985–1991 Investigations (BSA Supp. Vol. 40; London), 139–68.Google Scholar

Evans, A.J. 1921. The Palace of Minos: A Comparative Account of the Successive Stages of the Early Cretan Civilization as Illustrated by the Discoveries at Knossos (London).Google Scholar

Evans, A.J. 1928. The Palace of Minos: A Comparative Account of the Successive Stages of the Early Cretan Civilization as Illustrated by the Discoveries at Knossos II. Part I: Fresh Lights on Origins and External Relations. The Restoration in Town and Palace after Seismic Catastrophe towards the Close of MM III, and the Beginnings of the New Era (London).Google Scholar

Furumark, A. 1950. ‘The settlement at Ialysos and Aegean history, ca. 1550–1400 bc’, OpArch 6, 150–271.Google Scholar

Gamble, C. 1982. ‘Animal husbandry, population and urbanism’, in Renfrew, C. and Wagstaff, M. (eds), An Island Polity: The Archaeology of Exploitation in Melos (Cambridge), 161–71.Google Scholar

Gamble, C. 1985. ‘Formation processes and the animal bones from the sanctuary’, in Renfrew, C. (ed.), The Archaeology of Cult: The Sanctuary at Phylakopi (BSA Supp. Vol. 18; London), 479–84.Google Scholar

Georgiadis, M. 2003. The South-Eastern Aegean in the Mycenaean Period: Islands, Landscape, Death and Ancestors (Oxford).Google Scholar

Gerontakou, E. 2010. “Ο Ψαράς και η Ψαριά του στο Προϊστορικό Αιγαίο”, in Dimitropoulos, D. and Olympitou, E. (eds), Ψαρεύοντας στις Ελληνικές θάλασσες – από τις Μαρτυρίες του παρελθόντος στη Σύγχρονη πραγματικότητα (Workbooks 33; Athens), 11–28.Google Scholar

Gill, M.A.V. 1985. ‘Some observations on representations of marine animals in Minoan art, and their identification’, in Darcque, P. and Poursat, J.-C. (eds), L'iconographie minoenne. Actes de la table ronde d'Athènes (21–22 avril 1983) (BCH Suppl. 11; Paris), 63–81.Google Scholar

Goodison, L. 2008. ‘Horizon and body: some aspects of Cycladic symbolism’, in Brodie, N., Doole, J., Gavalas, G. and Renfrew, C. (eds), Horizon. Ορίζων: A Colloquium on the Prehistory of the Cyclades (McDonald Institute Monographs; Cambridge), 417–32.Google Scholar

Haysom, M. 2011. ‘Fish and ships: Neopalatial seascapes in context’, in Vavouranakis 2011, 139–60.Google Scholar

Hekman, J.J. 2003. ‘The Early Bronze Age cemetery at Chalandriani on Syros (Cyclades, Greece)’ (unpublished PhD thesis, University of Groningen).Google Scholar

Herva, V.-P. 2006. ‘Marvels of the system: art, perception and engagement with the environment in Minoan Crete’, Archaeological Dialogues 13.2, 221–40.CrossRef Google Scholar

Hitchcock, L.A. 2007. ‘Naturalising the cultural: architectonised landscape as ideology in Minoan Crete’, in Westgate, R., Fisher, N. and Whitley, J. (eds), Building Communities: House, Settlement, and Society in the Aegean and Beyond (BSA Studies 15; London), 91–7.Google Scholar

Hood, M.S.F. 2007. ‘Appendix F: the Middle Minoan pottery’, in Renfrew et al. 2007a, 248–64.Google Scholar

Hunn, E. 2007. ‘Ethnobiology in four phases’, Journal of Ethnobiology 27.1, 1–10.CrossRef Google Scholar

Johannsen, N. 2012. ‘Archaeology and the Inanimate Agency Proposition: a critique and a suggestion’, in Johannsen, N., Jessen, M. and Jensen, H.J. (eds), Excavating the Mind: Cross-Sections through Culture, Cognition and Materiality (Aarhus), 305–47.CrossRef Google Scholar

Knappett, C. 2005. Thinking through Material Culture: An Interdisciplinary Perspective (Philadelphia, PA).CrossRef Google Scholar

Koehl, R.B. 1986. ‘A marinescape floor from the Palace at Knossos’, AJA 90.4, 407–17.CrossRef Google Scholar

Lamb, W. 1936. Excavations at Thermi in Lesbos (Cambridge).Google Scholar

Lazarou, A. 2019. ‘Prehistoric Gorgoneia: a critical reassessment’, Studia Antiqua et Archaeologica 25.2, 353–85.Google Scholar

McGeehan Liritzis, V. 1988. ‘Seafaring, craft and cultural contact in the Aegean during the 3rd millennium bc’, IJNA 17.3, 237–56.CrossRef Google Scholar

Mackenzie, D. 1904. ‘The successive settlements at Phvlakopi in their Aegeo-Cretan relations’, in Atkinson, T.D., Bosanquet, R.C., Edgar, C.C., Evans, A.J., Hogarth, D.G., Mackenzie, D., Smith, C. and Welch, F.B. (eds), Excavations at Phylakopi in Melos (Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies Supplementary Paper 4; London), 238–72.Google Scholar

Mackenzie, D. 1963. ‘Daybook of the excavations at Phylakopi in Melos, 1896–1899’, edited by A.C. Renfrew (unpublished typescript).Google Scholar

McNiven, I.J. 2003. ‘Saltwater people: spiritscapes, maritime rituals and the archaeology of Australian indigenous seascapes’, WorldArch 35.3, 329–49.Google Scholar

Malafouris, L. 2008. ‘At the potter's wheel: an argument for material agency’, in Knappett, C. and Malafouris, L. (eds), Material Agency: Towards a Non-Anthropocentric Approach (New York), 19–36.CrossRef Google Scholar

Marinatos, N. 1984. ‘Minoan thalassocracy on Thera’, in Hägg, R. and Marinatos, N. (eds), The Minoan Thalassocracy: Myth and Reality. Proceedings of the Third International Symposium at the Swedish Institute in Athens, 31 May–5 June, 1982 (ActaAth, 4°; Gothenburg), 167–78.Google Scholar

Marinatos, S. 1999a. Excavations at Thera II (1968 Season), 2nd edn (Βιβλιοθήκη της εν Αθήναις Αρχαιολογικής Εταιρείας 178; Athens).Google Scholar

Marinatos, S. 1999b. Excavations at Thera V (1971 Season), 2nd edn (Βιβλιοθήκη της εν Αθήναις Αρχαιολογικής Εταιρείας 179; Athens).Google Scholar

Marthari, M. 2018. ‘“The attraction of the pictorial” reconsidered: pottery and wall-paintings, and the artistic environment on Late Cycladic I Thera in the light of the most recent research’, in Vlachopoulos, A.G. (ed.), Χρωστήρες. Paintbrushes. Wall-Painting and Vase-Painting of the Second Millennium bc in Dialogue: Proceedings of the International Conference on Aegean Iconography Held at Akrotiri, Thera, 24–26 May 2013 (Athens), 204–21.Google Scholar

Mastrapas, A.N. 1991. Η Ανθρώπινη και οι Ζωικές μορφές στην Προίστρορική Κεραμεική των Κυκλάδων (Athens).Google Scholar

Moortel, A. van de 2017. ‘A new typology of Bronze Age Aegean ships: developments in Aegean shipbuilding in their historical context’, in Litwin, J. (ed.), Baltic and Beyond: Change and Continuity in Shipbuilding. Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Symposium on Boat and Ship Archaeology, Gdańsk 2015 (Gdańsk), 263–8.Google Scholar

Morgan, L. 2007. ‘The painted plasters and their relation to the wall painting of the Pillar Crypt’, in Renfrew et al. 2007a, 371–96.Google Scholar

Morris, C. 1995. ‘Fishy tales from Knossos: a Minoan larnax and vase-painter’, BICS 63, 185–93.Google Scholar

Mountjoy, P.A. 1985. ‘Ritual associations for LM IB marine style vases’, in Darcque, P. and Poursat, J.-C. (eds), L'iconographie minoenne. Actes de la table ronde d'Athènes (21–22 avril 1983) (BCH Suppl. 11; Paris), 231–42.Google Scholar

Mountjoy, P.A. 2007. ‘The Mycenaean and Late Minoan I–II pottery’, in Renfrew et al. 2007a, 307–70.Google Scholar

Mylona, D. 2000. ‘The “fisherman” frescoes in the light of the fish bone evidence’, in Sherratt, S. (ed.), The Wall Paintings of Thera: Proceedings of the First International Symposium: Petros M. Nomikos Conference Centre, Thera, Hellas, 30 August–4 September 1997 (Piraeus), 561–7.Google Scholar

Mylona, D. 2020. ‘Marine resources and coastal communities in the Late Bronze Age Southern Aegean: a seascape approach’, AJA 124.2, 179–213.CrossRef Google Scholar

Nikolakopoulou, I. 2010. ‘Middle Cycladic iconography: a social context for “A new chapter in Aegean Art”’, in Krzyszkowska, O. (ed.), Cretan Offerings: Studies in Honour of Peter Warren (BSA Studies 18; London), 213–22.Google Scholar

Nuttall, C. 2021. ‘Seascape dialogues: human–sea interaction in the Aegean from Late Neolithic to Late Bronze Age’ (PhD thesis, University of Uppsala).Google Scholar

Nuttall, C. and Theodoropoulou, K. 2024. ‘The Fishermen Vase’, in Barber 2024, 267–9.Google Scholar

Overbeck, J.C. 1989. The Bronze Age Pottery from the Kastro at Paros (SIMA-PB 78; Jonsered).Google Scholar

Powell, J. 1996. Fishing in the Prehistoric Aegean (SIMA-PB 137; Jonsered).Google Scholar

Renfrew, A.C. 1972. The Emergence of Civilization: The Cyclades and the Aegean in the Third Millennium bc (London).Google Scholar

Renfrew, C. 2007. ‘The development of the excavation and the stratigraphy of Phylakopi’, in Renfrew et al. 2007a, 5–18.Google Scholar

Renfrew, C., Brodie, N., Morris, C. and Scarre, C. (eds) 2007a. Excavations at Phylakopi in Melos 1974–77 (BSA Supp. Vol. 42; London).Google Scholar

Renfrew, C. and Evans, R.K. 2007. ‘The Early Bronze Age pottery’, in Renfrew et al. 2007a, 129–80.Google Scholar

Renfrew, C., Scarre, C., Whitelaw, T. and Brodie, N. 2007b. ‘The excavated areas’, in Renfrew et al. 2007a, 19–86.Google Scholar

Rüden, C. von 2015. ‘Making the way through the sea: experiencing Mediterranean seascapes in the second millennium bce’, in Lichtenberger, A. and von Rüden, C. (eds), Multiple Mediterranean Realities (Paderborn), 31–65.CrossRef Google Scholar

Rutter, J.B. 1985. ‘An exercise in form vs. function: the significance of the duck vase’, TUAS 10, 16–41.Google Scholar

Säflund, G. 1981. ‘Cretan and Theran questions’, in Hägg, R. and Marinatos, N. (eds), Sanctuaries and Cults of the Aegean Bronze Age: Proceedings of the First International Symposium at the Swedish Institute at Athens, 12–13 May 1980, Lund (ActaAth 4° 28; Stockholm), 189–208.Google Scholar

Saunders, E. 2008. ‘Pictures from the sea: the role of marine imagery and artefacts in the Bronze Age Aegean#x2019; (unpublished PhD thesis, Trinity College Dublin).Google Scholar

Schliemann, H. 1878. Mycenae. A Narrative of Researches and Discoveries at Mycenae and Tiryns (New York).Google Scholar

Schofield, E. 1982. ‘The Western Cyclades and Crete: a “special relationship”’, OJA 1.1, 9–26.Google Scholar

Seager, R. 1912. Explorations in the Island of Mochlos (Boston, MA).Google Scholar

Seager, R. 1916. The Cemetery of Pachyammos, Crete (Philadelphia, PA).Google Scholar

Shapland, A. 2010. ‘Wild nature? Human–animal relations on Neopalatial Crete’, CAJ 20.1, 109–27.CrossRef Google Scholar

Siedentopf, H.B. 1991. Alt-Ägina IV.2: Mattbemalte Keramik der Mittleren Bronzezeit (Mainz).Google Scholar

Soles, J.S. 2012. ‘Mochlos boats’, in Mantzourani, E. and Betancourt, P.P. (eds), Philistor: Studies in Honor of Costis Davaras (Prehistory Monographs 36; Philadelphia, PA), 187–99.CrossRef Google Scholar

Strasser, T.F. 2010. ‘Location and perspective in the Theran flotilla fresco’, JMA 23.1, 3–26.CrossRef Google Scholar

Tyler, A. 2012. ‘Cycladic nippled ewers of the middle and early Late Bronze Age: their symbolism and function’ (unpublished MA thesis, University of Oslo).Google Scholar

Tzachili, I. 1986. ‘Of earrings, swallows and Theran ladies’, in Bonanno, A. (ed.), Archaeology and Fertility Cult in the Ancient Mediterranean: Papers Presented at the First International Conference on Archaeology of the Ancient Mediterranean (Amsterdam), 97–104.Google Scholar

Vaughan, S.J. and Williams, D. 2007. ‘The pottery fabrics’, in Renfrew et al. 2007a, 91–125.Google Scholar

Vavouranakis, G. (ed.) 2011. The Seascape in Aegean Prehistory (Monographs of the Danish Institute at Athens 14; Athens).Google Scholar

Vlachopoulos, A. 2012. “Ανασκαφή στο Βαθύ Αστυπάλαιας”, Prakt, 115–23.Google Scholar

Wagstaff, M. and Augustson, S. 1982. ‘Traditional land use’, in Renfrew, C. and Wagstaff, M. (eds), An Island Polity: The Archaeology of Exploitation in Melos (Cambridge), 106–33.Google Scholar

Warren, P.M. and Hankey, V. 1989. Aegean Bronze Age Chronology (Bristol).Google Scholar

Wedde, M. 1991. ‘Aegean Bronze Age ship imagery: regionalisms, a Minoan bias and a “Thalassocracy”’, in Laffineur, R. and Basch, L. (eds), Thalassa. L'Egée préhistorique et la mer. Actes de la troisième rencontre égéenne internationale de l'Université de Liège, Station de Recherches Sous-marines et Océanographiques (StaReSo), Calvi, Corse, 23–25 avril 1990 (Aegaeum 7; Liège), 73–94.Google Scholar

Wedde, M. 2000. Towards a Hermeneutics of Aegean Bronze Age Ship Imagery (Mannheim).Google Scholar

Weiner, M.H. 2013. ‘Realities of power: the Minoan thalassocracy in historical perspective’, in Koehl, R.B. (ed.), АΜΙΛΛΑ: The Quest for Excellence. Studies Presented to Guenter Kopcke in Celebration of His 75th Birthday (INSTAP Prehistory Monographs 43; Philadelphia, PA), 149–73.CrossRef Google Scholar

Wertsch, J.V. 1998. Mind as Action (Oxford).Google Scholar

Whitelaw, T. 2004. ‘The development of an island centre: urbanisation at Phylakopi on Melos’, in Cherry, J., Scarre, C. and Shennan, S. (eds), Explaining Social Change: Studies in Honour of Colin Renfrew (Cambridge), 149–66.Google Scholar

Whitelaw, T. 2005. ‘A tale of three cities: chronology and Minoanisation at Phylakopi in Melos’, in Dakouri-Hild, A. and Sherratt, S. (eds), Autochthon: Papers Presented to O.T.K.P. Dickinson on the Occasion of His Retirement (BAR-IS 1432; Oxford), 37–69.Google Scholar

Table 1.Overview of the examples of seascape representation on pottery from Phylakopi I.

Fig. 1.Seafaring and possible seafaring depictions from Phylakopi I (EC IIIB). Drawings by K. Theodoropoulou, courtesy of R. Barber.

Fig. 2.Seafaring and possible seafaring depictions from Phylakopi I (EC IIIB). No. 4 by K. Theodoropoulou, courtesy of R. Barber. No. 5 by author after photograph taken by R. Barber.

Fig. 3.Sea creature and possible sea creature depictions from Phylakopi I (EC IIIB–MC Early). Nos 6 and 9 by K. Theodoropoulou, courtesy of R. Barber. Nos 7 and 8 by author after photographs taken by R. Barber.

Table 2.Overview of the examples of seascape representation on pottery from Phylakopi II.

Fig. 4.Sea creature and possible sea creature depictions from Phylakopi II (MC Early–Late). Nos 10 and 12 by K. Theodoropoulou, courtesy of R. Barber. No. 11 by author after photograph taken by R. Barber.

Fig. 5.Sea creature and possible sea creature depictions from Phylakopi II (MC Early–Late). Drawings by K. Theodoropoulou, courtesy of R. Barber.

Fig. 6.Sea creature and possible sea creature depictions from Phylakopi II (MC Early–Late). By author after photographs taken by R. Barber.

Fig. 7.The ‘Fishermen Vase’ (MC Late). Drawing by K. Theodoropoulou, courtesy of R. Barber.

Fig. 8.Sea creature and possible sea creature depictions from Phylakopi II (MC Early–Late). Nos 18, 19 and 21 by K. Theodoropoulou, courtesy of R. Barber. No. 20 by author after Edgar 1904, 120, pl. xxi:6.

Fig. 9.Sea creature and possible sea creature depictions from Phylakopi III-i (LC I). Drawings by K. Theodoropoulou, courtesy of R. Barber.

Table 3.Overview of the examples of seascape representation on pottery from Phylakopi III.

Fig. 10.Sea creature and possible sea creature depictions from Phylakopi III-i (LC I–II). Nos 26 and 28 by K. Theodoropoulou, courtesy of R. Barber. Nos 24 and 25 by author after photographs taken by R. Barber. No. 28 by author after Edgar 1904, 141, pl. xxx:6.

Table 4.Subject matter represented on the decorated locally made wares published from Phylakopi. ‘Abstract’ denotes geometric elements. Highest prevalence for each category (other than ‘abstract’) is in bold. ‘Total sherds’ indicates the total number of decorated sherds from Phylakopi published in the various articles and monographs dealing with Phylakopi. The data to support this table can be found in Appendix 2 of the Supplementary Material.

Nuttall supplementary material

File 479.8 KB

Article contents

SEA BROUGHT ONTO LAND: SEASCAPE IMAGERY IN THE CYCLADIC POTTERY FROM PHYLAKOPI (MELOS) IN THE NATIONAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL MUSEUM, ATHENS

Abstract

Information

INTRODUCTION

Methodology

SEASCAPE ICONOGRAPHY

Phylakopi I (EC IIIB–MC Early; nos 1–9)

Phylakopi II (MC Early–Late; nos 10–21)

Phylakopi III-i/ii (LC I; nos 21–28)

DISCUSSION

SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Footnotes

References

REFERENCES

Nuttall supplementary material

Save article to Kindle

Save article to Dropbox

Save article to Google Drive

Reply to: Submit a response

Your details

You have entered the maximum number of contributors

Conflicting interests