Click here for a downloadable version of this paper Muskett.doc

THE USE OF VISUAL PERCEPTION IN THE INTERPRETATION OF MYCENAEAN ART

Georgina Muskett

School of Archaeology, Classics and Egyptology

The University of Liverpool

Introduction. A new approach to the interpretation of Mycenaean art

The aim of this paper is to demonstrate the value of the application of the basic principles of visual perception, acquired via psychological research, to the study of ancient art. The particular focus is art from the Late Bronze Age on the Greek mainland, the period described as ‘Mycenaean’. Using the high chronology, this was approximately 1680 to 1065 BCE. This era can be roughly divided into the Early Mycenaean period (that is, the time of the emerging elites in various parts of the mainland) from about 1680 to 1390/1370 BCE, and the Mycenaean period proper (that is, from the establishment of the system conventionally described as palatial), from about 1390/1370 to 1190/1180 BCE.

However, in addition to applying this approach to the material evidence, it is useful to understand what is meant by the term “seeing”, and, accordingly, I will provide a brief introduction to the manner in which the human brain processes the visual information it receives. In addition, I shall summarise the various physiological processes investigated by psychologists which appear most appropriate to be applied to Mycenaean art, and may have been exploited by artists in their search to provide aesthetic satisfaction for the viewer.

The various aspects of visual perception are complemented by a series of case studies, briefly indicating how this approach can be applied to Mycenaean art. The final case study is a more details consideration of preferences for directional movement in the type of Mycenaean composition known as a ‘procession fresco’, in addition to processions in other media.

How Humans See: An Introduction to the Visual System

When the viewer looks at an object, light energy, structured by the shape of the object, is reflected into the eyes of the viewer. An image of the object forms on the retina, a network of cells known as neurons, located on the back of the eye. Two types of neurons in the retina, known as receptor cells, called rods and cones because of their different shapes, convert the light energy into electrical signals. A network of neurons, which include bipolar cells, horizontal cells, amacrine cells, and ganglion cells, start the process of analysing and recording the visual information and transmitting it out of the eye via the optic nerve. Most of the electrical signals which travel along the optic nerve reach the lateral geniculate nucleus, situated near the centre of the brain. From there, the signals are transmitted into the primary visual cortex, situated at the back of the brain. Discrete parts of the primary visual cortex analyse the image in terms of different attributes - colour, form, movement – a process known as modularity. The subdivision and specialisation within the visual cortex is, however, not normally apparent, and the viewer acquires a unified image of the world. The manner in which the properties of objects in the environment are processed means that the eye responds to images in the same physical way in virtually all people.

Lateral Inhibition: Exaggerating the Visual Message

The first stage of visual processing takes place in the retina, and involves the neural mechanism known as lateral inhibition. The conventions of Mycenaean art do not appear conducive to the exploitation of lateral inhibition, which exaggerates differences in contrast; dark areas appear darker and light areas appear lighter. Similarly, the effects of another phenomenon, known as “Mach Bands”, a series of vertical stripes, ascending in brightness from right to left, have been used by artists in more recent times, although their effects are not apparent in Mycenaean art.

Central Processing: Moving Through The Brain

The next major stage in the human visual processing system takes place in the lateral geniculate nucleus, situated near the centre of the brain between the retina and the visual cortex. Research using primates demonstrates that the lateral geniculate nucleus plays an important role in the perception of movement, pattern, shape, colour and depth.

From the lateral geniculate nucleus, nerve fibres run to the primary visual cortex, or striate cortex, and the other areas of the brain which are associated with vision. The section of the brain surrounding the primary visual cortex can be divided into at least twenty different areas, each of which has a discrete function and is associated with the analysis of different properties or dimensions of the human visual system, a process known as modularity. The implications of this are not apparent in terms of phenomenology but have been exploited, either consciously or unconsciously, by artists.

Orientation Detectors in the Visual Cortex: the Importance of Lines and Edges

Although the visual cortex is the central processor of the human visual system, there is little spontaneous activity, and several stimulus features are needed to drive the cells. The most important of such features has been found to be orientation; that is, cells in this part of the brain responded best to lines or edges in a particular orientation.

This phenomenon was first discovered in the course of research conducted by Hubel and Wiesel from the late 1950s, working on the visual system of the cat. They found that the cells from which the visual cortex is composed are organised into location columns, with neurons within each of these columns having receptive fields in the same location on the retina. In practical terms, this means that line drawings are processed at the point where the image received by the retina is broken down into the lines and edges from which it is formed, and a drawing composed entirely of lines, without any narrative content, can be a strong, aesthetically satisfying image. This tendency can be seen in the prehistoric Aegean, where the use of lines is found as an element of the earliest designs applied to pottery on both Crete and the Greek mainland.

Visual Processing Past the Primary Visual Cortex: the Perception and Recognition of Faces

As mentioned above, it has been demonstrated that the section of the brain surrounding the primary visual cortex can be sub-divided into about twenty different areas, each of which has a distinct function in analysing visual information - colour, form, movement and spatial organisation; that is, the neurons respond best to stimuli which are increasingly specialised.

Most of the research in modularity has been carried out on monkeys, given the similarity between the visual systems of monkeys and humans. One must also accept that all primates possess the comparable ability to both see and discriminate between faces. Experimental evidence using both simian and human subjects does, however, suggest this is the case.

Research by various teams has demonstrated that small groups of cells in the inferotemporal cortex of macaque monkeys responded to various body postures and movement, as well as forms such as images of paws, and, of particular relevance to this article, heads and faces.

In the case of humans, one’s own experience suggests a positive response to the human face; indeed, humans even appear willing to attempt to identify facial characteristics in abstract images. This seeming predisposition to respond to faces appears to have a sound scientific foundation, supported by research which found that cells in the right temporal lobe of the human brain responded to images of the human face.

Another important aspect is the manner in which the viewer recognises particular faces. The face evolved due to its important biological rôle, the features being placed in particular ways to serve specific functions. For example, eyes and ears are separated to allow distance to be perceived, the nose and mouth are placed to avoid choking, and the mouth and jaws not only have the function of chewing and swallowing food, but also have a rôle in the important social functions of speaking and smiling. Therefore, all human faces are very similar in terms of form, although very slight differences make each face unique and, therefore, enable us to identify individuals.

Studies with new-born infants have shown that the human brain appears to respond to faces from birth, and that humans, therefore, possess an innate knowledge of faces which cannot be explained by cultural factors. However, the question remains as to the manner in which the faces of individuals are identified. Experiments have shown that when asked to select a likeness of well-known faces, the majority of subjects chose line-drawn caricatures in preference to more realistic line drawings. The way in which an artist produces a caricature is to exaggerate the differences between the subject and an average face; that is, by exploiting distinctive facial traits, the artist makes the subject’s face less average and more distinctive. Indeed, experiments have shown that people are able to recognise caricatures of well-known people more quickly than more realistic line drawings.

A possible reason for this is that it is believed that images of faces stored in the human memory are not realistic but “selectively exaggerated”, in the manner of a caricature. Another explanation is that an accurate depiction is remembered, but a caricature is preferable because individual features are not very distinctive and require exaggeration to remain memorable and recognisable.

The following case study discusses how research undertaken on the perception and recognition of faces may help explain the manner in which the human face was portrayed by a group of Early Mycenaean artists.

Case Study: The Shaft Grave Masks: Portraits in Early Mycenaean Greece?

The use of the principles of caricature may be a factor which explains the method of representing the facial features on certain of the masks made from precious metal that accompanied certain burials in the Shaft Graves at Mycenae (Mylonas 1973: no. Γ-362, pl. 60α and colour pl. ιβ΄; Karo 1930-3: nos. 253, 254, 259, 623, 624 pls. XLVII, XLVIII, XLIX, L, LI and LII respectively).

Three of the masks – the example made from electrum from Grave Γ (Mylonas 1973: no. Γ-362) and two of the gold masks from Grave IV (Karo 1930-3: nos. 253 and 254), which are from the three earliest “mask burials” - are flat and apparently less sophisticated in nature than the other three masks, and have been given similar facial characteristics. Even in the case of the other masks (Karo 1930-3: nos. 259, 623 and 624), it is apparent that in no sense are the faces shown realistic likenesses; indeed, the exaggeration of features is such that they could even be perceived as caricatures. There is, however, a possibility that the artist or artists who made the masks did, in fact, attempt to convey some of the individual facial characteristics of those whose burials they accompanied; this was, in fact, the belief of both Karo and Blegen. It is conceivable that the exaggeration of features, which is a characteristic of the later masks, was an attempt by the artist to ensure recognition of the subject, and is a technique which modern psychological research has shown significantly improves the chances of identification by others. This is in accordance with the view of Tsountas and Manatt, and of Vermeule, that the masks were made to preserve the memory of the individuals concerned, when the body was displayed at the prothesis.

Accordingly, although not portraits in the modern sense, the manner in which faces are remembered and recognised could have influenced the style adopted by those who fashioned the latest three masks.

Artistic Parallels: A Case for the “Aesthetic Primitive”?

An associated issue is whether there is a physiological explanation for the independent occurrence at different times in different geographical areas of similar decorative motifs and simplified representations of the human form. The explanation given by Koehler earlier this century was the “Gestalt Theory”; that is, the brain is not a tabula rasa, but has certain inbuilt properties, hence the human preference for simple shapes, such as straight lines and circles. Loewy’s suggestion was that the vast majority of decorative motifs had an apotropaic function, and, indeed, there is much evidence in support of this hypothesis in ancient art, although Gombrich is certainly correct that Loewy over-simplifies the argument in suggesting only one explanation for the use of certain motifs. Another view is taken by Lévi-Strauss, who believes diffusion is inevitably the cause for the appearance of artistic parallels. However, he suggests that where there is no evidence of contact, one should explore whether there are psychological reasons for the appearance of forms which cannot be the result of mere coincidence.

Another explanation is that the recurrence of these shapes, forms and patterns, which have no overt or narrative meaning, is due to the fact that they are aesthetically pleasing to the viewer. The idea that the survival of motifs may be due to the aesthetic satisfaction they engender is by no means a new idea, and was suggested by Hogarth in the mid-18th century and by Jones in the mid-19th century. Gombrich echoes the belief of both Hogarth and Jones that certain motifs “are found to fit certain psychological dispositions which had not been satisfied before”, at the same time conceding that it may not be possible to be specific about the cause of the attraction of particular motifs.

This suggestion does to some degree anticipate the more scientific approach of Latto, who has suggested the term “aesthetic primitive” - a stimulus or property of a stimulus which has the property of exciting particular groups of cells within all levels of the human visual system, and provides aesthetic satisfaction. In addition to low-level aesthetic primitives, so-called because they stimulate neural activity low in the cortical visual pathways in the primary visual cortex of the human brain, include geometric shapes, blocks of monochrome colours, stylised organic forms and patterns of lines, as noted above. In addition, other research indicates cells within the temporal cortex of the brain which respond to the human body, and some of its component parts. The human body, face and hands are considered by Latto to be high-level aesthetic primitives, so-called because they trigger neural activity higher along the cortical visual pathways in the human brain which have developed specifically to process the human face and body, and which are probably located in the temporal lobes of the brain.

The reasons for the occurrence of schematic representations of the human form, rendered purely by means of the main axes of the body and limbs, may be psychological in origin, and examples of the human form represented in a similar schematic way on pottery from Middle Helladic Greece, the era immediately preceding the Early Mycenaean period is the subject of the next case study.

Case Study: Schematic images of the human form from Middle Helladic Greece

The argument for representations of the human form in Middle Helladic Greece to be influenced by Cycladic or Minoan antecedents is reflected in Gombrich’s view that every representation needs a schema, that is, a model. According to Gombrich, schemata are never invented but are merely modified from existing forms. However, as Whitley observes, the logical conclusion of this would be “infinite regression.” Furthermore, such representations do not require high levels of artistic skill, and would not appear to require great reliance on external influences. Latto’s observations regarding the occurrence of such simple forms, represented merely in terms of the main axes of the body, share, I believe, some similarities with the explanation of Whitley. I would conclude that it is plausible that the reappearance of representations of humans in Middle Helladic Greece on a small group of ceramics from Aegina (Siedentopf 1991: no. 75, pl. 14; no. 158, pls. 35-7, fig. 4, frontispiece (col. pl) and no. 162, pl. 38) and a slightly later example from Tsoungiza (Rutter 2001: 142-3, fig. 17) was not necessarily dependent on any outside influences. Although it is possible that Kolonna’s links with outside communities may have been the catalyst for the style of representation of the standing figure (Siedentopf 1991: no. 75), the argument is much weaker in the case of the other examples (Siedentopf 1991: nos. 158 and 162) and, in particular, the example from Tzoungiza, where the effect of external connections is as yet unproven. If such images developed independently, the reason for this could be that, as Latto suggests, this form of depiction is motivated by particular groups of cells within the human brain which respond to certain types of images, of which schematic representations of the human form are but one example.

The next case study will consider the concept of an aesthetic primitive with reference to the spiral, a very common motif in the artistic traditions of the Bronze Age Cyclades, Crete and the Greek mainland.

Case Study: The spiral in prehistoric Aegean art: an aesthetic primitive?

The spiral appears on mainland Greece from the late fourth millennium BC, at the end of the Neolithic period, when the decoration of ceramics had developed from simple surface scoring to the application of additional colours to the surface to the pot, appearing as a decorative motif, alongside geometric motifs and lines, on pottery found at Dhimini, in Thessaly. The simple spiral, and its more complex derivatives, continued as a popular motif in the various areas of the Aegean throughout the Bronze Age.

There are two conventional suggestions to explain the origins of the spiral in the art of the prehistoric Aegean. The older argument is that the spiral, a motif known in Europe as early as the Palaeolithic period, reached the Aegean world as a result of diffusion, initially from northern Europe, and subsequently throughout the Aegean. More recently, it has been suggested that iconographic transfer in the Aegean region is the result of trade and exchange networks. For example, Quirke and Fitton discuss the opposing views as to whether the spirals found in Egyptian art developed in Egypt, or were imported to Egypt via the Aegean, and present an excellent assemblage of seals and sealings from both Aegean and Egyptian contexts from the Early and Middle Bronze Ages, the purpose of which is to demonstrate their hypothesis that the spiral developed in the Aegean, from where it entered the Egyptian repertoire. Although I would not dispute that the more complex spiraliform motifs may be the result of international contacts, the earliest known examples or seals or sealings with spiral decoration in both Aegean and Egyptian contexts are in the form of simple spirals, of a type which could have been of indigenous origin in both societies.

Perhaps a further suggestion is possible - that the spiral is an example of an aesthetic primitive. The production of such a motif is straightforward in terms of motor skills and does not require knowledge of a particular type of artistic subject. In addition, apart from being plausibly the stylisation of a natural form, derived from the shape of sea-shells, it is seemingly without an underlying symbolic meaning. The longevity of the use of the spiral suggests that its curvilinear form in all its variations provided aesthetic pleasure, and thus fulfils all the requirements of an aesthetic primitive, developing independently in the Cyclades, on Crete and on the Greek mainland because similar brains produce similar images.

Case study: Representations of processions in Mycenaean Greece and the phenomenon of lateral organisation

The main focus of this paper is an area of visual perception that has been the subject of research by several teams of psychologists; that is, the hypothesis that the asymmetry present in the physiological structure of the human brain is responsible for aesthetic preferences. Furthermore, I shall investigate whether this phenomenon is apparent in Mycenaean artistic compositions, with particular emphasis on one of the most characteristic forms of Mycenaean images, the procession.

The form and function of processions in Mycenaean Greece

For the purposes of this discussion, I shall use an amended version of the definition used by Peterson; that is, I interpret the term “procession” as signifying a representation of two or more figures who move towards an unspecified goal, frequently carrying an object or objects. This does not, of course, suggest that such activities invariably involved a single file of participants. The lack of the use of perspective in Mycenaean art made it difficult to render a group of participants, and it may very well be the case that the easiest method of showing a group of people making offerings was to show them in a continuous line. In addition, as Cavanagh and Mee observe, the “processions” shown on the larnakes from Tanagra may not necessarily be such; the artistic conventions of depicting human figures in full or partial profile may suggest motion when, in fact, motion is not intended.

Representations of processions are found in domestic, cult and funerary contexts and this distribution merits particular discussion, not merely in terms of the use and general form of this type of representation, but also regarding the possible influence of psychological preferences on the composition of representations of processions.

The most typical form of procession involved solely female participants, whose characteristic mode of dress is Minoan-style court costume, comprising a short-sleeved bodice, worn to display the breasts, and ankle-length flounced skirt. Peterson’s view is that it is difficult to say whether such costumes were actually worn on the mainland, or was purely an archaistic iconographic convention, derived from Minoan prototypes. However, the view of both Reusch and Lee 2000: 121 is that the flounced skirt was actually worn, albeit solely on ceremonial occasions, and, according to Jones, “the evidence suggests that besides wearing clothes of indigenous Mycenaean design, women on the Greek mainland also wore costumes of Minoan design for the ceremonial purposes depicted in art”. Surviving wall paintings suggest that a range of offerings were carried, although the recipient of the offerings is not at all apparent. Early examples of wall paintings featuring this theme were found at Thebes (L1; letters and numbers in bold refer to the Appendix to this paper), in the “Ramp House deposit” at Mycenae, and perhaps at Argos, from a building abandoned in LHIIIA2 (R11). This theme continues throughout the LHIIIA-B period, with examples found at Mycenae, where the “Pithos Area” fresco dump contained unburned fragments of both life-size and half-life-size figures (B2). Examples from this period were also found at Pylos (B3), Tiryns, both under the Inner Forecourt (L10) and in the West Slope epichosis (B1), and, possibly, at Gla (L11). Wall paintings showing male processional figures have been found only at the palace at Pylos, the most complete example being the procession of male offering bearers in Room 5 (the “Vestibule”), which also apparently included at least one female wearing a flounced skirt (R1). In addition, the fresco dump on the northwest slope at Pylos also produced evidence suggesting two further processions including male participants (L5 and R2).

Processions were also frequently shown in glyptic art (L13, L14, L15, L16, L17, L18a and b, L19, L20, L21, L22, R11, R12), although they were rarely shown on pottery, exceptions including processions of male figures on L26 and R17. The act of procession clearly played a major part in ritual in Mycenaean Greece, both cultic and funerary, suggested primarily by representations in a variety of media. The ritual behaviour shown by this type of representation can also be recognised via the formality of the images, the repetition of the figures, and the determined manner in which the figures appear to be shown, which are all in accordance with Renfrew’s methods of recognising ritual behaviour.

Cameron’s interpretation, based on the evidence from Knossos, was that representations of processions served as visual markers, directing the viewer from less important to the more significant rooms of the palace. At this point there was a change of scale from smaller to larger figures. However, I believe that this was not necessarily the case on the mainland, where evidence from Pylos suggests that the small scale of the male figures in procession in Room 5 (the “Vestibule”) was continued in the area south-west of the doorway of Room 6, (the “Throne Room”), where the figures of two men, processing right (L8), were shown on the same scale as the larger figures in Room 5.

Hägg’s opinion is slightly different, suggesting that the procession frescoes may have served two functions; that is, directing the participants involved in the actual procession, as well as perpetuating the ritual of the procession when it was not actually taking place. For example, he would interpret the procession in Room 5 at Pylos (R1) as both maintaining a ritual as well as possibly acting as a visual marker for the participants, directing them to Room 6.

Movement in procession frescos.

Two aspects of movement in procession frescoes will be considered. First, the possible unifying role of the coordinated rhythmic movement of processions, and second, whether the preferences for lateral movement observed in humans is reflected in the scenes of procession found during this period.

McNeill suggested that a factor in the bonding of human groups has been coordinated rhythmic movement. He believes that not only more energetic forms of rhythmic movement, such as dancing and dance-like behaviour, but also more stately movement, such as walking in procession, is sufficient to gain an emotional response in humans. Indeed, it is possible that the act of walking in procession served as a method of maintaining social bonds in the community, additionally serving to confirm authority; this would be the case not merely in cult, but also in funerary contexts.

In addition, repetition seems to be a valuable part of the ritual associated with cult activity, and it seems that the repeated representation of figures which are very similar in terms of size, pose, costume and hairstyle emphasises the role of such processions in Mycenaean cult.

I suggest the phenomenon known as lateral organisation may be observed in the so-called “procession frescoes”, a popular element in the decorative schemes which decorated Mycenaean palaces.

Asymmetry in the brain: its effects on artistic composition.

The brain is divided into two hemispheres, linked by a group of nerve fibres known as the corpus callosum, which transmits information from one hemisphere to another. Although the two hemispheres are anatomically similar, they have different functions, ascertained by research on subjects with split brains, that is, the corpus callosum has been surgically cut, an operation sometimes carried out to attempt to control severe epilepsy. The asymmetry in the human brain appears to influence aesthetic preference, not merely in terms of asymmetry in the content of an image, but also by asymmetry in other aspects of composition.

It is clear that the objective of the organisation of the elements in an artistic composition is to stimulate the viewer, and one of these elements is lateral organisation. Lateral organisation is both the location and situation of the main figure in an artistic composition to the right or the left, and the sequence of figures from either left-to-right or right-to-left, in accordance with the suggested movement or action. However, one should question whether the preference for a stimulus with a left-to-right sequence is biologically based, or a culturally determined reflection of reading patterns. If the asymmetry were based on lateralization of hemispheric functions in the human brain, whether the viewer is right- or left-handed would plausibly be linked to preferences in sequences.

Studies undertaken in the 1940s and 1950s concluded that when viewers were presented with paintings shown in the way created by the artist, followed by the same paintings in a mirror image, the viewers preferred the original views. It was further noted that the original, artist-created work tended to have its elements presented in a left-to-right direction. However, there were methodological shortcomings concerned with lack of control of exposure time and inadequate definition of the stimulus.

A more recent project involved both asymmetric content and asymmetric motion; that is, left-to-right and right-to-left. Although all the subjects were students at universities in the USA, the researchers noted that the results appeared unaffected by the western reading method of scanning from left to right. The conclusion of this research was that right-handed subjects preferred scenes with right-based content and right-to-left movement. Results obtained using left-handed subjects, who, unlike right-handed individuals do not have a consistent pattern of dominance of one hemisphere of the brain, showed their aesthetic preferences were not influenced by asymmetries in the composition of images, which indicated that the organisation of the brain is responsible for aesthetic judgements. The team’s findings were broadly consistent with earlier research, with the exception of the preference for movement from right to left. Accordingly, it can be concluded that right to left movement is preferred only in images with a significant asymmetry in content.

Possibly more relevant to the study of procession frescoes was a project conducted by Freimuth and Wapner, whose findings, however, differed from those of Banich and her team. They found that, when exposed to an image for five seconds, the subjects selected original and reversed views with a left-to-right sequence of figures significantly more often than views with a right-to-left sequence. When an exposure time of twenty seconds was used, original views were selected more frequently than reversed views, and views with a left-to-right sequence were selected more often than views with a right-to-left sequence. In addition, only paintings showing a left-to-right sequence in the original view were selected as presenting a balanced view. When asked to select which view of the paintings was more dynamic and full of life, only reversed views with a left-to-right sequence were selected to any significant degree. The researchers observed that the consistency of the selection of paintings with left-to-right rather than right-to-left sequence fits in with other findings and adds weight to a belief in perceptual asymmetry, If we assume that this behaviour is a result of neural mechanisms, it is possible that preferences for artistic composition may be linked to patterns of eye movement. Freimuth and Wapner’s study found that lateral directional properties influence aesthetic preferences. Asymmetrical factors are predominant in perception and aesthetic preferences made after short exposure to the composition, although such asymmetrical factors appear to influence preferences only for compositions with dominant directional factors, that is left-to-right or right-to-left movement, measured by lateral organisation. However, when viewers are exposed to the image for longer periods, cognitive factors such as conceptual and symbolic analyses became increasingly important.

The two studies appear to have different conclusions; that is, Banich, Heller and Levy’s results suggested a preference for right-to-left motion whereas Freimuth and Wapner found that preferred slides had relative motion from left-to-right. However, Banich, Heller and Levy observe that the slides used by Freimuth and Wapner lacked significant asymmetry of content, and it is possible, therefore, that right-to-left motion is preferred only when there is substantial asymmetry in a composition.

Although in a society such as Mycenaean Greece, concepts such as reading habits are not truly relevant, it may be worthwhile noting a further study, which used both French subjects, who were left-to-right readers, and Israeli subjects, who were right-to-left readers. In this case, the team used pairs of mirror-images, and found that reading methods had a significant effect on aesthetic preference, and left-to-right readers preferred images with left-to-right movement, whereas right-to-left readers preferred images with right-to-left movement. I would observe that Linear B, the Mycenaean palatial script, is read left to right, in accordance with modern Western reading habits.

Application of the theory of lateral movement to artistic compositions

Although I am not aware of these principles having previously been applied to Aegean Bronze Age art, the findings of the research projects discussed above have been applied to European medieval art, in a project which appears to confirm the preferences noted by Freimuth and Wapner for left to right movement. Trevarthen has studied the composition of the thirty-four paintings by Giotto which decorate the Capella di Santa Maria della Carità, also known as the Arena Chapel, in Padova, produced between 1303 and 1305. He observed that in thirty-two of the thirty-four paintings, the main protagonist is looking forward and/or moving to the right of the picture, with the figures attendant to the main protagonist on the left side of the scene, facing right. In addition, in many of the paintings, characters who are perceived as passive, or receiving, are situated on the right, facing left. However, aggressive or violent actions, which are seen in five of the paintings, are enacted from right to left, with only one exception. Preferences can also be seen in lesser details; all significant gestures are made with the right hand, irrespective of the way a person is facing.

In addition, Woodford and Loudon have considered the significance of movement to the right or left in respect of representations in black figure vase painting of Ajax carrying the body of Achilles and of Aeneas carrying Anchises, as well as reviewing previous scholarship in this area. They note that movement to the right appears to be the customary direction for movement in black figure vase painting, and add that this characteristic is shared not only by representations of processions, but also single figures and groups. However, representations of the theme of Ajax carrying the body of Achilles appear to reverse this trend, which they explain as a consequence of the introduction of a new motif of a warrior carrying another armed warrior, which was placed by the artists to show the shield of Ajax, decorated with the image of Athena Promachos, to its best advantage.

Application of lateral movement to Mycenaean representations.

The next step is to consider whether the physiological preference for movement in a left to right direction, suggested by the work of Freimuth and Wapner, can be discerned in the surviving representations from the Greek mainland and, in particular, to procession frescoes and processions in other media.

The Appendix to this paper lists representations from the Greek mainland that show not only a row of figures, but also when a suggestion of movement is indicated. Therefore, a row of figures which is clearly static, such as the women in a “loggia” from Mycenae or a larnax from Tomb 6 at Tanagra, showing three figures framed in windows, have not been included. The list of items in the Appendix is not intended to be comprehensive, but is, I believe, representative. I have included wall paintings listed by Immerwahr, vase paintings listed by Vermeule and Karageorghis, seals and sealings in CMS Volume I only, larnakes from Tanagra listed by Cavanagh and Mee, plus a few miscellaneous examples. I have deliberately excluded the procession scenes on chariot kraters, which appear rather formulaic and suggest a stock repertoire rather than being specially commissioned, as well as creating a static effect. However, the examples illustrated by Vermeule and Karageorghis indicate no single preference for direction of movement. I have, however, included the “parasol kraters” from Mycenae (L25) and Tiryns (L24), as they are clearly more individual in terms of composition and execution, as well as a large, though fragmentary, collar necked jar from Tiryns (R16). The seals included in the Appendix have been considered in terms of the impression they would have made as this was, presumably, the artist’s original intention.

The evidence presented in the Appendix seems to suggest a preference for left to right movement, with a ratio of 28:18; five examples indicate movement in both directions. Most of the conclusions drawn regarding the representations listed in the Appendix are self-explanatory in terms of movement; others require further explanation.

The existing fragments of the “Thebes procession fresco” (L1) suggest that the original composition, on a wall space which would allow up to twelve figures, included at least eight women moving left to right but only one surviving figure moving right to left. The latter wears a more elaborate necklace and distinctive bodice, which suggests she may have been the object of the procession, although it may be the case that the figures may have been moving in both directions.

The “White Goddess” from Pylos (L4) is plausibly the object of a left to right procession, and it is possible that the male figure, conventionally known as the “Cup Bearer” (L5), could have been either part of this procession, or a participant in another procession moving from left to right. In addition, a further procession at Pylos moving from left to right is suggested by the “priestess” (L6) often associated, not necessarily correctly, with the “White Goddess”. In addition, the slight curvature on the fragment of skirt from the “Ramp House deposit” at Mycenae suggests a seated figure, possibly the object of a right to left procession, supported by other fragments indicating female figures moving right to left, although another fragment of a girdle and skirt, found in the same context, suggests left to right movement. It is not clear whether the fragments are from the same procession, and they have, therefore, not been included in the Appendix. A cylinder seal from Tholos 2, Routsi (L21) would produce the repeated motif of a man and a griffin, proceeding from left to right, and in this case it seems particularly appropriate to consider the design solely as an impression.

It is possible that architectural considerations could also have been a major consideration in the disposition of figures. Although the exact context of the wall painting is unknown, the surviving fragments of the procession of life-size women from Tiryns (B1) indicate that the figures face both right and left, suggesting movement in both left to right and right to left directions respectively, possibly with the same goal. Similar in nature is the “procession fresco” from the northwest plaster dump at Pylos (B3). The fragments suggest that the original composition consisted of at least six women, including one certain example of a left-facing figure. This style of composition is similar to the processions shown on both long sides of one of the larnakes from Tanagra (B4), where women are shown moving to the right on one side, and to the left on the other, plausibly suggesting the processions should be interpreted as approaching a common goal.

Architectural demands are not a factor, however, in the case of representations of processions on other media. For example, the files of warriors shown on the “Warrior Vase” from Mycenae (L23) move from left to right.

The findings of Trevarthen’s study, together with the observations noted by Woodford and Loudon, outlined above, not only appear to confirm the preferences noted by Freimuth and Wapner for left to right movement, but, when applied to Mycenaean art, would appear to support a preference for a “procession fresco” to be composed with the figures moving from left to right, with the recipient of the offerings seated at the right of the painting, facing left. The perceived preference of making gestures with the right hand, noted by Trevarthen, is not so easily applied to the “procession frescoes”, where the participants appear to be carrying either a larger object, such as a box, with both hands or carrying smaller items, such as a jug or flower, in each hand; this could also be true in the case of the fragmentary wall painting showing a woman holding a lily (L2), plausibly a participant in a procession, where only one hand is preserved. However, the “Mykenaia” (R9) is shown using only her right hand to carry the offering of a necklace, and a right hand, possibly touching an object, may be associated with the “White Goddess” (L4). In addition, fragments from the Cult Centre at Mycenae show what appears to be the offering of a realistic female figurine, held in the right hand of the donor (R8).

Accordingly, the application to Mycenaean art of the results of research on the extent of the effect on aesthetic preferences caused by the physiological asymmetry in the human brain strongly reinforces the supposition that, when not constrained by architectural considerations, Mycenaean artists deliberately opted to present a line of moving figures, described here as a “procession”, as though moving from left to right in the composition. Furthermore, the other case studies presented in this paper suggest that the use of research into the effects on artistic production caused by the physiological mechanisms involved in visual perception, as well as the principles of cognitive psychology, incorporating the effects of learned behaviour, produced a novel way of interpreting images from Late Bronze Age Greece.

Mycenean Art Appendix

ABBREVIATIONS

ADelt			Άρχαιολογικόν Δελτίον
AJA			American Journal of Archaeology
AR			Archaeological Reports (supplement to JHS)
BCH			Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique
BICS			Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies
BSA			The Annual of the British School at Athens
CMS			Corpus der Minoischen und Mykenischen Siegel
JHS			Journal of Hellenic Studies
JRGZM	                                Jahrbuch des Römisch-Germanisch Zentralmuseums Mainz
OpAth			Opuscula Atheniensia
PZ			Prähistorische Zeitschrift
SIMA			Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Banich, M.T., W. Heller and J. Levy, 1989. ‘Aesthetic preference and picture asymmetries’, Cortex 25 (2): 187-95.

Benson, P.J. and D.I. Perrett, 1994. ‘Visual processing of facial distinctiveness’, Perception 23: 75-93.

Blegen, C.W., 1962. ‘Early Greek Portraits’, AJA 66: 245-7.

Breckenridge, J.D., 1968. Likeness. A conceptual history of ancient portraiture (Evanston, Ill.)

Bruce, C.J., R. Desimone and C.G. Gross, 1981. ‘Visual properties of neurons in a polysensory area in superior temporal sulcus of the macaque’, Journal of Neurophysiology 46: 369-84.

Bruce, V. and A. Young, 1998. In the Eye of the Beholder: the Science of Face Perception (Oxford).

Bushnell, I.W.R., F. Sai and J.T. Mullin, 1989. ‘Neonatal recognition of the mother’s face’, British Journal of Developmental Psychology 7: 3-15.

Cameron, M.A.S., 1970. ‘New restorations of Minoan frescoes from Knossos’, BICS 17: 163-6.

Cavanagh, W.G. and C. B. Mee, 1995. `Mourning before and after the Dark Age', in C. Morris (ed.), Klados: Essays in Honour of J.N. Coldstream: 45-61 (London).

Cavanagh, W.G. and C. B. Mee, 1998. A Private Place: Death in Prehistoric Greece (SIMA 125, Jonsered).

Chokron, S and M. de Agostini, 2000. ‘Reading habits influence aesthetic preference’, Cognitive Brain Research 10: 45-9.

Crouwel, J.H., 1973. ‘Appendix: The Parasol Krater’, BSA 68: 343-7.

Crouwel, J.H., 1976. ‘A Note on Two Mycenaean Parasol Kraters’, BSA 71: 55-6.

Crouwel, J.H., 1981. Chariots and Other Means of Land Transport in Bronze Age Greece (Allard Pierson Series No.3, Amsterdam).

Dissanayake, E., 1988. What is Art for? (Seattle and London).

Freimuth, M. and S. Wapner, 1979. ‘The influence of lateral organization in the evaluation of paintings’, British Journal of Psychology 70: 211-18.

Gleitman, H., A. J. Fridlund. and D. Reisberg, 1999. Psychology (New York and London).

Goldstein, E. B., 2002. Sensation and Perception (Pacific Grove, Ca.).

Gombrich, E.H., 1972. ‘The Mask and the Face: Perception of physiognomic likeness in life and in art’ in E.H. Gombrich, J. Hochberg and M. Black (eds.), Art, Peception and Reality (Baltimore): 1-46.

Gombrich, E. H. 1977. Art and Illusion: A Study in the Psychology of Pictorial Representation (London).

Gombrich, E.H., 1984. The Sense of Order: A Study in the Psychology of Decorative Art (Oxford).

Goodison, L. and C. Morris, 1998. ‘Beyond the “Great Mother”: the sacred world of the Minoans’ in L. Goodison and C. Morris (eds.), Ancient Goddesses: The Myths and the Evidence (London): 113-32.

Gnudi, C (tr. R. H. Boothroyd), n.d. Giotto (London).

Gross, C.G., C.E. Rocha-Miranda and D.B. Bender, 1972. ‘Visual properties of neurons in inferotemporal cortex of the macaque’, Journal of Neurophysiology 35: 96-111

Guillaud, J. and M. Guillaud, 1987. Giotto: Architect of color and form (Paris and New York).

Hägg, R., 1982. ‘On the nature of the Minoan influence in Early Mycenaean Messenia’, OpAth 14: 27-37.

Hägg, R., 1985. ‘Pictorial programmes in Minoan palaces and villas’, in P. Darcque and J-C. Poursat (eds.), L’Iconographie Minoenne (BCH Supplément XI; Athens): 209-17.

Hartline, H.K., H.G. Wagner and F. Ratliff, 1956. ‘Inhibition in the Eye of the Limulus’, Journal of General Physiology 39: 651-73.

Higgins, R.A., 1997. Minoan and Mycenaean Art (London).

Hochberg, J., 1972. ‘The representation of things and people’ in E.H. Gombrich, J. Hochberg and M. Black (eds.), Art, Peception and Reality (Baltimore): 47-94.

Hogarth, W., 1753, The Analysis of Beauty (London).

Hood, M.S.F., 1978. The Arts in Prehistoric Greece (London).

Hubel, D.H. and T.N. Wiesel, 1959. ‘Receptive fields of single neurons in the cat’s striate cortex”, Journal of Physiology 148: 574-91.

Immerwahr, S.A., 1990. Aegean Painting in the Bronze Age (University Park and London).

Johnson, M.H., S. Dziurawiec, H. Ellis and J. Morton, 1991. ‘Newborns’ preferential tracing of face-like stimuli and its subsequent decline’, Cognition 40: 1-19.

Jones, B. R., 2003. ‘A New Interpretation and Reconstruction of the “Mykenaia” Fresco from Mycenae’. Abstracts, Archaeological Institute of America Annual Meeting 2003.

Jones, O., 1856, The Grammar of Ornament (London).

Kanwisher, N. J. McDermott and M.M. Chun, 1997. ‘The fusiform face area. A module in human extrastriate cortex specialized for face perception’, Journal of Neuroscience 17: 4302-11.

Karo, G., 1930-33. Die Schachtgräber von Mykenai (Munich).

Kaschnitz-Weinberg, G., 1949-50. ‘Zur Herkunft der Spirale in der Ägäis’, PZ 34-5: 193-215.

Kritseli-Providi, I., 1982. Τοιχογραφίες τού Θρησκευτικού Κέντρου τών Μυκηνών (Athens).

Lamb, W., 1919-21. ‘Frescoes from the Ramp House’, BSA 24: 189-99.

Lamb, W. 1921-3. ‘Excavations at Mycenae: palace frescoes’. BSA 25: 249-255.

Lang, M.L., 1969. The Palace of Nestor at Pylos in Western Messenia, Vol. II: The Frescoes (Princeton).

Latto, R., 1995. ‘The brain of the beholder’, in R. Gregory et al. (eds.), The Artful Eye: 66-94 (Oxford).

Lévi-Strauss, C., 1958. Anthropologie Structurale (Paris).

Livingstone, M.S., 1988. ‘Art, illusion and the visual system’, Scientific American 256: 78-85.

Livingstone, M.S., 1990. ‘Segregation of form, color, movement and depth processing in the visual system: Anatomy, physiology, art and illusion’ in B. Cohen and I. Bodis-Wollner (eds.), Vision and the brain (New York): 119-38.

Livingstone, M.S. and D.H. Hubel, 1988. ‘Segregation of form, color, movement and depth: Anatomy, physiology and perception’, Science 240: 740-9.

Livingstone, M.S. and D.H. Hubel, 1995. ‘Through the eyes of monkeys and men’ in R. L. Gregory, J. Harris, P. Heard and D. Rose (eds.), The Artful Eye (Oxford): 52-65.

Loewy, E., 1930. ‘Ursprünge der bildenden Kunst’, Almanach der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien.

Lynton, N., 1989, The Story of Modern Art (London). Marmor, M.F. and J.G. Ravin, 1997, The Eye of the Artist (St. Louis, Mo.).

McNeill, W.H., 1995. Keeping Together in Time. Dance and Drill in Human History (Cambridge, Ma.)

Milojčić, V., 1964, ‘Zur Frage der Herkunft des Mäanders und der Spirale bei der Bandkeramik Mitteleuropas’, JRGZM 11: 57-74.

Muskett, G., 2004. “Colour Coding and the Representation of Costumes in Mycenaean Wall Painting”, in L. Cleland, G. Davies and K. Stears (eds.) Colours in Antiquity: 65-9 (Oxford).

Mylonas, G.E., 1973. Ο Ταφικός Κύκλος Β’ τών Μυκηνών (Grave Circle B at Mycenae) (Athens).

Needham, R. (ed.), 1973. Right and Left. Essays on Dual Symbolic Classification (Chicago).

Ojemann, J.G., G.A. Ojemann and E. Lettich, 1992. ‘Neuronal activity related to faces and matching in human right nondominant temporal cortex”, Brain 115: 1-13.

Osborne, R., 1996. Greece in the making, 1200-479 BC (London).

Parker Pearson, M., 1999. The Archaeology of Death and Burial (Stroud).

Perrett, D.I., M. Harries, A.J. Mistlin and A.J. Chitty, 1990. ‘Three stages in the classification of body movements by visual neurons’, in H. Barlow, C. Blakemore and M. Weston-Smith (eds.), Images and Understanding (Cambridge): 94-107.

Perrett, D.I., M.W. Oram, M.H. Harries, R. Bevan, J.K. Hietanen, P.J. Benson et al., 1991. ‘Viewer-centred and object-centred coding of heads in the macaque temporal cortex”, Experimental Brain Research 86: 159-73.

Perrett, D.I., E.T. Rolls and W. Caan, 1982. ‘Visual neurones responsive to faces in the monkey temporal cortex”. Experimental Brain Research 47: 329-42.

Perrett, D.I., P.J. Benson, J.K. Hietanen, M.W. Oram and W.H. Dittrich, 1995. ‘When is a face not a face?’ in R. Gregory, J. Harris, P. Heard and D. Rose (eds.), The Artful Eye (Oxford, New York, Tokyo): 95-124.

Peterson, S.E., 1981. Wall Paintings in the Aegean Bronze Age: The Procession Frescoes (PhD Thesis, The University of Minnesota, #82-11524).

Quirke, S and L. Fitton, 1997. ‘An Aegean origin for Egyptian spirals’ in J. Phillips (ed.), Ancient Egypt, the Aegean and the Near East. Studies in honour of Martha Rhoads Bell (San Antonio, TX): 421-44.

Renfrew, C., 1985. The Archaeology of Cult: the Sanctuary of Phylakopi (London).

Reusch, H., 1956. Die zeichnerische Rekonstruktion des Frauenfrieses im böotischen Theben (Berlin).

Rhodes, G., S. Brennan and S. Carey, 1987. ‘Identification and ratings of caricatures: implications for mental representations of faces’, Cognitive Psychology 19: 473-97.

Riley, B., 1991. ‘The artist’s eye: Seurat’, Modern Painters 4 (2), Summer: 10-14.

Rodenwaldt, G., 1912. Tiryns II. Die Fresken des Palastes. (Athens).

Rolls, E.T., 1992. ‘Neurophysiological mechanisms underlying facial processing within and beyond the temporal cortical visual areas’, Transactions of the Royal Society of London B.335: 11-21.

Rutter, J.B., 2001. ‘Review of Aegean Prehistory II; the Prepalatial Bronze Age of the Southern and Central Greek Mainland’ in T. Cullen (ed.), Aegean Prehistory: A Review (AJA Supplement 1; Boston): 93-155.

Schiller, P.H., N.K. Logothetis and E.R. Charles, 1990. ‘Functions of the colour-opponent and broad-band channels of the visual system’, Nature 343: 68-70.

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

Trevarthen, C., 1995. ‘Mother and baby - seeing artfully eye to eye’, in R. Gregory, J. Harris, P. Heard and D. Rose (eds.), The Artful Eye (Oxford, New York, Tokyo): 157-200.

Tsountas, C. and J. I. Manatt, 1897. The Mycenaean age: a study of the monuments and culture of pre-Homeric Greece (Boston and New York).

Ungerleider, L.G. and M. Mishkin, 1982. ‘Two cortical visual systems’ in D. J. Ingle, M.A. Goodale and R.J. Mansfield (eds.),Analysis of visual behavior (Cambridge Mass.): 549-80.

Vermeule, E.T., 1965. ‘Painted Mycenaean larnakes’, JHS 85: 123-48.

Vermeule, E.T., 1979. Aspects of Death in Early Greek Art and Poetry (Sather Classical Lectures, Vol. 46, London).

Vermeule, E.T. and Karageorghis, V., 1982. Mycenaean Pictorial Vase Painting (Cambridge, Ma.).

Wace, A.J.B., “Mycenae 1939-1952. ‘Preliminary report on the excavations of 1952’. BSA 48 (1953): 13-18, pl. 9a.

Whitley, J., 1991. Style and Society in Dark Age Greece (Cambridge).

Woodford, S. and M. Loudon, 1980. ‘Two Trojan themes: the iconography of Ajax carrying the body of Achilles and of Aeneas carrying Anchises in Black Figure vase painting’, AJA 84: 25-40.

Young, M.P. and S. Yamane, 1992. ‘Sparse population coding of faces in the inferotemporal cortex’, Science 256: 1327-31.

Zeki, S.M., 1978. ‘Functional specialisation in the visual cortex of the rhesus monkey’, Nature 274: 423-8.

Zeki, S., 1999. Inner Vision (Oxford).

return to conference participants

return home