Folia archeologica 54.

Judit Lebegyev: A Stag from Mycenae and the Greek prehistoric Sherd collection of the Hungarian National Museum

A STAG FROM MYCENAF. 77 they form the closing motif of the main scene at tlie handle-zone, they appear at chariot-scenes;

3

6 or in one case behind a bull,

3

7 not only as to frame the main scene but also to symbolise the landscape setting. The standard FM 15 palm-tree motif is always a framing or space filling pattern, usually placed at the handle zone in groups, also to indicate the landscape, and never appears as a central motif .

3

8 On pictorial vases stags usually occur in two main compositional schemes

3

9: a) in peaceful scenes, proceeding in a row with heads ahead; heads turned down in a grazing attitude, or with retorted, backward looking heads,

4

0 b) or they appear as chased animals in hunting scenes.

4

1 On this sherd the floral motif and the position of the stag's face rather suggest a peaceful scene, but as to whether it was part of an antithetical or a frieze composition cannot be determined with certainty. As thus far no example is known in the pictorial repertoire neither for an antithetic composition of stags with a central palm-tree, nor for a frieze of stags closed by a floral-motif; the fragment can be considered as a hitherto unique representation of any of the two possible compositional schemes. Dale The stag motif is a late arrival in the Mycenaean pictorial repertoire: it appeared in the LH HIB 1 period and became widespread only from the mid LH HIB period onwards.

4

2 Its late popularity in Mycenaean vase-painting was interpreted either with the influence of wall-paintings,

4

3 or with the increasing popularity of hunting 3

6 On the Bonn kráter the palm-tree is placed in front of the face of the horse, A

STRÖM 1962, Pl. I.; CVA Bonn 2, Taf. 32, 1-4; MPVP V.6. On a chariot krater in Rochester three palm-trees appear below the handle. MPVPV.4. 3

7 CVA Nicosia, Cyprus Museum (1) Pl. I 1. 4. 5; MPVPV.52. 3" MPVP V.28: Side A: in front of a sphinx, and behind another; MPVP V.30: two plant behind a running human figure; MPVP V.72: behind a bird-like creature; MPVP IV.5: in front of a bull. Behind or in front of chariot scenes: MPVP IV. 15; IV.21; IV.28; IV.

62; IV.74; V.8; V.18; IX.1.1; YON-KARAGEORGHIS ET AL

. 2000. Cat. no. 36, Fig. 4. - On the Tanagra larnakes (he standardised palm-trees framing the main motif also indicate the landscape. As the palm-tree was a sacred plant with exotic associations N. Marinatos interpreted their presence on the larnakes as the most appropriate tree of all to be included in the fantastic landscape of the beyond, M

ARINATOS 1997, 290. 3

9 I only take into consideration the LH 1IIA2 - HIB date representations contemporary to our fragment, where the stag and the composition itself can be firmly determined. For a more exhaustive list of stag representations (including those of LH III С date) BREIN 1969, 128-142; CATLING 1980, 444447 (29 exemplars); MPVP (44 exemplars) and more recently for a more complete list of stags on pictorial pottery - although the identification is sometimes not without doubt - see G

ÜNTNF.R 2000, 243-245 (76 pieces). 4

0 On some vases stags appear in various attitudes, some have their heads turned ahead others turned it back: MPVP V. 106. On others one posture is restricted to one side and another to the other side: with heads ahead on MPVP V.53 Side A and w ith heads turned down on Side B. There are vases where the same posture is repeated on both sides: MPVP V.54 (with retorted heads); V.55 (with heads ahead). Fragmentary representations of stags as part of a row: MPVP V.104; 1X.49; X.45; Güntner 2000, Taf. 28, la-b; YON-KARAGEORC.HIS ET AL

. 2000, Cat. no. 421, Fig. 26 (with heads ahead); MPVP IX.48; G

ÜNTNER 2000, Taf. 29. LA-b, Taf. 30, 2a-b; DEMAKOPOULOU 2006, 34-35. no. 4, Figs. 8-9 (with heads retorted). 4

1 MPVPV.60; XI. 77.1; XI.77.2; XI.80; XIII.27. 4

2 CATLING 1980, 446; G

ÜNTNER 2000. 246. - In other arts as in glyptic, ivory carving, and as metal inlays the stag motif was more popular in the earlier part of the Mycenaean period (from the shaft grave period to LH IIIA2), CATLING 1980, 442. 4

3 BREIN 1969, 128; CATLING 1980, 447; I

MMERWAHR 1990, 131, 149; DEMAKOPOULOU 2006, 35. - However, as S. Immerwahr pointed out, the fragments from the Tiryns Deer frieze were burned among the debris of the destruction (in the West slope rubbish deposit), and therefore they could not be considered as a direct inspiration for those pieces which can be dated after the destruction of the palaces. On the possible influence of large-scale painting on the vase-painters see also G

ÜNTNER 2000, 246; KOUNTOURI 2003, 675.