|
Greek Mosaics of the Classical & Hellenistic Periods
Abstracts of Papers by Ruth Westgate
|
|
|
|
|
Tessellated mosaic is a Hellenistic invention. This paper looks at the development of
mosaics in the Hellenistic period, starting with the spectacular pebble mosaics at Pella,
probably financed with the spoils of Alexander's conquests, which are the first
manifestations of a fundamental shift in attitudes that made private ostentation
increasingly desirable. These mosaics show important stylistic and technical innovations,
which point the way to the invention of tessellated mosaic. However, exactly when, where
and how this invention took place remains a mystery: there are a few simple tessera
mosaics from the third century BC, and a large number of very accomplished pavements from
the mid-second century onwards, but none of the proposed 'missing links' can be securely
dated. It seems likely that the technique was refined at one of the Hellenistic royal
courts: it may be significant that both Alexandria and Pergamon have produced extremely
fine and relatively early tessera mosaics which can be identified as royal commissions.
From about the middle of the second century, mosaics are found in wealthy houses all
over the Hellenistic world, from Spain to Afghanistan. There are many indications of a
substantial rise in living standards in this period, driven by economic prosperity and
perhaps by aspirations to live like a king; people in different areas on the margins of
the Greek world adopted mosaics along with other aspects of a Greek lifestyle as a way of
expressing a Greek identity or displaying a fashionable familiarity with Greek culture.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This paper is an attempt to understand the social and economic forces that brought
about the invention and development of mosaics in the Classical and Hellenistic periods.
The first mosaics, made of natural pebbles, appeared in the Greek world in the late fifth
century BC: a study of their contexts shows that the majority are in houses, most commonly
in the dining room (andron) and its adjacent anteroom. This suggests a close
connection between mosaics and the symposium; this is clearly reflected in their Dionysiac
subject-matter and concentric composition, which was designed to present a similar view to
all the diners reclining around the sides of the room. Within the house, the decoration on
floors and walls is often arranged to create a 'crescendo' on the route that guests would
have followed to the andron. As only adult males participated in the symposium,
the decoration thus serves to distinguish male and female space in the house.
In the Hellenistic period, there appears to be a substantial increase in the proportion
of houses with mosaics, and many houses have mosaics in a variety of different types of
room; there is a parallel increase in the frequency and complexity of wall painting. It is
clear that a much larger part of the house was now given over to entertaining guests. This
decorative 'inflation' was probably the product of increased prosperity, combined with changes in attitudes which made private ostentation more acceptable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
The decoration of Hellenistic houses can be understood in terms of hierarchies, which
marked out the relative importance of the rooms and spaces in the house. In mosaics, the
hierarchy is related to the materials used and the complexity of the design; wall painting
is capable of expressing more subtle distinctions, through a combination of colours,
motifs, decorative friezes, and architectural features in stucco relief. Surviving houses
from Delos, Morgantina and Monte Iato are analysed in detail to suggest how a contemporary
visitor might have read their decoration.
From these examples some conclusions are drawn about changes in the use of domestic
space in the late Hellenistic period. The reception rooms occupy a larger proportion of
the space than in earlier houses, and there are often several dining rooms of different
sizes. It appears that in this period more of the house was opened up to invited visitors,
which perhaps indicates a change in the status of women. In all of the houses there is a
stark contrast between the spacious, carefully decorated areas which were used for
receiving guests, and the cramped, undecorated rooms which must have been the service
quarters; some houses have two courtyards, so that these functions — and the
people who performed them — were physically separated, but in smaller houses the
decoration had to serve in place of a physical division.
|
|
|
|
Mosaic production in the Hellenistic period can be divided into two broad regional
types, eastern and western, on the basis of stylistic and technical differences which are
derived from different local traditions of paving. The characteristics of these schools
are outlined, and the earliest mosaics at Pompeii are shown to be derived from the western
Greek tradition. However, comparison of the Pompeian floors with contemporary mosaics from
Greek sites reveals a significant difference: the first Pompeian mosaics consist almost
exclusively of figured scenes, set into relatively plain pavements, whereas in Greek
mosaics abstract decoration is much more common, and figural motifs are the exception
rather than the rule. This reflects a difference in the purpose of mosaics: Pompeian
patrons wanted the decoration of their houses to display their familiarity with Greek
culture, which encouraged the production of copies and pastiches of Greek artworks, and
generic designs in Greek style.
The very specific demands of the Pompeian market may have been served by a different
process of production: there are signs of a separation between the production of figured
panels, which were probably made by Greeks, and the laying of the pavement itself, which
may have been the work of local craftsmen.
|
|
|
|
|
|
This paper considers how far it is possible to identify the function of rooms in Hellenistic
houses from their wall and floor decoration. It is demonstrated that certain types of plain flooring
were used predominantly in service rooms, and some types of pavement design can be broadly related to
room type. However, although most decorated pavements have the concentric type of design which
originated in Classical dining rooms, this is not a reliable indication of dining function, as it had
become conventional; little evidence is also found to support the common assumption that the subject
matter of figural decoration is directly related to the function of the room.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Many figured scenes and motifs appear more than once in mosaics of the Hellenistic
period and beyond. These repeated scenes are often interpreted as copies of famous
paintings, identifiable from literary sources, and their transmission is usually explained
by the movement of craftsmen or the circulation of hypothetical 'pattern-books'. This
paper analyses some examples of repeated compositions, to show that the process of transmission was more
complex than this. Some scenes probably were more-or-less exact copies of a specific
original, although the prototype could be a sculpture or manuscript illustration rather
than a painting. In other cases, however, the similarities between scenes are less close.
Some appear to be generic works based on a common theme, which could be re-invented to
suit the requirements and means of each customer. In addition, the artists seem to have
had at their disposal a repertoire of stock figure-types and compositional formulae,
shared with artists in other media, which they could combine in different ways to create
an infinite variety of scenes. These stock elements need not have been transmitted in a
physical form, but could have been drawn from memory as required. Greek mosaicists were
not merely skilled copyists reproducing the work of others; they were also capable of
creating original compositions.
|
|
This page is maintained by Ruth Westgate. Last updated: 30 November 2007.
Images © Ruth Westgate, Janett Morgan.
|
